And welcome to the public and our applicants and our staff.

This is the uh uh planning commission meeting for October 9th, 2025.

We excuse Commissioner Chair Greg Jackson, he is not able to attend tonight, so I'm Commissioner Everett.

I'll be sitting in his vice chair and managing the meeting today.

Uh we have a consent agenda item number two, minutes from the September 4th, 2025 meeting, which was a work session, and it was with uh Dania Rumore who was here teaching to us.

And I just I want to commend you Kate on the detail of the minutes.

Thank you for that.

Um entertain a motion or if there's a discussion to the minutes, a pre-motion to discuss.

As they have been um presented.

We have a second.

I'll say it.

I noticed that I didn't I just made a motion without a I I move that we approve the minutes.

Not that I just make a motion.

So I sorry, I make a motion that we approve the minutes from we'll still second.

September 4th.

Okay.

We have a motion and a second all in favor of of the motion to approve.

Say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion carries minutes are approved.

We'll go to our regular agenda.

Item 3.1.

Item 3.1.

Consideration of Clyde Capital Group's request for approval of revisions to the vistas at the point amenities, removing the amphitheater from their required amenities.

I guess it really should say substituting the dog park for the amphitheater.

This was tabled from the September 11th meeting this year.

So I'm just gonna give you a little bit more background because I think this is some of the stuff that came up.

Um, and then I'll let them share.

Um so this is the minutes.

I don't know if you saw this was included in the packets in the packet, the minutes from the meeting where the preliminary subdivision was approved, which was September 14th, 2021.

Um, and a bunch of people from Flight Park had come and shared their concerns and wanting a wind study.

And so Councilor Hombrecht moved to approve consideration of preliminary subdivision approval for the vistas at the point phase one.

Um drawing attention to critical infrastructure and as part of the approval, instruct the developer to do as he agreed to conduct a wind study because we couldn't require it, but they agreed to do a win study, and then to coordinate with ingress egress to phase and units and to work with fundamental issues with staff as they occur in a timely manner to keep the development process moving.

Um so from that, and after the wind study, which the wind study was included in your packet too, it takes you to a link online.

Um the layout was updated, taking the amphitheater away from the middle area over to be closer to the actual flight park, um, which lower it reduced some of the wind impact, and they also lowered the height of the building that's over um the apartment building that's close to it.

And so those were two things they were willing to do because of the wind study, and we administratively approved that because it was part of the motion to make things move forward in a timely manner.

So that's the history of how it ended up over in this corner.

And um, you know, they had originally said they would do an overlook park and they had some examples, but now what they're showing is you know, much more detailed, um, and it really has a little bit more than what was maybe initially proposed of just kind of a bench or something to overlook.

And then the other thing instead of the amphitheater, you know, they're saying and this is going to be either way the amphitheater or the dog park, either way would be an amenity for the residents.

It's not a city amenity that they're um dedicating to the city or anything.

So this is just for their apartments and townhomes.

So now they're proposing a dog park, um, and they provided you know a little bit more information on what it would look like.

But again, they'd have to do a full site plan and show more detail and make sure they're meeting all the requirements before that got final approval for construction.

Um so hopefully that gives a little bit more background and information, but with that I'll turn it back to the commission for any questions for me.

Thank you, Brittany.

I do have a question.

The the wind study, all I got was a 3D model.

There was no narrative that explained anything like prevailing winds or time of day.

Is that all there was?

Was just that 3D model?

Um yeah, so they didn't really submit it to us, right?

Because I mean they shared the information with us afterwards, but it was really the developer working with Flight Park and with um I don't remember who did the wind study, but with the wind study group.

And so they did I know they did a couple iterations and different things like that, but in the end it was kind of just a summary of, you know, this is what we've discussed, this is the impact, because none of us on staff know how to read a wind study, you know.

Well, I appreciate you included the link, but there was no narrative, it was just a 3D picture, which doesn't really tell me much relative to their conclusions and their different model iterations.

So I just thought it was there more that we should be looking at or so again, it wasn't I mean we maybe got a little bit in like email explanation of you know, this is but pretty much it is what I said that they said having buildings there is gonna impact the wind more.

So having lower buildings or having it be flat.

Um and there's also some things with plantings, you know, having trees and stuff made a difference, but that's the only information we ever got on it either.

Thank you.

I do.

You said that the dog park is not a city amenity.

I th we discussed that for a long time last time.

So there's nothing to do.

No, yep.

So there was never any agreement, no idea that this would be dedicated to the city, the amphitheater or the dog park.

It's just a you know, any time there's multifamily we require amenities, but lost lots of times they are just the HOA amenities.

So that's the one.

This is a TOD though, right?

Yeah.

So it still is the same, like it's still a uh a private amenity for because yeah, I mean it's kind of complicated, right?

Because there's overlapping requirements.

This is really the amenity requirement because of the number of residential units that they have.

Um there is the TOD requirements where you have you know, like a plaza community space, and that is maybe more what the amphitheater was geared towards, but there's still opportunity for that with the future commercial, and I think that they've indicated they you know they're willing to look at that as they do the commercial side.

So with the layout, and this is not the most updated.

Um so there's still this commercial, right?

So what's being built right now is the townhomes and apartments, and then there's this area that's designated as future commercial.

So, you know, here's potential for more of an active gathering space.

And that's probably a better spot for it too, right?

Is um by the commercial where people might be actually more um, you know, this look this park could be a great place to look at the um paragliders and stuff, but um it probably won't be as activated because flight park is probably not gonna develop.

Um, you know, most of this area around it probably won't develop as much as um more to the to the south, which would be over down this way.

I'm very curious how the wind the wind study said that an open amphitheater was problematic, but putting buildings in there is not.

Um, so the amphitheater was over here originally.

Right, but I'm curious.

So that's what I mean.

It was an open amphitheater, which doesn't block the wind.

Like are they saying that there was too much wind through there and that's why it was a problem?

Oh, it's changing the type of the the wind, so I it's a really good um beginner area for learning because the wind is just really predictable, is what they say.

And so like adding buildings um changes that wind and makes it less like predictable.

Or more predictable, I guess.

You want it to be because they want to put two buildings where the amphitheater was.

At least on that.

So it's it's flight park is over in this area, right?

I know, but I'm talking about where the amphitheater was designed to be.

Yeah.

And now they've got two buildings there instead of an amphitheater.

So that's how does that affect the wind?

I I'm I we would have loved to see the wind study.

So the an the amphitheater was moved to this corner by that by the wind study because originally there was gonna be a building here.

So moving the building away from this corner made it so that it's not so the wind was never a problem where the amphitheater was originally.

No, yeah, it wasn't about the original location.

That's the only reason it moved was because they the agreement was we don't want a building here because it's gonna impact the wind.

That makes sense.

Yeah.

I was just very confused that how putting two buildings there would be less problematic than putting an amphitheater there.

Yeah, yeah, no.

Yeah, it's just it's it's basically everything that was the closest, I think was the biggest concern, or at least where there was willingness to to move things.

I mean, Flight Park would still rather just see this not happen at all, right?

Mr.

Chairman, I ask you a question.

I know I have been already, sorry.

You want to ask another question.

I would like to ask a question of what is different in this presentation than what we saw when we asked it to be tabled two weeks and come back with more data.

Yeah, so um the applicant has a table of the cost comparison and some other information.

Why wasn't it in the packet?

I would have loved to review that before tonight, absolutely.

Yeah.

We just didn't have it before, so we have another question, if I may.

Yeah.

Um the list of amenities is listed in the packet.

Have we vetted that all of those have been other than the amphitheater and the uh which was now being swapped out or asked to swap out, but uh are there the 14 picnic areas and two sports courts?

I mean, no, so the original substitution changed that, right?

So this is just uh asking for a revision to what was originally approved.

So what they originally had approved for the amenities was um they have uh the clubhouse for the apartments, and it has um they might be able to say more, but I think it has the pool and a gym, and you know, kind of just those typical amenities.

Um so that covered a lot of it, and then the agreement was for they built and are going to maintain the trail, but that is a public amenity, the trail that's um on the study, yeah.

So while you're looking at that, I had a follow-up question on the clubhouse and the DRC comments from this last April.

Talked about the the square footage didn't seem sufficient for the use of the residents, and also maybe limiting it only to the apartments, not the townhomes.

Have we seen any changes come back from the application?

So that is, yeah.

So that was more of a question on is this covering amenities for the townhomes or just the apartments?

And it is um, well, I guess they can answer that.

I believe it's just for the apartments, but they can answer if it's otherwise.

But yeah.

So the original agreement was they do this trail, they do some sort of overlook park, the amphitheater, and then the clubhouse for the apartments.

So they are doing, they've already installed the trail, the overlook park, they have the um the clubhouse for the apartments.

So it really is just switching the amphitheater for a dog park.

Okay, thank you.

Other questions for staff?

Go ahead.

No, that's why we're I know that you're saying that there is commercial space that they could potentially work with to meet that community gathering space.

Can we move on that without?

I mean, part of the TOD requirement was they had to show us what it was, where it was.

Why aren't we seeing that with this?

So they did do an overall concept plan, which was originally approved with the annexation.

Um, so the Golding Annexation Agreement outlined, you know, some of these things.

Um, and so with the overall concept, they meet it.

Um I guess there is, you know, some of that if we feel like it really doesn't meet the TOD requirements.

Um I I would say this amenity revision maybe is geared more towards the multifamily than specifically towards the TOD.

The overlook park um for my understanding is something that will be open to the public as well.

So, you know, there is that space um that will be a nice look out into the valley and stuff.

Um so you know, it's I guess it's a little bit open to interpretation if if they're meeting that requirement, and if you know you might want to consider one, there's not really a lot of commercial and transit here right now, so having just a plaza space probably wouldn't be used very much.

Um having a dog park is something that they feel like their residents will use, and it and it again it first and foremost is really for their residents, and then kind of secondary for that community gathering spot, but um, you know, without transit without commercial, is it really gonna be a community gathering spot for a while?

I don't know.

Might be some things we want to consider.

Other questions for staff.

Okay, if the applicants here, if you could please come forward and share anything further, we'd really like to know some of the things we asked about last time.

Yeah, happy to review the cost as well as maybe speak of it more to the to the flight wind study.

Like Brittany said.

Yes.

My name's Clayton Rackham with the Clite Capital Group.

Thank you.

Um so just I I know I wasn't allowed to speak earlier, but on the wind study, as Brittany mentioned, that wasn't required.

We did want to work in good faith with our neighbors.

