Very good.

Well, it is the magic bewitching hour of seven o'clock.

So let's get started.

Like to officially welcome everyone to this Lehigh Planning Commission meeting, November 13th, 2025.

Go ahead and call things to order and move into the consent agenda.

Items 2.1 and 2.2.

We could hear those together, I believe, unless there's something someone else caught.

I think you're about to make a motion.

Before you do, uh it was brought to my attention that line what was it?

291 on 2.2.

Although I think the word swindled was used.

That word has a connotation that probably was not what was intended.

I I believe the word misled might be better, even though swindled was the word that we did use.

That was not the intent of that.

Yeah.

So again, the minutes I did say the word swindled, I believe, but uh misled was more of the intent.

So make everything as neutral as possible.

So anyway, sorry.

All right.

Well, Mr.

Chair, I'd like to make a motion.

Please.

That for the consent agenda, the approval of the meeting minutes from October 2nd and the October 9th meetings.

That we approve those with the correction that has been raised by Commissioner Ayer.

I think it has to say what you said.

Okay.

You can review the tape.

You he reviewed it.

And so what I can say believe I use the word swindle.

You don't, or do I do believe I did?

What you can say you can approve the minutes with the addition with the additional comment of clarification.

Was to use the word misled.

Yes.

So noted.

Second.

Okay.

Motion is second.

All is in favor.

Aye.

Any opposed.

All right.

Then into the regular agenda.

3.1.

Caden?

Yeah.

You're on deck, sir.

Done.

All right.

Oh, sorry.

Let's give Caden the proper introduction.

Can't please start away.

Yeah.

Caden uh is our intern.

He's a BYU student right now.

He graduates a year.

In December.

December.

Oh.

It is eminent.

Yeah, the end of the year.

Yeah, I was thinking it was next spring.

Uh, but anyways, Katie normally would have been here.

She sprained her ankle.

So Caden's gracious enough to fill in and I'll be helping.

So anyways, but yeah, we welcome Caden.

This will be great experience for him.

So how much uh prep did you have today?

Oh, yeah, excuse me, I've never done this before.

So uh if I make any mistakes, uh you've been entering it for a while.

I mean you're going to a decent school, so I'm sure.

Yeah, it's all right.

Well, then he's sad.

All right.

3.1 Caden.

Okay, 3.1.

This is uh public hearing and recommendation, the downtown vitalization plan and state street station area plan, including parts of Main Street and State Street.

The stationary plan provides a framework for future development and is not a regulatory document, but rather a document to influence what development could look like for both the station area and downtown area.

This was a collaborative effort between city staff, residents, planning commission, and city council.

Additionally, Sam Taylor from Landmark Design will have a brief presentation to share with new updates.

Very good.

Questions for staff.

I'm sorry, I didn't have a question first.

Is this updated from the last time we talked about this last time?

Yes.

And Sam will kind of walk us through.

He did make some updates to the plan based on DRC comments.

And um, I don't know if there's any really specific feedback that came out of our public hearing last time, but uh and I would say uh we did our best efforts.

You noticed the boards as you walked in the lobby.

We tried to make that that's been up since the day after our last meeting.

It was also uh we put a banner page on the city website.

So when you logged into Lehigh City, if you went to Lehigh City's website, the banner came up showing this.

And I'm trying to think what else we did.

We did a uh social media blast.

Um I know Jean Thiel, who's our PIO reached out to the free press and we did a um press release or like a blog.

And I don't know if they ever ran an actual story, but anyways, we tried to do everything we could in the last two weeks to give everyone as much opportunity to comment.

And Sam will explain that we did get a few more responses.

It wasn't massive or overwhelming like maybe we had hoped, but he'll review with us what we have done already as part of this plan.

We did a statistically significant survey early on in the plan that had you know 500 and some odd responses, but I I don't want to steal uh Sam's thunder.

So well then let's get to on online you want, Kim.

Can you guys hear me okay?

Can you guys hear me okay?

Yes.

Okay.

All right.

Um thanks for the introduction, Kim.

Um I will start off here if this is coming through with our progress update.

I'm gonna start with just uh changes made to the document since our last meeting.

So the DRC uh finished providing comments on the plan.

And uh one of the the larger items that came up was some concern over the provided unit counts that were outlined in the plan.

Um these were really put in there as an ideal build scenario um to help with traffic analysis, economic impact analysis, and we're not really intended to be um exact numbers that uh were to be met as targets or anything.

So we've integrated some language expressing those counts now as up to ranges um and also some additional language, uh kind of explaining what I just said that these this is a scenario for analysis, and that there are in reality um some significant utility constraints um for some of these areas that need wouldn't need to be worked out and studied further in order to um you know make sure that whatever proposed development uh comes to the table uh is capable to be supported.

So um, or that those utilities are upgraded.

Um that's the biggest change that has come out of the DRC comments um to the plan.

The uh stationary land use map um was also refined to better match the concept uh plan that was uh provided in that chapter.

Um we had some discrepancies there uh where one seemed to be telling a different story than the other, so they're more coordinated now.

Um and uh we have a better description of the downtown green loop concept, which basically was to say that uh is your uh bike greenways uh throughout the downtown area come online that they should uh ultimately be linked together in a sort of loop concept that allows people to cycle around the the district um rather than just being independent uh separated uh routes.

Um and then we have a few minor uh revisions or clarifications for grammar, comprehension, um, graphic layout, etc.

So um so overall pretty pretty minor stuff really um to changes to the plan.

But I think that these changes do help uh clarify a couple ideas and and also help uh integrate some of the the language that uh uh that helps uh really make sure that the plan is understood as a as a reference and not intended to be holding anyone to the fire for uh certain unit counts.

Um here's the uh engagement of the uh the public engagement summary, and this gets at the all the different things that we've done through this process.

Um, just as a reminder to us all.

Um we've had multiple interactions with the public at various stages of this process.

Kim mentioned in particular the statistically valid survey um which Y2 analytics conducted, which had 542 responses.

And uh we have leaned heavily on that survey for our our data input.

The committees and the public open house meetings and the comments we've received on the website have largely reinforced a lot of the same ideas.

And so I think that I'll I'll I'm going to share a few highlights from that survey this evening that kind of helped to uh reinforce some of the ideas that we put forward in the plan just to kind of serve as a foundation.

We have put the uh put put the push on for uh getting the eyes on the draft plan review as Kim mentioned and we were able to increase uh our responses to the questionnaire up from 21 to 54 um obviously nowhere close to the 542 we got with our community survey so it's still not necessarily statistically valid uh look at uh the plan but we were able to glean some general uh feedback concerns that people had uh primarily centered around you know adding additional housing units um didn't seem to correlate to one particular area or another just you know the addition of uh whether it was in the station area or the mills district or downtown all the comments sort of centered around concern for adding additional housing uh density and etc and that the uh the traffic impacts that could be uh brought about by that locally as well as some concerns uh regarding the main street uh walkability improvements that are proposed in the plan uh that that could also impact some of the local and regional traffic um at the same time the comments do generally support uh bringing new establishments downtown the active transportation improvements uh transit station area improvements and the historic preservation um guidelines for the for the area so um so some positive but also a little bit of concern um i think that's not uh you know unfounded nor is it uh something we haven't heard already during this process um i'm gonna just quickly go over a few slides here that just hit some highlights from the Y2 survey um as I mentioned these these ideas did form a foundation for some of the things that are going on here in the plan um one there's a huge uh interest in the residents that took the survey for restaurants entertainment retail shopping uh green spaces performing arts center um you know lots of these sort of reasons to come to downtown um to be located within the area um similarly folks are uh see a great opportunity for downtown Lehigh to be a family friendly community centered area with all these things to do so um we we kind of took that as a as a key theme and ran with that and um you know in order to support those uses uh that's where kind of the the housing and the the added rooftops to the districts uh comes from so that those businesses actually have the the foot traffic to be able to be viable um there was a question asked to the public regarding mixed use within the downtown area and uh overall people were supportive of uh mixed use residential commercial buildings so um that is in large part why we have uh proposed that use for this area um but you know the plan also very much allows for other use types for residential buildings um within the downtown area too and ultimately a mix of all all the uses within this uh study area are going to be important for making a thriving district um we've heard from the beginning the the communities uh concerns over the transportation on main street and and we're we've definitely have been aware of the the parking concerns the traffic concerns um at the same time we've had uh you know a lot of support for uh pedestrian friendly walk uh development and walkability on main street um and uh so you can see here in the bottom two questions that conflict where the first is looking at the pedestrian friendly development over car oriented development and uh the second is prioritizing traffic flow and parking so um it's it it has it is definitely a uh a back and forth uh sort of yo-yo on this issue and unfortunately it's it's really just quite difficult to accommodate both um within such a tight space so kind of uh from the planning team's sort of synthesis of you know the the comments we've received um so far and the and looking back to these details um from what we've heard in our previous public engagement um as I've mentioned the there's that strong resident preference for mixed use and dining and retail um and that's accounted for in the plan um these uses though do require that increased foot traffic and so that's why the additional housing is proposed in specific targeted areas and we haven't um you know tried to spread that everywhere but tried to concentrate it in specific districts to support um

Um as I mentioned, uh there's that strong resident preference for mixed use and dining and retail, um, and that's accounted for in the plan.

Um these uses though do require that increased foot traffic, and so that's why the additional housing is proposed in um specific targeted areas, and we haven't um you know tried to spread that everywhere, but tried to concentrate it in specific districts to support um those commercial uses locally.

Um the traffic analysis and parking uh analysis shows that there is ample parking for downtown.

Uh there's actually an excess of spaces based on what we would expect for uses um in the downtown area, but it's not always as conveniently located as visitors would like.

So I'm not being able to park, say, right outside the building.

Um, but you might have to walk a block or two.

Uh the main street walkability was favored ultimately in and the recommendations for main street um due to that resident preference.

And uh, but ultimately we um, you know, there's when it comes time to reevaluate the streetscape.

Um there's gonna be some engineering design and analysis to further um make sure that the bet traffic flow is balanced.

And we've added some additional notes to the plan um in previous iterations to kind of emphasize that.

Ultimately, the the thought behind you know the future of Main Street is that regional traffic should hopefully shift to the other routes, such as Pioneer Crossing and 207th, I think it's called.

Um and take up uh those routes should take up a lot of the regional pass-through traffic and uh you know, free of main street for being um sort of a different use than we're kind of familiar with today is uh east-west uh pass-through corridor.

Um but uh you know, the key to remember with all this uh and it was stated at the very beginning of introducing this plan.

This this plan is sort of a framework for visualizing development.

Um and it's looking at the end of the road.

So there's lots of opportunity along the way to evaluate and and adjust um as things come on here.

Everything in the plan is intended to be incremental as and uh you know the the intention really is to guide um primarily land use uh regulatory changes that would allow for some of these things to come in and and then to uh take those incremental steps as those developments show up to adjust and pivot.

Um so that that's kind of uh our synthesis of what we've heard um what and coupled with our analysis and uh what we kind of still holding to some of these recommendations that are in the plan.

Um Kim, is there anything else you want to say to um thoughts that you have or we can open up for discussion?

No, I think that was a really good summary of where we've been and where we're at now, and we we really appreciate Sam and Landmark, they've done a really good job in responding and uh preparing the plan.

So I don't have anything to add.

I have a question if I may.

Yeah.

Is there a general accepted definition of statistically relevant?

There is.

Um, and I'm not a static statistician, so I can't quite remember the uh threshold.

Um, but there's a level of confidence that's struck within a certain percentage margin.

So um if I if I may Sam, I believe it's within uh a three percent plus or minus.

Yeah, you get a few hundred people in a city of our size, um, as long as the methods um are properly executed, it's uh you're not gonna change kind of like how uh the election results when they can predict it, it's because they've counted so many ballots, it's just not gonna move much.

Um it's the same concept.

So curious because when you do the math, we're looking at half a percentage point responded.

Yeah, right.

Which again, I'm very grateful for all the responses that we did see, but yeah, that doesn't seem significant to me.

But uh, but again, I was curious if there was a definition of that.

Yeah, so you know, it's but yeah, it's I mean it I understand like it can sound like how can that speak, but no, that it really does.

The Y2 analytics that did the survey, they're the same company that does our yearly, you know, just general resident survey.

They're a very reputable company.

That's what they do for a living, is to do surveys and make sure that they are statistically significant.

That's hard to say.

But yeah, the the most recent outreach was really just we were trying to make sure the public knew, hey, this plan is nearing adoption.

So I don't think we were really after, you know, a statistical analysis type input like we did at the beginning.

Anyways, but yeah, that Y2 analytics, they're very there, they are the statisticians and they make sure everything is valid.

So we feel good about that original survey.

So any other questions for staff.

Uh question for engineering in the DRC comments.

It looks like you made the comment this should be given several weeks to look over and make comments on.

Has that been fulfilled?

It has, yeah.

They we've had several weeks to look it over.

That we have.

Um all right.

Well, this is a public hearing.

