We'll start with the consent agenda.

Items two point one, two point two, and two point three.

Make a motion that we accept the meeting minutes.

Second.

It's a motion and a second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

That was right.

Okay, motion passes.

Motions.

All right.

We're ready for our regular agenda items starting with 3.1.

Okay, item 3.1 public hearing and recommendation of TN contracting LLC's request for review of the Prestwit zone change on 1.09 acres located at 2004 North 900 West, changing the zoning from RA1 to R2.

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

R2 would allow six units per acre.

And so with the 1.09, it would be six units.

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

Can we see anything?

Wait, there we go.

Thank you.

So there you go.

There's the zoning, current RA1, and then this is the general plan that has medium density in pretty much that whole area.

Okay.

Does anyone have a questions for staff on this?

Is the applicant here?

Okay.

Do you have any anything to add?

No.

Okay.

Is there anyone here?

We'll start the public comment.

Is there anyone here to comment on this item?

Please come forward.

Okay, seeing there's no comments and none online.

Yep, none online.

Okay.

Thank you.

Uh we'll close the public comment and bring it back to the commission for discussion or motion.

Given that this proposed change is consistent with the general plan, I'm good with it.

I don't have any issues unless anyone else wants to discuss anything.

All right.

So the motion being that we recommend approval.

With the findings being that this change will allow for life cycle housing and diversity of housing types in this part of the city consistent with the goal stated in the general plan use element.

And please include those DRC comments.

No, I think we got to we're at 3.2.

All right.

You caught it from the side of the room.

Let's move forward forward with 3.2.2.

Public hearing and consideration of trademark visuals request for conditional use approval of two pylon signs for the collective commercial development located at 1050 West Sunrise Way and requesting an exception for greater height and sign area.

And there were some online comments that we can get to during public comment, but I think the addressing for this confused a lot of people.

And so it's coming before you because all pylon signs are conditional use, but they're also asking for an exception for the height and sign size for both of them.

So the code allows 25 feet and then an exception up to 70 feet, and they're asking for 60 feet.

They did bring it down from their initial request of 70.

And then the maximum sign size is 200 square feet with the ability for you guys to give an exception up to 600 square feet, and they're asking for 595.88 square feet.

Also for wayfinding, and that there is an existing monument sign and the view apartments that obstruct visibility a little bit.

So you know they provided some visual examples of what it would look like.

Should be noted that the grade, uh the signs will be on higher grade than right next to Timpanogas Highway.

It's it's pretty steep going up to it.

Um this is from the site plan showing you the grade lines.

So this is where that uh Traverse Mountain monument sign is, and then this is where they want to put their pylon sign.

So you know, there's a decent amount of grade that it will be up.

Um and I believe the other one as well is is kind of up on, and I'm not sure exactly where it is on this side, but um up on some grade as well.

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

Any uh questions for staff?

Yeah, um we had a work session a few months ago where we talked about signs.

We talked about things other cities are doing.

We talked about we talk about everything pertaining to this.

Um I just hate to then dive into this when we know this is a this is a thing that we want more information on as we make decisions for the for the city.

Um I'm I'm curious.

I realize you guys have a million other things to do as well.

I'm not trying to put you on the spot, but do you have anything more for us from that night?

I mean, we've been working on amending the sign chapter, and we do have changes in mind with that, but um yeah, I don't know if there's a lot more information or anything than what was presented then.

That's obviously we've made these decisions before.

We've done this million times over.

Just love to know if we got anything more substantive to deal with this evening.

Okay.

Thank you.

Question for staff, I'll also pose it to the rest of the commission.

Remind me, what other signs do we have there along that road?

I know that there's quite a few and the monstrous um sign that we have there at the point of the mountain, but what other signs do we have?

Along Timpanogas Highway specifically?

Yeah.

Yeah, I'd say, oh, where am I?

Yeah, if you go towards the freezer.

So I'm going to check fully.

Yeah, so this area has this sign.

Then if you can.

Yeah, towards this.

Does anyone remember how tall is that Chick-fil-A sign?

Is that was that like 45 feet?

Is that taller?

Do you remember what that's like?

Caden did a list.

I don't remember this.

Yeah, I mean, some of the things you might want to consider is this site is lower.

Um, so you know, some of the sign height is taking with the change in grade with it being lower.

Um right now there's no stop signs next to the other pile, the one that is proposed right here.

There's no there's no stoplight, there's no intersection.

We're the one that's proposed.

Um it is next.

Well, so the one over um sorry.

The there is a full lighted intersection right here.

Um this one, no, because yeah, the apartments are all right here.

It's kind of tucked in behind them.

How far away are those two signs from each other?

Um that's a good question.

Pretty much the whole width of the site.

Which mark we're taking the same time.

Not if you're driving really fast.

So the site is 852 feet wide, so the distance between the two, I don't know, probably 700 at least, 750.

Yeah.

Thanks for entertaining the question.

I'm good.

Did you find it?

Yeah.

Well, yeah, but I'll tell you when I Oh, so I found the the Lehigh point sign is 60 feet.

Oh, which one?

The Lehigh Point sign, the first one that we saw on the 60.

And how tall is the target sign?

The target was approved at a good question.

It was 50, but I don't know.

Totally sure.

Uh it was 40 feet.

Okay.

Yeah.

Any other questions for staff?

Is the applicant present?

Hi.

I'm uh Justin Grubb and with trademark visual here representing the collective project.

So I mean I I've got a little bit of information kind of towards some of this stuff that's going on down the road like you were asking about.

I'd be happy to provide that and you can show it on Google.

But to answer your question as far as how far apart are those signs are approximately 1200 feet apart.

The front frontage is about 1300 feet.

And so where they're set in, and then that's all part of our visibility problem.

But they're also in part of what we're asking for in the height and the size is also because they're set way back from the property.

And that's just due to the easements that go across the front of the property.

We don't have any other choice.

There's two large easements that go across through there.

So actually the furthest E sign is actually set back even further, but the corner sign is set back about 50 feet.

Um the similar signs that are right down the street from this right there is like, well, you looked at the ridge.

That one I know is somewhere around like 60 feet tall and about 500 square feet.

And then you go up the road to the terrace.

And then those that sign is I think are somewhere around 50 feet tall and about 400 square feet.

And then the newest project, Skyview that's further east, has also been approved.

And those ones were approved at uh like 53 feet, I think, and like about 400 square feet, like 360, 380 square feet.

So I mean we're kind of trying to be very comparable to what's going on, but also at the same time, all those signs are actually right on the street.

Whereas we're pushed clear up into the property.

So we're trying to get our visibility back with the size and the height, and also be at the corner sign on Traverse Mountain there for that thing blocks the whole bottom portion of our sign.

And we don't have any choice because there actually is easements on both sides.