Get that done as I remember it, and again, this was five years ago now, and I was with this organization in a different role, but there weren't big concerns with the wind patterns.

There were enough concerns to have them request that we move things around as far as the safety of that landing area at the bottom.

It was really only a concern for beginners, because if you guys have ever participated up there, it's really fun.

I've done it.

I did it on my 18th birthday.

And if you go with a professional or if you are a professional, you likely take off at the top and you land back at the top, and it's only the beginners who are landing down lower.

And then the turbulent winds down there are the are the only risk.

Uh but it yeah, I can try to find more detail if that's necessary.

As I remember it from five years ago, it wasn't a huge concern from the individuals representing the flight park.

And I'm happy to jump into other questions now, or we can review this and then dive in.

Well, however, you want to proceed.

If you've got something prepared you'd like to share with us, we're happy to listen, and then we can follow up with questions.

Yeah.

Or if you want us to ask questions to guide conversations either way, whatever you're comfortable with.

Yeah.

So I know cost estimates and really showing that these were equivalent or close to equivalent was important, as well as probably speaking more to the narrative that was discussed last time when my colleague was here.

And on that, I think I'll kind of cover both at once just as we go through these.

On the amphitheater, like Brittany mentioned, both of these amenities would be private HOA managed amenities for the residents who will be there in the coming year or two as townhomes sell, as apartments lease up.

And with that, we did some research on HOA managed amphitheaters, and how many people can use them, kind of the coordination that the HOA has to do and the management of that to really get value out of it for the residents, as well as being in a four-season state, what that looks like.

You guys have read that narrative, talked about it last week, but just to reiterate that, we we do want an amenity, and our vision at Clyde Capital Group is building communities that are providing value for residents in perpetuity.

So we want our amenity package to reflect that.

And we could build an amphitheater.

So jumping into these costs, what we've done, and this is our construction team's numbers, as we've we've just made assumptions on this.

Again, this amenity was a concept, it wasn't ever fully designed or approved for construction, just like the dog park isn't.

So these numbers are purely off of estimates from the concepts that our first engineer put together in Atlas with the concept for the TOD, and then blue line designs with the concept here for the dog park.

Um that being said, as I dive into this, and we'll just go through the amenity first.

We've just got a 400 square foot stage.

That's concrete flat work at $25 a square foot.

Then we've got terraced seating, which is retaining walls and grass for viewing of whatever is presented at the amphitheater.

We've got all of the flat work, concrete work to get around the area to kind of create that plaza-like path, and then grading the site, obviously, to get it to where you can put terraced seating, putting in some lighting.

These are kind of questions of do we end up with a permanent sound system?

Is it is it that type of amenity that you want like a full waterproof year-round system sitting out there with power, or is it is it not?

We've assumed kind of a an in-the-middle version.

You could obviously cover a stage and have it be a really cool amenity for 400 residents.

Uh we don't see that as necessary.

Then we've got landscaping's a big one in this area, and then power, like I said, and then permits and contingency, totaling right around that 250,000 number that was originally targeted for the for this amenity.

Then in the dog park, the big one here, obviously we don't have we don't have as much of actual like not vertical construction, but concrete and stage and all that.

But instead we've got a little bit of site work, fencing, asphalt path around the perimeter that's shown in this concept.

And maybe I'll zoom in on this concept so you guys can see this quickly before.

Obviously, landscaping.

Um we'll have a an area for dogs to play on equipment where individuals like to train their dogs.

Um that's this line item here.

We've got site grading for the whole site.

Probably give it a little bit of topography to be more fun for residents and their animals, and then we've got the same design and contingency items in there.

So we do feel like these can be built for similar costs, and if at the end of the day the council or sorry, the commission wants to see an amphitheater, we can build an amphitheater.

Uh but yeah, it's it's our opinion that the dog park will be a better amenity for these residents, especially given it's an HOA managed amenity for these 400 units.

Any questions for the apprentice?

Yes, you may.

I don't see anything about irrigation.

Yeah, that's lumped into our landscape number.

Okay.

So five bucks a square foot includes sod, other plants as well as irrigation.

Okay.

That was my big question.

Yeah.

I have a question for you, Clayton.

Yeah.

Are the apartments gonna allow animals?

Yes.

Okay.

Of a certain size, you know, limit size or um that's a good question.

Ponies.

I don't think any ponies.

Well, it's not a pony park.

Uh it's a good question if they are gonna have like a weight limit.

Yeah.

Uh I know a lot of apartments tend to just charge fees for larger animals, but I can confirm that as well.

And the other question I have for you is um I I think there's value in a dog park for those that have dogs, but if we're talking about a community space for all in this development, we're kind of limiting its use to those with pets, right?

Um share your thoughts on that in terms of how do you guys um maybe come to that conclusion that this is a good swap, even though utility-wise it may be limited to just certain members of that community that live up there.

Yeah.

No, and uh that's a good point.

I think you're correct.

If you don't have a dog, when are you gonna go to a dog park?

I think it does create green space.

It's pretty.

Uh I walk past dog parks myself without a dog, and don't see the value in it for my pet, but I think it can be a beautiful area.

Um I could also say there's gonna be residents who would never go to an amphitheater.

We think there are a lot of residents who will use it with dogs.

Um about 36%, I think of people have a dog or pet.

I can't remember the stat exactly from that narrative we put together.

Um then as Kim mentioned, or sorry, Brittany mentioned, we also have our other amenities, the lookout park, the trails around the community, and for the apartments, the the clubhouse with the pool and gym.

Um and the trail and the lookout park are closer to the townhomes who don't, just to clarify, don't have access to the apartments, clubhouse.

And all the installed of all those amenities already been installed.

The lookout park is sitting there graded.

It's not landscaped, and we haven't built the structure we want to build up there yet.

Um then the but yeah, all of the asphalt trails are in and the clubhouses underway.

But the other amenities that came as the original plan.

So yeah, I wanted to clarify that.

As I understood it from what Brittany sent out, is if you're not in a TOD, well, sorry, if you're be because our development was approved originally with the three amenities, the clubhouse, the trails, and the dog, or sorry, the amphitheater and the lookout park.

So those four amenities, those totaled a dollar amount that was equivalent to what you guys would have required for a residential development with less density, as I understand it.

So our original approval never included playground pickleball courts or I can't remember the other things listed.

But it was of equal value, and then we feel like we can build this to match the value of the amphitheater.

Thanks for that explanation.

Other questions for I have a question.

Please.

And so that's why you've moved it to the spot that you where you have the dog park now.

So does the wind study affect since we can't read it?

Is that is that what's the same thing?

So that's a good question.

Yeah, and the wind study is an interesting one because it was meant to, yeah, be us acting in good faith with our neighbors.

But that's why you don't have an amphitheater on your plan anymore.

The amphitheater was just being moved.

So the amphitheater could go where the So why are you replacing the amphitheater with a dog park then?

Because we feel it's a better amenity for the community.

Okay.

Yeah.

That's the end all be all bottom line.

But if yeah, if and I know you guys have heard I think this three times now.

And if the final answer is nope, Clyde Capital Group, go build an amenity or go build an amphitheater, then we can do that.

Uh I just, yeah, I don't see it adding much value to the residence.

I think if the commercial was going in and the UTA, whether it's front runner tracks, or sorry, or BRT, and you had more people there than then maybe if I think that's part of it as well.

So Clyde doesn't own the commercial.

When you say if the commercial was if it was if it was being built out right now.

Okay.

Like concurrent with when we're to get this amenity built in the next.

I know we have to record one more plat, and this is kind of the final piece of that plat to get recorded.

So this will be built in the next year.

It sounds like the dog park's um an easier build for you as well, right?

I think they're about the same.

Okay.

Other questions for the applicant?

Ken, that's what you want to ask.

How permission bridge size for the dog park and the uh overlook park?

Yeah.

Uh ooh, it's a good question on the overlook park.

The overlook park's pretty small.

I wouldn't be surprised if it's like six thousand square feet.

I don't know.

I'm just guessing.

Maybe a maybe a touch bigger than that.

And then the dog park, we've assumed about twenty-six thousand square feet for this site.

I'm trying to remember the math they walked me through.

It's bigger than the amphitheater.

It is bigger than that.

That was and that was my other question too.

Is how do they compare size-wise?

And again, it's we have to get into all those details.

In the numbers, I do see how many square feet.

I put out it's not much bigger, but I've got just in my site grading, I've got 18,000 square feet.

And then I've got 26,000 square feet.

So they're comparable.

Yeah.

And then you guys with the space that where the amphitheater was going to go, you're planning on putting in more condos or apartments.

That's been re well, not re-platted, just platted in the first place with where the apartments are.

Okay.

So what do you plan on putting there?

So that's platted and the apartments.

That's where the clubhouses are.

Yeah, yeah.

Yeah.

The clubhouse for the apartments.

So part of the apartments.

So it could potentially still be open space.

No.

Can we pull a map up so we can see that?

Yeah, and that's already been approved, right?

Like this already has already seen the case.

Yeah, this is outside the scope.

Oh, I can show it away.

Oh, yeah.

And I know that's something that came up last time, and yeah, I did want to clarify is because that's already been platted, and Wood Partners is building it.

Okay, so 8600 square feet.

Um for that overlook park.

Um there's no there's no moving the amphitheater back to that side of the UTA deeded property.

But that's the overlooker.

Yeah, that's the corner.

Yeah, that's up on the hill at the top of the trail.

It's gonna be cool.

A drone picture from two days ago that gives a very good representation of what's there, what's not.

Yeah, you said you guys already have some infrastructure up there with the trails are in and the city.

Yeah, so the East Trail is paved.

All all the yeah, all the pavings done of the 10 foot wide asphalt trail that we maintain uh but is public.

So this is the clubhouse, right?

That's right where the amphitheater was, and then it's kind of ringed by the apartment.

Okay.

It's just the first of five buildings.

And then the infant theater war dog park would be there over there.

And then you can see the trails.

In fact, they were just paved literally like the day of or the day before.

So that's the public trail that leads up to the lookout and look at would be right there.

And we measured that it's about 8700 feet of flat area on top.

And they'd have some kind of a shade structure lookout trail.

You know, basic zero skating up there.

Yeah.

Other questions for the applicant.

I mean, I just wanted to clarify, like, I don't care dollar for dollar.

I don't care if you spend less well, uh this is me speaking.

I'm not speaking for everybody here.

I don't care if you spend less money to put in a uh something that you feel is better utilized.

That I I can get behind that, right?

What I struggle with is the placement.

