Yeah, I guess where we don't have a chair tonight.

Our former chair is absent from the meeting.

Um I don't know if you saw my email, but we'll need to just temporarily elect a chair to run the first couple of items, and then once we have our new chair selected, they can take over the meeting.

So we'll let the commission proceed.

Can we nominate the new chair right now?

Yes.

Uh well.

We have a quorum.

Yeah.

I mean they don't have to elect a chair to elect a chair if they want to just go to the what they would just need is uh to follow the the bylaws and selecting a new chair.

Yeah.

So you can just go collectively nominations and then vote.

And if we get a majority vote for the chair, and then we'll do the co-chair after that.

Okay.

All right.

Well, I would like to nominate for chair.

Commissioner error higher.

Yeah.

I'm just trying to think we do need to gavel in the meeting and begin.

I'd like to nominate Ken as a temporary chair for this meeting.

Second it.

All in favor.

All right.

Temporary chair.

Call us to order.

All right.

Well, okay.

Here we go.

Um can I have the gavel?

Please, by all means.

With great power sounds great.

We're going to do this.

Let's do it.

All right.

I'll call this meeting to order for uh the I planning commission on January 8th, 2026.

Um first order business would be nomination for uh chair.

Any nominations for a chair for this next coming year.

Acting commissioner, I would like to put forward that we or I would like to nominate Commissioner Tyson Eyre.

Yeah.

I'll second.

We have a first and well, we have a nomination and a second for Commissioner Ehrer to be the chair.

This could be a fun year if we have errors of chair.

For the 2026.

All those in favor?

Aye.

I think voting is okay.

Well, let's move on.

Uh very good.

Here's the gap there.

Yeah.

Um, we need a vice chair.

I would like to put forward a nomination for Commissioner Nicole Coons as vice chair.

Is that it's Coonsey.

Two difficult names to say.

Yeah.

Perfect.

I'd like to second that.

Yeah.

Awesome.

All in favor?

I need posts.

Oh, I've got the higher and can I just um item three we have decided to put to the end of the meeting?

Yeah, if you're okay, there's so many other items.

This isn't a priority.

We can do it at the end.

And if it gets late and you want, we'll just def defer.

You could still adopt the bylaws later in the meeting, and we can still do a training in February.

So we'll we'll do but yeah, for now we would ask that that item be moved to the end of the agenda.

And so moved.

Mr.

Chair, just so you know, Kim and I looked at the bylaws as well as the code.

You're not required to um adopt those at the first meeting.

They just need to be adopted and updated.

That being said, uh do we need a motion to move that to the end of the meeting?

Um sure.

Yeah, let's do it by motion.

I would like to make a motion that we move item uh 3.1 to the end of the meeting.

Seconded.

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposite.

All right.

Thank you.

Turn the time over to Brittany.

Um so item 4.7 has asked to be tabled.

I just want to make note of that at the beginning.

Um Brittany, if we could have that be postponed instead of tabled, because if we table it, then it'll have to be brought back at a different meeting.

So if we can just postpone it to a certain date.

Um I don't think they had a specific date they wanted it to come back to.

So does that they can postpone it uh to a date to which the what you can give a time frame, say within the next two months, or it'll come back and they can postpone it further.

That's the Hadco office, right?

No to it.

I'll take a motion to postpone item 4.7.

Um Mr.

Chair I would like to make a motion that we on item 4.7 public hearing in consideration of JDH developments request for approval of the Hadco HQ concept plan located at 1450 West 1850 north be postponed in the next two months.

Sure or a time but I would also recommend I don't know if there's anyone here to speak on that item but it is a public hearing item so if you want to open public hearing you can that way individuals that are here today can be heard on that item and wouldn't have to come back at the next one unless they wanted to.

Should we do that when it comes up in the agenda or no?

We can do it now as well if it's just going to be shorter.

Is there anybody here that's here for item 4.7 that would like to speak seeing none.

And then yeah so if you want to open public hearing you can on that or we can just postpone it and then have public hearing on that save the public hearing for the actual agenda so do I need to change my motion just two months?

Just postpone.

Postpone for we're the next when they're available within the next two months and then we'll notice it.

Postpone until they are available.

Yeah.

Second bring the action again motion and a second second by Roberts.

Um all in favor?

Aye now Britney item 4.1 public hearing in consideration of Joseph Lambert's request for approval of the Sando Hana concept plan located at 2727 Sandalwood drive in the TOD zone and requesting an exception to the architectural requirements and a reduction in the number of required parking spaces.

So um this is the parcel located next to the sanctuary apartments um there proposed layout um oh do I exit over those way out in the um it um is just this large indoor volleyball center um and it um so kind of fr with front down here um and have the sides so there's internal roads that would go along the kind of west side of the building we'll call it and south um and so for the design um the it it falls in both the TOD design requirements which requires 50% of the front be glass it also is in the urban tech mixed use design district which requires 40% glass on all the facades that face a street so that would include the front and the two side elevations in the front but we're unable to meet the 40% on the sides and um they provided a narrative explaining why that was hard um including you know that for the use of volleyball it shine a lot of light in make it hard to see um so they're just asking for the exception to that as as well as a little bit of a reduction in um the the parking spaces which is allowed with the TOD um to have a little bit less um but with that I'll turn it back to the commission for any questions.

Any questions for staff yeah I'm trying to find the number for the reduction in parking spaces what is that um to pull that up to the Kim while Britney is pulling that up I'm noticing that there are a sus substantial amount of DRC comments here.

It seems like there's quite a few exceptions they're trying to get around just parking and s I don't know it is this an issue is this something we should really be concerned with.

Normally they we'd and and they are going to need to come back to DRC to resolve some of the other technical issues.

You a lot of those are utilities and things, but I think they wanted some level of comfort that you would be willing to entertain the exceptions first before they resubmitted.

So the items that Brittany's presented are the main issues that you would need to decide on, and then depending on the outcome, they would resubmit and we'd have them probably go through one, maybe even two or three more iterations with the DRC to work through all of those.

You know, a lot of them are more technical utility things.

So thank you.

Good point though.

Yeah, usually we try to not send things forward unless there's about 10 or less comments, so that we're pretty confident that everything else has been worked out.

But this one, these are pretty major.

You know, if they if you decide you don't want to grant the exceptions, it will change their layout.

So with the parking, um, I guess it depends on a little bit on how you calculate it.

So they're saying it's either 300 or 180, depending on um how you calculate it.

And um if you did a 50% reduction, which is allowed by the TOD, then you would get to 150 or 90.

Um how many are they proposing?

Uh they're proposing 150.

And yeah, they had focused do a parking study and said that 150 should be sufficient for it.

Any other questions for staff?

Not right now.

Okay.

Uh this is a public hearing by the public to come that would like to.

Applicant, is the applicant present?

Please come forward.

State your name and tell us anything that we didn't hear.

Pull the microphone up, Jane.

Sorry.

Thanks.

Uh Joseph Lambert.

And we have, and I don't know, Brittany, if you had the rear elevation.

So the rear elevation had a lot of glass.

We're trying to compensate for the lack of or the exemption we're kind of requesting on the two sides and supplementing with additional glass on the opposite two sides.

Um the crux is we kind of have streets on all four sides, so that's why we're here because you know, to Brittany and the rest of the staff that we've talked at the DRC, there are some items that we're working through, but these are kind of hard stop kind of items.

You know, if it doesn't work, then we might have to reconfigure or maybe abandon the project.

So that's why we're here.

I have a question.

The it says um opaque glazing.

So those those aren't windows on the on the sides there.

Yeah, so that was uh what the architect came up with because we don't want direct light to come through.

Um so we were still trying to get the look of some glass over on those um perimeters without allowing kind of that uh fresh light coming in to potentially you know have an impact on the use.

So opaque, not tr transparent, I guess.

Gotcha.

Um I'm totally okay with uh the reduction in windows.

It's that's not an issue for me.

Um but the parking, I think could be an issue.

I've been to the the sandbar in northern Salt Lake and they have very little parking for a similar facility.

They only have 47 parking stalls.

So we're looking at tripling that.

Okay.

With the same number of courts.

Can you Brittany mentioned that you did a study on the number of parking and that 150 was the number that came up?

Can you just tell me a little bit about that study?

Um so they went through and compared comparable areas and as well as looked at it from two, and again, not my area of expertise, but two different avenues to see what would be applicable or kind of by the parking codes.

Um so that was the number he came up with.

We were kind of going on the 300s, which was what the DRC recommended.

Um so that's why we kind of you know, with the 50% reduction.

I think on site we could fit close to 150, and then now we would be talking to one of the neighbors to potentially use, but again, asking for 10 additional stalls versus 160 extra stalls, you know, that's a big conversation point.

Yeah.

So yeah.

Um have you already had those conversations with your neighbors?

So SALT um said that we could work something out, but again, it's we don't know the numbers, so that's kind of what and then compensation, you know, was kind of what it comes down to.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

No more questions for me.

Any other questions for the applicant?

All right.

Stay close just in case.

Okay, perfect.

Thank you.

All right.

This is a public hearing.

Um is anybody here that would like to speak to item 4.1?

Seeing a mad rush to the stand.

We will close public hearing.

Um bring it back to the commission.

I I have a question before we jump into that too much.

I know that this is a situation where there are two overlays, right?

There are two, I guess design overlays here, districts here.

The this one where they are essentially going in the same direction, but what if they were in opposite directions?

What if we had a design that said they have to have this certain amount of glass, but then another design that says they can't have that much glass?

Like if they were opposed in opposing directions, how would that be handled?

Yeah, the development code says whatever you would consider the most restrictive would be the one that would apply.

So probably in this case, the TOD is a little bit more restrictive, or you know, it requires a higher percentage of glass, for example.

So yeah, if there's a conflict, it would go with the most restrictive.

I mean, I know in this case both of them are going in the same direction.

It's just a good question.

I was just curious.

Yep.

Any other questions for staff or discussion?

I'll entertain a motion.

Let's make a motion.

Chair, may I make a motion?

Yes, you may.

On item 4.1, public hearing consideration of Joseph Lambert's request for approval of the Sand Ohana concept plan located located at 2727 Sandalwood Drive in the TOD zone.

And requesting an exception to the architectural requirements and reduction in the number of required parking spaces.

I move that we approve the request with the glass being reduc reduced as they have put more glass on both ends of the building.

And also that the parking spaces fits the T O T T O D zone according to their study.

Can I suggest that we include all the DRF comments so that they have to work through those?

That is a wonderful suggestion.

Please add that to my motion.

I'll second it.

Motion and a second.

All right.

Uh 4.2.

Uh press.

You're good.

Item 4.2.

Public hearing and consideration of gardener companies request for approval of the Skyview East Plat Amendment, adding 10, it says 10, but there should be 13 lots at approximately Timpanogas Highway and Center Street.

Um it actually is 13.

Um, and they previously did another plot.

This is just coming back to further subdivide it into different lots.

Um this is all commercial.

And so the plans for the buildings, the infrastructure will come with future site plans.

This is just the legal subdividing of the property.

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

Any questions for staff?

Is the applicant present?

Good evening.

My name is Chase Peterson.

I'm with the Gardner Company.

And first off, just want to thank staff for all you guys are doing.

We're very grateful and know that this is a big project, so thank you.

Uh this is pretty straightforward.

And like you said, we're really just trying to subdivide these properties so each building has their own lot.

And if it wasn't clear, there's 10 on this east side of the project and then three other um lots on the the west side of the project.

Because you're you're doing the similar thing on the west side of the project, right?

Yeah, exactly.

Any questions for the applicant?

Thank you.

Yeah.

Um this is a public hearing.

Anybody would like to speak to item 4.2, the uh come off forward.

Okay.

Seeing none, we will close the public hearing and turn it back to the commission.

Mr.

Sherry, I'd like to make a motion.

Sorry, were you ready?

No, no.

Yours would be better.

No, I doubt it.

Uh item 4.2, public hearing in consideration of Gardner Company's request for approval of the Skyview East Platte amendment adding 13.

Should we can I correct that in the because it says 10?

Okay.

13 lots at approximately Timpanogas Highway and Center Street.

I move that we give approval for this request and with the findings that the proposed subdivision is a legal subdividing of land and does not include any improvements.

The proposed subdivision meets the requirements of the development code and please include our all DRC comments.

I'll second them.

Motion and a second.

All in favor?

Any opposed?

Great.

Thank you.

4.3.

Item 4.3.

Public hearing consideration of Gardener Company's request for approval of the Skyview West Plat Amendment, adding two lots at approximately tipnogas highway in center street.

This is the exact same thing just on the other side of Center Street.

So this is where the targets coming in on the bigger parcel over here and just dividing some of the front parcels, same thing, just a legal subdivision.

Um plans will come with a future site plan.

That I'll turn it back to the commission for any questions.

Any questions for staff?

Applicant, anything to add?

All right.

This is a public hearing.

Is anybody as we'll open the public hearing?

Does anybody have anything to say to item 4.3?

Seeing none, we will close the public hearing and turn it back to the commission.

Mr.

Commissioner, I'll put forward a motion that we approve item 4.3, public hearing in consideration of Gardner Company's request for approval of the Sky West, the Skyview West plot amendment adding two lots to approximately Tipinokas Highway and Center Street.

With the findings that the proposed subdivision is a legal subdividing of land.

Um that it does meet the requirements of the development code.

Let's see if there's any DRC comments.

Motion and a second.

Any opposed?

Thank you.

Brittany item 4.4.4.

Public hearing in consideration of Gardner Company's request for approval of the primary children's plat amendment, adding an additional lot for the Children's Center of Utah located at Miller Campus Drive and Waterbird Drive.

So this is another similar thing, just dividing off this separate lot almost an acre from the rest of primary children, so that the children's center can have their own parcel.

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

Any questions for staff?

Is there a building there now?

Are they is there a construction going on right now?

Yeah.

Okay.

Yeah, they do have an approach.

All right.

Um is the applicant present?

Anything you'd like to ask?

Unless you have everybody's questions.

All right.

Um that being said, this is a public hearing.

If anybody would like to speak to item 4.4, now is your time to do so.

Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing and turn it back to the commission.

Is it my turn to take a stab at making a motion?

Okay.

I'm probably gonna bungle this, so uh help me through it.

Uh Mr.

Cherry motion that we uh approve uh item 4.4 public hearing in consideration of Gardener's companies companies request for approval of the primary children's plat amendment, adding an additional lot for the children's center of Utah located at Miller Campus Drive and Waterbury Drive.

Uh finding that this is a does meet the requirements of the development code and include any DRC comments if there are.

Did you I didn't hear, did you say approve or don't approve?

Okay.

Yes.

All right.

Just making sure.

All right, motion and a second.

All in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed.

All right, thank you.

Uh 4.5.

Coming along.

Let's keep this going.

You know, I'm sure that these people don't want to say anything, so we'll just keep going.

Item 4.5.

Public hearing in consideration of Brian Blatter's request for approval of the 11th subdivision plot amendment, consolidating two lots back to one located.

627 West, 1200 north.

So uh in 2022, there was a flag lot and a two-lot subdivision that was approved that divided this into two lots.

Um the applicant now wants to combine those two parcels back together uh to build a garage.

You can't have a accessory structure without a home.

So to build a garage on it needs to be back into one lot.

So put a bringing it back, it'll still meet the requirements of the R1 flex zone.

With that, I'll turn it to the commission for any questions.

Yeah, we had that split into two lots and looking to build a garage there.

So combine it back into one.

In the future, we'll potentially probably do the same things, put it back up when we build a home on that second lot.

So any questions?

Questions for the applicant?

No, thank you.

Um this is a public hearing.

If anybody would like to speak to item 4.5, this is your time.

Seeing none, we will close the public hearing.

I will say we we don't see these very often, right?

This is a little unique for us, but uh I'll uh turn it back to the commission.

All right.

Is that me?

Um I'll go ahead and put a forward a motion that we approve item 4.5 public hearing and consideration of Brian Blotter's request for approval of the 11th subdivision plot amendment consolidating two lots back to one located at 627 West, 1200 north, with the findings that the proposed subdivision does meet the requirements of the development code.

And please include the few DRC comments that are there.

A second.

Motion and a second.

Uh all in favor.

Aye.

Any opposed.

Thank you.

You're good to go.

Enjoy the garage.

Item 4.6.

Item 4.6 public hearing in consideration of Gary Knapp's request for approval of the Rockwell Station concept plan for an office building located at 200 West Main Street.

So this is located Main 200 West.

Um this is Lehigh Bakery, if that helps you kind of get your bearings for it.

So uh proposed office building.

Um the footprint is about 7200 square feet, and it would be three stories.

Um the proposed elevations are glass and brick.

So they appear like they'd meet the historic design district um requirements, though full review of that would happen with the site plan.

Um the biggest concern from DRC during review was that there's no proposed parking on the site.

Um this is zone mixed use and um part of the historic districts, so the code says that there's no minimum parking requirement, but that the planning commission should consider what would normally be required, um, which is one stall for 300 square feet for office, um, which would be 72 parking spots.

The applicant has been talking to the city about leasing 30 spaces from the legacy center overflow, um, which would be down off here.

Um so a little bit of a walk.

Um the goal of the main street area is to not provide a lot of parking throughout, but kind of to consolidate it and um share the parking.

Um thing we realized if we had like a parking and uh payment in lieu for parking or something, that would be helpful in a situation like this, so that there's payment for uh parking structure or something in the future, but we don't have that in place right now, so it would just be are you okay with this building being approved without any parking?

Uming that that might create some impacts for the surrounding neighborhood.

Um yeah, with that I'll turn it to the commission for any questions.

I'm sorry, where is uh the Lehigh Bakery?

Uh it's right here.

It's this building right next to the next to it.

Okay, yeah.

So this is a parking lot now.

Yeah, yeah.

So not only do we not have parking, we're removing parking.

Yeah.

Okay, so 72 is expanded as well, right?

This building will require demand 72 spots, but we're also removing downtown parking.

Okay.

This is where this is the truck sellers are.

Yeah.

Um questions for staff.

I have a question.

Cool.

Oh, go.

So this is all office building.