Uh so at this point, let's go ahead and open it up to the public uh for any comment.

All right.

See no comments.

We'll go ahead and close that and bring it back to the commission for discussion or a vote.

Don't everyone pipe up at once.

That's any please.

We've poured over this.

Yeah.

All right.

Item 3.1 public hearing and recommendation of the downtown revitalization plan and state street station area plan, including parts of Main Street and State Street.

We tabled this on October 23rd, 2020 25.

Did I say 20 to the right number?

Okay.

It was about 20.

All right.

Um, I think we should give this a positive recommendation to city council.

Uh finding that the proposed station area plan meets the requirements for station area plan in the state code.

Uh the proposed station area plan helps Lehigh City meet one of our moderate income housing goals.

Um the proposed station area plan envisions how to make the future transit successful while also considering the needs of vehicle and active transportation networks.

Uh this reflects the feedback given by residents, landowners, elected officials, and city staff.

And please include all DRC comments.

Motion and a second, all is in favor.

Uh any opposed.

Very good.

Item 3.2.

Item 3.2 is public hearing and consideration or recommendation, excuse me, of Jordan Lee's request for you.

Forgive me.

Oh, changing the guard real quick.

Oh, sorry about that.

No, you have nothing to apologize for that.

That's on me.

Bo, thank you, sir.

Mr.

Chair, if I may, I just want to clarify recused myself because on the planning commission, you um, if we talk to the public prior to an uh uh public hearing, we can't vote on that item.

And during the campaign, I spoke to the public about that item.

So I just wanted to be true to my integrity and recuse myself.

Respect and appreciate it.

Caden, you may now continue, sir.

All right, item 3.2 is a public hearing and recommendation of Jordan Lee's request for a view of the Lee zone change on.5 acres located at 1035 West Main Street, changing the zoning from RA1 to commercial.

This this proposed zone change matches the general plan designation of commercial, and its intention is to facilitate commercial development.

And with that, I'll turn um questions to the commission.

Thank you very much.

I have a quick question.

Hey, at least Caden or Kim is across the street commercial or is that neighborhood commercial?

Because when I was looking at the general plan, I thought the north side of the street directly across is neighborhood commercial.

It is neighborhood, yeah, neighborhood commercial.

So this uh try and zoom in here.

That is the almost current general plan.

So that's why the general plan does not show this particular piece as commercial.

But yeah, across the street is neighborhood commercial.

And same to the west, it looks like, right?

One lot down is there isn't there isn't commercial as the stated in a portion of the justification for this all along Main Street.

I just want to make sure we pointed out that it's neighborhood commercial was very different.

Yeah.

Potentially.

Yeah.

Good point.

Thank you.

All right.

Other questions for staff.

Is the applicant present?

Sir.

If you'd like to speak to this item.

You do so this time.

You're coming up to the mic if you'd like to state your name and be happy to hear from you.

You also don't have to speak if you choose not to.

Tyler to you.

My name's Robert Lee.

Um I spoke with you guys before.

So I mean, think about you know, it's it's pretty simple plan as far as what we're trying to accomplish.

I was under the assumption from when we spoke past when I looked at the planning before that directly across the street was commercial and then it was mixed use next to it, and then neighborhood commercial on the same side of the street a few doors down.

Um I guess I must have been wrong about that, but from the maps I was looking at, that's you know, that's what we talked about in the past.

And yeah, we're just trying to go forward with our business plan.

Very good.

Any can I sit down or does anybody have questions?

Any questions for the applicant?

You can sit down, sir.

Thank you, Mr.

Liddy.

Just to clarify, I'll pull up the that it may be the actual zoning is what he's stating, and what I had was the general plan.

Okay.

Uh so there you go.

This is so we are here.

So it actually on the general plan is neighborhood commercial, but the current zoning is commercial, same as what they're asking.

Okay, and is that um there an attention to was that recently changed?

Because I'm pulling up the one on the website, and it shows neighborhood commercial directly across the street with commercial slash residential to the west of the north side of the street.

I was just curious.

I mean, yeah, and are you looking at the zoning or general plan?

General plan.

Yeah.

Yeah.

That's neighborhood commercial.

The zoning is commercial.

Yes, yes.

Thank you for that.

So general plan is different than the current zoning on that piece to the north.

And this is the zone, the current zone.

That I've got display.

All right.

So this is accurate as to what it really is.

To for zoning, yes.

Yeah.

Where is the parceling that we're uh talking about tonight?

Right here.

Right there.

Yep.

And I can put the general plan on if you just wanted to compare.

Yeah, like all right.

Well, and that parcel's already been accepted by the city council as commercial.

Yeah, yeah.

And that hasn't been updated yet because it was so recent.

Like I said, it takes our GIS guy a month or two to but yeah, this should show as commercial now.

That was just approved in October.

Okay, so we would be putting commercial next to commercial.

No, we're putting commercial next to neighbor.

The general plan is designated as commercial commercial.

Commercial next to neighbor.

Next to neighborhood commercial.

So it's already been approved as a general plan change.

So the next step would be change requests, which is what's come before us tonight.

Right.

Okay.

Uh all right.

Well, this is a public hearing.

So does anyone from the public like to speak to this item?

Now is the time.

All right, seeing none, we will go ahead and close it, bringing that back to the commission for uh deliberation or a motion.

Okay.

Item 3.2 public hearing a recommendation of Jordan Lee's request for review of the Lee zone change on uh 0.5 acres located at 1035 West Main Street, changing the zoning from RA1 to commercial.

Um move that we recommend approval uh to the city council with the findings that the effect of the proposed amendment um will bring or excuse me that the change will bring a consistency with the general plan uh and that the consistency with the compatibility of the proposed zone with the general plan land uses and nearby adjoining properties uh will be uh again bring it into um conformance with the general plan.

Um love the way these other findings are written, to be honest, but I will include all DRC comments.

Okay.

Did Brent have a motion as second some reason motion and second, all those in favor.

I mean posed.

You're in business, Mr.

Lee.

Item 3.3.

Item 3.3 is a public hearing and consideration of Lyndon Dangerfield's request for conditional use approval of the Platinum Peak flag lot to be located at 850 north, 1200 east.

This is the R1 flex zone and meets all of the requirements.

There are two lots for this subdivision.

The first will be over 10,000 square feet, and the second will be 32,000 square feet.

The proposed lot also meets the frontage requirements of 80 feet for the front lot and 20 feet for the stem.

The applicant will need to remove a portion of the garage and will need to provide a one-car garage to replace the existing one.

Just want to remind you that flag lots are conditional uses.

The planning commission may place conditions on the orientation of the home or buffering to mitigate against any potential impacts beyond that of a regular single family home.

And I'll turn it back to the commission.

Thank you very much.

Questions for staff?

Yeah, I have a question relative to the garage that's gotta be removed in order for this uh drive aisle would be fit.

The replacement, does it need to be an enclosed garage or can it be a carport?

Uh we do require one parking stall for each single family detached home to be in an enclosed garage.

So and yeah, they can go anywhere behind here and the other side or whatever, right?

Yeah.

Okay.

Yeah, and I think they have an idea of what how they're gonna handle that.

I think they'll convert some of this space back to a garage.

So, but I'll let them speak to that.

Thanks, Kim.

Very good.

Well then.

No no further questions.

Uh is the applicant present.

Sir, if you'd like to speak to it.

I am Lyndon Dangerfield, uh, the owner of the property there.

And yes, to Kim's point, um, that garage there, uh, the majority of it will be removed in order to meet our 20-foot setback and our PUE for utilities.

Um the red brick wall that's in the middle there will remain so that we can keep that covered.

Uh, it was a uh a breezeway that has at some point had a roof put over it, but that'll be converted back into a garage, an enclosed parking uh space, one car garage.

And then we're exploring options for something in the back for potentially additional parking.

Um, but just wanted to reiterate that I know you know some of the neighbors' concerns in the past were that we were going to be seeking to do something more than a single family home on the property, and that that's not the case.

Um we would be subdividing it into a three-quarter acre lot and a quarter acre lot with the existing home remaining on the quarter acre, and then a three-quarter acre lot with the flag, the flag lot um for a potential new home.

Very good.

Questions.

All right.

Thank you.

Thank you.

This is a public hearing.

Does anyone for the public like speak of this item?

Now is the time.

State your name.

Go ahead.

Mike Bailey live uh a couple houses to the south at 8:30.

Um just express the opinion that uh we were unhappy with the zoning change to start.

Now we're still unhappy with any kind of you know, sub uh subdividing the property.

We don't want a house in the back.

I just don't want it back there.

It's open fields all around it.

It sticks out like a sore thumb, whatever you put back there.

Um, so uh if there was something back there, definitely want it facing west, period.

You know, nothing north or south, so it's staring into our yards.

Um I just don't want anything back there, you know, big and gaudy or anything like that.

So that's the extent.

Just unhappy with it, but you know, we'll we'll grant and bear it, you know, as long as it's not big and gaudy and facing into our yards.

Anyone else?

Okay.

We'll go ahead and close public comment then and uh bring it on back to the commission.

Um talking about house orientation, and um we can also delineate and talk about want to be of course sensitive to Mr.

Bailey's concerns, and then of course there are also rights versus recommendations.

Um obviously it's it's a flag line it being zoned as as it is.

Uh there's there's a right to develop here.

What um what lines do we have to potentially draw?

Yeah.

Um so so you're correct, it is zone, and and so legally they have the right to request what they have uh for the flag lot, but it does it's a conditional use, so you can impose reasonable conditions.

Uh and one of those could be the way that the home is oriented, so that could be a condition of of approval is that the home had to face as pointed out in the public hearing versus north or south.

Um we've done that on other flag lots in the past.

So I think that's probably one of the biggest maybe considerations to keep in mind if you want to do that.

Um beyond that, yeah.

Uh it's it's allowed in the zone.

Um if there's other conditions, I would say if the lot was smaller, if it's under eight, or excuse me, if it's I think it's eight thousand to ten thousand square feet, you can impose a fencing and landscaping requirement, but where this is such a big plot, it's three quarters of an acre.

There's it it falls out of that realm.

So it is quite elongated.

Um I'm sorry, sir.

We're once public comments closed, I'm not able to take further comments.

I do apologize.

I am sorry.

These Roberts rules there, what we use to keep uh fist fights from breaking out in public meetings.

And so we we we open and then we close public comments.

Um I realize this opens the door for anyone to comment again, but I really don't think we're gonna end up here for two hours.

I'm gonna go ahead and reopen public comment, sir.

Calling forward.

And I want to have Porsche Pro keep it.

Right now, it has a field fence going down that the fence, and if he moves it, I want a fence I can't see through or see over.

I don't want somebody messing with my horse building back there.

This this ground is horse proper, turn down that street.

I don't want somebody to mess with my horse to a field fence.

I got I probably a third of the fence I put up myself.

So if he moves there, and then I'm again required to put up a decent fence between my proper and his.

Yes, a a good fence.

You you're wanting an impermeable fence.

To keep my horse in, but you've got what right now?

Field fence.

Field fence.

So I want it fence, I can't see through or see over.

Or something messed with my horse.

That makes sense.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

And uh, is there anyone else from the public as it has been reopened?

That right is again there.

All right.

I'll go ahead and close public comment and uh just friendly reminders we get to next items.

You have a comment, please go ahead and get it out while uh while public comments open.

Fight that shyness.

Come on up.

We don't buy Tyson does, but he hasn't in a long while.

All right, Jim.

So um what I'm saying.

Record the intent of what I meant.

It's the intent.

Uh uh, let's see.

So we're talking about uh orientation and then let's let's also talk about fences there.

Um is a fence a reasonable request.

I'll lean on Craig to see if he agrees, but I I would think fencing would be reasonable um or within that realm of conditions that you could impose.

I would say to the south of this property is RA1.

So I I should have actually thought about that when I was talking about the fencing.

If the if you're adjacent to agricultural, which RA1 is one of those agricultural zones that allows animal rights, we would normally require as a minimum the right to farm fence to the north is actually that property owner to the north is R18, which is not even though there's agricultural uses there, it's not an agricultural zone.

So unfortunately that requirement would not apply.

But I would I would say that fencing is could be considered as part of the conditional use if it's to mitigate articulate as to individual the rights of adjoining property.

Yeah.

Okay.

Well how good we are with articulation.

Okay.

Yes.

Or okay.

Well, um Mr.

Chair, can I ask a question of the applicant?

Of course.

Can we do that?

The applicant wouldn't mind coming back and asking a question.

Um, do you already have the plans in place for that second home?

No.

Do you have any ideas or suggestions of the way you're going to orient it?

I mean, it it just seems actually natural to orient it exactly how they would prefer.

Um two, if you look actually to the to the south, um, three lots down, there are four lots or five lots in a row that have already performed this same uh if you keep going uh this same exact flag lot and they have oriented the the way that they would prefer.

And that would be my natural, I mean the back of the house would be looking out at Timpanogas, and there's no obstruction behind my property.