Like it used to be it used to be a centralized thing that would be way more accessible to the residents in this area.

We've now kicked it kind of over here to the corner.

It's not like a distance thing, it's not that far.

I I get it.

And and maybe it's better to have dogs that are barking and things like that a little bit further away from the residents or something like that.

But that's a tough sell, right?

Hey, this is a great thing for the residents, but let's put it farther away from them.

Just want to point out that that is not what we're discussing at all because that was so that's why I include that.

No the location.

Gave staff the right or you know, the power to move that, and so that's set.

But that's what you're selling.

I'm just saying that it's coming across the road.

It's in a different area, right?

And there's at the same time, there's yeah, sidewalks and trails connecting every residential unit to really every area of a TOD, it's important that a TOD is walkable, and I think we've accomplished that.

Excuse me.

That with the throughout this whole process over the past five, six years.

I I do agree, in at least without data, right?

I agree on paper that a dog park is a great um facility for this for this area.

Um, particularly with people that have apartments and not yards.

And that is a facility.

So again, I I'm there, I'm behind it.

I just yeah.

And and then you said sorry, I'm I'm now critiquing your presentation.

I apologize.

Go for that.

I appreciate it.

I need to learn more about it.

I know you're you you brought up the wind study before when we pushed you on it, you said it's it wasn't something required.

You're right.

It wasn't required, and we acknowledge that.

But you're using it as a finding.

You're telling us you're doing these things because of a study.

So that's why we're frustrated that we didn't see it.

Not that we're saying you had to bring it to us.

Yes, but you're using it as a finding for the reasoning, or the reason you're making these decisions of what should go there, or why things were moved.

And so that's why it's a little frustrating that that information piece was withheld.

Or not even withheld, but it just wasn't shared, right?

And so acknowledge that yeah, you were not required to do it.

It wasn't good faith with your neighbor.

Good job.

But don't use it as a finding to us if if you're not gonna share us the data with us.

No, and I like I said at the beginning, I'm happy to dive in and learn as much as I can about that wind study, the details of it, and why we felt like that was a good move.

Um like I said, I was with this organization five years ago, but was in a different role, so I don't have all those details, and they weren't yeah, made public here or in front of city council, but I can dive into that.

Any other questions?

Mr.

Chair, I just I just have a comment if I may.

Um been on planning commission for a while now.

I've saved hundreds of applications.

Um something that has been incredibly disappointing from Clyde Companies or Capital Group is the whiplash of every time that this has come before us.

We've now given you three chances.

Um we get a different story, a different set of information, and it's incomplete.

Um I I I just I was the person who made the motion both times to table it to allow the applicant, you guys to get everything you needed to bring before us so we could have a productive conversation.

Um I'm just deeply frustrated that on the third try, we still don't have a complete packet.

And um I recognize that like you might not, you know, everyone's new to this, and not everyone's gonna know all the things, but um the whiplash that of the application and the information given and the reasoning for why things are.

I mean, um, you know, last time Michelle made comments that are now being said that's not actually what it was, right?

There's just been a lot of confusion, and it's caused a lot of um personal frustration as a commissioner to be able to have a good faith conversation to get to the right outcome.

That's best for the residents of Lehigh and respecting your property rights.

Um so I would appreciate um just being just let's all get to the same page and have consistent stories and consistent reasons and bring the facts and figures so that we can do our jobs with you to help you establish a great community here in the city of Lehigh.

Okay.

Other comments.

All right, thank you, Clayton.

We're gonna bring it back to the commission.

This is not a public hearing item, so we won't be taking public comment on this tonight.

But uh we may have further questions, but rather than have you stand up here, we'll just have you uh take a seat and we'll deliberate.

So I I just have a thought that I want to, and I appreciate the perspectives of uh Commissioner Lockhart and Commissioner Ayer.

But what more do we want them to bring to justify the request to move the amenity out as an amphitheater and create a dog park?

The only thing that I'm thinking is is it's limited in its use.

Certainly highly desirable for those who have pets that live in that complex and becomes a great marketing tool.

And I don't know that I that's not a that's not a deal breaker for me necessarily, but I don't know that it's an amenity that really benefits all the folks of this TOD that and I kind of like would like to see what could we do that would do something more broadly.

And I'm not so sure the amphitheater is the way to go.

It sounds like they did some studies and found that it wouldn't be used, and there's winter conditions, things.

I mean, I could see them make it a sledding hill, but I don't know if the topography is long enough to do that or something along those lines.

I just don't know what more we want them to bring back.

Granted, I agree with you, the story has been slightly altered every time we bring up an issue, the answer changes slightly and the justification shifts, and that is frustrating.

But at this point, what more do we feel we need to address the question on the table, which is swap out the amphitheater for the um proposed dog park.

I I'm ready to vote on this one to be honest.

But um I I could argue that it is a benefit to every person, whether they have a dog or not, because now people that do have dogs can take them somewhere away from those that might not want to be by those dogs.

Right.

I I I think it's just like somebody that says argument.

It's like somebody that says my taxes pay for school and I don't have kids, right?

I hear that argument.

You hear people comment on that a lot.

Um schools benefit everybody, whether you have kids in them or not, right?

And I feel like I'm not trying to say this is apples to apples with that, but this is a benefit to the area.

It is something that maybe can be tailored to marketing, like you said, and I think that might bring in a certain level of of client that maybe is interested in that or what or resident, right, that would be interested in that.

I I argue that a public green space, whether it's tailored to anybody walking in and sitting and enjoying it, or just having that beautiful space around them.

I I think it's a benefit to everyone.

To all of those residents.

I'm not saying this is public for everybody to just go in and use, right?

But I I could are I could have made an argument in my mind at least that it is a benefit to all of those residents.

Okay.

So just in the notes, um, it does say something about the sport courts and the playgrounds.

Like kind of a commissioner.

Yeah, I don't think that the report's well written because I think they've already traded that out for these other types of amenities.

It just says that would be what would be required with the number of units, but it doesn't really say that that decision's already been made.

And that would have been helpful because I'm comparing this to that, saying, well, where are the other green spaces?

So I I you're you're coming the same place I'm coming from, but I think that ship sailed.

Yeah, those are the default amenities.

If they don't propose anything different, that would have been what was required, but they propose this other mix, and one of them was the amphitheater and these other amenities, and now they're just asking to switch up the weapons.

Which is but yeah, which is great when you know with the other playgrounds, the other open space.

It's nice to have the dogs go somewhere, and I'm sure they'll still have issues where dogs will go to the playgrounds and leave gifts for the little kids to play in and take home with their parents on their shoes.

So but I think it's great to be able to say hey, dogs, you guys should be over there.

So I you know, I'd I'd love to see the open space and and that's why I was curious about what's going to go in where the uh amphitheater is going now, if it was just going to be another building or if it's just going to be paved under or what or if it's still gonna be an amenity that the residents can use.

Shadow Ridge Park nearby.

Is that a city?

That's a city park that's open to that would be open to these residents as well.

Not that the work counting that towards their amenity package, but there is there are pickleball courts, there is open space, playground, etc.

But they did think of that with their analysis of like what would work because they don't want to duplicate when everyone already got the slightly bigger public park than a small one, like any further discussion of the issue.

If not, I'd entertain a motion.

Okay.

I'll do it.

I'll make it a good question.

Mr.

Chair, can I make a motion?

I hope you can.

We'll know in a minute.

I hope I can as well.

We will see.

Um I'd l I would like to move, right?

That we approve the proposed site plan for item 3.1 and the consideration of Clyde Capitals groups grass for approval of provisions to the vistas at the point amenities removing the amphitheater from their required amenities.

Um the proposed amenities, it's equivalent in value to what's required by the code, and the proposed amenities do meet the intent and requirements of the TOD zone and please include VRC findings.

Which there weren't any, I don't think, for this one, right?

Do the April ones count again towards this?

They should, yes.

If you agree with those or if you want to pick and choose which ones you want out of that there were BRC comments.

Just include them.

Commissioner Roberts, would you be willing to uh uh take out the finding that it meets the intent and requirements of the TOD zone?

Does it not?

I don't know that it does or doesn't.

I think we had a long conversation on that last time, and I don't think we agreed that it did.

Right.

So it's only for the residents.

Right.

TOD is for transit oriented, which is for residents and those that ride transit.

So if you would you consider striking that from your motion.

So yeah, and this doesn't fit that because people that write transit don't have dogs, or I just think it's not really another.

It's only for the residents.

It's an HOA.

It's just for the residents that are.

It's just for the HOA.

Okay, I have other thoughts, but maybe this isn't appropriate time for those.

So this is the only appropriate time for the well, I'm just thinking, so is somebody from the HOA going to be sitting there taking tickets and watching.

That's up to them.

I mean, so I I don't know.

I don't know.

But yes, I will remove that from the with your other finding standing that it is of equivalent value to the amenities required by the code.

That's that was your first finding, correct?

Okay.

You also mentioned the word site plan.

This is not a site plan, this is just uh evaluation of swapping the amenities.

So let's not indicate this is a site plan.

Okay.

Yeah, I didn't.

So it's a request to consider.

It does say a proposed site plan on the possible motions and findings.

That's where I got that.

Staff.

Is it basically?

Is it a proposed site plan?

I don't know what it is.

It's a concept more than anything.

It'll have to come back with the site plan for the code.

If you may I just restate your motion.

This is a motion that Commissioner Roberts managed.

He he moves to approve um the proposal to swap the amenity of uh of a um amphitheater.

Amphitheater to the dog park that's been proposed by the applicant with the finding that it is of equivalent value with the dog park is of equivalent value to the uh proposed initially uh amphitheater and include all the DRC comments.

Is that did I capture that okay?

Sure.

I'll second that.

Okay, we have a motion and second.

All in favor of the motion to approve.

Say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Those opposed?

Nay.

Okay.

Thank you.

Do you need a roll call on that?

Kate, you got that.

It passes three to two.

Goes to s doesn't go to city council.

This uh stays with us.

Yep.

Okay.

Thank you.

We'll go on to 3.2.

Okay.

Public hearing in consideration of Thanksgiving parks request for conditional use approval of a 70-foot flagpole located at 3401 North Thanksgiving way.

Um so yeah, the applicant is wanting to build a flagpole.

Anything that's over 30 feet in height in our code requires conditional use approval for a flagpole.

Um and they cited that it's customary to have the flag um fly at least as high, if not higher than the buildings, which is why they're asking for it.

Um they provided this rendering of what it looked like, I guess from like the freeway, um, having it up at 70 feet.

