Are you ready?

Good hearing.

Yeah.

Can we go?

Yeah.

All right.

We want to welcome everybody.

I was told to speak into the mic.

Can you guys hear me out there?

All right.

We'd like to welcome everybody to this Lehigh Planning Commission meeting on April 23rd, 2026.

Call this meeting to order.

And we will excuse Commissioner Jackson who's out of town tonight, but we're excited to have Lindsay here.

Thank you.

Move to item two, consent agenda.

Put forward a motion that we approve both consent agenda items 2.1 and 2.2.

Can I on one of the items of that cons uh 3.2 of the March 12th meeting?

There's no record of who seconded item 3.2.

I don't know if I'm being nitpicky or if it's definitely not.

But I'll take care of that.

Thank you.

And with that, I would second the motion.

Motion and a second with noting that change.

All in favor.

Aye.

Any opposed.

All right, we will move on to item three.

Or regular agenda item three.

And Mike, the timing's yours.

I didn't have a second here.

All right.

I have it pulled up on here.

Is it all right?

I think I got the HD mic able, sorry.

Should be a plug there.

Is it not working?

Let's see.

Let me try this.

We will say we're excited to be in the new building tonight.

This is our first meeting here, but there might be some technical hiccups we're working through tonight.

But it's open to that.

Did you want to note those two items that are yes?

Um just real quick.

Item 3.2 has been withdrawn from tonight's meeting.

Uh that is the lifetime fitness site plan approval.

And then also item 3.8 will be tabled when we get to that item.

The applicant has asked us to table that.

So if anybody was here for the Symphony Developments request for the Heritage Meadows, you're welcome to stay, but we will not be hearing that item tonight.

All right.

Perfect.

Hold this up here.

Shake it down.

Okay.

First item here is uh this is for Smith.

They're asking uh request for an exception on the their size and height of their pylon sign out, and this is out on 2100 north, 36 west.

The store is currently under construction and they're just looking for approval on the sign.

This was tabled from Planning Commission before.

They previously requested a 70-foot height.

Um they are now requesting a 50-foot height, so they brought that request down a little bit.

They also provided some uh drawing showing the the new requested height at 50 feet here.

Um their other pylon sign uh down on 3600 west meets the height and size requirements, so that that's not they're not requesting exception on that one.

These are some of the views that the applicant has uh provided showing the future uh freeway overpass over 3600 west.

If they just want to show how the sign would look from the ground, both on the north and the south side of the bridge and compare the 25 to the 50 foot.

This was the perspective of uh on the new this is kind of a concept showing the new freeway bridge, what the sign would look like driving there, the 50-foot size there.

Um this is from the other direction, uh, as if you're driving on the new freeway bridge about how much of the sign you'd see going uh westbound.

And with that, I'll turn it over to the commission.

Thank you.

Uh any questions for staff.

All right, is the applicant present.

Good evening.

Um thank you for letting us into your new home.

This is beautiful.

So thanks for that.

Thanks to staff.

I appreciate staff working with us to kind of reconsider, take a step back and look at this again if we can.

If you recall, and I'll I'll just repeat a couple of things.

Originally we came up with an application of um a 70-foot-tall sign and asking for a 900 square feet.

And the code allows for a 25-foot high sign with 600 square feet.

So we definitely were asking for um uh an exception for both square footage and the height of the sign.

Since we met with you back in March, we had an opportunity to receive all the drawings that UDOT has for this corridor.

And by the way, they did a groundbreaking about three weeks ago.

It is going to happen along 2100 north.

And I think that's a good thing, especially for traffic and all.

But what I wanted to come back to you as is as we looked at the speeds that were going to be created.

So all the new, can you go to the aerial that I had of that?

I just want to kind of walk through that if I could.

It's not this one, it's the Google Earth.

Here we go.

So I just wanted to show once again to orient you.

We're on that south side of 2100 north.

Where they have the accesses for eastbound traffic, that access occurs about half a mile behind our parcel or to the east or to the west of our parcel.

So eastbound traffic definitely needs to see something before even that half mile down the road so that they can then make a decision, a safe decision.

If you are westbound, the exit is 0.7 miles distance-wise.

And so even beyond before that, a driver needs to see what decision he's going to make.

Oh, here's a Smith, oh, here's fuel, and this is what we're going to do.

So what we're proposing tonight, what we revisited is the dynamic or the design of this, if you will, freeway system.

Um all those improvements are going to be in the center median.

And then what's going to happen is the roadways you know now are going to be frontage roads.

So once again, frontage road, I've got to make a decision well before I get to the intersection of 3600 because that will be an overpass at that point.

So your code allows 25 foot height and up to 600 square feet on a pylon sign.

We're proposing a 50-foot high sign.

I'll ex I'll show why the extra height is needed.

However, we're only proposing 43 square feet.

So within the square footage, we are well below what the code allows.

So now we're just kind of considering why the height limitation.

And of course, as I've mentioned before, if you'll just start to go through that mic, and then we're all on the kind of the same page.

This is just a layout of where that 50-foot pylon will be located up on the north northeast corner there.

Um the idea here of this exhibit is here's the 50-foot sign, the 50-foot height sign, the square air, the signage square uh square foot area is 400 square feet, once again below by 200 square feet, what is allowed by code, and then 25 feet.

The red line is to show what the visibility is or how high at the crossing of 3600 west, how high that overpass is going to be.

Already I've diminished some of the visibility for some of the multi-use tenants that are going to be in that site, but we did need some visibility once again for the decision making that's happening at half a mile beyond each each direction.

If you could go to the next one, Mike, and thank you so much for not giving me a button because I'd be all over the place.

It's really good control here.

Once again, as as Mike mentioned, the very top is if I am a view from the north to the south.

This is what is going to be seen.

Of course, the side of the sign, um, it is going to be up above the gradient area of that overpass.

The middle view is from the south.

So if I'm if I've almost got the Smiths project on my left, and I'm just starting to negotiate underneath, and I really hope that we're not driving on that side of the road, but that's okay.

Yes, absolutely.

You're showing a median there.

Well, the frontage roads not go through.

So the frontage road will be negotiated there.

There probably is a way for that to happen.

This was you know, copy paste, so I sure apologize.

No, no, I was just curious if that was something you got from UDOT.

Usually, no, no, that portion is not.

And probably there's an intersection like we all know, signalization and that sort.

Good.

Sorry.

Good catch on that.

What I wanted to show also is once again the visibility of that signage.

And then the bottom is just an example.

If we went to code of 25 foot height, and even regardless of what that square footage is of that signage, that sign is not seen.

Um especially from uh westbound traffic, but also eastbound traffic.

Uh if they're having to make a decision, they're actually having to move their eyes well off of the uh right-of-way to look down and find that that signage.

Um so and then the decision making back a half a mile makes it very difficult for anyone to make a safe transition once again to that to that frontage road access that then comes off of there.

So this was just to demonstrate that once we had this dynamic.

This is you did not see this last um March because I didn't have that information for you.

The next slide.

And then this slide is I am here.

I am eastbound, and I am before I'm at the estimated um exit that's gonna be here.

Now I have I this I'm I'm literally on the frontage road now, what it will be.

But this is a show.

I know you uh um Commissioner Ire, I know you I know you said something about hey, the the views that you have on the East.

Commissioner Air.

Air, I'm so sorry about that.

Um Commissioner Tyson.

If I can.

So what what you when you talked about the view of the bounds coming into this valley uh from uh from the west to the east.

What I wanted to show is that previously we have proposed what's outlined in red, and this is what we're proposing now, and once again, providing visibility for those in the distance to make a decision to then be off of this.

So this represents if I were at the um if I had already made the exit and now I'm coming um, now I'm gonna be on that frontage road and arrive.

So that's what this one is.

And once again, we've brought down the height about almost 30 percent, and then we've brought the square footage down well over 50 percent, so that that can be more integrated into the overall visibility of everything.

Mike, if you could just do that next one.

And then once again, this is if I am at that point seven uh mile location that and once again this is the exit.

Um if I am looking at this sign or trying to orient myself to get off that exit, this is what I'm going to see.

I'm I'm I've reduced it down again by 29% the height, and then I am looking at this sign, and this is similar to what um you will be looking at.

Um at just before 3600 West Crossing, I then see this sign that I now cannot access, and I'm driving past waving at the Smiths now that I cannot access.

So I think is that is that all of them?

I think that's everything.

So what to come back to you?

The request is we can still have a good signage that allows a safety in decision making to access the frontage road and also see what is coming up.

And this I this is why I'm back with you on this application.

And once again, the score footage is below what's allowed by code.

It's the height that we had to just try and identify for uh for those that are going to frequent um Smiths Marketplace in that.

So with those conversations with that conversation, that presentation, uh I look forward to your uh your approval, but I'm here to answer any questions that you may have.

Thank you, applicant.

Any questions for the applicant?

I don't know if I can maybe if I start talking, I'll have a question.

We'll see what happens.

Okay.

That's a terrible way to start, right?

That's fair.

But I appreciate you showing us where the exits were going to be, because that was one of my concerns is you have I-15 and then Redwood Road essentially.

Those would be the only two exits, but there's exits in between.

Um I we did I asked staff to put together a list of all the signs and along the I-15 corridor in Lehigh.

And all the I mean the outlets, obviously is huge.

100 feet.

But yours would be conserved.

UCCU is 50 feet, EV auto is 40 feet, which I thought was very helpful for staff to do that for us.

So I I like this.

I appreciate you coming back, showing us a different way, shrinking the size, the score footage.

I think this is something I would I could get behind.

Does the signage have a video board?

The only no, it it has just the price changers that are not repetitive.

They are fixed, and then when the price of fuel changes, they'll make that so you'll see that change, but there's no like some of these others.

No, there's not there's not a video board, there's not an electronic video board.

I will give praise for your work here.

I appreciate the work that you've done.

I agree with the sentiment that's been said.

I don't love signs, it's not a secret.

Um the signage that we have around, I think is a blight, can turn into a distraction rather than with the intended intent that it has.

Um before we get too much into opinions, this is a public hearing.

Uh did you have anything else to add for us?

No, I'm just here to answer any questions.

I can sit here in case you need to.

Well, we have two questions for the applicant.

All right, thank you.

All right, this is a public hearing.

If anybody is here that would like to speak to this item, you're invited to come up and speak in the mic.

Seeing none, there was a comment online.

Do you want to read that, Mike?

Sure.

Sorry, I should have had this prepared.

I'm a little rusty.

There is an item later that has many comments, so be ready for that one too.

Yep.

Okay, if there's one e-comment here.

Hannah Orton.

It says there seems to be a grave overestimation regarding how the pylon's large size and height of the signage will actually affect those who are traveling by it.

Nearby residents and possible patrons who will shop at this missed location will already know where it is and won't ever be needing an exaggerated sign to orient or reorient them to direct them to it.

Their phones or habit will already be doing that.

Other nearby grocery stores relative to this location, don't rely on similar proportions of signage to pull in patrons.

Most people are navigating using their phone, which goes against the current justification of this large sign.

Framing that, this sign is detrimental to securing patronage traveling from either direction is an exaggerated claim.

People traveling through this location on a frequent daily or infrequent monthly basis won't have their minds immediately changed because a bigger sign for a Smiths is or isn't present.

This location doesn't need a giant landmark bloated sign to convince nearby passing patrons to visit or shop.

Current city code height and size allowances should be sufficient enough to accomplish the aim.

It seems rather tone-deaf to take the stance that wanting to not obscure the natural outlook and beauty of the mountains in both directions.

And Utah is a justification to construct a big ugly piece of signage.

You should not want to look at the mounds as much as you do.

The applicant may convey with great certainty that increased height and size is necessary requirement for adequate visibility with that much proof.

So let me also offer the same amount of certainty when I say that this pylon is much too tall and big, and that proving exception is a bad idea, especially for those who will have to look at it every day and deal with the negative effects.

City code minimum allowances for height and size are already sufficient.

Twenty-five-foot pylon is already tall enough to grab your attention, and there is no need to make this pylon absurdly distractingly tall.

Please do not table or grant an additional continuance for this to be changed or altered.

Please formally deny this exception.

Yep, that's that calling.

Sorry, the Hannah Orton's for different there are two more calls.

There's two more right after that.

They're short.

Let's see.

I can read them for you, Mike.

Okay.

Sorry.

Well, you search for them.

The first one says I'm concerned about the potential 70-foot tall sign that is way too big.

I understand the 2100 route will soon have a freeway, but I don't want a quarter cluttered with billboards and massive signs.

That was by Tyler, maybe.

The second one is by Teresa Neath.

Teresa said, our townhouse is the first townhouse on the end directly next to the back side of the Smith building.

