Item 2.1.

I move that we approve the minutes from January 22nd of this fine year.

Second that one?

The year of our Lord.

In the year of our Lord 2026, yes.

I heard a second.

Um all in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposition?

All right.

Moving into the regular agenda.

For anybody that is here for item 3.1, which is flagship home request for review of transitional holding zoning at the Kirkham Estates.

That item has been withdrawn from this meeting.

It will likely come forward at another time.

I I don't think it will be coming forward.

Maybe never will come forward.

But uh maybe at some point, but not anytime soon.

But it has been withdrawn from this meeting.

Yes, sir.

Please come.

Cheferer designation.

Kim, would you please address that question?

So as far as this application, it they have withdrawn.

I I believe it fell out of contract as far as um so they this won't carry forward the I'm I'm thinking maybe your question is what does the transitional holding zone mean?

And it's a large five-acre agricultural, it does allow housing on five-acre lots.

It's really to be able to get a property into the city, but remain pretty much with what the rights were in the county.

So it's it's just a holding zone, and then they'd it had they moved forward, they would have to come back later and rezone it for some kind of development.

So that was my question.

Okay.

Uh thank you.

Uh we'll continue on with the regular agenda.

Jacob.

Okay.

Um item 3.2 is public hearing and recommendation of Adam Albrecht's request for review of the Parker zone change on 2.4 acres located at 300 north, Palomino Way, changing the zoning from A1 to R122.

And this zone change is consistent with the general plan designation of VLDRA for the area.

And I know the applicant's plan is to come back with a future single family subdivision in the future.

So with that, I'll turn it over to the planning commission for any questions.

Um questions for staff.

Seeing none.

Uh this is a pub our sorry, the applicant.

Are you present?

Not present.

Ooh, TISC TISC.

All right.

Um did anybody have any specific questions they wanted the applicant to address.

No, seeing none.

This is a public hearing.

Um at this time we'll open the public hearing.

Invite anyone to the microphone that would like to speak to item 3.2.

Mad Rush has ended.

We will close the public hearing and turn it over for a motion or deliberation.

There was an online comment for this one.

Sorry, let's reopen that public hearing and enter the online comment comment.

Would you mind reading it?

Yeah, let me pull it up.

Um this comment comes from let's see, CLG properties, Sean and Jennifer Lewis.

Uh, in regards to the zone change for this piece of property, we have no objections.

I would like to bring forward an observation regarding 300 north.

Currently there are six homes on septic systems and five on wells.

My understanding is that all the sewer mains in this area go three different directions, the first being east towards 900 north or 900 west, which is currently sloped out and cannot be extended.

The second direction is towards Main Street, which serves the Newman direction or development down Palomino Way.

And the third direction is west towards Main Street 1500 West, which serves the two Gurney developments.

And some of that line actually runs north before turning west towards 1500 north and tying into that main.

I realize when these developments are happening, that a lot of the infrastructure is provided by the developers.

Um regarding their property at the current moment, sewer options for this five plus acres are becoming a concern for development in the future.

If there are not options, it may be the case for the property to the west.

I'm simply reaching out to have the planning and zoning commission aware of the infrastructure on 300 north to make you aware.

Um the future if these properties on the north decide to develop that there are options for affordable sewer and stubs to get sewer down 300 north.

I'm simply asking that when these developments arise that you take that into consideration, or the con the situation on 300 north into consideration.

And if there are options for sewer stubs into 300 north, that they are not overlooked.

Maybe this is an area the city engineer's experience is needed.

So that is the comment.

Thank you.

That being read, we will close the public hearing.

Gary, did you want to address any of that?

Sure.

Yeah.

Um in this area, there's basically two ways that sewer can flow out of here.

Yeah.

So if you look on the map there, so there is a sewer line that dead ends about in front of the property there.

It's an eight-inch sewer line.

I think it's pretty deep.

I can't see what the depth is of the sewer right there on third east, but on 11th west, they're like 10, 11 feet deep.

So an eight-inch sewer line can handle hundreds of homes on it with depending on the grade and the slope and things like that.

So I think there's plenty of capacity there on the 30 sewer line and would be able to be reached if you have a basements and everything can flow out there too.

There's also another line that flows south on Palomino Way there, which is just to the west of the property there.

It's a 10-inch line, it's a little bit shallower.

It's about six feet deep there, so they may or may not be able to reach it.

The homes along Palomino Way can get to it there.

Um but there may not be able to, depending upon the grades and everything of homes on 300 north, but it can flow along 300 north.

There's plenty of capacity there.

Forgive my ignorance with sewer infrastructure.

Um is this uh development that once once uh built out, they could tap into either.

Uh would you would you be seeing the development go only one direction or either?

You know, they could probably tap into either one.

The one of Palomino Way is a 10-inch line, has a lot more capacity, of course, than an eight-inch line.

If they can reach it, and that's cheaper for them to reach that one, then they could go to that one.

Um if they need to be deeper and they don't need to build up their development, then they could probably go out to third north.

And I would assume the same thing for people along third north too, there and other developments.

Okay, good reach.

Um I it just kind of wanted to sum up what uh my understanding of this would be, Kim, Gary, um either Jacob, I'll exclude you.

You're welcome to chime in as well.

Didn't mean to treat you like junior or something here.

You're very seasoned professional, sir.

Um but uh it um I I mean that the comment is of course spot on, but these are things that would happen with development.

The developer would pay for and attend to uh attend to this.

It is I'm understanding this.

This is an island.

Uh and in and the zone change is calling for exactly what we have on the general plan, right?

So in my mind, this is just we could discuss this, but it's a slam donk.

Yeah, okay.

Then if everyone's content, I'll go ahead and make a motion.

Yeah, go ahead.

Okay, great.

Uh for item 3.2 public hearing recommendation of Adam Albrecht's request um uh the Parker zone change 2.4 acres at 300 north, uh Palomino Way, changing the zoning from A1 agriculture to R122 residential agriculture.

Uh I move that we uh approve um the zone change with the the findings that uh it is consistent with the general plan that um it is uh development concerns would be met by developers um per the city's usual functions and it eliminates uh an island that currently exists in uh the way things sit right now out of line with the general plan and of course include DRC comments.

I make a suggestion that we recommend for approval.

Is this we recommend yes, yes, yes.

I apologize, just so excited with how how spot on this one has.

No, thank you.

Yes.

Recommendation.

Second stands.

Okay.

We have a motion and a second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed moves forward to city council.

Uh 3.

Yeah.

And you still would like to hear 3.3 and 3.4 together.

Okay.

Well, I would, but um, I'm open if you guys don't want that.

Uh but yeah, let's do it.

Perfect.

Um, okay.

So item 3.3 is public hearing and recommendation of grow developments request for review of the 1450 west, 1220 north zone change on 5.25 acres located at that address, 1450 west, 1220 north, uh changing from A1 to R122.

And then item 3.4 is the same address, an eight lot residential concept plan with no exceptions requested.

So for the zone change, like the last item, this matches the general plan designation of very low density residential agriculture for this space.

And then on the concept plan.

So it's the eight lots that all meet the 22,000 square foot requirement.

I know the applicant was just looking for some feedback on the layout.

But like I said, no exceptions are requested.

So you're actually the final approval body for the concept, but for the zone change that will be recommended to the city council.

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

Thank you.

Any questions for staff?

Is the applicant present?

Yes.

If you would like to, you may address or give us more information.

Hi, uh Boyd Brown with Grow Development.

I I don't really have any comments.

I'm happy to answer any questions, but we've worked well with the staff.

I think we have pretty good understanding of what they need, their requirements, and we're looking forward to moving forward after we get the zone change on this.

So any they mentioned you were looking for feedback.

Yeah, this there were some challenges on the layout with the spacing of the road.

We're trying to maintain the existing home on the property, but uh we've looked at a couple different options.

Um I have or open to any comments or questions for the applicant.

Are there any trails through this area?

I don't know.

Trying to look on the maps.

I didn't see any, and then it doesn't look like there's no.

Are there any plans actually?

No.

No, not in this area.

Would you like to put one in?

Start something great.

That's right.

Would you like to maybe some smaller density?

Uh we did look at some trails, but no, this is kind of rural, it's the very low density.

I mean these are big lots, so we're happy to have larger lots and not trails or the other way around.

So I did it, yeah.

Yeah, I got I have nothing for you.

I think this is not a complicated one.

Okay, thank you.

Uh this is a public hearing.

Um if anybody from the public is here to speak specifically to item 3.3, um, which is the zone change.

Please come forward and speak.

Um Danny, here is I built a subdivision with Mike Du Bois just um on the other side of 1220.

Our only question, we're not opposed.

Um Mike owns a property to the to the north here.

I own some property um still in the subdivision and west of here.

Um you'll probably see me coming through here shortly.

But my only concern that I have, and Kim probably remembers this when we built Titan's drive there, uh, we were asked or required to widen that road past the standard width because what we understood was our road was going to come through and connect to the property uh north of this.

And so my only question is you know, does it make any sense to kind of keep that connectivity where that road tight strive comes across and ties into the road right above it?

Um, you know, we're Mike's not opposed to it, I'm not opposed to it.

It's just you know, do we want to kind of have a conversation about how that road should look?

We get a little concern with the Kalar's property that Mike has some rights to potentially purchase that might interfere with layout on this three acre that's still gonna remain there that's gonna kind of be locked a little bit.

And so it's just just a question of do we work with Boyd and work with the city to make these roads work really, really well.

I understand exactly what Boyd's doing.

Um it makes sense for for this particular property, but um it does put the Caleb property kind of in a really weird spot.

And you know, you may have a road where they're proposing it, and now you have another road just two houses down that you know you're gonna have three entrances.

You know, Titan's drive's gonna be in the middle, you'll have one cul-de-sac where the Caleb property is, and then you know, Boyd Street that's coming in.

So, you know, it's I I think changing the zone is great, but that would be our only concern is just you know, you're gonna pop potentially have three roads within you know 250 feet or 300 feet, which is kind of scary to me.