So I wouldn't want it turned to facing the back their backyard says they're fearful of.

So yeah, I mean, I have no issues if that was a conditional thing.

Sure, we'll meet that.

Great.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Uh while while I have you up here, just to keep me within within the rules myself.

Um I forget the gentleman's last name, Keith.

His property is Hall, Mr.

Hall's property is where along just for the north.

Just to the north.

Okay, right.

And I did want to make that same note.

Um that Kim had pointed out that I was aware of as well.

And in my conditions, um, already that we had talked about was uh needing to put up an agricultural fence on my south end because she is uh Linda is zoned as uh the agricultural, but to my north where Keith is located, his is not so they did not impose that yet.

Um I would in my argument, I I mean I wouldn't really want to have the additional you know 15, 20,000 cost for 500 feet of fence.

Okay.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chair, may I ask the question of staff?

What if that agricultural rights in R18?

Right one, if you have it's I'll I'll give a rough summary from memory.

Um it's basically two horses per half acre.

You this is RA1, because she has the R1.

Um, so just want to make sure we're answering the right.

I thought you said R I know because that's the agricultural.

I probably get where you jump there.

But we've got a horse in R18.

So we need to basically they would be grandfathered.

It's just whatever rights were there.

I I don't know the history on this, how long it's been zoned, R18.

I think it's been a number of years.

So it's probably just you know, as the city has evolved, and at one point this was zoned R18.

So they're allowed to keep whatever animals have been there historically, right?

Uh and and as long as if it goes without animals for a year, then they would actually lose those rights.

So it's just kind of a grandfathered right.

Got it.

But they do, you know, it allows just like any other R18 would be um dogs, cats, rabbits and ducks and chickens, those smaller animals.

You can have in an R18, but the large animals, there's no right in the R18 other than the grandfather.

Other than the grandfather, right?

So Mr.

Hall is absolutely good.

Keep his horse there.

Yes, yes, but doesn't have the same protections that the RA1 has.

Okay.

Unfortunately not, yeah.

Yep.

Okay.

Thank you.

So talking all this through, I'll throw this out.

And of course, you all can make a motion.

Uh but it sounds like uh we can and I would say should uh make a condition that the house be oriented westward.

The applicant is more than willing to do so.

So uh and I mean it feels natural as as well.

But of course, we can't go off of what just feels natural.

The fact that he's willing, the fact that's been requested.

Putting it in riding simply it is assuring to the neighbors and with all parties agreeable.

I think that in and of itself makes move any deeper question.

Um it does sound like on uh uh Mr.

Hall's lot to the north, there is not a legal cause for us to uh impose the uh the fence on the applicant.

Well, and that's I think where I'm kind of wrestling is I really value those grandfather's rights.

Um and I believe, you know, when they've owned their property for that long and and they're you know, at the mercy of a city planner painting a general plan every 10 years or so, right?

I I do want to respect that.

And so I'm I'm that's that's where I'm what I'm wrestling through as we get more information in here from the public is that's an important piece of his property rights that um he's had for it sounds like a few decades.

So want to make sure we do what we can.

Slow down, Mr.

Hall.

All right.

Let's let's just go ahead and see this all the way through.

Well, we'll open public comment warranty.

I've never opened public comment three times on the same item, but for you, Mr.

Hall, please come on up.

You're in the Air Force.

Well, we're gonna give you that, sir.

Okay.

Done the third of the fence myself and my own cost from the road back to the third of the fence.

I I paid for my own expense.

Right.

I don't think it's gonna hurt him to help out.

I did I I think he says it's about a $15, $20,000 herd to help out, but uh we uh do it yourself like I do.

Sure.

I did it myself for the cost, I did the third of it myself.

I'm hoping he could help out.

I is that okay.

I apologize.

Well, no, it's it's certainly okay.

The question is where we have rights as a legal body to impose on him.

And we want to be very careful of making sure that we respect both his rights and your rights.

That this is exactly the crux of what local government, you know, the messy stuff we got to get into.

And of course, uh, you know, even if he has a right to not do something, that doesn't mean that he shouldn't do something, and vice versa, right?

So uh we we are gonna do our best to deliberate and make sure we're coming to as best as we can understand imperfect humans that we are, how to best adjudicate between your both the rights that both of you hold separately.

And then of course, there's also that fact that you're both good humans and Americans and should ideally be some good neighbors, but you know, we we do have individual rights on these points.

My pleasure, thank you.

Seeing as public comment is open, is there anyone else from the public who would like to speak to the side?

Well, you're the applicant, so there's that odd thing where we pull you up all the time.

Um I would just I I don't know, you know, what what maybe it was arranged or not arranged in the past as far as the fence with previous owners.

I've owned it for uh coming on six months now, right?

Yeah.

So what's in place there has clearly been there for decades, the fence.

Yeah, and it is clearly safely housed, a horse or maybe more than one horse's um for a very considerable long time.

Um I don't know of any reason why the fence that is there uh would need to be replaced.

I can understand a preference for a different fence.

Um, but in the six months I've owned it, no horse, two different horses have been there in that time.

They've never escaped onto my property or caused any kind of uh concern with with the fence that is there.

So I think Mr.

Hall probably be better not to speak for him, and he gets to speak to you after this meeting and not at the phone.

But I'm I'm sure he would probably uh feel a little relieved, just knowing that you are also a new property owner.

The man's been there for for decades, and you're neighbors now.

You're brother in the house, your neighbors.

Right.

Frankly, you're probably gonna be there until the day which we hope is a long distant one that he dies, right?

Right.

So he wants to make sure his horse is gonna be taken care of.

Now I'm not sure that we have any legal means to foist that upon you, and I don't really see concern either.

But I think as a as a good neighbor, perhaps some reassurances and discussions about would would be helpful.

I think anyone would understand that it would probably be better to start the conversation one on one rather than sure try to get the city to force me, right?

It starts where it's dark.

I'm just saying, like I would have been a better way to approach it.

But sure.

To be, you know, I have kids.

Maybe the fence is unsafe for my kids to be in.

Maybe you're between my kids and a horse.

I don't know.

You have no interest in their kid losing a handle horse.

There's a mutual benefit.

Yeah.

Both of you.

Yeah.

You got it.

Good fence.

Fences make good neighbors.

That is for a reason.

Yeah.

Cool.

Well, thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

I I think the best plan here would be to make the condition that the house be oriented westward.

Close public comment because we didn't close it for him.

Closing public comment.

Anybody else?

Oh, I asked already, and no one else got up.

So we're gonna go ahead and close that public comment.

All right.

I'm gonna suggest a condition that it be that the house face westward.

And uh I do not think that it'll be appropriate to impose a uh restriction on the fencing, but I get the impression that these two are going to be able to form a friendship and work this through like good neighbors.

That's my thought, but I'm the chair, so why don't you make a motion?

Chair, I'll make a motion for whatever item it is.

3.3.3, which is also the number of times we open public comments.

So good things coming through.

Uh for uh Lyndon Dangerfield's request for conditional use approval of the Platinum Peak flag lot to be located 850 north, 1200 east that we approve the request for the flag lot with the condition that the home to yet be constructed will face west.

West, I believe.

Mr.

Bailey's heart skip the jump uh beat there to uh be consistent with other flag lot build builds in the neighborhood.

And uh with the finding that the proposed flag lot meets the requirements of the code and the proposed flag lot uh will provide additional housing in I won't say affordable, but maybe the front house becomes a rental that maybe is affordable for someone, but that provides an initial house.

Increase of supply in our city, yeah.

Um with the also the finding that the public comments have suggested they would prefer the house to be facing to the west, in addition to the consistency with the neighbors uh four lots down, and that we include all of the DRC comments, which I think includes the agricultural fence, but I'll stay silent on the other fence.

Would you be open to stating that it meets code as long as they um repurpose that garage?

I think that's required by code, so right.

Just that it won't meet code unless they the front changes.

Yeah, but that I think that was one of the comments of the DRC that that needs to be removed, but I will restate it as part of the motion that it will once the portion of the existing garage is demolished that the it meets the code of the 20-foot uh PUE and required dry aisle for this for the flag lot, making it a flag lot.

That capture what you wanted.

Awesome, and I'll second that.

Motion is second.

All those in favor?

I all right, you bet.

Thank you, gentlemen.

3.4.

Um, just wanted to ask you guys this item 3.4 and 3.5 are a joint uh concept and zone change if you'd prefer to look over him at the same time.

Let's do this thing.

Um I'll go ahead and read through both.

Okay.

Uh item 3.4 is public hearing and recommendation of Symphony Developments request for review of the Gurney property zone change on 8.62 acres located at approximately 1200 west, 800 north, changing the zoning from TH5 to R122.

This provok proposed zone change meets the general plan designation of very low density residential agriculture.

And this would be to facilitate the construction of a subdivision with 22,000 square foot lots.

Like I said, a concept plan for the subdivision was submitted concurrently, which is also a public hearing and item 3.5.

Public hearing in consideration of Symphony Symphony Developments request for approval of the Gurney property concept, a 12-lot single family residential subdivision located at approximately 1,200 west and 800 north.

Um like I said, the concept plan is for 12 lots that meet the minimum lot size of 22,000 square feet.

The applicant is not asking for any exceptions.

They're simply wanting feedback from the planning commission and a preliminary subdivision will be submitted and reviewed after the concept plan.

Um turn time back to you guys.

All right.

Any questions for staff?

Okay.

Is the applicant present.

You know the drill.

Hello.

Hello, Russ Wilson.

I work for Symphony Development.

Uh appreciate your time tonight.

I I don't think I have much to add, but I'm happy to answer any comments that you might have for me.

Any questions for Mr.

Wilson?

Just a comment.

I appreciate that they're true 22,000 square foot lots.

Well, thank you.

Yeah, you bet.

May I ask um why I am just curious from a market perspective, why you're not asking for high density, right?

Like why you are willing to build those big lots.

Usually we have developers come in and give us a sob story about how nothing else will sell but townhomes.

So I'm just curious why you guys feel like this was something you can be successful in.

Yeah, so our our business models are a little bit different.

We we tend to build um uh move up housing.

Um you may might be familiar with college farms.

We actually refer to it as River Walk.

It's a little bit further west than this, and um it it was we're we started in Davis County and we've slowly been working our way south, and that was kind of a test case for you know, being in Utah County, and it turned out really well.

We we we thought we think it became a really great development, really beautiful.

People love living there.

I actually live there myself.

Um, and so we're just trying to trying to find as as many other properties as we can to do this, do a similar thing.

And um our our floor plans and home designs are are bigger.

Um we require certain widths and depths to accommodate our plan.

So this this would be a perfect location and the concept plan we submitted is perfect for what we do.

And in contrast to River Walk, you're not having any community open space or clubhouse or anything like that.

This is there an HOA.

These no no HOA, we don't think there is no no, no, just go ahead.

Don't stop.

You had me.

There, there I will say there is some discussion with the church with the road that's adjacent to the church.

There's a park strip right there, and I don't think the church wants to maintain it.

Um we don't want to create an HOA just for the maintenance of a park strip.

So we're trying to figure that out right now, but that's that's another discussion.

Well, thank you.

And I I appreciate when a developer comes in and um can see that there's a place in the market for these uh products as well.

So thank you.

Yeah, thank you.

Thank you.

Ah, well, such warm fuzzy feelings all around, huh?

Who knew?

Uh these items are a public hearing.

So I'd like to open exactly one time.

So there's anyone from the public who would like to speak to these items to the Gurney property zone change or a concept.

I'm closing public comment.

All right.

Or there we go.

Yeah.

Yeah.

We'll wait for Mr.

Mr.

Hall, Mr.

Hill.

Mr.

Hall.

Yeah.

I have questions for the city.

Okay.

Go ahead.

Please.

Um, there's already precedence of a pedestrian crossing of the canal.

Um off the trail a little bit to the west.

Right there.

Is there is there plans for another pedestrian crossing that'll be near this development?

There is another access point.

Specifically, let's see, on the bend of Sage Vista Drive, not that bend, the next bend.

Right down that way.

Right there.

Sorry, that white.

Right there.

That's a pedestrian axis.

Will there be some type of a bridge as well?

No, no, that bridge.

Uh this subdivision was trying to remember how we ended up with this bridge.

It was a connectivity issue.

Um in lieu of a road connection, we we went with the pedestrian connection, but um on this development where this is all existing development now, and they're just really tying into all those substreets.

There's it doesn't trigger the same connectivity requirements.

So there's no new bridge planned.

And there's so there's no plan for that development to tie into this trail system.

They would have to go out to the road.

Yeah, they'd have to come out on to the road and come around that way.

Okay.

Or they could come down this road and get on this.

Yeah.

Okay.

I mean, it doesn't preclude us in the future.

We would own, I think uh, we own enough property there that I guess I guess it would preclude it because their lots would back on to that.

So yeah, yeah.

That's why I was curious.

Was there an appetite for that, the plan for that type of a connection or not?

Yeah.