Where is the exact location of the smaller 25-foot pylon?

Thank you, Bill.

That being said, we will close the public hearing and invite you back up.

Do you want to address any comments you heard specifically on the location of the other sign as well as anything else?

You bet.

Mike, if you could go to the um red the site plan with the big red line through that.

So our other pylon will be on 3600.

Right there.

Yeah.

And then there's one up just a little bit in the middle.

Closer that's like a 15-foot.

So those are where the two uh that the other one is.

They're all those are both within code.

That's why we were just focused on the one odd there on 2100, if you will.

Um as far as what was related to you in some of these comments.

We have listened, and that's why you are considering a a shorter, smaller um size.

And it's true that there is going to be so much traffic.

Go into Eagle Mount, you know, along there.

They're just there just a will-be that some of them will need to help make a decision to come off and exit Smiths.

It's not necessarily, yes, the locals will know.

That will be their Smith, you know.

That's kind of how we always affectionately call our stores.

But um we're addressing that by minimizing the size of this and looking for your approval.

Thank you.

Any other comments or deliberation, or I'll entertain a motion?

Just by way of conversation, I I feel similar to what I think I heard the two of you say in that I do appreciate Golden West advertising coming back and doing quite a bit of work to reduce the size of the sign.

I would feel comfortable putting forward a motion if we do pass this.

Um I hear the residents saying that this could be a blight on Mountain View, which was our original concern for lowering the height of the sign from 70 foot to 50 feet.

I also respect the business's right to be able to advertise themselves.

And they would be greatly hindered to be able to do so because of the height of that freeway.

So just by way of conversation, I'm for it.

I I do have one.

Are we is this are we discussing lighting today?

Or is that discussing everything?

I mean, it's not on the agenda basically talking about how the height of the sign are they gonna come back for.

Lighting.

Did you want to come up and discuss the illumination of your sign?

Um there are there are restrictions in code, daylight, nighttime.

Now that we have the technology of like LED lighting and the way that you can control the hues of LED lighting and all that, um, that will be that it's definitely within code, and we will be complying with every every portion of that.

And we're required to.

We'll they'll actually once they get it installed out there, they take readings at different times of the day and night so that it complies with um with what it is that this city wants to see.

Thank you.

I'm sure they'll agree to a formal teardown if they don't meet it.

I'm kidding.

Your mic isn't working.

I definitely think that the lack of a digital piece on that will help with any of you know a lot of those concerns.

So I just had point of you're Rick Magnus, right?

I don't think you said your name this time, but it just she probably knows that, but just anybody listening here good.

There's not any other thoughts, I'm happy to put forward a motion.

All right.

I move that we approve item 3.1.

I'm gonna try a new format.

I think we learned last time that we don't have to necessarily note everything here.

So the motion being that we approve item 3.1.

With the findings being that at the proposed location, this sign will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity.

Um I think we also learned we can just ask you, Kate, to please include all those possible findings.

And let me check if there's any DRC comments.

There are a few, please include those as well.

Second.

Motion and a second.

All in favor.

Any opposed.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

I love the new house.

All right.

Three, just as a reminder for anybody that's locked in, 3.2 has been withdrawn.

That would be the lifetime fitness site plan exception.

And so we will move on to 3.3.

All right.

3.3 is a conditional use to allow flag lot.

This is located on 200 south here in Dam Tan Lehigh area.

It's within the medium density residential general plan.

It's currently zone R2, which is consistent with that general plan.

And they have this lot three here is a new proposed flag lot.

One of the DRC comments was that lot two here was part of the previous subdivision, so it really shouldn't be included as part of this because we can only do one flag lot per subdivision.

So really it's just lot one and lot three is what we'd be looking at.

But the the item before you tonight is for the conditional use to allow for the lot three, and then the chief building official does the sign off on the subdivision.

But it does meet the uh flag stem requirement and the fire access requirements to be able to get back into the future lot there.

So Mike, can you repeat what you said?

That was a little unclear to me.

The a lot is usually allowed one subdivision, not oh yeah.

So the code says flag lots can't be part of a big multi-lot subdivision, can only be part of a two-lot subdivision unless there's some kind of exception or something.

The lot two on this plat is already existing that way.

So this plot's really just splitting lot three off of lot one.

So if I go to the parcel map, you can see the existing parcel looks like this.

So all they're trying to do is take this parcel and split it to one new flag lot behind it.

Are there any requirements that this doesn't meet, like square footage or anything?

Uh it looks to meet all the square footage and the 20-foot minimum flag stem requirement.

So it's uh the new lots 9,500 square foot.

R2 requires at least 6,000 square feet for a single family home.

Uh any questions for staff?

Other questions for staff.

All right, this is uh we'll invite the the candidate or the applicant.

It's the applicant present.

We are online if you can hear it.

Oh, we can from above fun.

Uh is there anything that you'd like to add?

No, the only thing is to address the DRC comment.

The reason we included that other lot on there is when we had our pre-construction meeting.

Uh we had your power department wanted the power to run in a different location than we had originally, so we included that to show an easement as all.

So any questions for the applicant?

Okay, you're off the hook for a moment.

Um this is a public hearing.

If anybody is here that would like to speak to item 3.2, please come up and speak in the mic.

3.3.3.

3.3, excuse me.

Seeing none, I don't believe there was any comment online for this one.

So we'll close the public hearing and bring it back for further discussion or a motion.

Good with it.

Yeah, you're good.

I'm ready to make a motion.

Okay.

On item 3.3 public hearing consideration of Holden Rockbowl's request for approval of a conditional use for the Skull Valley plot B flag lot located at Detroit East, 200 south.

I move that we approve the conditional use, and that it's won't be detrimental or injurious to the property.

Uh it'll be located and conducted in the manner in compliance and similar lot next door.

And please include all DRC comments.

I'll second it.

Motion and a second, all in favor.

Any post.

All right.

Thank you, uh applicant.

You're welcome.

Thank you.

You too.

Uh 3.4.

All right.

So this is the Bull River Road preliminary subdivision located on about 425 West Bull River Road.

Uh, this is located right along where the Murdoch Canal Trail is at up there.

It's uh currently in the lower density residential designation on the general plan.

It's currently zoned R110, which allows for a minimum lot size of 10,000 square foot single family homes.

And what they're proposing are three new single family home lots.

All of these meet the frontage and lot size requirements.

Since it's unable to get a road connection through here, they do still meet the pedestrian connectivity.

This parcel A shows a sidewalk connection.

We have the external connectivity requirements where if you have a cul-de-sac, it's either one or two rows of lots between that and an external road like Bull River, you have to have a pedestrian connection.

So they do show that on here.

But other than that, we just have the three lots and they meet the zoning requirements for the R110 zone.

Thank you, Mike.

Any questions for staff?

I was curious.

Was there a reason that that first lot did not orient into the COVID sac?

It just doesn't meet the frontage requirement because if you can see the other existing lot over there, it takes up most of the frontage on it, so they couldn't meet the front edge.

Understood.

Thank you.

Yep.

All right.

Is the applicant present?

Welcome.

Thank you.

Well, Lindsay Neve with Perry Homes.

Uh, we want to thank staff for working with us on this.

And other than just to reaffirm that we meet all the requirements of the code, happy to answer any questions if there are any.

Any questions for the applicant?

All right.

None right now.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh this is a public hearing.

If there's anybody in the public that would like to speak to item 3.4, this is your time.

Please come to the mic.

Were there any comments online?

I don't see ones for the any for this.

I apologize on that Smith's one.

I had the old list.

Now we have the ones.

Seeing no none, we will close the public hearing and bring it back for further deliberation or a motion.

Ready to put forward a motion for item 3.4 public hearing consideration.

Perry Homes request for approval of the Bull River Road, preliminary subdivision, including three single family lots located at 425 West Bull River Road to the R110 zone.

The motion being that we approve this preliminary subdivision as it does meet the requirements for the zoning and Lehigh City's development code and please include those DRC comments.

Motion and a second, all in favor.

Any up post.

Thank you.

Item 3.5.

All right.

Okay, that shows the overall.

This is a concept plan for an area plan amendment on these larger area plan amendments we require it as a concept plan.

Just to kind of look at the big picture and see if the planning commission ultimately the council likes the direction that it's going.

An area plan amendment.

Now again, this is the concept, it's not the final, but uh an area plan amendment basically changes the rules of the area plan.

So that's you know anything proposed as part of this application is saying, hey, we're trying to change whatever shown on the land use maps or any of the details in the code.

So that's why they're here with this item.

Um they are required to do the concept plan first, so I think it's a great time to take a look at the big picture and see whether there are elements that are good or not good that the planning commission and ultimately the council would like to see on it or not.

Um but in the big picture, what's proposed is being able to allow there's uh 600 units up in this west canyon and some remaining um units within the central canyon that Perry uh commercials entitled entitled to.

Um they're just looking at uh allowing the ability to transfer those down to these parcels below.

Um they've put some details within the concept as to how many units would go into each parcel or maximum number of units.

It doesn't mean you can add up the maximum of all of them, and that's how many units they can get.

They're still limited.

There's no proposal to increase the overall density of Traverse Mountain.

This is looking at uh being able to transfer that.

Now the DRC did have a comment that they prefer if we're doing this that they just get all the units out of West Canyon and allow that to be future open space because there's there's still development up there, you still have to put infrastructure, there's maintenance and there's emergency management issues, um, like Central Canyon has a lot of units with one access, and that's not ideal.

We would hate to keep doing things like that in the future.

Um so it would be more ideal to pull those units out of the more wildland urban interface area and pull it down uh closer to where the roadway infrastructure is, where more of the commercial uses are.

Uh gives a lot more opportunity for walking and biking trips rather than being separated and far away.

Those are more likely to be driving trips.

Um the big picture, that's kind of uh what they're looking at.

I'll go through some of the details here, and then uh there was that one DRC comment I wanted to know.

Um so this is a little closer look at the parcels um that Perry owns all the parcels other than these two.

These two would be if they were to enter into some sort of joint venture with that property owner.

Uh good look at putting some housing units there.

Um this is existing general plan, which is based on the current Travis Mountain Area Plan.

It's all within the plant community zone.

Um this is just a look at that uh West Canyon parcel up there right now.

It is part of the the mining operation.

Uh when that mining operation is done currently, the area plan anticipates those 600 units up there.

Um again, it's not an ideal place to put a lot of development just with the terrain and everything else going on up there.

It just shows the general plan as it reflects the area plan.

Again, the zoning.

This is the current uh Traverse Mountain area plan map.

And a lot of what they're trying to transfer into is either already identified as high density or highway commercial with the high density overlay.

Um really all that it does is it allows for more units to be located there, is what this amendment would do.

And then with that, I'll turn this over to the commission.

I have a question for staff.

Mike, uh, is there still plan?

Does Utah still have plans to put another freeway entrance north of Thanksgiving Point?

It is on their plan, and Lauren and Engineering is working very hard to try and get that as soon as you can.

A lot of that hinges on UDOTs told us, well, there's not a lot of development right at that location right now.

Um so it's like a chicken and the egg kind of thing, but we're pushing, we just think it needs to go in even before the development.

Um but it is on the master plan, and we feel like that's very important to get that north interchange because that allows another way onto the freeway without logging down the SR92 interchange as much.

So allows more dispersion of traffic.

Was that part of the thought of putting some high density up on that end where it was maybe closer to that future access to a freeway?

So that north end, you mean the stuff that's under construction right now?

No, I'm oh on this one.

Yeah, so that the original area plan I don't think was anticipating necessarily that uh interchange being there.

Obviously, we think it's gonna be helpful for Travers Mountain and the future development down below.

Um but the initial area plan actually had a lot more density, and in 2012 that got brought down to the 5812.

Um, there were uh many more units in the canyons in the original plan than there is now, so it's definitely better than it was.

Um but I think the more we can get uh units out of the canyon areas, it's better for public safety and and has more opportunity for either other modes of transportation or having closer access to some of the major.

There are details once you get into the actual area plan amendment that we certainly want to make sure we're getting right and looking at the impacts.

I know they mentioned that the DRC, like a traffic study is gonna be needed to be done.

We want to look at circulation.

Um I'm a believer in trying to do traffic circulation in a way that's uh puts people where we want them to drive and limits them from where they're not.

Shouldn't be driving, like through neighborhoods and things like that.

Um so I think that's certainly something that could be looked at with a traffic study.

So does a transfer of this is not a swap, this is a strict transfer, moving them from one place to another.

What would happen to the land where these were originally designated?

Um that's part of the right now.

The I believe the and maybe the applicant can clarify more, but I believe for every unit they pull out, it's like 0.12 acres, would be designated as open space up there and reclaimed.

