It's always right around.

Happy birthday, Gary.

Welcome.

Yeah, for real though.

I'm going to take a minute.

I'd like to make a motion that we sing for it again.

Should we start or is Kim coming?

Okay.

All right, it is the time.

Seven o'clock.

Welcome to our planning commission on this lovely March 26th.

A little bit cooler weather today.

I'm a little grateful for.

We uh will move into the agenda items.

Let's go on to the consent agenda.

I would like to make a motion that we approve the consent agenda of, I guess.

From the March 5th, 2026 meeting.

I'll second it.

Motion and a second.

All in favor.

Any opposed.

We will recognize Commissioner Jackson tonight.

He has been away.

We excuse him this evening.

We're excited to have Paulo up here, though.

We'll move right into regular agenda, item 3.1.

Brittany.

And this was on the agenda for March 12th, but they asked to push it to this meeting.

So it was noticed for both of those.

Let's see if we can get to the So the proposal.

At first they wanted to just amend our light office warehouse use.

So they're proposing this new flex commercial building.

The definition they're saying is a commercial building designed to accommodate flexibility in internal arrangement of retail office warehouse and service is at least 15% of the building square footage shall consist of office reseller service area.

So idea is you know warehouse, but with some sort of kind of storefront area.

And they're proposing it in commercial, heavy commercial, regional commercial, light industrial mixed use, and technical manufacturing.

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

Thank you.

Do you know why the uh DRC comment uh was to remove it from the mixed use?

Just because it's a little bit more of like a warehouse type use, so not necessarily something that we're envisioning in the walkable like downtown kind of area, maybe more in a commercial area.

Thank you.

Any other questions for staff?

All right, this is a public hearing.

If anybody's here for item three point, actually, excuse me, is you're the applicant, never mind.

No, you're not.

X development, are you here?

Come on up.

Good evening.

My name's Jason Bowl.

Uh I am an urban planner with Snell and Wilmer.

We represent uh XDevelopment and are assisting on this application.

Um thank you for staff.

Um not only for uh providing staff report, but also uh as was mentioned the comments and going through the DRC process.

So we um have been looking at uh we looked at it initially modifying the existing definitions that were in the code.

Um as it seems that there is a need, a slight need, a slight tweak needed for uses that do contain a warehouse component, but also have more of a retail focus than what you typically find in a warehouse component.

A lot of times with flex buildings and and buildings that warehouses permitted, you think of industrial parks, and you don't think of a place that customers want to come and look at a showroom or come and try out uh the goods that are being that are gonna be sold.

And so that's where the niche that we're trying um trying to find, trying to fix with this text amendment.

Um so and to go along with that and recognizing that there is this desire for it to be in the retail zones, the commercial zones, and to have uh to bring in customers, you know, that's why we did include um the design elements to make sure that it is an inviting building.

Um staff had recommended in the staff report and through DRC uh talking about making some small tweaks, which I've put up here uh as well.

We are completely comfortable with the tweaks.

I think staff understands the vision that we have again that these aren't warehouse buildings that belong in an industrial park, that these are buildings that are in a commercial zone that have tenants that may come and go, but there's a need for that flexibility and for the variety of uses with the market that we're seeing in real estate and the need we're seeing for uh commercial uses.

So we are also um we're comfortable uh and understand the desire uh to eliminate from the mixed use zone.

Um and just real quickly uh along with um to give you idea of what kind of buildings or what kind of tenants rather would be used in uh we'd look to attract to these buildings, you know, athletic events and trainings, those j gyms, those larger areas that um again you want customers coming to, you don't necessarily want them going to an industrial park, a manufacturing park, but they have that space and that ability to utilize um the building.

Um so small startups, technology firms where there's that flexibility in the businesses getting up and going and what that business model looks like may change from day one to you know day three sixty-five after they've been there a year.

And so having that flexibility and that ability uh to change within that space is um is the purpose for um we're looking to to add this to the code.

Um again, customer facing uh employment oriented um and just an idea in con so you have an idea of concepts of that some of the things that we've seen as far as what it would anticipate to look like.

You know, these are buildings with parking up front where customers drive right up, that they belong in a retail and a commercial area uh as opposed to um larger warehouse buildings, which yeah, have the space, but they're not customer-facing, they don't belong in the commercial zone.

Um they're focused more on that warehouse aspect and that trucking aspect.

Um, then this is again, we just we see that there's a need, there's a strong desire for this type of use, these type of buildings here in Lehigh.

And so we are asking for the text amendment to add the definition and add it to the land use code uh tables.

So I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

Any questions for the applicant?

I have one.

Okay.

Sorry.

Um Office warehouse is clearly a thing.

We see it all over, right?

It's all over the valley, it's all over the county.

Uh it's even all over Lehigh in a lot of places.

Why why are we looking to redefine office warehouse as flux commercial?

So I think the the change in the difference is this isn't the idea and the concept here is more of that customer facing and bringing in the customers to uh to the site so that there is a sales floor so that there is there are customers visiting, not just picking up goods or not just employees going there and working on the packaging or the office.

And so that's the that's the niche, that's the slight difference that we're seeing that we feel that this definition w works a little better than the the existing definitions to to promote that type of business.

Okay.

In in your comments uh that you submitted to the city and individual suite or unit sizes are capped at 30,000 square feet.

So you could have a unit of 30,000, but the building would be much larger.

Yeah, that was the intent.

Yep.

Okay.

Are there do you have examples?

You showed some pictures of possible, but are there examples around that we could potentially think about?

Um I know we had talked internally about some.

I didn't include any, and I apologize.

I don't I know I don't remember exact the exact addresses to identify.

Yeah.

Carla Mata with XDevelopment.

Um there is actually not one that we can point to that is exactly what we're trying to duplicate.

We have a lot of users that approach us that they're kind of segmented right now.

They have their offices in one location, their retail location a different, their warehouse in a different, and they a different location, and they want to bring them all in one.

And so we want to provide um uh a concept where we can accommodate those three uses or two of the three uses, and but do it in a way where it's a place where there's gonna be people that want to go to do some retail shopping, where there's gonna be foot traffic where it's not gonna be you know, in a not very well lit industrial park out in whatever city, you know.

Um we we just want to be able to create a retail environment where people enjoy shopping and where people can go and have their entire work um environment all in one place.

Thank you.

Any more questions?

No.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

You can have a seat.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

All right, this is a public hearing.

We'll invite anybody from the public that would like to speak to item 3.1 to come up and address us at this point.

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

Do we have online comments on this one?

This one had I think I've seen a version of this down in American Fork by Tempanogo Special Service District.

It's actually where I bought my hat from.

But it's the storefront.

Um they had like a retail area, and then the backside was all warehouse where they did their shipping stuff.

So it almost created like a brick and mortar for these startup companies or companies that are want to have a retail front, but then they also have the shipping aspect in the back end of it.

I was thinking of some of the places along the Mill Pond.

Over there, there seems like there's a couple clothing places and have a little shop out front.

I wonder, would this be similar to what we had the Lehigh Library temporarily, something similar to that where it is where that dance where the move dance studio is and stuff like that?

Right.

That's a little different.

I think that's more traditional warehouse space.

Please do.

Just one thing to keep in mind.

We do want to put them in a center where we can add additional out parcels, pads where we can add what sit-down dining or or or potentially fast food, any kind of restaurant five that's gonna, you know, create what would feel like a shopping center, but still have the roll-up doors in the back where they can unload all their goods and everything similar to, you know, Costco has a place, you know, has the retail front, but then it has all the doors in the back for all the loading.

Obviously, we're not talking on that scale, right?

These are gonna be smaller for smaller startups or um I obviously we'd like to have the flexibility, so maybe some of them are bigger units and some of them are smaller units.

We just would like to see the zoning code exist because I think it's something that it's a use that is in demand and it and there might be something similar, but not exactly with what we're hoping hoping to have the flexibility to do in the city of Lehigh.

Thank you.

I like this.

I think it's good.

Um I appreciate in the report that staff mentioned that they felt like this use is different enough from uses that we currently have where it warrants a new designation.

Um and I like this.

I I see why there could be a need for it.

So I'm ready to put forward a motion unless anyone has any further thoughts.

Can I make one more comment?

Please do the my fear is that we'd just have more large-scale warehouses with the storefront.

Yeah.

Right.

So it doesn't sound like this is the idea they're going for, be more of a 30,000 square foot, keep a building smaller.

So that's my that's my concern.

But other than that, um, yeah, go for it.

Do it.

Don't encourage me.

Uh putting forward motion for item 3.1, public hearing recommendation of X developments request for review of a development code amendment to table 5.030B and chapter 39, adding a flex commercial building use.

The recommendation being that we approve, or sorry, we are providing a positive recommendation.

We're not approving anything here.

This is gonna go before city council.

Uh with the findings being that this proposed amendment will provide more commercial opportunity in the city.

And that it is in conformance with the purposes, intent, and provisions of the general plan and its various elements.

And please be sure to include the various DRC comments.

Second.

Motion and a second.

All in favor.

Aye.

Any opposed.

All right.

When will this go to city council?

Yeah.

Approach 28.

Great.

Mr.

Chair.

Yes.

Sorry.

Did we take out take it out of the mixed use column?

He included the DRC comments, which had the okay.

Sorry.

I should have been more way to check.

All right.

So end of April for you guys.

Brittany, uh 3.2.

And 3.2 public hearing and recommendation of sleigh holding LLC's request for R1 Flex residential zoning on the sleigh holdings annexation.

Um, which is four acres of property located approximately 2300 west, 300 south.

Um so this is a part of the annexation process.

It has already gone to City Council for the intent to annex, which they approved, and then it comes here for you to review the proposed zoning on it, and then it'll return to council for final approval of the annexation.

Um so it's this four acres right here.

Um the proposed R1 Flex zoning is consistent with the general plan that's low density residential.

Um it also does have this open space area through it because there's power lines that um pass through it, so a big portion of it isn't buildable.

Um yeah, it's just looking at that R1 flex zoning.

R1 flex zoning has a minimum lot size of 8,000 square feet and density of 3.25 units per acre in this case where it's um under 10 acres.

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

Thank you, Brittany.

Uh any questions for staff?

Is the applicant present?

Hi there.

Hi.

We're just proposing for final approval for the annexation.

Can we get your name?

Shane Yates.

Shane Yates.

Anything you wanted to add from the report that we missed or no, I think we've covered.

I mean, we've been working with Kim and the group, and so this is what they are proposing, I believe.

So any questions for the applicant?

Are you water rights coming with the property?

Uh we'll have to put them in once we develop it, yeah.

But I don't have any water rights at the moment, no.

Okay.

Okay.

All right.

Well, pretty easy for you tonight.

Yeah, pretty easy, hopefully, huh?

Okay.

Thank you.

Um, this is a you can have a seat.

Okay, thank you.

Uh this is a public hearing.

If anybody is here to speak to item 3.2, we will open the public hearing now.

Seeing none, just want to confirm.

Were there any com there were no comments online?

So we will close the public hearing.

Bring it back for further discussion or motion.

Gary, I think this question's for you.

I'm remembering some moons ago where we talked about it was either this property or one of the adjoining properties, and we were talking about the connection between Grays Drive there and the soon-to-be neighborhoods.

And from what I remember, the connection point is gonna have to be on the south, so it's not gonna actually those roads aren't gonna cross by a T.

