That's true.

We do technically have some seconds.

Well, albeit seconds before we should start, we will still get started.

So welcome to this Lehigh Planning Commission on March 12, 2026.

I call this meeting to order and we'll entertain a motion on the consent agenda.

Motion for item 2.1.

Motion being that we approve the minutes from the February 26, 2026 meeting.

Motion and a second.

All in favor.

Aye.

Any opposed.

All right.

Oh, I did fail to mention we are excusing Commissioner Jackson tonight.

He's not feeling well.

We're excited to have Polo here with us, though.

Hello.

And um, yeah, let's move on to the regular agenda.

Um item 3.1 is public hearing and consideration of John Allred's request for approval of a conditional use for the conversion of an existing accessory building into a detached ADU located at 409 west 900 north.

Uh detached ADUs are permitted in the R2 zone and require a minimum lot size of 14,000, 520 square feet.

The detached accessory structure was constructed in 1980.

Because the structure was constructed, uh structure was constructed prior to 2021.

A conditional use permit is required.

The ADU exceeds the minimum 300 square foot requirement based on the size shown, and tenant parking will be in front of the unit in the driveway to ensure there is all-street parking.

The ADU is set twelve back uh 12 feet back from the side yard property line, which provides an adequate setback.

There were four red line comments from the DRC, including um that the property boundaries need to be cleaned up and to recommend checking with the title company on that.

Um conditional uses are administrative items.

If they meet the code, they must be approved.

The planning commission may place a reasonable conditions on the use to mitigate against any potential negative impacts to neighbors.

Um this is a public hearing item, but there were no online comments for this one.

So I turn it back to the commission for any questions.

Any questions for staff?

Just I have a question.

Um is there a is this the red roof, right?

That's the ADU?

Yes.

And it looks really close to the house, so there's no there's no requirement for distance between the two buildings.

Since this is a conversion there of an existing structure, there isn't a requirement for that.

If it were a new bill, there would be.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions for staff?

Is the applicant present?

Yes.

Including your name.

John all red.

Uh we just had it surveyed.

I did send it to Kim and uh a couple others, but uh so the survey is done.

We're gonna take it now and do quit claim deeds with the neighbors.

And they've uh already agreed to me with the fence line.

So we should be in good shape there.

Anything else?

Um there was the concern of the cleaning of the property line.

It sounds like you're working on that with the neighborhood.

Yes.

Yes.

Um we have six foot between the house and the garage where the garage is gonna be the ADU.

Uh utilities will come from the west side of the house.

We've got the gas, the sewer, and the electric.

And then we'll come around the side and then go straight into the ADU.

So any questions for the applicant?

All right, I think you're scotch-free for a moment.

Thank you.

This is a public hearing.

Uh, if anybody would like to speak to this item, you're invited to do so now.

Please come up.

Do the microphones work here?

I can't hear you back here.

Can you hear me better now?

Sorry, I'll I'll speak into the microphone.

I apologize.

This is a public hearing, though.

If you wanted to speak to this item, you're invited to come up now.

I hope I got the right place, but I just want to find out.

This is gonna this is gonna start at uh 1630 south, and it's gonna go a 500 east.

But where's it how far back is it gonna go?

I'm not sure.

Are you speaking to this item of the ADU?

The accessory dwelling unit that we're talking about that's on the screen behind me.

I think he might be on the item by Spring Creek Ranch.

That's what I'm talking about because a later item.

Yeah, we're not to that item yet.

But we will get there.

Is there anybody else that would like to speak to this item?

Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing.

And bring it back to the commission.

I don't have any concerns.

I'm gonna make a motion.

I'd love that.

All right.

I'll move that we approve the proposed conditional use and site plan.

Uh please include the DRC findings and found it.

Uh it's an existing building.

The setbacks are great, and feel like it'll add to the neighborhood and help the family.

Second.

Well, there were quite a few DRC comments.

Can we have this?

He did he did.

I did include the first one.

Thank you.

Started totally missing.

Um in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed.

All right, you're good to go.

Let's move on to 3.2.

So item 3.2 is public hearing and consideration of AWA engineering's request for approval of conditional use for a drive-thru for the Golden West Credit Union located at 520 West Main Street.

The drive-thru is part of phase two of the development and will be located on the northwest part of the property.

The drive-thru is expected to generate minimal additional traffic and is intended to provide safe vehicle stacking and efficient on-site circulation.

A traffic study was reviewed and it was found that the accesses will continue to operate at acceptable levels of service with the addition of the credit union.

There were seven red line comments uh from the DRC, primarily related to the overall uh site plan and not the drive-thru.

But please consider these in your motion.

Conditional uses are administrative items.

They meet the code, they must be approved.

Um this is a public hearing item, but there were no comments online, so turn it back to the commission for any questions.

Uh any questions for staff?

For reference, this is the the old Maverick station.

Yes, yeah, by the roundabout.

Any questions for staff?

Do we have any um Gary?

Do we have any concerns about like sight lines or anything like that coming out of the drive-thru turning right on the main street?

Um that was actually something looked at by our traffic engineer before he left, and I think he was okay with the way it is right there.

Okay, that was a concern that he had though, and the position of the the uh drive drive as it attaches on the main street there, but I think it's all okay the way they've got it designed.

Okay.

Good question, though.

Will there be any physical barrier preventing someone from turning left?

There will be.

There will be a physical curve or something.

A median in the road there.

It's just a little six six-inch high one, but yeah, there will be.

Good evening.

My name is Rick Magnus with AWA Engineering here on behalf of AWA, go figure, right?

Um we are we first of all, thanks to your staff for helping us through this little site that is this this is a tricky site, but um having the drive-through up there in the northwest corner is just perfect for operations, it's perfect for traffic flow.

Um, and this gives us the opportunity to bring that building forward, which is required in the downtown overlay.

So you see that the configuration works.

Um, to your question, the ride in, ride out.

We move that as far west on the property lines so that we could have good spacing.

I think you remember last, you know, the user before.

It was a little tricky sometimes.

But with the roundabout, the flow and the location.

This is uh this is a great location for this um ATM.

And um, and also there's another drive aisle that you actually are able to communicate with people in the office and and get that uh transaction taken care of.

So I'm here to concur within uh with staff recommendations and then um answer any questions that you may have.

Any questions for the applicant?

I have a question, if I may.

Uh I know it's not in the historical downtown area, but it's very close.

Are you guys going to add anything that'll draw in that historical features that are already on Main Street?

So not with this application, however, with the application we had previously here to rezone it in that we were required to kind of enhance each and every elevation of the building so that as you look down Main Street and of course come around uh heading west, you're going to see um an enhanced building with uh features that are inviting.

And um, you know, Golden West appreciates this because there's a great site line to see that building.

What do you mean by enhanced building?

It means that all four um sides of the building are going to be treated with more than one material.

So you're gonna have diversity of material also features of um that once again allow that building to look interesting as you come down towards that uh that roundabout.

Okay, thank you.

As far as like the brick that is used on Main Street or any of that, those kind of features, are you able to do that?

I know we can make you.

So we were no, we were required.

This is actually in an overlay, if you can believe it that the property uh to the west of us is not in that overlay, but we are you are yeah, okay.

So we are a c we are um conforming to those to those design criteria on a building itself.

Awesome.

It is a great becoming into that roundabout view.

Of course, it's a big tall roundabout, so you won't see it directly, but it'll be right there.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

All right, thank you.

I got a question.

Yes.

Sorry.

So this area sees a lot of traffic, especially backed up traffic on that 500 west um coming south.

There's often traffic built up.

Is there um in your traffic study?

Did you guys see a lot of concern turning left from Main Street?

Uh so you come around the roundabout, you turn right, and then you turn left into there.

Is there anything that's blocking the traffic from turning left into there?

So if you're talking about the access onto Main Street, um no, talking about access from 500 west at the north end of the project.

So that was we reviewed that and the traffic movement for that.

Um the traffic engineer, your staff and us, we determined that we would be able to make a left-hand turn into that access that's on fifth west.

But as human nature knows that if you're gonna come around there, there isn't a lot of stacking area, so you're not gonna see that.

What you'll see is people cut naturally coming through the roundabout, then just making a right into the property.

That's that's the easy flow to do that.

And then they would go through the parking area and then be able to turn left into that um to the ATM.

So we're not stacking into Main Street.

We're gonna go through the roundabout and turn right.

Yes, absolutely.

Sounds good.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good.

Okay, so I'm here if you have any other questions.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right, this item is a public hearing.

Uh we invite anybody who would like to speak to this item to come up to the mic and do so now.

Seeing none, we will close the public hearing and bring it back to the commission for further deliberation or a motion.

I feel good about it.

I I think it is kind of a tricky area, but I'm happy with that.

All right.

Okay.

Item 3.2, public hearing consideration of AWA engineering's request for approval of the conditional use for a drive-thru for the Golden West Credit Union located at 520 West Main Street.

Uh the motion being that we approve the proposed conditional use and site plan, with the findings being that at the proposed location, the proposed use will improve the vicinity.

It will be located and conducted in a manner of compliance with the goals and policies of the Lehigh City Journal Plan and the purposes of the code, that the property which is being used, the building and the other structures as proposed is of adequate size and dimensions to permit construction of the facilities and the conduct of the use in such a manner that it will not be detrimental to adjoining properties in the area.

And please also lastly include DRC findings.

Second.

Motion and a second, all in favor.

Aye.

Any opposed.

All right.

Thank you.

Item 3.3.

Item 3.3 is public hearing and consideration of Kylie Pace's request for conditional use approval to keep horses on 2.5 acres of property located at 3154 north, 4200 west.

Chapter 12 of the development code allows residential zoning to have two horses per half acre.

This property could have up to 10 horses on their property.

The horses will be kept in a corral over 600 square feet in size.

The DRC had two red line comments, including to clarify how many animals the applicant is planning to have and what types of animals.

But please consider all DRC comments in your motion.

This is a conditional use, which are administrative items.

If they meet the code, they must be approved.

The planning commission may place reasonable conditions on the use to mitigate against any potential negative impacts to neighbors.

This is a public hearing item.

There were no online comments for this, so turn back to the commission for any questions.

Thank you.

Any questions for staff?

All right.

Seeing none is the applicant present.

Did you want to add anything else?

You don't have to, you're not forced to.

We're not trying to compel you.

I I well I can add that the property right next to me that you can see on the I guess you can see what I can see, yeah.

Okay.

Sorry, so first state your name, please.

Oh, Kylie Pace.

Thank you.

The property right next to me is zoned agriculture residential, and they have horses as well.

And the community that's been approved through the concept plan to be billed around there is an equestrian community.

I had a question for you.

Yeah.

Do you know the number of animals you're going to keep?

Uh no more than six.

And it and they're all horses.

We're planning on horses.

We might get a donkey, but mining on horses, yeah.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any other questions for the applicant?

All right.

Thank you.

Uh this is a public hearing.

If anybody would like to speak to this item, we'll open the public hearing now.

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

This is another one where I feel comfortable, where the allotment is 10 and the applicant has said they only plan on having six.

I think it's good.

That does not weigh into my decision there, but I agree.

Like, even if they said they could have they were planning for 10.

I that's what the code permits.

Right.

Right, right.

So this is good in that I I want to see more of this in Lehigh.

I I like this.

I think of a motion if you're ready.

Okay.

Item 3.3, public hearing in consideration of Kylene Pace's request for conditional use approval to keep horses on two and a half acres of property located at 3154 North, 4200 West.

I move that we approve.

The findings that the proposed use will be will improve the vicinity.