Have we have we do we need this in downtown Lehigh?

Is this something that we've that people are clamoring for?

Yes, it's somewhat expect them to do the market studies and look into but yeah, I just know we talked a little bit in DRC, and I think this is the same group or at least um my understanding.

Yeah, the on the other end of the street.

Yeah, that is the has the Porter's Place building, and I think the demand has been strong on those small, those little tiny micro suites.

I guess you'd call them the small office.

We did talk to them about some retail on the ground floor, and I think they're open to that, and that's why they have some of the doors coming out onto the street that would allow the option for those to be retail, so it wouldn't be a hundred percent office.

None of res residential though, right?

There's no apartments.

No, no, they we asked them about that.

And then they could probably elaborate on why, but yeah, they didn't have an interest in doing the residential on this, so thank you.

I'm just curious now that right now there's the Saints and Center's coffee, and there's the snow shack that shows up every summer.

So how much parking is actually currently utilized in this because those both take up spaces.

Yeah.

Do we know?

I don't think I mean I haven't driven by the street.

I think anybody's done a formal analysis, but um I think you know, sometimes people from the bakery may park there.

I I think the bakery, you know, there's some on-street parking on Main Street, and then uh, you know, one of the things, the ideas that we put out there as part of the DRC is maybe they could provide some additional angled parking off of second west, like we do um you know, in front of the Lehigh Free Press Office and the old uh Dally Dallies building that would help provide some additional parking.

I mean, there's things that we could look at as a city.

Is there width enough there?

Uh yeah, I think it's the same same downtown block width as what we have over on First West.

And that has worked well.

You know, on the first west, it's both north and south.

So dominoes and a lot of those smaller businesses, the people will park in those angled stalls, which is part of the public right-of-way, but that seems to help kind of maximize the space and yeah, do we have enough street width there?

Right.

A lot of that on-street parking, like the dominals or for the uh bakery.

It's almost jump jump out, go grab your donuts, get back in and go.

But this is going to be an office where people will be staying most of the day, I would assume.

Yeah.

That would be the difference.

That's the difference in my mind.

Now that we have this up, you can see the overflow for the legacy center if you zoom out a little bit.

Anyway, so the i there is the alley that you can come down through to get to this property, but what are the counts on that overflow?

How often are we maxing that out?

Uh definitely junior jazz week, some of those big high demands.

Come to a swim meeting, yeah.

So is so it's not like it's never utilized, but there are you know, it's less utilized than you know during a normal uh day at the legacy center, this gets very little use.

It's just when you have those big events.

It's this is a tricky balance.

We want to see revitalization of Main Street.

This, you know, basically this entire historic area was built in 18, you know, 70s to 19, you know, when they there were no cars, yeah, there were hitching posts.

When I first started working here, there were still codes related to how you installed hitching posts in front of your business.

So long have you been here?

I know.

Yeah, well it was one of those old codes that somebody was like, why is this still in here?

Um but yeah, you know, it's a balance.

We want to we we don't want to put a damper on redevelopment, and we just this is one of those areas that we have to get creative and and you know, hopefully find a solution without just otherwise you know we'd never see anything new happen.

You just shut everything down if we expect it to meet all of the current parking requirements for new commercials.

So I would think that on evenings and weekends that overflow is full, like you said during the uh swim meets and JJ games.

Like you said during the uh swim meets and JJ Games.

Um maybe during the weekdays, it's not it's underutilized.

Sorry, one other thing.

I would say it's been probably two or three years ago.

We did do uh our own internal parking analysis.

We um went out, can't we counted how many publicly owned stalls there were, uh all the on street parking and the legacy center parking.

And then we flew we did uh uh I think a three or four week period, about a month, and we would fly a drone every day, count how many cars there were and we there is capacity.

Now is it convenient, you know, you pull right up to the front, no, but you know, if you look at the overall city campus, now that will change.

We probably should update that now that we have the new city hall and we have the the you know, gated employee parking.

Um I'm not I can't remember if we're gonna net positive or negative or or a wash on when once we opened the new city hall.

Uh but but we did show there was uh capacity.

We're not at 100% ever.

I think the highest we reached on some of these big event nights was 80 in the 80 percent range.

So there's oh there at least like I said, two years ago there was always some available parking.

It just may not always be super convenient.

But if you think, you know, a lot of the other older historic towns that you go to, park city maybe is the high profile example, you have to park and go walk in.

So it's just one of those, you know, how do you deal with our history and our past and still allow redevelopment to happen?

Yeah.

Is this the edge of the historic district?

Or does it go further west?

Um the are you talking the national register one?

No or just design standards.

Um I think it goes to fourth west.

We can pull that up.

Okay.

But it yeah, I think our our design district goes a little bit farther west.

Okay.

Any other questions for staff?

Is the applicant present?

Would you like to share more about your project?

Uh Brian Nelton, I represent uh the group that will be doing this.

We are the same group that did the Rockwell State Earth Porter's place on the other corner.

What we did for our parking or part part of our parking in that property was we entered into a lease with the city for some overflow parking.

We've met with Marlin on this specific property, and he has a draft agreement for those stalls that Kim mentioned uh for our parking.

We also in DRC there was a lot of it, a lot of discussion about at our expense putting in the angle parking there on the the West Early Street, and and that is city property, but would make the improvement.

And so that would help us with our counts.

Also, if you go to the floor plans, uh well the standard is uh was it one to three hundred square feet?

Uh if you start looking at this, this is the same model with executive offices for the upper floors.

It's more one per box is what you're gonna see in those spaces with some coming and going.

Uh the final thing was on the ground floor.

If you pull the ground floor space.

Uh we anticipate everything on the two streets to be uh like we know the coffee place wants to stay there and be in one of those spaces where we're talking with uh uh like hair hair salons, different things.

We'd like to fill that bottom frontage with uh service or service retail.

So that doesn't help me in my parking discussion, but it does help you in what what we're envisioning here.

So any questions for the applicant?

So you mentioned that these are executive offices, so by that you mean that these are individual offices where like one person will go in and work every day.

Yeah, some of the what we've seen on the other building, which that's what the second floor and first floor is.

Is that right?

Uh if there's two people in that company, they literally want two spaces.

So you know, I they don't we have any that share space?

No, I didn't think so.

I didn't want to misrepresent them.

So thank you.

But the intent is multi-tenant.

Multi-tenant.

Multi-tenant.

Yeah.

Yeah, we've we've had real success with that.

We uh are involved on a lot of main streets.

We do do vertical mixed use.

We've been doing that uh all over the Wasatch front for about 20 years.

This one is not a true mixed use, but it is still with the more commercial component on the ground and then the office, it to me it's a mixed use.

So uh but we're involved, uh I can name off cities if you like, but we we do this is what we like, and this is what we do.

We love to revitalize uh main streets in in the smaller towns.

Can you can you speak to the uh uh the nature of the other the Porter's Place building obviously has a residential component to it?

It does.

Why why not consider that for this location as well?

What we learned.

Okay.

So in your zoning, we had to provide on premise covered or garage, so that carved into the back of that building.

And then it was just a little problematic in the building codes to do that.

And then uh we do fine with our residential units there, but would then as good or better with the executive offices.

So why why fight that and try to put garages off the alley?

They don't have the proper backout to get in there, and it would have just carved out a lot of the usable square footage.

We love those residents, and they're they're awesome.

But but we're trying something a little different.

I I think the reason why to consider it is because it is mixed use, right?

That's the intent of the zone is to bring in a mixed use into the area.

So it's not just a office building, right?

So it has have multiple purposes that's use at different times of different day, right?

Right now, you drive down Main Street at night, it is dead, right?

Everything is closed, right?

Which is normal, right?

What you would expect in a retail or an office environment.

But I think the intent, if I'm I don't want to misspeak, or I'm I'm not speaking for staff here, but the intent of mixed use is to revitalize and bring in a mixed use into the area so it is not just segmented for office or retail or commercial or but that there is that mixed component which brings a vibrance into the area.

We believe we're getting that component with the restaurant and the services on the ground floor that will help revitalize and help uh the first city I did this in is in Bountiful, and frankly, bountiful rolls up when it goes dark.

And so as it what we've been doing there is we are exactly that.

We're trying to create more housing, but what we found is we push the housing there, but we don't have the entertainment, the restaurants, et cetera.

So this is still a vi a very important component to to get that street engaged in the evenings.

Just telling you why.

Yeah.

Okay.

Um any other questions for staff?

No.

For staff or for the applicant.

Um I don't know if it's so much a question, but I just I would still have concerns about people that would come to your building for the work day, park in front of Lehigh Bakery.

So Lehigh Baker's clientele, then they're looking for places.

So I think I mean, obviously, parking is a big deal.

We'd like to see more people walk and ride the bikes and do that, but that's a whole societal shift that we're having trouble making right now.

So I would how do you are you would you require your people to park in the overflow?

Uh the offices, absolutely.

That and we do do that, because we have that arrangement with the city on our other building.

Uh the comments I've gotten from different uh communities that I've worked with on these exact buildings was wouldn't it be nice if we had a parking problem?

Why is it when you go anywhere?

It's okay to walk a block to park.

But people are accustomed to parking right in front of their door in these small towns, and that's what we got to change.

It's okay to walk a half a block.

You go to the mall.

How far do you walk to get inside?

Well, I go to Boston I want to for my workout, and I want to park right at the front door.

I don't want any more.

Yeah.

But I think my concern again is that if I'm looking for a box of donuts, I don't want to park two blocks away run over to get my donuts and back because somebody's been parked there for five hours.

Yeah.

That's that's my concern.

No, and I get that.

You know, and and I the way we've solved that, uh, and it's hard to enforce because I I'm involved with a lot of cities, is you start to put like a 20-minute limit on a stall on those parallel ones.

Police department would go cross-site of here if they even heard me send that that the signs do help real people to realize that that's not a camping spot.

Thank you.

I have another question.

So are are you saying that you you feel like there's enough parking between the angled um on the street parking and the 30 stalls of like overflow for the legacy center?

Yeah, if you count the units, that's what we based our our request with Marlin on was for the 30 cells was to service the upper floors.

So we're not we're not going by square footage like the city does in the in the code.

Well, the code, and I don't want to talk about your code.

I've got I've got pros here, but it is it is kind of this area in this zone is not really a standard, but it that kind of gives you guys the input on what it is does not go to the base code, is kind of a defined parking.

And and we're not coming in saying we don't need any parking.

We're coming in saying we've contemplated that.

We've looked at and it's a similar arrangement with Marlin.

I did send Brittany a copy of the draft that Marlon has provided us on parking.

Uh if Planning Commission and our internal things, uh, we find that we need 40, we'll at least 40 in.

And Brent, you commented on the payment in lieu for parking.

Uh this the lease we have and this lease, we are paying for parking uh on an annualized lease.

So we're helping to provide the funds to take care of the stalls we're using.

Thank you.

Any other questions for the applicant?

Or did you want to say anything else while you're here?

I think I get it.

Yeah.

Uh we do like the look of this building.

We don't want to clone up the other building, and we're trying to get it a little more period looking, the way that you look back at those elevations.

Uh we did try to hit uh the requirements on the opacity and the glass and the brakes and materials.

Uh and and we feel like this would be a good asset for your community.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um Kim, can you speak to the mixed use zone?

Does it have a requirement for a variation of uses or no?

It does not.

Um, I think I think the intent, I I think you're correct.

The intent is that it, you know, we're trying to get a mix, but it it doesn't require it on each individual project.

And I did just want to confirm what he said is correct, what the applicant said about there in mixed use, there's no minimum parking requirement.

So you could technically approve this with zero parking.

Right.

But we use our standard parking requirements as at least some kind of a gauge.

And you know, we don't obviously want to, you know, approve everything with no parking or we'll have a really big code.

We don't really have a leg to stand on for to stop the code.

Oh, as far as the mixed use.

Yeah.

Yeah, yeah.

The so it just says that you'll you can be guided by our standard requirements that would normally apply if this was in a a commercial zone, for example.

But it it there is technically no base requirement.

Okay.

And then yeah, there's you know, we can't force the residential into this.

It does allow retail office mixed use, like actual residential and commercial.

And there sounds like their intent is to have some retail component on the ground floor.

Yeah.

So along those same lines, because this is an administrative item, if it meets code, we should approve it.

I've been under the understanding that minimum number of parking spaces was part of the code, but it sounds like that's not the case.

Yeah, in this area, it's not for mixed use.

So is there anything is there any part of this plan that doesn't meet code?

Because if not, then we should approve it.

Yeah, that's correct.

Um you do, I mean, so you do it does say um parking requirements for the mixed use and historic commerce district shall be as approved by the zoning administrator reviewing departments and planning commission.

So you can say, you know, we think this sounds more reasonable, or we are gonna say that you have to provide some on-site or something like that.

Like it does give you some leeway where you can you're supposed to be guided by the requirement and then you do determine it at this point, saying this is what the parking will be.

We have always wrestled with concept plans about what it actually means and what we are actually saying yay or nay to.

Um however, before we dive too much into that, this is a public hearing.

Uh if anybody from the public would like to speak to this item, now is your time to do so.

Seeing none.

Oh, maybe I will close the public hearing on item 4.6 and bring it back for either further discussion or a motion.

I think further discussion is needed.

In that you were wanting a motion, weren't you?

I I I don't feel good about it.

Um mainly I don't feel good about parking.

Uh I'm with you in that I would prefer mixed use.

I would love to see a residential component here, but I'm really stuck on the parking.

And to illustrate that, I'm just to get my thoughts out in the air.

Because I want to hear your thoughts as well.

So with item 4.1, I felt good about approving that despite them not reaching the number of parking stalls they needed, just because they are right there next to Young Living and Podium.

And I expect their busy time is gonna be weeknights and weekends where people aren't working in the office.

So they have tons of parking there to be able to utilize.

Right.

So I feel good about that situation.

But in this situation, we're to the very very first comment that you made.

We're taking away the existing parking that's there in that immediate area.

And yes, there is the overflow parking just half a block away, but we're slowly taking taking away all the parking that serves the busy businesses that are actually on Main Street.

And I I feel like that's gonna just be a big issue.

I could argue at the same if we're arguing, not that we're gonna argue, do it.

I could argue at the same time this is office, which is primarily a daytime use when a lot of the combined or or the congestion from legacy center is typically weekends and nights.

That is the highest use, sometimes early morning as well.

Uh midday, it's less of a demand, typically.

I'm not saying there aren't events that happen every now and then or things that pull a demand, but the argument I think goes the uh inverse direction of what you said where this is a daytime use pulling those demand for the parking lots or parking during the day, but then in the evening when the demand for neighboring facilities may be at a higher peak, uh they would likely be vacated at that point or potentially vacated at that point.

So just a thought there.

It looks like we would lose about 14 stalls if I with the quick math that I can do.

Um would we be able to replace those 14 stalls on that street if they did the angle parking?

I think when we drew it out, it added like five, just because you know it's right here, just be this frontage right here.

Um, and then I guess maybe if you added five more on the other side.

So but there is some more opportunity down across, you know, so there is some more, it might spill out into the surrounding streets a little bit more, but there is capacity on the surrounding streets.

And the angled parking tied to this project would be just on their corner, though, right?

It wouldn't be across the street.

That they would be able to, yeah.

I mean, I guess it depends.

It's a public street, so it would be it's a yeah, I mean it wouldn't be exactly tied to their business if it's the public street.

For sure.

Well, I'm just speaking of as far as making it, right?

Developing that corner to have they wouldn't be ripping out the sidewalk and putting in uh angled parking and then changing the sidewalk on the other side of the street, right?

That's not their side of the proper property.

So that's not or is that on the table?

What are we talking about here, right?

Yeah, we could say that as part of their development, they need to provide that like restriping, redesign of you know, adding maybe some curb extensions and stuff.

So are we talking about main street or 200?

200, 2000.

They're already paying, right?

They're already there's a payment in lieu of parking.

Uh no, so there would they have an agreement drafted to lease the spots from the legacy center overflow.

So it's like a lease of those spots.

Yeah, I'd I see where you're thinking, but I don't know if you could have a builder developer well, you gotta put parking a block away.

Yeah.

Yeah, but yeah.

Again, I that sounds messy to me.

Um so if they are able to lease those spots from the legacy center, does that then become parking only for the business or for that office building, or are legacy center attendees still able to like does it designate that or or say to put signage or anything up saying this is only available for does it restrict that parking, or is it still open and that's just I think we need to read the agreement to know for sure how it's stated.

I don't remember um I mean while you're looking for that.

I I this is a sticky one too for me.

I mean I I like the idea of bringing more things to Main Street, getting some of that revitalization.

The parking piece is sticky.

I mean it's it's a change that we're trying to make, I think in the city.

It's a direction we're trying to go, and it's gonna be really tough and really uncomfortable for a while, but hopefully everybody gets used to it.

I I don't know.

I don't know.

I think we've got a a good um sour source with the Porter's place that that has been successful and and they've learned from that, and now they're going they're trying gonna try and take out the part that's not working.

So I I think it's a good practice run for doing it on the other side of the street.

If we can't find it, probably the applicant knows the answer to the question.

It re it was just kind of like a question that I have.

Yeah.

So I I'm assuming it'll be set up the same as what we did with Porters, so he may be familiar with it.

And by the way, I scan in the agreement also, Brittany.

It's silent in a bit.

Our understanding it's non-exclusive.

It's first come first served.

Okay.

Okay.

Uh and then as I was looking through and listening to your comments since I got back to the mic.

Uh I would be very comfortable to commit to doing angle parking either to the to the north.

Okay, and basically, or no what?

South.

I'm I don't to that south block, so it's kinda on the same or across even if we went across that street.

I think it helps create a nice thing there.

And also when I said I had a stall per space, I'm counting this, I'm looking up there.

I think it would also be uh appropriate.

This is based on 30.

I know, or I believe with Marlin, we could push that to like 40.

So that it provides 40 stalls.

I think 30.

We were going 30 in the angled parking, but I'm I I'm wondering if I need to push this to 40.

And again, if we did both sides of that street on city, you know, it's with this city, still city property, city parking.

I think it actually enhances our our project for what it's worth.