So we're kind of splitting the easement like the Travers Mountain sign.

And I know Brittany said it, but please remind me the base of your sign that you're proposing there on the corner is how high off the road?

How's the uh yeah, the base of the sign will be?

So the base of the sign.

I think there's uh probably maybe the I couldn't guarantee this, but there's probably about 15 feet difference.

Okay.

Well, there's your visibility makeup, right?

Because you're asking for a sign to start at 15 feet taller than the others.

Right?

Yeah.

Um questions for staff.

Or sorry, for the application.

Not the moment.

Okay.

Thank you.

Uh this is a public hearing.

We'll invite the public that would like to speak to this item to move forward and do so.

Seeing not a mad rush.

I will close the public hearing.

And we'll bring it back for promotion or further discussion.

Sorry, Tyson.

I um it's probably good to yeah, bring up the online comments.

There was online.

Sorry.

I will reopen the public hearing to read the public comment.

Okay.

Yep.

Um, please keep signage boards for the new development on Timp Highway and not in the residential area, i.e., not on Sunrise Way, Sasha.

Placing a 60-foot sign in our neighborhood on Sunrise Way makes no sense.

Why wouldn't it be placed on the Tipnoids highway side where it can be clearly be seen clearly for most traffic?

This will not only be an ice war for the homeowners in our neighborhood, but bring even more traffic as it will appear like it is a main entrance.

Plus, what kind of bright lights will this bring to our homeowners' signs are on all night?

So I imagine that will be a problem as well.

I'm not opposed to these shops in development, but this developer and the city are not even considering the voices of the neighborhood, they are significantly impacting.

Please don't let this get approved.

We move all signage to the highway and the other entrance on Morning Vista where it belongs.

Please listen to what citizens have to say and encourage the developer to be a better, more thoughtful neighbor.

Kate Chavez.

Isn't this right in the middle of the neighborhood behind the apartments?

Who's going to even be able to see this?

Shouldn't the sign be along Temp Highway?

Not placed behind large apartment buildings and in front of residential houses.

1050 West Sunrise Way is right between homes.

It seems like rather bad placement and like rather large signage for the area.

Please reconsider pushing it for it to be moved near the highway and near the actual shopping center.

Don't encourage visitors to use neighborhood roads to cut to a large shopping center, Jin Lee.

That's it.

Now we will close the public hearing.

Can I ask the applicant about lighting?

Can we bring back up?

Applicant, please come back.

Sorry to make you make the walk again.

Would you mind just talking a little bit about the lighting?

Yeah, so these signs are designed.

They're not going to be fully big back signs like the terrace sign or the ridge sign.

They're actually meant, if you look at the design concept, they're going to be opaque black panels and only the lettering will light up.

So they're not intended to be these big bright, flashy things.

They're going to be clean, classy and simple.

Like that's how they kind of try to go for it.

As far as like you look at the even the collective lettering, only the little white portions in that light up.

So it's going to get a little bit of a halo in there of orange.

But the intention is is with those developer and stuff like that, they try not they're not going for necessarily flashy.

They just want to cleanly represent the names and have them out there for those tenants.

So but no big backlit you know, bright backgrounds or anything like that.

Awesome.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Why why the sign on that's in the neighborhood?

So it's not in the neighborhood.

I guess that's I I see what their comment comments were, because they're saying on the morning or the morning vista road, but that's the thing.

They're both down on the on Timpanogas Highway.

That's the point.

I think most people are afraid that because that neighborhood's way up in the back on the back of the development.

And I think they're afraid that there's going to be a big sign up there and there's not.

The intention is they're both down on Timpanogas Highway.

So they were they just reading the map.

I don't think they I think they maybe misunderstood the We realized that when you put it in Google Maps, that address took you to between like right in the middle of the neighborhood street.

Um I think it's just because it's a new development, it's not right in Google Maps, so it was just misinformation.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right.

And then people will like drive up that road to get to their homes, right?

So I think that they're saying this is the road to my home.

So it's they can start their neighborhood.

Uh the easement that you're running into.

Who whose easement is it?

Well, there's Rocky, I'm not I think it is Rocky Mountain Powers easement, but there's also a gas easement and uh and I think uh communications easement out there.

Like and if you look at the sign or if you look at that the map.

And I don't know if it shows it on that map that you got pulled up.

But it doesn't really show it, I don't think on the parcel map.

But that might show it right there.

There you go.

But yeah, that that large easement shoots all the way across through there.

That's why even those traverse mountain signs are clear up on the hill.

It's because all of that ground down across that frontage in front of them is all in that easement.

So I am uh I'm sure you guys looked at just doing one sign instead of the two.

Can you explain why you're going with two instead of just one?

They're going with two because they're trying to capture the audience from both directions.

So the point is that they're directing the power the audience to morning vista.

So we're trying to capture the audience headed east before morning vista, but then we're also trying to notify the audience before morning vista from the wet or headed west so that they can see that.

We're also with the large development and plans that are set forth with all the anchored tenants.

There's not the we don't want to muddy up the signs.

That's why there's only I think five or six tenants per sign to keep them clean and simple.

Like we don't want to put 30 tenants on a sign because it does no good, nobody can read.

So you're you're going to split up the tenants between the two signs.

It's intended for it to be split up for the tenants to have space for the development.

Instead of trying to stuff, you know, you you you constantly see it, I'm sure.

That you get all these signs out there that people like take and they start with maybe four tenants and then they they break it into eight and then they break it into sixteen, and pretty soon you've got all of this stuff on there going on, and nobody can read it.

None of it's big enough to read.

And then but it's all muddied up so much too, it's too much.

You can't process it in the time that you have to actually go buy it, right?

So that's something we are we try to avoid with this.

Right.

Uh Brittany, can you go to the one page where it shows coming from the going westbound?

There's a yeah, with the view of the the apartments over here.

A picture of the sign on the east end of the property, just peeking over, go one, I think it's one more.

Yeah, I mean, that is a very bad photo, but we were trying to properly represent too because in that section that sign is actually pushed back way quite a ways.

And this picture is taken from about 600 feet away.

Sure.

In the traffic lane, right?

And we took it from kind of the worst area.

Like that that's an approximate location where your sign will be, it won't be closer to the road.

No, it won't know.

In fact, you can see that.

And then if you look at the original site plan where they have that big huge retaining wall, it's gonna be clear up behind that because of all the easements that run through there where that pathway is, that pathway represents part of that easement area.

And so yeah, it's gonna be clear up on the back by their dumpster enclosure there.

You kind of see that little triangle bar or that little box right there.

Yeah, so Britney, go back to the one with the apartment building and the sign just peeking up over the edge.

So in this picture, I'm thinking, well, why don't you go for a hundred foot sign?