Um maybe they can clarify what their proposal is.

But the idea would be if you transfer those out.

Um we should be getting more open space up there.

So it doesn't mean no development up there.

So if if it does get approved that way where there's more open space going up there, then that would be no development.

But they're not planning to pull all units that they've been awarded up in that area or audit up in that area.

That's right.

The current proposals to allow the transferability, but it's not requiring it to come out.

Understood.

And this is also not a an addition to what has been approved.

This is just a moving from one location to another.

Luckily, no net increase in density proposed.

It's just yeah, it's moving, which obviously there's trade-offs to everything that you do in planning, but that's up to use the commission and ultimately the council to consider all those trade-offs.

Thank you.

Any other questions for stuff?

Yeah, Mike, I'm gonna apologize.

I'm gonna have you rehash a lot of that just to make sure I understand fully.

It's all good.

My understanding is that Perry Homes owns all those blue areas that you showed previously.

So up in West Canyon, then also those areas, excuse me.

Except for these two parcels.

Okay, just those two partials.

Those are separately owned, but they may not have agreement with them to the proposal here is that they would take the density associated with West Canyon, pull some of that out of West Canyon, park it here north of Tippinogas Highway, and then there's a portion of that land from West Canyon that would be given to the city, or probably the folks from Perry Homes can get clarity to this.

And they can clarify what their hope is for the amendment since this is their proposal.

This is still the concept plan.

So there's a lot of details that would have to be worked out.

This concept plan is really just to see what everybody thinks of the overall idea.

Um if there's problems with it.

Obviously, some things could be changed for the next area plan amendment, or you know, if people just really don't like it at all, then it doesn't have to be approved by the council.

So okay, thank you.

Mike, is there a map that shows Perry A1 and B1 and Perry D6?

Highway commercial.

All right here.

Oops.

Here's Perry D.

B1 and A1 are up here.

Um this is the highway commercial piece as well as this year that they have.

Can you easy them out so I can see them all at the same time?

Oh, yeah, sorry.

I'm just moving around like crazy on getting dizzy.

There you go.

Okay.

And the there's a paragraph for each one of those little areas.

And there's a number with each one.

Yep.

So that number com all combined is not going to add up to more than what is it, a thousand.

182?

Yep, they're limited to the number of units they have.

All the their proposal does is says this is the absolute maximum that any one of these districts has.

If they max out a couple of districts, it means the other districts are gonna have they're not gonna be able to max out because they don't have enough units to do that.

Okay.

So that's not this is concept, so they're they haven't sure that the language would be right in the the actual amendment to make sure that's very clear.

Okay.

Thank you.

Is there any scenario where they max out down here but then still have units left over and then want to go back and put it up in West Canyon?

According to the current proposal, it allows some of that flexibility.

Um right now it gives the option of transferring out, but they don't have to.

That was part of the DRC's commons.

They prefer just to say, hey, if we're transferring, which is required to come out, but that's just the DRC's opinion.

So any other comments, questions for staff?

Let's get the applicant.

Is the applicant present?

Good evening.

I'm Matt Swain here representing uh the Perry companies on this application.

Happy to have a discussion and answer any questions.

Is there anything that we missed in the presentation that you wanted to add?

I think Mike did a great job.

We've been working with staff on and off on this concept for a number of years, and it was it was actually spurred uh a number of years ago by staff just looking at the hillside and saying, okay, what can we do to get some of the density off the hillside for all the reasons within the uh the staff report.

Um I think that they would like to see as much of that density off the hills as possible.

So um very grateful for the time we've had to spend with with staff and getting to this point and refining it.

Uh this is kind of the I'd say the fourth-fifth iteration, maybe of kind of back and forth just at the staff level is as we've been trying to work with them to find uh uh a reasonable uh way to propose this uh to to help get them a few things that they need and also uh hopefully provide us the flexibility with this density to be able to work with the market.

The market really guides the decisions that we have to make.

Um so the flexibility that we have here bringing down uh a certain number that's undefined of those units allows us to react to the market as it relates to product type velocity of that product uh demand within the market.

Um it just gives us some flexibility to to be nimble uh within the market demands.

So I'm happy to answer any questions if uh there's a lot of moving parts here.

We recognize that and we recognize this as conceptual in nature, and there's probably going to be some back and forth, and and we uh look forward to that conversation.

But uh really here to to answer any questions that you might have.

I had a question about the uh additional park space that would have been in West Canyon and now needs to be transferred with the density over to these other areas.

Yeah, I I I think we're open to that concept.

We already have is outlined and Mike, I don't know if you have the other exhibits that we had sent, uh kind of outlining the uh the different parcels.

But there's already in the area map or uh that's requiring us of a a park kind of in the um, the one at the corner of Travers Terrace?

Yeah.

Yeah.

So parcel C, there you go.

So there we're we're required, and and again, this is not indicative of of the alignment or the location of that park necessarily.

It's just a description of the acreage that's required underneath the uh the area map.

Um so we've had some some high-level discussions about possibly making that a little bit bigger, maybe relocating it to a different location.

Um we're open to those conversations to add a little bit more park space to the all already uh required park, as well as as we've discussed dedicating what's up there that's not developed and reclaiming that and dedicating it over to the city for perpetual open space.

I don't love hearing the word maybe, right?

Um that's not a word that holds a lot of water.

Um obviously this is a concept plan, right?

But as it went further, we would want to see real hard figures of what that looks like, what changes, if any, would be made to the amenities that would be going in there.

So the requirement is only 0.5 an acre.

This this half acre was from a previous requirement.

So there's five acres originally required in this area, four and a half got transferred over to where Knight Academy is, which is now Triumph Park, and there was a half acre left of that required park space still here.

So this isn't in any intense anticipation of what park space could move down.

This is just what was already required in the existing area plan, and they just wanted to show that as a minimum remaining on there.

Okay.

Does the density the movement of the density does it trigger anything that would require them to reevaluate, or is that half acre really all that's left that they need to really fulfill?

So at a minimum, the half acre does.

I think there's some discussions that can be had about the open space that's required currently in the area plan for West Canyon.

Obviously, if some of that open space up there is dedicated to the city, that's a big chunk of open space the city would be getting and could be able to put into the conservation easement, contribute to the overall open space that's up there.

Um but certainly I would appreciate that Matt's talking about the possibility of having more open space down here, because I think one of the elements to get right when you're including more housing in an area is having good public open spaces and doing it in a way that you know transitions well from existing development, all that kind of stuff.

So I think a lot of those things could definitely be discussed and talked about as part, and that could be part of your comment recommendation on the concept.

That's why we're here for the concept plan to say, hey, what are the kinds of things that we feel like can mitigate whatever impacts we feel like this move makes?

So if there's some of these things that you feel like council should consider and that the applicant can be considering, I think this is the time to really bring some of that up.

Do we put any sort of designation or is there any sort of difference between open space and like usable open space?

Because there's lots of open space up there, but it's not necessarily you're not able to really like recreate on it, like go have a picnic or put a playground or anything like that.

Is there any sort of designations, or would that just be something that would be worked out?

So the area plan currently designates not just open space, they say park space.

Um the current area plan, like this is park space, that's usually amenitized landscaped, whether it's playground or some other amenity that's there.

That's the idea.

And then the area plan also shows just kind of environmental sensitive area open spaces that's more open space, maybe have the mountain bike trails or hiking trails in those spaces.

Maybe have the mountain bike trails or hiking trails in those spaces.

But again, that could be part of the discussion of this concept in the amendment ultimately.

Especially down this area versus up in West Canyon that should be considered.

I think that's all part of the discussion.

And like I said, just to be clear, we're we're open to broadening the uh the required open space park space that's shown in blue here as a part of this, as well as dedicating the perpetual easement uh in West Canyon for whatever ground is is there.

And I will add that uh I think that would be great to look at this area too, because I know in the past when the open spaces moved before from the prior amendment.

I know some of the residents in this area uh were hoping to get a little more of the park space.

So I mean if that could help you know provide some improvement to the area, yeah.

Could be positive.

Um I don't know if you can answer this question, but for that West Canyon area, were you guys thinking of building more single family homes?

What size lots?

Can you give me an idea of what you're thinking up there?

Um it's pretty likely there'll be larger single family lots up there just due to the topography and the lay of of the land up there.

That's that's far more likely.

Um again, we're driven by the market.

We have uh a certain allocated number of units, and the market's gonna kind of drive that once we're at at a point to develop that.

But looking at the topography and the location, it's more likely that it'll be single family homes.

Okay.

And then those ones down by Tempanogus SR92, are they going to be single family homes, just tighter, or are you doing multifamily?

Far more dense.

It'll be more vertical residential.

And so yeah, the density or the size of the units is going to be far smaller the closer you you put it down to SR92, and obviously you're putting it on fewer acres.

So it will go vertical, it'll be more dense.

And I think we've outlined some kind of parameters of density within the each parcel based upon what those unit numbers could look like on each parcel.

Is the market still requiring, not requiring, but you get the drift, uh that high density housing that we're seeing, like at Utah City, or maybe out of the There's there's no doubt that that's where the trend is going just based upon the expense of inputs, the cost of construction, the cost of you name it.

Everything has gone up uh dramatically just in the last five years.

And so the consequence of that is shrinking things.

And the demographics are shifting in that direction.

Um first-time home buyers, which you know, that's a whole other discussion.

But yeah, the the houses have to get smaller, the lots have to get smaller for them to be affordable and sustainable within this market.

So I I do think it's reflective of where the market is going.

Um there's always a market for premier estate view lots, which is what West Canyon would be.

And so it's a it's a different market that we would be looking at doing.

And so we have the right to build that now in West Canyon.

We're looking at doing this as a compromise.

Frankly, a smaller unit down closer to SR92 is going to be less valuable, less profitable than an estate lot up on a view of West Canyon.

The difference is is timing essentially and hitting markets within uh a different timeline.

Yeah, I agree.

I think uh a state lot what half acre, acre.

Uh yeah, I mean, you would see something that up there based upon the the topography of the idea.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So I guess I'm wondering also why are you guys I mean, you've done a ton of work up there, or somebody has.

Yeah.

Why now are you looking maybe we leave that and come back and bring I mean market-driven.

It yeah, and and honestly, it's not as though we're gonna go start building all these right away.

Sure.

We're looking long term and saying, okay, what can we do to accommodate the city?

Is and being good neighbors, doing the development the right way.

Um, and having the flexibility to to move with the market.

Right now we can just sit and wait for West Canyon to come to us and we'll we'll build the houses in West Canyon based upon our entitled rights under the area map.

Um so we're looking for flexibility, is essentially it to be able to move that density off the hill, accommodate some of the concerns that we're aware of that have been voiced to us over and over again by staff and uh neighbors, the amount of traffic and everything that 600 units is gonna take up those main roads through the neighborhoods and all of that.

We're we're very aware of what the impacts may look like developing out West Canyon.

Um so it's it's it's essentially a compromise to say, okay.

Perry companies have been here, we've been developing in Lehigh for a lot of years.

We try to be good neighbors, we try to do things the right way.

Um so we're we're here really as a compromise with the staff saying it might be a good idea to get some units off the off the mountain.

I haven't had the opportunity to drive up to West Canyon.

I don't know how far I could get up there, but obviously I looked at it.

Is there room for 400 half acre lots up there?

No, I'm not suggesting all of them would be half acres.

Um there there may be some high-end town homes that are far more dense than a single family home.

There's certainly space for 600 units.

Um, but I do think there will be a mix of product types even at that location.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah.

Can you speak to the timeline of West Canyon?

When is that going to come online for development?

You know, that that is um that's more a question probably for Geneva than it is for us.

Um I I don't know that I can answer that with real certainty.

They haven't given you some commitment of a timeline of when they're going to get out of there?

No.

Interesting.

Uh any other questions for the applicant.

You're just asking.

Thank you.

Okay.

Have a seat.

I'm sure there will be more for you soon.

Right.

Uh this is a public hearing.

Before we jump into that, Mike, I wanted clarification.

This does go to city council.

They don't see the recommendation to the council.

Okay.

So they don't typically see concept plans.

What's triggering this to go?

Um, if it's an item that ultimately will receive a council approval, like an area plan amendment, because that requires council approval, we like to send it to the council.

Since they're the one that will ultimately approve it, I'd like you know, we want to make sure the AfCanton city and the public.

I'm glad they're talking there.

I was just wanting to.

Oh, yeah.

So we will invite the public up.

We'll open up the public hearing.

Um we're gonna ask staff behind the shady glass over there to give us a time limit.

I know there's a lot of people that probably want to speak to this.

So we'll put a two-minute time limit uh for public comment.

We do ask that we keep the comments addressed to the commission, not towards the applicant or back towards the public.