Sure.

So just a thought.

Thank you.

Okay.

I live on uh 1533 West, 1220 north, just a little bit west of this proposed development.

Uh have no problem with the zone change.

It's nice to see some bigger lots.

One of the one of my concerns is on the north boundary or property line of this property.

There's an irrigation ditch that comes under the tracks and follows all the property, the north property line.

Clear down and then it turns and goes south down to my property.

Zach Taylor lives straight across the road.

He has a share, and then I have my water, and then I guess Danny has a share.

My concern is on that ditch on the north.

I've already piped this the ditch running south.

I took that upon myself and did that because of the problems of trying to maintain the ditch.

The ditch that runs east and west on the north side of this property is kind of a delicate ditch.

It don't hold water real well.

It grows in and we have to burn it.

When how close can they build, Kim?

Five feet, correct?

Uh for detached, like uh an accessory structure is five feet.

The main home has a bigger setback.

Right, but a detached building can be within five feet of the property line.

With that said, there's no way to burn and maintain that ditch.

We've I've already fought this and didn't get nowhere.

I got a detached, there's a neighbor that's got a detached garage that's 18 inches away from my property line.

Another one is five feet.

They'd all been at 18 inches if we wouldn't have changed, but that's all I could get was five feet.

Correct, Kim.

But there's no way to burn and maintain a ditch.

That's my concern with that ditch on the north.

If we don't do something with it, I can't be responsible when the water comes down there of flooding somebody because I can't take care of my ditch.

I just think it's something that needs to be looked at.

It probably needs to be caught.

It's a big concern.

There's a last year we fought with building debris blowing in it from the north from that development, blowing down, clogging the ditch.

It's something that's got to be addressed, in my opinion.

Now, Jim Cortesi that's selling his property, he's been real good to help me, but we're the only ones that ever do anything with it.

With him leaving, I'm gonna get stuck by myself, and it's a big project.

But I don't feel like I should be responsible and worrying about that all the time that my water is gonna flood somebody.

The way it is right now, we don't have trouble.

Jim can take some of the water, we can divert it, we can do things with it, but with the development there, it's not good.

My other concern is in front of my property, 1220 is still just it's you have 17 and 18 foot of asphalt, is all you have.

It's a very narrow road.

With this construction that's gone on in Pioneer Heights, it's not safe.

We need if they're gonna do a development, they need to think of closing the road to just local traffic and get the construction trucks, cement trucks coming in up through the subdivision where the roads are wider instead of having them on 1220.

The other point that I'd like to know is it said in the DRC comments that they would be bringing the sewer to 1200 West if they don't contain it on their development.

Is that true?

Is that how it's gonna be?

Please address your comments to us.

We'll get to them in the end.

So this is a hearing you're supposed to speak, and then we can address them when you're finished.

Okay, but thank you.

I won't leave it a second.

I'm a property owner at 1450 West and 12 North.

State your name, please.

James Cortesy.

Thank you.

I want to say that the irrigation water, I'm sorry.

No, no, sorry.

We should have that.

We've been there 21 years, and the irrigation water that comes down that ditch Bart's talking about does flood my property out.

I'm just saying that it will be an issue if it's not addressed.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I can just speak to that since I don't want to put in a lot of the storm drain over in this area.

Um more time.

Oh, Danny Gutierrez.

Thank you.

So right in front of Jim's house, we did put a big, I think it was a 16-inch irrigation box, or well, probably a four-foot irrigation box with a 16-inch line that drains down through Pioneer Heights.

Um I will say we'll need irrigation water still on our property west of BAR, but I I think piping is probably the easiest route to go and make making sure we have some good, you know, irrigation boxes that we can divert water properly.

But um I I just I know that there are a couple of exit points there if it ever floods that we can catch that water and bring it down through the subdivision.

So thank you.

Anyone else that wants to speak to this item?

Seeing none, we will close the public hearing.

There were no comments on this one.

Um Titan Drive and the alignment of the roads.

Gary, do you have any input there?

Um where they put their road is all dependent upon our standards of road widths and stuff.

This is uh uh not a collector, an arterial minor arterial minor collector, minor collectors comment number nine.

So it will have quite a bit of wide pavement.

That was one of his questions there.

I think 44 feet of pavement, so it's just pretty wide road.

Um that's 1220, correct?

1220 will be widened.

Uh yes, 120.

Okay, yeah, correct.

Um so when they can the developments come in, they will be required to hold to that standard there.

So the road will be quite a bit wider when it's improved.

Um the roads, so if they meet our minimum road um distances between intersections, then they can put that road kind of where they need to, best fits for their development there.

Um I appreciate his concerns there.

Um we would require a stub out to the north from this property to connect onto the subdivision up north eventually when that middle piece gets developed in there.

Yeah, if you can pull it out.

Yeah, we connect to uh Whisper Hollow.

Yeah, West Provo, yep.

Yeah, Whisper Hollow, yes, Whisper Hollow.

Um, and as far as the sewers concerned, um the sewer is in 1220 um north, and it will flow to the west till it gets to Titan Drive, and then it will flow down Titan Drive there.

So it would not need to connect over there to um 1700 West.

But the storm drain though is a different issue if that's what he's referring to.

That probably will have to connect over to 1700 West, but we can work with the developer on that too and see what is best for them.

This isn't the first time that this area has brought up the infrastructure of ditches, right?

We've heard quite a few of them over the years.

Um they are used.

This is an agricultural area.

Um is this something that would be considered uh a project to pipe?

And that would be a developer to pipe it, right?

That wouldn't is that a city project?

Yeah, it wouldn't be a city project, it would need, of course, the irrigation company's approval and and all that too.

Um and just from looking at it here, it appears that it's probably it's the ditch isn't on this pro piece of properties property, it's on the northern property there.

So I don't know that this developer would be required to ditch it.

But sir, with with the problem, I understand where it sets.

But if you build a home or I mean it's accessory building, five feet off the property line.

How am I gonna maintain that ditch?

Because they did it's right on the property line.

That was gonna be my next question.

Thank you for reminding me.

The maintenance that they typically are burning at this point.

That is problematic with a five-foot.

It probably will be, yeah.

I don't have an answer to that.

So irrigation company don't send it on BRCs.

No, not typically no.

Why?

I don't know.

Maybe maybe ask them.

I don't know.

Just a reminder of the Roberts Rules of Order.

Please please have your time to address.

We will get to the comments that have been made.

Let's not shout out anymore, please.

Thank you.

Kim, did you have to do that?

I guess maybe you want to address that.

Uh to address that a little bit more.

Um we do require applicants to contact, we we provide the contact information so that they can get a hold of Lee Hyrigation, but they don't because it's a separate, it's not Lehigh City, Lee High Region is a private company.

So we refer them to work with them, but they don't sit on the DRC.

But there's definitely coordination that happens between the applicant and and a lot of times with engineering and the irrigation company.

But in this case where the property does not have the irrigation ditch on it, they were likely not notified or brought to the attention of this.

Um not yet.

And we usually don't require any kind of coordination until we get to preliminary plat, and then definitely at final plat, because at this point we're just you know, things may move around.

But yeah, at preliminary would probably be the first time we'd recommend, hey, reach out to the irrigation company.

But like Gary said, if it's not on if the ditch isn't on this property as a city, our requirements can only require piping if it's on the property.

So 30,000 foot view and brass tax.

Um first of all, it is uh this is concept.

Nothing's happening tomorrow.

Nonetheless, an improved concept does give some investment invested uh abilities here.

Um so we want to be mindful of that.

Um and I say this as much to the commission in question clarify with staff as well as to the room so that we're all in uh in full understanding.

Obviously, the commission can only do um what we're legally empowered to do.

It's best when government does what they're empowered to do and not more.

Um that's we get lawsuits.

Um this is uh this is a very real situation that we're describing here, nonetheless it's not on this property.

This developer can't be asked to address it.

So without you know, dodging the very real need of the the citizens.

What um what's the right play here?

Let's let's not let the dotting of I's and crossing of T's, which needs to happen, negate, you know, if we've we've got a real you know uh issue for this corner of the city.

So thoughts, staff on yeah I don't know.

I I don't want to step on engineering's toes, but I know in on previous developments we have done like berming on the develop on the piece that's being developed, we could have them put some kind of a berm so that the water is retained, you know what I mean, so that it helps prevent water from coming onto their property and flooding them out.

But um, I don't know.

It I'm sure the irrigation company might have some other ideas on what could or couldn't be done with that ditch.

Yeah, so to me, it sounds like the issue is more the burning and structures too close to the property line, and if it's five feet off the property line, I don't know how big the fires get, but I imagine pretty big.

So it is a problem.

Um I don't know, maybe just throwing it out there.

Maybe the developer could increase that depth a little bit, maybe to ten feet or something.

Offset for I don't know, I'm just thinking about that.

Okay, but I don't have an answer right off the top of my head other than that.

Yeah, that's an interesting idea that perhaps if we know there's a some kind of a safety issue that maybe uh there's a note on the plat that says accessory structures in this particular because of the ditch and the maintenance needs that instead of our typical minimum of five feet, we they have to increase that to ten or is that within our power?

I guess not in current code, right?

Sorry, Nate, throw you have to look that up.

Yeah, we could definitely look into it and see if that could be legally required, which you know, if that's if we're trying to mitigate some kind of a risk or a danger, we may be able to, or at least recommend it if nothing else.

So for clarity, if as far as the stitch being piped, that would be something that would be addressed on the development of that property, not this property.

Understood.

Any other questions for staff?

Well, so according to the concept plan, the that on the western side, that's a road on the north end, right?

So the road goes up north and then heads to the west.

So it's really only affecting the one lot on the east of that road.

Where if they were to build a chicken coop out there five feet from the from the ditch, and it looks like the ditch kind of tapers to the north a little bit at that point.

Oh so I'm just thinking.

Really only affects the one lot as a concept.

Would the irrigation company pipe the ditch?

I don't know.