And yeah, that'll turn it back to the commission for any questions.

Questions for staff.

So this is a conditional use going from a 50-foot maximum to a 70 foot for their request.

30 to 70.

The 30 is approved.

So it's more than double.

But it is the height of the I'm sorry, can I it is the height of the buildings that surround it or higher?

Um, I think it's I mean, I'm not totally sure the rendering kind of shows it's probably close to the height of the buildings.

Um I yeah, I'm not sure.

Is there another flagpole in the city this size?

Yeah, so um we were just thinking the one by Macy's is probably actually a hundred feet tall, so um it's would be smaller than Macy's, but yeah, Macy's kind of known for having their really tall big flag poles, right?

Is that the only one?

The mega pole.

It's one of the I feel like flagpoles are one of the things that get built and then you kind of stop seeing them.

So but there was the one probably the most recent approved.

I don't remember the height.

Do you remember for the one that's out by 3600 West?

They're the car wash, yeah.

Tag and go.

I think I want to say that was 70.

We can look it up.

It was definitely taller than 30.

So I have a question for staff as well with the with the height.

Well, usually with the display of the U.S.

flag, unless they take it down at night, there's gonna be lighting.

Right?

Is that a separate application for lighting for the flagpole or is that included with this?

Yeah, it would cover the.

And I think our flagpole, I think lights for the flags are exempt in our lighting standards.

For all flags or just U.S.

flags.

I think, well, we'll have to look, but I I think it's exempt.

Okay, any other questions for staff?

Is the applicant present?

If you'd like to come and add anything to the application that's before us of the request, feel free to approach and state your name and share whatever uh other information you'd like to share with us.

Um Mark Ostabo with Thanksgiving Park.

Um I could be wrong.

I thought the current code was 40 feet.

Maybe I'm mistaken.

Um and yeah, like it was previously stated.

Uh, we don't want to undersize the flag.

So that was that's the point.

The parapet that you see on that image.

Uh the majority of the building is at about 70 feet.

There's a small portion of the building that goes above that.

Um I don't think you can see it in the picture.

It's where the signage for the building is for the tenants.

But the majority of the building is about 70 feet.

Um the other thing that we're considering or that we want to consider on this.

Obviously, we want to see it from the freeway so that when you drive by you don't see half of a flag.

We want to make sure it's prominent.

And then also there's quite a bit of traffic that goes around the roundabout that's there.

And the other thought is we don't want it to be like too high.

So that's that's why we didn't we didn't go 80 feet, for example.

We just felt like 70 was a comfortable height, and it's uh it's a customary height to order.

So we figured 70 was the best.

Um I don't know if I have anything else to add.

Okay.

Any questions for the app?

Don't take your seat quite yet.

Well, we've done answering to both questions.

Okay.

So tag and go was 70.

Was approved at 70.

That's the tag and go.

And then it's actually 50 feet in non-residential zones, 30 in residential, 50 is the cap, unless you get the conditional use.

So they're 20 feet above the and maybe one more thing to add.

We are planning on lighting it.

Yeah.

Uh that's flag code as well, so it will be lit.

Okay.

Uh other questions.

I I have a question, but I want to allow the other commissioners to ask question.

Um you kind of touched on this, but it seems like um it is customary to have it at least kind of at the level of the height of the building or on top of the edifice.

Have you considered putting flags on maybe the corners of the established buildings?

And and is there a flagpole there now?

Or is this and why now for erecting this particular flagpole?

Yeah, it's a good question.

Um there's not a flag there.

Um the corn, there's so there's six buildings within the park.

This is this is the the one, this is the roundabout that most closely faces I-15.

Uh the reason for the ask is we had a tenant that um recently renewed a lease, and this was one of their requirements, and we honestly saw the requirement and were like, actually, that's a great idea.

So we were happy to accommodate.

Um, not that that's binding or has anything to do with this.

But um, no, we just thought it would be great for the park.

And rather than uh I mean, here it was there any discussion with the tenant of maybe putting it on top of the building that they occupy.

Is that just yeah, um we kind of see it as a and I think we would both agree it's more of a park business park amenity.

It's not just for the single tenant.

Um so yeah, we've we figured that this roundabout being so close to I-15 was was the best location.

And will just the United States flag be the only flag flying.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Other questions for the applicant?

Mr.

Chair, if I may, what was the business reason for them wanting this?

Did they provide that?

There's not a business reason.

No, just passionate that's awesome.

Americans, I think.

I um drive by the tag and go every day, and I love starting my morning by seeing a 70-foot pole with an American flag on it.

It actually is a great way with the sunrise.

It's awesome.

Okay.

As far as light the lighting, I'm thinking probably shining away from the freeway, so it's not hitting if I don't I don't, you know, depending on what kind of lighting you put up there, but yeah, you don't want to have and I'm with Emily.

I love going into Salt Lake County, and there's flags everywhere.

You come to Utah County and you don't see a flag until Macy's down here.

Yeah.

If you look at that image, that image was taken off of Google Maps.

Um you you actually can't see where the light would be from the freeway.

You could from the front insurance that's that's just below that.

On grade level.

I th I don't know if I've considered it wholly the the lighting direction, but in my mind at least, there's some grass to the north and south of the pole.

And I would in my mind it would shine from north and south, not towards the east.

Not a spotlight on the building there in the background.

No, they're just there are lights that go straight up.

Yeah, and and I think the point is to only illuminate the flag.

I mean, there's no other purpose.

Yeah.

Other questions for the applicant.

Okay, if you'll just take it take a seat there, uh, Mark, thank you for those explanations.

This is a public hearing.

So we'll open it up for public comment.

We'll receive public comment from anybody here who would like to comment on this.

Seeing the rush to the podium, we'll uh close public comment.

I don't believe there was anything online today, Brittany, on this one, right?

We'll bring it back to the commission for any further questions, deliberations.

We'll make a motion on 3.2 if you'll hear it.

Absolutely.

Um for the public hearing consideration of Thanksgiving Parks request for conditional use approval of a 70-foot flagpole located at 3401 Thanksgiving way.

I move that we offer a positive recommendation to the city council.

Oh, consideration.

Sorry, I move that we approve uh the uh request or the conditional request for conditional use.

Um with the findings that the proposed use of the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity.

The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in compliance with the goals and policies of the Lehigh City General Plan and the purposes of this code, and that the property on which the use building or other structure is proposed to be established as of adequate size and dimensions to permit construction of the facilities and the conduct of the use in such a manner that it will not be detrimental to adjoining properties in the area.

We'll also cite in the findings there's precedence throughout the city.

There are a few locations throughout the city where this has been granted.

I'll second that.

Okay.

We have a motion and a second, any discussion of the motion before we call for a vote.

I will include all the RCA second stands.

Okay, so we'll include them a modify the motion to include the DRC comments.

The second still stands.

Any further discussion of the motion?

All in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Carries unanimously.

5-0.

Congratulations.

Okay, number 3.3.

The item 3.3 public hearing and recommendation of Lee High City's request for review of a development code amendment to chapter 4, adding an exhibit for general plan and zoning amendments.

And I guess development.

Well, no, it's just general plan and zone amendments.

Um currently, if an applicant is applying for general plan amendment or zone change, we could allow them to do like a concept plan that runs concurrently.

But now you're the approval body for most concept plans, which there's been that question in the past, right?

Like, okay, are we approving it subject to the general plan amendment being approved?

What does that really look like?

And also a lot of the times the applicant wants the concept to move forward with the general plan or zone change because it kind of is illustrating what they're wanting.

So this was just us trying to codify that they can provide instead an exhibit, so it's something that won't receive DRC comments as far as like does it work or not?

But it's really just an illustrative way of showing like we want this general plan amendment so that it looks like this.

Um and the same with the zone change.

It's pretty much the same language, just saying that they can submit an exhibit and it's we'll just move forward with it.

Um then they also can at the same time still choose to submit a concept plan if they're wanting more of the feedback on the layout or things like that.

And with that, I'll turn it back to the commission for any questions.

Thank you.

Uh I do have a question.

I actually have a comment on the language.

Uh I would propose that we modify the language slightly because as it reads, you could read it two different ways.

One is that you can provide an exhibit if it changes.

I think we want it to say you could provide an exhibit in anticipation of the land change.

I and I I would maybe say the applicant may provide an exhibit to illustrate their intended use under the proposed or the applied for general plan amendment and subsequent zone change so that it doesn't look like you can only provide it after the fact.

I know what the intent was, but I when I read it, I could read it two different ways.

And I just want to make it clear that they have the option to provide something to support their request for the zone change, because we do get that a lot without an understanding of what is going to come into there.

Um so I'd just like to clarify that you have this option, but it's not tied to whether or not it actually passes or not.

It's to support their request for uh general plan amendment or a zone change or whatever it might be, because it's in two different places in the code.

So that's my suggestion.

Can you say that one there?

Oh, geez, I don't know.

The applicant may provide an exhibit, parenthesis to illustrate their intended use under the requested general plan amendment or the applied for general plan amendment and subsequent zone change.

And the other place it say the applicant may provide an exhibit to illustrate their intended use under the applied for zoning district.

Okay, oh I'll just give you my piece of paper if you want.

I don't know.

I'm not tied to that language.

I just think we need to clarify what's currently written so that it's clear that it's an option to provide before we consider their uh or at the time of the consideration and not necessarily tied to whether it's approved or not, which is how I kind of read it the first time I read it.

If that makes sense.

I don't know if other commissioners might disagree, but that's when I read it, what I thought would clarify.

So there are questions for the applicant for the staff, which is kind of one and the same, right?

Yeah, I have a question, Mr.

Chair.

May I?

Yeah, please.

So um does this remove the requirement for a concept plan?

Or is this just saying at the time of the amendment you can provide an exhibit?

So we don't require a concept plan for any general plan amendment or zone change.

There's not a requirement for that.

Um so it's just it's optional.

They can do an exhibit or they can do a concept plan.

But we typically, and that just helped me.

So we typically will get a concept plan later in the process, though.

And so I'm just wondering like this isn't saying that you no longer have to do that down the road.

This is just giving an option to be doing it at the beginning of the road.

Uh so this is not yeah, so this is just an exhibit, it wouldn't be a concept plan at all.

Like it's not it's not equivalent to it in any way.

So approval of the general plan is an approval of like some concept plan with it.

Yeah, I think I I the reason I'm just asking like steps along the process is just we start talking about the concept plan in in the subsequent sentence, and I just want to make sure that it's understood that at time of application to amend, you can give an exhibit or a concept plan.