Um we also ask that you keep your comments respectful and um on point to what we are seeing tonight.

That being said, public hearing is open.

We'll invite anybody that would like to speak.

Good evening.

My name is Rob Ludlow.

I'm a longtime 20-year resident of Traverse Mountain and have been actively involved in uh negotiating with the developer and with the city to broke our compromise.

And I my wife and I are probably the only people that were involved in brokering the 2012 Travers Mountain Area Plan that are here tonight.

And so I wanted to give a little bit of history, and I hope I can get it within two minutes, but I think I can give you some some strong reasons why the proposal is frankly unacceptable and it basically unwinds a compromise that that was made with residents and is now unwinding that um and is effectively a density grab by Perry Holmes, and it's just uh a terrible plan.

You know, it's important to realize that um in you know in 2003 the city offered Cabela's a um Cabellas came to the Lehigh City and said, hey, we want um to have a a large um you know a a large presence here.

The city didn't have money to you know get buy free land, they didn't have land to give them, and so they gave a density bonus to Mountain Home Development developer at Travers Mountain to provide the free land.

And um and the problem with that was is that they continued to sell the 3,500 unit plan um way into 2011 and 2012.

They didn't mention that we're gonna now have 8,000 units up here.

They they sold the 3,500 unit plan.

And so when in 2011, Mountain Home Development is nearly bankrupt, they then exercise this option after selling everybody on a 30 or 500 unit plan.

And there was a train wreck.

And a lot of a lot of friction and a lot of challenge.

And so, you know, in 2011, when this area plan was proposed, there was a lot of compromises being made.

And while Perry doesn't realize it, they are going at the heart of a number of key compromises.

And frankly, I'm disappointed in the planning staff for not championing and holding firm on these compromises and including residents yet again because of what was given.

And so let me just say like that that is unacceptable to be giving away key compromises that the city made.

City did buy down density.

We did bring down density out of the Central Canyon.

And instead of us dickering over the 5,812 units in each different neighborhood, we basically compartmentalized the density in specific areas.

And there was only one area, Central Canyon, that allowed sweeping of density.

The area plan explicitly locks density into specific areas and says you cannot transfer it.

And so that was one of the key compromises is we don't want density in one area.

So now what are they doing?

They're saying, well, we want the option now.

We really like, we don't want to have to build up here in West Canyon.

Well, the time to have had that conversation was back in 2011, not 14 years later.

The other important thing to realize is that Perry argued, well, we need to build a pad for 600 units in West Canyon.

And so they've had a massive sand and gravel operation that they've contracted out to Geneva and have made tens of millions of dollars selling selling sand and gravel under the auspices of mass grading.

I'm glad to see Mike call it mining for what it is.

And so I'm curious to see whether or not Perry is going to walk away and say, I'm willing to stop my mining operation, this super lucrative, you know, along with the density transfer.

Please ask them that.

And the answer is going to be no.

Well, we really like, we want to have our cake and eat it too.

We want to have the mass grading in a residential neighborhood, adjacent to a residential neighborhood, and near a school.

We want to continue that so we can make money.

And there's a lot of infrastructure that they're going to need to build.

And they're saying, you know what?

This is not going to be very profitable for us in the timelines that we want.

We'd rather grab all this density and literally slam the majority of it next to Ignite Entrepreneurship Academy, a charter school.

They're going from 250 units.

If you bring up in Perry A1 and B1, you're going from 250 units to 827 units, which would dramatically change the neighborhood.

It's antithetical to what we try to do, which was balance density and find homes for the density, and it does not accompanied with a meaningful transfer of open space.

So let's talk about open space.

Rob, I'm going to ask you to wrap up.

Okay.

The open spaces West Canyon is not usable.

So when you reclaim terraced hills that are no longer accessible from the hills around it, that's not a fair trade.

And also it's antithetical to the master plan community ordnance that we have inside of inside of Lehigh.

Open space is supposed to be adjacent to people.

Here we're moving people away from the open space, moving them a mile and a half away.

We are stripping commercial and give they're giving their buddies at River Bend Development, you know, 300 additional units where they instead of and instead of building commercial, which is one of the promises in the Travers Mountain Area Plan, and one of the benefits to Lehigh City is a commercial tax base, and they're stripping out the commercial and slamming in yet another big apartment complex along SR92.

Just the idea of saying it's a great idea from going from the maximum density level inside of Traverse Mountain of 20 units per acre, and they're asking you to bless going to 50 units an acre, going from three stories to seven stories adjacent to a charter school is nuts.

And frankly, is not in keeping with the role that they took on as they graduated from being a neighborhood builder to taking over the role with their with their partner, Riverbend to be master developers.

And they say that they like to be good neighbors.

Well, ask them, hey, when was the last time you paid dues to the homeowners association up there that you now lead and control?

The answer is they don't pay dues.

They allow all the residents to pay and fund the master association and the commercial folks somehow get a pass and don't need to pay dues.

So saying that they are awesome neighbors is probably not fully consistent with the entire story.

And I would just simply say that this is not in keeping with the high standards that a master plant community is supposed to have.

Master developers are supposed to come in and bring creativity and innovation and design and not have a density grab.

They get increased rights, but along with that comes increased responsibility.

And the only thing that shines through in this particular proposal is a glaring density transfer that does not fulfill this elevated standard of design that we hold master developers to, but it's just simply a blatant economic grab that is not in the best sense of interest of the community, that overloads an area that already has traffic issues and will be overloaded even further from the work that they're doing building putting in the Whole Foods there on the corner of SR92 and Morning Vista.

And we pour more density into an already, you know, already full area.

And that is not what a master plan community is about.

It's about balance.

We get to realize we started with 3,500 units, and then we were all surprised by 8,400 units.

And we reached a compromise at 5,812 units.

And this is not in keeping with the compromise.

So I strongly recommend that we hold firm to the original plan, that we don't unwind these compromises, and that we hold Perry to the high elevated standard of being a mess or developer and not doing these kind of piecemeal half-hearted designs that frankly are unacceptable and don't meet the standard, you know, the legal standard here in Lehigh City for what a master plan community is supposed to achieve.

So I strongly encourage you to vote no tonight.

Thank you, Rob.

Oh, yeah.

My name is Zach Sabrisky.

I agree with everything he said.

So we bought a house, we're on that road right there, one of those view lots, and I appreciate him talking about creating view lots because we paid extra.

I worked here for maybe six years before I moved here about eight, nine years ago, and I did a lot of research of where I wanted to move, where on Traverse Mountain.

I looked at all the different neighborhoods, and I actually saw this plan, and it did have five acres of park right below us, and now it's already been reduced to a half an acre.

And so, and then instead of 75 houses now, he he just said that they want to go vertical.

So they sold us, we paid more for a view lot.

And he said that about West Canyon.

Like we're gonna have nice half acre, one acre view lots, and then you pressed him on it, and he says, Oh no, not half acre.

So what I'm saying is I don't trust Perry.

We paid extra for a view lot.

We finished the basement because we even have a view out of our basement.

I mean, and he the first he said we'd go vertical to put 300 units in 11 acres.

I mean, it's gonna ruin it for us.

And like I said, I did a lot of research before we moved here.

I checked out a lot of different neighborhoods.

That was supposed to be five acres of park down there, and now it's already down to a half of half of one acre, and it's just gonna ruin our neighborhood.

It down there below and to the right, I think that she's gonna talk about where her house is.

And I'm not sure if Perry's gonna put in if they're talking apartments or townhouses or whatever, but to put 300 in 11 acres, but it's ruined the neighborhood below.

So I strongly discourage this.

I don't want this to go through.

Thanks for listening.

Thank you.

My name is Drew Armstrong.

I live at 5601 North Canyon Rim Road.

So up in uh Central Canyon.

Um the couple of concerns that I have is number one, has has the city already invested or I mean, do we have infrastructure there that is already going one direction and is going to be abandoned, or is this going to cost more in terms of putting infrastructure?

Are we wasting infrastructure that's already been allocated by the city for uh specific dwelling units in specific places?

Um so that that's a bit of a concern uh for for me, and I I don't know that.

That's something that I'm asking.

But um in general, I like the idea of moving uh density as long as it doesn't impact the neighbors uh closer to transportation corridors.

Um but at the same time I think we also need to be cognizant of the fact that one of the reasons that people are are up in arms about density is what we'd like.

I mean, even if it's a small yard, you know, single family residence.

Um I I think that right now in general, we're saying we've we've got a lot of very high density when you're talking about going to seven stories.

Is that really you know, density is not all equal.

When you you know, you you might have small lots that are 0.14 or 0.10 acre lots, but it's still a single family residence in a neighborhood.

And uh it's you know, it's not just a huge high-rise condo project.

And I think that um I I don't think all density is equal as far as that goes.

So I it's a concern to me a bit.

Um and I I think I'll agree with the first gentleman um for the most part.

It it uh I'm I always am concerned when cities get enough years down the road that they forget the history that is behind uh the agreements that were made at one point, and I would encourage you to go back and look at the meetings um again uh back from 2011.

Thank you.

I'm Aaron Ethington.

Um I live in the crossing neighborhood, just well, I guess it's west of the red parcel there.

Um I'm all over the place.

The mining operation, all the things like they definitely should they have done the environmental damage, they've dusted Utah County all for years and years.

They've taken their profits, they should definitely not be allowed to move all of the units out of that area, period.

Um but more importantly, um the Perry area is written in the area plan.

Um there is language, very strong language that says uh if I can find it again now.

Uh this is specifically talking about this parcel and then the A1B1, um where they're talking about putting 827 apartments.

Um planning areas that are noted with a do not exceed label are not permitted to exceed the do not exceed dwelling unit count, no matter the underlying zoning designation, EGC, Perry Homes Planning Areas A and B.

This is in the area plan.

Okay, that says no more than 250 units there.

All of us that have invested and bought in Travis Mountain area plan, we uh not a good speaker here.

Okay, um we are have invested there, we are paying additional fees to live there, and increasing those density rights by 300 to 400%.

Um it it runs counter to the intent and the underlying purpose of having an area plan in the first place.

Perry knew going in that the West Canyon area would be difficult and expensive expensive to develop, and they move forward anyway doing the destructive mass grading under the pretense that they're gonna build there.

Um hopefully the millions that they made doing the grading will help them afford to build what they're planning to build.

Um they should not be granted the rights to transfer the units out of the area and into an area where the area plan explicitly says they can't.

The this is ultimately a choice about profit for the developer.

They can decide whether the cost of developing within their current rights are worth it to them or not.

But for current residents who live down here and are already affected by too much traffic with all the development around it, there is no choice for us.

We bought into a master plan community with defined expectations.

So allowing this change would take those expectations away after the fact, effectively rewriting the rules to our detriment and to their profit.

Thanks.

Thank you.

So I'm Mary An Ludlow and I live in Traverse Mountain, and I was around when this was originally negotiated in 2012.

And I just want to let you know that those planning, there is not a mass density right in Traverse Mountain.

It's done by zoning units, which is districts, which is why they need to come in and amend this plan.

But that was a huge portion, that was a huge part of the negotiations was having these districts in which they could not exceed that density.

And you know, they and under that, I mean, they have been mining West Canyon for the last 14 years.

They would not have been allowed to do that if they had said, yeah, we're not going to develop it.

But under that guise that they're going to develop it and have a development there, they've been profiting for the last 14 years mining that.

And now we're going to say, oh yeah, we're gonna let you never mind.

You don't have to you don't have to um build there, you can just move it down.

And and if there had been, there was a lot of people at the table when this area plan was there.

A lot of residents, the HOA, the city was there, the developers were there.

There was a lot of people that were looking at this plan when it was done.

And there's no way it would have been approved if this additional density had been down in that area.

And so there was rights that were that are vested for the residents, and I'm an attorney, so I understand vested rights, but there's not a vested right for Perry to move down.

And that was not part of the area plan.

And I and I guarantee you that if they had proposed that when we negotiated it in 2012, it would not have gone.

It would not have flown.

Um, because it is packing so much density down there in that area.

And that's a very dense area.

In West Canyon, there's other routes out.

If people want to go, if people want to go west, right?

I'm sorry, if people want to go north out of West Canyon, they can take alternate routes so they're not clogging the traffic there.

And there was some very specific reasons why there was density allowed up there, because it wasn't putting as much impact on that main artery right there that is already congested.

And so I would really urge you not to recommend that they have this right to move, hold them to the area plan.

You know, the residents have been relying on this area plan for the last 14 years.

Perry should have to rely on that too.

And um it should not be you know allowed to have mass graded and profited for 14 years.

I guess you could require them to disgorge the profits they've made for the last 14 years if if they're not required to build there, um, because that's the only reason that they would have been able to mine that area.