I could see them going, no, that's not our job.

Okay.

You probably have to ask them.

I don't know for sure.

Okay.

Any other questions for staff?

I'm just I'm reiterating uh this isn't a line with the general plan.

Right.

Okay.

And the first item is a zone change.

Yep, I know.

Well, and so you know where my wheels are going is of course a zone change.

Uh if it were not in line with the general plan, then I feel like that has that that kicks it more mock, but it is in line with the general plan.

Um I'm just thinking through thinking through how how to respect everyone's rights here, development rights.

Um recognizing that there are going to be some negative externalities that the neighbors uh potentially feel, but nonetheless, where are where that responsibility lies?

This is this is where it gets fun, and I don't mean that in the way we usually use the adjective fun, right?

Um to be clear, I'm gonna clarify uh I'm gonna open up the public hearing for 3.4 when we're done with 3.3, so you'll have another chance to come speak.

I I do see you.

I'm not ignoring you, I promise.

Um I will entertain a motion for 3.3.

Motion for 3.3 public hearing recommendation of grow developments request for review of the 1450 West, 1220 north zone change on 5.25 acres located at 1450 West, 1220 north, changing the zoning from A1 agriculture to R122 residential agriculture.

The recommendation being that we approve the proposed zone change, with the findings being that the proposed amendment on the character of the surrounding area is consistent with the policies and goals of the general plan, and it is suitable for the uses requested, and it will overall be a benefit to the community and please include all DRC comments.

Recommending approval.

Yes, I said did I not say that, but that's what I mean.

I'll second that.

Motion and a second, all in favor.

Aye.

Any opposed.

All right.

Having already heard and seen 3.4.

Were there any questions that you wanted to address to staff before we open the public hearing?

Do you want to pull the applicant up?

Applicant, would you like to come forward and address anything you've heard thus far.

I think that'd be useful.

It's okay if I say one thing.

Oh, correct.

Thanks.

I'm happy to address it.

I don't know that I have a quick solution.

One second.

I think it'd be good just to clarify this is a concept, this way back as a preliminary subdivision as a public hearing at some point in the future.

Yeah.

Yep.

Okay.

Correct.

I think that was going to be one of my comments.

I um there's a lot of work we still have to do on the design engineering and uh working with the neighbors, the staff, and engineering.

Uh I this ditch is something we were aware of.

Um the concern I hadn't thought about the the burning as a maintenance.

So I mean, I think we would want to find a solution to that also.

We're generally not trying to uh build structures in the way of uh flames controlled fires.

Yeah.

But again, I'm happy to try to work to that.

I don't know what the solution is tonight, but I'm I was glad that it was some light was put on it.

But again, there's a concept and yeah, we you know they're we'll we'll work to try to make the best layout we can on it.

Okay.

Legal, I have a question.

Um technically 3.4 is not a public hearing, so I misspoke.

I still wouldn't like to entertain his comment that he has in the back.

Is that within our purview?

I uh I believe that would be okay where you've opened it up as the commission member or as the commission chair, you've you've let him speak, and so that should be fine.

Thank you.

I I do have a question from Mr.

Brown if I can.

Uh one of the DRC comments asked about the outbuildings, if they were gonna remain or if they're I would assume that they're gonna go away, but to clarify it.

And we're gonna keep the house, and if we stick with this layout, all those outbuildings would be in a new building lot.

Okay.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Any other questions?

Not for you.

Not yet.

Hey, thank you.

Uh with legal's grace, I was able to allow you to come up and speak again.

So you are welcome.

Anyone is welcome as well, not just you.

But uh anybody is welcome to come and address this concept.

Yeah, Bart Peacock again.

Sorry, I get upset.

It's just that we've been through this and been through it and been through it, and I'm kinda don't know how much more energy and money I got to try to fix ditches when I didn't create them.

I didn't create it.

I'm in the process of piping some more ditch on the east side of my property because how close the homes are.

There's a swim pool right there.

They claim they're getting water in there.

Don't know how, but they are.

It's five feet off my property line.

But one of the other comments, I've got to have some way to access the head gate that's right at the railroad tracks on that ditch.

It's worked out fine over the years because Jim has gone up and get it.

He can go through his pasture, get it.

But when this is all closed, uh uh fence gets put in.

I'm gonna I don't know how I'm gonna get to that head gate.

So it's there's another concern.

The ditch is a problem.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anybody else that wanted to address this item?

Seeing none, we'll close that opportunity for speaking that wasn't permitted anyway, but we'll do it.

Um I do have a question about that.

Is there any protections that come with irrigation valves and where they turn on ditches or where they do that?

Are there any I mean I assume the access has to be granted or how does that or grandfathered in?

How does that work?

You know, that's a good question.

It's never really come up before.

Um just looking at the site plan.

It might be possible for him to walk up the road and onto the new property and across the ditch there.

Um but he'd have to be trespassing on the other property.

Does he get an easement?

Yeah.

Um I don't know if there is an easement across there.

I imagine there is for the irrigation company.

So there should be.

Lots of great qu great comments tonight.

This hasn't come up before.

Yeah.

Okay.

Okay.

Any question, other questions for staff or the applicant.

Seeing I'll entertain a motion.

Right on 3.4.

Um, I I don't have the coherent.

It's a little sticky.

It is.

Uh I mean uh one thing I I do just want to we don't typically necessarily address an individual citizen, but I I do want to say I feel for Mr.

Peacock.

I under I understand what he's saying here.

He's working with the infrastructure that's been put upon him.

Um I want to make sure we're not want to make sure we're we're attending to that.

The guy's got to have access to the head gate.

Um at the same time, the um applicant yeah, it's not on his property, which we can't require people to do things on property that isn't theirs.

That's not even legal.

Um so I just yeah, this this is really um I'll say again a fun one, but uh I mean I don't want to just throw my arms up at it.

I I'd like to see a meaningful answer in this.

Um pull the with your blessing.

Uh could we pull the applicant back up again one more time?

Uh Mr.

Boyd, right?

I know it's just concept plan.

Um I uh would just love to uh hear from you.

You've taken in all these comments, you're aware of the situation here.

You obviously are not expected to do things that don't fit on your property.

Is this moves forward?

We'll be working to find some solutions here with the neighbors.

Yeah, and I I think that's all I could commit to now.

Of course.

Again, I can't make sure.

You have rights here as well.

If it's someone else's property um to do as far as the access, I could look into that too, but again, that is I don't know.

I don't know the answer to that.

And I and I'm not sure as a property owner, it is my job to solve non-access issue that doesn't exist.

I realize that.

And I am I I think we can come up with a solution.

My guess is that pipe will be ditched in the future.

Uh in combination of either what I'm doing or what um Mr.

Gutierrez and Du Bois are doing next to me.

I mean it the layout we have, like uh uh Ken uh pointed out, it has a public right-of-way there, so that that ditch would be under in a public uh right-of-way or in a utility, so it would be easy to pipe that way.

Um but I don't on the other side, I'm not sure it seems like we would want to have it piped if we're building some new houses in there.

Yeah.

But at this point, I think it's too early for me to commit to anything on particularly where it's not on my property completely.

That's not what I'm trying to do engineering.

Most of the irrigation companies have pretty specific, there's either easements or there's not.

And you know, we do, as uh Kim pointed out, we do have to work with the irrigation companies on all of our plats to the um as much as they impact our site plan.

So something like building a swale or something like that makes sense, we would want to do it.

We don't want it flooding on our property.

And again, working as far as the maintenance of it with the fire and stuff is something that doesn't sound great for a new new home either.

So we're we're all I think aligned and coming to a solution.

I just I don't know that I have a answer to how to solve it tonight.

And I wouldn't expect it.

I also know it's it's early.

But speak to the topography.

Would this would you need to bring in Phil for this plot or for these for these plots?

Uh I don't think we have enough engineering to know.

Uh my guess is yes, it seems like a lot of the projects down here do have some fill, and I think that'll be dictated by the uh how we grade the roads uh and try to get the storm drain flow and also where the depths of the sewer are.

It seems like the sewer is pretty deep in here.

Um, but I don't know that I have an answer on the uh what the final grade will be yet.

And I again, as Kim pointed out, this being conceptual, we'll we'll dig in and in our preliminary plat and final plat answer a lot of those things.

Do we know who the neighbors to your north are?

The one whose property does have the ditch on it.

Yeah, that's uh the gentleman who's uh Mr.

Du Bois, I believe.

I've never met him, uh Mr.

Gutierrez, I am familiar with, so I mean it sounds like they have a concept in their hand right now.

I mean I think they're thinking about if they haven't made an application, so I think it would be easy to work with them in this situation where they have a similar idea of uh developing their property, but they're welcome.

You welcome to ask them that question.

I can't speak to them to what they're gonna do.

Okay, thank you.

Yep, anything else?

Any other question?

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Okay.

Uh just by point of discussion again, I'd I agree with what Commissioner Jackson said earlier, and that I appreciate Mr.

Peacock and others expressing their concerns.

I see this as being more black and white, though, that because this is administrative item and it does meet code, we do need to approve it.

Um and then the auxiliary go ahead.

I agree with that.

Let me be clear.

It is administrative, but legally, we have to approve it.

Sorry, go ahead.

No, that's it.

Okay.

So with that in mind, I'll put forward a motion.

Item 3.4, public hearing and consideration of growth developments request for approval of the 1450 West, 1220 North Concept and eight lot residential development located at 1450 West, 1220 North.

Um with this being an approval, not a recommendation of approval, but actual approval with no modifications uh with the findings that this is consistent with Lehigh City's development code.

Uh the proposed concept does conform to the goals and policies of the general plan, and please include all DRC comments.

I believe there were 100%.

Would you add to that a recommendation that the developer um continue to engage with the neighbors?

Love it.

Love it.

Of course, not necessarily something we can hold.

Nope, that's why it's a recommendation.

Love it.

Okay.

I'll second.

Motion and a second, all in favor.

Aye.

Hi.

Any of post.

Thank you.