That's fine.

That does not change the fact that down this path, whether you get it or not, a concept plan is still required.

Yep, yeah, right?

PUDs, PRDs, they still, if they don't file a concept plan, or if they don't file an exhibit either, there's they're still gonna have to do that.

So it's it's still down the road.

Because I know we've talked about concept plans so many times and how important they are and things like that, and so I'm just making sure that it's consistent across all paths forward.

And frankly, I'm not even sure we need this added to code because they can bring as part of their presentation and say this is what we're thinking of doing and why we're requesting this.

But we're just adding code that doesn't necessarily need to be added because it's already a possibility.

And maybe we don't add something to avoid any confusion that it is the equivalent of a concept plan.

Well, and I really see this more as like a signal to the applicant that it's preferred.

Like we would love to see the what you an exhibit or a concept plan at this time.

It's just kind of nice and helps us make decisions.

It does.

It's more of a from my perspective, I'm not the applicant, but the way I read it was this is a signal to an applicant that we'd be interested in that.

But that's why I ask.

Like I'm trying to make sure that down that road towards approvals that it would still be something we see.

But anyway, um this is a was the app well, the applicant you anything else you want to say before we open up public hearing?

Because this is a public hearing item, I believe.

Yeah.

So uh we'll open up for 3.3 public hearing and recommendation of the city's request for review of development code amendment.

Anybody here that would like to speak to the language that's proposed as a code amendment.

Please come join us.

I'm pretty sure we did not understand what we were like to start off by saying that.

Um my neighborhood right now isn't a meeting.

That you name for us.

Oh, I'm sorry, yeah.

My name's Candice Clark.

And I live um just off of Pioneer Crossing and like the 200, 300 east area.

Um, and so they're all in a in a meeting right now with Fieldstone, and we understood this possibly different than what is going on, and it sounds like a different language to me.

So I'm still just gonna read my little message.

Sure.

And just know that we do appreciate all you guys do for us.

Um I was under the impression that this was more for just um being mindful of where you guys are how you are allowing the communities to be developed, right?

And so we're in an area where we are half-acre lots, um, and they're horse property, right?

And already we're under a lot of um high traffic and things like that.

And with the proposition of that for with them wanting to build high density homes and things like that.

I was just going to ask you guys to please be aware of um of the flow of what we are allowing Lehigh to become.

I grew up in Draper, and I feel like Draper is like Lehigh.

I feel like Lehigh's just like five, ten years behind Draper, right?

And so I grew up in this beautiful area with beautiful property, and it is a hodgepodge of a mess.

And I would just ask you guys to be mindful of allowing high density areas to be plopped in the middle of like our little half acre lot area plus there's there's some you know areas that have a lot more than that.

But just I guess I would ask you to be mindful of what you're allowing.

I know high density is needed, but I just feel like there's a better way to do it.

So I do appreciate your guys' time and realize that this really isn't the same thing.

But I said my feet.

So thank you.

Oh, thank you for the comment.

We appreciate it.

I'm the husband, but I'm a lot quicker than she is.

So I just want to say I can tell we're your first answer.

Chase Clark.

Thank you, Chase.

Uh just like to tell you that I've lived in Lehigh 16 years.

And uh my dad goes to all the draper meetings, and he's known as not the greatest guy.

The commission doesn't like him because he argues over everything.

I just want to say I am very pleased to live in Lehigh.

I'm grateful.

I was thinking today of how great we have it here in this city compared to other cities I've lived in.

I feel like my utilities are really reasonable.

I feel like we're well taken care of, the streets are taken care of.

I feel like you guys put houses where houses belong and businesses where businesses belong.

You know, I can remember the big Maverick was gonna move in where I think Paige was her name, and so she recused herself and and uh it didn't end up going there.

You know, and I I didn't want it there.

Now I go to Maverick almost every day.

So it's kind of funny.

I made a wrong decision.

But just want to thank you for what you do.

And I feel like we're in really good hands, and I'm just this is my favorite city, and I'm grateful to be in it.

So thanks for what you do.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Were there any other public comments online?

I don't believe there were.

Okay, with that, we'll close the public comment period and bring it back to the commission.

Uh I was just saying, Chase, do you drive to the Maverick on 11th West from your place on 300 East?

I built my business two and a half miles away on the Lehigh Saratoga board.

Ah, so that's on the way home then.

Okay.

Yes, I remember when that maverick was uh being contemplated for I think it was a corner of Center Street and Pioneer Crossing, wasn't it?

I think it was.

That's where the academy was gonna go.

The academy will be.

Came after that.

And and all of our neighbors are reading with Billstone right now.

So we just saw this on the document file dark once.

Well, we appreciate you with the comments that you made, and we we'll make sure that we're aware of those for when the issues like that come up before us.

The one tonight is specific to clarifying for applicants that want a general plan amendment that they have the option of maybe bringing some ideas with them to show us what they're considering and why they're asking for that.

And it's just putting that into the code as an opportunity for those to add an exhibit to their request for a general plan amendment and zone change and things like that, which does play into this at the point in time when that comes before the commission, maybe there might be a uh an exhibit that comes with a general plan amendment.

So uh we appreciate you being here and for sharing your comments with us as a planning commission.

So with that, uh any further questions for staff.

I I I I will reiterate that I I really don't think it's necessary other than it does send a signal.

I'm kind of anti-creating code when you don't need it, because you know, maybe we can just tell applicants when you bring a general plan amendment, you're welcome to bring an exhibit to help the planning commission consider what you're doing.

I worry that they feel like if they bring an exhibit and we make that there's nothing binding that that's what what they would do.

Sure.

And so if if it's gonna be used to sway us one way or the other, and then the bait and switch, yeah, then I'm like, well, thanks for bringing it to us, but we just need to remember that just because they can doesn't mean they will result in that kind of um development if we were to change that.

So that's my that's my only concern of even raising it as an issue.

Yeah, and uh if I may, Mr.

Chair, I completely hear you on that.

Um whether or not this is in the code, that's still the this that's still possible, right?

They could bring forth this.

And staff could remind them, hey, but you you're welcome to bring an exhibit.

I don't know if you need to codify that.

Yeah, yeah, and I hear you on that.

Yeah, that's a good point.

Um if nothing else, it's simply from my perspective, it's just a signal to the applicant.

I do think it would help residents as well when these amendments come through that if we've you know we've re reminded the applicant, hey, bring in some form of an exhibit or something.

It's minds at ease.

Yeah, it it just helps it either will ease their minds or it will alert them to something that they may not have seen, and then they all show up or things like that.

So the notice that goes to areas where there is a request for that doesn't say, oh, there's gonna be uh an exhibit, so make sure you come.

It just announces that this is gonna be considered by planning commission and or city council.

So yeah, I think you make a fair point.

I don't know if it needs to be in the code or if it just needs to be a part of the application documents.

I could see this being a section of the application documents, but not necessarily a part of our code.

It does staff have a reason for like why this is incredibly necessary for the code.

You said there's been some ambiguity, like can we submit, or are we just because you know a lot of times when those applications get here, we do remind ourselves or we'll remind you or you'll remind the public.

You know, just because they're showing us this.

But I I know there's been some questions.

Are we even allowed to look at this or should we just focus on the general plan?

Is this low density or medium density?

So we're just trying to put in the code, yes, it's okay.

It's not going to be formally reviewed unless you submit a concept plan, and even concept is concept, but we're just trying to make a definitive statement.

It's allowed, it's that's fair game if you want.

So we're just trying to make the rules black and white as much as we can.

I do like the suggestion of maybe putting it on the application for a zone change, so you're welcome to bring an exhibit to share your intended use if this were to be granted or something like that.

I I still am just like, why are we adding to code for something that's not necessary?

I I may be able to help.

That would be helpful.

Um in terms of statutory construction, the way that this statute currently reads, from my understanding, you wouldn't be able to look at a site plan.

Uh the way it's set up is these are factors that you can consider when uh approving those.

So you would need to have that put in to have those factors to weigh.

It doesn't require them to submit it, but this lets them submit it, and it also puts them on notice to bring one.

And so when considering those factors, the way it's written right now, they wouldn't they wouldn't have to bring in these exhibits.

So they still don't have to because it says may, not shall.

They may, but as it stands right now, the way I'm reading it, you wouldn't be able to consider them if they did bring them in.

So I think what's the one that's needs to be modified anyway, whereas what you're saying.

Well, no, no, no.

So what they've added it to is that they can bring in these exhibits the way it's currently standing, where it just says number seven, the overall community benefit.

So that would be the the limit of what you could extend.

Um but amending it to allow them to bring exhibits now adds that as a factor that you can consider.

So from a resident perspective, I do think if it's it's so much better when we consider these things to have an exhibit or concept at the same time.

Um because it it just like yeah, it signals out to them what what they're thinking.

I'm just uh I'm gonna push back a little bit, right?

Statutory construction.

I don't think it bars that from being considered or brought in.

We can't really consider it.

It can just give us an idea of what they're asking for because there are those seven that are pretty much tied to that, but that does not bar them from bringing in an example of what they would like to change what they would like to develop if that were to change.

We just can't consider it.

Right.

Yeah, they could this just adds it as a factor that you can now consider.

Um so without it, i if this were a criminal case and a judge were weighing factors, they would say, okay, I'm looking at all these options.

I'm gonna weigh my ruling based on this.

Uh where you're a commission, you're gonna say, okay, these are the things I can consider, and I'm gonna base my decision off this.

It adds it as a factor that you can weigh.

They don't have to bring any one factor or not.

But if we do that, then can they claim that they have some right to that, even though it's concerned?

They bring back a site plan or a concept plan and subsequent for this, because this is not count as a site plan or a concept plan.

This is just an idea.

Yeah.

But if if it is a factor that we consider in making that, then there may be some sense of entitlement to that particular use.

But I don't know.

I'm just I'm not an attorney.

I just read a lot of stuff.

Choose your words carefully because we've been told repeatedly that site plans don't give them any concept.

Or excuse me, concept plans don't give them any uh vesting rights.

However, we've also been told in the same breath, out of this other corner of Craig's mouth, that it does bind us.

And it it does.

I would have to check on that.

Um but just in terms of the statutory construction, the way it it authorizes it as a factor that you can use, which I believe is what staff is trying to to get across.

Is that but we can't make our approval to a general plan amendment conditioned upon the exhibit that they bring?

That's not what that, yeah.

That wouldn't be.

And that's kind of what I'm thinking, I'm hearing that if we use that as a as a factor, then that would be something that we would put into our motion to consider.