Okay.

Any other commentary or questions, thoughts?

Yeah, probably just more commentary.

I I do feel like because this does meet code, our hands are tied, so we need to approve it.

Um I appreciate the applicant's willingness to what it seems like to work and help solve the problem by adding additional parking where it's within their power.

Um I I do think it would be beneficial, maybe during one of our working sessions to go through mixed use areas and maybe reconsider if we should include a minimum parking requirement.

Um the thoughts, I'm happy to put forward a motion.

Okay, love to hear one.

Um 4.6 public hearing and consideration of Gary Knapp's request for approval of the Rockwell Station Consent Plan for an office building located at 200 West Main Street.

The motion being that we approve uh the concept plan that's been put forward to us.

Um with the findings that it is consistent with Lehigh City's development code.

And uh please include DRC comments.

There's nothing we can do, right, Craig, as far as I mean, the applicant has said that they're gonna help work to put additional parking spaces in, but there's really nothing else we can do.

So under the mixed use, you have the discretion to review parking and to you know hold things up if you don't feel like there's enough parking, those types of things.

In this case, if you want, you can always make a recommendation, you know, that yes, I you know, where your motion could be we request approval as long as they follow DRC comments as well as we recommend you continue working with the city to ensure that parking is sufficient.

Love that.

Okay.

I'm not gonna repeat that because it was okay.

But please include that.

Thank you.

A second, yeah.

Motion and a second, uh all in favor.

Any opposed.

Thank you.

Um item 4.7 has been moved to a further date, future date.

Uh so item 4.8.8 public hearing.

Let's get to this.

Okay.

Yes, it is.

4.8 public hearing and recommendation of JDH developments request for review of the park meadow subdivision concept plan.

An 11 lot residential project looked at 92 27 west, set um 7750 north, approximately 1800 west, 1300 south, with a request for an exception in the form of density in lieu to allow flexibility on setbacks.

Um the applicant submitted uh standard um subdivision that meets all the requirements.

This is in the R122 zone, so 22,000 square foot minimum lot size.

Um all the lots meet it, and they have 11 lots.

Um, and these ones are even a little bit bigger, which um so they could still probably meet the requirement with having the um if we just were to purchase the dry creek right away.

Um, but the proposal is that they will dedicate the um dry creek corridor to the city and and build the 10-foot trail as well as uh trail connection in from the neighborhood and um parcel A would be some open space.

Um and then they still just have the 11 lots.

So it's kind of a density in lieu, um, but it's mostly just like flexible lots.

So um a reduction, not all the lots meet the 22,000 square feet.

They're all so that's about a half an acre, um, and they're all over 15,000 square feet, so over a third of an acre.

So a little bit smaller, but um still large lots, and um so having those smaller lots and some flexibility with the width as well allows them to get the same amount of lots while also giving us the right-of-way for the trail and providing some open space.

And um that yeah, so that's kind of the trade-off.

These density in lieu is either the city pays for the trail and the property, or we give them the flexibility and then we don't have to reimburse them for putting it in otherwise.

And um I guess also um, you know, this this is happens throughout the city, but the property right next to it, um the South Creek Platte A also did density in lieu for dry creek improvements and dry creek trail construction, um, also for a park and some things they did.

And they actually got four additional lots, reduced lot sizes and reduced frontage.

Um and so a lot of these lots, they're also zoned R122, but a lot of those lots are closer to the third of an acre anyways.

So it's not something that hasn't been done in this area or would really not fit in um with the existing development.

Um just a reminder for the planning commission.

This density in lieu anything with like the financing is a city council decision.

So you're just making a recommendation.

Um just looking at if you think this fits in with the area, if it would be a good development, um, and yeah, they'll just pass that recommendation on to the city council.

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

Any questions for staff?

So I do have a I just want to confirm and that these lots are similar in size to the surrounding lots.

I mean, you said half acre to a third of an acre.

But is that like the lots to the west or half acre and then the ones to the south or yeah, so a lot of the other um to the south and to the east are not subdivided, so they are larger lots that are just like agricultural remnants.

So I mean it's not the same as those, but um yeah, to the west uh with that other subdivision, it's it's similar in size.

Thank you.

I just have a quick question on what we're looking at that the white space there that's the lot three I think it's just because there's an existing home.

Oh okay.

That's kind of what I was yeah, that's what I was asking, it's just making sure.

So okay, that makes sense.

And tell me if they don't get the density bonus in lieu, how many lots would they be permitted?

So again, it it look they're base laps showed 11, so it's not looking like they're getting any lots.

It's just the size of the case.

Yeah, it's just you know, again, the base layout didn't include any of the corridors.

Yeah.

Any other questions for staff?

Is the applicant present?

Oh, yeah, name is Austin Cooper.

Um we're this is a project that's uh different developer is was doing most of the work, and we're just gonna come in last last minute and purchase it from and then doing some last minute work.

So any questions for the applicant?

No.

All right, you're off the hook for now.

All right, this is a public hearing.

Uh, if anybody would like to speak to item 4.8, this is your turn.

Yes, please.

Oh, my name's Annette Gaugham.

I live uh immediately north of this now.

It says that it's open church property, but it's not totally that.

About half of it is my property that is across the street from this.

And I'm just wondering how many of you have been out there to that area, that subdivision.

And taken a look at uh and I'm just wondering now, parsley, what happens with Parcel A?

Is that gonna be a park or just open space?

Who maintains it?

Um you know there are several parks in the area, it's not like so we need another park there.

Uh the city's got 40 acres just across the street that they're developing, and there's already a small park there.

And um why do we need another if what we have to do is give up uh and have smaller lots, and the area is zoned for now.

Um when we moved there, all the lots are supposed to be five acres.

And that didn't last for long, and they have immediately been narrowed and narrowed and narrowed and narrowed down to, and I don't are there any half acre lots in this subdivision.

Yeah, there would still be a few that would how many is a few, and I guess your comments here, and we will we'll get to them after you're finished.

So address all your questions and concerns.

Okay, well, I'm um I the original intent for that area was that it have larger lots, animal rights, and that it retain the historic character of Lee, and then you know, they keep trying to narrow down the lots and narrow down and whatever.

And so and I guess I question I know that it's enticing and uh you know to say, well, we have this another park, but do we really need another park?

We have two schools close by.

We have um a little park there on 17th west already, and the city has 40 acres that they haven't developed yet.

And so um, you know, is it really worth the trade-off?

Now another question that I have is you know, with the difficulty with Pioneer Crossing and all of the traffic and the issues there, it would seem to me that you know we might be a little slower about approving another subdivision that's going to bring even more traffic when there is no real relief.

Pinear crossing has traffic, it's backed up for however miles.

Um at any middle of the day, it's backed up.

It's slow, you know how Pine Air Crossing is, and at some point in time, you know, that's going to have to be addressed.

Now, the original plan when they first came out there was that they were going to both the Lake Road and Pioneer Crossing were going to be developed so that there could be traffic go both ways on not only Lake Road but Pioneer Crossing, and that was supposed to help.

And how the Lake Road development got forgotten, I don't know, but there's not been much done about that.

But I'm really concerned about what it adds to that.

Now, as far as my property goes, um, there's already an outlet from the other subdivision that's on that was just recently approved there, and then there are I think two houses, and now there will be another outlet, and I don't know what that's going to do to 7750 north, and what that's going to do to you know, the traffic and 7750 north is or the there's only one outlet from that subdivision right now.

Um, perhaps in the future, um there'll be another one, but there isn't now.

If we were to have an emergency out there, you know, we'd be in big problems kind of thing.

Um so I'm not sure exactly now.

It just says right away.

I'm assuming that's for streets, is that what it means streets?

Um, but the uh plan that I can see on the comp on the computer is kind of vague.

And when I try to look at the size of the lots, the printing is so small that I I can't see like this.

Um you can't see how big they are now.

I'm assuming is the white one that goes um length, is that where the existing house is?

Is that what that is?

Now, is that part of the subdivision or not?

It says lot three, and what happens with that?

Is that the developer own that, or do the clerk still own that, or what's happening there?

Great question.

Keep keep going with your questions.

We'll address everything when you're finished.

And um, of course, we have high underground water in that area, as you know, and you know, now that we've got a new city council, a new mayor, and some new commissioners and that sort of thing, might be a time to reevaluate exactly what you know how your what is your plan for the development of Lehigh.

Where are we going?

You know, I've lived in Lehigh for 20 years now almost, and I don't know, it just kind of pops up here and pops up there, and you know, there doesn't really seem to be a whole lot of coordination or organization.

Now, maybe I'm just not aware of what's there, but I don't see it in the layout, and I don't see it in the buildings that are building, and I think Leah has wonderful opportunity to be a destination town, like um say Park City.

Um people would come to Lehigh because of its character, and because it's someplace that they can come and they can walk up and down Main Street and go in and out of some little shops, and you know, have an ice cream cone and um you know, maybe enjoy some music or something like that, and because where we're squeezed between Saratoga Springs and the freeway and other cities, what do we have that's different and unique?

Or are we just gonna be another cookie cutter town up and down the freeway?

So, what does all that have to do with the subdivision?

Well, at some point in time, you know, you have to kind of stop and say, just a minute, where am I at with this?

Where is this going?

And you know, I that property's gonna be developed, and I'm not anti-development, but what I am is I'd like to see a little more thought and planning go into a broader range of things, such as roads and the water and that and the congestion in the schools, particularly in that area that I live in, and um uh you know, why do we need another park?

Particularly one that's kind of put off in a hole that most people are not going to use.

I would not think um it's like the little park that's there on 17th West already, you know, it's got what a slide and a couple of things and a picnic table, but it's um you know, I see a few people once in a while stop there, but it's not what I would say heavily used, and I would suspect that this one and you know, I can understand that the developer wants as many lots as possible because you know, at 3,000 or 300,000 dollars apiece, the more you've got, the more you know, that's very enticing, and I can understand that and I can understand the city's uh desire to um you know shift the cost and responsibility for developing that off to someone else, but you know, it all that gets done in a stroke of the pen and one thing another, and then you know, we live with it, and you know, five, ten years from now, um I probably won't be around, but others will be, and they'll be dealing with you know the traffic issues and the congestion issues and all of the other kinds of things, and so um I'm wondering as I look at the concept plan, it really doesn't tell me a lot.

I see squares on the paper and all that kind of thing, and I'd like to see something a little more detailed than there.

I'd like to be able to look at that and say, oh, this is how this is gonna plan, and well, uh whatever.

And so I don't know, will there be another public hearing or is this it?

Yes, there will.

There will be, where there can be there can be public input.

We'll be happy to discuss that as soon as you're finished.

All right.

Well, I'd like to have to know that that I appreciate that.

I'm glad to know that that's going to be because you know, um as things uh go as things begin to evolve um around that um and you begin to kind of see it on the ground, um, if there are problems such as the traffic problems that's gonna create for us, you know, 77 North is just a little short street, and um when we begin to have uh all of the uh traffic dumped onto it from the other subdivision, I say what's that called South Park or something, and from this subdivision, um, and then we turn around and go over to Pioneer Crossing, it you know, it uh really impacts quality of life out there.

So anyway, I um would hope that you would look very carefully at what the the impact on the quality of life for the people who have already invested and been there, and that this uh and deal now may be the time for the city to start saying to you dot or whoever they need to make a point with that you know we're going to um make an issue of the problem on Pioneer Crossing, and I understand that you know, with the flex plan and whatever they're doing that, but that is not gonna help for very long, and everybody knows that.

That is not a permanent solution, it never was intended to be, and so it's just a stop gap.

And so it's just a stop gap.

And so the time is maybe now to the end to say you're inhibiting the development in in Lehigh.

Uh because we can't get the lake road developed, which would give us there's more back and forth.

Now, I understand that you know there's always the option that if people have, you know, they're going to build a house, okay.

So they'll go to Saratoga Springs or Eagle Mountain and build their house, and they'll get the tax money.

So whatever, but what that does really is uh compromises the quality of life for the people in Lehigh.

And is it worth that in order to um hold on to these people that might build in Lehigh?

Or is it better to take a look at what Lee Kike could become?

And you know, we're just in a wonderful position, as I say, to be.

Um, you know, we've got the flower mill there, and it could be um you know an emblem and symbol and build around that and have uh architecture in storefronts and you know build something for Lehi that attracts people to come to Lehigh for the day or the weekend, and then you know, then Lehi has a future, but now it's it's only gonna get worse.

We'll become service stations and 7 Elevens.

Not that they're bad, but they don't give you the quality of life that you're looking for.

So, you know, a little vision about it would be wonderful.

Anyway, thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else who would like to speak to this item in going over this uh the plot plan, you know, I think that the original one is far better because what's happening is you're putting uh small building lots right on the side of the road, so it doesn't represent the development, and you know, the with the um park in through there, that narrows those down.

So I'm saying is there's smaller lots, and those are the visual lots as you drive down the road.

This road here has gotten to be a very major road, lots of traffic.

And so you have three small lots, and then you also have the big lots in the back.

I think the basic plan, the way it was set up with the three larger lots in there, represents the development a lot better than it does to have a small park and three small units.

And basically, these look like that they don't fall under the R22 in the size of the lot.

I mean, if you have a basic plan and you say, okay, we're R22, then each lot should be R22.

And now, is it is the uh these uh uh front road lots, are they up to code or up to R22?

It doesn't look that way.

The other thing is when you count this, if that house is part of the the existing house is part of the the development, you really have 12 lots, not 11.

And so it depends on what's gonna happen.

The other thing is is that if that be the case, there's nothing to stop uh a developer from splitting that lot and making two additional ones.

So I'm just saying is you have a general plan, you should live up to that general plan, and I think they should make it look as as appealing within the development as possible, and putting three small sub R22 lots as the representative of the development doesn't make sense.

And if you look at the basic plan, the basic plan doesn't take the house into consideration that exists there, but it does put the bigger lots up front.

And uh I I and I think you know, too, is this is I come from California, you know, and Californians don't know anything more than Utah's do.

But I'll tell you what, when they develop there, they make the developer build the road, they make the developer with the sidewalks in, they make the developer do a lot of things.

They make the developer with the sidewalks in, they make the developer do a lot of things.

I think you have an opportunity to do the same thing.

I think you need to put a moratorium on the on uh the building of homes until you get this road thing straightened out.

I mean, the thing is it's uh it's only gonna get worse.

And the thing is is that it doesn't represent Lehigh, and I think like my sister said, is this that when you come from a place other than here, this has a lot of character.

You should take that downtown Main Street and develop that into a very, you know, Utah town.

I I was born and raised in Utah.

But on the other hand, this is that you have an opportunity to develop Lehigh into a wonderful little city that can you can put little benches outside, people can come there on Sundays, they can do whatever.

But I'm just saying is you have because you're new, have an opportunity to do great things in Lehigh.

But back to this here is that you are going to have additional um kind of presentation for uh for input.

Yes.

Yeah.

And the other thing is what is the my question is what are you what are you gonna do with the existing house?

How is that develop how is that you know part of this development?

Great question.

Thank you.

Sorry, could you say your name?

Sorry?

Sorry.

Can we get your name for the case?

Oh, it's Warren Johnson.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

I'm Andrew Ward, and I am on the northwest border of the proposed um development.

I do have some concerns.

Obviously, many people have already said that it's zoned for a certain bubble, and it seems like a bit you know hypocritical because I live on the adjacent lot that was downsized.

I would prefer to have a larger lot, but if you keep doing that over and over and over again, it no longer is an R22 and you have a higher density.

Um questions, I guess for the developer is why is Y11?

You know, if you look at the annexation plan for this, it actually proposed nine total lots to accommodate to for the half acre lot and to allow for improvement for the ditch and the trail.

So I feel like the the two plans just ignored that completely and basically force the city into a corner that says either you get half acre lots or you get the trail.

We're not gonna give up you know what we're gonna do, even though it would have been reasonable to start up with a plan with the proposed nine lots and to see if you could add an additional.

There probably can get ten lots and still adhere to all of the you know the the zoning and and requirements.

Um so I guess my question is is w why isn't that brought up?

Why is there always a you know there's never a downsize?

There's always you have to allow us to have more lots.

I understand it's profit-driven, but I mean they had all the information about what to expect from that, you know, the the lot yield and went above that, and then are now basically giving an ultimatum of half acre lots or trail improvement, which I don't think is appropriate.

Um and like as mentioned before, there's going to be a large park on 17th.

There is actually one a hundred yards to the west of that development placed by um Patterson when they built our subdivision.

Um and there is an incredible amount of traffic that people are cutting through on 13th, going in that section right there regularly 50 to 60 miles an hour to get down to those condos.

I've had conversations with the police department.

I've had very strong, very strongly worded conversations with my neighbors about their speed.

Um so I don't think like this works for our community.

Um and then again, we have expectations that the city is gonna follow the general plan.

And if we keep making exceptions, it just changes the whole feel.

And with all of you know, Saratoga and Eagle Mountain just exploding with you know development.

I think there needs to be a buffer zone, and right there is where we can have that.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else would like to speak to 4.8.

Seeing none, we will close the public hearing.

Uh I'll invite the applicant back up.

Can I bring up that there was some comments online?

Oh, please.

Reopen public hearing to include those.

Yeah.

So let's see.

Here's one.

Please stop letting builders override what the property was annexed and zoned for by Stephanie Ward.

Flexible easements are unnecessary.

Restrictions need to remain in place.

Natalie Crump.

I live in the neighboring South Creek development.

I definitely like the proposed plan that allows for the trail connection and some additional green space.

Developers should be required to install sidewalk along 1300 South.

Can't tell from the drawing if this is included.

Thank you, Brian Morgan.

We need to protect what was approved already.

We don't need to continue cramming more dense subdivisions in Lehigh, Justin Crump and the annexation of this property discussed half acre lots with a total of 10 lots, including the existing home.

Neither of the proposed plans adhere to this.

The base layout could be adjusted to include the trail system at the south, three lots were converted to two lots.

This would adhere to the half acre lot and ten total lot proposal.

No, we will close the public hearing.

Thank you.

Please speak to any and all that you heard that you would like to address.