You sure are.

Apologize.

Gentlemen, I encourage you, please keep eyes on the notices.

This will hit the next stage of actual a real far more solid development plan.

And there's there's more teeth to be sunk into at that point.

And we want to keep an eye on how this all develops as well.

Yes.

3.5.

Item 3.5 is public hearing and recommendation of Lawrence Snow's request for review of a zone change on.66 acres located at 151 east, 1450 north, changing the zoning from TH5 to R1 Flex.

This request is consistent with the general plan designation of low density residential.

The applicant wants to uh demolish the existing home and build a new one.

Uh but to do so they need the zone change to get the building permit.

So uh with that, I'll turn it over to the planning commission for any questions.

Any questions for staff?

Is the applicant present?

Please come forward if you have anything else to add.

You're not.

Thank you.

All right.

Uh this is a public hearing.

Uh this time we'll open the public hearing for anybody who would like to address item 3.5.

See none.

And this one also did not have any comments.

So we'll close the public hearing and bring it back to the commission.

It dots all the I's, crosses all the T's, and is in line with general plan.

Am I wrong?

You're not wrong.

You're not wrong.

Great.

Item 3.

If I may.

You may.

Item 3.5, Lawrence Snow's request for review of a zone change on 0.66 acres at 151 east, 1450 north, uh changing the zone from TH5 to R1 Flex.

Uh I move that we give a positive recommendation with the findings that everything uh meets code.

This is consistent with the general plan.

Um DRC comments.

Included.

Second it.

Uh motion and a second.

All in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed.

All right.

3.6.

Love items like that.

Uh when's that going forward?

Just so we can give the applicant some clarification.

That item would go to City Council.

City Council does not have another meeting until March 10th.

Really?

So March 10th.

March 10th.

Spring break for city council.

Uh several of them are going to be at a conference late fourth during their normally their second meeting this month.

So they canceled.

Yeah.

Canceled, cancel, canceled, cancel.

Okay.

I did hear they had some funky scheduling issues this year around.

Yeah.

Some difficulty on calendaring.

Okay.

All right, let's keep this rolling.

Let's do it.

3.6.

Um public hearing and consideration of Kairos land developments request for approval of the Belmont Flex Suites concept plan.

A non-residential development located at 1552 North Boston Street with an exception for building setbacks.

Um the office warehouse use is a permitted use in this zone.

And the exception request uh is to the max setback requirement of 50 feet in the design standards.

Um the request is due to the need for the module of parking between the building and the street.

And it's kind of a weird paradox.

We do allow for the module of parking between the building and the street, um, but it exceeds that 50-foot setback.

So and staff is is comfortable with the exception request uh in case you're wondering.

Um the applicant would like the planning commission to weigh in on the total number of parking stalls needed.

Um they show well on on this concept layout, they show 27.

We actually received an updated version that's not in the packet that I believe has 34, and maybe they can talk about that if they'd like, or if you're comfortable with that.

But um the parking is based on the use, and there was some concern over uncertainty over as to what type of uses they may get in this flex office warehouse.

And so they were kind of locked into counting the parking in one way, but there may be they can probably talk more about the concerns over that side of things with the uses they may have coming in.

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

Any questions for staff.

Hello, Commissioner's great to meet you.

My name is Dustin Carr with Kairos Real Estate.

And if you don't mind my associate Jonas here has some papers that are the uh updated concept plan.

Um bring those up and he has a copy for each of you.

It looks very similar, and what you're looking at is the north facing direction.

The paper he hands you there is in landscape format.

So effectively if you want to rotate it 90 degrees there, people indicate you'll be able to see uh the direction of it.

So what we've done uh, and unfortunately this was post uh getting on to this meeting, but as we made these changes, it was to reduce our building square footage, unfortunately.

Um, but in order to add more parking, which is necessary.

Our goal was to make it fully code compliant with the parking numbers as they are set in the code.

Um there is one section of the parking that I want to get to, um, but I wanted to address that first part about the variance for the uh excuse me about the setback issue being 50 feet.

Uh one of the major issues of the reason why we weren't able to meet it, um we're actually at 59, is because there is a 10-foot easement for utilities there off of our property line.

So I hope that that one's understandable that we're we're not trying to push the building farther away.

Uh we're trying to maximize the space, and uh hopefully that's a very simple um concern we can we can hurl over together.

Um the parking on the other hand though, the the situation with this is that we're trying to fit a gap in the industry of what is being offered for flex and industrial space.

As you're probably well aware, in that area specifically, there is a ton of industrial that's gone up all along Redwood that is generally a minimum of 4500 square feet of space.

And uh I outside of my uh development experience also own a small company that uses a small warehouse space, but we can't afford even to find a place that has uh an area that small here in this Lehigh area.

There pretty much is no area that has a warehouse less than about 4,000 square feet.

Um for example, I'm renting some 800 square feet from someone else down the road and sharing a space with them, and then I have another warehouse in Spanish Fork.

But um I, as a small business owner, will benefit greatly when I can even purchase one of my own units or lease from my own company here after we develop this, because uh this fits that gap where we'll have multiple opportunities between the roughly 1,200 square feet up to about 1,800 square feet.

And then additionally, uh one of the discussions I wanted to have was about mezzanines being able to offer some additional storage spaces right above an office that we're looking at a design.

So while this is in the concept phase, of course, our goal initially is to first hit the parking numbers.

As you see, we have 34 units there, 34 parking stalls now.

Um but the code is stating that uh parking numbers are calculated off of gross square footage, which is the outside footprint of a building.

One of the challenges with that when it comes to industrial space is that as you can see with this being divided so many times, each of our walls are roughly around 12 inches in thickness between each of these units.

So our square footage for net usable square feet is actually all that we can rent it for.

Of course, when we appraise it and we go to rent these units out, they measure from the interior.

And therefore, we're down to, as you see on that paper, uh, I think it was 16,100 square feet roughly.

And so at that number, um, we would technically be overparked right now.

So what we were hoping was that with this concept plan, if we could simply ask for uh I'm not sure if you have a certain language to it, but similar to this concession to the variants uh or excuse me, the setback would be a concession to allow us to put in mezzanines and not have those mezzanines count against us for a parking requirement number.

Um the mezzanines are intended to be used for simply storage or maybe an additional office space above the original office that we intend on putting in some of these units.

We don't intend on putting mezzanines in every one of them, and we definitely don't intend on them taking more than maybe a third of the space at the most.

Um, I know that that was an issue that wasn't planned for in discussion tonight, so um I appreciate you allowing me to speak on that tonight, and I'll pause there.

Thank you.

Any questions for the applicant?

Not yet.

Well, so as this is a concept plan, how yes sir conceptually speaking, how high do you think this building's gonna be?

Uh I believe it's only 20 feet tall.

Twenty feet?

Yep.

Okay, I think you're off the hook for the moment.

Oh, great.

You made that too easy on me.

Oh, we'll try to come up with something better.

Thank you.

This is a public hearing.

If there's anybody in the public that would like to address item 3.6, this is your time.

Seeing none, we will close the public hearing.

And bring it back to the commission.

I would love to hear if uh Gary or anyone else in the crew has thoughts as uh pertaining to parking.

It's probably a better question for Kim, maybe.

Well, never mind then.

Gary wouldn't have to be.

Kim.

Um yeah, I don't think what they're asking for is unreasonable by any means.

Um this is some of the uses we have, I feel a little bit more dialed in.

This one, we don't know what's going to be in these units.

It's hard, so we just have this kind of a catch-all, you know, if if it's vague or we don't really know what else to qualify or put it under, that's what we're counting as the parking requirement.

So I don't think it's unreasonable at all to go based on the the actual square footage, even though our code says gross and the mezzanines, yeah, they probably wouldn't have a significant impact.

I think a lot of this becomes self-regulating if somebody tries to rent a suite and there's no parking, they just I don't know, they probably wouldn't want to stay.

They show up, they see that it's already pretty heavily parked, they know they need a lot of parking, they're gonna look elsewhere.

Yeah, so I think for the size of the building, this isn't out of character of what we've seen on other buildings.

I mean it's and especially where they in this newest concept they have additional parking up on that north end.

And this if it were I don't think you'd get spill over.

There's a there is a pedestrian connection to the neighborhood to the east.

But you know, if somebody was gonna park on the street, they'd probably park out on Boston Street.

So and Boston Street is wide enough for some on-street parking.

So even though we can't count that, they have a quite a bit of frontage there.

So anyways, to make a long story short, I don't have any major issues, but it's it's your discretion.

So I didn't see any I'm not seeing it.

I want to make sure I don't have a blind spot.

That's that's why I asked.

No, that's great.

I just sorry I bothered to ask Gary.

That was clearly.

Oh, that's because they hold you in highest answer.

The residential condos to the east, 1630 does not punch through, correct?

It's a denounce.

But there is a pedestrian connection just on the south side of the auto um auto body shop.

There is a right there.

Pedestrian only.

Yeah, I'm not sure.

Remember talking that one through.

Yeah, yeah.

And then also this concept and the concept that we've been shown on screen.

It doesn't, there's no rear access for trucks, right?

Or is there?

May please.

That's correct.

Um, so generally speaking, the best use for a truck to come in would be to effectively do a hammerhead turnaround similar to what a fire truck would do.

Um, but that's why with these spaces they're small enough.

The the amount of truck usage coming in and out of them is gonna be rare, if at all.

Okay.

I I often look at you know, your garbage bins placements.

I mean, I appreciate that you've kind of put them on ends there.

Still requires a turnaround for those big trucks, which can be challenging.

So just something to think through.

I know this is concept, just want that to be well on your radar.

Um yeah, I mean, as far as the mezzanines are concerned, I think I agree with Kim that's I don't believe it's uh overly consequential piece to this.

But I I think this clears the concept, Mark.

Yeah, we can get a little more nitty-gritty when there's more details worth it, but it's it's worth moving forward.

I'm not worried about what that what rights that invests.

If this um there'll be small things to to tweak, undoubtedly, but this is it's a concept.