And it will be conducted in a manner in compliance with the goals and policies of Le the Lehigh General Plan.

Please include all DRC comments.

Second.

Motion and a second.

All in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Uh 3.4.

Item 3.4 is public hearing and consideration of Golden West advertising's request for conditional use approval for two py uh for a pylon sign uh for Smiths located at 3808 West Hardman Way.

Um I did want to note there was an error in the staff report.

Um, the second pylon sign, the 25-foot one, is no longer being considered.

Um it's just the 70-foot pylon sign that is up for discussion today.

Um the 70-foot pylon sign requests an exception to the maximum 25-foot height requirement of pylon signs.

This is in response to the future freeway of 2100 north.

The planning commission will need to determine if a future freeway overpass is justification for the additional height.

The additional square footage should also be considered for this reason.

Currently the pylon sign is 900 square feet and the maximum is 600.

Again, this is in response to the future 2100 North Freeway.

Um the DRC had three informational comments for the applicant, all of which the applicant has been made aware of.

Um but please consider these in your motion.

This is a conditional use.

The planning commission may place reasonable conditions on the 70-foot pylon sign to mitigate against any potential negative impacts.

Um conditional uses are permitted and therefore must be approved with conditions if applicable.

This is a public hearing item.

Um there were three comments online for this, which I can uh share during the public comment period.

But um with that I turn it back to the commission.

Katie, can I have you clarify that?

Um this is a conditional ask, but it's outside of code.

So we have full ability to say no.

So um the sign, the sign ordinance states that um that you can there basically is an exception, like a bit of leeway up to 70 feet, but the applicant bears the burden of proof if that additional request is justified.

And so that would be your determination.

Um great, thank you.

Any questions for staff?

Yeah, can I I want to ask a clarification?

I think I understand, but I just want to make sure in the report says the current square footage sign is 900 square feet and the maximum is six hundred.

Is that is what code says the maximum is six hundred?

Is that what that means?

Um yes, yeah, that is correct.

Okay.

So they're uh they're asking for taller bigger sign.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any other questions for staff?

In this shopping center that's going in the Smiths parking lot, how many other um businesses are planning to go in there?

Yeah.

Um there's the Smiths, and I believe there's either five or six additional um parcels essentially, but those buildings could be split up into more businesses.

Um I don't have many details on that, the applicant might, but do we know um what kind of signage the primary children's hospital has, how tall their sign is?

Um yes.

I'm trying to remember off the top of my head.

Um they do have a rather large pylon sign as well.

Um however, the hospital is a bit unique in that it is uh exempt from our sign code just because it's considered a civic use and or an institutional use because it's a hospital.

Um but I believe their pylon sign is 70 feet as well.

So okay.

Thank you.

And we do have a 70-foot flag pole across the street at the Maverick.

We do, yes.

The car wash, yeah.

Over by there.

Any other questions for staff?

Is the applicant present?

Good evening.

My name is Rick Magnus with AWA engineering here on behalf of the applicant as well as the developer um Smith's marketplace.

Um a few things about this particular sign in to just help with the original write-up of the two monument pylon signs we had received approval before on those that are over there on like 3600 west.

So what I'm here about is that pylon sign that is 70 feet in nature.

I hope some of the you had a chance to review some of the materials because of the overpass that is going to be located at this absolute the the 3600 west, there's going to be a 2100 north overpass here.

And so what we tried to do is demonstrate why that additional height is needed, because once that goes in, you're going to lose a lot of the effectiveness of a regular height monument sign.

It actually will be blocked because an overpass is approximately 30 feet from grade.

So we took just a typical overpass and show what that's doing.

Now, this particular view that's on your screen right now is looking south across 2100 on the opposite direction of traffic.

So they're headed westbound, looking over there.

So you see the side of the um you see the side of the of the sign.

If I may, do you have an opportunity to go to uh the other um some of the other slides just to give you?

So this is I'm heading east, I'm on 2100, and I am looking at the face of the sign, and this is at the um let's see, this is at the western edge of the property.

So to your right, like where that little rectangle white area is, you can see the edge of the Smiths marketplace that's currently under construction.

So I'm looking east.

Something that also kind of is looming in this general vicinity are those power poles that absolutely go through our site, and that's where we have parking underneath.

But you can see there's a little bit of competition also with some existing um items that are there.

And as was mentioned in this kind of general area, you do have the flagpole that's also 70 feet tall, and um we always want the flag to wave, but you know, that can be a bit of the same elevation that you will have with this sign here.

To answer the question about other businesses going in, uh, we usually have a price changer on this particular sign.

It doesn't, it doesn't flash, it stays steady uh marking pricing for fuel, and that is for the fuel center that's also located on site.

Then there are an additional three other businesses that will also be going on this particular site.

I I don't know who they are.

Sorry, I can't disclose I can't disclose anything that I don't know.

But we've identified three other locations for mostly restaurant type um uses there.

So with that, what the idea was to combine and use a multi-tenant sign, first of all, to show who's there.

Now you gotta think also like there's not gonna be an off-ramp at 3600.

So any type of information with the speeds of vehicles that are here and the overpass, they're gonna be making a decision this far back, and then they're gonna negotiate how they're gonna go past 3600 and then come back.

Because that's what that's how that will work.

So this is um this is a bit about safety also.

I I do want to put that out because the the higher the speed on a road, the larger the sign or identification marker you want so that they have a longer distance to make those decisions to then, oh, I've got to get in the right lane, I've got to exit, and there we go.

So I just wanted to have that conversation with you uh a little bit, and of course I'm here to answer any questions, but I do appreciate staff again publicly.

They are they're wonderful.

They have helped us through this, and I think we have a great product and location based on the other things that are up in the air, like the power poles, et cetera.

So this will give good visibility for people to make the right decisions and how to get over to this commercial center.

So once again, I concur with staff recommendations, and I'm here to answer any questions that you may have.

Just for clarity, this is looking east.

This is looking east, yes.

At the western, like the northwest corner of the property.

Right.

And you've done that that's a 70-foot?

That's at 70 feet.

Okay.

So I'm not even up to the first line of transmission wires that occur on the power poles.

To be fair, it's quite a bit wider than like.

Oh, it is.

Oh no, no, it is, but when you if you're looking or trying to think, man, when I've been out in this area, it's gonna be below that those wires.

So do you anticipate using this?

Yes.

Is it I mean, when they do these studies, they don't just come in here and throw one up just for fun.

I mean, there's no off-ramp.

The closest off ramps that I'm seeing are basically either Red Road Road or the freeway would be the next one.

So to get here, if you're on 2100, it's tough.

So I was just thinking who who do they anticipate using this area?

So currently currently we all understand that it's at grade and you're at an intersection and you are making that decision.

I I think about like the neighbor across the street, Maverick, that monument sign is just going to be obliterated by an overpass.

It's going to be not obliterated, but missing.

You're not going to be able to see it.

The people here, we do always look at rooftops.

That's very important, because it c becomes your Smiths.

It becomes the neighborhood's Smiths marketplace as well as these other restaurant or pad uses that occur.

So what still has to happen with any type of commercial center is identification and that usually comes from a in this case there is a themed sign plan that's occurring.

And because the other monument signs you won't see, there needs to be identification to allow that movement to happen, whether it's previous or as I pass by it, and then have to make that decision to exit.

So do I mean again, do they anticipate just Holbrook Farms coming on 3600 under the underpass to come to the Smith and then all that development that's south of there?

Yeah.

Oh, I do understand that so if for example, let me just identify one you so Smith's and other grocers now are starting to use drive, you know, order online, drive up, pick up, and leave.

Um so that helps identify if someone is going to do that or go through the drive-thru pharmacy or get out and do something.

This then becomes a a place within within the stops they have or the places they need to go.

They would just go uh mental note, okay.

This is here, oh I can't get off at 3600, we're gonna go, I'll go do these other errands first, circle back, and then they'll make that decision.

This this has happened in a few other places where Bangator just passes by, but they still need to understand where that place is that they want to go.

If we were to stick with a um, if we were to stick with the regular code of a monument sign, based on the speeds they're gonna be here, they're not gonna see it.

They just won't they just won't see it.

And once again, there's there's a capture that's not happening.

So that's why you see this particular strategy of where to locate a taller pylon sign.

Thank you.

Um not convinced, but yeah.

Just even from this picture, right, we're at grade level, and by the time you get to the overpass, the sign is gonna be I'll be past it.

So which I think actually lends to your argument that a bigger sign is better.

I do.

We based on the number of Smiths we do and grocers, um, we find that there when it comes up to visibility or or physical just physical characteristics of that location, there's things that we really strive to do.

And one is visibility.

This this is just trying to get that.

Yeah.

But once again, because of the speed and the location, a decision needs to be made by a motorist that makes it a little safer.

Yeah, I I don't know.

I I guess I don't like that argument because they're not going to get off at I-15 and circle back and wide through the wind through the neighborhood.

The decision to go to this Smiths will have to happen when they're on Redwood Road and coming through and getting on to 3600.

So what this does is because of the wide ride-away, also vehicles heading west now have an opportunity to see that and then make their corrective directional vehicular um movements so that they can then circle around.

To go all the way to Redwood Road and do the same thing.

So yeah, and that's what we have because what Smith what we've identified is there's a lack of services out there that Smith is trying to achieve.

When, by the way, when you dot decides to do that overpass, we don't know.

That hasn't come up on their website for bid, for design drawings, anything yet, but they do they are working in this direction.

I'm famous for hating science.

I know that.

Right.

I'm not saying that you don't have a right to the businesses don't have a right.

I believe in that, and I want to protect that right.

The businesses have to put to advertise.

But the problem that I see, the biggest thing that hits me hardest, and again, this is more a sentimental feeling than it is a code, is that beautiful mountain that you are blocking its view.

Up to the snow line.

That's preposterous to me.

Like that.

There are so many treasures that we have, and there's so few of them.

And we cover them with signage.

And it boils my blood.

I I hate our code, how it's written.

I know you absolutely have the right to ask.

But I wish we would rewrite our code so they do not have the ability to ask for this size.

They don't need it.

It's not needed, in my opinion.

I don't feel like the justifications that have been brought forward.

Maybe there will be a need for it when an overpass is built.

And maybe that's something that we cross the bridge there and say now where we do have an unplanned freeway project that is not completed.

We don't know exactly what we're dealing with as far as visibility and sight lines yet.

We know that there will be some complications, particularly for your customers that are heading west, right?

And I think that's really more what this is designed for.

Like you're saying, the people that are going east have made that decision at this point already.

Yes, they they could see a sign and say, oh, let me flip around, right?

And turn around.

But it's your customers that are going west that you want to get ahead of, which I understand why you would want to put it on the east side of the property.

Right?

I get it.

And again, I'm I I talk about this every time a sign comes up.

I hope you don't feel like I'm picking on you.

Right.

But I really really hate this.

We're talking about years of it not being an issue while while the freeways being built, and it's just gonna be like a thumb sticking up in the in the middle and covering up the mountain.

I I agree with Tyson.

It's I think we should cross the bridge when we get there and not years ahead of time.

Craig, do you have any counsel for us on this?

No.

Ultimately, you guys have the authority, right?

Katie made it sound like we don't.

The additional height.

Yeah.

Sorry if I made it seem like that.

Um you have the ability if you can reasonably articulate um why you think they should or should not get the additional height.

The height for pylon science is basically allowed by code up to 25 feet.

Anything above 25 feet, so up to 70 feet is that's where the kind of request comes in for that additional height.

Where else in Lehigh do we have signs this size?

Although they're important.