So I would urge you to not approve this, to not recommend that it go forward and that this change be made.

Thank you.

Hi, Montana Hamilton, Travis Mountain resident as well.

Um keep it fairly short, agree with a lot of that, right?

There's vested rights here.

And I think we need to be very careful about changing those rights because once we give them the rights to move all that density down, they they're entitled to it.

And we can't say no.

So I think we have to be very thoughtful about changing.

I think we should be open to change, but I've seen nothing proposed to say that this should happen, right?

We have no solid plan on what they want to do with it other than put more density.

If they could come with a traffic study, a solid concept that showed how this changed the plan would actually benefit us as residents in that area.

I think we could support that.

There is no plan here, other than we it would help us make more profit on these properties by moving this density.

I think we should be very careful about changing the entitlements.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, Angie Park.

I'm also a longtime resident.

Um, I just Perry Homes has a long history with both Lehigh as well as Traverse Mountain.

And so I just want to.

Well, I want to encourage you to come with me on a hike and actually look and see.

Um it takes it's an hour.

I I did it yesterday, and actually see West Canyon and see what they've done.

There's no longer a mountain there.

It is a sand pit.

Um, it is really shocking.

I have a video, but it doesn't, you gotta see it in person.

It's an hour, it's 300 feet up and down, it's meandering, it's an hour out and back.

I encourage you to come.

And most importantly, I also want you to encourage the city council to know that there is a long history and what they've done, we can't get the mountain back.

But what we can urge them to do is to mitigate and ask what are they gonna do to mitigate?

Because right now it's just silica sand that's blowing all over into Traverse Mountain into Lehigh, if it's going north into Draper, it is awful.

And we'll never get the the mountain back, but we can mitigate, and there's actually code, Lehigh Code.

I actually looked it up, chapter four, as far as the mass grading or the mining, what you're supposed to do is re-revegetate.

And so there is code we can try and please encourage Perry Holmes to do the right thing for be a good neighbor.

They have not been a good neighbor this all this time.

And so if you could just please, I encourage you to come with me on a little hike and actually see for yourself the devastation that they've done to West Canyon.

There's no way that they can build homes there.

That was never the plan.

That was a guise.

Uh guys with saying that it was mass um grading, it was really just mining this whole time.

They never, there's no way.

If you see it when yourself, there's no way you can build houses there.

So anyway, thank you.

Thank you.

Um I'm Josh Coleman.

I um we've lived in Lehigh for 20 years, uh, lived in the crossings for about seven years.

And when we moved there, the fields were open.

There were guaranteeing or trying to go off of the guarantee of the planning that was there.

Um but if you look I I want to encourage to get to get maps that show the other high density housing that is in that area, and also the parts that are not in that area because in crossings, um, unfortunately, uh, since we we've lived in Lehigh for 20 years, so I've been seeing the Travers Mountain area being built.

We see the parks all in Travers Mountain, it's great.

Crossings, I feel like the south this uh south area has been severely neglected.

The only part that we have is the the park in the canyons um um the canyon, the canyon park by by the pool, and it's not even a I don't think it's even a uh publicly owned park.

But that is the only part that is uh near there, and now we're planning on putting more high density housing where we already have high density housing.

We have the view apartments, we have the seasons apartments, elevated apartments by Harmons, we have a bunch of town homes, plus all the other high density housing that's going on in the Inverness area.

So I would highly suggest to go and uh on that map and and mark all of the places where there currently are high density housing and see how how close how closely dense or you know dense the density housing is to that, how how close proximity they are, and then also um propose to get more parts.

You know, I think that's one of the things that we were told by Perry when we first moved in that we're that there was gonna be more parks that were gonna be built, and so far none have been built since we moved since we've lived there.

So um, you know, please reconsider or consider not voting for this.

I I strongly oppose it, and I know a lot of other people that do as well, so thank you.

Thank you.

Hi there.

Um hello.

I am Ryan Kingle, and uh I live right there on that map.

Um I am not this.

I've never been to one of these.

Um and so I am uh born and raised in Ohio and moved out here to Utah in 2017.

Um that's my beautiful wife there uh with our first baby.

Um and and coming here and picking out where to live, you know.

We chose Traverse Mountain, lucky us.

We I love it up there, but um uh as you can see from the people here.

I don't know, again, it's my first time here, but I don't imagine you have this daily.

Uh uh just the fact that we're all here uh has got to mean something.

Uh I don't know if you know this.

I I told you I'm from Ohio.

Um it's draft, there's the draft NFL's drafters right now.

Huge Browns fan, huge Ohio State fan.

I'm standing right here.

Left work early and everything.

Okay, I'm a small business owner, I come from nothing, uh, and I'm able to run a car to their ship now uh there in Pleasant Grove.

But um I assume if you were to continue to ask us if this is something that we would be okay with, you're gonna be here all night again.

And again, I think the fact that after hearing all this like litigious jargon and stuff, I'm like, wow, these guys know their stuff.

Um I think that that the fact that they're so early in the stages of this, they're already coming.

Because you had said like you were like, this is kind of weird that that you would have something not so planned come before us.

And I think that says something, right?

Like they're they're bringing this to us completely with no idea because they want to test the waters because they knew that we're all here.

They knew we'd all show up because I was sold on on that space.

I was sold, I paid more too.

Uh I paid I paid an extra 16 grand from Perry Holmes from my view and with the promise of towns.

Um, like, you know, uh again, I I just ask you all to put yourself in my shoes and all of our shoes um when making this decision.

Uh I I wasn't around when all the previous talk was talked, um, but I was around when they told me what it was gonna be.

And again, I'm not a litigious guy.

A handshake is a handshake and a promise is a promise.

And they made me a promise.

And and I hope that that means something to you guys.

So thank you.

Thank you.

This is highly out of my comfort zone, just so you know.

Um, I also live right there.

I'll say your name, please.

Oh, my name is Shanna Coleman.

I live right there on that map.

Um, those townhomes that they're literally five feet from my back fence.

Um, so already some higher density housing right there around us.

Um right there around us.

Um several things that I just want to point out.

There's two schools already, super high traffic area right there.

Um that intersection, Travers Terrace, Mountain View Road, right where he had said they were gonna put a half acre park.

Roll my eyes there.

Um worst intersection, you could put a park, in my opinion.

There's so much traffic going through that intersection, and kids have actually been hit by cars there.

Um already there's gonna be increased traffic through that lower neighborhood because of the um Whole Foods development that's going through there, and no consideration to the neighbors who will have hundreds of cars going through their neighborhood just to get to and from.

And um, yeah, I just there's already hundreds of cars parked on that residential road just north of those apartments that is clogging up that street, and it's just it's too much.

It's too much.

That's just my opinion.

Thank you.

Hey, y'all, thank you for being here.

Um, my name is Brandon Ethinton.

Um I'm in kind of a different position.

Um, not for Perry, but definitely against it.

But my kids, I we moved here 11 years ago.

Uh the Ridgeview Townhouse was gonna be a park.

Uh my kids, one is on a mission now.

He will not, my grandkids might be able to use a park that they might build there.

Right?

My other son is gonna be uh a sophomore next year.

He won't see a park.

That's 11 years.

Okay.

Unfortunately, I don't trust them.

Do I think they excavated that with the intent of moving?

I hope not.

I really hope they didn't do that.

But if they did, shame on them.

If they want to move that many units down to us, by the math we're looking at there, for every 60 units they move, we need an acre of park.

So if they if they move 600 units, I want a 10-acre park.

They I am all for it.

If that's your land that it's designated that way there, you build your land.

For the Smith's guy.

The road's elevated, you need to be able to advertise your land.

That's your land.

I'm all for that.

This right here is wrong.

It's it's already congested.

They said, oh, yeah, we're gonna put in uh uh more affordable housing there.

Yeah, you will.

My property values will go down.

All of those will go down.

So yeah, thank you very much.

You just you made them all more affordable, including mine, that is now less less valuable to me.

So there's there's tons of he's as she said, and there's there's a middle ground here, but at the end of the day, like I love how my wife put it.

She read the area plan.

She did the research for you.

Congratulations, NASA rocket rocket scientists before you.

That's what she does.

She's not a she's not a stupid person.

She did the math, the math didn't add up.

So I would I would strongly encourage you, stick to the area plan.

It's there for a reason.

We're gonna have so much traffic there already.

We already do.

E-bikes and all the other fun stuff we have, it's not okay.

And so I hope that my great great-grandkids can take care of that half acre park one day, and I might be able to go go there in my in my walker.

I don't know.

Sorry, tongue-in-cheek.

I'm a sarcastic Texan in Texas.

This would never have flown.

I did not move to Independence at the point for this very reason.

I came here because there was nothing there.

I found out about the area plan apartments.

My bad.

Okay, I should have done my research.

Area plans there.

So you all so much appreciate you.

Thank you.

What do you mean?

I'm Brian DiPatello.

I'm also a resident on that map.

Uh like someone said before, there's already five apartments up in that area.

May not all be parried, but there's five of them up there.

The one thing that they talk about is studies, this and studies.

The one thing you won't find in studies is the amount of people who live in an apartment complex.

I'm a police officer and have been for 20 years.

And you don't have three, four, or five people living in an apartment.

You have 15 people living in each apartment.

And that's family, friends, whoever.

So if you were to take a 500 apartment complex and say that there's a thousand fifteen hundred people just that are supposed to live there, quadruple that at least, and that's the amount of people that are gonna be there.

The amount of cars that are gonna be on the road, and the amount of kids are gonna overflow the already overflowing uh schools.

The HOA wants us to keep green grass all the time.

The city tells us not to use our water because we're going through a drought.

And then we're gonna put five, ten, fifteen thousand people in a six hundred apartment complex.

It's gonna use a lot more than that.

The one thing that comes with apartments, and I apologize if anyone gets offended by it is crime.

The low income brings riffraff and it brings a lot more crime.

I go five or ten to one for calls for service at apartment complexes.

And it's not just a citizen assist or something like that.

It's violent crimes, it's theft, it's drugs.

And we've already started seeing that with the view apartments.

We have a lot more theft in the area, and we had just an armed uh vehicle burglary four or five houses away from me just a few weeks ago.

Sorry, I'm going through the the list.

Everyone else kind of pretty much saw everything else or said everything else.

So my point was just to show how it affects us as homeowners with the the amount that our our property value will decline.

But I did actually have one question for Perry if they would be willing to answer it.

Uh a lot of us paid that extra money for the view, 15 grand plus.

Are they gonna reimburse us for that when they take it away?

Thank you.

Thank you.

My name's Paul Randstrom.

I live on Springbrook Lane, just maybe 150 feet north of the parcel C that's been discussed there.

Um thank you for your service in our community to the planning commission for being here tonight.

Um I'll start by saying I'm not anti-development or even anti-high density, nor do I have an axe to grind with Perry in particular.

Um, life for our family would be greatly affected if this increased high density was allowed to come down to this part of Traverse Mountain.

Um if I understand correctly, they're proposing an additional 225 units up to an initial 225 units on that parcel that we're showing in red there on the screen.

And as was stated by the Perry representative, that means vertical.

That's 30 units per acre.

It's a lot different product than we would have expected to see there when we purchased our home based on the existing uh the Traverse Mountain uh area plan.

Um and that has a big impact on our quality of life when you go from even townhomes or garden style apartments to a six or seven-story, you know, these big tall, massive apartment buildings.

Um I don't feel like that product type, when to get to that 30 units an acre density is compatible with the the existing neighborhoods that surround those parcels in that area of Traverse Mountain.

As is kind of echoing some of the things that have already been said that current residents are depending on that existing um Traverse Mountain area plan and made per decisions based on um that plan.

It seems to me that the developer is looking for a place that's more profitable for them to build this high density product.

It's not that it can't be built there in West Canyon, it certainly could.

It just costs them more money and it's less profitable for them.

And they're trying to pass the buck of that cost onto us by adding the stress and strain to the infrastructure in our area of Traverse Mountain.

Um, but really the developer should be investing in that infrastructure where they already have their entitled rights and build units where they're already approved.

Shoehorning more density into this area of Traverse Mountain isn't the answer.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

My name is Clint Jorgensen.

I bet you can't guess where I live, but it's close.

Um just one perspective is I did work for a civil engineering company for 10 years, and I 100% know that they do cost analysis before they submit a proposal to a planning commission like yourselves, and that was done, and this is about money 100% from my experience.

So you're sacrificing residents that are here speaking to you guys and what they purchased versus profitability for a builder.

And yeah, I'll just leave it at that.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Any mad rush for anybody else?

You're welcome to come.

Seeing none, we will comment on mine.

Do you want to give a brief there are a lot?