I think it's a sound concept.

That's my take.

The one other question I had for staff is setbacks to the residential, actually.

So we've got obviously they're conceptually putting a 12 foot and then you also have a road across the street.

Does that count a setback?

Because it's not structure or it's not property line.

Um again, directly to the east.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So that east, the reason they have that 12 foot, that would be their minimum landscape buffer.

And it's probably good you asked how high the building would be.

That's actually one of our DRC comments.

If they can keep it at 20 feet, that 12 feet would be the bare minimum.

If it goes over, then they're gonna have to shrink their footprint a little bit.

So for every foot over 20 feet, you would increase your buffer by that same amount of space.

So but yeah, so they'll have to landscape it.

The fencing's already in.

There's an existing um six-foot non-obscuring fence.

Uh so yeah, that back area.

If they really couldn't use it for drive or anything like that because it's required for the buffer.

Yep.

Okay.

Do we know if there isn't the pedestrian access to that's already there?

Do we know if people are I mean, I don't know, I would know this, but if people are using that street, that residential street to park and then sneaking through.

Yeah, I uh I mean I'd rather park on Boston Street because that's much more of a yeah.

I don't think we've you know seen anything like that, but right now, you know, where this is vacant, and then the other use right now is auto body shop.

You hit you do have the swim school and things, but those are up quite a bit farther, and then you have a landscape company, so I don't think we'd really see a big demand um for people to you know we don't know what's going in there, so let's say uh it could be a donut shop or crossfit or something, or an MLM, right?

And they're having their nightly meetings and they're parking all over the place.

I would I would hate to have the residents come back later and go, hey, what's why was this approved?

Um but I'm I am also not a big fan of huge parking lots, right?

If we can learn so I don't find this a problem.

I just want to address the fact that hey, maybe the if somebody crazy comes in there and they have you know nightly meetings of a thousand people.

It doesn't sound like there's enough space.

I don't think there's space for a for a thousand person meeting there.

I hate to hyperbole, but maybe I am and I'm gonna look and see.

I'm trying to remember if that that might actually be a private street.

Some of the things that I'm gonna do.

I was gonna ask is 4530.

Um it is, it's common areas.

So worst case they could just put no parking and tow tow people if they're there is a lot of parking even in the image that's already happening on that street, right?

Yeah, is there I saw one car?

Well, it looks like there's a whole line of them up there.

I I was going to the Google view on the ground.

Yeah, I mean there's yeah, probably some of the residents.

No endowed residents.

Yeah, who who wouldn't?

I mean, they could say you know, resident parking only for the exchange and tell them if they it got bad.

Okay, thank you.

Well did the ASD have a property on that side of the street or is it on the other side?

Uh 1500.

Yeah.

Did you say ASC?

I I don't know if it's there right now, but do they own prop property around here?

Um the school district's property is a little bit farther east.

It's over by the fire station.

Okay.

They own a pretty big piece that's you know big enough for either a junior high or maybe even a high school.

But that's right across the street from the new fire station out there.

Gotcha.

Thank you.

Yep.

Right.

Uh any other questions for staff or the applicant or each other.

I'm ready to make a motion.

Yeah, I think we beat this to the ground.

Please.

I asked one question and all of a sudden you're jumping all over it.

Keep it down.

We're at 3.6, right?

Yeah.

Item 3.6 public hearing and consideration of Kairos.

Land developments request for approval of the Belmont Flex Suites Concept Plan, a non-residential development located at 1552 North Boston Street, with an exception for building setbacks.

I move that we approve with the exceptions.

And with the findings that the proposed concept is consistent with the Lehigh City Development Code.

And the proposed concept doesn't does conform to the goals and policies of the general plan.

Please include all DRC comments.

Would you be okay if you put something in there about the using the net square footage of the building instead of the gross square footage?

Sure.

For parking.

Tabulation.

Yeah.

Parking tabulation.

Include net square footage instead of gross.

We have a motion.

Do we have a second?

Second.

Motion and a second.

All in favor.

Aye.

Any opposed.

All right.

3.7.

See you later.

Yep.

Okay.

Item 3.7 is public hearing and consideration of Daryl Hodgson's.

Request for approval of a flag lot located at 645 West 2100 north in the RA1 zone.

This flag lot was actually previously approved in 2019, but the approval expired over the last several years.

So they're back with the same plans for that.

Both lots meet the requirements for the RA1 zone.

So with that, I'll turn it over to the planning commission for any questions.

Any questions for staff?

Is the applicant present?

Hi.

Daryl Hodgson.

I don't really have anything to add.

I mean, it's it was previously approved.

We haven't changed the plan.

We've lived here for about eight and a half years and life just got in the way and I didn't get around to getting a subdivided, but we're ready to you know build a new house and so hopefully this will not be a you know be an easy approval.

All right.

So if you have any questions.

Any questions for the applicant?

No.

I think you're pretty pretty safe tonight.

All right, thanks.

Uh this is a public hearing.

Uh is anybody that would like to speak to item 3.7.

We'll open the public hearing now.

Seeing none.

This one did have a comment, right?

Or was it 3.8.

3.8.

Okay.

3.7.

Uh we'll close the public hearing and bring it back to the commission.

Can I make a motion, Mr.

Chair?

Yes, please.

Please.

Okay.

On item 3.7.

Uh public hearing in consideration of Darrell Hodgson's request for approval of a flag lot located at 645 West 2100 north in the RA-1.

Residential agricultural zone.

I move that we approve the uh flag lot.

The findings that it's meets the requirements for a flag lot.

Um it's not going to be close to existing homes.

Um it'll be located and conducted in a matter in compliance with the goals and policy of Lehigh City.

And please include all DRC comments.

I'll second it.

Motion and a second.

All in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed.

Well there we go.

3.8.

Uh-oh.

Item 3.8 is public hearing and consideration of Symphony Homes' request for preliminary subdivision approval of Heritage Meadows.

A 13-lot residential development located at 1250 West, 800 North.

Um, all 13 lots meet the R122 standard requirements.

Um the applicant is considering there's a DRC comment that uh talks about a trail connection and a bridge.

Um but that change would require updated plans, which you're not seeing tonight, but the the applicant, as they're considering that still wanted to get this plan set approved just to be able to weigh both options.

So see if this will come back.

Um you may have noticed the zoning on the property, still looks like it's not updated, but we actually recently recorded the zone change ordinance.

So the zoning is right for this property as well with that R122 zone.

So with that, I'll turn it over to the planning commission for any questions.

Any questions for staff?

I guess I did have a question about that public com well.

I'll bring it up after we read the public comment.

But any questions?

No.

No.

The applicant present.

It never came back.

So this might not be good.

Good evening.

I'm Russ Wilson with Symphony Homes, and I don't know if I have much to add, but happy to answer any questions.

Any questions?

I think we're pretty easy right now.

Let's let's ask the uh the connection, the bridge.

Let's address that right now, I guess.

Do you want me to do the let's wait until after it comes up in public comment?

Okay.

All right.

And then we'll we'll talk to you after.

We don't have questions, but we're going to.

Yeah.

Just know it's coming.

We might know what they are.

Yeah.

Get it in to the record.

So this is a public hearing.

Um if anybody is here to speak to item 3.8, we will open the public hearing now.

Uh hi.

Uh my name is Joshua Lutz.

I'm a neighbor in just the neighborhood to the west of the development.

Uh I found out about a month ago, I guess the end of December that they were gonna do the development, which is exciting.

Uh more neighbors is great.

I guess not everyone feels that way.

Um you've been to our meetings before.

That's just this one.

Um but so I we use the waste ditch trail that's just to the south of there a lot.

We go down to Sage Vista with the our neighborhood has a bridge connection.

Uh I reached out to the city to ask if that was gonna be required for this.

Uh and they said that it was not.

It's not part of the general plan.

Um, but I I've talked to Mike West and uh a couple of the council members, and they've they're all in support of the bridge.

Um I made a petition from my neighborhood, got 16 responses, um, clarified that in exchange for the bridge, probably they would they would want to see like an incentive of one or two lots.

Uh and two people said no.

They didn't want that.

But 14 people said yes.

Uh the people that said no still said that they wanted a bridge.

Um the 14 that said yes did so knowing that there would be a bridge.

Their comments were that increase safety, increase access to the trails, it's great.

They want more trails in Lehigh.

Um when I saw the plans, I was kind of surprised that they're all more than half acre lots.

Uh the neighborhood, my neighborhood has a lot of lots that are one-third of an acre.

I don't think it'd be crazy to let the uh developer have smaller lots.

Um increase the number of lots and decrease the lot size.

I think it'd be in uh uh in the same vein as what the the neighborhoods are like right now, and the trail would be really great.

Um I think that's all I have to say.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Anyone else here that would like to speak to this?

Let's let's read that comment for the record.

Jacob, if you would.

Good thing is I can still read, even if you guys can't right now.

Um it says, and it's from uh Kara Traveler.

I'm supporting this development under the condition the city has the developer put in a bridge over the way stitch to the trail from the new neighborhood.

This will be a uh beneficial for the neighbors in the new development as well as those living in the area already.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Seeing no more comment, we'll close the public hearing and bring it back to the commission.

I sorry to have to know.

Um I mean, appreciate Mr.

Eats comment.

I don't know they've ever to my memory.

The years I've been on this commission.

A resident has actually suggested increased density for an amenity.

I I'm I'm I'm picking my jaw up and putting it back on my face.

Um it's a great comment.

It's just that it's never happened.

It's never am I wrong?

You are not really shocked.

Do you think it's interesting?

The comment was that they would likely ask for density in lieu, which is an option, not the only option, but it is an option that the city often uses in that case.

But that is just want to make sure you understand that's not the only option the city has to negotiate that connection.

Um but uh I know that uh you have comment or question for the applicant.

Uh just regarding that bridge and actually looking at the property.

Would there be a connection to the church that's right there too?

Um, likely not to the church.

It it is a little unusual.