Uh just off the top of my head, Thanksgiving point, that are large marquee sign, the outlet mall, uh the other hospital um holy cross, um, the shopping center.

North of Timpanog, or yeah, Timonogas Highway, the where the Harmons is.

A lot of those big regional, even Macy's down here on Main Street, and they vary in height.

I think the Macy's one may only be like 40 feet or you know, so yeah, probably the biggest ones, the tallest is by far the outlet mall.

It's like a hundred feet tall.

Uh and then, you know, from there, there's been several at like that 70 foot level.

Even Edna's down here, their little restaurant sign.

Again, that was for freeway visibility, but I think it's probably in the 70-foot range.

Um, I think Edna's is an interesting example because of how much lower they are than the freeway.

Yeah, yeah, it's we did.

We don't know exactly how high this freeway is going to be yet.

We know that there will be an overpass.

But I would have a hard time believing it's the same height as what's next to Edness.

But maybe, I don't know.

I'm not an engineer.

Um other questions for the applicant.

All right, we'll open the public hearing and come back to you if we have to.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

This is a public hearing.

If anybody from the public would like to speak to this, acknowledging we did receive quite a few public comments as well online, which we will get to afterwards.

But if anybody here would like to speak to this, we will open the public hearing now.

Seeing none, I'll turn it back over to Katie.

Could you summarize those for us?

Yeah, um, so most of the concerns were over the height and um potential impact of neighborhood character to the surrounding residential area of this um the townhomes nearby and the condos and things like that.

Um there were uh two against, um, but there was actually just one question um uh regarding the where the 25-foot pylon sign would be located, and um we'll be sure to reach out to that person and and inform them of that.

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

Would the uh referring to the public comment?

So is it if it's words 25?

Oh, they already have the approval for the 25-foot yeah, okay.

Sorry.

I'll go back to whatever I was doing over here.

Can you ask the who will use this?

This will be my neighborhood, Smith's.

So yeah, I'll get a lot of use out of it.

Closest, second closest grocery grocery store for me.

How will you get there?

Um I live on the other side of 2100, I'm on the skate park, so it'll be coming down the side road and then turning under 36.

At least I think that's how it'll go.

I actually disagree a little bit with your comment.

I think a lot of people from Saratoga Springs would use this.

Um there's quite a bit of housing just on the other side of Redwood Road.

That's not far.

And driving on Redwood Road to get to the other Smiths down the road, that's a nightmare.

And the Walmart and things over there, like there's just not that this isn't.

This is also very busy area.

Um, but I I would think that they would capture some area, some rooftops in Saratoga Springs.

Yeah, I would I yeah, I agree with you.

I don't think you're gonna drive by on a freeway and go, oh, that's the Smiths.

How do I get there?

I mean if it's a tourist from New York and they're just driving down the road and they see a sign.

I I don't know, I guess I'm losing my the value of signs per se, because we just use our phones now.

We Google it and it takes us right there.

I do think there, I mean, I know that I have talked at length multiple times over the last eight years about how much I hate signs.

Um but I do think that there is a value to them.

There's a wayfinding sign, there's some safety that comes with that as well.

Um so I'm not fully anti-sign.

But but I this feels egregious, especially when we have a couple of years to establish the presence of the business before there's the real need that they're asking for, right?

They're asking for a future need.

Um I think we have an opportunity to let the business get established now under our current sign code, and then they can make the petition when there's the absolute need, or when we know the size height when we have those plans from UDOT.

Um yes, that's another expense for the applicant down the road, and that is a large expense.

I understand.

Um I I feel like they have an opportunity to get anchored and established well before the need for that height is even present, and then maybe they'll decide that they don't even need that because they're well anchored and well rooted already within the community.

I know you closed public hearing.

Is there you're able to come up?

You're an applicant.

You can speak to us, yeah.

Ooh, applicant gets twice.

Okay, thank you.

Um I do hear you on this, and you're right about the cost of signage these days.

It is it's quite a bit.

Is there any way we could table this and I bring back an alternative that may be shorter than this, but I I promise you that a 25-foot sign on this speed of road, it's difficult.

And also just I love the view as well.

I really do, towards the mountains and everything else.

I would hope that drivers aren't looking too much into that view while they're driving.

But there is that view.

And once again, with the other elements that are happening with the power poles and the flag poll and that, I wonder if there's a way I could come back and maybe shorten this as much as we can for the speeds that we have and the visibility.

And just come back to this and maybe I I don't know where that would take you.

I don't know if you've just made up your mind now, but if there is an opportunity, I would like to have it if we could.

Absolutely.

And if you would like to request the table, we'll be happy to do that to give you time to come up with something that you think might be more amiable for this group.

More shorter.

This is part of my everyday neighborhood that I'm driving.

When I'm looking at this, and there's a an very important piece of infrastructure in the community, and it's bigger than that.

I have a hard time with it.

So like we have the hospital, which really isn't that far.

It's less than a few hundred yards away, and the signage is bigger than that.

I have a really hard time with that where as a neighborhood person that drives past this on the daily, I would have a hard time with turning that small, relatively small area into a shopping, like a giant shopping center like that.

So just some of my thoughts off the top of my head.

Okay.

I do like the idea of tabling it and just come up with a different concept.

Okay.

Thank you.

Yeah, I agree.

Um I think we can definitely work on something.

Um but we haven't talked about square footage.

Right.

So if if it you do create a shorter, would that also decrease square footage or it would it?

It would.

Okay.

It would.

So you keep the dimensions.

It needs to be proportional too, so we would look at that.

So you might have in and lower.

But we would present that in our proposal.

I do appreciate you being willing to look at different sides of the coin.

Let's see if we can.

I I know that the 25 would be ineffective for what's happening along here.

But let me let me come back if I may.

And um spend money, I'll eat dinner somewhere here so you get my tax dollars, you know.

We'll work that out.

But if we can, I would appreciate that very much.

Okay.

Yeah.

The applicant requesting a table, I'll entertain a motion.

Um if we could request maybe not a table, but maybe maybe a just a stay on it and give a specific date if you're gonna table it.

How much time would you like?

It just goes to the table.

So let's start and I can't think of the word right now because it's continuance.

Yes, that's it.

Okay.

How much time would be enough for you?

I'm gonna be on this tomorrow.

I'm gonna be on it tomorrow, so I don't know where that puts us with public notification.

26 is that would be their next meeting.

26th.

Would that be okay with this commission?

Uh do we close the public hearing?

Are we gonna you did and then I jump back?

Well, he's he's the applicant.

Oh, yeah.

No, no, I'm just thinking if we needed to re-advertise or that's a correct question.

I don't know.

I think we can we don't need to reopen the public hearing, but we would need to.

We need to renown.

We do need to re-notify.

And if we re- notify, we might as well open the public hearing again.

Or that wouldn't be into it.

Yeah, it's it's gonna put it out until the end of April because spring break, you don't have a first meeting in April.

Is it the work session that we miss?

Um we hold the work session, but not the first regular meeting.

I think uh spring break falls during that second Thursday.

I won't go to spring break.

You'll be here.

I'll be here.

I'm an empty.

Or there across the board.

I I think this is important.

I'd like to get it right.

So I'd have to see what we can get, even if we have to push it into April.

I'll just do that.

So it sounds like if we do a public, then you're just gonna have another fee for us to notify, right?

I mean, you're gonna want us to pay that notification fee, which isn't I just want to just clarify that you just need the envelopes again, the public noticing envelopes.

Okay, yeah.

We wouldn't need another fee.

Okay, it's gonna be moved to which April.

The last meeting.

23rd.

Let's see.

Yeah, 23rd.

Yeah.

Okay.

Okay.

So motion to move this to April 23rd.

Is that the use?

I'll make a motion.

Okay.

Item 3.4 public hearing and consideration of Golden West advertising request for conditional use approval for two pylon signs for Smiths located at 3808 West Hardman Way.

I move that we give them a continuance to April 23rd meeting to come up with some other options for their signage.

Second it.

Motion and a second, all in favor.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

All right.

3.5.

If anybody was here for 3.5, that has been pulled from our meeting today.

However, it is a public hearing.

So we will give anybody that came to speak to item 3.5 an opportunity to do so.

And 3.5 is a recommendation of Windy City's development LLC's request to review the spring.

That's 3.6.

That's 3.5 online.

3.5.

3.5 says Spring Meadow Villas concept.

Oh, I wonder if maybe we already took it off.

Yeah.

It was 3.5 3.5, so 3.6 moved up.

Yeah.

So 3.5 was originally the Traverse Mountain Area Plan amendment to move units out of West Canyon and adding them to locations near Tempanogas Highway.

Okay.

That's not on our agenda at all.

No, they must have pulled it before that came out.

So we're however it was still notified as a public hearing.

So if anybody did come to speak to that item, we want to give you the opportunity to speak if you wanted to.

We will open the public hearing.

Seeing none.

We will close the public hearing.

However, we will reopen the public hearing when we hear that uh item.

Um so let's move to, I guess 3.5.

Yes, sorry.

Sorry about that.

Um item 3.5 is um public hearing and recommendation of Windy City's development LLC's request for review of the Spring Villa Spring Meadow Villas PUD concept, a 72-lot single family residential project located at 1630 south, 500 east.

Approximately 33 acres are zoned R12, and the remaining 18 acres are zoned A5.

The overall density of the subdivision is about 1.4 units per acre.

The allowable density would typically be approximately 62 lots, but after discussion with engineering, an additional 10 lots are requested in lieu of reimbursement for multiple improvements, including there's additional landscaping beyond the required 20%.

Um there is a power corridor dedication for the power lines through there.

Um trail construction, landscaping, and dedication of future ride-away along the south of the project for future regional connection, the Pony Express extension and vineyard connector.

Um there were 23 red line comments from the DRC, including to show the 4495 elevation contour.

The Utah Lake Shoreline overlay requires a 50-foot buffer from that elevation.

Um to note the future Utah Lake Parkway trail.

Please consider all DRC comments in your motion.

Um a PUD may be allowed at the discretion of planning commission and city council in any zoning district.

The planning commission will give their recommendation to the city council, which will be the ultimate approving body.

Uh this is a public hearing item.

There were eight online comments for this, but I will uh share those during the public comment period.

So with that, I turn it back to the commission for any questions.

Thank you.

Similar to last time we met when there was an in lieu of.

I'm looking at this and thinking, is there any sort of unit of measurement, like a metric, a number that you can give us that would help us better quantify what they're giving us monetarily so that we can better judge if what they're giving us is actually worth the additional lots.

Yeah, the applicant could probably speak better to you than this than I could, but I wasn't involved with these discussions.

This was before me.

But I know that um there is the um Pony Express Road that'll be coming down right at the tip of this property, which would be taking a big chunk of their property, it's like 105-foot ride-of-way width.

Um they are um giving up some um uh trail space for the trail coming through there.

They are also putting in the road widening width there of 100, what is that south?

I forget what the south is.

Uh 13 1630.

1630 south.

Yeah, so they're widening that for the city.

Um there's some items like that.

So they actually will be putting out quite a bit of money that will be commensurate with the the 10 lots given there.

So I think another big part of the bonus was that they're giving additional open space above and beyond the minimum.

So those are the main bonus items, but I don't know if we really come up with an actual like a spreadsheet showing here's the the items and here's the value.

Yeah, thank you.

That's helpful.

Okay, hopefully it helps a little.

Um I'm having a hard time seeing from the aerial views versus the concept plan.

Is this rotated?

Is it okay?

It's just it's that it's the skinny one A5?

Okay.

And it's just yeah, the lake is left.