We won't read every one of them.

I promise you we have.

But do you want to give a brief synopsis of what summary of what are in those comments?

It's a lot of similar sentiments that were expressed here tonight.

Some of them, like some of the specific ideas, like this comment says, you know, it's kind of getting up buffering from this kind of thing.

So we said, you know, why can't you do it like Cresthaven with proper large avenue in between high and low density?

So they want to look at, you know, considering those types of things.

Yeah, some of them just say strongly discourage more high density housing, traffic problems, um strongly opposed to the amendment, um, significant traffic, safety and quality of life issues, roads are overwhelmed, so there's a lot of you know themes around traffic being an issue, um, quality of life.

Overcrowded, traffic safety.

Vehicles parked on the street.

Um pedestrian safety, especially children.

Umnection to the collective development.

Um actually did a survey with the neighborhood.

Well, the developer on that one decided not to do the disconnect.

Yeah, safety.

Yeah, a lot of similar sentiments throughout.

I'm just trying to look through anything different.

I will note that there was not one overwhelmingly positive one.

Right?

There's one.

There is one.

I did read that one as well.

I was curious about where it came from.

Um thank you for that.

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

Mike, I'm gonna put you on the spot.

So in the planning commission report, would you mind opening that up if you have access to it?

I want to make sure I'm reading this correctly.

So in the planning commission report on page seven, I'm trying to better understand what the difference is between because all these areas are currently zoned as high density residential.

So I want, I'm trying to find hard numbers to help me understand how much that density is going to be increasing if units are actually transferred to those areas.

So if you would, on page seven, there is the first table.

I'm this table here.

Um yes, that one.

So I'm reading that to say so existing uh dwelling units.

I'm reading that to say that the general plan currently has that area slated as having 250 dwelling units.

But then if units were transferred over from the West uh West Canyon, we're increasing that to 827.

Is that accurate?

So that's the maximum potential, uh, which could happen.

Uh the difference appears noted in the staff report.

Let's see.

So they have a total of 1,182 units within their Central Canyon and West Canyon that they're entitled to.

Um so that's just saying in that district they could go up to that much, whether it actually goes that much or not, like the applicant was saying is kind of due to the market conditions.

Um that's their choice of what they want to propose on that site.

Um, but that's the max potential, but you couldn't max out every single location.

Um, but yeah, that's that's too much flexibility.

That's certainly something you can make a recommendation on.

Kind of not doing that.

Okay, thank you.

There were a couple of comments that I wanted to address or ask staff particularly about the infrastructure that's maybe already gone in place.

Can you speak to what is already in place up in that area or towards that direction?

Yeah, I don't think there's any infrastructure up in there now.

Um any utilities that would be going up into that area in the future would all be paid for by the developer.

So the city hasn't paid for any utilities up in that area.

Okay.

I have said this before, and I'll say it again.

Those are never guaranteed.

It sucks.

It sucks to hear that.

I'm not saying they are or they aren't.

Um, but those are not a guaranteed thing.

Um, nor something that we have a purview to protect or or to to do anything with.

Um however there was also a comment about the process that this is a uh out of out of order, out of line, that we didn't understand it.

This is absolutely the process that they that Perry Homes would go through to bring a concept plan.

Um a concept plan is exactly that.

It's a concept.

There it's someone, I'm not sure who it was, but mentioned uh that they're kind of testing the water.

That's exactly what they're doing, and that is what this is for.

Um so I just wanted to make sure that that was clear.

That this is the process that they have to go through that.

Does not mean we're favor or against, right?

It just this is the process that they have and the mechanism that the city code allows them to bring forward.

Um so just wanted to be clear that this is not out of the ordinary of what they could or even should do.

This is part of the process if they want to make an amendment to their plan.

Um I do want to go on that hike.

You'll have to go real slow.

We are lost our breath coming up the stairs.

So it might take us an hour and a half, but uh I might take you up on that.

Okay.

Um any other comments before we bring the applicant back up.

Questions for staff?

Um I mean, I think I may have a couple, and it might be for staff or the applicant.

In the areas where there's commercial already designated, and they're proposing putting potentially housing units there.

Does that take away from the commercial?

I mean, we need more stuff that brings in sales tax, and especially in that area, but I'm just so I I guess my does that question make sense.

Yeah, yeah.

So currently the area plant does allow some transfers down, but obviously if you're allowing more transfers down, that could take up more of that.

It could take away some of the commercial space.

Yep.

Well I was just gonna say with commercial, it is a little tough because you need people near it to help support it.

So just putting commercial zone on a map doesn't necessarily guarantee you're gonna get commercial you want to see.

But that's true.

Yeah, that's true.

Um is the track stop still planned for that area?

I remember last year there was debacle about should it be on the east side or the west side of the freeway.

Did we get it back to staying there?

We do have the point of the mountain transit study that was completed and then updated.

So there's a track station identified by Adobe here.

Uh there's one identified by the hospital down here.

Okay.

And then there's one up here identified as well.

Where is that in conjunction to West Canyon?

West Canyon is up here.

It is up there.

Okay.

Thank you.

Yep.

This top down view is deceiving.

Yeah, there is a significant growth room.

Yeah, for sure.

It's not a flat plane by any means.

Okay.

Um I will invite the applicant back up if you wanted to address any of the comments that you heard.

Uh and any questions.

Yeah.

No, it and we really appreciate this process.

Um we understand that there's a lot of feelings.

Growth comes with a lot of feelings.

Um I'm a native Utawn.

I I have seen growth around my own home.

I I understand what comes along with that.

Um the the driving force of this discussion really is where does the dead city best fit?

Where does it work?

This isn't about infrastructure.

I I can tell you with all honesty, we have not run numbers on what the infrastructure costs are to go up to West Canyon.

West Canyon is a ways in the future.

That's just the reality of it.

We have the right to build up there or not build up there.

And so we're just trying to have dialogue to say, okay, does this make sense in a lot of ways from a ULI land use, land planning perspective?

It does make a lot of sense to bring the density down off the mountain for all the reasons that were outlined by the staff in their report, to have it closer to transportation corridors, closer to shopping, to services, to uh parks.

And yes, we will build more parks.

Um I have not been a part of the residential development here personally.

That's a that's a different division.

I can't speak to every complaint that may have been brought up tonight based upon people's um uh experiences with what was told to them what was experienced during their their purchasing process and and et cetera.

I can respect all those concerns.

I really can.

Um but what this boils down to really is is pretty simple, which is you want the density up in the mountain, do you want it down here, or is there something in between that that makes sense?

Do you allow a certain portion of the density to come down?

We're we're open to that dialogue and that discussion.

I know that the staff has recommended kind of an all-nothing option where it only makes sense to do this if all of the density is brought down.

We're open to discussions to that.

If we need to still build some units up there and to kind of spread that density out, let's talk about that and see what what makes sense.

This is the very beginning of a very detailed conversation and discussion.

And ultimately, God bless America.

I love the experience that we're having here tonight that people can come up and express their feelings and have an impact and have some say within how cities evolve and how they develop.

Um we'll take that into consideration.

Ultimately, we're we're not trying to cram anything down anyone's throat.

We have no ability to do that.

This is a legislative action.

It's totally up to the council ultimately to determine whether this goes forward in this form or some other form that we're we can work toward.

Uh and so we're we're just here to have have that dialogue.

If it stays the way it is, then it stays the way it is.

We'll just build the the houses up in West Canyon and we'll just move forward with life.

If there's a compromise that makes sense for everyone involved, we'd love to have that dialogue and and see where it goes.

A few clarifying facts.

So that you had brought up Commissioner, what's going to happen potentially with the riverbend property that we don't own?

So we've just had high-level discussions with them and said, hey, what if we were to bring some density down and we do kind of a nice mixed-use project, kind of a continuation of what we're doing with Center Cow properties across the street with Whole Foods and the high-end retail that we're doing there, and just kind of continue that down the SR92 corridor.

So that's the concept.

As we would bring some of our density down, we would partner with them, we would continue to do a commercial project there, but it would be an integrated mixed-use project.

So we're not at all proposing to get rid of the commercial use on that property as a part of this amendment.

We don't even own and control that property.

It would just be the flexibility to go to the property owner and say, hey, does this make sense?

Does a mixed-use concept here?

Um as far as the the parks are concerned.

I know there were some comments made about the location that we're showing.

That is by no means where that park is going.

The park will go in a planned concept when we go and develop that that parcel.

We'll do our very best to integrate that into a neighborhood and make it walkable and accessible to surrounding areas.

And we are open to the discussion as a part of this to enlarge the park space, the improved park area, uh, beyond what's already required of us in the area map.

I believe the ask was for a 10-acre park.

That's a big that's a big park.

So you're saying you're open.

Uh I'm open to larger than half an acre, I'll put it that way.

10 acres, I don't know that you have a 10-acre park on the mountain anywhere, do you?

We should.

Probably not.

It's part of our problem.

So we're we're open to the dialogue.

I mean, we want to be reasonable.

We're never going to be able to fulfill all of the hopes and desires of everyone in the community.

But ultimately, the question is does it make more sense to have people traveling a shorter distance, taking services a shorter distance, as opposed to traveling all the way up to the top of the mountain every time you're going shopping and back down.

There's some real planning and land use policies that I think are a reality in this case.

And we're open to the discussion.

We don't we're here for a fact finding.

If it doesn't get approved, then it doesn't get approved.

We'll just move forward and we'll we'll keep developing under the rights that we currently have under the area plan.

We do feel like there's some real significant merit to this for the long-term planning and land use and for the appropriate use of those land use policies that do densify down toward the corridors.

So sorry, that was a little long-winded.

Happy to answer any questions and have for further dialogue.

The question, although very hypothetical, I still think it's poignant to the conversation.

If this were granted and agreed upon, is Perry Homes in a position to cut ties with Geneva's operation up there?

And could it happen immediately?

I'm not in a position to speak to that.

I see those as really two separate items.

The fact of the matter is Geneva has the rights to do what they're doing, and they're going to continue to do that under the rights that they that they legally hold.

Do you know if those rights are based on a time limit or a quantity of material?

I honestly couldn't.

I can't speak to what that contract states.

That is managed by others within the Perry companies and not by me personally.

We can get back to you on that, but the bottom line is the response is going to be they have their rights under their legally binding contracts, and they're going to move forward with those rights.

And so these two things would have to be seen as two separate items.

That we can't link what Geneva is doing to this process.

Respectfully, I disagree.

Those are the same project.

That project exists strictly because you had plans to develop up there and were not able.

You had rights to develop that land.

And that was allowed to happen, which in most cases it would never have been allowed to happen.

But because of the conditions that you were needing to happen for you to be able to develop the land that was allowed.

So I don't see them as two separate issues, respectfully.

No, and that and that's fine.

I'm talking more from a contractual obligation.

Right.

And that's why I ask.

Timing or quantity of material.

And I can get back to you on timing.

I I can research that and just see and see what the actual agreement looks like, and we can we can talk through that.

But we're we're bound, they're bound by a contractual arrangement, and that's completely unrelated to our rights and um as it's related to the developing of West Canyon.

So it again, we we feel like it kind of comes down to do you want the density there or here?

And is there something in between that that works?

Um happy to have more dialogue.

Any questions for the applicant?

Yeah.

Off the hook.

Thank you.

Okay, thanks for the time.

Any further discussion or a motion?

Lots of discussion.

Lots of if you would afford me three minutes.

Three minutes.

Please put a timer on.

Yeah, give me the timer.

And we need a buzz it.

Um, this was a hard decision for me.

I think I've made up my mind.

Um, but I want to talk through why I think this was a hard decision.

The big reason why I would consider this is because staff is encouraging it.

And I put a lot of faith and trust in staff because they're very good at what they do.

And so this is gonna take the bulk of my time.

Um I do want to read this because I think it's very important.

So staff encourage transferring all units out of West Canyon with this amendment.

This amendment could provide the following benefits if all units are transferred.

One, avoid higher infrastructure and long-term maintenance costs associated with developments in West Canyon.

Two, avoid severe snow removal challenges.

Three, avoid emergency access constraints.

Four, reduce wildfire risks.

Five, gives a better opportunity to reclaim the disturbed hillside landscape.

Six, reduce geotechnical risks of building on the masqueraded areas in West Canyon.

Seven, this is putting density where the infrastructure already exists.

Eight puts housing closer to regional transportation, employment, and goods and services.

And nine, I think I'm on nine.

More viable for future transit, walkability, and mixed use development.

So those being the reasons why I would support this.

However, after hearing what I've heard tonight and also seeing the numbers associated with the units that would be transferred, my thought is to deny it because that is an astronomical amount of units that would be transferred into granted a high density residential area, it should not be that high density residential area.