I have to say.

Um there is a the when the church was built, they stubbed a sidewalk in to this property.

And um we've we have talked to the church and they said no, we don't have any plans to connect or open up the existing fence that is along that boundary line.

So that is a lovely sidewalk that they put in.

It's a great sidewalk, yeah.

My guess is that that'll change, but probably not till later.

Uh-huh.

Yeah.

Okay.

So if that does change later after you've put the homes in, uh we'll just go into somebody's backyard and then they become the the roof.

The uh right of way will be adjacent to the church.

So I mean it would make sense to connect sidewalks, but not a requirement.

Yeah.

Huh.

Uh the bridge.

We don't make them connect the sidewalk in our code.

Um it's gonna be interesting because their right of way will literally butt up against the churches, and their sidewalk will be integral if I'm remembering right, or at least that's the direction you're heading for your preliminary.

So you I don't know how they would they'd have to put a keep the fence in place.

There is an existing fence that literally their sidewalk would butt up against the little stub out for the church.

So I guess to answer your question, do we require it?

I we do require connectivity between trails and things like that, but it where it's a church site, I don't I don't think it would require the I don't think it would be required.

I think at the time the church came in, we suggested that they look at that because we we had a pretty good feel that there would be a road right here next door.

And at the time, you know, this was five years ago when that was built.

I mean, it would be a shame to make people walk the church.

Yeah, yeah, they give them that option to force them to drive.

In my experience, it is a part of the faith to drive.

Regardless of how close it is.

This reminds me of the Loch Lamont neighborhood that I think is Saratoga Springs.

Yeah.

And then our neighborhood that abuts it.

The neighbor they don't align, and so there's this weird jog in the sidewalk right where they come together.

Like they didn't plan for them to meet.

And so you've got a sidewalk here and a sidewalk here, and then right there there's one little quick it's stupid.

It's really dumb.

This looks like uh anyway.

Okay.

Sorry, probably take care of it.

Uh about the bridge.

You guys are thinking about it.

We we are, yeah.

This was something that was brought up with the recent DRC, so we are um looking into the the feasibility of it.

This the city staff has been helpful with um helping us gather bids.

Um there's still some work to do as far as I mean, not only the the bids for the the bridge but the installation and then also um the pedestrian trail and the landscaping and and other things.

So we're looking at it.

I mean, we're we're open to taking a look at it and we'll uh work with staff to uh yeah, find if that's if that's something that can be uh implemented.

That'd be great.

Because I do think that access to trails, it does make those homes more enticing.

People like that.

Yeah.

It's a huge amenity.

Yeah, thank you for looking.

We'll say I do hate the idea of going under half acre lots.

Right.

Um I I won't necessarily fully agree with the comment that came in from the public there.

But this um scenario where it does provide an amenity of trail access.

I think it's absolutely worth a discussion to see if it makes sense or it could happen because that trail access is valuable.

Yeah, for sure.

Um concerns just reminder again this because this is an administrative item and it does meet the code.

Gotta do it.

Is that a start of a motion?

I was hoping you would encourage me.

Item 3.8 public hearing consideration of Symphony Holmes' request for preliminary subdivision approval of Heritage Meadows, a 13 lot residential development located at 1250 West, 800 North.

With uh the motion being that we approve the proposed preliminary subdivision with the findings that it does meet the requirements of Lehigh City's development code in regards to subdivision approvals, and please include all DRC comments and we'll also include the recommendation that they strongly consider putting in a bridge connection to the trail.

I'll second that.

Motion and a second, all in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed.

Thank you.

Item 3.9.

Um item 3.9 is public hearing and recommendation of Lehigh City's request for review of a zone change on 0.91 acres located at 498 north, 900 east.

So item 3.9 is public hearing and recommendation of Lehigh City's request for review of a zone change on 0.91 acres located at 498 north, 900 east, changing the zoning from R1 Flex to R18.

Yeah, the motive for this zone change is to ensure compliance with zoning requirements, and that's partially why you'll see the city is the applicant on this one.

The subdivision met the lot size requirements for both the R18 and R1 Flex zone.

There was just an issue with the units per acre allowance, and there's been a change in the development code.

I think it's been the last six to nine months where they would be allowed to have this R18 zone.

So you've already seen I believe a preliminary subdivision on this as well as the previous zone change.

So anyways, that's some of the backstory on this.

It's really just to ensure compliance with the uh zoning allowances.

So with that, I'll turn it over to the planning commission for any questions.

Uh any questions?

Yes.

So is this the city's bringing the zone?

Yeah, we decided to not developer.

No.

So well, the applicant, the Atkinsons have their subdivision approved.

They came in for the final subdivision application, and we noticed the discrepancy.

And so we decided with the city just to cover the process of moving the zone change forward.

Okay.

Yeah, we felt like we should have probably flagged that earlier, but it just got overlooked.

There so their density, so all the lot sizes, in fact, the lots are actually quite large.

They're well above the 8,000 square foot minimum.

But in the R1 flex, it says there's a maximum density of 3.25 units per acre.

Their density is 3.3 units per acre.

That if we go to the R18, that density cap doesn't apply.

It just has the 8,000 square foot minimum lot size.

And I think there's one of them is 9,000, the other one's 12,000, the other one's like 18,000.

So it's totally compatible with R1.

It's just so close to that density on the R1 flex, but we want it to be fully in compliance.

So that's where we voluntarily said, look, we probably should have flagged that earlier.

So the developer builders already are aware of this.

And they've already presented their plan and it's been approved.

Yeah, I think you saw the preliminary plat last November.

Yeah, and they're they just applied for the final subdivision.

And they have to come back to DRC to resolve some comments.

So this really won't slow them down.

Um sac, right?

Um three lot subdivision.

I can't show it, unfortunately.

Oh, they're actually able to see on the TV to see again, yes.

We could probably just pull the packet up from there's an existing home.

If you remember the existing home sits really close out to, I think it's 900 north.

Just not last yesterday.

It's about two weeks ago.

It's okay.

If you'd like to see it, we can pull it up.

Yeah.

If you if you just zoom in on the map, I can kind of show them.

Well, I know Bull's over there jumping at the bit because he's I'm not gonna say it.

Administrative this is legislative.

Thanks and is in this one.

I don't think it's in this one either.

Oh wait, there it is.

Subdivision.

Nice thing is the zoning to the north is also R18, so it's consistent with that as well.

So there's the zone change.

Sorry, the subdivision layout.

So yeah, you have one lot with the existing home, a new lot to the south, and then all of the east portion of the properties, one big 18,000 square foot lot.

So yeah, if you go down to the table, and the yeah, they did their density calculations and they're just barely over the but we didn't want to overlook that.

We didn't we don't want to record a plat that is obviously out of compliance based on their tabulations.

So any other questions for staff.

I'll make a motion if we're ready.

Uh we need to have a public hearing real quick.

Sorry, but I would love to hear that motion hearing.

Um this is a public hearing.

Uh we'd like to open the public hearing for item 3.0 at this time.

Seeing none, we will close the public hearing and bring it back to the commission to make a motion.

Um item 3.9, public hearing and recommendation of Lehigh City's request for review of a zone change on 0.91 acres located at 491.

I'm sorry, 498 north.

900 east, changing the zone from R1 Flex residential to R18 residential.

I move that we recommend approval.

Could you do that?

And with the findings that the proposed zone is consistent with the LDR general plan designation.

The intent of the previous zone change and subdivision were for three lots.

This zone change will allow for the same number of lots.

And is now in compliance.

And that is my motion.

Second it.

Motion and a second.

All in favor.

All right.

3.10.

Okay.

Um item 3.10 is public hearing and recommendation of Lehigh City's request for a development code amendment to chapter 5, table of uses.

Uh non-residential and chapter 39 to add automobile accessories and installation.

Um this would add uh separate use and the definitions and table, obviously.

And um part of the I guess a couple reasons for why you're seeing this.

Um provide opportunities for smaller, less impactful auto businesses and non-residential zones.

There was a couple of items that kind of made their way to the city council that required development agreements over the last few months.

Definitely that kind of fell up fell under this umbrella where they got lumped in with auto service and repair, more impactful kind of services versus really minor things like window tinting and um decals and things like that wraps.

So anyways, um that was kind of part of the rationale for why you're seeing this and why it's allowed in most of the non-residential zones.

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

Any questions for staff?

I mean one I love seeing a uh change to code that potentially allows for less bureaucracy.

So any comments?

3.10.

This is a public hearing.

Oh, you are the applicant.

Yeah.

Did you want to say anything else?

Um you'll probably see some more code amendments in the next little bit.

Um it's kind of some direction we've been getting from the city council is to work on updating some of these things to help smaller businesses.

So cool.

Yeah.

Uh this is a public hearing.

We will open the public hearing for item 3.10 at this time.

Seeing no one.

Uh we will uh close the public hearing and bring it back to the commission.

Ready to pass the motion.

Item 3.10, public hearing recommendation of Lehigh City's request for development code amendment to chapter 5, table of uses non-residential, and chapter 39 to add on mobile accessories and installation.

The motion being that we recommend approval for the proposed amendment to Lehigh City's development code with the findings that the amendment is in conformance with the purposes, intent, and provisions of the general plan in its various elements.

And I don't believe there were any DRC comments.

There were not.

That'll be it.

Second that.

Motion and a second, all in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed.

Brings us to city business.

Oh, yeah, you need this.

Thanks for coming, Cody.

Although not the phone.

Probably though.

Kim's got a presentation he's pulling up for the bylaws.

I mean, is it Jeopardy again?

Classic Jeopardy.

You would choose your own adventure.

Oh.

We could do uh Jeopardy or PowerPoints.

I wish our uh alternates were here.

I know.

I thought about that.

Yeah.

That was one of the reasons we postponed it.

CMI.

Yeah.

I was gonna say planning commission in a couple weeks.

It's a little bit shorter tonight than tonight.

So I think it's five or six items, and then the work session in March.