Because even if 60 feet you can't see it above the building.

Well, we can well we're gonna ask for what we weren't allowed to have.

Right.

So I'm thinking, well, why why even have a sign there if you're because it only takes about a hundred feet and then you can see the sign?

A hundred feet forward in those traffic lanes, and you can visibly see that sign pretty quickly.

Could you push the sign toward the middle of the property?

Um I could get with the client and see if they'd be interested in doing that, but I think due to the way that property is and how it's cut and have to do that retaining wall and that whole I think rear area is their receiving area.

I don't think they have room to accommodate the size of that, it would completely block off the receipts.

What if you went to a smaller sign and put it in the middle?

So then they would have more room for their own.

But still it's I think it's just the space, because that whole top area is a driveway.

Yeah.

It's not if you look at their site plan development plan, it's just a driveway that goes around the back of the building.

Okay.

So if it's a smaller sign, then you'd have more room for that driveway instead of a big sign like this.

Potentially.

Because I just I look at that picture and I'm like, but part of what we're looking at too is we're also we're trying to have a quality for the tenants, so that's why we can't we can't well can, I guess, I'm sure, but the intention is that they all get the equal tenant spacing.

So that's part of the deal.

That's part of the what we're going for.

So I mean, we're not necessarily opposed to we're we're understanding the height issue, and we're understanding that you know there could be there is a discrepancy between the grade and all that, but there's also that large setback, and that's where we're trying to kind of make up a little bit.

But I mean we'd be willing to come down in height and sacrifice some of that because we do know that it's sitting up higher, but it is something we just have to work out with the tenants going like, well, you're gonna have restricted viewing from here and here and here, and that's something we work out with them.

But that's something that we'd be willing to say, hey, maybe maybe we only get 55 feet.

Maybe we only I mean you know, it's just the difference is we're trying to get those lower tenants up a little higher because they sit so far back.

Thank you.

Appreciate that.

Ultimately, the sign closest to the apartments is not a wayfinding sign.

It's strictly advertising.

It's helping people know that they're there.

Which I can respect.

However, it doesn't really help you.

You're not orienting it to capture that eastbound traffic, right?

You're kept it's it's in a way that you're right.

There's a very limited window.

Just like you said, when you're driving past that at 60 miles per hour that people go on that road or even faster.

It's muddy.

Like what is that?

It's a you know, they don't see it.

So I I would almost say no to that sign, flat out.

Just it doesn't help you.

It doesn't help the tenants.

However, um I would definitely say no for it advertising towards the apartment building.

That's light pollution.

I know that there are things and controls that you'll put in the way, however, it's still annoying.

And it's a nuisance to the tenants next door.

At which point then it would only become a sign for the eastbound traffic on the other side of the road for advertising purposes.

Um not for wayfinding again.

Um at which point I don't know that that's needed because they have the bigger sign or the big or the sign that's out on the corner that already does that.

So I just feel like it's duplicitous.

Doesn't really help with what you would be looking to achieve there, um other than just building a big sign, right?

For it's more uh yeah, the spread of the tenants.

As for the height, um you're saying it's roughly a 15-foot uh increase over or uh above the road.

I'm okay with 60 foot, but I would want the sign to be 45 plus the 15 height that you already get, that gives you your 60 feet.

That would be my what I where I would come to to give you the site.

I agree that you do need to have some visibility up higher.

You're getting that with the advance there.

These are my opinions.

I'm not speaking for everybody on this staff or on this commission here.

Um I just feel like we we build these and we sprinkle them like candy around and they're they're ugly.

I I do appreciate some of the design that you've put forth, it kind of looks retro.

It's kind of neat.

Um different, right?

It draws attention to that.

So I plot being different than just you know, the stick on a pole and a couple of signs.

But yeah, I I don't see the need for that one that's really close.

And I would be curious if you could argue it even further.

Help me get there, because I just don't see the need.

Well, like I say, is it it's still it's more of the spread of the tenants and accommodating how many tenant spaces we need without cluttering up one sign and making it illegible.

But at the same time, I can see your point as if if there's a way or room that we can shift that thing further west, it's it's a possibility, something that we can get with the client on and go with, but they've specifically chosen this location due to the site restraints, and so we're just trying to work through that.

But like I say, it makes a big difference in in a hundred feet.

Like we did that is a bad picture, but within a hundred feet, you get to see that sign completely.

And especially like say that we took the picture from that closest furthest north point to kind of so it's just it isn't a very great representation, but they're still looking to be able to get the sign for the tenant spread.

So Justin, um it was Justin, right?

Yes.

Um to give you some thoughts here, Matt, as well.

Um I do uh Tyson and I are on opposite ends of the spectrum of signs on this commission.

Uh and I'd have to agree though, I'd I worked in signs myself in a previous live.

I'd I just couldn't see that sign doing anything effective.

Um I can see it being effective when you're talking to a tenant about a lease uh in terms of telling them that there is signage, but in terms of it actually being effective signage.

I want to see it there.

I would be more inclined.

I I do think that the signage you put together, the right to look is actually uh it's nice.

I love I like the aesthetic.

I think it's I think it's beautiful work and well done on you.

Um I assume that was just your shop that that design.

Well, they they have a design team as well.

Okay, like it was kind of collaboration.

Pass along the compliments.

Umgestion would be that you would be better running with the one sign.

I'd be more inclined to make exceptions for one signing.

I know it would step away from some of the the retro uh look that you have that I do like, but I would go with LED that you can swap out which tenant is getting uh is basically getting advertised.

Uh then you've got a fair quote unquote representation, rotation, the sign is visible.

And the truth is that this you're not at the by the freeway.

The people who are gonna drive by this, these are daily commuters.

Uh it's not like uh you you're gonna have a lot of people who are shocked at you know what's there within a matter of months.

People who live in this area, including myself, uh, you know, I'm gonna know what shops are there.

I'm gonna know if they interest me.

Um it's not gonna take more than uh a few trips taking my son's school down this very highway before I'm gonna catch every different tenant that's rotated through on that LED sign if you want that route.

Those would be my thoughts.

I think that covers the uh the issue that you're raising about readability.

Uh I think it gets away from the light pollution that would otherwise be bothering um the the people next door, and to me that is a very real consideration.

You have an absolute right to build the sign within the parameters that the city permits without exceptions, right?

So you could put a sign there without question if it's 25 feet or shorter.

Um before we we'd go and make exceptions, though, I really need to be convinced that it's in the welfare of the city.

And I would struggle to see that when we're making an exception for a sign with such low visibility so close to where people live.

Uh those are my thoughts.

I can understand that.

Um can I invite up one of the other owner representatives you would like to speak?

Sure.

Yeah.

I'll sit down.

Thank you.

Thank you, Justin.

Hello.