Yeah, it would be really nice.

I know the bridges and things like that get very expensive very fast.

That would be what an example of if we wanted to offer a density bonus, you know.

If we gave them an extra lot, that could be something that could be could be considered, but less warm fuzzies now.

Right.

So it looks like a great plan.

Um, and uh connectivity is of course important, but I won't say that's too far out there.

I was thinking of the suggestion and the concept.

Anyway, okay.

Um, I I like it.

That's my feedback.

I think our lots are great.

A lot of people clamor for them.

Yeah.

Any uh it's also kind of nice to hear a developer say I live in this.

You know, that's that is not one you hear every day.

Um anyone wants to start making motions or keep talking.

That's fine.

But just gonna throw that out there.

Yeah, and I I can stare at you guys awkwardly if they'll have to do that.

I mean, we're the first we're gonna do is a zone change and then the concept items after that.

So, Mr.

Chair for item 3.4 symphony developments request for review of the green property zone change on 8.62 acres located approximately 1200 west and 800 north, changing the zoning from TH5 to R122.

That we provide a positive recommendation to the city council with finding that it fits within the existing general plan.

Um that it is consistent with the the character of the surrounding area and consistent not only with the goals and policies of the general plan, but the compatibility of the proposed zone is compatible within the joint general plan uses of nearby and adjoining properties, and that the size of the property is suitable for the use, which it's intended under that zoning designation.

Include all the DRC comments.

Second motion and a second, all in favor.

I pose all right.

Um 3.5.6.

Oh, we need to make a we need to make a motion.

I hear you.

No, I hear you, Kate.

It's all right, jump the gun.

No, it's in alignment with our goal of when it does.

Yes, he's he's moving it along.

I think that motion.

Oh, I will hear it.

Um for item 3.5 public hearing consideration of Symphony Developments request for approval.

Did we do a public hearing on both?

I did yes, I specifically called out how it was both.

I just want to make sure yes.

All right, continuing then.

Um for sorry, um item 3.5 concept plan.

Uh I move that we approve uh the concept plan.

Then finding that the proposed concept is consistent with the Lehigh City Development Code, that the proposed concept does conform to the goals and policies of the general plan, and I will include the DRC comments.

Would you add to make a contingent upon approval by the city council of the zone change?

Yes.

Yeah, so I think we probably need that.

That's fair.

Yes.

Motion is second, all is in favor.

I just wilson.

Thank you.

Item three point for real this time.

Six.

Oh, so for real.

Bring it on, Kate.

All right.

Let's do this.

Item 3.6 public hearing and consideration of Austin Cope's request for conditional use approval of two Skyview Development Pylon signs with an exception for additional height located at approximately Tipinogas Highway and Center Street.

The applicant is requesting an exception to the maximum size and height of the pylon signs.

The code allows for a maximum size of 200 square feet and a maximum height of 35 feet.

Also specifies that the height can increase to 70 feet under specific circumstances.

The code does specify that any multiparcel or multi-tenant project can have exceptions approved by the planning commission as a conditional use.

The applicant is requesting these exceptions because of the speed on Tempanogus Highway and the elevated overpass.

This is also a conditional use to the planning commission can place reasonable conditions on the sign.

They're requesting an exception for height and size, like mentioned.

I'll turn time back to you.

Very good.

Questions for staff.

I do have a clarifying question.

I think I read this.

I think I just heard this, but it does not meet code, nor even the definition for the exception, but we have the latitude as a planning commission to grant exceptions to the exception, correct?

Kind of how we're looking at it.

Yeah, once it goes into that large multi-tenant type of development, which this is it does say they can request exceptions for size and height.

So despite the fact that this is an administrative latitude.

Yeah.

Yeah, there are certain predefined exceptions, like if it's near I-15 or uh and it has to be a certain type of business, then they can have a height exception.

But this falls under a broader exceptions section of the sign code.

Okay.

Let's do this.

Would you like to hear my feelings on science?

You know, I feel I haven't heard before.

This will be so enlightening.

Um applicate present.

Please.

You may hear his opinions this evening.

I love to share my opinion.

I that's fine.

My name is Austin Cope.

I'm with Allied Electric Sign and Awning.

And um working with Gardner Development on the Skyview Development Project.

So Skyview Development is a 25 plus acre property.

Um Target is slated to be an anchor tenant, and many others are coming aboard as well.

Um so basically, we are looking at we're located on Tempanogas Highway and center.

I believe it's center.

And um obviously Tempanogas Highway is a 55 mile an hour arterial connecting highway that connects to the I-15.

Um, it's a growing developing area.

Um of the accesses to some of these new roads are freeway style exit type thing, uh, type exits happening.

Um, with the growing and the the speed that happens there, you want to make sure that you have enough time to exit and to make sure that you're safely getting over.

If I know, oh target's coming.

Here it is.

Okay, I'm getting off.

That you have enough time to safely change lanes and get off.

And so basically, um I've prepared packet of kind of some views of what it looks like from 300.

Is that the height you want?

Represents the 53 foot that is being proposed.

Um pylon sign A.

I'll talk to the height first, and then we'll kind of jump back because there's also another exception that I don't think was listed on there, which was the area and the square footage.

Yeah, so I want to make sure that's I saw those numbers and I knew that was coming.

That that's addressed as well.

But we'll talk about the height first, because that's I think the bigger issue of the two.

Um, we've got basically pylon A, we've got a total of five tenants uh listed on there.

Pylon D, there's eight tenants listed.

Um pretty much the anchor tenant is getting quite a large space, but the other minor tenants are only getting about 34 square feet each.

Um as far as the heights concerned, basically page one shows you uh a view of 53 feet from 300 feet back from where the turn lane exit happens, and so it gives you enough uh visibility and um and enough visibility to make a safe safe transition if you're in the the north lane to get out.

Um it kind of shows you what it would look like on page two at the 25 foot high.

Um it basically knocks them down to less tenants on the sign.

Um and doesn't allow for real great visibility.

Um when you're looking at it coming westbound, um there's even more visibility issues westbound due to the uh due to the terrain, and so when you look at that, you can kind of see I ended up circling around where it was because it really does kind of get hidden by that terrain.

Um I guess let's open it for questions because I will I I'm happy to answer any questions that that you guys have regarding this.

I will say I agree with you on some of these aspects.

Okay, good.

Um, I do have a question for legal, if I may.

Okay.

Okay, indeed.

We are all at the edge of our seats to know what we're gonna go.

Talk to me about precedent.

There's clearly a precedent throughout the city where we have a lot of pylon signs that are larger, even in this area along this corridor.

Does precedent ever become a problem where we realize we've erred in our ways and we want to correct precedent?

How do we correct precedent?

Each case is individual, because you as long as you can strictly articulate why you're doing what you're doing on these to allow or to not allow it under the condition.

So, yes, you've approved some, but that doesn't set a legal precedent.

Legal now, practically um as a commission, that's something that you guys will have to decide, but legally you're fine as long as you can articulate reasonable conditions or non conditions based on what you have presented in front.

And this was gonna be my next question.

What is the height of this pylon sign?

53 feet.

That's the standard.

That's what that's what this is being requested.

Oh, you're requesting.

Oh, I'm sorry.

I'm sorry, I meant the one on the screen.

I meant this one that's on the screen.

Oh, that's what is that 65?

Um, I could try and find it.

It's been a while.

There's this one.

I know there's another one.

Yeah, regardless of legal precedent, I would be curious to know the actual height of these other pylon signs.

Yeah, I know this one is probably higher than the ridge is 70 feet.

We built that one.

Okay.

Oh, so oh, isn't it?

So that one's larger.

That's 70.

I believe so.

Okay.

And you have I think there's another.

I mean, obviously, there's the big sign.

This well, that's more of a monument in use.

I think the 42 feet wide though.

Yeah.

Yeah.

This one did have an exception on the size.

Yeah.

And you've got this one.

Table A one is larger than what you're requesting.

Yes.

But at the top, it would be target.

Correct.

Like that.

Mystery box or now see.

On it, your application looks like.

Trader Joe's.

Oh, anybody watching meeting to make it a bit on the list for over on the other side, yeah.

So I've got trader.

You've got is an announcement.

That's what I want to know.

I'm not sure about that one.

I know that target is in deep negotiations with them, and I think this pylon has to do with it.

Well, pressure's on.

The pressure is on.

Target's watching.

I have a question.

So are pylon A and pylon D.

That's two different signs on either side of the road.

One is on one side of the property, one is on the other.

Yeah.

They are not the same sign.

They are not.

Okay.

Or two different signs.

Yeah.

Side of center and one's on the other, right?

Yes.

So one uh the one uh D would not have Target at the top.

No.

Only the one on the actual big box property.

So you wouldn't be able to see Target coming westbound.

Um it'll be somewhat blocked by that sign and also with the terrain and it being on the other side of the road, it's gonna be less visible.

Like, yeah.

That's my design.

They're they're basically gonna be kind of right in front of each other, sort of thing.

The bridge lady, if you would say the gateway to this beautiful area.

Correct.

Woof.

Okay.

Sorry, I I don't love signs.

No, I I I do understand I don't think she had that impression.

I do understand the need for signs.

And I get the businesses right to try to advertise and get the wayfinding.

Sure.

Um I think that we allow oversizing and we listen to these pleas and cries for justification.

And I get it.

I get that you want it.

I think that we approve it way too often.

And especially where on this side of the road it is above the road.

Um it feels more of a justification or more of a cause to have it where it's lower, sunken below the road.

You want a little bit more hide invisibility.

Those things.

So that's that's where my personal feelings, but I will also let you know that my personal feelings also do not necessarily change how I vote.

I I would vote with what is permitted within the code.

And it is within your rights to ask for this.

So I'll say uh no, I'm uh I'll I'll discuss my thoughts after we have public comments.

Yep.

Oh yes.

Anything else?

All right.

Well thank you so much.

Thank you.

This is a public hearing.

Anyone else has passionate feelings about pylon signs.

Now is the time to get your common sense.

Oh no, the tallest sign on the planet.

That's right.

Not liking it tall things.

I have things against height restrictions.

Um, I uh I would I'd like to speak against it.

I don't think we need any more tall signs along that road.

I think people that are gonna use that location will know what's there, and we won't need more signs to say, hey, there's a there's a target here.

Yeah, driven by this target a hundred times because on the freeways different.

You get a lot of different people going up and down this road services, the same people going back and forth every day, all day.

So I would vote against this exception thing.

Thank you.

Anyone else from the con from the public?

All right.

Before you close public comment, there's some online comments you wanted to make clear yes before.

Um, but yeah, I just got some online comments about this um item.

One from Abram Nielsen, he said we have sorry, I'm fine joke.

Yeah, Louisa, he said uh we have very well thought out code for a reason.

Please stick to it.

Their justifications are valid arguments, they want bigger signs, more parking, and less trees.

Center Cal has done better.

Expect expect better here in our city well as well.

And then on number 3.7 and 3.6, it sounds like he mentioned center cow, and that's the three one.

Yeah, that's true.

You're sure that was or he's just commenting generally.

It was a shotgun blast.

He had comments for like three items at once.

Yeah, I think it was both.

It's listed under 3.6.

We must have commented on it.

Maybe if you're listening or watching, we love you, buddy.

All right.

And then one more comment from Lauren Henry, and they said, I think the 53 foot height of the pylons is justified and makes sense when driving east on the commuter lane.

I I'd want to see what businesses are available at that center street exit off the commuter lane.

That's all.

Okay, thank you so much.

Public hearing closed.

All right.

Commission.

Sayist.

Well, I I I appreciate the request because we have the opportunity to do that, but I don't know that it necessarily improves public safety along SR92 if you're flying along at 55 miles an hour and you're trying to read the signs on the side of the road.

I would hope they would know if they're residents, they're gonna know what goes in there.

I kind of agree with uh who was it, the Mr.

Robertson.

The loose stranger that would people would know what's already there.

That's and I get it along the freeway.

I think we're stretching our justification to make this freeway like it's close, but it's not a freeway.

And um I think we lose sight lines to the hills behind it.

And I I don't know that it's necessary to grant an exception, even for the small.

Looks like Target wants the big one.

Everybody else is gonna suffer.

So I just think I'm not in support of this as an exception.

Um I'm trying to get more signs off our roads and more lighted signs out of our city because I'd like to go back to dark skies.

But that's all I have to say.

Okay.

That's my thoughts.

That did lead me to ask the question.

These are backlit, not lit, right?

These aren't lights going up.

These are backlit signs.

Okay.

Other comments, thoughts.

Not a video board.

That's worse.

It is not a video board.

It is a traditional old school plastic um backlit pylon.

Mr.

Lockhart, I can see the wheels turning in your head.

I'm thinking.

Just still turning.

Still turning.

Okay.

She's just gonna avoid contact me all night.

Yep.

Okay.

Please, Miss Cope, you may zap can you come back up again.

Oh, so then she pulls the ace out.

I forget to get in.

The class B ask.