They're gonna be staggered a little bit.

Am I remembering that correctly?

Um, if I understand your question right, yeah, there will be an intersection plan for there.

Yep, correctly, and it will come across and swoop down and go on on the southern part of the property into Auburn Springs, which is being worked on right now.

Okay.

So, yeah, it will go through there.

Will the that road that's gonna be built, will that be directly in front of Gray's Drive?

So it'll be like a four-way.

Yep.

Okay.

Yep, okay.

How do we traditionally handle these in the past where as part of the R1 flex zone it says they have to bring over just shy of 1.6 acre feet of water and 2.1 acre feet of irrigation water, but the applicant doesn't have that ready at the moment?

I can try and answer that.

So the city does work with Lehigh Metropolitan Water District.

And normally there are times when they run out, but I know as of right now, they have some water available.

They have culinary that would easily cover this irrigation.

It might be tight on how much they currently have, but we just hold on recording the ordinance until they've provided the water.

And uh the way our approvals work, they'd have two years.

So this this has to go to city council, and then from council's final approval, they have two years to figure out um how to turn that water in.

So they can either go look for shares themselves or or make a payment through Lehigh Metro, and then we'd transfer the water from Lehigh Metro to Lehigh City.

Okay.

Sounds good, thank you.

Yep.

I'm in a good mood tonight.

I'm ready to approve this one as well, unless anyone has I would love to hear about that.

Do it.

Okay.

Uh putting forward a motion for item 3.2, public hearing recommendation of sleigh holdings LLC's request for R1 Flex residential zoning on the sleigh holdings annexation, four acres of property located at approximately 2300 west, 300 south.

The recommendation being that we approve the proposed zoning on the property to be annexed with the findings that it does conform to the goals and policies of the general plan.

And please include all the ERC comments.

Thank you.

Recommendation.

I'll second the recommendation.

Motion and a second.

All in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed.

What did I say?

I thought you just said approval.

I said approval.

Thank you, Brett.

Just keep them coming.

Um keep them moving.

3.3.

Okay, item 3.3.

Public hearing and recommendation of Gary Cooper's request for R1 Flex residential zoning on the Cedar Hollow Holdings annexation.

Which is 15.31 acres of property located approximately 400 South Center Street.

So this is very similar to last one.

Again, this is the second meeting of the annexation process.

It'll go to city council.

You're really just considering the zoning.

Um again, it's R1 Flex.

Um it is a little bit different since it's over 10 acres.

Um so the requirement when it's over 10 acres, it still is a minimum lot size of 8,000 square feet, and the maximum density actually goes up to 3.5.

Um, but each development shall contain a mix of lot sizes.

40% must be 12,000 square feet or larger.

30% must be between 10,000 um to 11,999 square feet, and 30% must be between 8,000 and 9,999 square feet in size.

Um when calculating the required number of lots, the numbers may be rounded.

So there will have to be a mix of uses with R1 Flex in this case where it's over 10 acres.

Um but the proposal for R1 Flex is consistent with the LDR low density residential general plan designation that's in place for that area.

Brittany, did you say mix of uses?

Sorry, mix of lot sizes.

Just making sure that's new to me.

Okay, I'm sorry.

Uh any questions for staff?

So a mix of lot sizes from what size to what size?

So yeah, that's what I was just stay stating.

So um 40% have to be 12,000 square feet or larger.

30% have to be between 10,000 to just under 12,000.

Um and 30 percent must be between 8,000 and 10,000.

Question for for Brittany.

So we're not considering anything except the annexation tonight.

So it's the zoning on the annexation.

The zoning on the annexation.

Okay.

Yeah.

No other questions for staff.

Is the applicant present?

Oh.

One of these times you're gonna say yay, right?

Guess Gary's not here, but yeah.

Wait, what's your name?

Tony Train.

Sorry.

Sorry.

Um, yeah, I think there was a little bit of confusion with some of the neighbors too with that R1 flex sounds like a higher density.

It's really not the high density.

It's but the big push for bringing the annexation forward, and I think most people know is the intent is the church wants to build a church here.

So we've been working with them to try to come up with a layout to get the church here, but we need to bring the property in in order to get it done.

Um the intent is to bring back something that works in the R1 flex zone.

So you'll have those kind of mix of the lot sizes.

But any questions?

Just for clarity.

Um this is not multifamily housing.

No single family.

These are single lots.

Single family lots, 8,000 to 12,000 issues.

I mean, they're they're very similar to what's in the neighborhood there.

Right.

Um, that's there's no multifamily proposed, but there is there is an intent for a church to go here.

So just FYI.

Tony, same question I asked the previous applicant.

You guys have water rights that are coming over with it.

There's water rights.

And uh and to be fair, yeah, to Kim's point, we I kind of help with a lot of those, so we work with those to get the the right water rights.

But yes, there's there's some, and you're always you're always gonna have to scrape a little bit to find water rights in today's world.

So yeah, there's water rights with it.

Thank you.

Did you have a question?

It looked like you were about to say something.

No?

No.

Okay.

Okay.

Any other questions for Tony?

Also no.

Thank you.

All right.

This is a public hearing.

Uh if anybody would like to speak to item 3.3, we will open up the public hearing.

Seeing that there is maybe a few that would like to speak to this, which we are excited for and welcome.

We will give a limit on time.

Uh we'll go.

Let's go.

A minute.

Minute and a half.

Two minutes.

We'll go two minutes.

So my name's Jay Bowdy, and I I live in that neighborhood, just to the north of that.

And my concern is just um when I look at R1 Flex online and I'm trying to figure out the definitions of it.

Uh there's some unclear points, such as if this was once it's R1 Flex, could he apply for PUD, PRD, and then change that use as far as to, you know, smaller density.

Because the way I read it online, I it's unclear to me.

Any ideas?

It's not a back and forth.

We'll hear your questions, then we'll address them after.

All right.

Thank you.

Thank you.

My name's Bart Christopherson.

I live in the same area.

In fact, when the screen uh other picture was up, the two building lots that's at the top to the right where it says MDR on that.

I own both of those.

Um I'm excited for this to go in because currently, right where it says MDR, there's a power line that goes over the top of that that feeds the house that's abandoned.

And it was feeding the well, or they were still using it for the well that's there to water the horses and whatnot.

But I my understanding is they're not even using it for that now.

But I I need that to go away so I can build a house right where it says MDR.

So I was also concerned about the density and about the same thing that Jay mentioned.

Um all the houses down there to the right, that's they're mostly a little bit bigger than quarter acre lots.

8,000 is a little bit smaller.

So I'm hoping they'll put in a little bigger lots for a little less density.

And that was my only real question.

So thanks.

Merrill Carson.

I live uh across Center Street to the west of this development.

Um I have a question.

Uh does the R1 flex.

Yeah, R1 Flex.

Is that for the whole 15.3 acres?

Or is that for just the part where the houses will be built?

Mr.

Train mentioned a church uh going there.

Is that the same?

Uh is that the same uh uh R1 flex as as the place where the homes are.

Great question.

We'll address that with Tony after.

I'm sorry I can't hear you.

We'll address that with Mr.

Train after and have him answer that question.

Okay, all right.

I just asking uh that.

Um so thank you.

Thank you.

Would anybody else like to speak to item three?

Welcome, come on up.

Hi, I'm Camellionetti.

I live right in that bottom um part, it's a southeast, and it's uh a lovely little neighborhood with lots of little kids running around.

Um so I am worried as well about um the Lehigh City Code with R1 Flex, it says um in chapter five, section two subsection D that it talks about that PUD or PRD developments may be allowed, and in such cases that lot size mix requirement does not apply.

So it could bend the roles for the zoning, like the minimum lot sizes and setbacks, and I just think a ton of traffic from high density housing would not be um would not fit in with what's currently there, and all the little kids.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um my concern is in the wording of the flex that there has to be this many homes on the different sizes.

There has to be.

Uh lots.

So that's my concern.

Thank you.

Anyone else that would like to speak to item 3.3.

Come on up.

Sorry, Jay Bowdine again.

Yeah, I just want to address also the traffic.

Um there's only two outlets basically that can be on that property, center street or third east.

And to get out of third east, you gotta go over to second south.

And that's a terrible intersection with that house there on the east side with the fence that kind of sticks out past the intersection a little bit.

So again, uh the more the more homes that go in there, the harder it's gonna make that traffic in that neighborhood.

So thank you.

All right, seeing no one else, we will ask the Britney.

Did there were comments?

One public comment online, yeah.

Um by Via Thomas.

Um this appears to be a logical annexation.

I'm concerned about the flex part, or roads cannot handle high density housing.

Center Street was built as an access road.

It is now a main feeder, but was not built to handle heavy vehicles and traffic.

All right, hearing the public, we will now close the hearing and bring it.

Actually, Tony, we'll invite you back up to address any of the questions that you heard.

Uh yeah, to be fair, the the PRD does become a little bit of a concern if I mean if if you're already concerned about the size of the lots.

These lots are intended to be the eight to and once the church gets dedicated, you they'd be below the 20 acres and wouldn't uh a PRD wouldn't work.

And then there's no intent to do a PRD.

That's not I mean the houses that were just built to the west are incredibly nice houses, and so um the intent is this this area um with the church with you know eight to twelve thousand square foot lots fits in perfect with what's there and would be a nice addition to the area.

Uh there's three actually roads we need to construct to get out of there.

There's one to the north as well we need to tie into.

So traffic will be a little bit better, but for their concerns, um I I know traffic is a concern about every street in Lehigh.

So anything we can do to help mitigate that to have a connection going through, it won't go straight through, which is which is a benefit to everybody, but it will connect center and third, and so that'll be a nice feature as well eventually to have these other access points to help.

But um, yeah, it there is a little bit of a question in that the way the code reads, but yeah, that that's not the intent at all.

There's no intent to do anything as a PRD.

It doesn't make sense in this and wouldn't be wouldn't make sense to do.

But the development will clean up the area and as Bart mentioned.

I it's it's probably needed here to get this cleaned up and and solve a few other concerns as well.

So I think I think it'll make a really nice addition to the area with the church and with these, you know, um R1 flex lots.

No.

I and I know that is the confusion as soon as you say flux, everybody thinks high density, but that's not it's not what it is at all.

But any other questions, concerns.

Any questions for Tony?

If I may.

You bet.

All right.

So just going back to the access point, because I may have drifted off for the apologize.

But the two streets coming from the east.

You'd tie into those.

There's that one, and then there's one up in the in the green.

Yeah, up to the north.

So you'd tie into those and then one access to center.

The center.

Yeah, lots split each side.

It's right.

I mean, it's pretty cut and dry what this layout will be.

Pretty simple concept.

And the church is intended to be down by the tracks.

So that's the idea.

So if we can get it through and get the the church on board, we get a church built here is the intent.

Can we answer the question about like the zoning for the church?

So churches on the table.

This is the residential table of uses that has all the residential districts.

And churches are permitted in any residential zone.

So they wouldn't have to do any specific zoning for the church.

It makes the most sense to just keep all R1 flex.

But if we're bringing it in, we just keep it in one zone.

And but yeah, the church, I the advantage of the church is the density on the whole whole overall 15 acres goes down quite a bit because you're gonna put five acres into a church site.

So really you're only developing 10 acres of this 15 acres in homes.

But yeah, should work well.

That's the intent.

Brittany, thank you.