So I would be more prone to support a hybrid approach, as was suggested by the gentleman from Kerry, where some of those units would be brought in.

Yeah, I I think I share a lot of those those same sentiments.

I I do put a lot of value in what staff you know says and tells us because this is your profession.

You you are much more educated than than I am in a lot of things.

But living in that area, um yeah, I if we could protect views, I wouldn't have a temple going in my backyard right now.

But um, you know, so I I understand the residents' concerns with this is what we bought with, you know, we bought here with this in mind, and this is what was planned.

We did the same thing.

Um and all of that is is completely different now.

And it sucks, but it's it's not necessarily, you know, it's it's not an easy decision to make.

Um I love the idea of promoting walkability and easier access.

I would love to live in a walkable spot where I didn't have to rely so much on my car.

I'd love to take more public transit to work.

I work in American Fork.

It would be I would love to live there.

We're not there yet.

I know we're we're a ways down the road, and so I do see this as a step towards putting more of that in place.

Um but yeah, like you, Bo, it's it feels like a lot to put it all there in one spot.

Um I I think I'm I'm maybe also on the side of denying um the mining, the fact that that was an exception that was granted with the intent that eventually it would be developed, and now whether that was Perry's intent or not, none of us are gonna be able to say, but that's the situation that we're that it puts us in now, and it's it's devastating to now look at that mountain and think that nothing's gonna be there, you know, and how long would it take to re-vegetate it or you know, put that back to a state where it might be hikeable or walkable or usable for for anything else.

Um yeah, I think I think we gotta do a little bit more work, maybe.

My turn.

Yeah, sure.

Nicole?

Go ahead.

All right.

Um I would love to see less up less development in the canyon and more down where there is roads, there's gonna be transit through there eventually.

I would think UTA would actually do a bus route through there would be great.

Um so I am much more inclined to do something in between, because I don't, like you guys have already said, uh, going from 200 and something units to 800 units seems like an incredible leap that I'm not prepared for.

Um I'd also like to see if as Perry vacates that West Canyon area, they said that they would mitigate 0.12 acres.

I would like to see that more than that per unit.

I think that's a little less.

And if that's some of my questions were based on lot size.

If you're going from the luxury deluxe lot size of a half acre, quarter acre, even you know, as small as they're gonna go up there.

I think you should at least put in that much of a mitigation effort when they come out.

Um I think it's you know it's wiser for the city and for us to put higher density near the amenities.

We all hate the traffic, but I am part of the traffic.

I drive on I-15 every day, and I look at the people next to me, and I'm like, you're causing me traffic.

So you should stop driving.

But I'm not gonna stop driving.

And like you, Lindsay, I would love to be able to walk to something.

But that's not an error nor their own.

Moving some of the density out of that West Canyon would be great.

Higher mitigation, larger mitigation sizes.

And then I don't have the density down there as a is a good idea.

Yeah.

But how much is the question I have?

Yeah.

Can I add one more point to my discussion comments?

I'd like to see whatever the density ends up being, I'd like to see more of a focus on ownership versus renting.

You know, I mean, I know traditionally tall apartments are rentals, but I think if we can have that adds to the affordability of homes aspect, not just having them available for rent, but having something that is a size that someone can afford and can invest in.

Um I I would want to see emphasis on on ownership versus rental as well.

But that's also not my decision to make.

It's just a comment.

More single family instead of the multifamily.

So I mean, even if it's multifamily, I'd like to see them be able to purchase that unit.

More like a condo, I guess is what I'm saying, than a part an apartment.

But I agree with you.

Unfortunately, I don't think there's anything we can do about that.

No, there's not.

I'm just putting it out there.

Um did you have anything?

Yeah, I I did.

Um I think that um Mr.

Hamilton made a great point that changing this doesn't really benefit the residents.

It only benefits Perry.

And the agreements that they made 14 years ago were carefully thought through.

They put the uh density limits in place because they saw what was coming.

And if you couldn't see what was coming in West Canyon, um then maybe you should have made adjustments at 14 years ago.

Uh if you if you knew that the mining was gonna make it so that you couldn't build there.

Um I don't know.

I don't I I think that that's not the resident's problem.

That's Perry's.

Um let's see.

And I I appreciate the residents coming out and being prepared and knowing the area plan.

Um that's very that's very helpful to me.

Um because I don't I don't live up there and I I don't know what it's like driving in and out and I think we should honor the agreements that were made.

And that's it.

And you probably have notes from 14 years ago.

That's how I do that.

That's impressive.

Just a point of clarification.

We are not approving or denying.

We are recommending.

Yeah.

Negative recommendations.

Recommendation.

Yeah.

Um really, really appreciate what Mr.

Ludlow said and Mrs.

Ludlow.

Um that's where kind of my head is at is that there is a history in this area, and this history has been trampled and stomped upon and forgot about.

Um I'm grateful that they brought to light some of the points that they did.

Um and I hope that our council will listen to them as well, those points that there have been some serious agreements, and there were some very big disagreements when this was all put together originally, and this was a compromise.

This is a compromise that was come to, and it does feel a little dirty to now look at those 14 years that have passed, or 18 or however long it's been, and kind of turn a blind eye to all that work that was done at that point.

Um I also really appreciate the idea of spreading out density and not putting it all in one location.

Um we have done that in other areas of the city that are consistently a very big challenge that comes with that.

And there are some benefits to providing variations uh of that housing, those housing types and spreading them around.

Um there are real studies behind that.

That's not just me sharing an opinion.

Um although it is an opinion that I'm sharing there.

But I I am inclined to recommend um or to give a negative recommendation.

However, I would entertain a motion.

If somebody would like to make one.

Happy to do it.

And I'm gonna apologize.

I didn't expect everyone to share sure thoughts in their comments, but I appreciate that everyone did.

Um my intent was to in the past I know I've put forward motions, and it's not been the consensus among the group, and so we've had to redo motion.

So I appreciate that we are putting forward one clean motion.

Happy to put forward the motion that we uh recommend the city council deny this particular proposal with the finding that it's not consistent with Lehigh City's development code.

It does not conform to the goals and policies of the general plan.

Please include DRC findings, and also you all can tell me if you like this or not.

I would also add that we would be open to entertaining a modified concept plan that does transition some of that density out of West Canyon.

Um at least we'd be interested in saying that, but you tell me if you want to keep that or not.

I I'm okay with it out, to be honest.

But they have a path to come back and reapply with something new anyway, whether we include that or not, right?

Correct.

Right.

The the thought behind it is to give them some sort of guidance or suggestion.

Yeah.

Um I was gonna say tonight's just uh recommendation on what's before each other's particular plan.

Yep, then but they could do something different.

Yeah, I think give them some kind of guidance guidance is part of what we do.

Two for two, Nicole Tiebreaker.

I'm fine with it.

Okay.

Please include that for uh Kate for City Council to be able to act upon.

Second.

Did we get the DRC comments?

Yes.

Okay.

Motion in a second.

All in favor.

Aye.

Any opposed.

Thank you.

And thank you.

Everyone's all you're not gonna stay.

I'm kidding.

I'm totally kidding.

Uh 3.6.

Let's jump into it.

All right.

I have one more minute of your time.

Um as a person.

Uh the public hearing is closed.

So you're able to talk with the I was gonna say um you can talk with staff afterwards.

I was it was more of a like a you guys seem to be in a negotiation with him.

And I don't feel we need to be negotiating.

Like I we're not interested in meeting in the middle.

That's all.

There's no no obligation on your guys' part to meet in the middle.

You are in a position to not negotiate.

There's no middle to be met.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, 3.6.

You can reach out to planning staff.

Yeah, yeah, I can email or call either way.

Yep.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right.

Next item.

This is uh green zone change, 1.57 acres of property located at 1500 north, kind of getting near 2300 west right there.

Uh they're looking at rezoning from the current A1 zoning uh to R122.

So currently it's A1.

Um the VLDRA does general plan designation allows for the R122 zone, um, which has uh about a half acre minimum lot size.

Um there's only one DRC comment on this one, uh, because it does meet the general plan, but it's just a standard comment that water dedication won't have to be required as part of zone change being recorded.

So other than that, I'll turn over to the commission.

Any questions for staff?

Is the applicant present?

Come on up.

Sit through all that.

I learned a few things.

Just state your name and I assume your mic.

Yeah, I have a mic.

Yeah, sorry, you made your name earlier.

Um anything else you wanted to add?

No.

No, it's it's eventually gonna be a flag lot.

That's the plan.

So thank you.

Straight forward.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

This is a public hearing.

If anybody is here to speak to item 3.6, this is your chance to do so.

Seeing none, I don't believe I saw a comment on this one, but I'll confirm with you.

Oh, yep.

Let me pull it up.

I would be surprised.

I don't believe there was.

I think there is like one more comment, but I think it yeah, it's not till 3.7.

Yeah, 3.7.

All right, we'll close the public hearing and bring it back for further deliberation or a motion.

I'm ready to do a motion if you're yeah.

I had to beat Bo.

He's all in the motions today.

Item 3.6 public hearing and recommendation of Mike Green's request for review of the green zone change on 1.57 acres located at 2001 west, 1500 north.

Changing the zoning from A1 to R122.

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

And please include DR all DRC comments.

A second.

Motion and a second, all in favor.

All right.

Any opposed.

All right.

You're good to go.

Thank you.

Okay.

You're welcome to come back anytime you want.

Okay.

Let's see.

Pop 3.7 here.

Okay.

So this applicant is looking to convert an existing accessory building into a detached accessory dwelling unit.

Um this building was built in 2020, and there are anything that's converting that was built prior to 2021 has to come to the planning commission for approval.

Oh, it's located here near 2300 West and 1500 north.

Uh just off of uh 1420 north right there.

Uh it's very low density residential on the general plan and RA1 zoning.

Um this is uh uh little floor plan of the the downstairs part of the building.

So they have a garage on the first floor with stairs that would go up to the second floor where a one-bedroom detached accessory dwelling would be located.

Uh here's a picture of the existing building.

And they have parking and a large cement pad around the building that can be utilized for parking as well as the garage space there.

Um this shows the east side of the building there.

It's the south side facing their backyard, I believe.

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

Thank you, staff.

Is there any questions for staff?

Yes, Mike, can you go back to the picture with the on the east side?

Oh, yeah.

How do we know how high those windows are?

I guess that's a good question for the applicant when he gets reprepared.

Um we don't have dimensions on the plan here.

And then yeah, slide a couple questions for you.

Applicant, come on up.

Well, what's the point?

Not that I want to jump the gun.

Oh, it's all right.

It's a little humbling, actually.

But everyone was here for me.

We are here for you.

No, thank you.

Jeff White.

Uh been residentally high for uh nine years now.

Um happy to answer all questions uh before I do though.

I think uh no one really prepares you when you reach your mid-40s that you're gonna be taking care of adult children and your parents.

Uh so when I built this or started building it in 2020, it was my shop.

My hobby is downstairs and my wife, little studio and everything upstairs and life comes.

You know, it's uh hard for young adults to get a start in life and um aging parents that need help and it's just kind of changing my circumstances and intent from when I originally bought uh built it.

Um Lee High City so far has been great, you know, went through the entire process and um inspections and all that.

And I'm here today to change and and um when I had originally applied, it was very clear, you know, this could not be used as an ADU, and I was fine with that at the time.

Like, yeah, no no plans to do so, but here we are.

Um happy to answer any questions that you guys have.

Uh how high are the windows?

They're 10 feet, about 10 feet at the bottom.

And then at the bottom.

Yeah, and they're about 18 inches, 18, 16 inches.

I can't remember between the two inside.

And that back you have a back fence there, I'm assuming.

Yes.

Yeah, barely over uh five feet away from the back of the building.

And then the fence is six feet tall, probably.

Yeah, standard vinyl fence.

Yeah.

Correct.

Right there.

And those windows are uh daylight entry windows for the garage.

Uh oh, so there's they're into the garage, they're not into the living space.

That's correct.

Correct.

So there is no living space on the on the yes, there is.

Um fortunately, the the large window that you see in the west side is um uh that's the largest window of four feet um to the north side.

There's a little bit over 15 feet easement there, it's uh all all cemented.

Um and that window is uh two feet.

So I I don't know if I'm jumping the gun here, but is there any residential space on the bottom on the no?

Nope.

Okay, that was a good question.

Okay.

Any other questions for the applicant?

Okay.

Have a seat for a minute and we might come up with a question or two.

Thank you.

Um this is a public hearing.

We'll invite anybody that would like to speak to item 3.7 to do so now.

Mad Rush.

There wasn't public comment.

Do you want to we already missed one?

Yeah.