But I I I think we need to be careful here.

What it what if we removed the alternatively the applicant may choose to submit a concept plan because the concept plan has um code associated to it that gives it some of that weight where an exhibit within our code gives it no weight.

No, I'm laughing ahead and but that that might be it.

If it's just an exhibit, but in an exhibit has no weight in our code.

Where a concept plan does have some form of um implication of of direction, an exhibit does not.

So if we scratch the last sentence, um we could use the exhibit as something to consider, but they couldn't get frustrated about that because it doesn't have the same intent and con and like weight as a concept plan.

I'm not sure we need to well or we can just strike it all in.

I I think they already could bring in as part of the presentation something to show us, they're already coming up and giving a presentation.

Why can't they show a picture or two and say this is what we envision?

Which is what the exhibits are.

Right.

Yeah.

But they're not barred from not bringing exhibits currently.

Yeah, it might be better just to have it on the application documents.

I like that, but they told us the they've already had applicants question may we can we bring a can we bring an example of what we might try to build there?

This just gives clarity that yes you can.

Right?

So they don't have to come and ask.

Right.

It's not this question of because I know that really has been confusing.

Like, are we looking at this as this plan, or are we just considering the land uses?

So this just says it's you you can look at both.

You know, there they can show justification.

But to clarify what you just said though, we would still only be voting on the land uses.

We would not be voting on the exhibit.

Unless like 3.3 was land use and 3.4 was concept.

Yeah, because we've done that before.

Yeah.

So if they just submit, you know, information exhibits, then that that only that's all combined with your general plan consideration or zone change.

So with that explosion, I think we need further language in here that says any exhibit is not considered a concept line.

A concept or even uh part of the application.

It's just to share the vision.

And I don't know how you get there.

That's what I'm like, we should be silent with that in the code and put it in the application.

I don't know.

That's that's just me.

But if if if constitutionally in order to allow someone to bring a picture to show their vision, we need it, then I'm for that because there are times when we the requesting a general plan amendment and the residents want to know, well, well what what what's gonna go in here now?

If we change this from R 122 to neighborhood commercial, what are you anticipating?

And and we know what those list of uses are, but if it's something that those residents would utilize, they'd probably go, oh, maybe we're not against this.

But we can't use that to make the decision.

We just have to do it on the merits of the seven criteria, I think, for a general plan amendment.

And the burden of proof is on the applicant.

And it has been the issue, and that's why it really did come up is because in the past we have been like, well, you need to submit a concept plan then, and then it does get to the rough, well, the concept plan for a site plan or a subdivision now ends with planning commission.

You make the final vote, right?

Because you'd approve the site plan or the subdivision.

So then it also has an awkward, well, you really submitted it because you wanted it to be an exhibit most of the time, right?

They won the applicant's like, I want to just show what I'm wanting to do, so they don't necessarily want it to stop here.

Most of the time.

I think sometimes they still might say, No, I really do just want feedback on the actual site plan or the actual subdivision.

Um but this makes it clear and also makes it so that there's an easy way for them to have something that will go all the way to city council.

Who's gonna make the decision on the general plan amendment or zone change?

I have a comment, please.

Are we worried that this would come up mostly with the more controversial things where you know we've got neighborhood commercial and they want to move to heavy commercial or something like that, right?

Where there's a concept they want to provide vision of what they're doing.

Um that's where I see that it would mostly be used, is we know the applicant knows this is going to be controversial, so I want to give some vision of what I'm planning.

Um that to me is problematic as well, because then it clouds clouds the judgment, right?

Then it's then it's presenting something that this is something like what we may do, but that's not what we're voting on.

We're not voting on that thing.

We're voting on the land use.

I I agree.

I think we need to, if we're gonna do this no exhibit, you may bring in a concept plan at the same time.

But like I would now that we're coming full circle, it's almost like if you're gonna bring a general plan amendment, that is a big deal.

That's a significant change.

So you may bring a concept plan at the same time, meaning that concept plan does have the weight, and it wouldn't just be an airy exhibit of like idea and vision.

That this would actually be no, this is what the planning commission will consider in conjunction with.

It can remain a May, so that if they're not ready, they could still come for this one and not the other.

But now that you say that, I'm I'm kind of thinking exhibit what could mislead the commission or the council on may or the public on a decision that has no weight, where the concept plan would provide at least a little bit more surety to the residents and the commission and the council.

I think it also gets hard because it it doesn't in some ways, right?

Because I think the other thing that's been hard is looking at a concept plan.

You still can't put extra conditions on it.

You can't be like, no, we do want it to be just this way, because if it the general plan and zone change is approved, they are just meeting the code, right?

So that's been another challenge in the past is a feeling of like, well, because we're considering this general plan amendment, we can say with a concept plan, we think you should make the buildings all two stories, whatever, right?

Like there you still don't have more power with a concept plan, if that makes sense.

I don't think it's about power.

I think it's about uh intent of the change.

And that getting that intent, that applicant's intent of the change clearly defined to the residents, the council, and commission prior to making the general plan amendment.

It's that I think is what I worry that an applicant would bring something forward that looks beautiful and pretty, and everyone's like, yeah, that would be great to have next to my home.

We approve a zone change, thinking this is amazing.

When then they bring forward the site plan that is something different, but now that they have the zone change, it's permitted or they sell the land to another bidder, right?

Yeah, so either one.

So one of the things that also I think this helps with, and I know we none of us necessarily love development agreements, but that is where that comes in, right?

Is if the city council's like, yes, we love this exact image that you're showing.

Now we're gonna direct staff try to develop an agreement.

I mean, honestly, it would be more helpful for us if there is some sort of exhibit tied to it instead of just their words of like, you know, we want it to be this pretty picture, and then it's like, oh yeah, we like this pretty picture that you've painted with just words, staff write it.

It's easier if we have an exhibit that can be like, okay, it needs to be built according to this exhibit that they submitted.

Are we wrong in that concern though?

I'm saying we, I'll say I, sorry.

Am I wrong in that concern?

The it I think it gives more smoke and mirrors opportunity.

And I don't think we're gonna tie uh a general plan amendment approval to a development agreement for a concept, right?

I don't think we can do that.

No, that we can.

We've done a lot of times that's how the development agreements have happened, is it's tied to the concept plan.

We'll a lot of the concept plan, but not to a general plan amendment, right?

Well, it goes through it is through a general plan amendment.

A lot of times it's that's how it's happened.

They come through and they have a concept idea.

Yeah, and then it's tied in as like the exhibit for it needs to be.

Um Lehigh Block development agreement happened that way, Grants Corner.

Um I mean, even though it's those were zone changes, right?

Those weren't general plan amendments, I don't believe, right?

Um they were general plan amendments that didn't end up getting changed, like Lehigh Block, they were trying to change the general plan to identify.

We directed them to do a and then they denied that, but they did use the concept plan that was brought as the exhibit.

Or the development agreement.

Yeah.

So they denied the general plan, but they said we like what you're showing.

We so we're not gonna approve the general plan, but we're gonna take what you showed us, and if you're willing to commit in a development agreement, we'll lock it in with that.

So the village overlay kind of did this as well, right?

When we did the village overlay, there was a broad understanding of what potentially could be developed in that area.

Pioneer votes.

However, once individual landowners were like, well, I'd like to develop my land based on that overlay, but they didn't have the connectivity, they didn't have the other neighbors that were buying in, and so they couldn't build exactly what was envisioned, and there was an uproar with what was potentially coming forward with that village overlay, right?

But that's that's I worry that we're codifying a bait and switch.

So we like the idea.

We could go the other direction and just say general plan amendments.

That's all there's no other application that can come in.

We're only gonna consider is it neighborhood commercial or commercial?

Is it LDR or VLDR?

And just say we just have to focus on land use.

We're not gonna pay any attention to what you might do here.

I mean, that could be the other approach we take if we're worried about convoluting decisions on things that may or may not happen.

Maybe we just say because there is another chapter 10 that talks about what applications can be submitted concurrently.

Right now it says general plan and concept can be submitted at the same time for the same property.

We could scratch this, go to that chapter and say nope, general plan or zone change.

That's all you can submit.

Just submit what you want, and that's all we're gonna consider.

So it's really up to you how you want to view land use changes.

Would you rather have a little idea or no?

And let's just separate the case.

I like having an idea.

I think with a concept plan, not an exhibit.

I think that's the that's the difference is an exhibit has no bearing or teeth in our code.

There's no con there's nothing that like gives it structure, so they could bring in, they could bring in a McDonald's, but when they you know, we grant it and then they come back and they're like just kidding, it's a Chick-fil-A, or it's not even a restaurant, it's a gym or whatever, right?

It's within the table of uses, and we've completely flipped it on its head.

We're like, does it is that what you're is that the point you're trying to make?

That's what I mean.

Like where they could present something beautiful that us and the res it's more the residents, to be honest that I'm worried about.

Is the residents getting swindled and saying, yeah, that looks amazing.

Strong and that might go next to my home, and I love that idea.

And then when it comes to the actual site plan of what comes forward, the developer's like, oh, well, we couldn't attract what we showed you, but we did attract this one, and now we're permitted now.

We're zoned to do that.

Or they sell the property, right?

And somebody buys it, has a whole different idea of what it's now you know, either designated on the general plan or zoned, and they have the rights under that new designation.

Yeah.

But I do this is a hard the idea that if they are making a pitch for a general plan amendment or a zone change, may bring a topic.

To share with us some ideas, whether it's an exhibit or verbal or whatever.

I mean, they still have that opportunity, I would think.

I just worry about how do we codify it?

What does that mean in terms of the weight it gives?

And if it doesn't give any weight to those exhibits, what's the point?

Right?

They can still share their ideas or vision.

So I like the uh change of the application to say you're welcome to share your ideas, but they do not consultate a concept uh concept plan, or if in that chapter 10, they can do both, then we let that stand and we can consider both at the same time.

I I don't know.

I get the intent and I appreciate that because it does provide us and the citizens an idea of what's being contemplated, but it doesn't make the result any different or any easier, I think.

Does that make sense to you guys in terms of we can't make a decision based on that idea because the recommending box yeah, we're just a recommending box.

Luckily this is no, but I but I do think like when it maybe it's not for us, but it it's for the residents, right?

Like the the idea of bringing the change and the concept allows the residents to know like, do I show up or not?

Right?

Like, am I okay with that or not?

What's the vision of this property developer?

And why maybe it's a density increase, right?