There was the question of if the church goes in.

Could they still do a PUD PRD with what's left?

So yeah, that's a good question.

Um it is supposed to be over 10 acres, but if it's infill, which this could qualify as, they could do a PUD PRD.

Um it is uh legislative item to do it that way, so it comes through with the public hearing again, everyone would be notified again.

It wouldn't like just pop up as a PUD, it would be something that was fully noticed.

So we do allow PUDs and PRDs over any zone.

Like it can be proposed on any zone.

So it's not just R1 flex.

You could propose it if it was R18 or anything else.

It requires 20% open space.

So there would be an open space element, which you know helps maybe reduce some of the housing, and it's it's kind of all just trade-offs.

The overall density doesn't increase if it's a PUD or PRD.

So, you know, but I guess the fear doesn't need to be oh, this is all of a sudden gonna change and be something like that, it would be noticed again.

You'd all have the opportunity to come and speak to it if they did change their mind ever and want to do it as a PUD.

Um and I guess one other question that'd come up is about like how do we make sure that it meets all these lot size requirements, and we just verify that during subdivision.

So when they submit to the city for a subdivision, if they're R1 flex over the 10 acres, we'd make sure that they're meeting all of these lot differences.

And and Tony mentioned, you know, maybe if they subdivide off the church, then they're under 10 acres.

Then they go back to this requirement up here where it's just a minimum lot size of 8,000 square feet and maximum density of 3.25 units per acre.

Yeah, so yeah, we'll work through that issue.

But the intent this I mean that that's why I've kind of got involved with Gary.

This doesn't make sense to do a PRD here or a PUD scenario.

Just because makes sense to match what the lots are in the area and to give a little piece of open space.

I I mean if the church came back and said they want to buy it and do a little bit of open space, we could work with them then, but right now that's there's no sense in doing that.

I mean, there's it doesn't make sense to do a PRD here.

You're not gaining anything on density-wise to do it.

Not with the dedication of the church and the things.

And we ought to match what's around it.

Mash the lots that are close by, and it'll be a good development.

But anyway.

Any other questions for staff or not?

All right.

Further discussion or emotion.

I may do much unless you want to do one all tonight.

Go ahead.

All right.

Item 3.3 public hearing and recommendation of Gary Cooper's request for R1 flex residential zoning on the Cedar Hollow Holdings annexation.

15.31 acres of property located at approximately 400 South Center Street.

I move that we give a positive recommendation to the city council uh with the findings.

Nope, where'd the findings go?

Uh that the proposed application meets does conform with the goals and policies of the general plan.

And please include all DRC comments.

Cool.

We have a motion and a second.

All in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed.

Thank you.

When will this go before city council?

It should be that same date, the April 28th.

The last week of April.

Yeah.

3.4.

Item 3.4.

Public hearing in consideration of Dan Bieber's request for approval of the lifetime fitness site plan exception to the 40% maximum EFIS stecker requirement located at 240 East Traverse Terrace Drive.

So this might look familiar.

You have already seen a concept of this layout.

You approved an exception for the location of the building, so it's not oriented to the street like it should be, but down a little bit lower.

And that was September 25th of last year that you approved that.

So now the applicant's coming back asking for an exception to the maximum EFIS to do just a little bit more.

So we do have limitation in the general non-residential of 40% per elevation.

And we never got um exact measurements from them, so we don't know the percentage, but looking at it, it looks like it's more than 40%.

Um be both like these dark dark areas at the top and the light.

Um the purpose behind um limiting eFus is um it can sometimes be a cheaper material that gets older sooner, kind of chips can look not as good.

Um and then also can create kind of those monolithic looking walls without much variation.

Um those are two of the main reasons that it's limited.

Uh section 37.010 um tells you what to look at when granting an exception.

Um it says the applicant shall provide evidence that the exception to the design standards improves the design quality, walkability, bike ability, or ability to conduct the proposed use on the subject property.

Um it's as determined by the city or at the planning commission.

And the applicant shall provide justification on how the proposed project fits with the purpose and vision of the design standards district in which it is located.

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

Thank you, Brittany.

Uh any questions for staff.

So the applicant present.

Hi, Dan Beavers, development manager with Lifetime.

Good to see some familiar faces on the commission here.

Um just want to provide some context around what we're asking for here.

I think Brittany outlined the request and understand some of the reasoning behind you know some of the opposition to larger amounts of EAS, you know, the large monolithic walls, sometimes seen as a less durable material.

So kind of what I wanted to talk through today is some of the architectural enhancements that we're doing that I think reduce those concerns.

You know, both with what we're doing to prioritize the pedestrian scale, which I think speaks to the intent of the general design standard, and also just the quality of materials that we use at lifetime.

And then also our alignment with the master development.

This is a general design standard, but we also sit within the sky area plan.

So I just wanted to speak to some of those things.

And then lastly, this is one of three clubs that we're bringing to the broader market in late 2027.

So we're super excited about that and just want that strong brand alignment when we bring those three clubs together.

You can click to the next slide there.

So these are the elevations that you've already seen, and you know, just to speak to the consistency here, these haven't changed since we were here in September.

So now that this has been brought to our attention, that's the reason why we're coming back at this point.

Would have loved to do this in September versus four months away from mobilization, but that's where we are today.

Um to speak to some of the elements we're proposing here.

Um, I think some of the breaks in the massing are really important to address this commentary where we do have the larger portions of EAFs.

You know, that's where we're doing, you can see slightly on these elevations, steps in the parapet, and then color variation in that material.

And then intentionally aligning those two things, I think is what helps really break up what's considered that monolithic wall and give kind of a sense of a reveal in the architecture.

Beyond that, we've got decorative lighting all over these buildings.

There's sconces that flank the entrance.

We have a linear light that wraps the cornice detail.

It's a really cool light that kind of washes down the entirety of the architecture.

And then all of the signage that you're seeing here is illuminated as well.

So the four larger lifetime signs that you're seeing, those are all halo lit and provides a nice accent on the building as well.

And then to speak to the pedestrian engagement, this is where we really highlighted specific elements of the architecture and the elements that pedestrians actually approach on our building.

So specifically, you can see the masonry wraps the entirety of level one, and then we go to that EFS material on level two, where you're further away from where the pedestrians actually engage with the building.

And then we have our stone and our glazing that wraps our primary entry.

They're kind of shown in that bronze color wrapping the corner of the building, and then of course at the primary entrance.

So this slide is just a few representations of some of the materials that we've used on recent clubs that we've built, and I wanted to highlight a couple of things here.

So first, the image on your left is an example of one of our main entrances.

So this is kind of where all the materials come together.

You got the stone masonry that wraps the entrance, the glazing, of course, the canopy on that entrance, and then off to the right of that image, you can kind of see the design intent where the brick comes up the first level, and then you have the eaves above it.

The top middle image, I think, just shows the amount of detail and quality that's in our metal awnings and how that engages with some of the stone materiality, and you can see the eats above that as well.

And then the image on the right, I think is a good representation of when we have these larger quantities of EAS on a bigger mass on the building, and you can just see how clean and crisp that material is.

And one of the things I want to highlight there is the scoring and the patterning in that scoring that we have.

Taking that scoring top to bottom on the building and then also having breaks in it horizontally aligning with the windows helps with a lot of those durability concerns.

Kind of localizes that cracking, and you don't see some of the damage that you typically see in EFS over a long time because of the intentional scores that we have in our building.

Bottom one is just an example of this is our most recent installation.

That's an active construction site that we have.

It's actually in Southwest Las Vegas.

At a smaller scale, you can see how the different materials kind of tie together and the different colors work together.

So here to speak to how we fit into the sky area plan.

These are three different examples actually.

We got from Gardner Group.

They're the master developer of the retail parcels here.

Three examples where I think we have a lot of similar design elements.

But is the base building EAFs, and then they're using the metal awnings, the brick material, and a highlight of focal elements of the architecture.

So I think there's a lot of little elements here that tie to things we're doing specifically on the first level of our building.

And then the next slide, I think, is just yeah, this is an excerpt from the sky area plan.

These are the design guidelines or a piece of the architectural design guidelines.

And I just highlighted a few of the bullet points down at the bottom because I think that that's really what opens up the opportunity for us and for you all to even entertain this exception.

Um hopefully the things I've noted speak to quality architecture and design and an emphasis on simplified design.

And then the last bullet point is really the whole reason we're here.

Focus on style of the architecture over codified specific requirements.

So getting alignment that we like the overall look and feel of the building, and it's something we're proud of, versus a general but specific requirement.

Then the last slide, thanks, Brittany.

Um this shows the three clubs we're bringing to the market, and we're super excited to bring these together.

Um, all of these are I hinted at this, but they're within six months of mobilization.

The Herriman Club, we're mobilizing within the next couple of weeks.

So that's gonna be the first one, and we're really excited about that.

And then we have our club in holiday, and then ultimately in Lehigh, and you can kind of see the similar design qualities in each.

And we'd like to maintain that so when we come to a market like this, we can really grow that brand presence so that when people go to a lifetime in Lehigh or Herriman or Holiday, they feel like they're getting a similar member experience.

I think that's really all I had for slides today, and appreciate you know the time and consideration of this and willing to answer any questions that you guys have.

Maybe questions for the applicant.

I have a question.

Of course.

So the holiday one looks different.

Yeah.

Is it still stucco?

Is it looks like the or the entrance is popped out a little bit?

The overhang.

Which I think that looks great.

The little overhang makes it not look like a box.

Yeah, that's a it's a site specific change for that one.

That's a much smaller site.

It's only about five acres.

Um so we're actually doing a custom club there.

But to answer your question, yes, the materiality is all the same.

It's got the stone and the masonry that wraps level one, and then around the main entrance, and then yeah, EFs up that second level.

But the Herriman Club and the Lehigh Club, they're actually the exact same prototype that we're bringing to both markets.

I had a question for you.

Are are those different retail outlets on the bottom floor?

Or is it all it's the same?

Oh, lifetime.

Well, it's the same in each club.

It's our life cafe and then our life spa.

So they're different amenities that we provide within the club.

Okay.

So you actually there's one singular point of entrance.

It might look like there's different entrances there, but you go in at the primary entrance, and you access those elements from the interior.

Gotcha.

Thank you.

Yep.

So the extra exception is asking for the ability to use more than 40% stucco.

Correct.

So why do you want to use more stucco instead of other materials?

Yeah, I mean for all the reasons I outlined, but I think the the building is.

Sum it up for me then good thanks.

The biggest one is these are steel buildings, so that kind of guides what materials we can and can't use.

And to take brick up to the amount that we would need to to meet this requirement, was just a crazy amount of brick.

Um it would have to go above the head of the upper story windows, and just aesthetically, we didn't like the feeling and the mass of that.

And then also with these being steel buildings, makes it super heavy with that amount of masonry, and then there's implications to our whole steel structure as well.

So besides masonry, are there other materials that you could use?

Um I think metal panel is the other material that we have on the building as well.

Um, but to do that across this scale is just cost prohibitive.

So there's there's there's concrete materials, but these aren't pre-cast buildings, it's the steel structure that's guiding some of the materiality that we can do.

And potentially you could put more windows.

There could be more windows.

The reason we have the amount of windows that we have, a lot of it's driven by what's happening on the inside.

There's actually floor plans in here if you want to flip to it.