Okay, so I think one of the first ones is the existing home, what our plan right now will remain.

Um so the white uh rectangle where the home exists, that one right there, lot three.

Well, home we're planning, we're not planning on tearing the home down.

Um as I said initially, uh a previous developer did all the annexation work and all that stuff.

We've we've kind of come in uh at the uh after all that was done.

Um so I personally actually haven't seen any any other designs other than than these two.

Um and from my understanding, you know, as as staff mentioned, uh the previous plan with 11 lots does meet code um city code.

Um so we're happy to go happy to go that route and and meet all of the city codes.

Uh just it would just mean um you know the city would have to then buy back the the land on the south end for the uh trail.

Um try to I should have made more more notes on it all said.

I I don't know if there's any anything else.

With your um not necessarily.

I mean the the development, I know the development to the west, they had to raise up a little bit, and we were planning on raising to meet.

I don't I don't think there'll be any issues with the development uh uh from uh high water standpoint.

Um I don't think it won't impact the homes.

Um is there uh plans for well who will maintain the the park?

Uh my understanding is that it's it's being deed to the city.

The city would yeah, the trail and park, the the open area is all being deed to the city.

So there wouldn't be an HOA to maintain it with the city park.

Yeah, sidewalks on 1300?

Is that the road?

Am I getting that right?

1300 of the top, yeah.

Are you doing those?

Yeah.

As part of your development.

Yeah, we do require that always.

Yeah, if they're developing, they have to do the full road ride away.

I I wondered if they were talking about a different road.

Oh, yeah.

Yeah, but it's the road right behind.

Where our development reaches, yeah.

We won't go beyond that.

But anywhere development, yes.

So you you'd never seen the 10 lot plan.

No, 10 or 9 lots, I don't know which which one.

Yeah, I think it was 10 that was mentioned.

And and I would clarify too, there wasn't a concept plan submitted with the annexation, like an official concept plan submittal.

They maybe had it as like an exhibit with the annexation, but it wasn't like an approved concept, you know, it was just there as kind of a this is what we might do, so it's not like it was an approved concept plan or anything like that.

Is this annexed from the county or from the county?

Yep.

And even if the there was a previous concept, they have the ability to file a new one and we just reconsider it.

So you're regardless.

This is the current proposal.

So I did have a question about the the other concept.

There were two.

Oh, yeah.

The other base layout.

If we can see that.

This meets the half acre.

Yeah, all of these.

Oh, 100%.

Yep.

Okay.

And they have the frontage and yep, they all are according to the and so because that the applicant or the developer, they're able to, without any additional approval, they can build these lots.

Yeah.

And that's where it gets.

So we have on our master plan trail network, this trail going through Dry Creek.

And so we're gonna build it either way, right?

That's not really the question here.

It's if we don't do the payment or the density in lieu, then we're paying for it.

And so that means we have to just pay the developer for the purchase of the land for the costs it take puts to install the trail.

Um so we would be paying tax dollars for that, right?

And we wanted to make sure that that was understood by everyone that this um density in lieu, which is just a lot flexibility means that as a city we're not paying tax dollars for this property because the property owner owns it, that we can't force them to put it in without giving them some compensation.

Um so it's either do it this way or pay tax dollars, and that might you know increase property tax if we do that enough or other ramifications.

Just for my own edification.

Could the applicant or the city is there any like ballpark dollar figure you could give us if we did not approve the proposed plan?

What numbers are we talking in order to purchase the trail connection for the base layout?

Again, ballpark.

Are you talking through eminent domain or through uh if they're willing to sell it because they're those are two different either one?

I'll take any number I can get.

Yeah, we went through some of those numbers.

I don't have them right here in front of me, but it was on the order of like 300,000, something like that for the right-of-way, the trail, putting in the trail, and approving the dry creek through there.

It it takes a lot of money to do that.

Okay.

And that would just be purchasing the back strip of the lots here.

Yeah, 22.

And there would be no trail access from this development.

You'd have to go back to correct.

As as the way that it's designed under the base model, yeah.

There's no trail from the development into the right trail.

Any other questions for Apple?

Thank you.

There were comments on, yes, we have a new administration in the city.

We have a new mayor, we have new council members.

Luckily, this is going forward to them.

We are a recommending body in this item.

So we will give a recommendation and they will get a chance to hear it and make a decision, a final decision on what happens here.

Concept plans usually only come to the planning commission and they get approved and they live and die here, right?

But um because this is a this has that request of the density uh or not the density, we're saying density.

We're not changing the amount of lots, right?

But we are looking at uh some compensation change, which we do not control the purse of the city in any way, right?

That is strictly city council and mayor.

Um and that's why this would go forward to the to that body.

So we are a recommending body, we will give our recommendation, um, maybe with further discussion or a motion, and then city council, you'll have an opportunity to speak to the city council uh when it moves forward to them.

I hope that clears that up if you had questions there.

Um this is a concept plan.

There was a question of details.

There's not a whole lot of details on this.

This is a concept that is not a final plot, right?

Uh when it does come forward for final plotting, it will have the details that uh have been perceived as missing or lacking uh from this, which is a requirement when it comes forward to that stage.

They are not at the stage uh right now.

They are at a stage of asking our feelings, our thoughts uh on how this is, which is what a concept is for, right?

Um I believe that uh was a new clarification there.

Is it open for uh public hearing at that point?

This would be a public hearing at City Council, yes.

Yes.

What is the general consent is uh commitment?

Oh, you will hear that very soon.

Oh, okay.

Sorry.

Typically we do not go back and forth and I love to yell to you guys, but let's not do that, okay?

Um I'll give my quick thought.

Um struggle when we take away animal rights from properties.

Properties that have less than a half acre do not have the full animal rights, right?

They they're limited on the rights that uh an owner could have.

Those days are going by and by gone, right?

As far as people that want to put a horse on their land or not.

I'm not saying that those people don't exist.

They do exist.

And I struggle when we as a city do that.

Right.

We we remove that opportunity or potential that someone may have in the future.

Um that is something I've always wrestled with while sitting here on this uh in this body.

That being said, this is uh decision that the city council will have to see.

Uh in the past, this has been a common practice to trade land and uh a trade-off of of improvements for a trail, which I don't want to under emphasize.

That is a huge benefit to a city, to a community.

Um that's something that our city uh we're committed to doing, right?

Uh to connect our trail system and to keep it moving.

That is not a small thing, and I don't want to diminish that.

Um however, this is a uh awesome opportunity for us to take a temperature of our new council where they're at on these types of issues and where they feel.

We will provide a recommendation and we will see where things land.

The spirit of getting our thoughts out.

There are a few trade-offs here.

I'm looking at this and thinking there's a few trade-offs here.

Um of them being bigger lot sizes versus smaller lot sizes.

But the biggest trade-off that I'm seeing, which is ultimately driving me towards my decision is do we want to use taxpayer funds to pay for this trail connection, or do we want to do this density in lieu, which would save taxpayer dollars?

Again, that that's the biggest trade-off, and that's an easy decision for me.

I like your thoughts.

Um because mine are I suppose similar.

Uh I wonder, you know, it's so nice to have access to a trail like that to be able to get on and go.

I mean there's access to the west, there will be access, probably depending on the people to the east decide to do at their property.

Uh I do struggle with you know going under that uh half acre lot size.

So I've got these two conflicting thoughts.

Which would be better for the community, which would be better for this neighborhood.

And you guys live in the neighborhood.

So you know it's interesting to me that these lots are pretty much the same size, if not a little bit bigger than the ones that are just directly to the to the west.

If you go a street across, they're a little bit smaller.

So it's very similar to what's already in that area.

So those are those are my thoughts.

I'm trying to figure out how how important it is to have access to that trail, how important it is to have somebody else pay for the trail.

Or do we keep the lot size?

If anyone doesn't have any additional thoughts, I'm happy to put forward a motion.

Do it.

Um item 4.8 public hearing recommendation of JDH developments request for review of the Clark Meadows Subdivision Concept Plan, an 11 lot residential project located at 9 uh 227 West, 7750 north, approximately 1800 west, 1300 south, with a request for an exception in the form of density in lieu to allow flexibility on setbacks.

The motion being that we recommend approval for this item.

Again, this item will go before city council, with our findings being that the proposed concept is consistent.

I'm not gonna put that one the proposed concept does conform to the goals and policies of the general plan, and please include DRC to comments.

I'll second.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Nay.

So the motion carries forward with a positive recommendation of the city council.

When will this go to them?

It will be the 27th of this month.

So this will be heard again by the city council on the 27th of January.

Thank you.

Tyson, were you the only nay on that one?

I was.

Yes.

Sorry, your voices are all different this year.

So it's gotta get used to us now.

4.9.

Thank you again for your comments.

4.9.

Public hearing in consideration, a big O tires request for conditional use approval of an exception and an exception to the setback limit for Big O Tires Concept Plan located at 4193 West Rinda Drive.

So yeah, this is uh the auto service use is a conditional use in the Cold Spring Ranch area plan.

So you're considering that use as a conditional use.

And then also an exception for the maximum setback.

So there's a 50-foot maximum setback, but they're at like 61 feet.

Um it's you know, to allow for the parking module and the drive aisle.

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

Any questions for staff?

I do.

Uh there's eight red line comments.

Um that's pretty close to the your pretty close to 10.

Um can we can staff explain what their major concerns are.

Yeah, I I don't think there was anything major.

So we do try and have it 10 or less to come forward and nothing major that still needs to be worked out.

Um just some minor things that they can clean up, usually is what it is.

Can you tell me what a red line what's a red line comment versus a regular comment?

So re uh uh well, so we just call them all red line comments, but it's code requirements, and we try and differentiate um so usually if they're numbered, um, because you'll notice even on this one, and we do different things.

We we probably do need to come up with something super consistent, but um this is the concept.

So some of these are for the site plan, and it's just because it's not detailed enough, right?

Like we don't have the full landscape um plans, and so some of what's shared is just informational for when you submit the actual site plan, this is what we're looking for.

And then with the review we'll make sure that they meet all these requirements.

Um and even some of these, so yeah, glades, it's all for the site plan um because we don't require any power with a concept.

Um Ryan's are also it's just information for the developer of the utility size and location when they do the site plan and of how they're tying in.

Um all of James with Park's comments are again just the requirements that we'll be looking for when they submit the site plan.

Um Gary, same thing as soil report, uh soil report will be required.

Um requirement with site plan.

Um Gary's are the same thing.

Um all of these are more just informational.

Um, signs will require a separate sign permit.

That's just letting them know that.

So really the only thing is this max setback and the fact that it's a conditional use.

Everything else is stuff that we're just letting them know ahead of time what we want to see with the site plan.

So sorry, Jane.

Um, but 30 trees on on a business like this?

Yeah, that's that's a requirement.

We have 30 trees per acre per acre.

So it's more like what 45.

And that's one that we are we are aware that that usually doesn't work.

That's something that comes sometimes comes to you as an exception, and also we're talking with parks and trying to figure out what doesn't work, we would really like to see 70.

Yeah, it does seem like this comes up quite a bit.

We're looking to improve our canopy.

So is is that a work session item?

Yeah, for every good thing.

Thank you.

Any other questions for staff?

Is the applicant present.

Hello, my name's uh David Clayton with DEIV architecture.

I'm representing the owner on this project.

Anything else to add?

Um yeah, so um we I've I've designed several of these big O tires in different communities, and uh one of the reasons for the request for the exception to that maximum setback is as you can see, we do have that single aisle of parking on that side, and part of that is because of the way that we're trying to keep the building as compact as possible on the site so that we can allow for best use of the site.

Um we have double-loaded um maintenance bays.

So um, but we don't just put up just regular garage doors, they're actually the nice glass uh shiny doors that look pretty.

Um if you um you go to um Yeah, there's there's a few of these around.

Like uh I've got one in South Jordan that I did and also in West Point and and one in Salt Lake that you can see if you'd like to see what the building looks like when it's finished.

Um this one would obviously meet the architectural design standards for this community.

Um that's always a name that I have as an architect.

And uh one of the things that we would mention is uh we've also really strive to accommodate the pedestrian path, the bicycle access.

Um one of the things that we do intend to do on the final is to slightly enlarge the footprint of the building towards the rear of the site by about two feet in each direction to accommodate employee bike parking and also some um some additional uh equipment use for the uh for the actual maintenance because we're trying to keep at a nice pretty site, so we don't want to have that equipment flowing out onto the outside of the building.

I have a question.

Sure.

So to the I don't know which direction I'm looking at.

I believe that's north.

Uh yes, that that is north.

Uh up is north on the to the north, the drive aisle lines up, right?

It goes through the building, but to the east, the entry there, it doesn't.

It looks like there's some kind of a bay, parking, something where they would kind of jog around it as they pulled in.

It doesn't exactly line up.

Right?

Am I misunderstanding that as they came came through here and they turned in, they have to go around this.

Is that correct?

Uh so it's actually an extra wide drive aisle uh on purpose, and and part of that is that that rear area behind the building is so that we can accommodate larger vehicles.

Um of the things that we found with our West Point store was um even the city wanted to be able to uh bring in some of their fleet vehicles and there's other um other operations that might have fleet vehicles that they need repair, and that allows us to have those larger vehicles be able to be serviced.

My concern isn't for the smaller vehicles, it is for when there is a larger RV or something that is there parked.

It's outside, right?

That's not a Yeah.

So that that does actually have a a roof over that that area.

I'm concerned about the pinch point for your trash and vehicles that would come in as you've got your garbage that is in that back corner.

So this would likely be the entrance that they would use as it's a straight shot to get there.

They wouldn't likely come from the north.

I'm worried about a pinch point.

Yeah, and we and we do actually have enough space there if you can see on the uh to the south of that that we could actually grow that uh like maybe curve out that drive aisle to accommodate the routing to go around it.

Um the main the main comment that we heard from several from a lot of people was that they'd like to be able to pull these larger vehicles straight in without having to do weird maneuvering, and so it's easier to move the smaller vehicles around than it is the large vehicles, as you might guess.

But conceptually I was just make sure you consider that garbage, how they pick it up, how they take it out, their ingress and egress and how they get around your lot.

True.

And and just to uh add to what Brittany was discussing, obviously this is not a final site.

We you know, when once we have our civil engineer and landscape arch uh landscape architect um signed on for the uh the staff will actually get to do the final site review and we'll be meeting all their comments.

So um obviously any any comments from the planning commission, we're quite happy to try to do our best to accommodate your concerns.

Any other questions for the applicant?

Yeah, what's the uh conditional use approval?

Do I miss something there?

The setback is just a setback.

Well, it's the usage because the the zoning matrix for uh for this uh usage under this zone does require planning commission approval.

Conditional use.

Conditional use.

Right.

So there is so this zone does not typically.

It's not a build by right, yes, that's right.

It's it's one that you um your commission gets to review and ensure it meets the intent of the zone.

Don't like that.

Got glossed over a little bit.

Well, I can feel Brittany about to say this because she always does.

This is a it's a conditional use in this zone, meaning it is permitted, but we can put conditions on this type of use.

I could hear you, I could feel it becoming brand new energy.

So it's not like this is a it's a it's a permitted use, but it had we can conditionally do conditions.

Like I would like to see a pool in the back.

Sure.

That's a reasonable request, right?

Well, you know, the BMWs need to go somewhere, right?

Right.

That's right.

Yeah.

Any other questions for the applicant?

Okay.

Um this is a public hearing.

Sorry, we're done with you for a moment.

Uh this is a public hearing.

Um if anybody would like to speak to item 4.9, this is your chance.

Seeing none, we will close public hearing.

Were there any online?

Okay.

Then we will keep it closed.

Uh any further discussion or a motion.

I'll do a motion.

Item 4.9, public hearing and consideration of big O Tires request for conditional use approval of an exception to the setback limit for the big O'Tires concept plan located at 4193 West Arinda Drive.

I move that we give a that we approve with the findings.

The proposed concept is consistent with the Lehigh City Development Code, and it conforms with the goals and policies of the general plan.

And please include all DRC comments.

Motion and a second.

All in favor.

Any opposed.

Brittany, 4.10.

Thank you.

4.10.

Public hearing and recommendation of I should practice saying these names before.

Uh Malica's LLC's request for amendments, the postal customs development agreement.

Um this is a development agreement that was approved, I think last year.

Um, and it was with the person who is leasing the property, not the property owner.

So the property owner is just proposing to change it to be with them.

Really, that's the only changes is changing the name and then throughout instead of saying business, saying owner.

Um that I'll turn it back to the commission for any questions.

Any questions for staff?

Yes.

Um, does this give the owner the ability to put in any company, any business that they choose to do?

Yeah, so just be and any yeah, any business that falls under the use with automobile cell and rental.

Okay.

So as long as it fits the codes, works, they can they can make changes to that.

Yeah.

Any other questions?

Is the applicant present?

My name is Dusty Yates, and uh yeah, thank you for working with me.

So um it was in May, just of uh the Lehigh City Council already uh completely approved it in May, and it was absolutely perfect.

It was my mistake, I just didn't add the owner's name to it as well.

So that's all I'm asking is just add the owners.

And then in here it actually said U-Halls, and no one liked the U-Hall, so we took the U-Hall out.

So it excludes uh U-Hauls, and then uh one other person mentioned uh the park strip look kind of ugly.

So I personally, if you guys drove by their hand, dug it out 180 feet uh today and yesterday and the day before.

So it's uh um I'll have uh Dalton Downs bringing in a load of probably six inch minus rock, so it'll be really pretty on the park strip.

And that's it.

Just the name change.

Any questions for the applicant?

Thank you.

Uh this is a public hearing for our item 4.10.

This is your chance to speak to this item.

Seeing none, we will close the public hearing.

Were there any comments on mine?

I should ask you before I close the public hearing.

All right.

Um any further discussion or a motion.

I'll make the motion.

Bo's very good at making motions.

I'm glad he's up here with us.

Limiting myself from here on out.

He's about to jump.

Uh Mr.

Chair, make a motion on item 4.10, public hearing recommendation of Malika's LLC's request for amendments to the post-deal customs development agreement.

I move that we recommend approval of the development agreements, and please include all of the RC comments.