They're trying to go from medium to high density, but they're not gonna provide a concept of number of units, so now people don't know should I really be mad or not, right?

Like I I kind of like where we were getting where it was you may bring both, but I think we already do that anyway.

So I'm not sure back to your original point.

Why do we need to do this in the code at all?

We kind of already do it.

I think it's available, but maybe not.

If they're barred from bringing exhibits to make their pitch, then maybe we need to add it.

But if I I didn't see anywhere where they're barred from bringing that unless further presentation, noncompliance.

Maybe we've just been looking at these things and we shouldn't have been also.

No, you didn't it's fair game to do a concept plan, but yeah, it's just when they submit things that aren't they're part of their general plan application and they're showing development of the land, but it's not they didn't file a concept application to go with it.

So we're just I don't know, we're our whole intent is let's add clarity to the process, like you said, predictability for developers and the public.

So that's our intent, but but I guess we don't know what your preference is.

Do you want to see ideas or not?

And then we'll write the code according to what you want.

But we're happy to table it and are they barred from bringing ideas that are visual?

I don't believe they are.

Yeah, we haven't allowed it.

They've had to either do a concept plan or not have a visual representation.

And the code says that you can't bring it up.

It just doesn't say that you can.

So you know, it's been the you well, and the code does say you can do a concept plan at the same time.

So it was a you need to apply for a concept.

The concept, and then it ends up being like, oh, we have all these DRC comments, you know, we're getting into like site layout, where an exhibit, it wouldn't be DRC comments.

We're not going to be saying like this works, this doesn't work.

It's like this is just you throwing something out, which you know, in some ways is maybe better too, right?

Because it's not more, yeah, it's not like staff's committed, like, yes, this seems like it works or not.

It's just kind of a this is the picture, this is what we want.

So I guess the applicant you've heard of this conversation.

What would you I mean, if if you want it tabled to maybe bring a little clarity or uh structure a little differently that we would consider Mr.

Chair, if you I'm I can make a motion.

Well, I want to get their applicants.

They're not just staff, they're also applicants.

Um we're fine either way.

If you want it to be different and different enough, you want it to bring back, or if you want to just make a recommendation with some change of language or whatever.

I mean, I don't think we have strong preference either way.

Okay.

I think uh let me can I just quick question.

Sudden suddenly you've delved into another area.

Suddenly we get into infrastructure and if you get a exhibit.

I can't just sit back and not look at it and give you input.

That that would be not my job.

So it really gets into a whole new other file.

Yeah, it's nice to look at pictures, but now what is the infrastructure do?

And we have to comment on that.

Right.

I don't care if it's a sketch or whatever it is.

I can't I can't just sit and say, oh no, you can have 500 units there.

Well, suddenly the sort didn't work.

So would that start at the DRC then at that point?

That's why the constitution is a good thing.

So then it wouldn't make it to us, right?

Yeah, you can't uh take that sketch and not have some comments right from it.

I mean uh it's just not possible.

Well, and the way that this is written, that that might it might come to us the night of.

It might not be in our packet, right?

They might bring a exhibit to us that doesn't go through DRC.

Well, really, they should.

We're trying to discourage bringing anything that's courage, but not codify.

They they could bring something technically that the way that this is written.

And then it didn't go through a view of DRC or I mean, and again, so again, this is like an exhibit for general planner zone change.

So we do have the ability in DRC already to make comments, and we should be, right?

Of okay, they're wanting to go from low density to high density.

Right.

And you could say we don't want to.

If there's major concerns, we try and flag those already with these applications.

It just won't have comments of like, oh, it looks like your elevation doesn't have three articles articulations in the facade.

You need to do that.

You need, you know, you're gonna have to have uh sewer connection here.

Like it's just not gonna have comments like that that the concept plan does get because it's actual like site layout, they're asking for feedback on that, right?

Where the exhibit is I'm not really asking for feedback on the layout yet, because I just want to know if I can do it.

And so it it just it does change the process on staff's end a decent amount, right?

It's it's the review is a lot more intensive with a concept at DRC with an exhibit, it's just overall like, yeah, we can't support the extra 10 units you're gonna ask for here, or you know, like there's not water in this area.

It would still be comments that would come either way, but we're not getting into like site-specific comments.

Does it does it potentially give an unfair advantage to a larger developer that has the funds to put together a exhibit where a resident that is maybe going through a general plan amendment on their own property or a smaller developer that doesn't have the same resources?

They don't want to necessarily go ahead and put these big renderings together.

Not that that's what we're saying would come forth, but they could potentially come forth.

Worried that it creates an inequity in the process as well, where people that have more money resources to put towards that have a significant advantage to someone who doesn't have that capability.

Yeah, so we don't have anything that says what an exhibit needs to be.

So, you know, if it's just someone finding pictures online or whatever, yeah, that they're like, oh, this is kind of roughly what I'm thinking I want it to look like.

Um, you know, or they could draw out like I just want this commercial building here.

Like I don't think it has to be a huge inequality thing.

I mean, I think it already exists, right?

Like, yes, a developer might be like, I'm gonna pay a lot of money and get some beautiful renderings because I think it's gonna help me get this general plan amendment.

And we we've seen concept plans literally on paper.

Like and run.

And run.

Yeah.

I guess circling back to where Kim was, where it it's um really when we're dealing with a land use application, it really comes it comes down to the table of uses that they're asking for.

Like no matter what concept they given us, or no matter what exhibit they've provided, are we comfortable with the table of uses associated to that change?

Yes or no.

Right?

And the concept plan is nice because then we're like, oh, you've identified that use on that table, and this is how you're gonna lay it out, and that's great.

And how are the utilities?

Yeah, I it it's interesting.

I feel like as we keep talking, I can see all sides of the argument and it it's I agree.

But I almost wonder if it's kind of already what we do, and back to your original point.

Two things.

You talk about a lot of subdivisions don't really have a lot of layout.

I mean, yeah, they can be pretty, but whatever.

There's they're just it seems like we're mixing this density issue over here with commercials and all kinds of things.

Those are pretty pictures and things that you may want to see.

Over here, it's just a density issue.

That gets down to just infrastructure.

That's for zone changes too.

Maybe we're just mixing too many things.

Well, that's what this is into this particular require uh approval.

Yeah.

Well, before you make a motion, I know you're ready, uh, I want to make sure that the other commissioners have a chance to be a little bogottered over here on this side, but um but I there was one point I wanted to re-emphasize is that if they're not able to bring an exhibit currently because that's in code and it's prohibited.

I see the value in having a general plan amendment request include a visual to help us kind of see their vision, but we can't rely on that to make a determination unless it is at the level of a concept plan that can be submitted at the same time.

So I don't if if we can somehow clean it up to where we allow that going to our attorney's advice that would allow them to have uh an ability to share a visual image of their vision, then I think there's some room to put it into code.

But if they can already do that but just haven't, or they've been discouraged from that, but there's nothing in the code that says they can't, then I don't know that we need to codify that.

See what I'm saying?

If it's already maybe allowed by default, but if we if we feel the need to make it clear, then I I could get on board with that, but I do think there's a lot of things to consider.

It's not just a simple exhibit.

It's it's creating expectations for both the public and the commission.

But our hands are still tied if it's just an exhibit.

Can't consider that.

So anyway.

All right.

Um other commissioners, anything?

I just wonder if you can.

Nicole, you want to say something.

Does this is this happening so much that it that we need it, you know, or is it a matter of those ones?

Applicants just asking more questions than they maybe need to.

If it's in the code, then they they can do it.

Or I mean how how big of a problem is this for the city right now?

I think like what Kim said is just making it more clear for applicants.

Um I think it it will it also will make it more clear for DRC as we review.

It's really nice.

Does it make it as confusing as it does make it clear?

Do you think I think it just makes it clear?

I don't think it makes it more confusing.

I think the concept plan has been really confusing because even making a motion on a concept plan has been really hard because you're like, okay, it's approved subject to the general plan being approved.

We're an exhibit, it's obviously it's just part of the same approval.

So I think it'll make it clearer for everyone in a lot of cases if it's just an exhibit instead of having it be a concept plan that goes through with it.

I kind of think uh Commissioner Everett, you know, if to make it clear, could we just put something on the application and said, hey, you're welcome to bring in an exhibit, but we don't have to codify anything.

Obviously, it's you guys have thought about this and it's a clarity issue.

Well, that's kind of where I'm at.

It's like, okay, how is there other ways to make this clearer so people know they can bring something in if they want to?

I think from what we've understood too, is everything on our application should be tied back to our code.

They shouldn't be separate.

Yeah.

I mean you you'd ideally want to do it both places, allowed in code and then re emphasize it on the application that you have this option.

Yeah, we've gotten in trouble when we add things on the application that aren't in the code.

Especially if it's a requirement.

Now this one where it's like optional, I don't know.

But yeah, definitely like when we very first started thinking, well, traffic studies would probably be helpful on a lot of these.

So we put it on our application, that it was a requirement, and it was like, oh, it's not in the code.

So if it's not in the code, we can't, yeah, then that's thrown out as an invalid requirement.

Well, but you could still say you may want to include a traffic study not required, but it might help make your point or something like that, right?

Yeah, we could have done it.

And I'm I mean, my point is if if if exhibits are clearly barred from being part of a general plan amendment presentation before the planning commission or even city council, then I can see the need to change the code for that.

But if it's not, and that's just tradition or the way we've always done things, I don't know that we need to codify that.

But that's that's where I'm coming from.

Okay.

I've kind of gone to the position that I this again, I know I speak for myself.

I don't think any of you are with me on this, but uh I'm at I'm kind of feeling at the position that although it potentially provides clarity and some understanding for both us and the public, it cloudies it it clouds cloudies, flutters.

No, it clouds up the actual request at hand, which is land use.

And I I feel like seeing something, although it might look great and it might give us an understanding of what they want to do, that's not what we're voting on.

We're voting on what they could do based off of the amendment that they're requesting.

And I feel like seeing something clouds it for us and the public when that's not what is being requested.

What is they're not saying I want to build this, they're saying maybe we could build this on this property.

But the true request is I want an amendment to the general plan or a zone change that is for this, and that question is strictly a table of uses for this body, right?

Because we're not saying yes, that we're saying yes to the table of uses.

Yeah.

Now, City Council has full right to do a uh development agreement, and that might be way more appropriate for city council, but we don't have that power.

We can recommend that.

And so general plan amendment and zone change are the ones that are city council approval, right?

So that's why I think keeping the exhibit is and there's no way to apply for a development agreement.