Yeah.

Sorry.

Yeah, south of the line.

The space on the left is the space at the bottom.

Yeah.

Yes, there is an abundance of public space being granted or dedicated here or green space.

Not necessarily public, right?

But um, how usable is that land?

How buildable is that land?

How I mean, really.

Is it a swamp?

It is.

There's a there's a bog in the area that I've heard swallows excavators.

How far south of this is the TSSD transmission line and the secondary line from this property?

Um, I don't know how many feet it is, but it's pretty close to that.

Um I think probably the applicant knows pretty close to where that is.

But I know it does run down long through there for sure.

Okay.

There's no plan to amenatize that space uh on the lake, right?

It's just to be left as open space.

Yeah, a lot of it is wetland and floodplain.

This is similar to it was called the Willis Estate subdivision, which is how we picked up Dragonfly Disk Golf Park.

Similar property.

It has, you know, it's kind of um ri ribboned with wetlands and things like that.

So yeah, it's it it wouldn't be, you know, like soccer fields or anything like that.

It's it the way the PRD ordinance is written, though, that is one of the qualifying things that we do want to preserve is natural areas.

So it's so it's it qualifies, but it definitely has different value than recreation, active recreation.

It's more passive, so you don't it could have bird watching or you know I mean, or just the preservation of nature in that area.

So it's do we have do we have maybe this is an engineering question?

Do we have kind of the outline of where the main thoroughfare would be built that connects from Saratoga?

Uh yeah, the the um pioneer or the Pony Express coming through there we do, yeah.

We do have an outline.

Would that be it?

It's very similar to that, yeah.

Yeah, we connect on 19.

I was under the impression it wouldn't be that close to the lake.

Uh yeah, it runs down the lake.

It's gonna be that close.

I mean, I I I know that's a much needed connection through through our city.

Which this is a benefit to help facilitate part of that plan.

So that the connector is shown on this map?

So that's what we're looking at right there?

So for these residents is there going to be trails over there?

Is there going to be any kind of access across this road?

I bet Tony might would love to speak to that.

But uh is that why you sit on the edge of the seat?

Yeah, right now the plan is at least the plan is to have an uh grade separated trail crossing underneath here.

But comes from the park, right?

There's a park where the trail currently dead ends.

There is a park there.

Um I'm not talking about dragonfly.

I'm not South Lake Park or whatever it's called.

North Lake North Lake Park Park, yeah.

The trail dead ends in North Lake Park.

Currently, would this be an extension of that trail?

I'm not exactly sure.

Do you remember?

Yeah.

Yeah, there's there's a couple of other parcels in between this and North Lake Park that we'd we're the county actually is working on trying to make that a unified connection.

So we yeah, yeah, all those pieces in between are other owners.

But the idea is that yeah, you would connect to the North Lake Park Trail, and then it now goes all the way, I think, to the I mean it goes into Saratoga where the Jordan River outlet is, and then eventually we'd try and connect it around the southeast into American Fork.

Okay.

Sorry.

Any other questions for staff?

I'm sure we have questions for coming.

Sorry.

Um is this road to the south of there?

Is there going to be a two-lane road?

Is it a rain is it?

It will be a two-lane road, but eventually it is scheduled to be a five-lane road.

So but right now the funding.

Yeah, it is a wide road.

It is a wide road, yeah.

Okay.

So yeah, so the funding right now through MAG is just a two-lane road through there now.

Thank you.

A tree two lane or is it a three with a turning lane?

Uh well, at intersections, I think it'll bump out to three and then go back to two.

Any other questions for staff?

It's the applicant present.

Tony, it's been a while.

Tony train.

Um, it has been a little bit since we brought this through for the zone change and all the stuff that we were talking about then.

These were the ideas.

The the main thing we were waiting for was trying to get some resolution on that road.

Um FEMA also's made some adjustments with floodplains and stuff down here, lowered the whole issue with the lake.

So there's been some good things happened.

We know there's some challenges with that road, so we've been trying to work with Brad and the group to try to get solutions on that road because uh everybody knows that's absolutely needed.

And so yes, the the principles behind it of why we've gone in this direction, we're a lot of you know working together for it.

They definitely don't want as a city, you know, lots on the other side of that road between the lake, which just makes sense to dedicate it.

Um we we would love it if you'd push the road all the way to the lake, but this is the alignment it needs to be.

The d the property owners willing to work with them to get the property for this to make you know the development work.

One of the main comments that we had through the phases before was try to do something that had a little bit of a variety, not just straight, you know, 10,000 square foot lots.

Get something that had a little variety to it.

Um, but this piece of property has a lot of cool features about it, but those cool features bring some challenges to make them the cool features.

Um the the bridge itself that we've been talking to Brad about, you can kind of see that uh darker area where Spring Creek goes, the channel.

Um they're gonna build a box culvert for Spring Creek.

The trail will try to be close to that.

Uh underneath with a box, so it'll go fairly close to that.

So yeah, there are you know, the hope is that there will be some cool amenities for this down here, and make that trail go all the way through, which is a big advantage.

Uh the power corridors a neat feature, but does bring a lot of challenges, so um the development that happened with Willis.

Um, yeah, that they were similar.

They were a lot smaller, but through their justification of that open space, they were the same.

They're about 10 lots extra.

This has quite a bit more that we're dealing with.

Um, but we felt the transition like you had recommended before, not just one you know, 10,000, 10,000, to try to do a little variety.

We think brings you some character to this.

But when we come back with preliminary, there will be those recommendations as to why all this dedication, what the improvement costs are, you know, where those improvements are going forward with and why that justification's there.

We just need recommendation that this is the right.

There's still some things to work out.

The city needs a little bit wider road, potentially through there.

We talked about it a little more today, in fact.

Um we may end up having to do a little bit wider local through there.

So I mean there's uh there's a number of things to bring back with preliminary that that make this work.

But the justification, um 530 East?

Yeah, 530 east.

Okay.

Same with the other or or just 530.

Just 530 east.

A little bit a little what we'd call it just a wider local.

So the what would that do to your lot sizes that's what we were talking about today in the challenge?

Um, I if you take six feet out, I mean it's not a huge impact, but the benefit.

It's an impact.

Yeah.

So we've got to just work through a number of of minor things with that.

But we feel this lay I'm we tried to match what was there on Spring Creek on the other side.

We widen them as we went a little further west, and then as we go south down to the road.

Got them bigger, so we felt that this was the direction we were given when we came through, you know, for zone change on it, and the idea behind it is uh, you know, it's meeting it's meeting a really good principle down here, and there's some really cool features that will enhance the area if we can get them, you know, to work out.

I I know it's not a soccer field, but I'm surprised that it's a nice wetland.

I mean, nice area down there by there, and it it probably won't ever have the water up there again with but you never know.

Right.

I mean, like you have years like this, and it depresses you a little bit because it'd be nice, but yeah, with the pumps over there, it Utah Lake will stay lower than it's ever been, and I guess unless we have that NOAA flood again.

But that being said, it has really cool potential, and yeah, you've heard of the some of the bogs down here that swallow excavators.

We've worked in a lot of areas.

But the advantage is we've we've got some fill already in.

Brad was pretty excited that he can put the road in some areas where we've already taken care of some of those things, which is which is good.

It helps.

It's not done being graded.

Right.

There's would there still be more fill to come in?

Just ro just roads.

I mean, as far as bringing it up anymore, no.

I mean, they've already lowered the floodplain down in this area a couple feet, so would this area allow for basements?

No, didn't think so.

I I yeah, we wouldn't.

We just wouldn't recommend basements.

No, there's probably some manipulation to the fill and bringing in the roads a little bit more so that we can you know stabilize the roads.

Sure.

But I mean, luckily that fill's been down there for long time.

Yeah.

Um, that's the one advantage of it being delayed a little bit.

But that being said, we we we definitely feel this is the appropriate direction in working with the city for the last you know few years, trying to come up with the right solution.

We just think this is this is appropriate for all the things that we're trying to accomplish with the city.

Can you uh help us wrap our head around the num the number of units you're asking in lieu?

On the 10 asking for 10.

Yeah, we what's the where's the we put a little justification on the maybe it's on the cover sheet of what it was.

Uh like the road, for instance.

They're gonna they're asking a little bit more on that, but you know, for two and a half acres of property, if you take the density of the 1.75 units per acre for two and a half acres, you know, you'd have six acre, six lots for that dedication.

Um we had the trail corridor going through the power.

Um I apologize, I don't have it right in front of me, but on that cover sheet, it's it stated what that was.

Okay, so if we do the if we do all the construction through here and we dedicate the power corridor, um here's the construction.

So that's state two, three lots, whatever that was, six lots to dedicate the road, the extra open space that we're dedicating beyond the 20% would quantify for three lots, because it is more of a natural open space than say the soccer field type thing.

That's that's the justification that we used for the 10 lots.

I think it was like 10.2 or something that we put.

Do you remember?

Gary?

I can't remember.

Uh no, I just look it up the notes here.

I just look it up the notes here.

It says additional open space of 8.34 acres.

In addition to the required 20%, power corridor trail, trail construction and landscaping, dedication of future right away along the south of the project.

Um and then it also includes the widening of the road.

So when we were going through the numbers, yeah, the widening of the road up on there.

We were going through the numbers with you know the group, Brad and Lorna.

Okay, here's here's the dedication of that road.

That's where the six lots came from.

This dedication up here would be one lot.

This truck quarter through here would be three lots, and this all this open space down at the bottom would be three lots.

So it it it turned out to be I think ten point two three lots, and that's where we came with the ten lots.

Thank you.

If that makes sense.

Um just for clarification though, that future road um on the south side.

Yes.

You're not building that no.

That's a U dot project, right?

Yeah, so they're they're working on purchasing everything right now.

And so that was some of the reasons like why I said it's it's taken a little longer to bring this back, is because we're trying to work through the road with them and get it in the right position so that we can finalize our concept and our preliminary plot to bring back to you.

But you would take your stub all the way to it to where it's close to where it's gonna be.

Yeah, if we we'd stub it down to where so they could tie it in when they do the construction.

And I mean, I'm I'm pushing Brad as much as anybody.

I I I know the need for these roads, so we're trying to help anywhere we can to get you know solutions for I I'm working with a couple of the other farmers over there trying to help them as well so we can get this road going, because I'm I'm as aware of anybody as the need for these things, but any other questions for uh the applicant.

There may be a question at the end of this.

Sure.

Um more just to tell you what I'm I'm thinking right now.

I'd like to approve this tonight with modifications as it is right now.

I feel like I'm having a hard time justifying myself to approve it.

Um back to some of your earlier comments.

I agree with you that I don't want to see any housing on the left side of that road.

Um I'd like that to remain open space.

I'd yeah.

Also would like to see that trail connection um under the power lines, like you mentioned.

I do understand the concept of inloo, but I would like to see that 10 number parse down to where perhaps like four to eight of those lots were taken away, and part of that was consumed by some of the other lots to make the lots bigger and also give you the space that you need to be able to make the roads the width they need to be.

Um so whether for you or the rest of the commission, that's just kind of my thoughts right now.

Okay.

No, no, it's totally fair.

And we don't we don't mind that.

I'm just trying to help get that road built.

And I mean, if you if you'd prefer to pay for the road versus lots, we'll work with you.

Right.

But I I know they're struggling already.

So anything we can do to help, we'll try to help.

That's fair.

Great.

Thank you, Tony.

Yep.

Thank you.

Uh this is a public hearing.

Uh if there's anybody would like to speak to item 3.5, if this is your chance to do so, we'll open the hearing.