Uh says due to the building being so tall and close to the property line.

I would add an amendment that it could not be used for short-term rentals only long term.

Is their request that being read, we will close the public hearing.

Um we don't have legal here, right?

Oh, there are they're online.

They're on mine.

Yeah, we got Craig online.

Craig, are you there?

Yes, I am.

Yes, we can.

You're coming from above.

Um I'm curious about that last requirement or the comment that was read online.

Um it's not within our purview, I believe, to give any limitations to what the use if that's correct.

Yeah.

Yes, so I did some research on this.

Uh Britney asked me to look into it.

Um, unless you can reasonably articulate that short-term rental as opposed to long-term rental would mitigate um, you know, or would mitigate, you know, the I guess the condition created by the AEU.

Um unless you can reasonably articulate that based on facts, not just hey, it's gonna be tall, we don't want people there.

Unless you can reasonably articulate a reason why short-term rentals is not appropriate long-term rentals are.

I don't think you can impose a condition on that unless you can reasonably articulate that.

Are you familiar with any cases that would give us any teeth?

Yeah, what about like density?

No.

Yeah, and I'm not aware of any studies.

I'm not aware of anything that's you know, any uh hard evidence that has been provided or or brought forth that that would say that there's a difference here.

Um I don't I don't know what type of use he's planning using for, whether it's long term or short term.

Um but I don't think yeah.

I don't think that would be an issue that we can really dive into without evidence presented to you or without the verifiable explanation.

Thank you.

That answered my question.

Thank you.

Um other questions for staff or legal or I know legal is staff, but I like to differentiate that.

I think just to clarify, right?

So ADUs are allowed in this area of the city.

Yep, you have to have at least the third acre.

Right.

And then according to Craig, we can't say, well, you can only use your ADU for this purpose.

You'd have to come up with a really really good reason.

And basically what Craig's saying is conditional use could put reasonable conditions on it that can mitigate a negative impact, but can you differentiate that?

So that's why you're saying you have to have some good reasoning if you were to require that.

Thank you.

Did you want to address anything you heard?

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

Yeah, no.

Um I guess I just add I I I don't I in doing due diligence and so far, you know, exchanging uh you know with KD and submission.

I don't believe I'm seeking any exceptions.

Uh I I'm very hopeful and optimistic and believe that everything is within the guidelines that have been set forth.

Um, frank two, I don't even want my kids in there.

But um little separation is good too.

Yeah, thank you.

Thank you.

At least they're not in your basement.

It works.

Right.

Uh any further discussion or motion.

All right, I will make a motion.

You do it.

All right.

I'll do the next one.

On item 3.7, public hearing and consideration of Jeffrey White's request for approval of a conditional use for the conversion of an existing accessory building into a detached ADU located at 1420 North, 4200 West.

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

Please refer to the list that we provided.

I don't know.

How'd you say that, Bo?

Uh I bumbled.

You mumbled.

Yeah, just bubble through it.

Or do I need the ring?

We include the findings.

Are we approving a site plan?

It's a conditional use.

Okay.

Yeah.

Yep.

So that's made approved.

Ums.

Um second.

Oh, I was gonna do it.

Sorry.

Motion and a second, all in favor.

Aye.

Any opposed.

Good to go.

Thank you.

All right.

Just as a reminder.

You don't have to stay.

You're welcome to at this point.

Just as a reminder, item 3.8.

Uh the applicant has asked us to table it.

However, we do need a motion to do so.

I move to table item 3.8.

Public hearing and recommendation of Symphony Developments request for preliminary subdivision review of an update to heritage meadows now a 14 lot residential development located at 1250 West ANR North, including density and Lou for connectivity.

Please include all DRC comments.

I don't think there are any.

As requested by the applicant.

And I will second that.

Motion well out of room.

Motion and a second, all in favor.

Any opposed.

Do we have any idea when this will come back?

They're looking to bring it back, hopefully the next meeting.

Do we need to specify a meeting or can we just leave it as it is?

I think you can leave it this way, and then when they request to bring it back.

Will it be re-notified?

Yes, because uh we didn't hold the public hearing.

Okay.

All right.

Uh happen.

Also, as long as the motion stated that it would be tabled or continued until applicant brings it back, we're fine.

Yes, it will be tabled or continued until the applicant brings it back to staff.

Second stance.

All in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed.

Okay.

All right.

3.9.

Okay.

Last well, second last two, but not least here tonight.

So thank you guys for holding out.

So this one is uh for an exception on a fence to go from six to eight feet.

The appkin has actually previously come for or they've been previously approved for eight-foot fencing on the east and west side yards here and have built those.

And uh you can see that on the pictures here.

Um there are some great differences on the sides there, which allowed them to put those fences at a at uh taller height.

So there's existing fence on the one side.

What they're trying to do is just match those together.

And app can speak to it, but part of the reasoning is you have the railroad there.

Um just really looking for some privacy and also just for the aesthetics of keeping the fencing consistent.

And uh this just shows here's where they have their existing fencing, and the new request is for 109 feet of fencing along that rear property line facing to where the uh front run line runs.

But with that, I'll turn it over to you.

Thank you, staff.

Any questions for staff?

I have a newbie question for staff.

Why is the code six feet for fences?

That's uh like I'm assuming there's a reason for it, but I'm just gonna do that.

Um most cities tend to have six foot.

Um one thing that prevents people often from going taller is you need a building permit for going to a taller fence, like an eight foot fence like this.

Okay so that kind of just in itself keeps people from wanting to do it on a large scale.

But yeah, there's a lot of the zoning standards are just based on a rational basis, like six foot.

The idea is that you it's above eye level and you're trying to block out you know visibility reasonably from neighbors or the street or whatever, maybe unless you can.

Yeah, unless you can.

Privacy fence.

Yeah.

Okay.

Thank you.

Yep.

Is the applicant present?

Yeah.

And awake.

James the Spain.

Um just we thought originally we were gonna plant trees and whatnot on that back fence.

And when the uh other fence got put in, we didn't like it.

Looking out from our deck down there, just you see the just the railroad tracks, and then you can barely see it in the in the photo.

They've got uh like some concrete barriers, garbage, I don't know what it holds back, so we just want to match the existing aesthetic of the back fences.

So you already have an eight-foot fence on the yeah, that cedars just got put in uh three, four weeks ago.

So yep.

On both sides.

So we're just looking to match those existing eight foot tall fence across the back.

So you've been through this process already a couple of times if you're haven't been here yet, so this was new, and I chose the wrong night, I guess.

But it's all good.

Every night's right there.

So um yeah, just for aesthetics and we have noticed it kind of blocks the sound of the train a little bit.

You can hear the echo on the when the train's going south.

You can kind of hear it bounce off the fence and back to the train a little bit.

So this will provide us a little bit more quiet and privacy.

So yeah.

Thank you.

Any other questions for the applicant?

No.

All right.

This is a public hearing.

If anybody is here that would like to speak to item 3.9, please come forward.

Seeing none and acknowledging that we're not online.

We will close the public hearing and bring it back for further discussion or motion.

Item 3.9.

The motion being that we approve the proposed exception to fence height, with the findings being that the proposed eight-foot fence will allow the applicant add in enjoyment of their backyard, provide privacy from railroad, the railroad corridor, and match the east and west side fences that were approved due to grading issues.

And the fence will not have a negative impact on their neighborhood or the community.

And please include the DRC findings.

Comments, not findings.

I'll second that.

Motion and a second, all in favor.

Any up post.

All right.

Thank you.

Cool.

Thanks again for sticking it out to all three of you still here.

Hopefully, this is also educational.

And I was on a very small township for it.

So it was taking it back home.

Yeah.

Item 3.10.

Yeah.

Okay, this is uh review and recommendation of an amendment to an existing development agreement for the Hansen Tennis Club.

And this amendment is to allow for signage.

So the original development agreement allowed this uh basically uh commercial use within a residential zone, but there's kind of an oversight with that original one to allow signage because our code doesn't allow signage within residential zones beyond you know one square foot type of a sign.

So this request is to be able to allow them to put a wall sign on the building and a monument sign out near the street.

So this will show you is anyone's own there.

So they have uh monument sign proposed.

This is an idea of what they would like to do, kind of at the entrance facing uh 900 north.

Um the wall sign that they'd like to do, just right there on the wall.

Um looks like that, 84 inches by 84, so that's seven by seven feet.

Um so the DRC did have a comment.

They're proposing up lighting from the ground.

The DRC did mention that we have our lighting standards and we're trying to preserve nice sky as best as we can.

Um if it was possible to look at more of a down lighting.

We do have some other uh sign requirements and design requirements that um would have to be met.

Uh it requires the one-foot pedestal and have the sign on top of that rather than just the two legs on the monument sign specifically.

So I think that's one thing that's not accounted for in the amendment.

Um but at this point the sign would have to meet the typical design requirements unless the council decided otherwise.

Um with that, turn over to the commission.

Any questions for staff?

No.

Is the applicant present?

All the way in the back.

We don't bite.

Come on up.

Thanks again for lighting.

Told us forever.

I'm hungry.

Here, have a gummy back.

All right.

Do I start?

Tell us your name.

Okay.

Jacob Hansen, Utah Valley Tennis Club.

So yeah, we just oversight in the original development agreement.

Yeah.

So we're hoping they put signage out in front, monument sign as and then a couple signs on the building itself.

So that's pretty much it.

Don't want anything real bright or anything in there, just to be sure people can clearly see it marked when they're driving by at night and daytime and stuff like that.

So yeah, that's it.

You've heard staff's kind of rebuttals a little bit that they would need to be on some kind of a pedestal not so straight into the ground.

Okay.

Which is fine.

And then also the lighting coming from the ground and up, that's very against our code.

Yeah.

Which I I mean I don't think we're that's fine.

We can comply, I think, with all those.

You could either the only thing I would say that's maybe if you go back, I don't know if you can go back a slide.

Um I think I don't think they could quite the person that did this graphic.

I think it will be running so if you're dry you're driving down the street, you'll be able to see it from the side looking at it, not straight on.

That's probably the perpendicular.

The only thing that I would say would be different.

So it's kind of going that way instead.

For lighting, you're aware that you're not able to light from the ground, so you'll have to attach something to the top and perhaps light it.

That's fine.

Yeah, and the building itself, the signage, I don't anticipate us wanting to do anything lit.

We have some like lighting that naturally comes off the building that I think will be sufficient to that was already approved and done with that.

I think we won't need additional lighting for the the building itself.

So are you sure you don't want a 25-foot sign?

Apparently in the monument side.

I mean, it would have helped me the first time I went there, but it's okay.

I've I'll I'll be alright with that.

Now I know where it's at.

That's the video model.

Yeah.

With a video monitoring.

With a digital monitor.

Hopefully it makes sound too.

So no, I was joking and I do not encourage that in any way, shape, or form.

Um any other questions for the applicant?

Oh, sorry, I'll let you guys ask questions first.

Mike, did you have a comment or question?

Yeah, I was just gonna clarify that the development agreement itself mentions the uplighting, so that can override the code.

So the DRC's recommendation is if applicants willing to still do similar types of lights, but just mount them on top of the sign and downwards.

So it would change the language in the agreement, the proposed agreement.

That's just the recommendation.

Okay.

Yeah.

Do we just include that in our motion then?

Yeah.

Okay.

All right.

We're gonna ask the public if they'd like to speak.

This is a public hearing.

If anybody is here that would like to speak to this item, this is your chance to do so.

Can I go down and speak as a member of the public?

I'm just kidding.

No.

Denied.

Denied.

Denied.

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

I'll make a motion that we're yeah, go for it.

Item 3.10 public hearing and recommendation of Jacob Hansen's request for review of an amendment to the Hansen tennis facility development agreement allowing for signage as part of the project.

A move that we give a positive recommendation with the findings that the proposed development code amendment is in conformance with the purposes, intent, and provisions of the general plan and its various elements.

And with the recommendation that the lighting be downward facing.

Oh, sorry.

No.

Just meet the code requirements with the with the lighting on the sign.

And please include all DRC comments.

Second.

Motion and a second.

All in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Thank you for sticking it out tonight.

Yeah.

Thanks, guys.

Oh, you three guys.

We should have a lot of.

City business.

What do we got?

Do you have any understanding of what our next meeting looks like?

Well, it's uh work session.

Are we here?

Yeah, yeah, I think we'll just be meeting in here from now on.

We're here from now on.

Yep.

Until they kick us out.

Unless they decide they want to send us back.

Thank you.

Okay.

With no more city business.

Motion to adjourn.

Jeez.

Second.

Motion and a second.

All in favor.

Aye.

Any opposed.

Kate, I hope you're freaking me out that he's still there.

Kate, I hope you're there.