We're actually looking at updating that code to really emphasize that it has to be tied to another land use application and it is a vote by the city council.

So it honestly will be really helpful for that too if someone's like, I really want a development agreement.

Well, we're like, you have to apply for a general plan zone change pretty much, right?

And to get it going.

And then if they have an exhibit, it makes it a lot easier for council to be like, yes, we love this exhibit that you're showing.

Let's write a development agreement around this exhibit.

And so it does help that whole process because we don't have another application that's just for a development agreement.

And you guys seeing the exhibit, yeah.

Like it in the end, you don't can't don't have any more power besides just positive negative recommendation, but the city council does to write a development agreement and codify or not require.

Is it maybe better to codify that it's okay at city council but not at planning commission?

Well, so you're the recommending body on those.

So we have the same information going.

But what would come to us would be the request for the general plan amendment or the zone change, right?

That would be a vision that we could then direct that would come to us, and they could describe their vision to us, but if they want to show that vision with the intent if we recommend a development agreement based off of some idea that they've described to us, then they could bring forth something to the city council when it gets to that stage.

Our recommendation in this context could always be we recommend or deny we recommend denial of this, do like specifically because of the exhibit presented.

And if separate exhibit had been presented, we may or may not have a recommended approval, right?

Like that's when the council would be like the exhibit.

I don't think we can.

If it's in code, you can.

That's what the they're saying.

But it says may, but doesn't mean that we're tied to accepting that.

Uh I'm torn because I love the idea of getting a picture, right?

Of getting a vision, but I'm but the hard part for me, and I think the disservice to the public is we're not voting on that picture.

We're voting on the table of uses.

Not the presentation that's being put in front of our face.

Am I wrong?

Am I making this too messy?

No, I think you make a good call.

I like to do general planned amendments with concept plans, and I like to combine the item and then vote separately.

Right.

Like I actually think that that gives the most transparency to the public.

And general plan amendments are they should be rare.

And they you they should be very difficult to achieve because everyone in Lehigh has invested based on that plan.

And it should be if you want a general plan amendment, you need to spend the time and money to get a concept plan to be a part of that.

So this just muddies that water by bringing this allows an interim kind of idea, which we could still then consider as part of an approval process.

That if this is really what you're thinking, I mean the final decision is still city council.

Right.

We could say we approve this general plan amendment request.

Um recommend approval to the city council if it falls in line with what and there's a development agreement.

But that just makes it muddy for us.

I I I I it's either the concept plan or I don't have an idea.

I I don't have a problem with a vision being presented to us, even graphically or visually or whatever.

But I don't know that we need to codify that because now we start to create some expectations and puts planning commission in kind of a tough spot, I think.

I'm just worried that it sends a signal to the public that we're in support of this vision, but that's not what the vote is.

That's not what our vote is.

But we'd have to provide as part of our motion a recommendation of a without a vision.

Because if you're an applicant coming before us, you're gonna try and do everything you can to sway us to or towards approval.

That's a right.

That's that's part of the process.

Right.

So if they're gonna want to come in with with hey, on the table of uses, this is my pursuit.

But even though you're to your point, you're right, that's like what we're voting on.

Right, but without the exhibit, which is why you can bring a concept plan or not.

I don't yeah.

You can go all the way around seven times.

Does legal have any input guidance for what we've discussed?

Are you representing the applicant or the commission?

Oh, I don't even know.

Most of the words I don't understand.

Um from legal's perspective, this is questioning do you want to consider exhibits as factors when making these amendments?

If you feel that they'd be too overly swayed, then go against them.

Like if you feel like if they bring up a flashy plan, then I'm gonna be like, yeah, absolutely, then I'd go against it.

If you feel like it made you question that.

But if you don't feel like that, and with factors, you can assign weight to it.

So in the legal world, when giving weight to factors, you will say, okay, you've brought an exhibit, we're giving that a weight of one, but whereas your other stuff that you submitted, and I do apologize, I don't know much about this.

Um I'm giving more weight to these factors, and you can say, we don't really give much sway to your exhibits, but it's nice to see.

So I don't know that it binds you to accepting based on those plans, it if you feel like they'd be unduly persuasive, though.

Yeah.

Well, I could see pluses or minuses to that.

I don't know.

But the bottom line is if it's a concept plan, that gets approved and stops with us, but the the general plan amendment still has to be approved by and so it's gonna be contingent upon the city council's approval of the of a of a uh general plan amendment.

Which one is I kind of like.

Well, I oh yeah, that's how it should be.

That's that's how it should be.

But I I think this creates another factor.

I appreciate using that word, council.

Um that do we want to have in our quiver of consideration or not?

Granted, it's not super clear how that would be used.

I also like a visual of what's your intention.

But you're right.

The bottom line is anything that we're deciding on has to be tied to that table of uses, and they're not bound by that with an exhibit, so we could be swayed by with a pretty picture.

I'd hate to think that we would fall to that, but you know.

We all have for other things in our lives, perhaps.

Anyway, that's my thought.

It also gives it uh maybe an under advantage to what Tyson was saying earlier to the rich, yeah.

Or the those with resources.

Resources, yes.

Okay.

Well, great robust discussion.

Is there any any further discussion?

I could go to I can make a motion.

You would like to make a motion?

I'm not sure if it'll go through, but I can try.

Well, you certainly are able to make a motion.

I allow you that privilege.

Okay.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

On item 3.3 public hearing and oh, did we do a public hearing?

We already did a public hearing and closed public hearing.

Public hearing and recommendation of Lehigh City.

That's right.

Of Lehigh City's request for review of a development code amendment to chapter four, adding an exhibit for general plan, zoning, and development code amendments.

I move that we table this item to allow the applicant to pursue language that would maximize transparency of intent for the residents commission and council to consider while also streamlining the process.

Um that streamlining the process in such a way that the applicants' entitlements to the final outcome of the development of their property is clear at time of hearing.

Did that make sense?

Do you want me to be honest?

Not really.

Those were all English words.

Well we have a motion to table.

For this for the applicant to work on a la on language that will increase transparency of the intent of the applicant for the public, the planning commission and the city council to consider.

But while also streamlining and a and allowing the applicant to provide additional resources without granting vested rights or specific outcomes for the applicant.

That's because I think that's what we've been trying to do this whole time.

Okay, that's a motion.

That's my try.

Is is there a second to the motion?

I'll second.

Any discussion to the motion?

I I'll just tell you my opinion before well, you'll hear it when I vote.

But I think we're already there.

I think we're to the point where we can push back.

They can always come back with a new um request for changing the code.

So anyway, but that's neither here nor there.

So we have a motion and a second.

All in favor of the motion to table say aye.

Aye.

Those opposed?

Nay.

I'm against it.

I think we're there.

But um the code if you can vote for the right.

That's right.

I don't think we need it.

That's why I was gonna ready to if we were to take another vote, I would probably vote in a uh to deny, but that's okay.

That's why we have five of us.

We can all share our opinions.

We all vote how we see fit in the where we are with what's there.

So I guess that's direction back to the staff.

Table it, bring it back, try to address the concerns we've brought.

I think the language I provide earlier helps address at least one of my concerns earlier.

I I do see some benefit of having people bring visuals, but if unless it's already specifically barred, I don't know that we need an amendment to the code to do that, but uh I'm not the expert there, unfortunately.

Um but that's four to one.

So it's tabled.

We'll see you back here uh next meeting, but not necessarily for this item.

We have city business.

Kim, anything for us or Britney?

Um I'll cover one item and then I'll let Brittany cover the other one.

We just wanted to let you know that the downtown revitalization plan and station area plan for the state street transit station has gone out for public input.

It's on our engaged Lehigh website.

Um and it's now will well, I don't think we posted the public hearing, but it will be posted for your next meeting.

So just be on the lookout.

Um we have a link to the you know the final version.

It's still draft.

I mean it could still be receive input, but we should we'll get you that so that you have more than just the typical, you know, five days or seven days to review it.

So that's gonna be coming before us at some point in the case.

Yeah, next meeting 23rd.

Yep.

Question based on the joint work session that we have with city council and planning commission, were there changes made to that draft?

Yes.

Yeah, we took out the any idea or you know, the concept of commercial along first east.

Really?

Um yeah.

Yeah, then I think they just amended some of the language about the mills district.

I think that those were two that I remember off the top of my head, but was that in an effort to I I know we had talked about parking at Lehigh High School and not drawing more over to the mills district, more like parking issues.

Do you know if that's how they change that?

I think it still shows that we want some additional development in that area, but it leaves it a little bit more, you know, a little less specific on it.

So yeah, I mean that's tied to the high school.

We we are working on the high school parking issue, independent of the plan.

But so anyways, yeah, it would probably be good to get you the link to the plan.

It's on it's if you're part of engaged Lehigh, it's on there.

But we'll send out an email so that you don't have to go look for that on the engaged Lehigh.com.

Yeah, yeah, we'll send you the link.

And then yours was starting to work on updating the design standards.

So part of it came from City Council wanting us to look at exceptions and um so we're gonna try and tighten up some districts and then uh maybe dissolve some and combine them.

So we're gonna start that on engaged lee high, just input from everyone.

But if you want to go on and provide feedback and then we'll do a work, a joint work session probably when we get closer to having changes.

But just wanted to make you aware and invite you to participate from the beginning.

Thank you.

Okay.

Any uh you want to give any teasers to specific ones that are looking at being eliminated or consolidated?

I mean uh we discussed a lot on like I think it was PUDs with the different facades and different design.

This is a long time ago.

Yeah.

So I mean looking at like maybe the more of the commercial consolidating some of the commercial There's a lot of redundancy.

Like there, you know, there's the Mills district, the um urban tech district, and a lot of those have very similar, if not exactly the same, like each wall should have three variations and it just keeps repeating itself.

So we're gonna try and I don't know, package it differently so that it just says for wall variations in all of these districts, this is our standard.

So that it collapses some of those that are just it's just this repetitive yeah simplify.

Those are uh the one's been a big effort in process and the other one looks like it's gonna be a another big effort that will help streamline some things.

So Mr.

Chair.

Just one other thing.

I just want to thank the public who came tonight.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts and uh we appreciate you being here.

And uh with that I'd take a motion to adjourn.

Mr.

Chair, with no further business to come before the planning commission at this time.

I Commissioner Ayer moved to adjourn the meeting.

I was very formed.

Wow.

Okay.

And we have a motion, a second to adjourn.

All in favor say aye.

Aye opposed.

Motion carries good night, everyone.

To be clear, that's how she writes it in the in the minutes.

That's how you write it.