My name is Wes Davy, and I live at uh 588 East 1630 south.

We've not gotten me or neither my neighbors haven't gotten any of these maps and stuff, and as far as I can see, it it doesn't go just south to uh 1630, it goes a lot further, like double that.

And this is all a wildlife area back there.

There was a couple years ago it was a cow pasture, but other than that, you could see deer and you could see all kind of wildlife, and now you're gonna turn it all into houses between what this is gonna be and what America Fork is gonna be.

It's you've ended wildlife down there and you've ended a reason for a lot of people live back in there.

I have other comments, but they're pretty snide and it won't make them right now.

So how far does this go back to go past uh 1630 or how far back?

I don't know so in the public hearing you can ask questions and we'll address them after we close the hearing.

So present all your questions, we'll take notes and then we'll address them when you're finished.

Well, could somebody plan in a map where the where the south end of that is?

We we'll get to it.

Was there a map available that we can look at or we'll address that question in a moment and stay stay because we'll we'll get to that question.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Natalie Woodhouse, and I live in the Spring Creek Ranch neighborhood that is just east of this proposed development.

I hope I'm not going to be too redundant with some of the online comments.

I can't remember what I read a few days ago, but some things that I would just like the planning commission to please consider and take into consideration is one of them is wildlife related.

So the um in the development code, I want to say it's section twelve.

Um it talks about just the the that we need to mitigate wherever we can the impact on wildlife, especially, you know, like critical wildlife.

And in the south half of this neighborhood that is being planned, there are a lot of mature trees, might not be preferred trees, but we see like when I'm in the Spring Creek Park and look to the west, we often see bald eagles that fly into these trees.

There are a lot of crane, a lot of other wildlife, there are a lot of deer in that area.

And that is a really big concern for me that we are, you know.

I hear in a in an earlier item that was presented this evening where somebody asked to add horses to their property.

I heard a comment from um to commission a commission member saying that, you know, I would like to see more of this in Lehigh, and I took that to understand it's more, you know, preserving open space, maybe in this case for domesticated horses, but I'm concerned that we are just not really considering some of the items in the development code related to wildlife uh preservation and not having the impact on them in in areas like this.

Uh another aspect to this is also in the development code, it talks about reducing light pollution next to or into wildlife habitats.

And so if we have, I mean, there might not be like big floodlights type things, but if we have homes that far down and these days, all the new homes that are getting built, I'm seeing them building sports courts in their backyards, which is fun, but they often have lights at nighttime, and if that will impact the wildlife as well.

So that's kind of a concern for me.

Um a question for you to maybe address later.

I am curious all the open space that the development would keep open on the south side of that future road.

Would that be I I think I heard the the term uh a right of way, a right of easement, but would that be open to the public, or could this be turned into an HOA where they're like only people from you know that live in that HOA can go underneath the road and up to the lake?

That would be I think short-sighted and a bummer for the rest of Lehigh residents and people in the area, so just something to consider there.

Um I had questions on the FEMA flood maps, but it sounded like you said that maybe those were recently changed because it used to be uh 100-year floodplain, and so I was concerned about that.

Um that area to consider, and I think it's been touched on, but there's both the plans for the future um Pony Express road, which yes, roads are needed.

Am I a fan of that location by the lake?

Absolutely not, but you know, it can't decide that.

There's also the Utah Trail plans that the plans that were mentioned to have a trail that goes all the way around Utah Lake.

And I'm having a really hard time envisioning or conceptualizing when we're building developments like this this close to the lake.

How do we even have enough space to put in a pony express parkway trail and the Utah Lake Trail for pedestrians and bikes and still have open space for wildlife or just green areas?

I'm just having it's not that big of a space between the lake and the proposed south end of this neighborhood, so I have some concerns in that regard.

Um the section or chapter, let's see, was it 35 or 36?

I think it's 35 of the development code talks about tree protection.

Um the east side, uh south to north of this proposed development on the Spring Creek Ranch side, there is a trail that runs along there.

And there are a lot of trees there, might not be f preferred trees.

I think a lot of them are Russian olives.

I get that.

But they do provide a lot of shade.

Um, you know, still helps with air quality.

A lot of birds are in those trees.

And if I'm looking at that map correctly, it basically looks like all these trees would be cut down and be replaced with people's fences in their backyards.

I just wonder if the commission may have considered maybe requiring a little bit more of a buffer to keep some green space, whether that would mean keeping those Russian olive trees or planting new trees or something, but just seems really, really close to just have like you have backyard fences, then the trail that's already there in the existing neighborhood, and then more backyard fences.

It just you really lose that sense of being in the outdoors that a lot of people in Lehigh keep saying they want to preserve in Lehigh every time they go and you know elect people on our city council, and so maybe that's more something for the city council when they considered our final decision on this, but it'd be nice to to really consider maintaining that open space.

Um more question that I had.

And that is on maybe that's just not been updated yet, but the zoning map does not show any recent zoning change to R122.

It still shows A5 for the entire um the entire area, the north and south part of this.

I was just confused about that because that's not reflected online correctly.

And then also the environmental sensitive areas maps for Lehigh City shows all of this area as an environmentally sensitive area.

It is all wetlands, and just something to just keep in mind as you make your decision.

Like is Ardo's areas really areas we want to build homes.

I know we have a lot of growth.

I get that.

We're not gonna just stop building, but it'd be really nice to do this with uh long-term um you know, smart approach to where our kids and our kids' kids still feel like there's some open space in some green area um in our city and around the lake.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else would like to speak to this item?

Hello, Commission.

Thank you for your your time and uh service on the commission.

Uh my name is David Packard.

I live in Spring Creek Ranch neighborhood.

I'm at the four-way stop of Spring Creek Ranch and 1630.

Um 1675 South Spring Creek Ranch Road is the address.

Um, I'm also a member of the Spring Creek Ranch HOA board.

So wanted to come hear the discussion tonight.

Um I think there's been a lot of comments already, so I don't need to um rehash those.

And I think Natalie said some of my my questions well.

Um the mature trees is a major question.

Um if you go in Spring Creek Ranch uh neighborhood, one of the the um main selling points and best features is that natural um the the trees, the wildlife.

There's great hiking and walking trails in there, um, and these would connect you know right into this proposed neighborhood.

Um so I'm sure this neighborhood would uh just be very cohesive.

They would come over for the trees.

So we'd love to preserve the the unique features as much as we could already.

Um also a question would be the the Spring Creek Ranch Park.

Um there's some great features, some pickleball courts, and those were recently resurfaced and good field, playground.

Um so there is some developed area, but a unique feature, you know, just west of that developed area is just, and you can see on the map, it's kind of just natural vegetation.

And kids love going in there off the beaten path, getting that uh that different experience than you would get.

Um I'm sure some of these would be future discussions, but I'm curious what the city would have in mind with potential expansion of that park.

Um another question that I have that I'm sure would be future conversations, just the uh formulation of an HOA for this development.

Um I think potentially we would be interested in just seeing what the possibilities would be of either merging um the two HOAs or maybe that has a separate HOA.

I'm not sure.

Um but again, thanks for uh your your time, your consideration.

I I work uh for a local government myself.

I sit through a lot of these meetings, so uh I I understand and appreciate your uh your dedication.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Anyone else who would like to speak to this item?

I'll just say one thing.

Come on up.

We own the property.

I'm Brant Call and we own the property to the west of this.

And I'm just curious how far this is gonna be away from the fence line because we run livestock in there and I just don't want.

I'd hate to have kids coming over and is there gonna be any kind of privacy fence or something.

Great question.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Katie, do you mind summarizing some of the comments we had online?

Yes.

So there were eight total.

One what uh seven were against and one was four.

Um a lot of the comments echoed what was heard tonight.

Um there were concerns about an increase in traffic.

Um concerns about loss of open space and potential community character, um, impact on nearby amenities in Spring Creek Ranch.

Um, and there were also concerns about wildlife in the area.

So thank you.

Uh we'll close the public hearing at this point, bring it back to the commission.

Um Tony will invite you up to address any of the questions that you heard.

Uh a lot of those comments are very similar to why we have worked with the city to try to get this to balance to preserve the open space to the south, not put residents down there.

Um build a few bigger lots along that park and try to keep it more natural.

Uh, we love the trees a lot.

I mean, that's on the trail.

I I do understand every property owner has the right to come tear those trees out on their property, but we would desperately hope they don't.

Other you know, some of the Russian dollars probably do need to be removed, but to to try to preserve a natural fill, that's the whole point of this.

We Spring Creek, we want to do something that is very similar to what they're doing and try to accomplish it that way.

Uh I mean that's the point of why it's gone in this direction.

The trail along the corridor is a good thing to uh uh Collins, we I did talk to his sister.

Yeah, the there would need to be a right to farm analysis done, and we need to put a fence up there that protects his right to farm.

And I we'd want to try to do it with them as much as possible to create something natural there, but whatever we need to do to protect their right to farm, would we work with him on the with with their their family on that?

Um FEMA.

This area is not in the flood.

I mean, everything that's shown on the lots is not in the floodplain.

It's not that's why the zoning happened the way it does.

So I mean, that's why we've been waiting working with FEMA.

It's outside of that, it's not in the ESA zone where we're working.

Um we would love the road.

I I mean if you look at where the road's being placed and what's south of it, there is a lot of space to the lake, lots of space.

Um you have just our dedication there, you know, 500 feet plus all the room that's outside of what we're dedicating.

So there's an awesome opportunity to do some, you know, a couple of nice trails and and preserve some wildlife down there.

Um a very good point in that natural park that you have of trying to preserve it to be natural.

We did do a trail connection at the recommendation of some of the staff we talked to right there between those two lots that are shown.

This may adjust slightly, but we want that to be a natural trail and connect through so everybody is able to you know benefit from this that natural environments that's created there.

Spring Creek is a great place.

They have some good neighbors.

Hopefully the intent is to match, like was stated what they have and bring some benefit to that.

Um there are a lot of things that need to be done to bring benefit to the city here.

A lot of that costs, bring some funds, and so what we just are trying to balance it the best we can.

Bring some bigger lots to create a nicer environment, do some similar lots to what Spring Creek has to match the neighborhood, and try to help to get this road through, get some of these trails connected, and and create a cool environment down here.

But that's the intent.

And we we love all your recommendations.

So whatever we can do to make this work, we just appreciate your help with it, and we'll work with the neighbors the best we can to make it work.

I have a quick question for you, Tony.

So just for clarification, particularly on those trees, particularly the trees that line are very close to the line of Spring Creek development and park.

Yeah.

Um is are you saying the intent is to pull none?

Zero of those trees out?

I I wouldn't say none.

I like to lock you in.

Yeah.

My intent would be no, but there are some that are in really bad shape.

There's some in there if you look, if you went and walked it.

There's some in there if you look, if you went and walked it, there's some dead ones that need to be cleaned up a little bit.

So I mean if I make a statement that we're not pulling any trees, I wouldn't to get some good ones growing in there, you need to pull some of those dead ones out and make it work.

So I'd say yes, there is there's my intent would be to clean it up, but not pull any trees.

There's it it's it's a nice place.

That a future parcel of landowner can do what they want with their land, right?

They can pull a tree if they want.

They absolutely could.

And I I mean that's but but they have preserved a space and most of those trees down through the park are are pretty close to the property.

I mean, there's some that go into the park, so we could absolutely I mean they're gonna absolutely be preserved.

And they do have that 20 foot trail corridor that goes up there that's a nice feature.

And so yeah, the more that we can we can help to preserve that the better.