So my name is Juan Montoya.

I represent uh Center Cal and Perry, the joint venture developing this project.

Uh thanks for the compliments on the architecture of the sign.

I was actually sitting in the other chambers, by the way, congrats on the new digs.

Beautiful.

Um Skyview got their pylons approved.

And I think one of the comments you all had was that it just looked like every other pylon sign.

So I we actually took that to heart, and we're developing somewhat of a mid-century modern kind of design and aesthetic and try to match that sign to the architecture that we have uh for this project.

So as it relates to the comment of moving this sign towards the middle, if we could pull up the site plan, I'll show you why we can't do that.

Mostly it's a function of that row that bisects buildings B and C and the fact that I need WB60s to get to the anchored tenant.

And then there's a wall that has tie backs all the way up to 15 feet, and therefore I can't actually place the foundation of the sign on that area.

It's a function of just the infrastructure and how the site lays out.

So the only logical place for us to place the other sign was in this side of the property where there's actually a little bit more room.

Um as it relates to the height of the sign, I think Brittany and Kim can attest, we've been very collaborative throughout this entire process.

So I like to just spend some more time with them thinking through what we can do on that side of the property to get you guys more comfortable and not affect the the residents next door, because I understand where your concerns coming from.

Um thing that I'm just considering just off the top of my head right now, and I'd have to talk to tenants, there's a bunch of different stakeholders, right?

But instead of working into it this way, maybe shifting it a little bit so and try to get it as close as possible to the wall as we can in order to not have light pollution go to the apartments next door, for example.

So if you guys would at least consider tabling that side of the uh request for right now, we'll come back in a few weeks and kind of hopefully provide a solution that works for everybody.

Um relates to the sign on this side of the property.

I completely understand where you're coming from.

If we are already higher in height, why do we need 60 feet?

So if there's anything we can do to approve that pylon sign today at 40, 45 feet, given the 15 foot grade change, uh, I think that would be kind of the change request right now, based on the feedback we just heard.

But appreciate you letting me come up here and that's all I wanted to say.

May I ask you a question?

Yep.

With uh going down to 45 feet for the height of the sign itself.

Which again would be roughly the 60 feet that you're of height you're wanting.

Yeah.

Do you feel like you could get the tenants on there?

In a way that is aesthetically to your design.

I think I'd have to ensure that the square footage we're asking for remains.

But as long as that's the case, yeah, I think the 45 foot should work fine.

I wish you would have asked for that to come in the door, to be honest.

Anyway, that's fine though.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So one more question.

Sorry.

So you but you still want the square footage of 598 square feet, even though if the sign were that much shorter, or would you shrink the square footage as well?

We'd have to look at the design like at the proportionality of it, right?

But it's all about maximizing for us at least, maximizing the tenant name so people can actually see it.

Tenants at the end of the day, I understand like the residents are gonna know what's there, but tenants always want signage.

And for this to actually function and be a successful development, I need to maximize the square footage of the sign.

And in relation to the comments that were posted online, we definitely don't want to have a pylon along Sunrise Way.

So this is the only place where you that's logical for us to put one.

If we make a motion today, um I don't know if we can make a motion as to the square footage.

Okay.

We'd have to table the entire thing, I believe.

Yeah, but I I'd be happy to I realize perhaps you you got a timeline to try and hit and know how construction goes, but I'd be happy to table this for whatever brief window you're looking for so you can take this feedback, rehash and give it another crack.

Is it getting tabled because of we can't bifurcate essentially the two different approvals?

Yes.

Okay.

It's not a square footage thing.

Just so I'm clear.

Okay, but I kind of understand what the I think the square footage, well, if you got a 40-foot sign and your square footage is still at 500, I think proportionally it would look better.

Yeah.

So I think that I would love to see a new you're gonna largely keep this mid-century.

I'm gonna keep the same exact sign uh work for months on getting this sign.

I I think that's gorgeous.

I like it.

Thank you.

But yeah, that would be the case.

We it's not in our purview to split up this into two different um I guess requests.

Got it.

It's a single request.

Okay.

So that would be probably the best case for you.

What is your timeline?

When are you trying to hard target this?

Well it's a very good question.

So if you've driven by there recently, there's a wall actually getting built right now.

So I need probably in the l in like the next month to have a sign approved so I can go design the foundations so it doesn't conflict with the wall infrastructure, et cetera, et cetera.

So month, month and a half is probably like the time frame I'm under.

Is two weeks enough?

Yeah.

We can have you back on the 25th.

We don't have a meeting on the 20.

Well, we guess we won't have you back on the 20th.

That sounds good.

But I'm glad to know that you could.

Yeah.

No, we uh I will scramble and get this done.

It's super important for the success of this project.

July 9th.

Goodness, right.

We're right.

That's rodeo.

Just lock in on those regular patterns.

Yeah.

Okay, so then July 9th is our next regular meeting.

Yeah.

Goodness.

Okay.

That's awesome.

See you guys July 9th.

July 9th it is.

Uh if I can, I don't know, just some feedback because you remember I'm 40 feet height for me is great.

I know the monument that uh is out there that has a traverse mountain, whatever that is.

Yeah.

I think we decided it's about 25 feet, the thing that looks like a old-time fire book out.

Um because I do I drive by that thing right there.

Yeah.

Um so I was kind of comparing those two things.

Uh so I think 40 feet for me is great.

And if you angled that sign on the east and yeah.

And I'm I'm getting away from signs because we're all on our phones and our cars tell us where to go anyway.

So I'm kind of like, yeah.

Signage is to me is No, I understand.

Anyway, that's my feedback.

Yeah, one of the things.

But you're you're never gonna get a tenant if they don't have a sign.

I get that.

There's that psychological piece.

Exactly.

Yeah.

Um part of the reason we requested the 60 feet is that there's a fine balance between the height of that particular sign, which is the Travers Monument sign, and how many actual panels I can put.

Because if I go below a certain height, then I'm just essentially for lack of a better term, wasting a panel that's gonna get blocked by the Travers Monument sign day in and day out.

So that's one of the issues we're running against.

Um obviously bringing it down and reducing the square footage slightly would probably solve some of that.

Um that's why I think probably would we'll come back roughly closer to like 45 feet, to be honest with you.

Okay.

Thank you.

Appreciate your willingness to work the work on this.

Of course.

Thank you guys.

I'll entertain a motion to table.

I'll go ahead.

For item 3.2, uh public hearing consideration of trademark visuals request for conditional use.

Approval of two pylon signs for the collective commercial development at 1050 West Sun Rise Way.

Second.

Motion and a second, all in favor.

Any opposed.

Thank you.

3.3.

Okay, item 3.3 public hearing consideration of grow developments request for approval of the Cortiz preliminary subdivision and eight-lot residential development located at 1450 West, 1220 north in the R122 zone.