Interesting.

Preemptive understanding that we hate it.

I can I respect it.

Yes, that's your first rodeo.

Yeah, you know what?

You know what you're doing.

Yeah.

So the justification.

Um, commission.

The wheels are done smoothly.

What what are you asking for?

Like what which one do you want?

Well, obviously she won't she wants 53.

What she's saying is But it's not, it's no longer RTS because you're showing me your midpoint.

So yeah, that's the midpoint.

The midpoint gets you above that line.

We were hoping to have 25 feet above the terrain line, but it if we lower it down that extra little bit, it still gets us visible.

And um it's a negotiating point.

I mean if if that's something that pushes it over the line, we're willing to go down a little lower.

Okay.

So yeah.

Thank you.

No problem.

You two are the most passionate about this.

So why don't you try?

Um I obviously the the commission will vote.

Well, I think signs are are one of our most uh divisive, yeah.

They they really are.

Um as I would say perhaps the most um most pro sign.

Is that a thing?

Uh on the commission.

Uh I I think that um uh our our dear friends, uh Mr.

Nielsen, Mr.

Roberts, uh I d I agree with them on on the 53 foot.

I drive this section.

I live right in this area.

I see it constantly.

And it is going to service people who live there.

Um there, you're not gonna have a lot of um surprise drop-in visitors from from people who are going, oh my goodness, there's a target here.

There's uh maybe uh a Trader Joe's.

It's gonna be pretty much people who know it's they're gonna watch it get built and look forward to it to uh to shock in there.

Um that said, uh, I do think given we we are not near the 15 freeway, but given the and I realize that we don't have legal precedent to be concerned about, nonetheless given the size that was permitted farther down the road.

Uh I'm okay at 40.

That doesn't strike me as a terrible uh as a terrible thing, and it helps uh reassure uh ums cope's uh clients uh the the visibility that they are concerned about.

Um I think it's a good number, but this is yeah, that's where I'm at Mr.

Chair, will you hear a motion?

Oh, so very much on item 3.6 public hearing and consideration of Austin Cope's request for conditional use approval of two Skyview Development Pylon signs with the exception with an exception for additional height located at approximately Tim Pinogas Highway and Center Street.

I move that we approve the exception at um no height higher than 40 feet for both signs with um with the findings that the requested height for a 40 feet for the pylon signs is justified based on the speed of traffic and the height of the overpass structure and due to the terrain that causes our code to place that sign in in an obstructive view, allowing it to go up to 40 feet.

Um gives gives the development more ability to market their store placements.

Square footage.

I asked for an exception.

Our sign allows 200 square feet.

She didn't actually come up with a square footage.

Sorry.

No, yeah, fair point.

And maybe the applicant could clarify.

I am assuming they would just shrink the bottom section that yeah, but it should be yeah, yeah, clarified what that number is.

I assume it'd be within a proportionate Ms.

Cope.

You don't have to have that number up your sleeve, do you?

What square footage would that translate to?

So it would still be the same square footage.

We would just take it off of the base height.

So the base height would be lowered down.

So all the tenants would still be allowed to have the same size sign in.

It's just that base would cut down on what you have.

Drop by the 13 feet.

Right.

And included in my motion, we'll grant the exception for the square footage.

Okay.

Second that.

Motion and a second.

All those in favor.

I all those opposed.

Nay.

Kate, did you get that?

A three to two, as is the case with signs around here.

I do appreciate you coming in though.

Yes.

And I appreciate how it previously.

No, it's not perfect.

Yes.

That was well played.

Oh man.

Okay.

Yeah.

All right, let's do this.

All right.

Uh 3.7 public hearing and consideration of center cows request for approval of the collective site plan.

Exception to the tree requirement located at approximately Tipponogas Highway and Morning Vista Road.

The design district requires 30 trees per acre for commercial developments.

The applicant provided 381 trees while 580 trees were required.

Park staff agrees the applicant provided as many trees as can work on the site.

And the planning commission may approve a reduction of the number of trees based on the constraints of the site to provide all of the required trees.

And because the applicant met all other landscaping requirements as well.

I'll turn time back to commission for questions.

Very good.

Questions for staff.

I have a question, Mr.

Chair, if I may, please.

So the difference between the code and what's being proposed is 199 trees, right?

Which is a significant amount compared to the numbers.

So it just begs the question is our code wrong in expecting 30 per acre, or is this design flawed in that they didn't take into account the code for the layout that they want to do for their development?

Um I'll give you my opinion or my best answer to that.

I do think 30 trees per acre is is a very aggressive requirement.

That being said, we some projects can meet it, others, it is really difficult to fit.

I mean, it the projects that do meet it, it's you have to really stretch to fit all those trees on there.

So we may need to revisit that.

I don't know, or you know, if we really want to be a you know, create our urban forest, which is a good thing.

I mean, that helps with pollution and heat island and all those things.

I think this site, and I guess I should pull it up.

I'm I was behind Caden here.

I'm not doing my job.

Um, I think this site was difficult because there's a lot of grade, a lot of retaining walls, walls that are within, you know, what normally would be a you know a 10-foot space, for example, for a tree because of the grade, they have you know retaining wall that eats up a large portion of that.

There's retaining walls on both, you know, down by Temp Highway, midpoint.

So, anyways, I think that's partly what's creating the challenge.

I know in in the DRC comments, if you've noticed, James did note, he said they've done uh as good a job as they could to try and meet the requirements.

So, you know, it wasn't like he was saying, well, you know, you're obviously just not trying.

So, anyways, that that's kind of my thoughts.

Not exactly, but but I go back to, well, you know what your grade is going into your design.

You know what the standard is.

And so we've overprogrammed to get this built at the at the uh expense of the required code for trees.

That could have been done a different way.

It could have been hey, a smaller footprint, a smaller parking lot, and leaving more room for the trees that were required, knowing that this has grade and there's going to be other features that are gonna, but uh, but 200 trees and beyond uh what we would require.

I I'm that's why I was asking.

Is our code wrong?

Is it misguided?

Is it yeah, requesting a lot more than what's feasible?

I think the smaller projects, it's a little bit easier.

It seems like when you get to this scale and it's it starts to require a lot of trees, and and then when you have those large parking fields, it's just hard to so yeah, like I said, our code is probably very much on the high end or the aggressive side of how many trees can reasonably fit on sites.

Sure.

This isn't the first time that we've ran into this issue for sure, especially on some of these bigger developments.

So I guess that's what I'm asking is does it need to be this big?

That certainly they want to develop the property.

I get that, but anyway, we'll probably have further conversation.

Undoubtedly.

Thank you, Kim.

Okay.

Applicant time.

I believe it's applicant time.

Is the applicant present.

Sir.

Good evening.

Uh my name is Swam Montoya.

I'm representing Cedar Cal properties, the applicant.

Um, as it relates to the collective.

Um, one of the biggest challenges we've had so far is the grades.

Uh, Kim's been in countless of meetings with me and sta and our design team trying to figure out Sunrise Way.

There's about a 90-foot drop from the north of the site all the way to the south, which creates different terracing that needs to occur.

And as Kim was mentioning, there's retaining walls that essentially make it impossible to plant trees.

Um, we've worked with James Farnsworth, um, staff here at the city, multiple rounds of uh iterations with him to get the plan as close as possible to meet the city code as possible.

And this is what we've come up with.

Uh, I also want to mention that we haven't uh neglected landscaping at all here for the collective, as you can see in the corner of the site plan uh where the two buildings kind of intersect as an L.

Uh, we're creating a park, which uh is going to be kind of a community gathering spot.

We're bringing five-inch caliper oak trees to the park.

So there's specimen trees that will really create a sense of place.

Uh, in addition to that, the city, the code requires uh two-inch minimum caliper trees.

In some areas, we're providing three inches as well as the specimen trees that uh I just mentioned that are five-inch caliper.

So I just wanted to outline that in terms of all the work we've done to try to meet the city's requirements as much as possible while still um being heavily constrained by grade easements to the south because of the highway and um the slope along morning list as well.

That's it.

Very good.

Cool.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

This is a public hearing.

There's anyone from the public who likes to speak to this item.

Now is the time.

And we will note that Mr.

Nielsen's comments applied here as well.

Dee noted.

And we'll go ahead and close public hearing.

Bring it back to the commission for deliberation or motion.

So just a couple comments if I for aid in your deliberations.

Two inch trees will ultimately become a three-inch trees, which will ultimately become five-inch trees.

So we're just jump starting the the canopy a little bit.

Um so I appreciate that, but uh doesn't change the code standard, you know, in terms of the number of trees for this size of the development.

The other comment I uh wanted to make is oftentimes in our findings, we we say that this is the properties of adequate size to accommodate this type of development.

And knowing the challenges of of grade and things like that.

Um this is one where clearly, because of the requested exception, it's not of adequate size for this particular kind of development because it can't meet the code on the trees.

Now, maybe we need to look at the code and change that to make it gradational for different types of projects.

Uh and I appreciate the corner being uh gathering space, but that doesn't really change the need for trees because otherwise you'd build a forest there to get your 500 trees, right?

Instead of a probably a green space with lawn.

So I'm just I'm I'm trying to work through the request and reconcile that with some of the things that we have to hold other people to relative to size of the lot for the development and things like that.

So I'm struggling.

Um I think it's a big ask to go from 580 to 381, you know, 199 trees, 200 roundup.

I get the grade issue.

I get there are impediments to building on grade.

So there's a trade-off.

Are we willing to allow this to be developed?

Are we better off with a development?

Less trees, or would we be better off with a smaller development and more trees?

The meet code, not requiring an exception.

So that's that's the struggle I'm at.

Yeah, I'm with you.

I know that changes integrity of the building engineering structuring.

They've got a lot of flat rooftop that we've been amenitize.

That would actually be pretty awesome.

One day, one day a developer will volunteer that.

He's throwing that out there.

Just hope.

Well, I think I go back to the public comment of Mr.

Abrams.

I think he's suggesting that this is overparked and we could have more space for trees.

Right.

You know, more trees, less parking spaces.

And I don't know where we fall on the required amount of parking spaces relative to this.

Is there more than enough?

And we could remove some of those and put more green space.

Or yeah, Kim.

Yeah, and I'll let them maybe clarify.

We actually had a meeting earlier today, and I asked the same question.

We were looking at one of the retaining walls.

And my understanding is they are overparked, but not severely.

I mean, so there's some extra parking, but then they have their tenants that require certain.

But yeah, I'll I'll let the applicant respond more accurately.

Please, sir.

Yeah.

Um, Tim's headed in the right direction with that.

So we are, I think there's a nexus of somewhere between five and 10 parking stalls right now compared to code.

Um, that's off memory.

Don't quote me on that.

Uh, but where we really run into an issue is particularly Whole Foods and their parking requirements, make it so that the area to the west of the road that bisects the site north-south uh needs to meet a certain amount of parking spaces that's an X to what code uh would require.

That's an X is to what code uh would require.

Okay.

So we're not just meeting city code from a parking standpoint.

We're also trying to meet the market.

And that's where the trade-off is relative to available area for landscaping.

So then it begs the question of maybe we have one less tenant, create free up footprint for more parking spaces for the tenant that requires it and more trees for the city code that requires it.

So just a thought.

It's also I think a function of the um the easements to the south of kind of where the main two buildings are at.

Um create a lot of land that gets factored into the code requirement of 30 trees per acre, but we can't plant on those acres whatsoever because of the usements.

So we're running into those constraints as well.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um, I think it works really well on small parcels.

Um, but the large areas, it's hard to fit 30 trees per acre and still have meet the demands of the market, meet the demands of what you're trying to build, all those things.

I would love it.

And that's that doesn't deter me from loving that we do require 30 trees per acre.

I do love that we're aggressive and that we're trying to uh set some kind of standard in the area here, but it is very challenging on these large parcels.

So here's where I'm at.

Um, I think that um by and large the city is going in a good direction.

I nonetheless think that um even if uh poor A's watching at home and this might give them a heart attack, maybe we do need to reconsider.

I'm not saying we do change, but we need to just perhaps drill down and think a little bit about whether or not as we get to larger uh lots, if it is perhaps too aggressive.

I'm looking at this, I'm thinking about the you know like the rest of you.

I've been to a shopping center or two in my life.

And I'm thinking about the um trees that I've seen or experienced and you know, in in parking lots, and that's a pretty good looking parking lot, frankly.

Um if there's any bit of doubt ourselves on whether or not when it scales up to this level, we might be a little too far.

Um I'm I'm inclined to give this the pass with the not the condition on the applicant, but with the nod to the city that we need to think through is yeah, it's like that this just isn't gonna be the the be all end all.

I think this is a good plan and it works.

But now let's figure out if this is something that we would go, uh no, we really should have pushed and said one last tenant, or you know, we go, yeah, that was definitely the right call.

But given that we're so close in the gray, I'm inclined to say yes to this and investigate further.

That's where I have landed.

Others or motion.

Is it really even worth counting to this?

Oh yeah.