Second.

Motion and a second.

All in favor.

Any opposed.

All right, that'll move forward to city council.

Um 4.11.

Okay.

Item 4.11, public hearing and recommendation of Kenneth Glod's request for review of the Cold Spring Ranch Area Plan Amendment to allow short-term rentals.

Um I know, but this is one where we have a lot of online public comments.

So reading through some of those, I want to start with maybe some background and things.

So this is coming before you because there was an enforcement issue on some of these.

Um the city sent out notices saying you know, you're not allowed to have a short-term rental.

And so when they call and we talk about remedies, it's either you just stop doing it or you propose to change the code, which is anyone has that legal right.

And a lot of people do that when there's a code enforcement issue.

You know, they're like, I want to keep doing what I'm doing, so I am coming to the city asking for permission to do it.

So that's what this is, right?

It's them trying to come into conformance by changing the requirements.

Um the proposal would be to allow short-term rentals in the residential zones in the Cold Spring Ranch area plan.

Um currently it's listed as being allowed in commercial but not allowed in residential.

And the proposal would also conform to the Lehigh City requirements for short-term rentals.

Um, which I'll just briefly go through these.

Um short-term rentals can't be located within 600 feet of an elementary, middle school, or junior high.

Um, it has to be the primary residence of the applicant, which means they have to live there the majority of the year.

And we have ways that we verify that.

Um, and also that's something that we'll enforce with the code if it's not their primary residence.

So what that normally looks like is they're renting out a portion of their home as a short-term rental.

Um it can look like we've had I think just one where um it was a couple going on a uh mission for like two years, and so they wanted to lease out their property um as a short-term rental.

And uh so we allowed that too because it was still their primary residence, they were just gone for a period of time.

So that's what that means.

Um then um there's a limitation of no more than 10 individuals, but usually it's more limited by parking, and the parking requirement is one off-street parking spot per room that's rented.

So it can't be a street parking spot, it has to be off-street um and one per room.

So it limits how much can be um rented out as uh short-term rental.

Um, and then there also has to be curfew and quiet hours.

So yeah, the the proposals to conform with those things.

Um I guess one other thing, and Craig can talk more about this, but a big question comes up of well, if the C C and Rs don't say it's allowed, what can the city do or whatnot?

And as a city, we don't really consider what the C C and Rs are.

We're not enforcing them.

Um it kind of is separate, that's on the HOA, and we just look at the area plan, which is kind of it becomes kind of part of the development code for this area, and that's what we enforce and look at.

And um, with that, I'll turn it back to the commission for informations.

Uh Chair, if I if I may, with with regards to that.

So looking at the differences between um HOA rules, C C and Rs, and City Code.

The city code could say you can you can only have three dogs, right?

We'll use that as an example.

You cannot have more than three dogs.

If C C and Rs say in our development, anyone who buys a home here has to sign the C C and Rs and our C C and R say you can only have two dogs.

If someone is found to have three dogs in the HOA, the HOA can come to the city and say, hey, they have more than what our C C and R say, and the city says, great, that's a private action between two private parties based on a contractual agreement.

Now we don't enforce C C and Rs.

We enforce city code.

So if, for example, we allow short-term rentals, you know, rentals under that definition.

That doesn't mean that it's going to be allowed in an area.

That i if there is a C C and R or if there's a private contract between the parties, we don't we just don't enforce that.

Now, if we don't allow um short-term rentals, then we find out about it, that's when we will enforce our law.

But we don't enforce C C and R.

So just wanted to make that clear.

Thank you.

Uh any questions for staff.

All right, is the applicant present.

Hi.

I'm Kenneth Galott.

I'm just here to answer any questions you guys may have for me.

I'm really glad that you said your name because I said gold many times in my head.

I get that.

I am so sorry.

I get that more times I need to.

Okay, I'm glad that you said it before I did.

So um any uh further information that you wanted to share?

Brittany does a great job, so don't put her down.

She's awesome.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That was pretty much um that was pretty much covered by her.

I just want to add that um testimonies from next door neighbors have been mostly positive.

I have not had issues with uh neighbors that I you know that that know that we have because my residence is basically uh that I use the basement as an Airbnb, and um right now I'm just allowed to have a long-term rental as an Airbnb, and they know my uh my policy is basically adhering to the city uh guide guidance, which is I don't tell my tenants to park outside or in street parking.

So I tell them this is your you know, they have they have a side, one side of my driveway, which is where they parked a car.

They do not park the car inside the garage.

They they're told that to they're only allowed to have one vehicle in uh, you know, a spar as a part of a spot of the agreement, and inside the garage they do not park, and we don't have a car that can block them on their way out or as they come in.

So that was basically something I wanted to add.

Yeah.

Any questions for the applicant?

All right, we'll have you sit down.

And if there's something that comes up, we'll invite you back.

Um I have a clarification question for staff.

Short-term rentals are allowed in Lehigh with those rules and regulations that we talked about as far as parking and things and and per code, it's any residential area.

However, Cold Springs Ranch has a different plan, governing plan of of their area, which is why this is an issue.

Is that correct?

Yeah, and it kind of is an interesting um thing.

A lot of the area plans were established before Airbnbs really became a thing, so they don't address it because they just were too old.

Um Culture Ranch was kind of right around the time that they were becoming a thing, so it is interesting that it's in commercial, not residential.

Um yeah, it's just because the area plan specifically doesn't allow it.

Okay.

Thank you.

I'm sorry, I'm gonna ask for clarification on that.

I it sounds like I incorrectly assumed that short-term rentals would be governed by the general plan and um how that's mapped out.

It sounds like I'm wrong with that.

And based on what Tyson said, short-term rentals are just allowed Lehigh wide.

Yeah.

If they meet the parking requirements and other factors.

Yeah, exactly.

Yep.

So we made the decision to just allow it across the board, and yeah, they just have to apply and show that they meet all of the requirements, the primary residency and parking.

Yeah.

So if we we just allow it Lehigh wide, except in areas where there's an overlay zone area plan.

An area plan that doesn't allow or something that's you know as they as part of coming in with their their plan, you know, the developer, you know, put that limitation.

Thank you.

So that's why this is here before I would imagine.

I would imagine because that's what Cold Spring Ranch has.

Yeah.

Okay.

Because the area plan doesn't I I Kim might not be able to correct me, but I don't think it's listed in the residential table, which is kind of the interesting thing.

So if it's not listed, then it's kind of assumed to not be allowed to, but it's not like there saying it's not allowed, it's just not there from what I understand.

Yeah.

And same with our table of uses.

If the use isn't listed on the table, it's assumed to be not allowed.

Question.

Maybe this might be for the applicant, but was this um a lot of calls saying we don't like this or or is this the the neighborhood would like to be able to have short-term rentals?

So it did come from code enforcement.

Um there were complaints about it to us like you know, like there's this illegal short-term rental, and so we sign a letter.

That's our standard code enforcement process of you don't have a short-term, or you know, you don't have a permit for this.

Let me say it's not allowed in the area plan, so you just have to stop and to contact us.

And so in contacting us, it was like, well, you either stop or you amend the area plan, which is why they proposed to amend the area plan.

Does that answer?

So we're in charge of amending their area plan.

Uh so the applicant submitted to amend the area plan for Cold Spring Ranch.

And Cold Spring Ranch is the area plan is part of like our code.

Okay.

So they're proposing to it's just like a development code amendment, really.

It's you know, we're just amending the governing bodies for this part of the city.

Is that similar to other large areas like sky in other areas that's they have a they have a governing area plan with potentially different uses uh and also design standards, etc.

that are a little bit unique to those areas.

Cold Springs Ranch had one as well.

They had an area plan that was approved decade ago, however long ago.

It was a long time ago, and now they're asking if they could amend it.

So in addition to that, I'm gathering the Cold Spring Ranch also has C CNRs that does allow short-term rentals.

I'm not sure whether it does.

It's my understanding it doesn't, but I I don't live there.

I didn't sign those.

And uh really don't I don't want to know what we're doing, we don't have to be able to do that.

That's not our doesn't apply to me.

So we do not enforce these CNRs.

Okay.

Um this is a public hearing.

Sorry, was there any other questions for staff or the applicant?

Okay.

This is a public hearing.

Um I anticipate there may be some comments that would like to be made.

This is your chance to do so.

Public hearing is open.

Okay.

Well, thank you all for being here.

I state your name.

Oh, sorry, sorry.

No, you're um my name is Brianna Hickon.

Um we live in Cold Spring Ranch.

And um we were operating a short-term rental um because we had called the city to ask if they were allowed, and um we were told that they were, because the city didn't ask us where we lived or knew that this area plan um was gonna be something deter deterring us from operating that.

So um about six months ago we were contacted to take down the listing, and um I know you don't want to go into the CCNRs, but it was a whole back and forth of like how can we move forward because there are property owners who have invested time and money into starting this up, and we're looking at the city code.

We were looking that we were told we were given a green light by the city to do it.

Um so we wanted to move forward with that.

Anyway, I have written something out because I am going to get flustered.

So I'm just going to be reading.

But at the end, if you have any questions, clarifying questions, feel free to ask.

Okay.

Um the community's area plan is currently at odds with the community's bylaws and Lehigh City's code.

It has caused confusion and frustration for any homeowners looking to pursue the option for owner-occupied short-term rental rentals responsibly.

We are trying to correct the situation and find a path for it to protect the financial freedom and private property rights of members in our community.

Um there have been claims made that short-term rentals benefit a few at the expense of the community, um, which I believe is misleading, particularly when it's applied to owner-occupied short-term rentals that comply with Lehigh City Code.

Any homeowner who meets city requirements and receives HOA approval may operate an owner occupied short-term rental as an unexclusive privilege.

Just as it it would be unreasonable to condemn all long-term rentals due to a few bad actors, is unfair to a ineffective, is unfair and ineffective to broadly blame short-term rentals as a category.

Policy should address behavior and enforcement, not labels.

Owner-occupied short-term rentals provide homeowners financial stability by helping offset mortgages and keeping owners invested in their homes and communities.

Utah-based research shows short-term rentals make up a small share of housing and have minimal impact on affordability compared to a broader supply con compared to broader supply constraints.

Short-term rentals are subject to stronger accountability than many long-term rentals, including registration, permitting quiet hours, and parking requirements.

Owner occupancy also encourages better property maintenance, faster issue resolution, and preservation of neighborhood character, guest reviews, and direct oversight, further incentivize responsible management.

Additionally, short-term rentals support local businesses and meet short-term housing needs without increasing density or acquiring new development.

In conclusion, research studies show that clear regulation of owner-occupied short-term rentals is more effective than prohibition, resulting in better compliance, stronger enforcement, and improved cooperation between homeowners, HOAs, and the city.

For these reasons, we seek to amend the area plan to align with Lehigh City Code and existing community bylaws while protecting the financial freedom and private property rights of Cold Spring Ranch homeowners.

That's all I have to say.

Next to the next person.

And so it's easy for there's more people occupying the uh home next door.

There's gonna be more noise.

And then I'll just ask a question when we're when I'm done, if you could.

So my first uh meeting.

You're doing great.

And I'd just like to know what the various parties are here.

I kind of get the city attorney.

And I think your roles, I'm just not familiar with with this site over here.

Thank you.

We'll address that.

My name's Riley Perry.

I have a written statement to you because I'm also very nervous.

I'm a resident of Hold Spring Ranch, and I currently serve as the HOA president.

I am not here speaking on behalf of the HOA or the board.

I do feel like it has given me a lot of public exposure to opinion in our neighborhood, as well as I have a very unique perspective on what we experience in our neighborhood as I deal with the behind closed doors issues.

So respectfully, I'm opposed to the proposed America area plan amendment.

Our community is an extremely high density master plan community that was not designed to accommodate this sort of a thing.

We have somewhere between a thousand and fifty and eleven hundred homes in our neighborhood.

Most of which are townhomes.

Well over 60% are townhome man multifamily units.

So for me, the limiting factor is physical design and structure of our community.

About 85% of our homes are on extremely narrow to be precise, 24 foot wide private HOA streets, not city streets.

On street parking is prohibited on almost all of them.

There are certain sections that have parking on one side of the road.

Granted, SDRs require off-street parking.

Kind of my point being you'll see between me and others probably is parking in our community in general is a nightmare.

And has been always.

Okay, so then some of my biggest concerns with this are governance and enforcement limitations.

Currently, to kind of clarify some of the unknowns, our HOA documents, governing documents do rely on the area plan.

When it talks about land usage, it specifically cites the area plan.

So for me, as a resident, if we were to amend the area plan, that is going to force an action on the HOA to have to go amend CCRs, which again isn't is your concern.

As a resident and being involved with that, I'm concerned with that because we we're not prepared to do that.

We don't have the resources to do that.

An important thing to note that I would hope staff could help clarify as well is accessory dwelling units, ADUs are not allowed in like something like 60 or 70% of our neighborhood.

And I don't know where if that comes from the area plan or what part of the city code that is, but I've seen a map that bars most of our community from having ADUs, which isn't always hand in hand with SDRs.

Um but the better SDRs that are like a basement apartment setup would would be an ADU versus renting a room in a townhouse is not an ATU or ADU.

Right now there's no reliable mechanism to identify non-compliant SDRs, STRs.

We currently have, from my understanding, somewhere between 10 and 12 illegal SDRs in our neighborhood as found on Airbnb.com specifically.

The listing is generally obscure identifying features and enforcement either replies on neighbors getting upset and going to the HOA and/or the city.

And from what I have personally seen, none of the SDRs that are operating in our neighborhood, once they were notified by the city andor the HOA ceased their operations while they seek to get in compliance.

From what I understand, they are all still operating.

And all of those units have also already been responded to and asked to remove that, and a lot of them have not.

There are others that the HOA has started finding them and escalating those fines, and they are being viewed as a cost of doing business.

So the HOA enforcement actions have been extremely limited, and our ability to actually control it or moderate it has been pretty much impossible.

Um probably like my biggest frustration with this is the public notice for this amendment has been less than optimal.

Um I got looped into this by someone or by our planner in our area, and then I asked when the community would be notified, and I was told they will not be because the applicant did not want to incur the expense of notifying it.

And I said, hey, for where I sit, and I'm the HOA or a huge community, the community should probably know that's gonna cause all of us a lot of trouble.

And ultimately they ended up mailing a notice because I asked them to, of which those only hit mailboxes starting last Friday.

Most people in our neighborhood that I know of aren't even aware that this is on the table.

So I I do feel like the public notice has been lacking.

And then to the to the city planning department's credit, they did say, hey, we haven't really run into this kind of a situation, and the notice on an area plan amendment, the requirements are kind of gray, and they said what they said to me was internally they were gonna go look at actually amending that process to ensure that an amendment required a formal written notice.

Um finally I submitted some written documentation, but the amendment is not consistent with the Gold Spring Ranch area plan with other parts of it.

It introduces commercial lodging into residential zones and function as a de facto spot planning, which would benefit a very limited subset of properties while remaining infeasible for the vast majority.

A lot of our town homes and even some of our single family homes physically lack the space to build off-street parking, and it would not be feasible for the very large vast majority of our community.

Um I would I would urge the commission not to recommend approval to the city council.

That said, if any amendment was to be recommended, I would encourage looking at our zoning plan and only approving it for the land use district LD1, which is a very small subset of our community that is a low density setup.

Uh but even most of those homes are on private streets, not city streets.

Um long and short of where I'm coming from is we don't have the infrastructure in our community.

The developer knew that the developer specifically built it that way.

And in my conversations with the city about other issues affecting our community, there's a lot of frustration with how it was built and designed by D.R.

Horton because it lacks infrastructure.

And I'm sure some of you, especially the ones that have been on the commission longer, have physically been in our community.

If you drive through our community, the public streets are littered with cars, the driveways are full of cars, all of the parking spots the HOA provides are completely full of cars.

Probably the biggest one of the biggest issues we have in our neighborhood is towing cars, as it happens quite often.

So I would respectfully oppose.

Thank you.

Oh, hi, my name is Sheila Millette.

I live in Close Spring Ranch as well.

Um I'm also I did serve on the board.

I retired because it was giving me gray hairs, so not about that life.

Um, uh, because there's kind of like an intersection between ADUs and short-term rentals.

Um a lot of people are proposing that the ADUs they do ADUs in their basement, right?

So I don't know if you guys recall, but there was a state law that said, hey, you can't do like banned zones, but will grandfather any home that was recorded previous to that year will still be like banned from having an ADU, and then moving forward if your uh lot was recorded after that, then like the general ban doesn't work, right?

So a huge majority of our community was grandfathered like before that year.

So they're not legally allowed to do ADUs, period, right?

Um and then we know that ADUs are also not allowed in multifamily homes like town homes.

So the applicant who is asking you to allow his Airbnb has an ADU, and he's not legally allowed to do so.

Um so that's when we people are talking about like the de facto spot planning.

That's what they're talking about.

So really just a really small section, because we have like a bunch of multifamily town homes, and then we have a bunch of like small cottages where there's not room to add, you know, an extra parking or whatever.

Um, or they wouldn't qualify qualify for an ADU if they try to permit with the city because their lot's not big enough because it's like 6,000 square feet or whatever.

So really it's a really narrow subset.

So, we're struggling because we have a lot of a lot of bad faith actors where they're like, hey, we have a town home or whatever, and we're renting out our entire town home as an Airbnb, and we're telling people you can have 10 guests and yeah, use our pool and whatever, when we're like, hey, not the best idea.

Okay.

So uh, and speaking of our C C and Rs and the area plan, they actually kind of they're connected.

So that's why that's a little bit relevant because our our C C and R is define the area plan as part of our governing documents for for our HOA.

So that means that any change to the area plan by definition is a change to our HOA's governing documents.

Um it's also important to notice that when homeowners bought their homes, they agree to be bound by these governing documents, including the area plan.

So our C C and R is rely on the area plan to define and apply land use classifications.

So Section 4.32D states that nightly rentals are considered a business activity and are only allowed if they are consistent with the residential land use classifications.

So the area plan where it talks about uh short-term rentals are allowed in commercial and not you know residential.

So that's the classification that our C C and Rs point to and rely on.