This includes the eight lots, all of them meet the requirements of R122 zone.

So 22,000 square foot minimum, 100-foot lot frontage.

When this went for the zone change, um city council asked us to do this eight-foot accessory building easement, and so they included that.

So that'll be a setback.

Like no buildings can be in that.

Um just to help with access.

The city council required that this preliminary subdivision would go to them for final approval.

So even though this says consideration, it's actually a recommendation.

Um it will have to go to City Council for final approval.

Preliminary.

Yeah.

Well, final approval of the preliminary.

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

No question, just a comment that I think this is the first development plan that's come to us that meets the minimum lot size and isn't asking for exceptions that we've seen in a very long time.

That's all.

Yeah.

Agreed.

Any other questions or comments for staff?

All right, is the applicant present?

Hi, Commissioners.

Thanks for having me.

Jake Hone with Grow Development.

Uh yeah, we're excited for this one.

Um pretty straightforward.

Uh we like the half acre lots.

Uh we've had a lot of interest from people ever since we started doing this one.

Um we are keeping uh the Cortez home on that front lot, lot eight, and so it will still continue to front uh the main road to the south.

Um the challenge is it it's a pretty nice home, pretty decent shape, and so there's some good value still in there, and it makes sense not to knock it down.

But all their equestrian uh outbuildings and barns and sheds, those will all come down and the site will be prepped and ready to build and develop into the neighborhood.

So we did have a couple things we did address on the preliminary plan.

One would be uh that setback for structures along the north.

Um there is a ditch along that property.

Um, and so we're making sure that we're keeping that out of there so that uh any accessory buildings won't be at risk as that ditch is maintained and taken care of.

The next thing is there's a ditch going uh north-south along the west property line, and so we've got an irrigation easement there.

Um that ditch is piped, but not up to the standards of the irrigation company, so we're gonna be repiping that.

Um the nest thing is obviously we have existing agricultural ground around us since we're we did the uh farm analysis and made sure that we meet all of the uh requirements with our bordering properties being uh agricultural.

So yeah, any questions or things I can address.

Any questions for the applicant?

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Appreciate it.

Uh item 3.3 is a public hearing.

We'll open the public hearing now and invite anybody that would like to speak to it to come and address the mic.

Uh Mark Peacock.

I live on 1220 North, 1533 West, just kind of across the street and kitty corner to it.

I do appreciate the the bigger lots too.

I think that's great.

But we do have some concerns with the ditches.

I do appreciate the setback on the north section.

I would like to have seen that the known climb fence has to stay in versus putting in later somebody comes in and puts in one of them fake styrofoam fences.

They burn, they're not fireproof, and I've got to maintain that ditch.

But we can work probably around that if the property lines and that line up.

The whole run there.

Which can be done.

Because you can't go in them lots to maintain the ditch, so it's got to be piped and stuff.

But one thing that has been not been addressed yet is right, not too far up on lot six, I believe it'll be.

There needs to be a head gate put in there.

Because Zach Trapp has water, and he needs to water his property.

With that said, they put a head gate in there.

How are we going to access it?

So I think it's far from ready to be approved.

I would like to see this tabled and tell them things can be resolved.

The other thing is I need access to access the north ditch.

I did bring up my concerns of the easement and stuff over here, but I have not heard back from them yet as yet of what they're going to do.

But wonder if he sells it and gets it somebody that says you're not coming through my property.

So and they need to follow the which they will have to follow the Lehigh irrigation requirements and stuff.

But you put a headgate in there to serve a sack, he will have to have access, and so will I.

And that's not been resolved whatsoever as yet.

Tony Train about it.

And I notified the seller of it.

So not heard back from anybody.

Mr.

Peacock, your your property is where on mine's across the street to the south.

So where Austin Measle is, I'm next to that.

Gotcha.

Okay.

So the ditch comes down, comes across the road on a diagonal.

Okay.

So really, and really there's three people that use the north ditch.

There's me, Zach Trapp, and Mike Du Bois.

Right, so as long as Zach Trapp's there.

And I, you know, looking at this plan that I got from the city.

I believe what I was told, if I remember everything, the northeast corner of the property line is basically pretty close.

As you head west, it kind of veers more into the ditch.

So until that surveyed and we know what's going on there for sure, they may have to pipe some of that ditch.

But my request is I think it needs to be tabled until we can get some answers and find out what's going on.

Thank you.

Anyone else would like to speak to this item?

We'll we'll invite you back up as the applicant.

Seeing none, just want to confirm, were there any comments online?

Okay.

Then we'll close the public hearing.

And we'll invite the applicant to come back up.

Uh yes.

Thank you for uh having me back.

Um Mr.

Peacock and I did speak uh on the phone three times this week, so not hearing back is not accurate.

Um we were very aware of the ditch.

Obviously, within our property boundaries, we have to take care of those things within our boundaries.

Uh we are piping the ditch.

Uh as far as a head gate going out to the west, that's no problem.

We do have the preliminary plans into the irrigation company for review.

Um we have not received red lines back from the irrigation company yet.

That is a requirement for final review.

Obviously, we're at preliminary uh engineering items right now.

As far as the property lines go, uh we are aware that there are discrepancies with existing fences uh that have been in place for years and years and years, and the actual property line.

And so um if there needs to be adjustments for those, uh we'll make those, but they're actually fences inside of our property line that our landowner established and put up.

And so um, yeah, we are reflected here as the actual property lines that that are in place right now.

So and we've also shared with staff, shared with Mr.

Peacock, shared with the uh ditch company.

We're here to work together and to figure it out.

But it is the property owner's rights to be able to sell the property and develop it.

And so we'll meet the city requirements, we'll meet the irrigation company's requirements to make sure that everything's accounted for.

So thank you.

Any other questions for staff or the applicant?

Um right now.

Maybe in a moment.

Well, let's talk for a few minutes, please.

I have questions.

Obviously, this is a big concern.

We've heard this before.

Um he's brought this up several times, Mr.

Peacock, and I I do hear you, I promise.

Um what he obviously has a legal right to those to the water that comes through to his property.

What bounds does the new development have to ensure that passage of water?

Obviously.

The what passage of water has to take place.

But what what are we really dealing with here?

Water is a tricky always makes these things tricky.

Do you want to try?

So I'm not exactly sure what your question is, but the he does have right to water come down through there.

They can't restrict that, and I don't think by any means they are doing that.

Um if there is a requirement to have an access out to the west and a headgate there, sounds like they're working through that with Tony Train and the irrigation company to make that, they'll have to be some easement or something so that they can have access, both parties can.

Um, I don't think anything that I've seen is restricting water to Mr.

Peacock or anybody else on this line.