But with all of our fitness programming up on the second level, that's why you see slightly less windows on the second level because we've got the larger, you know, squat racks, mirrors, etc.

that take up that wall space.

And you can see there as well the pickleball courts in the lower left corner.

Are they outside the building?

No, those are interior.

They're gonna be inside.

Yep.

While you're still up here, and it I think Ken and I are on the same page, and that to me this looks like a nice monolith.

And it it it seems like the purpose of using Eaves or Stucco is to your earlier point, to keep costs down.

And so one of the purposes of having the East minimum is to make the community look really nice.

I do think this still looks nice, but it looks like a nice monolith still.

And I understand that concern, but it's a building that we're proud of.

We think is gonna look really nice.

I think some of the things I spoke to, like the standard and the quality that we hold our clubs to is gonna elevate what you might think of when you normally think of an EAFS monolith.

And then it's something that we're gonna take care of over time.

You know, we're we're the owners of these buildings, but we're also the operators of these buildings, so it's not a situation where this is gonna go get sold to a different operator, and then who knows what happens to the maintenance of the building.

It's gonna be lifetime that's responsible for this building.

And we know that the look and feel on the outside is the first step to a quality member experience, and we never want to compromise that.

So I certainly hear the concern, but we still feel like this is something that's quality architecture and will look good over time, and especially day one when we install it.

We like the clean, crisp look of the EAFs, feel like it's a little bit more modern than doing the whole thing just in masonry.

The last time we had a request for this exception, which has happened, not from you, but then it's happened uh was the sanctuary.

Uh was the sanctuary.

The sanctuary is a high-end luxury apartment complex.

I don't know if you're familiar with it.

They came to us and they basically begged.

They pleaded and said, we would like to do this, and here's why.

Right?

And then they laid out, I remember many different things that they said, and they said this is not a cost efficiency.

Right?

The way that they were going to put on their stucco was stylized in a way that it did accentuate the building.

It did give some variation, although it was in excess of our code.

But they did outline something that was compelling and gave us or gave me at least when I was on the commission a reason to consider.

I haven't heard that from you, other than we just want to.

Please compel me.

I think the things we're doing, we're spoken to mostly in my second slide, where we're providing that color variation, the score joints in the eaves.

It is really intentional what we're dealing with, that installation.

So that it doesn't look like a standard ease installation.

It doesn't read very well on this, but we have score joints that run horizontally and vertically that align with all of our windows.

They do help break up that mass and be really intentional design.

You have the percentages.

Yeah, it varies by facade, but generally it's about two-thirds one-third, so around that you know, 67%.

Um the front facade is less, the sides and backs are a little bit more.

I'll say one more thing.

Sorry, I'm pointed.

I'm not in favor, right?

I'm not liking what I've seen.

Um if there's certain things we can talk through to you you you showed some great examples of other buildings that you've had, all of which would meet our code.

The examples that you showed, right?

They had facades that had more windows.

They had more.

Wait, granted, I didn't see the sides of the building, which is really where we're talking about.

The front facade is probably to criteria.

It is.

But the other sides uh are not.

But you showed examples of a quality that look nice, but also meet our code.

And I think it might first of all, I don't think they would.

They're very similar in the amount of you know, glazing and eaves and other materiality that we have, it's just a function of how those images are clipped.

Um I do think you know, part of it is just the way this is rendering versus when you you're seeing the actual product and how good it looks, like that's the quality of this building would get built to part of it may just be a function of how a digital rendering is showing versus quality of the imagery of the built product.

Should we wait till uh we do need on public hearing?

It's not good.

Um, what sides do these face?

Like it it right now, it just looks like a it's in the middle of an empty field.

Yeah, so which which is facing faces north, and then our pool side is west, east is the opposite, and then the back side of the building is south, which faces the highway, which I think is another important consideration.

The only buildings that are really anywhere near us are the retail buildings that I showed examples of that I feel like we have worked with Gardner Group to get a cohesive design.

Uh to the east, you have Texas Instruments, and then to the south there's a regional detention basin that you look across ultimately to the highway.

So the bottom of the page is north.

Top of the page is north.

Top of the page is north.

That's the front of your building, you've got a parking lot, and then you have 2100 or not, not 2100.

Timpanogas highway.

Yeah.

And it's farther south.

The white space that you're seeing there is the start of the retention basin.

You cross that and then get to the highway.

There you go.

So it's like right here in this.

Oh, okay.

So most people are seeing it from the back.

Yeah.

Which is very bare.

Yes.

Seeing it from the back, but from a highway that's the back is the third one.

Is the back the third?

That image right there.

Okay.

So we do have those relief elements there, the drops in the parapet, the change in the color that I think help break it up and provide some interest.

And then you can see the glazing that we have on level two as well that kind of balances where we have our illuminated signage up in the corner.

So on this facade, you're looking at 67%.

Yeah, around there.

More?

I think more.

These are the ones that are gonna be slightly more.

It's probably around 70, and then the front is lower.

Um the front's like 60%.

I kind of averaged it out when I said it's about two-thirds.

Okay, thanks.

Any other questions for the applicant?

Oh.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

This is a public hearing.

If anybody is here to speak to item 3.4, we'll open the public hearing now.

Come on up.

Um, yeah.

Hi.

This is not actually the agenda item I came for, but I don't know if this is on.

I'm gonna have this back for a second.

Um I spent eight years previously in Las Vegas, and lifetime fitness is such an asset, and everything they do is luxury.

Uh you know, it is gonna be the most beautiful building.

It's gonna be have a feeling in it that is it's high end that's gonna attract a lot of money into our city, it's gonna help us out a ton.

And um I know there are like certain standards and codes for all of your buildings.

I actually just finished a commercial building myself, and I know what the hurdles are.

I also know that there's not a lot of nuance for different types of buildings, and I think this gym is beautiful.

I think it's gonna be a real asset to our community, and I think as far as the gym goes, it looks incredible, and I think it's totally proficient and excellent, and I fully support the current design as uh as a resident.

Thank you.

What's your name?

Oh, what was your name?

Um Carly Johnson.

Did you get that?

All right.

Anyone else that would oh come on up?

My name is Bruce Alfin.

And I actually didn't come for this either, but as I look at it, it looks like a warehouse.

Um it looks like a nice warehouse.

I've been all over the world, all over the states, and it does look nice uh to the front.

I would say my opinion would be to make the east or yeah, the east side the least desirable side, because it's facing Texas instrument with just industrial space, and then make the highway side a little bit more pretty or make sure that there's enough green.

And although he claims that they'll have no problem staying with it and that they'll always be in business and they'll always own it and operate it with the same care.

You know, that's you can hope in one hand and do stuff in the other.

I mean, it's really it it's not worth anything unless it's written down in a contract.

So that's my opinion.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Oh.

Anyone else would like to speak to this item?

Seeing none, Brittany, I'll confirm no comments online.

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

Did you want to address any comments you heard?

I think just the speaker in response to some of your commentary about us as operators.

We've been in business for 30-ish years, and we've closed less than a handful of clubs.

So I think we have a track record showing that we do hold on to these assets, and that's proof that we will stand by that commitment.

And I think the only other thing I'd want to say is if there's any discussion we want to have around emphasizing certain sides of the building, I'm completely open to that discussion versus just a blanket requirement on every single facade, understanding the site-specific elements of this building.

Any other questions for staff or for the applicant?

No questions, but to that point I agree with what Bruce said that if you which I think I'm gonna vote uh shocker, I'm gonna vote the changes be made.

Um so to that, I agree with Bruce that if you were to leave a site as is the east side probably makes sense, uh, but then make changes to the back so that as people pass it on the freeway or in their homes as they're looking in the backyard, they see more variants than what's currently there.

Sure.

Are there any sort of guidelines we want to talk through to what we'll we'll discuss that?

Okay, sure.

You'll hear it, I promise.

Any any other questions?

Um Craig.

I do have a procedural question.

Sure.

Um with the kind of hintings or leanings that Bo had discussed, can we give a yes per side per facade and a no per other facade?

Or uh what are we what are we allowed to do here?

This is a legislative item, so you do have a lot of leeway.

It's administrative is the administrative side, legislative.

But does that exception go for the entire ask, or could it be per facade?

Like per side.

Yeah.

I think it would be based on what they're requested.

The entire request.

We haven't really ran into that timeline, but yeah.

Yeah, I think with regards to the building, like they said it's an administrative item that if it meets the code, it meets the code.

But where it doesn't meet the code, which is why we're asking for an exception.

Does it meet the vision and purpose of the general non-residential design district, the proposed exception has enough or does not have enough justification to grant the exception and three additional findings based upon the information presented during the public meeting?

Um is it not it should be great.

Thank you, Craig.

So you mentioned some about the general plan, but that already has the sky area plan.

Does it have a stucco requirement?

The sky area plan supersedes.

And that's what we're talking about here.

The sky area plan is the 40%, has the 40% limitation.

So they um it's the general non-residential that has the 40%.

Um because if the area plan doesn't specifically say otherwise, then it goes back to our existing code.

Um the only thing and this was actually approved after they submitted.

So I I don't know exactly um what would be um if it applies or not, but um Gardner did change a little bit of it to permit drive-throughs.

Uh the glass percentage can be different if it's not if it upgrade differences, and I think that's it.

I don't think they changed anything with yeah, they didn't change anything specific to the EFIS or stucco requirements.

So it's just that's our general non-residential and the area plan doesn't have anything that would supersede that, if that makes sense.

Thank you, Brittany.

Any other questions for staff?

I just want to make sure you're you're saying you you want to know if within the 40% exception if they could do that on one side but not the other side.

Yeah.

Like could we say, hey, maybe we are comfortable on the east and west, but not the south.

Could we say that?

I mean, I I think you could, you just need to reasonably articulate why you're making that change to their request.

I think for me at least.

It's an exception.

So do we know I feel like the burden of proof is on them, not so much us.

Yeah, but it's our findings have to have your findings on why you're only granting an exception to some, but not all facades.

So and I apologize if I misunderstood your your question the first time.

Well, for and I'll speak to my at least my opinion here.

Um the high amount of traffic, the visibility, um would be a reason that I think that the south side should have should meet or at least come closer to our standard.

Um where uh I'll acknowledge the public.

I think it was Bruce was his name.

Um made sense, right?

The the east and west, which are gonna be less visible, not invisible, but not as prolific, uh prolifically visible.

And so that would be my reasoning for why the South side I think should have be held to the higher or to a higher standard.

Whether 40% is the number, I think we can discuss, but definitely not 80, 70, whatever we're at, right?

Um that's my opinion.

So I mean, not only can you see it from Timpanogos Highway, you can because it's up on a hill, you'll be able to see it from down below.

I we we can see where I live way up on the west side.

And it blank walls are kind of not great.

Brittany and Kim, how quickly can an applicant reapply for an exception?

Can they reapply if being denied an exception?

I guess it's better first question.

Uh you could, as long as when they reapply if it's substantially different, which I would think, you know, if they came back with the, you know, if it was you know, one percent different on their new application, we say that's not substantial, but if they came back and said, okay, you know, we are gonna cut in half the area that we were asking for.

But yeah, I think along with what Craig was saying, I I would think you could give a partial, or if you're inclined to deny it, maybe you articulate what you would want to see, and then they could come back.

Yeah, but yeah, it's uh exceptions, they'd they'd file a new application or go back to DRC, we'd re-review it and then back here, so probably take three weeks to a month.