What you're buying from?

He endured LAX for this meeting, people.

Maybe not a bird bank.

I don't know.

It was LAX, wasn't it?

Yeah, yeah.

Yeah, yeah.

Like the one o'clock flight.

11 o'clock, yeah.

Yeah, yeah.

Uh-huh.

Let's get on.

But there's another one that takes off around one.

Yeah.

About four that do that short every day.

Uh make a motion.

Item 3.6, public hearing consideration of Austin Cope's request for consortium, 3.7.

Public hearing consideration of center cows request for approval of the collective site plan, exception to the tree requirement.

The proposed site plan with the findings that the applicant met all of the other landscaping requirements for the site.

And I will include the DRC comments.

Motion is second.

All those in favor.

It was worth an omin.

And an A.

Yeah.

My appearance is to the development, but I am opposed to what we need to factor in our code a little better as we're going into a maybe this isn't the right space for those number of pads.

Maybe we should have sacrificed some of the pad for trees, knowing what the code is.

But I do think we need to look at that.

If it's too aggressive, we need to change that because we're gonna have this tension and other sites.

We'll pass that feedback on that the first time this has been asked here.

Yeah.

On a larger nothing against you for coming.

You got that four one.

Travel safety.

Yes.

But was there an amendment there that uh Whole Foods as well?

We're getting all sorts of illnesses.

There was until we dialed the sign down before it be no.

It is so Trader Joe's and Whole Foods were announced tonight.

That's trade.

Trader Joe's wasn't announced tonight.

She basically implied it wasn't.

She said she was.

It was a big night.

We should put that on.

Caden 3.8.

We should have done this two weeks, I guess.

Come on, guy.

Well, all right.

Item 3.8, uh public hearing and recommendation of Justin Hammond's request for review of the Hammond development agreement on a light office warehouse project located at approximately 600 West State Street.

The applicant previously requested to do a zoning map to their property to bring it into conformance with the general plan designation of heavy commercial city council directed staff to draft a development agreement to allow the zone to stay as mixed use and to put some guidelines into effect to help with buffering of the development from nearby resident residences.

These guidelines include um an office or warehouse shall be a permitted use on the property.

A six-foot rhino rock wall will be installed where the property is adjacent to residential uses, and the developer will construct the building on the western portion of the property with parking adjacent to the residential uses.

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

Thank you very much.

Questions for staff.

I have a question for staff.

Uh is the only in and out entrance and exit.

Is that on State Street only?

Or do they have one on what is that?

600.

The concept is in at the end of the development agreement.

Let me see if I can pull that up.

Yeah, they wouldn't be given any access to state street.

You I think is would limit any new So they're coming in and out on 600 only.

Yeah.

Yep.

Off of the street.

Yeah, in the north south street.

It's a really skinny road.

Would there be big trucks?

Uh probably I like where you had that.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Haven't received too many details on the use.

Never.

No, are you kidding me?

There's copious notes you take.

Agree.

Like James Masson of the Constitutional Convention over here.

Keeping awake.

Love it.

Okay.

Everyone who got that joke has more respect for me now.

Um applicant present.

Sir.

Second joke that was funnier.

Sir, like speak to it.

Good evening, yeah.

Good evening.

How are you all?

We're doing all right.

You've been here.

You've seen us.

That's right.

Okay.

Yeah, you get us at 11 o'clock.

You're right to be at the end of the schedule, that's for sure.

But yeah, you need that 11 o'clock slot.

Anyhow, well, we're just trying to build a building that's um congruous with the other buildings around.

Um fits in with the general plan.

And um we with talking with the city council, we just addressed some of the concerns that they had about the neighbors, and so we wanted to create a plan that could accommodate some of their concerns.

And so we feel like we we feel like we did that.

Also, the 600 West has been widened by the city um recently.

So it is wider now.

And because they were they're actually planning on doing a drive-thru on that parcel.

So we kind of changed it from doing a drive-thru to just doing something a little simpler.

Just that that's a throwback.

Remember that.

Yeah.

Okay.

Talk.

Yeah.

Yeah.

What's your name?

Justin.

Oh, thank you.

Yeah.

Last name.

Sorry, just name.

There we go.

Okay.

Thank you.

Anything else, sir.

That's it.

Any questions for app for the applicant?

I do have a question.

Please.

I was just going to just remind us of the the use.

What's it because we're doing a development agreement, so we don't have to change the zoning.

So it's not a one-up, but what will it be in the intended use of remindment of the code?

It'll be an office warehouse.

Office warehouse.

Okay.

Thank you, Justin.

So when the you were trying to go to heavy commercial, right?

And then that they the city council directed you to a development agreement.

It was kind of a mutual decision.

We started off trying to go to heavy commercial just because that was what the general plan called for.

And one of the city council members had some concerns about providing space between our building and the neighbors.

And so she suggested, why don't we just do a development agreement?

We actually loved that idea because quite frankly, if we can't build this building, we don't really want our it to be zoned heavy commercial.

We'd rather go back to the drive-thru.

And so we we said, great, yeah, that's a that's a win for us if we can just get our building approved with the current zoning.

And if we can't, we'll just go back to doing something on the mixed use.

Okay.

So this is this development agreement.

Was something you were excited about?

Yeah.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Anything else?

Are you gonna have uh deliveries?

Um what what kind of traffic are are they gonna be?

I'm not gonna expect sure.

Um there's it's not you're not the tenant.

I'll be one of the tenants.

Okay, but there's likely gonna be three or four tenants.

I can't speak to what type of business the other three tenants are gonna do.

I don't know yet.

One of the concerns that's come up several times on this parcel, and you've been aware, I'm sure, but is that directly to the what direction is that south?

South east is a home, right?

And where the ingress and egress has always been presented and proposed.

It has a direct line of sight to Bay Windows, bedroom windows, etc.

Where there would be a lot of light nuisance.

Is there any thought to where the ingress and egress will go?

I haven't seen the formal plan.

Uh I mean there's a concept on that was kind of attached.

Um I mean it'll it's on exhibit B if you want me to come show you.

Is it in the packet?

It wasn't in the packet.

Yeah.

If you show that stuff, you gotta give it to her.

But give it to let us see give it to her.

So that's that's same thing, yeah.

Right there.

That's where it's always been.

But there is a grid differential there too.

Remember that we talked about drive-throughs going through there.

Um also there's a huge jurisdiction in drive-through that's operating to like 11 at night and hours.

I mean, I'm sure you'll have the occasional pull in the late night or person.

So what they're gonna pull out at eight nine p.m.

like one car.

I mean, uh I think that's about as unintrusive a development as one could have.

Do you want that next to a house?

Oh, okay.

No, no, you no, good.

So the wall is gonna be on the is that the east between so nobody's gonna be driving a big truck and coming to that little turnaround at the top by I-15.

Um they'll be able to go into your parking lot and have room to turn around if if they need to come right back out instead of going all the way down.

There's that little round at the top of the street, 600.

Right.

Yeah, yeah.

We we haven't taken into consideration anyone turning around up in up in that on 600, just with just on the parcel.

The trees that exist to the direction up north is that north?

Okay.

Um, they won't be in danger, correct?

We're gonna do everything we can to keep the trees there.

Yeah.

That's the intention.

Are you you the trees on your side of the property or the uh they're both?

Both.

Yeah.

And that's where where the wall is gonna be.

Right.

So we're gonna basically give up a piece of our land so that we can main like keep the trees there for the separation and for the landscape.

Okay.

Anyone else wanna take a crack at the applicant?

Thank you, sir.

Thanks.

This is a public hearing.

Now is the time.

Please, sir.

Dennis Schoonover.

Very good.

That's uh I own the property.

And I was here before when we got it approved for the drive-throughs.

And a lot of the concept uh that Justin's talking about, we've addressed with the lights and stuff, and and that retaining wall or that rhino rock rock wall was put there specifically for the lights for that neighbor, because he was concerned about that.

But the other thing we did to try to save those trees is we were offsetting that rhino rock wall over two feet onto our property to uh to try to salvage as much of those trees as we can.

They're in my opinion, they're junk trees because they're great Chinese elms, but they're there and they're established trees, and we want to try to try not to destroy them if we could if we can help it.

We don't know uh yeah, we don't know how well we're gonna be able to take care of those trees because they're in pretty rough shape.

But we're we're that's why we offset that two feet to try to try try not to tear them down because they're they are right on the property line.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you, sir.

And then I own the property on both sides of it.

I have the the old police station.

Uh huh.

And uh which is being used great by by uh by a church and uh I've I've talked to these people with the church and they always need a little more parking.

This would be a great thing for them as an overflow on a Sunday to give them some additional parking.

Right.

And uh and then I have the property just up state street the other way, uh right there.

And so you know, we just want and and so it's established there what kind of businesses we have.

It's worked out really good.

So and our access when we when we talked about the uh drive-throughs was everything was gonna come off 600 because it it is a problem getting on on and off state street right there.

So okay.

Thank you, sir.

Anyone else from the public?

All right.

I will go ahead and close public hearing.

Uh Justin, could you come back up?

I have a question for you.

If those trees aren't able to be saved, it sounded like in the um the land the landscape buffer.

Are you prepared to put in additional landscaping if we lose those trees?

I know there's not a lot of space, but you know how I feel about trees, I think.

Yeah.

Um there's there's not a lot of room to put the additional landscaping in.

And so if we we probably would rather just zone it as heavy commercial before agreeing to put in the landscaping, because if we change the zoning, we wouldn't have to put that in.

Um so instead just going with the development agreement, we're fine to agree to okay.

Well, we'll put the building as far away from that property line as possible so that we can salvage the trees and make it so that you know there's not lights shining in or you know what what have you.

Um it it just makes it so that at that point it becomes unfeasible for us to build this building, so we would revert back to the mixed use concept of the drive-thru.

Thank you.

Chinese elm tree.

Yeah.

But they're green and they're may already provide some buffer for that.

So like using any more trees in Leon.

Uh I I don't think that is much to kick around here personally.

I mean, it sounds like it's been deeply thought out.

The the council has thought this through.

Um, this sounds to me like the best development for this property.

Much better that we've seen.

Yes, and it does so without kicking the door open to uh you know to other things with the zone change.

Uh to me, this is just no brainer.

Question for staff.

It says in the in the packet that it's the Beckstrom development agreement, it's a Hammond development agreement, correct?

It was a carry over from the previous one.

Okay.

I am curious about the trajectory that a garbage truck comes in, right?

Because the garbage is oriented away from the entrance.

So they would have to come in, turn around, grab it, and then leave.

Is that what I'm understanding there?

And I guess this is just a rough concept, but I don't know if you want to answer that.

Yeah, I would think they'd have to come in, do some kind of a hammerhead turn and then come pick it up and leave.

Yeah, I was I was kind of told the finer details of how the concept would work would be worked out in a future discussion.

You go, brother.

But yeah, that's it is something to think about as you make sure you get ample turnaround for a for a big garbage truck.

Yeah.

Um I'll make a motion.

Let's do it.

All right.

Item this is 3.8.

Okay.

Item public hearing recommendation of Justin Hammond's request to review uh a full review of the Hammond development agreement on the light office warehouse project located approximately 600 West State Street.

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

Uh with the findings of the proposed development code amendment uh is in conformance with the purposes, intent, and provisions of the general plan and its various elements.

And it will include all DRC comments.

Would you add another finding that it would this use under this development agreement would be consistent with the neighboring use of mixed use?

Yes.

Okay.

So amended.

I'll second that then.

Motion and a second.

All those in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

No.

Very good.

Trees.

Item 3.9.

All right.

Item 3.9.

This is a public hearing and a recommendation of John Hadfield's request for review of the JDH property development agreement, adding 30 residential units to the West Project Development Agreement affecting 2146 West and 2198 West Stockton Lane.

The West Project Development Agreement was approved in 2022 with the East Development Agreement.

The original agreements were able to create a loop loop road around Common Spirit Holy Cross Hospital and allowed 125 residential units.

And this is to increase the viability of the development.

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

Questions for staff.

Very good.

Thank you.

My name is Mark Skalson representing JDH development.

I think it was a great summary of what we're trying to do.

Just a an amendment to our development agreement that's been approved in 2022.

Um just to add 30 additional units.

Sure to say.

This is the property where conceptually it was identified with an upper, like a upper pool deck.

Is this is this the same property?

Maybe not.

Maybe it's not.

Oh yeah, it's uh it's uh no, I I don't think there was a pool deck being considered.

No.

Okay, maybe I'm thinking of a different property.

I was curious because there was a talk of building a pedestrian crossing of the railroad in this location.

And I was curious connection.

Yeah, I think was that that was this property agreement.

Yeah, that and it was a different developer.

I think they've since acquired the property, but yeah, that was an old concept that was approved here.

It had yeah, kind of a unique design for the building.

Yeah.

We were skeptical at the time if you would if they would be able to get that crossing over the railroad.

And I was curious if there was update there, but yeah, no, I'm not changed.