But I don't I have no idea why those good ones up there anybody would pull, but everybody has the right to do what they're not planning to be pulled during excavation or or build out.

Not along that trail, that west side, no.

Like I said, if you go out there, you'll see there's some trees that need to come down.

They're not in good shape, and they're they're gonna cause some problems.

But if we can clean it up and preserve the good trees and help them survive would be absolutely the intent.

I mean, why why touch something you don't need to?

No, yeah, it's just more work for no reason.

And they are there as was brought up, that's a really nice feature.

Well, I mean, it'll help it'll help to have those along that trail.

It's a n it's a nice trail, it goes right down to the park.

The park is has natural, has pickleball courts over there.

If we can get a trail underneath this new road that they're gonna build that they can go through, it it just it really enhances the area.

Let's talk about that trail a little bit.

There was a question of would that be at least by an HOA?

Okay, it it it would be a public.

I mean, everything that's open space will be public.

So there's advantages to that, but it's also you know needs to be maintained by the public.

We as a city don't get involved with the HOA as far as merging or all of those things.

That's something that you as the developer and can discuss with that neighboring HOA.

That's uh some of the yeah, some of the challenges with that, but it uh that's that's a discussion for you guys to have.

Yep, we can do it not for us.

So uh you guys are gonna be don so pretty much everything south of the straight line from or the all the portions you're donating uh to public use and leaving open.

Are you donating the land that the future road is in, or are you working with you dog to already sell that?

Well, that's what I was just saying.

You know, if some of the recommendation was you know we'd prefer not to give those as a as a bonus, we'd prefer to buy the road.

That's okay.

I mean, that's fair.

It's just we're trying we know the we know the difficulties that are faced, and so uh I we're trying to come up with creative ways to make that everything balanced.

There's always a balance.

Yeah, no, make sure we we think yeah, it basically everything that south side would be dedicated, which is quite a bit of property.

And in doing that, and trying to concentrate the density uh further north and putting a few bigger uh you know, some of the bigger lots a little bit along that park, we we just think this is the right approach to do it.

But as of right now, the justification, the expenses on this are gonna be over the 10 lots.

So if we don't want that and we have to come back through what the purchases will be, we'll just we could just work that through that with the at the preliminary.

Any other questions?

Can I go back to the trees?

Please do.

Absolutely.

So are you guys going to put a fence along that back?

We don't have to put a fence on that side.

We do on the on the far side, yes.

So on the intent wouldn't be that the development does any you know, like a standard fence where you tear all the trees down and put a a single fence in.

Because I agree with what the statement is.

You know, if we could do if I were a property owner, I'd probably put a fence in there that works with the trees if I had to.

So there's there's challenges with that.

Well, the de you guys aren't planning to put a fence, but development is not planning to tear those trees out.

No prefer not to that they come out, but we'd clean them up and we'd help them would help that trail function a little better with some cleaner trees.

Because it is cool that there's bald eagles.

Oh, yeah.

So go through that area.

Well, that's why I said I've been down there and I I actually those you know, wetlands down below are pretty nice wetlands.

And if you can get a trail through there, it's it's it is it's a I mean they're not big trees down there, but it's a beautiful wetland, and yeah, they're like they said there's deer down there.

I've been there many times when the birds are out and flying and it walking through that natural park.

I'm plus you got pickleball courts, it's a nice, it's a nice setup.

So we feel this would enhance and help.

Um we were trying to buffer that natural park too.

We had a conversation, you know.

Do we put a road along that?

And we like your planner brought up I it would be nice to put lots against that and some of your bigger lots like you've shown to try to protect that park and that natural park and and keep some of the noise away from it.

So like I said, we a lot of directions have been given through this whole you know years process we've gone through.

Does uh Spring Creek rant the park there?

Does it have lights on the pickleball courts?

I don't think it does.

No.

No.

Because that was the other concern was light pollution.

Yeah, I think it does have some in the pavilion, but not on the pickleball courts.

Yep.

You don't have any top or you know, top lots or whatever foot parks or anything going in here.

No, more natural and trails and stuff like that is what our hope is.

Um yeah, I mean we'd yeah, if any enhancements needed to be done, we'd probably prefer they go over in your improved section.

But but it's a pretty it's a pretty decent park right now.

It's a good good space.

So our emphasis would be trails and open corridors and more natural.

Which I think is what the sentiment we've heard from residents when we've had communication.

Uh any other questions with that.

No, sir.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'm still here though.

Steph, there was the question of the zoning online that it's listed online as A5.

Uh yes, that is correct.

I think um it's just an error of our GIS department hasn't updated it yet, but we do have the zone change, right?

Yeah, yeah.

It took uh a little bit of time to get the water sorted out, but uh we probably just need to let our GIS people know.

They did take a zone change through last fall, summer.

It's been a year.

Yeah.

It's been about a year.

Okay.

And it was approved for the R122, but sometimes the ordinance just hasn't been recorded yet.

So we would have pushed a little quicker, but we're trying to resolve the road too.

So that's been a project you've been on for a while.

Um other questions for staff or other comments, concerns, questions.

Or motions.

Preferably just one.

I don't know if city council's gonna like the density in lieu of, and that's where I'm kind of leaning, like it the subdivision in the area makes sense.

It makes sense that it matches the neighborhood to the south of it and what's the north of it as well, or sorry, to the east of it and what's the north of it as well.

I just think the density in loo is something that our city council won't really go for.

Um at least just some of the online comments that some of them have made.

I think they'd rather just pay for improvements.

And that's that's up to them, right?

That's not really I mean, we are looking at a uh a layout here that shows that bonus 10 lots.

But again, that's not our decision to make.

That is absolutely the city council's decision to make, they control the purse on that.

Um I don't think we're final on it.

This is uh how do these work?

Sometimes these go forward, sometimes they don't.

Yeah, because it's a PRD, it would go forward.

Okay, because it says final review in the package.

Oh, okay.

Yeah, where if it was a standard subvision, this would be the final decision body, but with it being a PRD, it would go forward.

So this will go forward to the city council, even though the packet says final approval.

Yeah, I just thought is if your recommendation is that you'd rather have them spend the money and not try to work through these balances.

Yeah.

One of my comments earlier, did you work with TSSD at all as far as their pathway coming through?

Yeah, and I I've tried to I mean the other issue don't really have an exact alignment of that road as well.

So that's I mean, that's why we're we're trying to work through all those issues.

Makes sense.

So the more impact that we have, the more challenging things that we're dealing with and trying to work through purchase and dedication.

And uh yeah, so to have some flexibility on lots is I would be very good in this circumstance.

And to your point, the city council may or may not.

Yeah, our recommendation is we do feel like the in lieu situation here is appropriate and we'd just like some flexibility to discuss what those options are through you know, the preliminary and but you know, at the end of the day, if the city council says you'd we'd just rather pay for everything.

I mean that's it's challenging, but we'd we'd work with them however they need to work with.

So yeah, we just we just ask that you make a recommendation if you do it based on that the we feel that they that there is some justification for the inlu working, or I mean if your recommendation is no, just stick with the 62 lots, then it would be yeah, that they'd be paying for a lot of extra things.

But it's okay.

Well can I make a comment?

Sure.

Um first of all Tony, the applicant, he's juggling a lot of pieces in here to this puzzle and to try and make them all fit together.

And honestly, I think he's done a remarkable job in doing that and what he's presented here.

Um I just wanted to make that statement.

The second thing is that the density in lieu is a really great tool for the city to use.

I mean, they're giving up a lot for what they're getting there.

Um when I look at this and some of the other ones we've done, I'm kind of surprised it isn't more than 10 lots that were given up because some of that density was pulled out of that ESA zone and allowed to be put up into here too.

Um so I'm sort of surprised that it isn't more than 10 lots.

And it's a great tool for the city to use to save a lot of money.

And if we had to widen the road and buy the property and do all these other things, a lot of money.

It'll be a lot of money for the city, and you know, city's budgets are always tight and stretched anyway, so it allows us to have him put these in for us, basically.

Um we do give up um some density in lieu for that, but allows us to use that money in other spots of the city, you know, maybe around the corner there's some other intersections that need to be improved or something to help traffic flow in this area too.

So it's a great tool, and Tony's been very gracious and patient, honestly, with the city with some of the changes and things we've requested from him.

So I think it's it's a great option for the density in lieu.

And I think I think it's probably a very fair value for the city on this end.

Thank you, Gary.

Tony, with the alignment of that future road not finalized, not nailed down.

Are you concerned that we're gonna be pushing into the neighborhood?

There's gonna be imminent domain.

I think I think we can work with Brad.

We can make we'll make this work.

I mean, we've we've been working on it like Eric said, we've tried a number of different things to make this work, and it it's it is a it's absolutely a balance, and we like there's a reason why we've been at it a year and a half, you know, trying to come up with the right thing.

So we've had a lot of meetings and things like that.

Yes, it there's always a concern that we'd when we come back to preliminary, we'll have to justify a little bit more, or they may come in and say no, we we need to shift this way to the north and it changes everything.

But right now, this is what the city's intent was.

This is what you know, all the stuff we've worked through with planning and with engineering.

This just brings what everybody's trying to meld together into the right project and so many moving parts, but it just feels like this is the right direction to go to make everything work.

And and Gary's absolutely right.

That's why he said if we go through start justifying numbers, it's it's you didn't hear that.

We're fine, you know.

Well, I'd rather not I get it.

I'd rather not put you guys in a spot or uh or put the public because I really want to help the city get this done.

Sure.

So the last the last thing though, would this go to final plat before that road is the location is decided.

Well we're we're trying to work with Brad right now to get that decided.

Yeah, I mean that's why it's delayed.

Because now we he's got the phone.

We've got the alignment, we're working through that right now.

So the intent is that we have that all no, it needs to be done.

We need the alignment nailed down.

Why would we why would you put lots in and then come back and need to but the advantage is is we're putting it up on the fill instead of down in the bottom along the sewer.

The sewer is actually quite a bit further south than where he wants the alignment.

But I mean this this saves him quite a bit of fill.

I mean the advantage of putting it up on top of that fill too is we have to get under that box culvert for that trail.

So everything's working pretty good with what this development is showing, but the challenge is the way to approach them.

The recommendation in the discussion was this in lieu of and the reason why I didn't go over to 10 is because that's what the neighbors got.

They were much smaller.

Um I I do th I think 10's a fair approach.

It puts some burden on the developer, but that being said, I think it's the right project.

So I'm always about fair and right.

I just think this is the right project for this situation.

So that's why it's where it is.

Thank you, Tony.

Thank you.

As evidenced by my earlier comments, I was skeptical of the in lieu of with it being 10.

But I really appreciate Gary's comment and I trust him and his expertise explicitly, especially in this regard.

And so I'm ready to put forward a motion that we approve it if unless anyone has any objections.

All right.

What are we?

3.5 public hearing recommendation of Winnie's city development LLC's request for review of the spring metal village concept, a 72 lot single family PUD Plan Unit development located at 1630 South, 500 east.

The recommendation being that this be approved when it does go to City Council, with the findings being that the proposed concept is consistent with Lee City's development code and that it does conform to the goals of policies of the general plan and please include DRC findings.

Second.

Motion and a second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Thank you, Tony.

And uh go work out that HOA thing.

Sounds interesting.

Um so are we on 3.6?

Um request for the case.

Yes, so that has been removed.

So 3.6 is removed.

Yes.

That has been withdrawn and will be scheduled for the next planning commission meeting on the 26th.

Okay.

3.7 is crossed off on our packet.

I mean on our thing.