So by changing the residential land use classification that Dear Horton established and the regulations our bylaws point to the city would be altering the meaning and intent of our bylaws without the HOA ever amending them.

Um and so the bylaws were written with the understanding that the land use classification for residential zones excludes short-term rentals.

So if the land use classification changes, our bylaws still function, but they would no longer do what they were intended to do, which means this amendment would effectively be a backdoor modification of our governing documents, regardless of who enforces them.

Um and while it's true that our CC and Rs also require HOA board approval for nightly rentals, that condition doesn't provide a clear or consistent standard for homeowners to rely on.

So right now, the HOA can point to the area plan as a clear reason short-term rentals are not allowed in residential areas.

If the area plan is amended, that standard disappears.

So the only thing that remains is board uh discretion, which could change from one board to the next, even if the C C and Rs don't change.

So the only way for uh to restore clarity at that point would be to amend the CC and Rs themselves.

But that isn't a realistic option for our board.

Um, our C C NRs require an approval from over 66% of all homeowners, not just those who vote, which means more than 662 individual owners would need to positively approve of any change.

So in our HOA management company has warned us that reaching that threshold is almost impossible.

So that's where the imbalance comes from because this area plan amendment is being advanced by a handful of individuals, but fixing its impact on our governing documents would require supermajority of homeowners to amend our bylaws, and that's already been established as nearly impossible.

Um, and I also wanted to point out that uh Deer Horton recently amended our bylaws in 2022.

Like the short-term rentals were well established and understood at that point.

Um so that continued exclusion from uh residential areas shows this was a conscious policy decision, and it's not something that was outdated or whatever.

Um one of the main organizing, if you actually look to like the narrative when they were establishing the area plan, um Deer Horton established a clear progression of land use.

They would start with commercial areas and they moved to higher density and then lower density, you know, and then yeah, and then lower like commercial high density, low density, right?

So allowing short-term rentals and residential zones cuts across the structure and introduces lodging use into areas that were planned specifically for long-term residential living.

Um I also think that if you approve this amendment, it would set a precedent for other uh communities that rely on their area plans for residential land use boundaries where it makes it harder for them to rely on their own area plans.

Um Riley brought up infrastructure concerns, you know.

Um circling back to the narrative from like Dear Horton when they're establishing the area plan, they put a strong emphasis on amended amenities intended specifically for community residents, uh like the the clubhouse, the pool, the park.

So they these facilities were plan sized and funded with the expectation that they would serve people who live in the neighborhood, not a rotating uh group of short-term guests, and I know that there are some, like Brie was like, Yeah, like we make sure that they don't use these specific uh pool or whatever, but so many I know we love that.

Do you want to play me out on the I'm like in that?

Yeah, so I that's what I'm saying.

I know there are some people who would enforce it, like Brie.

Keep your comments.

Sorry.

So I know that there are some people who definitely would do that, but they're also that's not every single person.

So we've looked at all the Airbnb listings, and the majority of them do advertise our private community amenities, which is problematic.

So yeah, so we just want the ability to draw clear distinctions that are in our area plan, and um not for for our community not to be treated differently than like Holebrook Farms or uh other communities that have their area plans that also don't allow short-term rentals.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Nick Hickon.

Um I remember seeing uh as I drive around first moving in Lehigh, you know, disband the HOA signs, and I was like, ooh, that looks like that got ugly.

And it was just a little bit of a foreshadow of like, oh wow, once our community has its own community members that are HOA, it might get ugly.

And as people are speaking here, these are friends of ours, and and things have gotten have gotten pretty tough.

And it's like we really don't want to see any of these friendships broken, and we most of all, like the woman talked before about a vision for our community.

What I hope most of all is that we could talk with each other and work things out because a lot of these issues are HOA issues that we're coming to you guys with, and it's not you know, so that's the vision I have for our community is that we can deal with complaints at the local level and at the HOA level, but getting to what involves you guys um with the area plan.

First of all, what we understand, and when we moved here, we tried to study out as as much as we could beforehand whether it was legal to do what we were gonna do.

We we talked to city council members, we've talked to so many people.

My wife has been the big researcher on this in the C CR, C C and Rs, which I know don't involve you guys.

There's verbiage in there that says if you comply with the code, you will be able to do short-term rental.

So that we went on that, good faith of that.

They can say that it didn't.

I don't think it's a concern that the area plan amendment would affect having to hire lawyers to change the CZ and Rs.

Um, the other part about ADUs and short-term rentals, again, what we understand, you can't have both at the same time.

And so if you are allowed to do a if you either choose one or the other.

So if you do short-term rental and you meet the code, then you can do a short-term rental.

The other big part is where we care a lot about the community and working things out with each other's parking, of course, is very difficult.

Um we are happy to deal with, we're happy to help with that.

There's there's um a lot of uh concerns that people will um use the amenities, the community amenities like the pool and stuff.

We're completely happy to do the HOA uh agreements that there is that that should not be allowed.

When it comes to parking, though, long-term renters are are the ones that are by far the most are going to take up the most spots.

Doing a short-term rental is gonna limit you and have and have more regulations on that on how much how much parking spaces you can take up.

We heard about in the town home.

There's a regulation you can't even do on street parking.

If you are a bachelor and you rent out to a bunch of your friends, you have four cars on the street.

I mean, and more than that.

And I have nothing against the bachelor that would do I would I would do that.

I wish I could have done that as a bachelor.

So we have nothing against that.

There's problems that need to be dealt with with the parking, again, HOA related issues for the area plan.

Like we said, um, we have tried to do everything that the city has told us to do.

Um we're just here to have the area plan meet the city's code, and instead of just closing off all of the opportunities that we could have uh that we are should that we should be allowed to have based on this the city's code.

Um there were a lot of there were some complaints for short-term rentals in general, not owner-occupied uh short-term rentals, and that's what we're here about today is owner-occupied, which is a very small group of people, and the benefits have been shared about that of how much more accountability owner-occupied people who are always there at their home have than regular short-term rental.

That's a whole other argument about the problems that are caused by short-term rentals, and I think they're the ones that are doing the infractions.

I really I know from the the owner-occupied members of our community.

I know we have been going the full length to try and do this responsibly.

And yes, we're continuing to still operate because we're seeing how things play out.

Um so anyway, that's just all I wanted to say.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Kendra Byan.

I am also a resident at Cool Spring Ranch.

Um I at first also was kind of confused with the owner occupied or not, but I appreciate the explanation you kind of gave to kind of clear that up.

Um I just want to say I um I'm a provider, a new provider at primary children's hospital right there in Lehigh, and our community is just down the street.

And there is such a need for short-term rentals in this area.

There are a lot of families who travel far distances and need a place to stay that's not just a hotel.

They need like somewhere with like a kitchen or a nice bedroom or park nearby.

So I think having short-term rentals in this area will be very beneficial to families.

Um I also am a neighbor in the town home, and I have seen other um renters from short-term rentals that maybe weren't supposed to be there or not, but they have all been very positive.

Um renter was from the short-term rental was like this cute couple who just graduated graduate school and just had relocated to Utah and needed a couple weeks to kind of find their new long-term place that they were going to live in, and it was really cool to meet them because they were um international, so we've got to take them on a hike.

And I think overall the experience of short-term rentals, they are like gonna be good.

And I think there may be steps to changing the CCR, but I feel like the first step is just to fix this um amendment.

So, yeah.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Oh, got one.

So my name is Morgan Cotter.

I am a resident of resident of Cold Spring Ranch.

I moved into the community maybe two years ago, and I just had a little family, me and my wife, and we just had a baby like five months ago.

And so one of the things that was brought up actually in this in this amendment or this proposal was the issue of affordability.

Um there's the uh common conception that Airbnbs increase uh the price of homes, the cost of rent, all those things.

You've seen that in Park City with all those high touristy areas.

But there's a reason why Lehigh City and other cities across Utah nationwide have decided that owner occupied is the gold standard.

There is there's a law, Cornell Law Law School that has done a study actually on the gold standard of having uh Airbnbs be owner occupied because it combats the issue of affordability.

Um with this because I'm mainly mentioned this because um Cold Spring Ranch actually has maybe up to 20% of long-term rentals, um, which which, as uh Nick mentioned earlier, has caused a lot of these parking issues with uh these long-term renters uh having four renters, four cars in the community.

If you're looking at a short-term rental, you're only looking at one car, one family that's coming to go to the primary children's hospital, or just trying to visit their grandparents or or uh their family members in the community.

Um we want to provide a way for people to have a kitchen, uh, one or two bedrooms, and an off and all the parking uh is off-street parking.

It's not gonna be affecting the visitor parking.

Um, and we want to work closely with the HOA and the CC and Rs to make sure that parking is properly enforced.

There was mention of uh like 10 guests coming to an Airbnb.

That's no way allowed or possible with the amount of rooms that are available in in the in the apartments or townhomes and and single families, as you need at least one bedroom per person, uh one one parking spot per bedroom, which is then in the statute.

Um there's also the issue of C C and Rs have to be changed if Airbnbs are allowed.

I don't think that's the case.

There's actually a statement in the C C and R that says you need a business license to operate in ADU or SDR, which I think they were they're alluding to the fact uh if why would they mention having a business license if they didn't consider the fact of having potential uh commercial or Airbnb business use?

Um I just see just so much opportunity with the area and with with the city to have to offer STRs in the community.

Um that's all I wanted to say and thank you.

Any anybody else?

I know there were plenty of comments online.

Let's give a summary of those.

I promise you I have read them.

We were giving them in advance, but let's give a summary of them.

Let's see.

Um yeah, so maybe I'll just summarize because I think a lot of them are from people who already commented.

So um there was a lot of guest and there was also a lot for um a lot of people did mention concerns about housing affordability.

Um yeah, let's see.

Um, then there's some that are you know, the positive experiences that they've had staying in Cold Spring Ranch, short-term rentals.

Um people are saying they intentionally purchased in Cold Spring Ranch because there was no short-term rentals.

Um then, yeah, some people just saying they would support.

Um I guess question is owner occupied mean the rented property have to be the owner's primary place of residence.

Um if so I can see an argument for housing affordability, some of the stuff that's already been mentioned.

Again, the streets are narrower, um affordable housing.

Um that concerns about parking support.

Um I don't think I mean I read through all of them too.

I don't think that there's really anything much different than what was shared.

I'll screw through I'll scroll through so you can just kind of see all of the comments.

But but yeah, it was a it was a I didn't I guess should have maybe look for numbers, support and against, but um there was a pretty good mix of both that work.

Do you have anything else?

Uh uh.

It it goes on for a while, so just wanted to note that we have read these.

We have looked through them all.

Um, but I did want to make sure they get put into the record.

Um, but I will close the public hearing and turn it over to the commission for well actually let's bring the applicant back up first.

You've heard quite a bit.

Do you want to address anything that you've heard?

Well, I have a few thoughts in mind, first of all.

Um it just uh common sense-wise, I'm kind of in a in a at a loss here.

It's kind of like I hear one side of the discussion is talking about the short-term rentals being detrimental to the you know, our area plan, our community, our families, you know, people being concerned.

I just don't see the difference between that and and long-term rentals.

How can somebody who can stay in your property renting for 12 months or more be less dangerous to the community than someone who uh stays there for 24 hours or less, or maybe two couple of days.

Um I assure you, as a Airbnb uh user, we did we did take down the listing as soon as we got the letter.

I'm not one of those that are still doing it.

And if we were to put it back, it'll be as a long-term rentals because we do uh we do have the option to shift the listing to be 30 days or longer for the state.

As far as the parking spaces and you know, the the the issue with that, you have to understand you are providing a service in a an application you have a tenant who's coming sometimes from outside the country.

I've had I've had tenants coming from Germany to visit uh our major cities, including Park City.

You don't want that person to just go, you don't want to tell that person just go park in the streets.

You are trying to make sure to provide the best accommodations to that tenant.

So you have either uh a garage to put that person's one vehicle, because it's usually a rental that they get from the airport, or somebody who's just traveling and they need a press a place to crash on the way to California, just an ex as an example.

So you provide either a parking lot inside your garage, a parking space, or the drive one side of the driveway.

You don't tell them go and park in the streets.

So that logic to me kind of it's self-defeating that we will tell our tenants just go park in some of the visitor parking lots.

That does not happen.

Uh as far as ten people, that just it kind of blew my mind.

Like I do rent the basement.

I have a two-year-old and a four-month pregnant wife.

I'm not in the you know, I don't rent a room because it's just not how we plant it.

We do rent the basement, and the basement has the kitchen, it has a washer and dryer uh dryer stack set, and we know exactly how to make sure that this the people that are staying there are comfortable, and we do have a limit.

We do have a limit of two people staying per state.

So the notion that five, six, seven people that just it's hilarious.

I'm I'm just expressing myself here.

As far as what we got from our HOA as far as letters, I got a I got an email response saying we're not gonna get involved in this.

Just leave leave us out of the equation.

We never had a chance to just you know have a uh a meeting, just sit down and talk to them and hear their concerns.

You know, we just gotta just leave us out of it, you know, just do your thing.

We're out of the equation.

And that was pretty offensive to us because you pay your HOA so that they work with you.

And in that case, it we just felt left out.

And uh also the the notion that we are offering the amenities, no, we don't do that because we know best.

Uh as the as a homeowner, you also want to make sure that your family is safe.

And you make sure that the application meets the requirements and then can run background checks on all the people that are wanting to come and stay in your in your in your property.

You don't you don't just invite anybody because it's your family.

That's the reason why it's owner occupied, I assume.

You don't want to just invite whatever.

So you trying to make you're trying to make sure that what you do not only stays in compliance with city code and and and in area planning, but also safe for you in the communities because you're trying to make sure your neighbors don't come, don't don't don't get disturbed, you know.

There is quiet hours, there is available parking space for tenants that is off the streets.

There is a limit of people that can come and stay.

That is also there is there's also common sense.

You don't want to affect your own area.

It's like self-detrimental to you, you don't want to you don't want to destroy your whole your community.

And that's just that's just a few thoughts I just wanted to share with you guys.

Yeah.

Any questions for the applicant?

No.

Right.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Discussion.

Thoughts, motion, feelings.

I definitely have thoughts on all sides of kind of the issue.

Um I currently live in an HOA and my husband served on the board of the HOA, so I know what that's like.

Um I also understand wanting to be able to, you know, do what you want and what you can, right, within reason with your own property.

Um, I I think the the individuals that have spoken here, you know, they might be doing a good job maintaining, but if if we open up that can of worms, what about the next owner?

What about the next tenants?

You know, those that that purchase the home down the road.

Um there's no guarantee that they're gonna hold the same standard.

Um I don't know if affordability is a really good argument in my mind, because it does seem like there's probably a very small, I mean, ignoring the spot zoning piece, but in the homes that are in there, are there really a lot of families that have the ability or have the space to be able to rent out a room or a basement?

So I don't know if that really sways me one way or another.

Um but that wasn't an answer one way or another.

Those are my those are my thoughts.

That's what what came to mind just as we were listening through and and reading through the comments that came in.

So can you um the staff could you define short term versus long term?

Is it the 30-day yeah?

Short-term does specifically state that it's less than 30 days.

Less than 30 days.

Yeah.

And so then an ADU becomes like what's more than that.

At that point, if it's 31 days, it's an ADU.

I mean, I know we've all stayed in short-term rentals.

So I would think about staying on longer than a month, it's a long time.

Uh parking.

So it has to be off the street.

Yeah.

Can it be in tandem?

Tandem, or does it have to be side by side?

Yeah, it does say that tandem does not count for short-term rentals.

Okay.

Yeah.

And that's something we review, right?

So to have like a legal short-term rental, they have to submit all this application material to us and we review it.

They have to have a business license that they renew annually.

Um so you know, the the ones that aren't in it, it was kind of brought up.

There's gonna be some that just do whatever they want, right?

And that's gonna be a code enforcement issue either way.

So yeah, to be compliant and to have a legal short-term rental, they have to have the off-street parking.

And is it one parking spot per bedroom?

Right?

And it's one person per bedroom too, right?

Or is we don't specify like how many people you could have in a bedroom.

For the bedroom, but it just was a bedroom.

You can put five in them a passage.

That's uh rolling.

I think what's that 10 or saying too badly.

Well, like Lindsay said, right?

If I rolled up in a 15 passenger van at a two-bedroom short-term rental, I mean pile out, you know, stop over from where I'm going.

That that could be the an issue.

I think you always have those outliers.

Uh and then I had oh uh townhomes.

So I don't see this being a problem with townhomes because typically town homes don't have a separate entrance.

So they don't have to have a separate entrance.

That's an ADU requirement.

Okay.

Um the short-term rental, because we did look at this, um you it used to be that it wouldn't work because we required uh two um a two-car garage, two parking spots in the garage for the town home, but we require two parking spots, and one has to be in a garage.

And we used to say not in tandem, um, but the state said that we couldn't restrict tandem for townhomes, condos, things like that.

So for the two required, because it has to be in addition to what's required, right?

So for the two required, it could be the garage spot, and then um if you have a driveway, the one behind it.

Um, and then you could only have a one bedroom pretty much no matter what, right?

And it would have to be either the garage or on the the driveway.

I mean it could be either, but it just can't be in tandem, so you couldn't have two bedrooms, it'd just be the one.

Okay, thank you.

And one last two-part question, sorry, I apologize.

But um are there other areas in the city that are like this, and would changing this particular one bring this into more conformity with the greater city at large?

Yeah, yep.

So we do allow it in our code, so everything that's not part of an area plan, it currently is allowed as long as they meet the requirements.

Um I know it was brought up like, well, all these other area plans don't allow it.

Um yeah, so the you know, this wouldn't change those area plans.

They're all separate, so they'd have to be proposed.

If it sets some sort of precedence, I don't know, you know, that might be a legal question if you approved this one and then we may be seeing others.

And they want to do it like you know, I think it'll come up either way because as people start to do it and we start enforcing the code, it's the way to remedy it without just stopping, right?

So I think kind of inevitably you'll probably see these start coming up in different area plans.

Okay, thank you.

It's been uh referenced by public comment a few times, but I only see it once in the report that we're given.