I mean, I think they're plenty willing to work with them from what I can see and make sure that it is amenable to everybody on the system.

I don't think they're trying to block access from what I can see.

What would happen if uh someone else moved in?

Um it would they would have to have an easement or something across through there through his property, the property to the west, or through this development here somehow to get to that headgate, I guess is what you're referring to.

So yeah, the new headgate.

It isn't shown on the plan set here, but it sounds like they're working on that.

So they would have to have some way to get to that, either an easement, cross-access easement or something, so they can get to that headgate.

And easements run with the land.

Yeah, they do, yeah.

What was that?

Say that again, Brittany.

A recorded easement runs of the land.

Right.

So it wouldn't change with ownership.

Right.

So to me, it's not so much an access to the water getting to their property, it's more access to the gate or the headgates, maintaining the ditches.

Is there has there been a survey done?

Do you guys know that?

I don't know for sure.

So I don't know exactly where that ditch falls in relation to the property along the north property that Mr.

Peacock talked about.

If it does fall, property line right in the middle of the ditch, they might have to move it or something.

But I think they'd be willing to work with them on that.

And then also I'm sure Lehigh irrigation, they have an easement through there.

So if you do, they don't.

I don't know that they do, actually.

I think that's what Mr.

Peacock's concern is.

It's my understanding that this is a private lateral and it's not owned by the irrigation.

It's not okay.

So at least unless I've got that wrong, but that's my understanding.

Okay.

Yeah.

No, Gary, I can confirm that.

We did get an email this afternoon from Tony Train, who's the engineer, the contract engineer with Lee Highgregation.

He did confirm that this is a private lateral.

The main Leeh irrigation ditch is over by the railroad tracks.

So this section that we're talking about is a private lateral.

Now that still, you know, we still have to make sure everybody can get access, the Lehigh irrigation company.

He's trying to help them come up with an agreement, but it it's between the private owners to figure out what the best solution is.

But again, trying Tony's trying to coordinate and facilitate that because he knows a lot about the irrigation system, but it is a private lateral.

Okay.

Thank you.

If it weren't the irrigation company themselves would maintain the line.

Is that correct?

But right now he goes out and he burns and but if it were the irrigation company that owned it, they would maintain that line.

Is that correct?

Correct.

So the private lateral is owned by the property owner.

So what obligation then is the property owner have to maintain that private lateral to ensure that the water is getting to Mr.

Peacock.

I think that's where we drill down to the crux of the matter, right?

So I guess it's the Du Bois property across the north, if I'm not mistaken on that.

And I don't know that they maintain or work on that, or I don't know if Mr.

Peacock, I don't know what their agreement is, but the three people that I guess use the water need to come up with some agreement as to who maintains it and how they do it.

So and there does need to be access for Mr.

Peacock to get back there to clean that ditch and work on it, or anybody else, either Du Bois or anybody else that uses that too.

So ultimately that is something that is protected because they have right to the water.

So that would have to be figured out before any development could happen anyway.

Is that correct?

You know, I'm not a water rights expert on that and what their rights are.

I know this ditch runs across Mr.

Um Du Bois' property, and I don't know if there's an agreement or what do they call that?

Um a prescriptive easement that they have because it's been there so long, it's just established that there is an easement to get out there and clean that.

Um sometimes the city uses that for roadways where we don't technically own the property.

So there might be, I don't know if there's a prescriptive easement in water rights that they have access to across the property there to clean it out.

Um maybe Mr.

Peacock would be a better one to answer on that.

Or Mr.

Crane from the I don't think you carry it.

I will just remind you guys I'm the prosecutor.

But um so with regards, there's likely a prescriptive easement that would allow him access to the water and so he'd have his water rights still and he should be able to access it there.

I don't know that that's been recorded.

I don't know how that's been done in the past, but there there likely is kind of an implied or prescriptive easement in place already.

But uh again, Mr.

Peacock could probably answer that question better than that, kid.

So in summation, we're establishing that Mr.

Peacock has rights to water that comes through this private lateral, which the city does not maintain, which probably has an easement, which probably isn't recorded, and I'm gonna say I think I can see where the man feels a little nervous with no disrespect or disregard to what I think is a wonderful development agreement.

Uh really should move forward.

Um, as far as the north ditch, the one that runs east and west, nothing changes on that with this development.

It is just the way it is.

So as far as I can see, I think I don't know he's had access to it before, and he's been maintaining it before.

I don't know that that changes.

Maybe he could speak to that.

But my guess is there is a prescriptive easement there just because he's had years and years of working on it and doing it, that he just has a right to clean and maintain that.

So I have a question to legal to the prosecutor.

He does have a right to the water, but it is a private ditch, so he doesn't necessarily have a guarantee to access to the ditch.

If for some reason that access to the ditch, which is on private land and it's owned by a private landowner.

If that were to be removed and Zacis were to be removed, would the irrigation company then be responsible to pipe or put in some other method for the water to get to his property?

I don't know that the irrigation and I'm just spitballing here.

I don't know that the irrigation company would be then required to provide that access.

That would be between the landowners where they're the ones owning the land and those implied or prescriptive easements are against them.

It would likely be I guess we call it a civil issue in the criminal world.

It's you're gonna go to court and argue about who's gonna access.

And so we would be removed from it because we're not holding the easements, and unless we're taking over the easements, which I don't believe we're doing.

We're not taking over anything.

I it would likely be just between the parties.

So are we certain where the that the ditch is on Du Boys' land?

Or is it in because we don't it sounds like there's some discrepancy about where exactly the back fence line should be and where the ditch is staff?

I don't know.

Like sounds like a formal survey has not been done, is that what you're saying?

No, it's a good idea.

You are the application can come up.

If you have the preliminary plan set that you can pull up, there is a record of survey that's been done.

And just to state, we are not restricting anything.

We're actually providing actual easements that will be recorded, new pipelines, access that'll be recorded and provided.

We're not taking away anything from the right to have their irrigation come through those private laterals across the property.

Um the preliminary plans, we do have a satellite image.

On the northwest corner of the property, it does but up to the edge of the property.

Again, we have an easement there in order to, and there are many times when this field work happens, you do have to do an in-the-field change to ensure that there's proper connectivity, that our uh head gate at the end of our pipe is accessible from the open ditch that's on the northern property.

As far as the maintenance of the ditch off our property, that is between the users and the property owner to identify the maintenance of that ditch.

I have no problem providing access through the edge of the public road.

It actually behigh city providing public access to go up and do that ditch once it's a recorded dedicated road.

Um so as you can see there, that's where the end of our ditch, the end of our property we would pipe to where the ditch turns the corner and then comes down the property line.

So again, we've done everything to facilitate a use of these private ditches across the property once it's developed.

North of us, we can't control that.