Which says public hearing recommendation Lehigh City's request for development.

That is Did you guys poll that?

No, we did not.

Okay.

So 3.6 has been pulled.

Yes.

Do we need to address that?

Um it was a public hearing.

So if you want to open public hearing, are there any public comments?

Uh no.

I don't remember any on the you can it'll it'll have public hearing.

So we'll have the public hearing when it comes back.

Okay, then let's go to 3.7.

Yes.

Sorry about that.

Be sure to check the agenda next time.

Um so 3.7 is public hearing and recommendation of Lehigh City's request for review of a demo development code amendment to both table uh to both table of uses and to chapter 12 to convert conditional uses to permitted uses based on pre-existing supplementary requirements.

This is the first of several phases to update the non-residential and residential table of uses.

The purpose of the comprehensive update is to adjust several sections of the conditional uses to be permitted uses per planning commission direction.

Some of you guys weren't here, but last year we kind of discussed this.

Um, and so that's what staff has been working on.

Uh the first part of the amendment prioritizes uses that are all that already contain supplementary requirements in chapter 12 that essentially act as conditional uses um act as conditions of approval.

There were no DRC comments for this.

Um this is a legislative item.

Uh the planning commission can give up either a positive or negative recommendation to the city council who will then approve, approve the changes, or deny the amendment.

You guys have a lot of discretion in recommending approval, approval changes and things like that.

Uh this is a public hearing item.

Uh there were no comments online for this one, so turn it back to you guys for any questions.

Thank you.

Any questions for staff?

Essentially we're trying to remove a lot of conditions, right?

Yeah, we're trying to streamline um the conditional uses of section of the code.

We notice that there are a lot of uses that require conditional uses, and there's a lot of times where they come to you guys and um you know, not quite sure what conditions could even be put on certain uses and things like that.

So we've actually worked a lot with Craig on um this table to kind of clean those up and what uses could actually have conditions put upon them.

So Billy we just tried to take out all the ones where uh conditional use is a permitted use with reasonable conditions.

We try to look at the reasonable conditions that could be to apply to the current conditional uses and go, okay, we're just gonna change the requirements for that to include what those are, because then that gives more clarity not only to applicants and people that are coming in, because a lot of people will come in to try and oppose a conditional use, thinking that you guys can just stop everything when in reality we can't stop anything.

That's not very fair to you or to those those individuals that come.

So it's nice to have that clear roadmap to to see how something gets approved.

It was unclear to me, will any of these be removed from our purview then?

Will they go to stop at DRC?

Or will they still come before us just now as a permitted instead of as a conditional use?

Yeah, let me double check.

Um do you?

I think it would depend on if they ask for exceptions.

If it goes to a permitted use, probably actually quite a few of them would stop before they get to go to it and if they meet all of the standard conditions, or you know, the preset ones that are in chapter 12.

Unless they were asking for an exception for parking or setbacks or some of those things that we've seen.

Or high defense.

Yeah.

Yeah.

It also gives you guys a little bit more power, right?

If it's an if it's an exception that gives you a little more leeway um legal standing to to deny or to amend or to you know work with someone just kind of like the the the signs, right?

22 beat, but anything above that's a B you know it's an addition that they can come to you.

So I think what this does is it clarifies a lot of that.

Sure.

No, I'm that's all I was afraid of.

Are we being boxed out?

Okay, so question for me.

There are just a few instances like with heliports where I am seeing that their conditional use is being removed entirely across all districts.

Uh so that's conditional use and permitted use.

So in cases like that.

Let me see if I can find another example.

My question is does that mean that they're just no longer allowed, period?

Whether permitted or conditional?

Yeah, if there's not a P or a C in the box, then that's but there are their exceptions for hospitals and things like that, correct?

Yeah, some of those we just felt like maybe they weren't compatible.

Um sin moved out of the city, he's really mad that he you know wanted his own heliporter in the backyard.

Well, I'm trying to remember if there was another reason.

Maybe heliports are allowed as part of hospitals.

I'm trying to remember.

Well, even the packet here says heliport was removed due to an amendment last year that clarified that heliports are allowed as an accessory use for hospitals.

Yeah, we went over that one, I remember the I think that's why they were removed.

So it's saying removed everywhere but hospitals, basically.

Is that what that's saying?

Yeah.

Are there any other public facilities or public uses where a helipad might be crucial other than a hospital?

Chick-fil-A.

Chick-fil-A.

You guys remember last year someone in Harriman built a heliport on their house?

Oh my gosh.

It was really sweet.

And like, but then the neighbors complain and end up going to like legislation or something.

If you make it a conditional use, you know, like we said, it's a permitted use with reasonable, you know, exceptions.

If you make it a conditional use, you know, like we said, it's a permitted use with reasonable you know exceptions, and that went, I I believe they're still involved in some litigation because obviously someone who can build a heliport will has a heliport in their yard has probably funds by the striking striking this for the table of use, though, doesn't limit if a new hospital was built and they wanted to put a heliport in it.

Correct.

Yeah, we I actually just looked up in our definitions and it says heliports may have a hell or hospitals may have a heliport as an accessory use.

Um that supersedes the table of uses.

I always thought the table of use is superseded if there was a conflict.

No?

If the code specifically says that they can do something, I think it would okay.

I mean we want to put definitions, I mean, yeah.

Also, we do in our table of uses, we do call for um accessory uses uh incidental to an authorized use, and that's permitted across the board.

So that's kind of how that falls in line.

Yeah, we're getting rid of the ability to put in medical cannabis facilities.

Feels short-sighted.

Short-sided.

Feels like something that today we're probably comfortable with, but we'll probably have to change that down the road.

We didn't get rid of them everywhere just liquor store is gonna be permitted.

Um yes, so that does have like a supplementary requirement.

Okay.

Yeah.

Unless the state code changes.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I know you're joking about cannabis, but actually going back to helipads.

I'm curious in a few years if people are actually going to be regularly transported via helicopter.

Just I don't know.

We may see this come back.

Or drone.

Um anyways, the the actual real question, the real reason I spoke up is the other use that I'm seeing that's completely being removed is retail facilities and services necessary to a principal use.

And maybe I'm just missing it elsewhere, but it looks like all those uses are being removed.

Again, that's retail facilities and services necessary to a principal use.

Um I believe it's accessory to a principal use.

Correct.

Zoom in.

Yeah.

I think the strikeout is a little accessory to a principal use, you're right.

Yeah, and I think we struck that because it was redundant with the we allow accessory uses for unauthorized permitted use.

Um and so we were like, this just is redundant.

Yeah.

Okay.

Awesome.

Love this.

It's great.

This is a public hearing.

If anybody from the public, Craig would like to speak to this will open.

Seeing none, we will close the public hearing and bring it back for a motion or further deliberation.

Go ahead.

Okay.

I will we'll uh make a um motion.

That would part was really hard.

I will try to do better on the rest of this motion.

On item 3.6.

Correct?

3.6 or 7.7.7.

3.7.

On item 3.7, public hearing and recommendation of Lehigh City's request for review of a developmental development code amendment to both table of uses into chapter 12 to convert conditional uses to permitted uses based on pre-existing supplementary requirements.

I move that we rec recommend approval.

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

And there are no DRC comments, but please include those anyway.

I'll second.

Motion in a second, all in favor?

Any opposed.

All right, 3.8.

Item 3.8 is public hearing and recommendation of Lehigh City's request for review of its development code amendment to chapter 12 to require the buffering and screening requirements for existing residential homes in a non-residential zone in non-residential zones.

The amendment includes adding um the language and existing residential use to the list for required buffers.

Uh currently the buffer requirement relates to the zoning district and not the actual use itself.

This will require a buffer for residential uses instead of just the zones.

Providing a buffer in the mixed use and transit oriented development areas may reduce walkability, so you may want to consider that.

And this is also a public hearing item, but there were no online comments, so turn back to the commission for any questions.

Thank you.

Any questions for staff?

This one is thrilling.

Like how how do we account for that?

Kim's like, that's right.

That was a good question.

So the the DRC comment that you put, Kim, is how do we account for meeting code requirements for creating a street wall along places like Main Street, State Street?

Okay, I remember this now.

So the example that we thought of was the mind pose yoga studio right north of Pioneer Market.

Um so if you if we imposed the buffering requirements, they would not have been able to put that building over to their property line.

So then you'd have these gaps as you develop.

So yeah, the I don't know if there's a good answer to that.

The would the city council directed us to make this code revision, but as we were thinking through it, this this is maybe a an unintended consequence that you know it would it would create some gaps.

Um maybe they could fill that 12 feet in later with a new portion of the building if the next because there's a home right next to that yoga studio, and they're in the yoga studio's wall goes right up to the property line.

They're in the mixed use zone, so under the current version, you know, not uh taking into account this amendment, they were able to do that because they were zoned mixed use, so the buffering didn't wasn't required, but because it this would now say even if it's zoned mixed use of its residential use, you still have to do the buffer.

So it would just, you know, that's probably not gonna have a huge impact other than some of those main street areas where we're trying to create a more of a continual street wall.

So just something to consider, and I don't know, maybe we carve out um, you know, we could say accept residential uses along Main Street, or you know what I mean?

Is that something they could come to planning commission or c and or city city council to make that exception?

Um yeah, yeah, you could it sounds like it's not gonna be very many.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

So you're saying maybe we write it in there, but say unless otherwise it's you know, an exception is made for properties along Main Street or they have a a path if at least comes up.

Would it be along Main Street or specifically the historical district?

Probably more the historical is our was you know, where we're but but that could include the historic part of state street as well.

So maybe we just carve it out for the historic district because that covers both of those areas.

So Kim, would this affect like, for example, that one over by Hutch's furniture, that kind of hotel that was going in there because it was next to it, right?

It would.

Yeah, yeah, they would have had to have provided the 12-foot buffer on that west side of their project, which would not have allowed the hotel to be built.

That project died, right?

Yeah, we haven't seen anything.

I don't think it's officially dead, but there's a for sale sign up.

Yeah.

We haven't seen any in any activity for a while.

They actually they even I think they started submitting their checkoffs, you know, to finalize everything, and then it yeah, we haven't heard for several months.

Yeah.

So yeah, that's a good point.

But yeah, we could create some language in there that gives at least the ability to make an exception if it's in the historic design district.

The the reason this came up is you remember the the property over by the the old police station on State Street where it used to be, and there's the vacant piece that we used to own.

We've sold it, and they were trying to put in a project and the piece, I guess northeast of that was residential, and when it went to city council for the zone change.

Anyways, that that's where this initiated and they said, hey, let's fix this.

We think we should still buffer even if it's zoned, not residential, if it's a residence currently, we still think we should buffer it.

So that's how we drafted it.

But yeah, as we got thinking when it went through DRC, we're like, oh wait, this could cause some unintended.

It would make some of the lots along Main Street unveilable.

Yeah, by the time you get the buffering, yeah.

You're you because those aren't super wide.

So I think part of the reason I wasn't remembering that is because I think Mike was actually the one that picked up on this.

So any any of the planning staff who have comments that all goes under my name.

So I'm like, I don't remember making that, but it was I think it was Mike that just goes.

Yeah, here you go.

One in spirit.

Any other questions for staff?

This is a public hearing.

We will open the public hearing now.

Seeing none, we will close the public hearing.

And I would entertain a motion or further discussion.

Could you decrease that's I mean the part of the conditional use is right?

We could say well in this zone, let's decrease the use.

But that would be our discretion.

Yeah, again, we could craft it however we want.

We could say, you know, a reduction could be allowed and leave it kind of on a set by some areas it would be nice to have that path.