So to be very clear, we are just talking about owner arch occupied STRs.

Yep.

Well, and yeah, so primary residency is the wording we use.

Owner occupancy we use for ADUs.

Primary residency we use for short-term rentals.

So there is a slight difference in that, but i in a lot of ways it's it's the same.

I don't think that everyone's gonna if this is legal that every single person in Cold Spring Ranch is gonna start an eight an Airbnb.

You know, the the people who are doing it are the people who are gonna be doing it.

Are the people who are gonna be doing it?

So maybe maybe this would alleviate some of the neighbor, you know.

If if it was legal, they wouldn't have to police their neighbors.

And I I think it'd be the same number of people doing it, but I don't know why I'm looking at you, sorry.

But um, but at the same time, this the Cold Spring Ranch was not built for this.

Like they they don't have the bandwidth to accommodate this.

Um yeah, and it's it's I can see both sides and I sympathize with those sides.

But I I truly I don't think that any any more people would would jump at the chance to have an Airbnb in their house if this was legal 100% agree with you.

Um gun to my head.

If I were to put forward a motion, I would approve with conditions right now.

But I want to get a temperature check.

How's everyone else feeling?

It would be a recommendation.

Thank you.

Yes, good clarification.

We are recommend recommending body on this item.

So our recommendation will go to city council, just like with item 4.8.

We don't need temperature checks.

Try us out.

All right.

Uh motion for item 4.11 public hearing recommendation of Kenneth Glott's request for review of the Cold Spring Ranch Area Plan Amendment to allow short-term rentals.

The recommendation being that we approve with conditions.

The findings for the approval being that the amendment is consistent with the general plan and aligns Cold Springs Ranch with citywide residential land use policy.

When limited to owner-occupied STRs, which are already regulated under Chapter 12.

Um additional clarifications and conditions are once again being very clear.

Non-owner occupied STRs are primary, I believe Brittany, you call them primary primary residency.

Thank you.

Those remain prohibited.

Also, know that the point of clarification HOA rules may impose additional restrictions, which do not come before this body or the city council.

And please include DRC comments.

Can I adjust you a little bit?

Please.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Nay.

That was just me.

Thank you.

So it moves forward with a positive recommendation to the city council.

So we'll go forward.

When?

27th.

27th?

Yeah.

So we'll hit their agenda on the 27th of this month.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chair.

I don't think we addressed one of the questions that came up who we are.

Oh, yes.

Yeah, let's do that.

Sorry, that was one of the more important questions here.

So please introduce yourself.

Yeah.

So working around here.

Um I'm Gary Ellis.

I'm with the city engineering department here.

I work in the development review mostly what I do.

So I review a lot of these developments that come through.

A lot of these I've seen through, come through.

So here's super hero.

Kim Struthers, community development director.

So in under my department, we have the planning and zoning building division.

So I'm Brittany Harris, I'm one of the planners.

So we have different areas of the city.

Katie Bussels, the planner that's over the Cold Spring Ranch area.

Um yeah, we are kind of your main point of contact.

If you have any questions about the area plan or you know, anything that's coming to these meetings, we're happy to answer anything you can call us, email us.

Um but yeah, we're we're the ones that work with applicants as they try and get things approved, and we're also here to help all the residents know the process and understand things.

Yeah, we're basically staff to the commission and the city council.

Yep.

Thank you for all of your input.

We appreciate it.

Uh 4.12.

Hey, real quick.

I'm gonna make a motion that we have a three-minute break for the bathroom.

Uh all those favor.

Thank you.

Yeah.

We've done that right before.

Oh, so you're related to this.

This is why I said like that.

Yeah, because we're later on.

Yeah.

We need to get you a little bar.

A little boost of it.

Oh, let's draw that.

We've got one more label letters.

We're all here, right?

We're all here.

Yes.

All right.

Let's keep this rolling.

Do we need to make a motion?

We're gonna run up into our 1030 stop.

Oh no, Brittany's Brittany's gonna get us out in time.

They're challenge accepted, huh?

I just saw a ice cream once, and I thought it was pretty cool.

So I thought, uh, that was my channels.

You're welcome to make any motion.

That's what it was five.

It doesn't mean it's gonna get approved.

All right, let's go.

412.

All right.

Adam 4.12 public hearing and consideration of century communities requests for review of the two property concept plan.

A 219 unit development located approximately 600 south, 2900 west.

Um sorry, I have to get to my notes.

Um they are showing uh 53 single family homes and 166 town homes.

Um this is so Pioneer Crossing where it starts like bend down um into like Saratoga, the Jordan Rivers over here, so where we're looking.

Um Auburn Springs is up here, and um, yeah, just give you some context.

Um right now, all of the um the current zoning for this is A5 and a little bit of RA1, and the general plan is um VLDRA and um ESA, environmentally sensitive area.

So this would require a general plan amendment in either February or August to go to MDR or or something else under the existing zoning.

The max density would be about 25 units.

And um so right now they're showing 194 above what would be currently allowed by the um zoning.

That's all right, go ahead.

Um there's 56.5 acres total, and 32.6 of those are developable acres.

Um so a lot of it's being left.

You can see native open space.

Um there showing different proposed trails um connections to the Jordan River Trail.

Um, so I guess this is one of those interesting ones, right?

It's a concept plan that doesn't meet the general plan, the zoning.

Um more just feedback, but it is hard to prove something that um doesn't meet what is existing in place.

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

I have a question for staff.

Um the transportation plan for the city does show a road roughly where this cul de sac is on the what is at the west right there.

But it shows a connecting pioneer crossing.

What what effect of that at all would this have on this plan?

Um I think it shows it more to the east.

The latest one that I've looked at, which again has been a little while, but it does show a connection roughly at that bend on waterway.

Yeah, which is right roughly right where this cul de sac is.

Yeah, I think last time I talked to Luke about it, it's a little farther to the east there.

Probably line up with the southern stub road.

Yep.

And um where you dot will allow uh a uh signal there at Pioneer Crossing.

Yeah.

I think because of the curvature of Pioneer and I don't know if there were a couple of different reasons that they they've been revisiting exactly where that connection would take place.

Yeah.

Questions for staff.

None.

All right, applicant.

Thanks so much.

I'm Tom Romney with Focus Consulting.

We're an engineering and planning firm.

I'm a landscape architect and civil engineer.

Um I'm here just representing Century, which we also have here, and they're um in a way representing a landowner, and so they're working with him, obviously, and we're working with them.

And thanks for staying late.

And you know, I think what's cool about the concept plan submittal is the ability to dialogue.

And so you have a 1030 cutoff.

Is that correct?

We'll go as long as you need us, but yes.

Okay, which I want to respect that, and I appreciate that you guys come.

I don't have to come to I come to a lot of these, but not as many as you, and so I understand how complex it is and listening to everyone.

And you know, when Britney mentions that, it sounds pretty drastic to say we're allowed 25 units, and we're asking for 200, and uh what do I have in my notes?

Uh 53 single family and 166 townhomes.

And so I I just want to give more background to why we would plan it that way.

And there's there's several complexities.

Um I think some just important things to know.

And I sent stuff to you, Kim, but maybe you didn't get it, and I don't really need it.

No, we do have a lot of things.

We can we pull that up really quick.

Oh, yeah, oh, here it is.

Yeah, I've forwarded it to remote.

We have we have 56 acres.

So we can go to the next one.

So just from a context standpoint, and you know, we've obviously got Lehigh, but then we've also got Saratoga, and so just paying attention to that this property is along Pioneer Crossings.

Pioneer Crossing from this location is about seven minutes to I-15 and about seven minutes to Redwood Road.

And I know that today there's traffic issues with Pioneer Crossing, but just as a planner and engineer, you can't ever solve the issue until it's an issue.

And so I guarantee you, from a local level and a state level, even though it doesn't feel good to residents, people are working on solving these issues.

So just as a city, you know, you do want to be mindful of where you're putting people, and here we are on a make a major traffic corridor.

And so um just being mindful of that and the location for people who are going to live here and their ability to get to different places.

Um another couple things on that plan, sorry, keep stay there for a sec.

That one.

Um we just wanted to note some trailheads for later, but you have an existing Jordan River trailhead pretty far to the north.

So sorry, zoom out.

It's way up there and pretty far to the south.

Those are existing trailheads to Jordan River.

I'll talk about that in a minute.

And then if you zoom out a little bit, and you're correct, there is a plan for a road, but in the UDOT world, they tell us where that intersection is going to be based on spacing and curves.

So they have a plan signal right about there.

It's definitely not where that cul-de-sac is, so it's definitely right in that location.

And so that's just that's also important.

That's gonna be important for the neighborhood.

That's gonna be important um just for this community to get out.

And so a couple other things.

Um let's move on.

So we did we just so um they did a great job explaining the location and the land uses.

Um just something to pay attention to is that Saratoga has their future land use of that piece just to the south of us where that major signal is going to be where that signal is gonna be for Pioneer Crossing as regional commercial, and then they have heavy commercial across the street and medium density residential.

And then in Lehigh, you have low density residential to the east and then very low to the north.

And so one thing what we're proposing is low density residential.

And so even though that sounds like a big change, the big change is because of the environmentally sensitive area, which I want to talk a little bit about.

But as far as density goes, what we're proposing is 3.9 units to the acre on the entire 56 acres.

On that plan, it does show six acres.

That's just showing the density for the actual developable area.

But the reality is if somewhere someone was to develop the entire 56 acres with this unit count, we're talking 3.9 units to the acre, which is equivalent to your R1A density.

So just to give kind of apples to apples, and I again that's not that's still uh more dense than the very low density, but that's in line with your low density residential.

So just to be able to clarify that.

Um I think part of this discussion is is the developers really want to do this in Lehigh, they want to they want to work with the planning commission and work with the council and try to figure this out, but obviously, like the way I see it, we're kind of far apart in the sense of like if 25 units is allowed, and we're asking, and I I'm gonna explain a little bit more why, but we're asking for the 200.

Sorry, what's is the total sale there?

The 219.

219, yep.

So if we're asking for 219, and right now we're allowed without having to go through any of this, 25, like that's uh feels like a pretty big gap.

So we want to kind of work together in this forum to figure out can can we bridge, like can we get close to to what we're we're trying to do with this property.

So some of the other challenges with this property is there is a significant amount of wetlands.

Not all of those wetlands are jurisdictional.

Some of them are still not determined if they're jurisdictional or not.

And what that means is if there's jurisdictional, there's a pretty clear path of what you need to do.

There is a path you can go through to remove wetlands and put them somewhere else.

That's not the path we want to go down.

So this plan is pretty much said we're gonna respect all wetlands that have that are on this property right now, and those would all be dedicated as open space to the city.

And so everything you kind of see is hatched is wetlands, and so the way it breaks down with this plan is you're getting 48% of the entire 56 acres as open space.

8% of that would be improved open space, and 40% of that would be native open space, including you know, cleaning up stuff along the Jordan River.

So from like, which is kind of how we end up as the low density is just the amount of open space that would be dedicated with this project.

Um a couple other things we just wanted to note is this property owner, like he's a part of the Lehigh, he's part of Lehigh in the sense that he's owned this land, and he's worked with Lehigh over time.

For example, he provided an easement for the Jordan River Trail.

He's provided the easement for 700 um south.

And so just, you know, he's a part of the discussion.

He wants, you know, to make good decisions for his land.

He feels like he's been a good steward with the city and worked with them, and so he just wants a chance to be able to have these discussions and figure out like, you know, what what is gonna work for him also?

Like he's gonna have a say as we're talking to him and trying to figure out um what to do with this property.

And then just a couple other things that maybe aren't shown on this plan, but are things that um we're willing to like would want to talk about is you know, we're open to adding places for new trailheads, like we're open to talking about you know, a trailhead for the Jordan River in this community.

We do show two other spaces that could be developed, they're outside of wetlands, but we're not necessarily proposing anything on them today, and I think those are areas that are worth talking about.

That's you know, that's really more the current landowner is what he'd be willing to do there, but I think that's an area where we could definitely have trailheads, and we could even talk about like, you know, does that have to be developed or not?

It's just not a part of centuries plan to develop that at this time.

And then we are paying attention to the larger um trail systems in the area and making sure that they connect to the Jordan River.

And there's a couple tiny trails that would connect to major roadways and um to get into our community.

And then I think lastly, just to be aware of one complication of this project and this piece of land and kind of the complexity and its relationship to Saratoga is right now, and there's probably more discussion that we need to have with um city staff over this issue because we had a DRC meeting this kind of got brought to light, and then we went and looked at it, but most of the sewer to the north and to the west is all going to the lift station and being pumped to the east.

And so we were told that well, for this project, our only access to sewer is to the east, which doesn't provide suit, like it wouldn't function.

And we haven't had a chance to sit down since DRC, like DRC happens, and then this meeting happens.

But one of the challenges of this property is like based off of that today, is we've been told you can't use the lift station, you have to take your sewer to the gravity system to the east, which is kind of right by those cul-de-sacs.

The problem is that's only six feet deep, and our by the time our property gets to the not even to like the cul-de-sac single family lots, by the time we get to the end of the townhomes, that sewer is gonna be seven feet out of the ground.

So that's gonna just be something that we're gonna have to.

I don't know how we figure that out.

But I think if like from a land use standpoint, we can get to a close place.

I feel like we could probably fig figure out the utilities.

So I think that's my just general here's the knowledge of the property.

Like, this was not an attempt of how do we like I just think when people see townhomes, they assume we're trying to cram the most amount of units in a space.

It's when you get to a PUD, which is what this would have to turn into, it's is this the right location for it?

You know, is this the right product type?

What I like about it is you have a lot of single family lots in the area.

We still want to buffer those single family lots with similar-sized single-family lots.

We've got 6,000s up to a 17,000 square foot single family lot.

I think some of that stuff is, you know, there we could make tweaks.

Um transitioning to townhomes that is eventually going to transition to a major commercial corridor.

And I like it's kind of a weird place to be for me because I don't, I'm not like I don't want to threaten anybody.

That's not my intention, but it's like there's gonna be this major commercial, like Saratoga is using this as as a major commercial entry to their city.

And so how do we work that into Lehigh?

And I think this is an important meeting and ability to work together, because I just think this is Lehigh's chance to, with everything that's changed in this area, say what is going to be the best use for this location.

And so the time and effort we've put into it, we think, you know, still being a low density product, providing a variety of housing types.

You know, these are not going to be townhomes that are, you know, the reality, this is not going to be an affordable community to meet like that, that um kind of price point.

But it is going to be very much in line with the neighborhood that's there and the type of you know, people we're talking young professionals, young families, people are trying to get home ownership.

I guess I should make sure that you guys are good.

But my understanding, and I'm 99.9% sure this is all four cell product.

Nothing century that I've done with them has been a f uh like a four-rent product.

It doesn't necessarily mean based on that last conversation, there wouldn't be something like that, but that this is all a for a four-cell town home of four-cell single family unit.

One other thing I forgot that would have to be figured out if you guys liked this type of plan and were on board with this type of land use and density, is we'd have to work with with Lehigh to provide access to those cul-de-sacs.

And our thought is like by integrating the current open space with our open space, and we're open to talking about like this is just kind of the first concept plan that if we can start heading down this path, we would love to have more discussions about how do we make this a great community that Lehigh will be proud of.

We'll answer questions, and then obviously I think you have to do a public, and then we'll all let the uh developer if they have anything.

Yeah.

Do you have to open it up?

Is it a public hearing?

Let me make a motion that we extend past our 1030 curve.

Or we're gonna disappear.

Yeah, that would be great.

Which we don't want that to happen.

No, I turned into a pumpkin.

So Mr.

Chairman, I make a motion that we extend past our 1030 curfew until 11, shall we say?

Are you asking if you can?

Yeah, go ahead.

Okay.

I'd like to make a motion that we extend past our 1030 cutoff time.

21.

It has to have time.

Oh, okay.

It does.

We didn't do that in the past.

Well, it has to have time or until we're done with all the items on the until we're done with all the items.

Second.

Yeah.

Motion in a second, all in favor.

I think that's a good question.

All right, sorry, continue.

Well, I I'm done for now.

It's because it's a public hearing, correct?

Yeah, but let's do questions for your friends first.

Do you guys have any questions?

No questions.

Questions?

Questions.

So was there any I mean this took you a while, I'm sure, to come up with what else did you talk about doing in this?

This is an odd-shaped property that you've got here.

You've got environmentally environmentally sensitive areas that you're trying to work around.

Did you come up with anything else to do here?

Well, yeah, so I think you know, when you look at it, um, you know, there's options.

It's environmentally sensitive for wetlands, which most of these wetlands were created by the people who own the property.

Like it's it's tricky if you have horses a lot of the times or certain uses for your property, you create wetlands over a period of time you don't realize, and then you know, groups much larger than us determine that now you have a wetland that you need to preserve, which is fine, but there are ways to so like the other solution is there's ways to mitigate those wetlands, and then working on a plan that is like you know, single family in certain locations, and you know, but but that's what's tricky is like if you were to just do this plan with 25 units, I'd I just it's not viable to to put in the infrastructure to figure out the complexity of the sewer is not really viable with 25 units.

And so, and I guess me as a planner and engineer, like I didn't come to debate the the current land use of environmentally sensitive area, and I respect that we should that's why we've done what we've done is like okay, let's try to preserve as much open space as we can.

We're not even showing units on the Jordan River, and you know, we're saying, yeah, there could be some there someday, but I think that's worth a discussion.

We would have to go back and talk to the landowner about something like that.

But like I think, you know, being aware of the Jordan River is important, but a part of this is also the floodplain, and the floodplain is there now, but it can go away, it goes away a lot of the times with development, you just have to develop to a certain elevation, and it is why we've put most of the um units up in that corner.

But we play around with a lot of things to get to like how do you get the a variety of units.

So, you know, one thing that we're focusing on as a community that's just not all of the exact same thing.

How do you buffer?

And so, yeah, we played around with how many single family there are versus how many townhomes.

How do you have enough townhomes to have a viable townhome community with an HOA that's gonna function?

And then we've we played around with those other pieces.