That's north of our property.

We've even set back and impeded our lots by providing a no structure easement across the north to be built for the maintenance of the ditch that's not even on our property on that northern side.

So we're doing everything we can.

We're not restricting, we're workable, we're in with the uh irrigation company to meet all the irrigation uh improvement standards here.

So I understand the concern for Mr.

Peacock, and we've done everything we can to address that within our property boundaries.

So you mentioned that the current piping is not standard and it will need to be dug up and re-repiped.

And it will need to be dug up and re-repiped.

Yes.

And so that's where we're proposing the RCP pipe going north south.

Yep.

Is it the interesting HDP?

The entire distance, the entire length?

Entire length of the Western property line.

Any other questions for the applicant?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other discussion?

I sympathize with Mr.

Peacock and understand that he's in a tough spot, but for the purposes of this request, I feel good about it.

And I'm down to put forward motion.

Unless anyone has any other comments.

Okay.

The motion being that we approve the proposed preliminary subdivision.

Yeah.

It says consideration, but it's going forward to see.

That we recommend approval for the proposed preliminary subdivision, with findings being that the proposed subdivision does meet the requirements of Lehigh City's development code.

And please include the DRC comments.

A second.

Motion and a second, all in favor.

Any opposed?

Thank you.

When does this go to city council?

Yeah.

Yeah.

July 14th.

Mr.

Peacock, July 14th.

So when it will go forward to city council.

They have a lot more leeway than this body does.

I would recommend that you show up and talk to the discussion city council.

We're not going to be nowhere.

I think that Lee High City would like to see anybody that owns East Broad Creek God.

Let's move forward with item 3.4.

Item 3.4 public hearing and recommendation of Deborah Walker's request for review of the Walker zone change on 2.58 acres located at 915 West State Street.

Changing the zoning from R18 to heavy commercial.

So this again meets the general plan.

It is currently R18 and by some other residential properties.

So where it's right next to the residential, it'd have to have an eight-foot fence and a minimum of 12-foot buffer.

I know the applicant doesn't have any use in mind right now.

I'll just rezone it and I think sell it after getting it rezoned.

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

Thank you, staff.

Any uh questions for staff?

I have a question.

Would they would there be only entrances on State Street, or would they have access to the property in on other any other side?

Yeah, we don't have anything in our development code that would restrict access from another street.

If anything, it'd be restricted on state street because it's a more main arterial road.

They recently changed the traffic pattern over there, didn't they?

Yeah.

Yep.

They closed it's up here, right on this end.

Like the more northern end, yeah, or southern it, northern end, yeah.

I think it's up here that they closed it off, so you can't connect right through.

1800 has a a monument right there.

So there's that's not gonna be a road.

There's not room for it, right?

Um the monument or the yeah.

Yeah, I think.

Access from 1800 would never be a thing, right?

Yeah.

So looking at the zoning, the purple is mixed use.

Mm-hmm.

And there's a little strip of heavy commercial there.

But this parcel, they want to go heavy commercial.

Why not mixed use?

Um because the general plan, they couldn't really request it because it's not this area is planned to be heavy commercial, not mixed use.

Um the uses currently are kind of more the heavy commercial type uses.

You know, mixed use for a while was kind of an interesting, just kind of more commercial, heavy commercial type.

Um so even with our general plan and our mixed use areas, we have our designated densities, and this area doesn't have any designated density for mixed use.

So it could only be commercial uses anyways.

So in the future, are we going to see all these parcels come through and want to change from mixed use to heavy commercial?

We might.

I mean, they could, because that's the plan we came up with.

We have so it on State Street, it's the heavy commercial in this area so you get close to the intersection and then it goes down and it transitions to commercial and then um neighborhood commercial and TOD as you head down on it.

Thank you.

Any other questions for staff?

Is the applicant present?

Please step forward and state your name and my name's Deborah Walker, and just right next door to me.

That is heavy commercial.

Um that was Scott Trons and I'm not sure what they their whole name is, but uh yeah, they're they're heavy commercial right next to me, right there on State Street.

And everything else is as far as I know, commercial on State Street.

And as the heirs to that property we need to sell, and so we're just looking to change it to match the master plan of the city.

And that's why we're requesting for heavy commercial.

Any questions for the applicant?

Uh somewhere in there, there is a sign for sale.

Is that on your property already, or is that the next door?

That's right in front of our property.

That is in front of your property.

So you've already you already have it for sale.

Um we put that up like three weeks ago.

Okay.

Does it it doesn't?

I just drove by the other day and it says commercial property.

Yeah.

It says in progress.

In progress.

Yeah, because we'd out we'd applied.

I was going, I was only going 80 or so, so I it was it was quick.

It was a little money.

Should have been a bit.

It's a little money.

Any other questions for the applicant?

No.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

This is a public hearing.

We will invite anyone in the public who would like to speak to item 3.4, and I already know that there is a comment online that we'll get to in a moment.

But we will open the public hearing now.

So intimidating, sorry.

Hi, I'm Sheena Welch.

Um good evening, commissioners.

I live right directly touching that property.

That is our house.

So right below that blue line.

Yeah, correct.

And um we moved in loving the area with our neighborhood.

And uh I have my yard backs up to the other guy that I didn't see that was commercial when I looked it up.

He definitely does not treat it as commercial because it's like two feet against my fence light, so there's definitely no boundaries there.

Um but um I'm gonna read this because I'm very nervous, so bear with me.

Um take a deep breath.

We haven't been zone in once.

There's only one of us to find it.

And he's not here tonight.

Which one?

My property shares a direct boundary line with the acres that we're talking about.

And I'm here tonight to ask you to protect our established neighborhood.

I've talked to 25 just near neighbors the last two hours here, and they're all devastated to hear that this is the plan.

Um we're in that community.

Kids walk a drive, go up and down here with bikes every day to the park.

Like we use it constantly.

Um I'm hoping that you guys will vote denial on the walker zone change from R18 to into heavy commercial.

And while I do understand that State Street uh is a commercial corridor, heavy commercial zoning I find is completely inappropriate for that lot that goes directly and touches our single family homes where our children play.

Um in our backyards.

Um the H sorry, the CH zoning permits high impact uses, like 24 hour operations, heavy vehicle idling, intense lighting, and severe noise.

And there's no amount of fences or eight feet of this that will cover any of that.

Like it will just not be enough.

Furthermore, the applicant's narrative openly states that this resoning is speculative, meaning simply to inflate land value for future sales.

Lehi's general plan is supposed to protect the integrity of established residential neighborhoods, exactly like ours.

It should not be used to maximize seller profit at the direct expense of safety, privacy, and property values of long-standing residents that live around here.

We have a vibrant safe neighborhood on Triniman Lane.