If we're gonna have parking in the back.

It's nice to be able to walk.

Yeah, like a pass through, like we have with over by a fac, there's a little path that goes through.

Yeah, or you ought to try if you haven't.

My gosh.

The eye doctor, they have a little passeo thing.

Paseo.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Um there's another one.

Yeah, yeah, there's a couple of those little alleyways.

Whatever happened to that bar.

But they wanted to put back over behind the boot store.

They've never resolved the spacing requirement because the Timpanogas Baptist Church is it doesn't meet the proximity requirement from a community location.

Sure.

As long as that church is there.

It's a couple of blocks.

Yeah, I think it's 600 feet footage.

Yeah.

So it's like 550 from the anyways.

Pretty close to the church.

We're we're diverging a little bit.

I apologize.

Um other questions?

No questions.

I'll put forward a motion for item 3.8, with the motion being that the planning commission is recommending approval for this particular development code amendment with the request that staff continue to consider the question originally posed by Mike, but then stolen by Kim.

Of how do we account for meeting code requirements of creating a street wall along Main Street, State Streets, and similar streets.

Motion any second, all in favor?

Any post.

We did it.

We made it to the end.

Um city business.

Um we do have the planning conference coming up.

Uh it's second week in April.

I know uh I wanna I'd love to know.

Yeah, we'll it's in Bryce if that's any incentive.

You ignored my text.

I get it, it's okay.

Yeah, yeah, that's actually where it'll be it.

That's where everything at Bryce is.

Yeah.

That's the only thing in Bryce.

If you're interested, I think it's uh like Wednesday night is more of just kind of a reception.

Most of the classes will be on Thursday and then half the day Friday.

It's a pretty big commitment to go down there.

But yeah, we always have budget for a few.

I mean, if all seven wanted to go, that might be a little bit challenging, but that's usually not the case anyway.

So we'll open it up and it's not available.

Okay.

What was the day again?

Uh I think it's April.

Let me pull it up here.

8th, 9th, 10th.

I am hoping I'm not available.

Okay.

I think that's spring break is.

Well, I'm trying to fly standby, so that's where I'm not gonna be.

Can we can we go over our meeting schedule with spring break coming up?

When are we on?

When are we off?

Um yeah, in fact, we could probably pull it up on the website, just the yearly calendar.

So yeah, because of spring break, that normally you would have a meeting on April 9th, and that's no longer the case.

So we'll have the is that what we list?

Oh April 2nd and then April 23rd.

Yep.

Cool.

So you still have a meeting the 26th, but yeah.

Of March.

Yeah, we have one more regular meeting this month.

Any any insights to that meeting?

Yeah, they're pretty cool.

Uh the 26, I think is similar to tonight, maybe a little smaller.

Are we finally gonna see that uh you will see you'll probably it'll probably have significant public because that will be the one that the Traverse Mountain where they're proposing to move a lot of their density out of that West Canyon area down closer to the highway.

And yeah, I would expect you might have the whole room full.

So we'd be over there.

Will we be in a bigger room?

Uh not yet.

There the goal, the the last I guess target.

I'd heard nothing firm.

But they were trying to make sh make it ready to have the first city council meeting, which is the 14th of April, so it'll probably be your second meeting.

You know, that that only regular meeting in April, the 23rd would be over there.

So your next one will be here, the work session will be here.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Especially that one item.

Those are fun.

You guys really haven't had levels yet.

I've been here for a barn burner, but not a fight.

Yeah, yeah, there's a couple general planets.

We got spirited discussions.

Uh civil numbers.

You should have put a limit.

Yep.

Two minute limit.

That's a good reminder.

Help us remember more useful.

One minute limit.

We do have an update.

The city is my understanding received C of O of the new building today.

Okay.

Sweet.

But I think the plan is to move all of the library in before they start hearing having meetings there.

Yeah.

And I don't want to burst your bubbles, but I have a feeling they probably want to have a council meeting before a planning commission meeting.

But I don't know.

Let's push to do it the other way.

Just because they already do a council meeting over there.

Allegedly.

I sat through that one.

That one's fired with there was some backdoor in the middle of the night.

Oh, that's it was a a temporary certificate of occupancy.

Well temporary occupancy.

Okay, that's all I have.

Motion to adjourn.

Oh, pause.

Before we do that.

This has been I I have a broken record because I keep coming back to this.

I'm thinking about when item 3.5, and you may tell me that we can't talk about this because we've already voted on it.

But for item 3.5, I feel like city council is gonna have the same question.

Like, are these in lieu of appropriations?

Are they worth what we're getting back?

The difference, may I sorry?

Yep, please.

The difference is the city council has the ability to go into a closed door meeting to go over the finances.

We don't.

And they don't want to make the finances public.

So they do have the finances though.

They could get the I'm not saying they do, but I'm saying City Council has a mechanism to take uh be uh part of the meeting behind closed doors where other things could be discussed.

I'm not saying they will or would, but potentially could be discussed.

Is that correct, Craig?

Yes, but I mean there's very strict guidelines on what and just when you can go into a closed meeting.

It all depends if it's regarding the purchase of property, you know.

Talking about an employees, you know, or a council members you know, personnel file type stuff, or you know, ongoing retention litigation.

Um the nice thing about council though is with Gary, you know, Lauren's there, you know, Brad's there, as well as if they needed to, they could you know work through and potentially get a development agreement or recommended development.

Yes, they do have different levers they can pull.

I mean, ultimately though, when it comes to the inlu determination, you know, that's a policy decision with whether or not you think it is you know, from the information you have, if you think that it's it's a benefit for the city and based on the specific facts, as long as you can articulate that, you know, that's the biggest key.

Is a motion that contains a if appropriate.

Meaning the motion that's something along the lines of if the council agrees that they that the finances line up or whatever, however you work that.

Well, you I mean ultimately you're the recommending body, right?

So I would prefer it the you know, we're okay with this, but we recommend that the city council take a hard look at X, Y, and Z.

Because they watch these meetings and they go through all the notes.

So in the future, as more in LU items come up, is it safe for me to assume that if an in loo item is being put in front of us, then city staff are comfortable with the trade-offs that are being provided by the developer.

Yeah, that's true, yeah.

That's not something we take lightly.

We look at that really hard and fast, and we've told people they can't.

I mean, they want three lots, and we say you only can qualify for one.

That's all we can justify.

And so we we try to be fair with the developers.

That's a fair question on your part, because that's your guys' job, right?

Yeah.

Oh, I didn't ask those hard questions.

Yeah, we have the answer to have them.

You know what I mean?

And I mean, I've been in meetings before where Tim said they're asking for these exceptions.

Well, are you comfortable with this?

Well, when they came to us, we said this many, but they wanted it to go forward with this many.

So yeah.

Sorry, I mean, back in the ormic or one of the one in spirit.

Back in the day, our packets used to have an actual recommendation from the from the staff.

They don't anymore.

It's just neutral, like it's a positive or negative.

They used to come to us saying staff recommends negative or staff recommends a positive, or moving forward or whatever.

They don't do that anymore, and I I miss it to some degree, but I also understand why that change was made.

Um, I'm taking that to mean that staff are now withholding those applications or they're massaging them until they actually do feel comfortable with them until providing them to us.

So moving forward, I'm now looking at all in LU applications as being city staff is comfortable with these.

I don't think so.

I think the city's I think the applicant can push it forward, even if they're saying that's not a good idea.

Right.

I think your responsibility would be to ask.

Or maybe in a staff report, if we're not comfortable, we should be letting you know, like, hey, this this is way out of line for what we feel like is justifiable.

Kind of like that uh development out in Willow Park, right?

Where you could have 18 houses or whatever it was and they asked for 600.

Whatever it was, right?

18 versus 2000 or something.

And again, I know that was not an inlou.

That was just an ask, but still.

If I had to summarize, I would say I think Warren engineering they're not comfortable because of some of the sensitive information about property values and prices of what developers have paid for land.

So it's difficult to put in like an actual and and to be, you know, to the dollar amount because the other part of it is I think it it is a little bit, I don't know, fuzzy math if you want to call it, or a little bit of discretion, like well, you know, they that but they do put in like okay, either we get a value from the developer for what they paid, or like Gary said in the work session, they'll just take some comps from the area and they'll say, okay, you're giving us X acres for road dedication.

That equates to X dollars for the value base, you know, for this area, and a lot roughly equals, I don't know, if they have a value, 50,000 per lot, or so I think they're they're doing some of the the actual you know comparison.

It's not just totally like, oh, that seems about like this.

They're trying to do some math, but it's not an exact science.

So it's hard to have some kind of a cost basis as well, right?

We know how much it costs them to put a certain amount of feet of trail.

Yeah, now the trails are a little more definitive, you know, yeah, asphalt per square foot or whatever linear foot or yeah, that's true.

We go through and we actually add it all up.

You know how many square feet of asphalt and sub face and face and trail and all those amenities and stuff that they will be putting in.

And we actually add all those up from our current contractor pricing.

So we actually get a pretty good value on that.

I mean, it can fluctuate a little bit too.

Then we look at their land values is really kind of what we base that off of.

We deduct that a little bit because of the development factors, what we call it, because it costs a lot of money to develop these properties.

So we give them a little bit of an advantage that way, then we divide one cost into the other, and it gives a total acreage of lots, and then knowing how many units per acre that gives how many lots we can come up with.

So it's it is a little bit fuzzy, I guess, mostly in the development factor, because that's a little bit the pro land cost.

Yeah, and the land cost, yeah.

We usually try to get the land cost.

Although developers are becoming more and more hesitant to give us those values, so it's becoming a bigger challenge.

And if it is uh, you know, let's say the in their calculations it comes up to, you know, this qual would qualify for 2.7 lots.

A lot of times they'll just say we're gonna round up to three because it does put a little bit of burden on the developer to put those extra improvements in, their contractor does the work.

Anyways, is that a fair statement?

But it we don't go to 2.7 and round to five, right?

Right.

Oh no.

Yeah.

It's a rough proportionality thing, you know.

So would we be putting any of you in an uncomfortable situation to ask you in front of a developer if you feel okay with it and you would say no?

Or would you be okay to do that?

Yeah, yeah.

Put us on the spot.

He spoke up he spoke up when it was in favor of yeah, like tonight with the 10.

Yeah, you swayed me that way.

I like that.

Oh, that was fair.

And the nice part is we're gonna get money from you dots, so that was fair too.

So yeah.

Um, I think we had the developer come through well, quite a while ago, and they wanted three lots.

I think we gave them two.

I think it was two.

Is that on the one on 1500 NORS the fucks they trail?

Pushing and pushing and pushing.

They do have a right to come shoot.

They do landing commission, even if they don't agree.

So if there is one like that, maybe you can get a you know, a sign or something.

I feel like I feel like in that can scenario, we usually at least leave like a DRC comment or something.

That would probably be the best opportunity.

So you have advanced heads up as you're reading the packet.

Oh, Gary and DRC said this, you know, we don't really see a justifiable reason.

I think even in that one I did say, you know, city engineering says, you know, we're only comfortable with two lots on this.

Yeah, you do that.

It's just I guess the hard part is just kind of deciphering through all of that.

So no, I think it's a fair question to ask in the commission though, for sure.

Awesome.

Okay, thank you.

I get some dirty looks, but they buy we'll talk about that later.

Closed door sessions.

We got a pair of political cellulite.

Now motion.

Yes, motion to adjourn.

Second.

All in favor.

Any opposed?

Sorry.

Yeah, bang the gavel.

No.

No.

So this this gap.