You know, I think just we are considering like what are they gonna potentially do?

We don't know what they're gonna do in Saratoga, but kind of played around with some of that.

So I don't have all those different maps, but I know this is um concept EF or G.

Thank you.

Any other questions for the applicant?

All right, you can sit down.

Thanks so much.

Uh this is a public hearing.

Anybody in the public that would like to speak to this item 4.12.

This is your chance.

Brittany, were there any online comments?

Well, there were.

Uh and bring it back to the commission for further discussion.

I have sort of maybe a clarification question that I can probably answer, but I'm gonna ask it anyway.

Can density be issued based on the total acreage or just what's developable?

Great question.

So it's based on what's in the general plant, the land use designation.

So we even in the environmentally sensitive areas, we have to give, we can't just say you can't do anything there because that would be a taking.

Okay.

So in that floodplain, wetlands areas, we still give one unit per five acres.

So that's where we came up with the 25s if you take you know, a lot of this is in that ESA, so all of that got the one unit per five acres, and then there's you know, to the far east, there's a piece that's out of the ESA that's in the VLDRA, and that's one or excuse me, 2.5 units per acre.

So we just took the total acreage, you know, how much is in ESA, how much is in VLDR.

Okay, gave the density numbers, and that's how we came up with 25.

Thank you.

Any other thoughts, questions, feelings?

Concerns.

Thought you might.

I don't know if this is kosher.

I'll just address your.

I really appreciate your comments.

Um I appreciate the job that you have to do and try to get this approved.

I I mean, in good conscience, I can't approve it.

It's the gap is crazy to me.

Um yeah, please.

It's uh well, I appreciate that you want to make this a conversation.

I feel like that's where we're gonna get the most benefit here.

Yeah, so I guess when I look big picture planning, is Leeh when I came to Lehigh for the first time, Kim and I probably looked like this guy.

And uh I just feel like Lehigh is a different place, and that doesn't mean that there shouldn't be five-acre lots.

I I like with what that elderly lady was saying, like, you know, it doesn't help my argument.

Um but uh but I think there is a place for half acre lots and third acre lots and quarter acre lots, but I also think all of those are becoming impossible for the general public to even live in and be a part of.

And I think, you know, like my kids are gonna live in a town home.

I like I was fortunate to never live, I lived in a condo for a minute, but I was fortunate to skip the townhome world.

I just don't think that's a reality anymore.

I think even uh you know, and you guys are seeing this, it's what you're dealing with, it's what we're pushing for, but we're not just pushing for it to get a unit count, we're pushing for it because that's what people like that there's a need for that.

There is, you know, an 800,000 or let's say uh 600 to 800,000 dollar townhome, like that's a that's a new family, which it even boggles my mind now.

And so just doing half acre, third acre, and quarter acre lots, I just don't think it I'm not saying it's not a reality, it needs to go somewhere.

But when I look at what Saratoga's gonna do and creating a commercial zone and the need to buffer that and then when I look at this piece and think putting 25 five acre lots, I just don't think this is the right look.

Like when Lehigh, every city has to say, okay, this is the land we have left.

And then for the most part, it's not forever, but once you develop it, that is going to be what it's going to be.

And so when I look at this piece, this is not where I would put five acre lots in Lehigh.

This is where I would put, and I'm not saying apartments or your highest density, I understand why there's the TOD zone, but this is a harder zone.

This is getting to become a harder um type of community to get into communities like this is kind of the missing middle.

Um because it looks worse to me than it is.

And so I guess what I'm saying is even though we're asking for what seems like an astronomical amount of units in relationship to 25, you're also getting um 56.

So you're also getting 30 acres of open space that is now Lehigh's forever.

And if you were to do 25, five acre lots, well, that's not open space.

That's people own that land, they control it.

Nobody else can go there.

You can't build trails, you can't build trailheads, you can't no one else in the community gets to be a part of it.

So I just I guess what I would say is, yes, it seems like we're asking for a lot, but we also want to give a lot.

So I feel like if the city wants to be a part of that give and take discussion, we want to go through this process.

If it's just a hey, this is only allowing 25, 5 acre lots, I don't I don't know what the I don't know what they'll do, but it's just it's not viable today to go down that road.

So it'll sit undeveloped and wait until there's a time when it makes sense on this type of a piece that just it wouldn't make sense.

Not to be like I know I know I probably sound like I'm like digging my hills, but I think where we're not is saying, yeah, it's a lot of units, but we're we also want to give a lot of perpetual land that is now open space forever and look at connecting trails.

And I think in that world of amenities, trailheads, open space, what is it, what does it look like?

I think we're fully open to look at okay, how do we how do we make this something like something of something great for the community?

To do that, you've got to have the units.

Oh, sorry, go ahead.

Go ahead.

So tonight, this is kind of what you're doing.

You want to take our temperatures.

I want to take your temperatures.

To see where we're at.

Yeah.

Because obviously we can't, you know, you gotta do the zone change to get this.

Yeah.

Yeah, well, so like if if it yeah, if your temperature is.

Right.

I don't want to waste everybody's time and money.

Yep.

Well, I mean, this is this is hardly the body that you want to take the temperature of, right?

If you really want to get the temperature, you need to get it to the next level.

Which is what's so great about planning staff getting us here.

Yeah.

And why we want to get us on, then let's get on.

Let's make a negative recommendation and go.

Just kidding.

I'm not telling us what to do.

I'm just saying, like the ask is a is a lot.

I appreciate the effort that went in there, right?

I I actually don't even hate the conceptually some of the pieces that are here.

Um I just there's so much outside of control.

Like I'm curious, like all those single family homes on 600 West, are those fronting 600 West or are they fronting inside?

Are they, you know, like what because they're dual frontage, which we hate.

We don't love dual frontier properties either.

So yeah, they're all fronting inside.

Okay.

Um and this whole plan could tweak easily with comments and suggestions.

I think we've kind of run up with staff to a little bit of a crossroads of like it's um hard to move forward if if the like we had a DRC, and when it's like, well, it's really zoned for 25 units, which sorry, it's not five acres, they're two and a half acres.

So we could put two and a half acre lots across the whole thing.

And so when we got to there, it's like, well, we need to see we need to really talk about this because I just you know I know we were asking a lot, but I don't think that's the right use for this property, where it's located and what you're gonna end up there.

Like I can't imagine selling two and a half acre lots and then having uh grocery store.

I don't know what they're gonna do there, but a grow major grocery store as your neighbor.

Like I don't think that would be good for Lehigh residents.

And and Saratoga is gonna do something like that, and I I don't know what it is.

And so the city owns the piece to the the west, and I guess they own some piece, yeah.

Well there yeah, part of Lehigh City.

Around waterway road.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah.

The city owns that.

The city, what is the plans for the city there?

Uh just remain native.

Yeah, that's actually in the floodplain, and so when we approved um Jordan Willows, that's why we have we have about a hundred acres of open space, and we tried to keep development as much as we possibly could out of the floodplain area.

Um that's kind of our overarching policy as a city is if there's natural hazards, let's avoid them.

Let's not try and fill and build, you know, modify other nature, just stay out of the path.

Same thing with Utah Lake, we have a shoreline protection area.

Um we'd much rather just, you know, if we're gonna add density, we'd see it more in our transit areas, uh downtown.

You know, I I get Tom's arguments, but I think you could make it even stronger if you said we're gonna take this 200 additional units and put it somewhere really meaningful in a TOD or something like that.

So my thought that the two little cul-de-sacs that are in the center that break up most of the open space.

Could it go to the north?

Could it go somewhere else?

Because it just to break up that this island of a couple of cul-de-sacs, to me, is something that I look at that and go, there's gotta be I know you guys spend hours dealing with the same thing.

Yeah, no, I think if yeah, I think that's the temperature we're trying to gauge, is if it was like, hey, we're good with this single family and town homes, and you know, whether it's uh trail connect whether it's just a open space corridor through there or getting rid of it all together.

I think those are that's like, oh, okay, we're getting somewhere, let's continue this discussion.

And I agree, it's not just the discussion with you, it is whatever you say, we're gonna have to go to council and have this same discussion.

And they're the decision makers.

No, for sure.

So we're we can recommend yay or nay, whatever, but it's everyone's recommendation count.

So really for you to get to get the feedback that you're looking for of yes, we're asking for this astronomical number, and we know it's crazy, and you know, we were shooting from the hip, let's see what happens, right?

That's what it feels like.

Okay, that's what feels like what you're doing.

But for you to have the real conversation you need to have, it's not with us.

It's with city council, because they can say, hey, you know what, here's a number that makes more sense.

We don't have that authority.

Yeah, right.

But as a plan, I guess as a as you know, as the planning commission, I do think you have the I think your your opinion is valuable of like for this land, what is the long-term highest and best use?

Right.

But then we're doing your job.

Right.

Your job is to present something that we can vote on.

Yeah, no, I am.

Okay.

So we will.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Uh I'll answer that in a different way.

And that my plan would align with the general plan.

I think this most recent election cycle, one of the big things that we learned is that everyone's frustrated with traffic and how many people are moving in, how many low density places are being built.

And so it it just you've got to keep it at around at least close to the 25.

Yeah.

Um I would have a hard time going anywhere north of that.

I I'm worried about Saratoga Springs, because if that's heavy commercial, I can't remember what it was.

Yeah.

It's gonna have it's called regional commercial.

So heavy commercials to the south.

This will be uh there they want this to be a regional commercial center for Saratoga.

And so that's what's tricky is like now you're balancing two cities against the city.

And yeah, yeah, and that's it's not it's yeah, it's never awesome.

Yeah.

But it's reality of what's what they're going to do, and UDOT's putting a signal there.

And so, yeah, it this is not uh just hey, hope like I like, you know, I hope the that the council will give this to us.

It really is looking at like, okay, what can we give, what supports that?

What works with this commercial, what works with the neighbors in our opinion.

I'm I'm not opposed to this property being developed.

Yeah, for sure.

Uh in fact uh I'm I'm mostly pro development.

Oh for sure.

In general, as far as my temperature is concerned, right?

Yeah.

Um I'm concerned with the quantities.

Um and I don't feel like I have any insight to what would be a better balance number.

I I I feel like there's personally I feel 25 is limiting, right?

Oh, yeah.

I I feel like there's potential for more here.

You can even do large lots on double that, right?

You could do 50 and have large lots uh and whatnot as single single family homes.

Multifamily, whatever you want to do, right?

You you've got some land here that is developable, but I don't speak for the council who really makes that beauty.

So and I think Mr.

Jones over there hit a great point with the recent election.

Yeah.

And I don't I don't think they would be favorable to changing the uh uh general plan.

Yeah.

And I'm not sure I am, because you know, people rely on that, and when they move in someplace and we hear it all the time, oh I moved in here and thought we were gonna have cows in our backyard and the general plan.

Like, well, things change.

For sure.

So but I didn't I think you know.

Is there any additional information that we could give you that you think would be helpful?

No.

No, I think I think that's valuable.

I think um whatever your motion is will be valuable, and then we'll decide to do what what there's different options, obviously we'll go to the next meeting, but um, there's ways to meet with council members otherwise too, and so we can decide what to do.

Okay, thanks so much.

Appreciate it.

All right, I'll put forward a motion.

Item 4.12, public hearing and consideration of century communities request for review for the um I'm gonna mess this up.

Chu Chaiu property con cho, thank you.

Chu property concept plan.

A 219 unit development located at approximately 600 south, 2900 west.

Let's see um the motion being denial of the proposed concept plan, with the findings being that the proposed concept is not consistent with Lee City's development code, and it does not conform to the goals and policies of the general plan, and please include all DRC comments.

Um we did want to say we were looking into it a little bit more, and since this would have to be a PUD or PRD, um we'll go to city council.

So if you just want to recommend recommendation of the mouth, please make that change.

Thank you.

A second.

Uh motion in a second, all in favor.

I mean a post.

Thank you.

So 27th as well?

27th with city council.

Um again, I I think that's where you're gonna have the most fruitful conversation.

Yeah.

So yeah.

I like the open space all by the river.

That'd be great.

Yeah, that's the biggest thing for that.

Those are nice.

Yeah.

Yeah, the way it said to allow Saratoga to or Lehigh to control that.

Right.

Yeah.

All right, 4.13.

Okay, item 4.13, public hearing and recommendation of Lehigh City's request for development code amendment to chapter 20, home occupations adding adult daycare.

Um so in our home occupation, we already allow child daycare, and it came up just someone asking about doing adult day care, and um so the we're just proposing to amend the code to allow adult daycare or child daycare with kind of the same regulations.

Um adding a drop-off circulation plan, annual fire life safety inspection.

I think that came from looking into the state code a little bit, and um, and then just eliminating some child daycare things to make it inclusive.

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

Questions for staff?

Somebody is somebody trying to do this?

Yeah, so someone did request and it didn't really fit in to any of the home occupation requirements.

So yeah.

So is this in preparation for a adult daycare center?

I don't know.

So it'd be uh home occupation.

So they want to be so just someone doing it in their house.

So like my aging father, somebody could go in there and spend the day with him kind of thing, or you could drop them off to someone and they would do like a nitty group or something.

I could take him somewhere and drop them off.

You would have to pick him up.

I don't that's not part of the market.

Most care centers charge a dollar a minute after 6 p.m.

So he's good for it.

Hey, I know your son, so karma.

True.

Um this is a public hearing.

You want to say anything?

I'd like to open the public comment and uh anybody who would like to speak to this, this is your time.

Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing.

Were there any other questions or concerns, comments, or a motion?

I'll make a motion.

Item 4.13 public hearing and recommendation of Lehigh City's request for a development code amendment to Chapter 20, home occupations adding adult daycare.

I move that we give a positive recommendation to city council with the finding that the proposed development code amendment is in conformance with the purposes, intent, and provisions of the general plan and its various elements.

Please, and there's no DRC comments, are there?

Include DRC comments.

Second.

Motion and a second.

All in favor?

Any in post.

Okay.

Um how do we feel commission about pushing the uh thing to the work session?

The uh bylaws.

Yeah.

You guys okay with that?

What I'd recommend is that you accept the bylaws, make a motion to accept the bylaws with the understanding that we'll have a training.

What if you snuck something in there?

We want to they were in the packet.

So you've had your chance to do that.

And according to the bylaws, members of the commission, you were to know relevant state and local law.

And we could do it at our next regular meeting.

There's only two items this smaller smaller meetings.

In my opinion.

We would respectfully ask to postpone it, but do we want to do the acceptance?

Oh, yeah, we could do the acceptance now.

If you're comfortable, or we can just roll the whole thing.

Just roll it all.

Okay.

If you're okay with it.

Um I want to give a quick chance to our new commissioner to come up and introduce yourself to us.

Please come to the mic again.

State game.

Poor approach.

Yeah.

City business.

Technically.

Hi guys on polo.

This was a really long meeting.

So yeah, hopefully next one is only 30 minutes.

Jacob was supposed to be here, it would have been, but I have to questions for public comments.

Well, I just I have one comment.

These chairs are a lot better than those chairs.

I'm wiggling the whole time.

Yeah, these chairs, those chairs are terrible.

That's why Brent left.

That makes sense.

And that's why he will not come back.

Okay, here's a question I got.

If I'm not voting, do I gotta be here?

How does that work?

No, you're not required to attend.

You can if you want to stay plugged in, but you're not required to.

So hopefully, and this is probably a really good we'll we'll use this.

We'll go over training mode.

So I know we have a training next week, but I guess part of the bylaws.

Yeah.

But yeah, if if one of the regular members is absent, the goal is that you would let us know.

Now if you're sick the day of and there's nothing you can do to control that, we'll try and get a hold of one of the alternates.

But as much advanced notice as we can give, they'll give you notice either whoever's gonna be absent or staff will let you know, hey, we're down one regular commissioner or two.

Can you please both attend?

But if we're if all five regular members are here, you're not expected or required to attend.

If we don't hear from you, assume it's optional.

Yep.

Okay.

Perfect.

Yep.

So technically you didn't need to hear.

Sorry, we should.

Hi Lindsay, sorry, I'm the one running in the door at 6.58 p.m.

after shoving chicken nuggets in my mouth today.

Um on on the way over.

Don't tell the him back there.

Um yeah, I'm excited to be a part of this too.

I've um served with Nicole on the park uh tax grant review.

We need a shorter name for that.

Um committee.

Um I'm still gonna be serving as the chair, at least for this year.

Um just because we moved up the timeline for those applications to come through.

Council wanted our recommendations before they approved the budget.

Um but we've just committed not to schedule any of those meetings on a Thursday night.

So I think it should be okay, at least for this year, and then we'll we'll see how I feel afterwards, and I might step back into just a committee member role or step down and let somebody else take over.

But I think just being an alternate is I'm excited.

What what parts of Lehigh do you guys live in?

I'm up in Canyon Hill, so on Traverse Mountain.

Um my house backs up to my actual house backs up to the DR Horton development.

So when I said that is literally my life right now.

Yeah.

Things change from when you buy your house, and you know, it's okay.

But I think it was our community that got the PSA set in stone.

Up there.

Like started that process, yeah.

Because the micron plan that was originally that we had the understand or that was approved when we bought had it environmentally sensitive, but then we learned that that wasn't like actually an official designation.

That was something that they had put on.

So for better or for worse.

I don't know if that's a good thing or not.

Some people like it, some don't.

So Paul, you live where?

I buy the skate park.

Yeah, okay.

Not too bad.

Well, welcome.

We're excited.

Yeah.

Anything else tonight?

Well, actually, we end the meeting.

I'm hoping for it.

We've got to be able to do that.

I mean, if handles closes, that's you know you're gonna hear too.

Like that's all I'm saying.

Motion to adjourn.

No, that was it.

Okay.

Yeah, thank you.

Did we decide on the bylaws?

Yeah.

We did.

Okay.

Okay.

Motion to adjourn.

Second.

All in favor.

I can't.

Hey.

Uh is that scenes or in person?

Uh in person.

If you want to make it.

Best job.

It's a good one.

You'd rather if it's more convenient, just tell us depending on what they're doing.

The first couple in the year usually.

We'll have a PowerPoint.

We need to share the screen.