Okay, thank you.

Because the applicant can reapply for an exception, I would lean toward not giving them like a partial pass.

I would rather them just go back and redo and let's say they drop it down to like 50% stucco, then I feel like we could have a better conversation.

I'd like to see that within our guidelines 40% or lower, but they do have the option of reapplying if they so choose.

And so because that I'd I'd rather not do a partial pass.

If we go that route, I would like to give the applicant some clear instructions or guidelines of what we would expect to see or hope to see.

That way they're not spinning their wheels and wasting time.

With the understanding that it does have to come back.

Absolutely.

I think for me, like for if 40% is a standard and he's asking for 67%.

That just seems like why have the standard in the first place.

If it was closer to like a 50% ask, I think I'd be in favor of it, but where it's almost 67 is generous.

I think it's higher than that.

We don't know, we don't have the figures, but uh agreed.

I hope the applicant is paying attention and hearing some of our concerns.

Um other discussion that you wanted to have before we move towards a motion.

So one other idea process-wise, I I think I'll see if Craig agrees.

I I think you could table it and give some input and they could come back with a revised request without having to start without reapplying.

I I think that's an option.

Do they have to request the table or do we table it?

Uh you could table it, give them some direction, and then they can always withdraw their application if they if they just say, you know what, we we disagree, or yeah, we're we're just gonna go back and meet the standard.

Yeah.

I I like that better.

I don't necessarily want to force the applicant to go through another application process with a fee and everything else that comes with that.

I they've already paid a fee.

Um I I feel like we could potentially table it and provide some guidance of what we might be expecting to see.

I love it.

The applicant has a comment.

Would you like to comment?

This is your this is your item, so come on up.

I guess the other avenue I wanted to ask if we could go down is is there an opportunity to do a conditional approval and then delegate to staff so we can continue moving through our process just with where we're at in our timeline.

Like I said, we're already in for building permit as well.

And mobilization's around the corner.

Dynamo-wise.

So like having to come back to these meetings puts that whole schedule out of risk, and then ultimately one week and deliver this club to the market.

So if there's guidelines we can set today with a conditional approval, you know, setting a percentage that we'd all be comfortable with on certain facades, I'd be happy to do that, and then talk through the process of how that goes through.

Procedurally, I don't know that they would be allowed to approve a an exception if it's over our code.

So if we even if we said, hey, if you come back with something for staff, show it to them at 50% or whatever.

Right.

If you did that, I don't know procedurally if they could still do that, because it still would need to be voted on by this body.

Is that correct?

Correct.

We had very clear if you approved it subject to them meeting 50% or something.

If you made it super clear so that we could look and see and say, yes, they've met it, but it would have to be very clear, like this is the standard that they have to meet for your approval.

I do think it'd be cleaner for maybe you to see it again.

If it was 40%, does he still have to come back?

No, if they meet the requirement, then that's the standard.

Like we already have it in the code.

So we do the conditional approval where it's 40% on certain sides, and then as is on other sides, we're just looking for ways to move this forward.

Well I completely hear the concerns.

To a specific meeting.

I appreciate and understand that you're working under tight deadlines to the other commissioner's point.

I'd I don't like that idea.

I think the standard would just be 40% if you want to move this through faster, get to 40% below, and then you don't have to come back at all.

But others may feel differently.

Yes, because of spring break.

Right.

I I will comment and say that this is not a reflection of lifetime.

We've heard from the public and I agree.

You make a quality product, right?

This is a qual we know that it will be a building that you'll be proud of.

We just want to equal that.

We want to be proud of it too.

And I struggle with lowering our standard just because.

And that's that's kind of what I felt that the ask was just because.

And that's where maybe we don't see eye to eye.

And I'm not trying to diminish your work, because again, I appreciate I know the work that goes into these and what you've brought forth.

I just don't feel like I've seen enough to to say, oh okay, because then I have to do it to the next guy and the next one and the next one.

And it just cheapens our code.

Yeah, a hundred percent.

And we're excited to have you in our city.

We would like you to meet our standard.

Yeah.

And you know, I was hopeful that the points I made on the other design elements we were doing made it a lot more than uh just because it's trying to have that message come across at all.

That's not our intent.

Sure.

We're just we're proud of this aesthetic.

You know, it's one that we think is clean and a little bit more modern, and that's the reasoning.

For feedback.

Me personally, I'm not speaking for my the commission here.

I am not uncomfortable with the east and west facades.

I am uncomfortable with the south facade.

Because of the amount of visibility from the highway, and then of course our front facade.

Yes.

Understood.

Take that as you will.

Jack.

Thank you.

Um we need to have a motion to what did you call it?

Not tabling postpone.

Which would be April 26th, correct?

Okay.

23rd, excuse me.

I thought so.

Okay.

I will entertain a motion.

Are there specifics that you would like to see?

We're just coming back with the same thing.

I don't think that helps them very much, but I think we give them some.

Do we have a number in our minds that we would be comfortable with?

40%.

You can just give it a 40%.

But then they wouldn't have to come back.

I'd like to see closer to 50.

Between 40 and 50, are you comfortable with 52?

I mean, let's give them some guidelines.

So close to 50.

I would say less than 55.

I mean, we're splitting errors now.

I don't know what that means on this.

Right, even with the understanding, even if he comes back at 50, it's still like still need to feel good about it, right?

It's still an exception.

And so it's not a guaranteed pass, even if it is 50, right?

40%'s the guaranteed pass.

So I think it it would have been nice to know the percentages on these facades instead of like I'm sitting here trying to conceptualize well.

That's it.

Is that 60%, 70%?

40%.

It's hard to tell.

So that would have been nice.

To have that number right there, do you have it?

Close numbers.

Sorry.

Terror?

Sorry.

Please speak.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Um spoke to it slightly earlier, but on the front, we're at 60%.

And this is by code that excludes the glazing.

So it excludes windows and doors.

So that's also what inflates these percentages.

You take that out of the equation.

So 60 on the front.

We're at 73 on the east and west, and then 75 on the back.

So on the back, 75% of that is stuck hole.

So if you want to see 50, what roughly gets you there, and I think it's closer to 55, is we take that masonry up to the sills of the second story windows.

I would even be comfortable saying matching the percentages on the front, giving you more flexibility for a beautiful design.

But I'm not speaking for them.

And that's not a vote.

That was 60 on the front of 60.

It drops a lot lower when you include the glazing, obviously.

But with that taken out of the equation, it's just EFS versus masonry.

And glazing is looks like window, but it's not a window.

The glass.

I'm wanting to talk about it.

Again, I don't want to be overly difficult, but I also love it.

I like our standards.

I like what we have in the city, and I want to protect them as much as we can.

Yeah.

Appreciate all you working through this with us.

We know is it's a big ask we're doing here and just want to keep it moving forward and we want a quality product as well.

So appreciate that sentiment for sure.

Did someone want to present a motion?

Okay, item 3.4, public hearing consideration of Dan Beaver's request for approval of the lifetime fitness site plan exception to the 40% maximum ethos stucco requirement located at 240 East Traverse Terrace Drive.

Um the motion being that we postpone this item until the April 23rd meeting.

Was that was that right?

April 23rd meeting.

With the feedback to the applicants that they come back closer to the 40% maximum EFOS stucco requirement.

Hopefully, you said 60, I said 50, you said 55.

So we'll split hairs at 55.

With the understanding that there's no guarantee pass until 40%.

Um and please include all DRC comments.

Second.

Motion and a second, all in favor.

Hi.

Thank you.

We will see you later next month.

Yeah.

Uh item 3.5.

All right.

Item 3.5.

Um public hearing and recommendation of Terry Bishop's request for a general plan amendment on 7.1 acres located at 2424 west, 900 north, changing the designation from very low density residential agriculture, the LDRA, to very low density residential BLDR.

So you saw a concept plan of this one earlier as well.

Um the proposal is to go from half acre lots to third acre lots.

Um the surrounding area is all VLDRA.

Uh, but the lots and college farms, college farms was a PUD, so they have reduced lot sizes because they did open space.

So a lot of the lots are closer to that 15,000 square feet.

Um so the applicant is proposing to match those surrounding lot sizes by doing that.

Um by going from R122 to R115, it equals going from 12 lots to 17, but there's probably no way they could ever get 17 lots just without you know meeting the minimum lot width and um the roadways that need to go in and everything.

So it really wouldn't increase the density as much.

Um yeah, they aren't wanting to do as a PUD because they'd have to provide open space and there's not really enough land to make that um feasible.

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

Thank you, Brittany.

Any questions for staff?

It looks like these plans at the end of the packet, it I'm seeing 11 lots.

Is that accurate?

So what they're proposing is 11 lots and not 17 lots.

There is one that's 13.

Uh the one right above that one.

Ah, thank you.

Yeah, so I guess this is just the proposal for the general plan, which changes the zoning.

It's kind of an exhibit layout, um, not necessarily the final, but it it would be really hard to get more lots than what they're showing and have them meet the requirements.

So that's probably what you would see come through after.

Okay, thank you.

Nothing else for staff.

Any is the applicant present.

Jaron Davis from the neighboring county.

Um I'm representing the Bishop family.

Which neighboring county.

Salt Lake.

Thank you.

Yeah.

North.

Um thank you, Chair and Commissioners.

Um we came before this body, and I actually thank you to the public that's stayed so long.

We didn't have any say on being last on the agenda close to the end, so hopefully everyone's still awake.

Um we came before the planning commission, the last planning commission in December to get an idea on what could be approved in terms of uh uh hardship that we feel that comes as a result of where I think it's called call it college.

I only see the DGE, the road that comes in from the west.

And so, Bo, what you're seeing on the um lot subdivision is what we'd have to design if we didn't have some flexibility in doing the the other one that we're proposing.

The reason we wanted to show that is when we came before the group in December, we didn't have a visual on what those lots might look like in terms of really big frontage and some things like that.

We took to heart what you shared with us, and it meant a lot that you took that time.

We since have been back to visit with with Kim and Katie, and we actually took time to meet with four of the five city council members because we're very serious about wanting this to be something that the city is proud of and accommodates the neighborhood.

So the the 13 lot subdivision is one lot more than what the zoning would allow for on the 12.

And the reason we're asking for that is because of that hardship.

If that roadway would have lined into the subdivision at a little different place, then it would be much easier to be able to develop.

There's a couple issues that I believe that will come from these wonderful people that have joined us as neighbors.

One is that the roadway width changed from that early subdivision to our new one.

And Gary, if if you maybe can help us describe, they don't want to have a sidewalk that goes in and then moves two feet.

If if we're allowed to come in at an angle, then we want to make that uh the transition that accommodates that street, and it doesn't just become something abrupt.

So that'll be one of the questions.

The other question is if this is approved, would we sell the land and have somebody come in and try to get more than 13 lots to try to get to the 17?

Do you you've addressed that, Brittany?

But we would actually welcome a provision that locks us into just 13 lots and nothing more.

Our ambition is a hundred percent pure on having no more than that 13.

That 13 matches quite well the subdivision both going from the um neighborhood to the south up to the north, so we match the sizes and and it gives a really good flow.

Um the bishop family has owned this property since 9th north was a dirt road.

And they're the last to leave, and and they've they've accommodated the neighborhood really peacefully.

Um didn't oppose that road location.

Um I don't know that they would have been in the position to do so, but that was some that's a hardship that was placed that that was unintentional, unseen.