We're going over the open meetings act and a couple of other like DRCA application process and when is it that we can have all the general plan amendments?

What month is that?

That would be now, but we have not seen any yet.

Interesting.

Usually they come in at the end of the month, so March would be where you get to have adventures.

So the window is still open.

February is the window.

Okay.

Um that's just the application window, not the D or the planning commission window.

Yeah, it'd probably be March, end of March before you saw them.

Or bylaws.

This is exciting stuff.

This is important stuff.

Uh you most of you are now, I would say you're all seasoned, so I don't know if we need to I I have I'm gonna go through just the some basic summary.

I it's always a struggle of, you know, do we sit and read through the entire bylaws?

I've tried to just put all of the information in a very summarized format and we can run through it.

I do have the Jeopardy game.

Maybe we do a quick refresher and then you can play a few rounds.

I think it's okay.

Okay.

I mean, unless anybody really heard that.

I just remember I got a few wrong though.

I think we're right.

I did I updated the questions, so if you want.

Well, I'm sorry.

Okay.

Let's keep going.

Okay.

All right.

So I think the actual bylaws are what, 10 or 12 pages long.

It starts out with there's different articles.

This article one is just basically saying you are governed by Utah state statutes.

You're also governed by Lehigh City's ordinances and the development code.

So those are kind of your operating laws that that are governing all of the activities.

Yeah.

Oh yeah.

State statutes supersedes.

Yep.

Okay.

Let's see.

And then you are also governed by these bylaws that we're going to review.

And then your expectation, it actually says in the bylaws that you should review these periodically, which is why we're doing this now.

And just and also stay familiar with any laws or updates to our code or the state.

They call it Ludma, Land Use Development Management Act.

That's where all of the state regulation, most of the, not all.

There are some others that apply, but that's most of them are at.

Okay, so general provisions.

Um all members have equal rights and duties, so there's not like senior members and I mean there's alternates, but if they fill in as a regular member, they have all the same rights as any other member.

Uh there is an expectation of freedom of discussion.

So as things come up, you know, we don't ever want anybody to feel like we don't want to hear what they have to say.

There you go.

Uh where you're you felt silenced by us.

Shame.

Shame for talking.

Well, yeah, I mean, yeah.

Um when it comes to motions, there can only be one motion at a time for obvious reasons.

That'd be really confusing if you had multiple motions on the floor.

Uh at any point, if somebody's like now what is the motion, you have the right to know, and they can restate the motion.

Um actions are only uh properly noticed meetings with a quorum, and uh maybe I'll just ask that'll be your quiz for tonight.

How many members is a quorum?

Three.

Three, yep.

So we can technically, if two of you are missing and we don't have any alternates, you could still conduct business.

So just have to be a unanimous vote.

Um all actions must be lawful for obvious reasons.

Uh the bylaws must be publicly available, and so we have them on our website.

If you ever Google Lehigh City Planning Commission, it'll take you to your landing page and the bylaws are right there.

And then your office states is in City Hall, it's the planning division's office.

So boring stuff.

Let's see, Article 10.

We have office space upstairs.

Is that what you're saying?

That's what I heard.

Good to know.

You're sitting in your office right now.

This is your temporary office.

I think him is not inviting us to have work you're doing today.

That's not what I'm getting.

Yeah.

I feel rejected.

Feeling rejected is not prohibited, no.

Uh okay.

Um appointments and resignations are governed by Utah code and city ordinances.

We do have a in our municipal code, it outlines that's actually where it talks about how many alternates and the the commission consisting of five members, that type of thing.

You are expected to attend regularly.

Uh if you go three consecutive unexcused, I think we've clarified that uh absences or three of seven absences could be grounds for removal.

We just want to make sure you you're staying engaged.

Um and I think you're all very good at if you're not gonna be here, you'll send an email to Sherry, Noreen, either one of those just so that they know, and then the ideal is if you're if you know you're not gonna be here, let us know as early as possible.

Now, you know, if you're sick, obviously that day you're you're like, I'm I'm not gonna make it.

We'll we'll adjust.

But the ideal is if we know, you know, at least a week in advance, we can let one of the alternates know so that they we can make sure that they can attend.

I kind of like the cadence that's been standardized where Noreen sends out that email, and people are often replying, oh I'm not gonna be there this meeting, or because it's everybody's on that email, right?

Yeah, um again, that's not necessarily have to, but I I like that we've been doing that.

Yeah, but but if you know, you know, your family's plan to vacation or you have a work conference or whatever, just let us know it the earliest point, and then we'll flag it and make sure we have it's it is nice to have five members for all items.

Uh the mayor notifies the council of vacancies, which we had recently.

Uh the mayor appoints replacement with council consent.

So conduct of you as the commission members.

Um you can't represent the applicant.

Darn it.

I know you guys would all love to do that.

Uh if you have a conflict, you need to recuse yourself.

If you and that would be if there's financial or personal interest.

And if there's ever any question, just ask um legal and they can give you some advice.

But and then if you are going to recuse yourself, you would announce that, and then I think our guidance would be to just leave the room so that you you know you can't like have any.

Yeah, there's no chance or inference that you've influenced the commission.

Yeah.

Um you have to comply with Utah ethics laws, and we're gonna cover the open meetings act at our work session next month.

Um you can't express any bias or prejudgment before a meeting.

Uh you can't express opinions or discuss cases with outside parties.

The exception to that is if you have questions, you you just need more information.

Uh you can technically by the bylaws, you can actually talk to each other or to staff, but it but to talk to each other that might be difficult without expressing bias or prejudice.

But if you think you can do that, according to bylaws, that's fair game.

But yeah, I know, especially the newer commissioners, and but even any of you, if you ever have a question like what's going on, or or maybe you catch an error in the staff report before the meeting, call us up.

We're always those never happened.

Yeah.

We're we are your staff, so okay.

Officers, duties, um, staff duties, chair and vice chair elected annually.

We all know about that because we just did it.

So one year term, two consecutive terms, so which is what commissioner Jackson served.

Um if the chairs um vacates whether that's temporarily if they're not here at a meeting or if they resign, the the vice chair would um take over as the chair.

Um the chair presides over meetings, maintains order and decorum, which yeah, great job.

I know we have yeah, it's it's always hard when they start talking at the back of the room.

But yeah, that's exactly what the chair's job is is just to keep everything reined up here so that you don't have sidebar discussions and everything.

And then yeah, recognize speakers.

You also manage the agenda flow.

Um if there's any procedures or motions, you're the one that tries to help manage all that.

You can delegate duties.

Could could we like say you must clear your throat before you give a motion.

I guess you could.

Yeah.

Wow.

Just wondering if that was with an appropriate body.

We could put that in the bylaws, yeah.

Um technically you can appoint committees.

We haven't done that for a long time, but just so you know that's an option.

Um you can assign site respections.

Yeah.

Maybe we need a pizza committee or something.

Yeah.

Um the secretary is appointed the by the mayor, which right now we have Kate and then others that help her if she's absent.

So and she does all the heavy lifting.

The minutes.

Uh I have I have a question, if I may.

Yeah.

So tonight, like when this was brought forward, right?

Obviously, it was turned in to Kate for the record.

But this was not noticed, right?

And this is what we were really looking at tonight, right?

Because it was different than what was noticed.

Yeah.

Does that bring us out of compliance with state law?

I think where it was a concept plan.

This is my opinion.

I think it was fair game, but I well, I'll let you know.

Only there were a lawyer.

That's what I'm saying.

Because those do happen from time to time, right?

And it does, and it's almost always concept, usually.

It's not usually site plan or whatever, right?

Yeah.

I will check with Craig.

Okay.

Yeah.

But I do often wonder that, like, technically this was not noticed, but this is what we're seeing now, and this is what we're really voting on.

I feel like it was that one time had the exception, right?

And the two concepts didn't really change the exception request, but if it changed the exception request, I feel like we'd probably have to take notice.

DRC and renotice and restart.

And if you're ever uncomfortable, like if this was a total departure from the other concept, and you're like, wait a minute, you know, we need more time to think through this.

You can always just say, sorry, this is new information.

We're we'll table you if you want to come back to give us time to look at it.

So anyways.

No, no, great.

That's the purpose of a discussion here.

Uh let's see.

So we covered all those um application required.

These are pretty obvious.

Yeah, you can't hear anything without an official application.

Planning to it's our job to make sure it's complete.

I know sometimes there's questions on how if they're if we're missing, we we're not perfect.

So if we are missing something and you flag that, again, we could table it, have it go back to DRC, whatever we need to do.

Okay, meetings and hearings, um, second and fourth, there are regular meetings, work sessions.

These are all very yeah, special meetings you could call.

All meetings are open to the public.

The city council can hold a closed session, but you can't.

So yeah, just try to avoid interruptions during the public hearings or during hearings.

Uh we try to always direct everything to the chair so that individual commissioners aren't engaging with the applicant.

You and I think we're yeah, again, I think we do pretty good.

Yeah, I think we're good.

Yeah.

I think we do.

I think the public does not.

So, like when he's talking directly here.

Do you want how do you want me to handle that?

Just say that's a good point, yeah.

D honestly, for brevity, I would like you to not answer.

And I just say I'll but I want them to know we will get to it, but sometimes it drags on.

And I don't think you give bad answers.

That's not what I'm saying.

It's just for brevity.

I'd rather them give their piece and then we address them.

Like we're supposed to.

And I'll try to be better at jumping in on that.

Yeah, so yeah, either you could jump in and say, hey, you need to keep all comments.

Like which you did at one point, but yeah, or if they're looking at us, we could just say that we need to keep all comments.

We could say the same thing.

So I almost wondered, because I think tonight um it was a case of the public not knowing Robert's rules of order.

So maybe even starting with that and just reminding people what that is and what that looks like, because as soon as he understood that, he said, nope, I'm done, and then he went back because he wants answers.

Sure.

So yeah, maybe most of the time you get the full audience here at the beginning, so maybe once, yeah, once at the beginning, just say, hey, for the public hearings, we'd like to remind everyone.