It's changed.

It's it's uh it'll just be residential housing right there.

Okay.

All right.

Okay, thank you.

This is a public hearing.

If anyone from the public likes to speak to this item now, is the time.

Seeing none, we will go ahead and close that and bring it on back to the commission for liberation or a motion.

I'll make a motion.

Please.

Item 3.9 public hearing and recommendation of John Hadfield's request for review of the JDH property development agreement.

Adding 30 residential units to the West Project Development Agreement affecting 2146 West and 2198 West Stockton Lane.

I move that we give it a positive record recommendation.

And with the findings that adding residential units to this area will provide people close access to restaurants, trail, and regional road access.

The proposed development agreement amendment is in conformance with the purposes, intent, and provisions of the general plan and its various elements.

And would you please include all DRC comments with that motion?

Second.

Motion and second.

All in favor.

Aye.

Any opposed.

A three-two.

Got that, Kate.

Very good.

From business.

Thank you, sir.

All right.

310.

Oh, please.

This has nothing to do with Grant's corner, right?

That's another holdover from a previous motion.

So the uh possi the findings mention Grants Corner.

So that's why I got a clean those staff reports up.

Sorry, that's all.

Yeah.

Hayden didn't write on a run.

Yeah.

Yep.

Uh item 3.10 is a public hearing and recommendation of Bob Purdue's request for review of the water's edge development agreement, allowing 330 ERUs for residential and a hotel located at approximately 1350 East Interstate Plaza Drive.

The proposed development agreement will allow 330 ERUs, equivalent residential units, and requires that they provide a high-end hotel.

The size of the hotel would reduce the amount of ERUs available for residential development.

At least 30% of the residential units must be a for sale product.

And there must also be a three to four-star hotel.

A 10-foot trail will be required between the development and the meadows retail center to the east.

Thank you.

Questions for staff.

All right.

Mr.

Purdue.

It's good to see you again, sir.

It's good to be seen.

Good.

Sorry for the wait.

Hopefully we have more success tonight than we did last time.

Yep.

I remember.

Uh this has been a but this is what we discussed, right?

Well, yes.

This is the this is exactly what we discussed.

Yeah.

Um, and uh we had numerous meetings with uh council members ahead of the city council meeting.

Um and this was a logical um avenue to go down for this property without doing uh they didn't they did as you said uh along with the lines of what you uh you uh voted on or came up to conclusion with they did not want to do a mixed use or or change the zoning at this time to a mixed use.

Right.

Um so they felt that a development agreement would be more in line with they what what they want to do because they like the the concept or they don't want to change the they like the concept.

Um they like the concept of mixed use.

Uh-huh.

They just didn't there was just zone it out.

And and the comment has been made that the mixed-use zoning is not defined specific enough and gave and gave us too much leeway, too much uh flexibility what we could do.

I don't disagree with that.

Um, and so a development agreement would be a little more controlling um on what we could do with the property, and uh this has been what we have right here.

Um is uh it it actually Kim correct me if I'm wrong.

This came out of uh the motion that was made by the uh city council with some negotiating of some of the language and some of the terms um uh by us and by um the planning department.

Um and I think we come up with something that works for everybody.

And uh so we're hoping to get it uh approval at this stage and then go to the command uh the council for approval.

Okay.

That's not boredom with your speech.

That is it's late.

I'm glad to see you here.

Um glad to see this taking a good turn.

Yeah.

Any any questions?

I have a question.

Um I remember last time when you were here, you talked about your um conversations with American Fork.

Um, how are how are those going?

Has there been any progress there?

Um I talked to Woodbury what's today?

Today is Thursday.

I talked to them Tuesday for an update.

The the current situation with that is um is that American Fork.

Um I don't know if you don't show it there, but basically the the the access road would go through our fee road, connecting 1350, go up to the property to the north and then go along the north of the property, connecting uh behind the one white building up there on Spring Creek.

Um and once we moved, yeah, right there.

Um once we move the connector road up there, American Fork is uh they are in favor.

Okay.

They're in favor of it.

Uh they haven't uh approved it yet, uh, but they are in favor of that connection being up there.

They ruled out immediately the connector road uh connecting right in front of Walmart, which was our first rendition.

Um we right now we are waiting for feedback from Walmart.

Walmart is uh right now um trying to I should say trying.

They're in the process of adding a fuel station to the property.

Wow, right.

At the at the northern end of their parking lot out there.

Um so they're they're right now in that process of actually over to the over to the well, my right.

There we go.

More or over that side.

Um right there, huh?

Right there.

Right.

Um and uh they're in that process right now of going through planning that and that land use and things like that with American Fork.

Again, American Fork isn't against the idea.

Uh but right now uh Walmart is more concentrated on that aspect than they are this they are in favor, they just haven't given their final approval yet.

But that's the that's where we are.

Sorry, um, is is it so it's by like Deseret Book up there, the connector road?

Right there.

Right there.

Yeah, it's it's right near our access road.

Yeah, our access road connects in right behind yeah, desert books right there.

Okay, so it would continue, it would continue with that road right there, and then um Woodbury will be putting adding another traffic circle.

Um yes, right there.

That's the worst, that place right there.

They'd be adding another traffic circle there.

As part of just got traffic flow and keep the traffic flowing and things like that.

So that's Woodbury's part uh the contribution.

Right.

No here.

That's that's right now is a permanent easement.

Um uh going through those two buildings that the easement states for vehicular pedestrian and utility easement to be used.

So we have what we're looking at is and then that's a no, it's further down right there.

That's our that's fee property.

We own that we own that small strip of land that goes that connects out to 1350.

Is that the property?

Okay, is that the main entrance then?

That would be that would serve as the main entrance, yes.

So there would be three three access points.

Remember down here.

Uh we haven't done anything with um uh we haven't done anything with them.

We we we could we I talked to them uh I forget the guy, the Roland.

Oh Mark Hampton.

Well, anyways, rim rock.

Yeah, rolling mills, rolling mills.

I had a conversation with him probably six, eight months ago regarding a access point there, but I was told that that would not satisfy our uh two access requirement.

Oh, you're talking Luke Siegmiller with Lehigh City.

What's that?

Uh the traffic engineer.

No, no, no, the owner.

Oh, okay.

The owner of the of Rolling Mills apartments.

I spoke to him about um uh doing an easement right there, kind of a natural space for access the property.

Um, but that would not satisfy our secondary access road.

For connectivity standards, they would still need to connect to that stub.

Is that correct?

Well, it's kind of at the end of the road, and I mean it we it wouldn't, I mean it wouldn't I meant that question for Kim.

Oh, okay, sorry.

I mean, I I get your opinion on that, but I want to know what city if the connectivity standard of the city if we would have them connect to a stub that exists already.

There's no street view here.

It looks like it was intended that it could connect, but it is private.

So I don't Gary was just saying we probably couldn't force it.

It's not a city's private property.

Okay.

And we don't we do not have an easement.

Right.

Um the the easement going north was required by the city of Woodbury when they built uh the the uh that stopping center.

So that was a requirement of them to build that was uh um providing an easement for our property.

Um but when rolling mills was built, there was not that requirement.

But he was uh I had a discussion with him and he was open to the idea, but we didn't take any further than that.

Okay.

Um I should take a seat and we'll do the we'll do the dance, the public comment.

Okay, would you like to go through some of the changes in this at the explanation or or yes, please?

No, yes.

Yes, let's go ahead and do that for okay.

All right.

Um on the first page, uh it's just uh the comment uh was made that uh the city council at some point in time should probably do a legal zone change after the plan is that the site is is planned.

Um ERUs, uh there's a 25 for the hotel for every 25 um fixtures in the hotel.

Um there's one less ERU.

Um and we thought we it's probably about an average of five um fixtures per per unit um in the uh in the four cell housing.

Sorry, what is a fixture?

A fixture is a a plumbing, a sink, toilet, shower.

And it's into your density.

Five sinks oh for infrastructure.

Yeah, for infrastructure.

For basic, it's basically for to control volume of use.

Yeah, I understand hotel as opposed to a so 25 fixture units in the hotel, we would reduce our our our one one residential unit.

Yeah, that's where that came from, Mr.

Purdue.

That that 25.

Is that just uh that came that's the international?

My understanding is that's the international standard.

Okay.

Is that reasonable, Kim?

I mean, seems like yeah, Lauren has actually used that on other projects.

Okay, yeah.

So each sink, toilet, and shower counts as one individual.

So in a hotel unit, you've got five or so fixtures potentially.

No, it's a sink a sink counts for one, yeah, shower for one.

So yeah, so each hotel room has about five three to five.

Makes sense.

It's about flow and and and and requ and need and things like that.

Um the other next one is is the the requirement uh for three three or four star hotels.

Uh we did a little study on that.

The only four-star in in Lehigh that we found was up near Costco.

Um most of the hotels, uh most of the three-star hotels.

There's a hotel near Costco.

There's a four-star hotel.

Oh, four star, I thought you said four star.

Which one is it?

I don't know.

I just didn't Costco.

It's got to be there being I think it's the Hyatt and things or in uh Traverse Mountain.

It's either gotta be the Hyatt or the Yeah, I think so, yeah.

Right off Timpano's highway.

Yeah, yeah, that's not not near Costco.

Although not nearing you might be able to see it.

Well, it's uh I mean I mean, I mean, compared to where we are now, it's probably not except when that and then the um all the three-star hotels are up near Thanksgiving Point.

Is that like Speedia or Hotwire Three Star?

You're carrying on.

Um the the only hotels around here around the subject property are all two two and a halves.

So a three, it's a minimum three would definitely be an upgrade to what is in the area currently.

Uh four would be difficult.

A four-star hotel would be difficult in that location uh to get investors to get a flag in that area.

Um it's just it just doesn't lend itself to a four-star.

So the the city council wanted uh an up up um a high end and they labeled four, but four is not gonna work there.

So we said three to four, somewhere between three and four.

And three would be an upgrade to that area.

It would be motel six is pretty much.

That's all that's really there is the motel six.

Um let's see, what else?

Uh the power requirement that that comes down the road.

We have uh the uh um excuse it the wetlands delineation report.

I have to be in um completed.

It shows nine and a half acres of buildable area.

Um that is off with the Army Corps of Engineers right now for certification.

We that's well, they've had it for about three months and we're just waiting for it.

Sure.

Um I think that's about it.

There's some legal language here.

Our legal counselor reviewed that and did no problem with your with your changes.

Um I think that's about it.

That's the only changes that were made.

Yeah.

All right.

So okay.

Very thank you.

Uh this is a public hearing.

Anyone from the public like to speak to the side.

Now is the time my name is Evan Howlett.

I didn't actually come to to speak on this, but I recall this a few weeks or months ago from city council uh meeting.

Time has no meaning anymore.

Um so I when I learned about this, I was like, I didn't even realize that there was all of this green space over by Walmart.

And so I drove around it and I I can only speak to my own experience of how like living in Utah, living in Utah County.

We all are defensive drivers.

We have to be.

Um, but especially in that parking lot, it is a there's so much stuff going on.

Um and even if there are multiple ways in and out, like adding anything else to that is um it makes me really nervous and I would definitely personally avoid going over there.

Um the other one is um the every time I leave what um Texas Roadhouse.

Not that I'm always at Texas Roadhouse, but when I when I'm going that way, um I struggle uh turning right, not turning left.

I struggle turning right because there are often um cars, sometimes bigger trucks because of what's on the other side.

Is that 1350?

I don't know.

Whatever road that is, uh hang on, I have a map.

So I can be yes, 1350.

Um it says that there's vinyl industries there and there are always big trucks there.

I just it's really really hard to simply turn right.

Um and so if there's even more traffic, that is going to block everything.

The other thing is when I get when I'm on 13 50 and I'm trying to turn on to make turn right on to Maine.

I don't know if you guys have experienced it, but a lot of times people are trying to turn right and they don't go because they need to get to the left hand the left lane as soon as possible to then turn left onto state and it's already backed up.

And If it's already a pain point, um I'm just concerned that without adding something else somewhere um that it would I mean it's only gonna make the issue worse.

I'm not against hotels or you know, all of this this stuff like that that's not the issue.

It's just like I already hate driving there.

So thank you.

Anyone else like to comment?

All right.

We'll go ahead and close public comment, bring it back to the commission.

It is gonna increase traffic there, sure.

It is a cluster that East Main Street is problematic.

I don't know that there's a solution other than when public transportation comes in.

Maybe that alleviates some of that, but yep.

I'm not.

But that doesn't mean we can't proceed with some level of development there.

But I I agree with that the public comment about traffic there.

Um it uh it is.

Um and I don't mean any kick the can down the road by any means.

Um it's um is but I I do think of it as in part growing pains.

Um that area is going to develop.

Uh we've uh I mean it's it's planned to be uh a train a point of transit.

Um so I would not call it um cause to derail what's been worked out with city council.

The reason we have our connectivity standard is as something does get developed to provide more things for people to choose.