Um they've they've been very accommodating to what's been developed around the area and donating land to uh electrical use and things like that.

And Mr.

Soa Velo, we have water.

So I'll prevent you from answering that or asking that.

Um, very long question anything.

I think that answers, and I hope you haven't run out of yeses.

You've been we'll find out soon.

Yeah.

So we we appreciate a positive recommendation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Excuse me.

Um this is a public hearing.

If anybody from the public would like to speak to item 3.5, we welcome you to do so, and we'll open the public hearing now.

Hi, commissioners appreciate your service tonight and all you do for the community for keeping our city great.

I'm Robert Alred.

My wife and I, Cindy own the house to the west of Mr.

Bishop's property.

We are always concerned when neighbors are going to develop.

And we think this is an outstanding plan, makes a lot of sense.

We're highly in favor of it and would encourage you to go ahead and approve it and recommend it move on.

And we think that it'll be an asset to the neighborhood and match what's there.

We appreciate the bishop family and what they've accommodated.

Thank you.

Hello, I'm Bill Clement, and uh I live on the east side of the property line on the bigger piece of property.

And I too think this is a gonna be a great subdivision that they're trying to do.

And uh I still own horses.

Uh some of you are here last time I was here.

And uh I really think it'll be a great uh subdivision and the side that are the size of the lots are really good for that area.

And thank you for letting me speak to you.

Absolutely, thank you.

Hi, my name is Brooke Brill, and this is Hendricks.

Um I live right next door to where Terry is keeping hit most of his animals right now.

And so over the past six years, me and my family have been able to watch Terry come, him and his family come sometimes twice a day, caring for the animals and the land, and we think he does a phenomenal job at trying to preserve the neighborhood, and we're really excited for his plans.

Um I know that he has put a lot of thought into this plan trying to make sure that all of the neighbors feel seen and heard, and we hope that you approve what he's proposing.

So thank you.

Quick question.

My name is Jeremy neighbor.

Um you said something about the curbing.

Please speak.

Please speak this way.

Okay.

Speak to us, and we'll address your questions after the hearing.

Sounds good.

I'm not good with formalities, so appreciate that.

Um with the curving gutter, what was the the proposal there?

I guess I didn't quite follow that.

Great question.

And I also want clarity.

So we'll get some in just a okay.

Sounds good.

I just I guess my recommendation would be consistent.

So thank you.

Bruce Olfin, once again.

I'm just the neighbor just to the south of it, like one door down.

And I think the proposal of the 13 is consistent with the layouts that the college and the Bellcore um neighborhoods have provided.

And I know there's some adjustments with the roads that it'd be nice to know.

But I think like they mentioned having some kind of ironclad, they're not gonna develop into 17 lots, but to keep some of that larger size lots and be congruent with the neighborhoods, is uh ideal for our standpoint.

As neighbors, thanks.

Thank you.

Anyone else would like to speak to this item.

Yeah, I'm I'm Austin Beckham here, and uh I'm the one I'm the house that's literally uh just at the bottom there uh in the middle.

And uh I think the plan is fine of the 13 uh 13 lots as long as it's in stone that it can't be moved to 17.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi again, Carly Johnson.

Um I am a neighbor directly to the north of this uh property that the bishops own, and I love their proposed plan of 11 to 13 lots.

Um I feel very confident in either of those layouts.

I think it's very cohesive, and we'll just really kind of finish off our neighborhood really well.

I'll be sad for the horses to be out of my backyard eventually someday, but I um I think it's great, and I think that the ships have you know every right to to develop their land and choose what to do with it.

Thank you.

If anybody else would like to speak, we invite oh, here we go.

I'm Katie Beckham.

I'm also to the south.

My husband just talked.

My concern is the roads, like I agree that Mr.

Bishop should be able to do what he wants on his land.

And so we're gonna have like a jog.

And I think that's really that's weird to me.

Also, I think we should get rid of one of the roads.

I know that it's probably too late for that, but I think it's ridiculous that you guys are making him put two roads in.

I think it should be just like a cul-de-sac.

Thank you.

Casey Williams, I also live in the neighborhood, as you can tell.

We have a very passionate neighborhood.

I'm not gonna say anything that you haven't heard, but I'm definitely in favor.

Uh it feels like it already fits within the community.

It the the plan um fits coincides exactly with how the community already feels feel very in favor of Mr.

Bishop and family being able to uh to develop the land.

Um my ask would be similar to others that uh that no more than the 13 that's been proposed.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Everyone who wants to speak, please come speak.

Don't hesitate.

I am Andrea Egbert.

My house is directly to the west.

It will be like my driveway five feet, and then the road change.

So I am also concerned about that size of the road change.

It will be like uh just such an awkward right by my house.

So that's my biggest concern.

Otherwise, I love the layout, I love the plan, and I'm grateful that he's willing to make it consistent with our neighborhood.

Thank you.

Good evening.

I'm uh Nate Skausen, and we live um also just right on the west side there of this property.

Uh we also my kids love the horses, they're gonna miss those horses.

Um but we just share the same concern of just making sure the road is that's our most important thing.

Make sure the road is consistent, and then reducing just keeping that number of homes to 13 or less would be ideal for us to match the size of the lots and and the neighborhood that's there.

But we do support this in general, so thank you.

Thank you.

Oh, peer pressure, got it.

Jamie Venich, I have nothing else to say.

But I support it as one of the neighbors living in it, and I appreciate you guys doing your best to make it cohesive with our neighborhood, and we're excited to have the road connect.

Well, I am thank you.

Okay, last chance.

Anyone else?

Seeing none.

Brittany, were there any there were none on this one?

So we will close the public hearing and bring it back.

There were some questions.

Let's address those.

Um Gary, maybe you want to talk about the road width.

I thought you'd ask.

The old standard that the city had a 57-foot ride-of-way width.

That's from back of walk to back of walk.

Our new city standard that was adopted not too long ago, maybe a couple years ago, now has a 60-foot ride-of-way width.

Um that's the pavement, some of it's the sidewalk width and the park strips, is they all add up to that.

Some of them got a little bigger, a little smaller, a little wider pavement there.

Um, so now it's a 60-foot ride of way width.

And we're this has happened several places around the city.

Um, and what we do is we just have a gradual taper out to it.

It's not gonna be an abrupt change or anything like that.

It won't be on a square thing.

But yeah, we allow that long tapered into it, and we work with the developer to make sure that's a smooth transition.

Sorry, just to add to that, the the old standard had 34 feet of pavement, the new standard has 32, so it's actually less pavement, but then the park strips go from five to seven feet on each side.

So we're losing some pavement, so it doesn't feel quite as wide.

Still allows parking on both sides.

The park strips get a little bit wider.

We've had a lot of issues with trees and those, especially in the four foot.

We used to have a four-foot planner, then it went to five when college farms was developed.

Now it's seven just to give the roots more space and you know, so people can actually plant trees and not have as many problems with the sidewalk lifting and things.

So, anyways, it it probably you probably will it'll be very smooth, you know, just taper it over 15, 20 feet, I'm guessing.

So other questions.

Uh applicant, would you like to come speak to anything you've heard?

I would like to thank neighborhoods for renewing my faith in society.

Um Jerry Bishop and his wife are wonderful people, and they're the last people out.

But to have this support from the neighbors, I'm sure touched your heart.

Um they're they're sad to leave.

We've we named the subdivision the final spur for appropriate reasons, but we want to do everything we can to have this be a legacy which includes the number of lots in the road.

Thank you.

To that to that uh request.

That is not a request that we can grant, but that is something that we can recommend the city council.

And that is something that you can formally request the city council in lieu of a development agreement, um, which is something outside of our purview.

Um but we we can give a recommendation to the city council to hear that, and you would have a chance to formally request that uh type of an agreement.

Any other questions or deliberation?

Can we can I see on the platinum, Brittany?

If you can go back to the platinum, I'm just curious about how that road will widen and how to affect it'll affect them.

Those first two lots in your in the final spur.

I think this has all just been like kind of more conceptually laid out, so there's not really the final plans for how that would all go.

Because it's only it's just a few feet, the angle, so on each side.

Foot and a half, okay.

So it's not really that it's not gonna cut out a huge swath of in your stage.

A huge swath of lot on that first of ground on that first lot.

I'll actually add ground to the first lot because as we taper it'll get more footage.

But I'm sure our engineer and Gary can work out something that is very palatable to the neighbors.

I wouldn't want to live on a one and a half foot dead end either.

And also what we are seeing tonight has nothing to do with the layout.

What we are hearing is strictly the general plan amendment.

Um we are grateful for the visuals to help us um conceive and see what you're you're planning, but we are not voting on the layout tonight.

We are voting on the general plan amendment.

I would entertain a motion.

Don't bang me do it again.

I can do it.

But my oh Steven wants to do it.

Oh, I'm I'm way too nervous to mess it up.

I can attempt okay.

Please correct me and sound good inside the thing.

We will.

Okay.

Uh I make a motion that item 3.5, public hearing and recommendation of Terry Bishop's request for a general plan amendment on 7.1 acres located at 2424 West, 900 north, changing the designation from very low density residential agriculture to very low density residential.

Uh we move forward with a recommended approval of the proposed amendment to the general plan.

Um with and then I just go through these.

Any that you would like to include?

Any that I would like to include.

I'd like to include all of them and the DRC comments.

Say say all the findings.

Oh, all the findings.

Sorry, all the findings and the DRC comments.

Can I add one thing?

Because you suggested it, because you said that you would be okay with it.

I would like to put in there that we as part of this recommendation, we would like to hold you to the 13 lot limit and not go beyond that.

Please do we're good with that.

Thank you.

And of course, this is go ahead.

I would disagree that it uh be in the motion.

I formally am excited about that, but that's not what we're hearing.

We're not hearing anything about lots tonight.

We're hearing just about the general plan, and that's all we're voting on.

But it does relate to the general plan.

I disagree, but we we can.

If you it's your motion, you could recommend to the city council doing it a development agreement to restrict it to 13 lots.

Or to consider here request.

And we add that we recommend to the city council that they do us development agreement to limit it to 13 lots.

Second.

Motion and a second, all in favor.

Any opposed.

Thank you.

And thank you, everyone that came out.

Yeah.

It's nice to see neighbors coming for a positive.

Yeah.

Thanks for coaching through that one.

Oh, you wouldn't like so nervous to do it all.

I learned from now on.

I'm just gonna say anything.

I didn't read all the things.

No, we can see that.

That was way better.

But you can't.

I like to pick them up when there's so many like this.

Um can I make a motion?

We have a one-minute stretch break.

Are you sure can one minute?

Yeah, let's power through.

All right, let's go.

But this is the one that had like a motion to do that.

Can we invite everybody out to the hall that is no longer wanting to hear?

You're welcome to stay and listen, but we would like to move on to it.

This is one that got all the online but it looks like none of them are here.

Um Brittany, let's move forward to 3.6.

All right, item 3.6.

Public hearing and recommendation of Georgetown Developments request for a general plan amendment on 2.8 acres located at 41 east, 900 north, changing the designation from low density residential to mixed use.

Um this parcel currently, so it actually is low density, and then there's also a little bit of it that is ESA because part of it is in the hundred-year floodplain.

So a lot of the DRC comments, if you saw kind of related to that.

Um there's not major concerns by staff, it's part of the hundred year floodplain.