Yeah.

Okay.

If you want, if you feel it's necessary.

And you can use the shot clock.

That's that last which is but there's no prescribed limit, right?

You could say two minutes.

If you have a huge crowd, you could say three, you could say five.

It's really kind of if we have a huge crowd, we want to go lower.

Yeah, not higher.

Right, yeah.

Use the two-minute shot clock.

We haven't had real big crowds, but that first meeting of the year, we did have a couple of comments that just kept going.

Yeah, right.

Yeah.

And obviously we want to hear and we want to be respectful of their time, but I had a hard time jumping in to try to curtail those.

Yeah.

Yeah, and it's almost like if you haven't done it on the first one or yeah.

It's hard to bring it back in.

So yeah, maybe that's part of what before the meeting starts.

If we and a lot of times you'll know, like, oh, there's 30 online comments or whatever.

So that could be a cue.

Okay, we're we better just start out with the clock.

Okay, Robert's rules may be used as a reference.

There it's not like formal, you know, we don't, but we use them as a reference or a guide.

Um if we do go on field trips, which we haven't, we probably should.

We should.

I enjoy the field trips.

The one I keep thinking you guys would probably really enjoy is the sanctuary building.

Yeah.

When they are ready for occupancy before they open, we should take you through so you can see some of the units.

That will be this year, won't it?

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Can we get a time from the new Civic Center?

Oh.

Yeah.

Absolutely.

Should we do that?

I wonder if before the work session in March, it only takes 15 or 20 minutes.

We could walk you through that, readjourn here.

Does that sound good?

I would like to.

Okay.

Meetings end by 10 30 unless we extend them.

Quorum is three votes.

Tie votes are generally treated as a denial if it's two to two.

Well that's interesting word there.

It is interesting.

Are they treated as denial or are they generally treated as a tie?

So I reread the bylaws on this.

If technically, if you have a tie vote, the applicant can actually ask that it be continued to the next agenda.

To our next agenda.

Yeah.

So if he feels like, you know, I I don't want to end at a tie.

If they don't and it just ends at a tie, then it's considered denial.

But yeah, they have the right to.

It's kind of a weird clause.

Well, we should probably remember to tell that because the applicant's not going to know that.

Yeah, yeah.

So I'll make a mantle note and you all that's why we're doing this training so that you can remember.

It doesn't happen very often.

Usually we have a full five.

You know, that's why we have the alternates, right?

So yeah, if it ever does come up, I'll try to remember.

Yeah, all the things.

No, we're wrong.

We'll try to remember too.

Um so yeah, that's um, let's see, applicant may request continuance.

Um I think that's related to that tie vote.

I get that even old Dogs can learn new tricks.

So I was sorry, I want to go back to that word generally again.

If we do conclude in a tie vote, they don't ask for continuation.

It is a denial.

Is it denial?

Maybe a denial, right?

It is a denial.

Yeah, yeah.

Let me find.

Okay, so tie votes.

If a motion before the commission receives an equal number of votes, and a subsequent motion on this matter is either not made or cannot achieve a majority vote, the matter before the commission shall be recommended for denial, or I get if it's a final action, it would just be denial.

Oh, let's see, on an item that receives its final decision at the city council and on an item that receives final decision at the planning commission.

The applicant, oh I guess that's where they can request.

That's where they'll make it ends here.

Yeah, it's probably good we reviewed that.

So we can pull this up if it ever comes up, we can just ends with us.

Then they can request and request.

But a tie vote that goes to city councils, it just goes as a denial.

Yeah, negative recommendations.

And then they have another shot.

Yeah.

I think that's happened before where you know the applicant's like, I just want it to move forward.

Right.

So they don't care.

Yeah.

I mean, they do care about your opinion, but they don't really write.

Okay.

Uh we're on 10 of 14.

We're moving.

Let's keep going.

Um, are we gonna shut down again?

Oh, okay.

There we go.

Okay.

So we covered those.

Um hearing procedures, and this is just basically outlining what we've just been doing all night.

The chair introduces the item, we do our presentation.

The applicant has a chance to do their presentation.

Public hearing is opened, we receive the comments, close that, and then we do always allow the applicant to respond, which I know sometimes that upsets the public because they're like, well, wait, you know, you already had his chance.

When do we get a second chance?

But it's like, well, no, they it's their vested right.

It's their application.

Yeah, yeah, exactly.

Uh then you have some discussion of questions, the motion and the vote.

Um, same thing, you can impose time limits during the hearing.

It um you can reopen if needed, which we did.

Um we've done that on occasion.

If we think there's new information, there's no reason not to do that.

Yeah.

I see you.

Yeah.

Uh and then yeah, if if you just feel like there's so much public input that it's overwhelming you, you can the chair can recommend that the commission just table the item.

Um findings and decisions.

So you can take immediate action, you can defer to a future meeting.

Um all decisions by motion have to be a voice vote.

Um and if you ever have a question, you can do the roll call.

I think Commissioner Jackson and you've both done that.

If the like who what was the vote?

Like if it's a three to two or whatever, you can do a roll call.

I try to look at Kate.

Yeah.

When we vote.

I don't always get that, but I try to.

If there is variation, right?

Yeah.

And then the decision becomes final when the minutes are approved.

Does that mean we could change our mind until then?

Uh not necessarily.

Unless the minutes are inaccurate, like if if but you couldn't go back and say, actually I wanted to vote this way.

But if there's who approves the minutes, like how long does it we do?

Like if we leave it a beginning of December.

Okay.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Okay.

Sorry.

No, you're good.

Yeah.

So you just delight me, Nicole.

Because I know you know, like this step back isn't forward.

It's okay.

We all have our moments.

Never rewrite history.

Although according to the history professor, it has happened, right?

Yeah.

You can't rewrite it.

I simply write it.

Yeah, there you go.

You decide what actually happened.

Yeah.

Was the declaration?

She's worked on that line before.

Pendrop.

Yeah.

Okay.

And then we're supposed to app notify the applicant ten days.

I mean, they're usually here anyhow.

Um I guess if they're absent, we need to notify them.

Um recent amendments may in fact final timing.

I'm trying to remember what that was regarding.

Um, is that if there's an amendment to the code?

No, because they they're under the code when when they apply.

Find some of the things that we're going to do.

Yeah, this is to do with that.

We're gonna we're gonna strike that one.

I can pull up the bylaws.

We're on slide twelve.

I'll see if I can find the reference that I pulled that from.

But they they are subject to the code at application, not at time of hearing.

Yeah, they vest when they file their application.

So if we if they apply, like for example, if someone's applying for a general plan amendment, uh, general plan is a terrible example, but if they are applying now, but we're not gonna hear it until end of March.

And at our second meeting in February, we had a an amendment that made it the city council somehow and got approved.

They're still under the code of when they applied.

Yes.

Okay.

Yeah.

I know that's a really weird scenario that probably doesn't happen that often.

But yeah, I'd be missing it.

Yeah.

Okay.

Let's see, decisions.

It's it's in this section and it's not very long.

I I it's gotta be this last paragraph.

Notice of action taken by the commission shall be given by the commission and or planning staff to the applicant, petitioner of any party making a written request for such.

Yeah.

I honestly, yeah, we probably should just delete that bullet point.

Because I yeah, it doesn't make sense.

Sorry.

Okay, last two, and I think these are pretty quick because it just talks about amending the bylaws, which is pretty straightforward.

Um, withdrawal, continuance rehearing.

Applicant may withdraw before the final motion.

So if they think things are going south and they might have a better shot if they just withdraw, they have that ability unless you've already started to make a motion.

I'll entertain a motion.

Withdraw!

Yeah, I kind of love to see that.

Uh stop.

We also when we have only three people here.

We also try to kind of try to let them know.

Yeah.

We have to be unanimous.

Are you sure you want us to move forward?

Yeah, I think that's so important because they may not understand.

They may think, well, I just need two out of the three.

You know, it's only a majority of those here, but I think that's awesome.

Yeah, just make them know so they know the rules.

Um you can continue items, you can re-notice, or excuse me, renoce may be required for tabled items unless you actually say we're tabling it to this specific meeting so that anybody here knows.

But if it if it's tabled and there's not an exact date, then we need to renotice.

And we usually do anyhow.

So this is a kind of a weird provision.

I don't think we've ever seen this happen, but technically, an applicant, if they feel like something was totally missed or something new came up during or after the meeting, they have the ability to request a rehearing within three months of your decision.

So yeah, it does require substantial new evidence.

Um commission must vote to allow rehearing.

So they'd I guess come here and say, hey, we have some additional information, would you allow us?

And then you'd have to vote to have a rehearing.

And then they'd technically I I don't know if we've ever done that, but they would have to pay the meeting notice.

Last slide.

Amending or waiving bylaws.

Um it has to be by a majority vote.

You all have to agree, or at least not all by majority to change the rules.

Um we have to provide notice that we're gonna change the bylaws one week in advance.

So if you do decide tonight that you want to tweak anything, we'd have to re-notice it for an action at another meeting.

Um and then they actually any changes have to be approved by city council.

Um this is during a meeting.

You actually have the ability to waive a provision, like you said, you could require or put a new provision in clearing the throat or whatever.

Could we waive the quorum number?

Um that is a like if we couldn't get three people here, but we I mean there's a backlog, we don't want to these there's people that really need to see these things.

I uh could we waive the three person?

I think it's in the municipal code that a quorum is three, so I would say no because our city law would supersede that because it says you still have to comply with city rules or city laws.

Um temporary rules require unanimous vote.

Um so yeah, we we made it.

That's the end.

Good job.

Really sad that you didn't want to play Jeopardy, but we'll save this for next year.

Motion to adjourn.

No, we need to accept.

We need a motion to accept the bylaws.

Oh motion to accept the bylaws.

Second.

All those in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion to adjourn.

Second.

All those in favor.

Any opposed.

Thanks for putting that together.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Oh, is honestly uh it's I I love that there's still things to learn.

Yeah, we know.