Although it is channel, we're not I'm not discounting that it's challenging because I've I go through here all the time as well, and it is it's hard.

Yep.

But potentially adding an alternative route for them to get onto State Street going through this development or even whatever again that's why we have our connectivity standard is to provide options of the well, I I'll just say I take issue with a comment made at the city council meeting about how this developer agreement will give the city more control of this property and this property owner that bothers me.

Um and uh I just take issue with a comment like that coming from government duly noted.

Um any further comments or motion.

I disagree slightly with your comment.

Just because yeah, I understand the sentiment and the way that it was presented there was zoning is control.

Zoning is control, right?

And if we I think the intent, and again, I don't know the intent, but I believe how I interpret the intent is that we're happy that something wants to get developed here.

We we are happy to allow something to get developed here, but we were not comfortable with everything that could be developed under a zone change request.

And so a development code was an option or was the option that the city council felt most comfortable with to control what could go in and limit the the things that they were afraid of going in that could potentially go in here.

So I in sentiment, I I absolutely agree that I don't love the word control coming from government, but in this case I I feel the sentiment was permitting without giving uh away the farm, right?

Uh without letting anything and everything in that zoning to be permitted.

And so that's where I I guess I would disagree slightly where I I feel like control here is is a good thing.

Well, I so well let me let me just chime in real quick.

I absolutely respect your perspective and I hear you.

Uh my approach to the situation would have been to allow this a developer and property owner to go to a TOD.

And that is how the system is set up and designed, and that's what the general plan calls for.

And instead of cherry picking our TODs apart because we're not ready for them and creating development agreements that are essentially unenforceable and in perpetuity.

Um I think we should be honoring our general plan.

Um but I hear you and I respect your perspective as well.

And I I just would have had a different solution, but I am happy to hear that um the developer feels like a solution is is happening.

It's just we have a general plan.

We've put millions and millions of dollars and countless hours into developing the TODs and to just cherry pick them apart with it is just what are we doing and why are we doing it.

I understand your frustration.

I do.

Um the question at hand for us is operating within the confines of what city council has done, which is what led us to this spot in the first place.

And I would say furthermore, to respect uh Mr.

Purdue's right as a citizen to enter into a contract, which is precisely what a development agreement is.

Uh this makes the most sense for him, given the restrictions that city council has and um given the the work and effort that's gone into it, his interest as the property owner.

I'm not uh and I'm not saying that you're suggesting otherwise, but I'm not gonna stand the way of his being able to execute.

We won't be in the way of anything.

That's true.

Well, why don't we go ahead and recommend exactly correct?

And that's a variety of recommendations.

We could make a neutral recommendation if we all kind of want to provided our input at the last meeting, and this is where we're at.

I mean, that's a solution.

I I I agree that we have a general plan.

I'm not a huge fan of TODs to begin with, but I think this provides us something that makes sense in this area.

This is where if we're gonna have this kind of development, it should be next to retail.

It should be where we can uh have a walkable, a real walkable without you know, thinking walkable is 1100 west on Main Street all the way to downtown.

So uh I mean I I kind of appreciate that the comments that we gave at the last planning commission has been taken into consideration to come up with something that fits it's not perfect.

This area isn't perfect because it is a challenging area and it's against another municipality and it's against some physical barriers.

I mean, I'm surprised if you'll ever get an answer back from the Corps of Engineers, to be honest with you.

So and that might be a deal breaker, but um, yeah, and I think just to add on that, we're making lemonade, uh yeah, some pretty horrible rotten lemons.

Rotten lemons that they picked.

I mean, they're the council is essentially self-imposing this restriction that prohibits this developer from following the general plan to create then to create a development agreement that they that are hard to enforce.

And um anyway, I I made my point, but it it's a self-inflicted barrier that they've created that challenges the general plan they adopted that we've spent millions of dollars and countless hours of public input having also that we can end up with essentially a development agreement that gives them a TOD.

Because it has the same stuff in it that would have been in the general plan, but we've gone around because we've self-imposed a restriction at a council level and it's challenging the integrity of our general plan and causing more paperwork and more government red tape through the development agreement.

I would be inclined to first of all, m poor Mr.

Perdue is the one who's had to deal with this more than anything, and I'm inclined to give the man what what he's what he's looking for here.

Uh, I think he has a right to to that in terms of what his ownership land uh ownership is, and I mean I realize that he needs this development agreement given the restrictions on that land, but all that to say, if uh if you want to add language to that um that says uh, you know it's ridiculous that we have to resort to this, I'm fine with that.

But I would support proving the development agreement.

Let's let's do this.

But I'm just someone needs to make a motion.

Um or I mean if you guys are uh obviously if you're opposed to this is a deliberative body, I'm not gonna edict.

I'm just being very clear on what my views are.

The biggest the biggest question to me is coming down to that four-star to a three-star um the description or or the what was described seems reasonable from my perspective.

Um to target that three to four star kind of a rating.

Um again, as far as viability of a four-star attracting that, I'll take your word for it.

I don't I don't have data that suggests that you're telling me the truth or a lie there, right?

Uh I'm just saying that uh it seems reasonable to request um to to change that wording.

And yeah, a four star I couldn't imagine a four no offense, the spa, but no, a four-star hotel is not want to go in next to Walmart, to be frank.

I just don't know.

So it's kind of a provision that's a little awkward, I think, in terms of enforcement going back to Commissioner Lockhart's.

I love the idea that we're gonna shoot for the best.

What does that really mean?

And who's judging that?

What's that standard?

Thinking that's that's something for the city council to determine.

I don't think that's necessarily for us to determine.

Um I don't want to let this poor man develop his property.

Yeah, frankly.

So I'll make a motion.

Okay.

All right.

Um curious to hear it.

Three point uh public hearing a recommendation of Bob Purdue's request for review of the water edge development agreement allowing 330 ERUs for residential at a hotel located at approximately 1350 East Interstate Plaza Drive.

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

Um with a finding number one, the city council recog requested this uh or allowed this path to be taken uh to uh come into an agreement with the landowner um that the landowner has done some due diligence on uh uh connections uh connectivity patterns as well as looking at uh the feasibility and possibility of developing the land.

I will include the findings that the proposed development agreement requires trail and road connections that will benefit the development and surrounding areas.

The proposed development agreement allows for residential and commercial development within the utility constraints of the area, and that the proposed development agreement amendment is in conformance with the purposes intent and provisions.

We'll leave that one out.

Uh I will include the DRC comments.

I'll second that because I think when this came forward before, I liked the concept, but there were challenges with the implementation.

And I think some of those have been addressed.

So I'm happy to second that motion.

Okay.

Motion and a second.

All's in favor.

I mean opposed.

Hey, yay.

All right.

You got those?

Do you need them?

Perfect.

Mr.

Purdue.

I know this has been a ride and it continues, but at least the ride continues.

So congratulations on I would continue whether we go to the other direction anyway.

That's why I was like, City business.

It's not ours.

Okay.

Three items.

Okay.

And then that's all that stands between us and Levy.

All right.

Okay.

Uh first one and probably the most important.

Uh with December.

Uh, there are a couple of scheduling challenges.

There's only one planning commission, regular planning commission and one regular city council meeting.

There's some items that are really hoping to get on that last city council meeting for the year.

So what we're proposing or what we're hoping that you're okay with that we've already started to go down this path.

What we'd want to do is change your December 4th work session and just turn that into the regular meeting for December.

And then we would not hold a regular meeting the following Thursday.

And then the following Tuesday, which is December 18th, would be a joint.

You're invited to a dinner with the city council in the new city hall council chamber.

So they're gonna be ready.

We hope either way we're having dinner.

Yeah, either way we're having dinner.

So those are the three items.

That's right.

So yeah, next meeting on 12.4 would be a regular meeting.

And and we could still start it at 5:30 if there's a concern with time, or we can just start it at 7 like we do our other regular meetings.

We could go either way.

There's a couple of development agreements I'm trying to remember.

Yeah.

We didn't read a night.

Are you thinking more out there?

I know like that.

That was like a record for a year in one night.

Yeah, these are for Thanksgiving point for their HTRZ funding and anybody's some issues related to the Thanksgiving point development.

And then I'm trying to remember there was one other that before.

So the guard.

But if everybody's okay, we we probably just started at 7 p.m.

But but like I said, if we want if somebody has something that they've always got on first Thursday that they need to be gone by seven, we can not get at 5 30.

Five o'clock starts, it'll screw me up.

Yeah, it works.

Yeah, she said the 18th.

Uh an early start, like a five year old.

Christmas dinner is is it on the 16th?

So it'd be on, and that would be the night of the final city council meeting.

They moved their regular meeting would have been the week before, but because the building probably won't be they know that won't be done by then.

They're hoping if they bumped it a week, so it's still you know far enough away from Christmas.

But yeah, that would be the night of the dinner, and the dinner would be at 4:30, and then they'd still have their regular meeting that started at 6 p.m.

pre-counted.

Yeah, the 16th, Tuesday, December 16th.

And no meeting of December 11th.

Yeah, and then we would cancel your December 11th so you could clear that off your calendar because we just plan on everything being on that December 4th.

And really, there's with Thanksgiving coming up in a couple of weeks, there's really not a whole lot more that we could even put on the fourth or the 11th.

So we just figured if you're okay, because by them uh getting to the planning commission on the fourth, it allows us to advertise so they can get on that city council meeting.

So that's why we're kind of juggling things.

So if everybody's okay with that, um session starts at four, you said 4:30.

Uh 4:30 for the dinner, yeah.

And it's just dinner, there'd be no items or any business on there, it would just be a Christmas dinner.

So you could come and enjoy the food in the new council chambers.

Yeah, that will be uh Brent's last meeting.

It will I know the glass supper.

Technically, yeah, somebody's approved and appointed.

It could be all request meetings.

I know.

At the mayor's will, right?

Oh, I doubt that.

We'll see what he does.

Yeah, yeah.

Yeah, we have made Tisha and the mayor aware that we have a vacancy, which we're sad to know about that.

But three full terms, that's impressive.

Yeah, when was the last time somebody did that?

I know you're Janice Hutchings.

I don't know.

Probably been a while.

Three on the distance, it's the marathon award.

Well, yeah, the experience shows, yeah.

Yeah, I'll be I'll be like both have.

Absolutely.

Yeah, nine years.

Were you an alternate before?

I was that for how long?

Not very long.

Uh yeah, because appointed in July, and it was an alternate until December.

Oh, so just like six months.

Yeah.

Then I was on the board of adjustment prior to that, and they did away with that.

So I served there for two and a half, three years.

Yeah.

So do our bylaws stay at how long he has to not be a member of the commission before he could potentially consider the case.

They do.

I know.

I think as long as yeah, so you just have to be reappointed.

Well, does there have to be like could he immediately be reappointed?

He loses all minority.

It would be back to the council.

I'm guessing they're they're gonna want to change.

Yeah, Kim, I'm sorry to ask us again.

No, you're good.

Nothing on the 11th, nothing on the 11th.

You can clear your calendar that way because it might be better to just hit everything on the fourth to be done, and then if you want to show up for the dinner, so it'd just be the fourth and the 16th.

Yep.

Sorry to ask you how many items there are for the fourth so far with the uh I think there's four.

There's two development agreements that are both basically sister agreements related to Thanksgiving point, and it relates to their HTRZ funding.

There's a separate participation agreement that you don't have to approve, but they've asked that these development agreements come forward, and then I think there's two other items.

I can't remember what they are, so it'd be a little bit of a lighter agenda, but lighter than tonight.

We hope this is our last meeting of the month tonight, right?

Yeah, yeah, no other meetings this month.

Yep, because the next one, unless you want to bring the cranberry and does the December 4th meeting have it big.

Uh about four items.

Is it possible to ask an update on the truck traffic concerns off 700 south going into that new subdivision?

Oh when we as a planning commission had recommended they use mainstream and they didn't.

And so what's the recourse on that?

Have you heard I haven't heard anything?

I know we own property directly north, and I think there was a conversation.

I don't know what the outcome was with our public works because they have plans for a future public works shop there.

But I don't I mean so we could allow them to come through our property, but I don't know.

I don't know if there's ever been an agreement reached.

So I get it.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Once you start driving.

Yeah.

Yeah.

No, I saw that news story, but I haven't heard anything.

We knew that was too small, and then that's why we said we recommend come off Main Street.

Yeah.

Oh well.

They are public streets, but it just happens to be in a very Yeah, they have blocked off the road, but nobody on earth that block, by the way.

Everyone still goes around the roads blocked off tonight coming here.

Yeah, I didn't do that either.

I parked over there.

Uh I mean we have a ticket now.

Thank you for your shirtless.

Yeah, yeah, that's everything.

Okay.

Oh, wait.

Motion and a second.

All's in favor.

I need posed.

I mean, without further without further business, we come before Katie.

We talked to him like it's a good one.

I have 45.

Yeah.

You can audit against that.

What happened above Walmart one?

Yeah.

We all passed a negative recommendation on the Walmart one.