So there's a little bit extra um steps they'd have to go through in the development process to make sure they're compliant with FEMA's hundred year floodplain requirements.

Um, but that's not a huge concern for changing it.

Um I guess changing the designation also wouldn't eliminate the need to do that because it's part of FEMA's mapped areas.

Um the general plan states that mixed use areas provide a transition of uses.

Um so that might work in this area.

You could consider that with you know going from I-15 in the front end road to the existing single family.

Um the applicant did provide not this one.

Um provided uh concept plan showing um proposed layout with 20 units, um the front ten being um a live work unit, so it's um townhome style with um the commercial on the ground floor, and then the back 10 that would be closer to the residential would be just be more typical townhomes.

Uh so that would equal about seven units per acre.

Um R2 zone is six units per acre, so it's a little bit more than R2.

Just kind of give you a reference.

Um as a reminder, the mixed use zone, the density comes from what's allowed by the mixed use and TOD map.

So doing a general plan amendment to mixed use would also should also probably include amending that map to show however many units.

Um so something you might want to recommend to city council is the number of units, and then uh I guess with their approval of the general plan, they could designate the exact number of units that would be allowed.

Um this area is also just over a quarter mile from a future transit stop, so it is close to that area where we are saying in the general plan that we want to add density to support transit.

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

Thank you.

Thank you, Brittany.

Excuse me.

Um questions for staff.

Can you point out where that uh transit station is supposed to be?

Yeah.

Or by the Costco.

So the transit stop.

It's right down in this area.

Do you know exactly where it's supposed to be, Kim?

So it's on it's on the other side of the freeway.

Right here.

Yep.

Where the old train depot is.

Yeah, so it is on the other side of the freeway, but you know, pretty close through 100 east.

Britney, I'm sorry that I'm sure you probably said this and I just missed it.

But help me understand what's mixed about this.

So it's um these front ten are proposed as this is actually a project in Pleasant Grove that the developers done.

So this ground floor is commercial.

Um and then above it is the residential.

Is the ESA area the updated FEMA plan that just came out?

No, yeah.

So RESA, um, I think maybe it was on that, I'm trying to remember if we were included on the DRC comment sheet.

Um showed the updated, and it's not really exactly the same place as where our ESA is shown.

Okay.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So this is um this is the actual FEMA map of the, and I think it's the brown that's the hundred-year flood plane if I remember correctly.

It might be the blue.

It might be the blue.

Thank you.

It's the 500 years.

Oh, okay.

Any other questions for staff?

Applicant, please come forward and tell us anything else you want us to know.

Well, I uh actually emailed a presentation to Brittany.

You don't need to pull it up in the interest of time and uh uh I'll keep it somewhat brief.

Um can we get your name?

Sure.

Brandon Mills, um Georgetown Development.

So our company is located in Provo.

Uh we've been around for uh a while.

Um so uh approaching 40 years um uh building and developing here in Utah County.

Um this is a unique project in the sense that uh uh it belongs to my uncle.

Um so uh Glenn is his name and hence the name Heritage Glenn.

Um so uh there's a tie-in there.

Um the uh in looking at it as far as a a triangular piece um that's a little bit unique in how to develop something like that.

And uh what uh what we've come up with is um rather than well, yeah, Brittany, um this uh actually shows seven.

You could probably squeeze lots if you were really trying to squeeze things in there because of the floodplain and the area um basements really wouldn't be um feasible, and so um they would be kind of those size lots with without basements making a pretty high price for a single family home.

Um so we went from that, we stacked um if you'll go to the next slide, we stacked um some town homes in there to get a sense of um what you could fit.

Our approach is never to uh to seek maximum density that's uh not something that our company does.

So you could squeeze 30 in there, but that's not our intent.

We've backed off of that, and that was um the 10 live work units in the front and ten normal town homes in the the back.

So um next that's the colored site plan that Brittany showed earlier.

Um we can forego the other portion of it, but uh that gives you a pretty good idea of the intent.

So do they have fun to see your other ones?

Oh yeah, I I wanted to ask a question about um the pleasant grove and the whatever this is.

What um how how has this been working out?

Um it um it's worked uh very well.

So the uh the most recent um makeup of um people with businesses on the lower level.

There's a barber shop, um, there's a vector optics, which they were importing scopes and binoculars with tariffs, so they've kind of struggled a little bit.

Um but um there's a phone repair shop, there is a stamp shop, which um they do stance stickers, phone cases, notepads, there's a nail salon, there's a preschool, and there's also a photo studio.

Thank you.

Is the intent to phase it?

Would you do the back phase first, then the front phase?

So the idea is they have it be a transitional product.

So next to the freeway, you have kind of this where it's more uh combination of light commercial, um residential behind that you have town homes, and then behind that you have the neighborhood.

And so instead of trying to phase doing the back and the front 20 units, um, you know, the market always predicts um for us how um uh the pace, but um though we would like to do it at the same uh same time.

A lot of the concerns on I'm sorry, go ahead.

On the uh comments was uh added traffic.

Um have you been able to tell from from these other products?

So um this is um it's in front of a product that we put behind it, which um it has a combination of single family homes behind it and town homes.

The um the impact to traffic is not substantial.

Um you know, one of the arguments is that um you uh instead of having people commute from that point, um you're you're actually living there, so um, you know, it would be ideal for say like uh someone with a home office um that uh would have minimal impact as far as traffic.

Um each of these businesses are pretty minimal light commercial.

Um you're not you're not having a lot of people picking up dropping off that type of traffic.

So one quick thing on the traffic as well.

Um the way we have it laid out and and the unique um nature of the the land, uh it is all fronted on the frontage road on the frontage road 900 north.

So um you're not feeding traffic through a neighborhood.

Um it actually is um uh you know direct to that road.

Uh couple of comments.

I think some of the comments online would lend to believe that this is their neighborhood road, because it sounds like a lot of kids go on walk to school along this road.

Uh then my question is how what's the square footage of the retail spaces?

So your um square footage of the retail um, so we have 24 foot wide units and we have 27 foot wide units.

Um so for a 24-foot wide unit, the retail space is about 490 um as far as that one and 560 for the 27 foot wide.

So it's not giant um, but it's enough that that you could run a small business out of it.

When you mentioned pick up and drop off, I thought dance studio.

No, no, no.

Um so yeah, one of the ones over there is a preschool in in Pleasant Grove.

Um I haven't heard that there's any issues as far as like um it that's the one that came to mind as far as dropping off and picking up.

So I'd like to remind the commission that we are hearing an item about a general plan amendment.

We do appreciate the visuals.

They obviously help us to get a clear picture, but what we are considering tonight has nothing to do with what has been shown.

It is about the general plan amendment and the request for a new zone zoning.

Well, again, that would come later.

This is just the general plan amendment that we are looking at tonight.

But again, I appreciate the visuals.

They do help us get a good idea of what could potentially go in here.

Um but I also want to be clear that that is not what we are seeing.

What what is being presented is not a plan, it is an idea.

Um we are hearing tonight the general plan amendment.

Any other questions for the applicants?

All right.

We may have some in a moment.

But certainly this is a public hearing.

If there's anybody from the public that would like to speak to this item, we will open the public hearing now.

Yes, that's me.

But uh I will say when I became aware of this, and I'll try to be brief as well.

Um I thought it was a bit strange.

Uh just where traffic flows.

So you're going underneath the freeway to get on the southeastern side, or you have to come up from the northwestern side.

There's not, if we're compare comparing this to Pleasant Grove, there's not strong arteries there.

And if you look at everything around on that side of the freeway, it's all homes.

There's no townhomes, there's no mixed use.

Um there is to the east of there a school.

Um, as a parent of four kids, I'm aware of kids traveling down that.

So that was one of my concerns.

Um granted there's been some pr presentations around what this could look like.

We don't know, right?

You can't guarantee that when you switch it to mixed use drop-offs, what businesses are in there.

So one of my concerns as a parent was what is that do?

Because that is a pretty busy area for for children.

And also it just fills out a place.

Like you I don't I personally am like, why would you go mixed use in a place where all the rest of it is residential?

We heard earlier residents saying I really want to lock in lots, right?

Just around their neighborhood, and here we're talking about greatly increasing that density for all the surrounding area.

So that's what I would ask you to consider.

Thanks so much.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Did you were you wanting to speak?

I move white.

So you're welcome to speak.

Brittany, there were several comments.

Would you like to give a overview?

Yeah, yep.

So um a lot of them were against.

There was one in favor, Bill Harris.

You guys know he was the one that was for it, saying, you know, he thinks mixed use is a smart tool.

Um locations next to freeway on a collector road.

Um said, you know, I might be a potential customer.

Um the others were all against it.

Um a lot of the biggest things were fears of increased traffic and feeling like the having higher density doesn't fit in with um the existing neighborhoods.

A lot of concerns about kids walking on that road to the elementary school and concerns about um yeah, kids being on it with the increased potential increased traffic with businesses and um homes there.

Um yeah, I don't know.

Let's see, I don't think there's anything beyond those main concerns.

We're in the public hearing.

Hold on.

We will now close the public hearing.

Go ahead, both I'm sorry again.

I'm gonna make you repeat yourself because I need to learn to listen.

I believe in your opening remarks you told us the difference in density between mixed use and low density residential.

Can you just repeat that for me?

So mixed use right now, the way it's written doesn't have any density tied to it.

It's based off of the TOD mixed use map.

So um what they're showing is like seven units per acre.

So it's a little bit more than our R2 zoning would be.

Um so with the low density, there would be R18, they could be like four units per acre.

So they're a little bit less than doubling what it currently could be.

Thank you.

What is the current zoning?

Uh I think yeah, I think it's RA1.

The the general plan is LDR, so they could rezone to R18.

Which is four per acre.

Yeah.

So if if if they couldn't get a change, the max they could do is four per acre on this slot.

And that would be single family.

Any uh questions for staff or for anything.

Applicant, did you want to speak to anything that you've heard?

Um, I think I'm I'm good.

Okay.

Um further deliberation.

Deliberation.

I can see it both ways here.

I can see it both ways here, in that I appreciate the point that's made in the report analysis that uh the site is located a little more than a quarter of a mile from a future transit station.

And so it makes sense that we put higher density and also mixed use retail stores closer to be able to help encourage um living in areas like that.

But at the same time, I don't like increasing the density, and I'd like to see this stay low density residential because that's what the surrounding area is.

I feel the same way, but I also see that it isn't he hasn't built on it, and it's an odd shape.

It's right next to the frontage road.

I don't know that I'd want to live on a frontage road.

And to me, it makes sense to have that kind of product right there.

And and ease into the single family homes behind it.

I think I'm falling in the in the same boat a little bit.

That's who that's which one.

They were opposing sides.

They were on different boats.

All right, well, right in the eye could see it both ways.

Yeah.

I love the project.

I think the mixed use with residential on top is great.

I'm not sure this is the right spot, but on the other hand.

One of the arguments is not to have commercial.

There's no commercial anywhere over here.

And I'm not sure that's a good argument.

It'd be nice to have some commercial over there so people didn't have to drive for everything they do.

Well, there is commercial just right across the street, right?

Look, there's a wall across the street.

So they have they have to go and then thank you for pointing that out.

Yeah, thank you.

Yeah, that's the first thing.

The streets are freeway.

It's a big that that big street.

Okay.

And so I yeah, it's close to the transit station that could happen then in the next 20 years.

But it's also you gotta traverse underneath the freeway and down the street.

I I don't know.

I just but I do love the project.

I just not sure if this is the right spot for it, but I do like the sound of commercial um neighborhood commercial, essentially.

I like the opportunity that this has to create a safe path for children.

Right now, the children, it's a mix of sidewalk road, uh, gravel.

Uh it's a mix, right?

Um this creates an opportunity to create a safer path.

In noting that it does introduce conflicts.

It does introduce points where vehicles are also introduced into that mix.

But we hear it all the time.

If you look online, we do lack some sidewalks.

We lack some safe routes.

There is sidewalk.

There is sidewalk, yes, but it's not the best sidewalk.

I've been over there.

Um anyway.

Uh so having having opportunities to improve that is valuable.

What again, whether this product is the thing, and again, we've seen a product that is not what we're voting on tonight, but uh the potential for them to build a product similar to what they've shown is is what they're hoping to move towards, right?

Um and whether or not we are in line or agree with that or request.

Right, because I mean that is the thing, right?

If we go from low density residential to mixed use, then it kind of opens up whatever mixed use can be.

Brittany, do you mind pulling up the table for mixed use?

So we can kind of look at what other things could potentially be built in mixed use.

Yeah.

I would say that mixed use is interesting where I mean the density would definitely be very easy to set because it kind of has to go with that map.

But you're right, as far as uses could be anything that's allowed in the table.

Um let's get to adult daycare, artisan shop, athletic construction, automobile accessory installation and service.

This is the new one where it's like window tinting or something like that.

Yeah, and see, like that that's an example of something I would not want in a residential area.

But it wouldn't happen here because you're dealing with 500 square feet.

Based off of what they should that they might build, but this is what they potentially could bakery, bed and breakfast, uh building and property maintenance services, which I think would be kind of just like a storefront office space, commercial parking lot, commercial recreational facility, conference center, convention center, reception center.

I mean, none of that would fit or be parkable, but dog care facilities, a conditional use, financial institutions and services, help fitness club, heliport.

Hotel laboratory, uh medical lab.

Umice warehouse combination.

Oh no, I'm looking at the wrong line.

Sorry.

That's not circle back to the beginning.

Is that what you gotta do now?

Uh just on this page, I got off.

So ignore that last one.

Laundry services.

So no helipad?

No.

Um heliport.

Sure.

Hoping for that one.

Um movie theater, nightclub dance hall, professional offices, um personal services, pet grooming, pharmacy, plant nursery, portable storage containers are allowed everywhere.

Um restaurant, retail, schools, veterinary clinic.

Printing and publishing facilities.

So it's yeah, it's pretty limited, but then the mixed use do you can obviously you can have residential housing.

The I'm just wondering how much there's no limit on the density in mixed use.

No, so again, it it all has to come from that maximum density map.

Um so when city can if city council were to approve this general plan amendment, they'd also have to amend that map, and they could say, you know, 20 units as shown in the concept or whatever.

So that's pretty easy to say a specific amount.

Okay, I do like the product.

I've driven through the area in Pleasant Grove that this product there's the similar product that you've shown us is, and I have even noticed like, wow, I like this product.

Didn't know you.

I'm not saying that that was what I was planning or looking for when I used to work in that area of Pleasant Grove, and I do remember feeling like, oh man, I wish we had something like this in Lehigh.

I said that to myself multiple times.

But there are some challenges uh with this one I hear their neighborhood's concerns.

Um I'm very interested to know what the city council will do with this one.

Because it is their decision, right?

We can give a recommendation, which is our uh charge in this case.

I'm very curious to know how the city council will react to this request.

If there is no further discussion, I would entertain a motion.

Unless someone wants to put forward a motion.

I'd like to hear what you have to say.

A question, Nicole, I appreciate your comment earlier that I also would not want to live on a frontage road.

So if not a mixed use, or if not low density residential as it is currently zoned, what what would you put here?

Commercial?

Neighborhood commercial specifically.

I think the neighbors would have maybe even more concerns with neighborhood commercial than they would mixed use.

There's so very little he I mean he can't do a single family neighborhood right here.

That would not make sense.

So he should be able to develop his property, right?

I mean yeah, but also so the issue that I'm struggling there is we're almost doubling the density.

We're giving them the option to almost double the density.

And I don't like that.

On that road, that fronted road.

It's interesting because it is a frontage road, which typically in your mind you think, well, that's a busy road.

But that section right there isn't.

I've never found it to be overly busy.

Well, maybe I don't drive through there at 5 p.m.

There's a lot of traffic that goes through that area.

I would think there's more than a known school days.

There's a lot of cars that go through there.

There's access on the west side right.

It's pretty close.

The little, you know, tunnel.

I guess it would be I'm leaning towards.

Um why can I not think or talk?

Um I'm leaning toward not recommending this to City Council for the reason that I don't like that mixed use would be almost doubling the density that's permanently that's permissible.

Is kind of what I'm thinking.

But again, I'm not sure.

Like what?

In an ideal world, what goes here?

I just I don't know how to answer that question.

So that's what's stumping me.

In an ideal world, there's 5,000 trees and a nice beautiful stream in a park.

And the horses and some horses and also a mountain.

But um that's fair.

That is not the ideal world we live in.

On four acres.

It's a lot.

In the idea of the dense.

Um that's what I'm thinking.

Would you like to craft that motion?

Someone wordsmith it for me.

Um K.

Putting forward motion for item 3.6, public hearing recommendation of Georgetown Developments request for a general plan amendment on 2.8 acres located on 41 East, 900 north, changing the designation from I learned something today where we can just say, please include all findings.

Please also include um DRC comments.

I'm wondering if we this doesn't need to be as drawn out as it needs to be.

For item 3.6, the motion being that we recommend to city council that they not approve this general plan amendment amendment with please include the findings.

Please include DRC comments.

Can it be that easy?

Can it be that simple?

I you might want to look through the findings as I think there's a I would just include finding four.

Yeah.

Thank you for the call out.

Potentially finding three too.

Please include.

And you will want to stipulate the will or will not part of the finding four with it not being in conformance.

Item five, that it is not consistent with the current line uses in zoning.

And then DRC comments.

Anything I missed, anything you'd amend.

I did one of the quick clarification on Kim's DRC comment.

He said 12 lots under VO VLDRA, 17 under VLDR.

I think we were just trying to do that comparison.

Of what would be allowed here?

Just the difference in density.

However, the current zoning she was saying was oh, four lots per acre.

Right?

Or four.

Isn't that what you said?

Yeah, are you looking at the right comment sheet?

Because that looks like that sounds like the one from the last week.

Yeah, yeah.

Apologize.

Thank you.

Let me catch up.

Okay, thank you.

That makes more sense.

I was a little confused.

Sorry, your motion stands.

I'll second the motion.

We have a motion and a second.

All in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Nay.

Nay.

Nay.

Controversial.

Did you get that?

See you guys in a minute.

Three days to it's just a it's a tough one.

I love the product.

I just not sure.

But we have an option here to present another motion, or it would go forward with a positive recommendation to the city council.

I don't think it would go with positive.

I think it would go forward either to neutral or negative recommendations.

I thought we found out that neutral wasn't a thing.

Yeah, it would be negative, sorry.

It would still go for negative recommendations.

But they would see that three of us oppose that.

They would see three of us oppose the negative recommendation.

And it would go forward as a negative recommendation.

Maybe if you guys wore green shirts.

Sorry, Craig.

We we may it's up to you guys if you would like to craft another motion and take a shot at it, or if you want it to sit as it mice.

And I would be curious to better understand why the A.

I am in favor.

I like what I've seen.

I think that I've been convinced it's proximity to potential use.

I I think that there are opportunities to move some of the mixed-use units and put it in this area.

Um I don't feel like it is a enormous development, um, which obviously would cause a very big problem uh for for this neighborhood.

It's a very small development.

Um those are my feelings of why I I'm leaning the opposite direction of the motion.

I agree with with that, and also I feel like we need more products like like this one in Lehigh.

I think it's a good product.

I've visited vector optics before, and it seemed really cool in Pleasant Grove where we're in the neighborhood I visited at.

So if this were a block into the neighborhood, um I would feel very differently.

However, because personally I feel that the frontage road brings it on the outside of the neighborhood, minimizing an impact to the interior portions of the neighborhood is also why I feel more comfortable with this location.

If it was on a different street, uh any of these other streets we're seeing on the map here, uh, I would be very uncomfortable with it.

But I feel comfortable with what they've what could go here on that road.

That's fair.

Would you like to redo the motion?

Read.

I'm still trying to figure out what I'm doing here to this evening.

So I go but I'm just looking through the possible motions and findings.

You know, it's within the DOD.

Um it's it's pro it does provide a nice buffer to the I-15 corridor.

Um I think it encourages active transportation.

There's the trail that comes down Dry Creek.

I don't I don't know if people in that neighborhood would uh walk to their offices there.

Who knows what people do?

Um I do think it's does conform to the purposes and intent of the provisions.

But I just I don't know if it doesn't fit the neighborhood.

And the argument that there is no other retail commercial really on that side of the freeway, and probably until you get up to 2100 north and 30 or 2100 uh north and 2000 west and 3200 north.

Clear up that way.

So that's where I'm still and so when I voted, I didn't know what I was voting on.

Which one of those was I actually voting on?

If I was in favor of this project or the zone change or not.

So let me let me let me try to may I propose another you may motion.

So on item 3.6 public hearing recommendation of Georgetown develops request for a general plan amendment on 2.8 acres located located at 41 East, 900 North.

Changing the designation from low density residential to mixed use.

Propos that we provide a positive recommendation to the city with the findings that it was it is within the TOD.

Uh with the density and nerve transit.

Proposed amendment to the city plan provides a buffer to I-15.

The proposed amendment to the city plan will not encourage uh sorry, will encourage grade of active transportation travel and reduce automobile trips.

And the proposed general plan amendment is in conformance with the purposes, intent, and provisions of the general plan.

And please include all DRC comments.

Are you willing to change the word will in your finding three to could thank you?

Yeah, no, you're right.

Let's make it that because we don't know.

Right.

We have a motion.

I'll second it.

Motion in a second.

All in favor.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Nay.

Okay.

That does have that does carry forward with a positive recommendation.

Um city council will listed to this.

There are some concerns, even from a positive perspective, right?

Um ultimately it is in their hands.

So did you have a comment?

Just saying, I think that's a more straightforward way for city council to get that recommendation.

Um thank you.

Um city business.

No, just uh reminder work session first Thursday of April and then no first regular meetings.

So yeah, like we've talked about.

Oh yeah, yeah.

That's yeah.

So I know some of you have asked when are we gonna be over the new building?

We'll have the work session here, and then that we're everything looks like it's lining up.

We should be holding that meeting on the 23rd at the new council chambers.

Okay.

Will you remind us?

So we oh yeah, that's probably a good idea.

Yeah, I'll finate saying, hey, we're gonna we're in the old building today and uh be over there because you'll be the only one.

Counting for you guys.

Oh, tardy, tardy, sorry.

No.

Um thank you.

Um I make a motion to end the meeting.

You can will you though?

Uh I propose a motion to end the meeting.

Adjourn.

Adjourn the meeting until next time.

Second.

Motion and a second, all in favor.

I any post.

Thank you guys.

Appreciate it.