And please don't compromise our safety and quality of life for speculative commercial expansion.

And I urge you to recommend denial for this application.

We also have the farm side over there.

They're also worried about their animals.

We have a lot of people who are just really sad to take away what is our neighborhood right here and a road that we use a lot for our children.

So yeah, that's what I had prepared.

Do I come to you?

Very out of protocol.

She's not the happy call I will allow it.

Yeah, go ahead.

I'm just pure curiosity.

I don't know.

I'm I'm way overstepping my own.

Oh, I don't know if no one's going to be able to do that.

So there are three versions.

You can blow them off if you want to, but yeah, I was going to discuss this way.

There are three residential homes on your side of the street.

If I'm looking at and then what is going on right behind the there's a guy who has his concrete business.

I'm not quite sure if I've never actually spoken to him because we don't connect with that side of the road.

We're so our own thing.

But he has stacked, I think it's metal concrete plates, like ginormous weighing tons and tons stacked up.

And so I think that's a whole other issue that I have to probably do.

Yeah, I don't want to bring up another can of worms.

Um because it's not safe, like my backyard if it falls over.

I mean, my kids could die.

So um, but yeah, he he does have that.

He bought that land, I think seven years ago or something from an older lady who sold it.

So thank you.

I appreciate it.

You're welcome.

Thank you.

Anyone else that would like to speak to this item?

Is this the accurate no?

It's twice.

I'm Kathy Sunderland.

I live on Triniman Lane, which is very close.

Very close.

Right there.

Anyway, my concern is very simple.

Um this heavy um this uh heavy commercial is a high impact intense um rating.

And what we have here is the property on the one side residential, all those R112, A1, those are all have homes on them as well.

They're not just agriculture, they're they're homes, the R1 Flex, all those, all that area is residential.

So my concern is that's a drastic, very drastic change from residential to heavy commercial.

And um in your land use document, one thing that um as I studied it that caught my eye as it uh discusses heavy commercial classification, it's intended to provide locations that do not impact existing and planned residential areas.

So even though the master plan uh can go to heavy commercial that is not um that's not best the best thing for the residential areas that are already there and were there, been there for a long time.

A lot of the homes have been there for a long time, including ours, which is kitty corner from the proposed property.

So my my concern is that's just a too drastic of a change.

Um like you can see there's a lot of mixed use.

There's one heavy commercial, but it is not any, there's no residential by it at all.

So that's my biggest concern.

That's just too drastic of a of a change of classification at this time.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Don't hesitate, we're excited.

We want to hear from all of you.

We want to hear from all of you.

Hi.

I'm Kyle Welch.

I'm uh Sheena's husband uh who came and spoke here first.

I I agree with everything she said.

I also wanted to point out one one additional thing.

I uh uh I recognize there's a variety of outcomes that could result from this and uh along the outer edge of the property, the the two sides that form the the right angle there that directly border the the neighborhood.

Um there's uh two two lines of trees that uh are on along the outer edge and they're some of the oldest, tallest, most mature trees in the neighborhood, and I'd request that uh if no matter what what happens if those could be included in the the buffer that was mentioned in the proposal.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Hi, I'm Andrea Hansen.

I live right under right south of Sheena.

So I'm two down.

Um exactly.

Um we just bought the house uh year and nine months ago.

And um we're really looking forward to raising our family there.

We have four kids, four little kids.

The Triniman Lane Road is all ready kind of scary to let them go out and play just from cars go just today.

I was on a walk and cars were speeding down the road.

Um so just thinking about having that lot be heavy commercial and the more danger a more dangerous land for my kids to be living around.

Um it just scares me that whether it's because heavy commercial can include gas stations or any number of construction sites or anything, and it could be open to all sides, and Trinan Lane is already a small road and people already go fast on it.

Um I just hope that you guys consider small families and being family friendly and continuing to help the neighborhood be family friendly.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Brittany, there was an online comment.

Yeah, so um one of the comments was from Sheena and Kyle Welch that already spoke.

And I think it was a lot of the same things that they said.

Um and then there was this other one from Steve Johnson said, hello, my name is Steve Johnson.

I am the owner of Johnson's medical and barbecue pit stop, both of which are located near the Walker property.

I'm writing to express my concerns regarding the proposed zoning change and to request clarification on how this land will be developed.

Recently the property between our location and the Walker property was transitioned for use by a construction company.

This has resulted in significant noise level that impacts our businesses.

I am seeking reassurance that the Walker property will not be used in a similar fashion.

While I do not object to the property being zoned for commercial use, I am concerned about a heavy commercial designation.

I would like to better understand the specific development plans and advocate for the property to be developed in a manner consistent with the surrounding State Street area.

Thank you for your time and it um and for addressing these concerns.

Uh this time we'll close the public hearing.

Uh invite the applicant to come up and speak to anything you heard, if you would like.

Or we will engage in further conversation up here.

Um the uh journal plan.

Yes.

It um the one I find online was was in 2011.

So I I know we uh super updated from that.

Um there's a call for heavy commercial here at this point.

What she showed us does.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I just want to confirm that.

Brittany, can you pull up the um general plan?

Yeah.

Prosecutor.

Yes.

May I ask you some questions?

General plans.

I've always struggled with general plan, because it is a general plan.

It's an uh it's what we anticipate or foresee or would like to foresee what goes in this area in the future.

Does it vest any rights to a property owner?

Does the general plan give them rights to that zoning?

I would need to check with Ryan on that, and I can text him right now.

But if you have any other questions to ask me, you can ask those.

That would be the main one that I have.

Okay.

If you give me just a minute.

Because obviously we do withhold property rights as crucial, right?

And that's something that we all we're also here based on the code.

This body, just for a little lesson, I guess, for the crowd tonight.

We are our job is to make sure that things follow the code.

Does that mean that we like it?

We love it, we want it.

But it does mean that we are looking to see if what is being requested follows the code.

And if there are exceptions that are being asked for, or if there are some variances to the code that we adjust, that we look at those and see why.

And there has to be some good justifications for that.

My question is for a response.

So it does read zone changes or legislative items, how do the city sets an expectation.

Oh, Ryan just said no.

It does not uh vest anyone with rights.

So with regards to the scope of approval, um it does the city does set that expectation of zoning pursuant to the general plan designations.

Um and then it goes on to note that this is um consistent with that.

Ryan is typing more, so I'll tell you what he says in a minute.

He's typing off.

I hope he's watching.

Ryan, are you up there?

I'm pretty sure he is.

He hasn't bad.

Uh the the question that I have there is that it's been my impression over the years that I've been on this commission, that if somebody is asking for to move towards compliance with the general plan, that our hands are essentially tied.

And I would like you to confirm or deny that.

That's the way it appears in um Ryan has also stated zone changes are always discretionary decisions, but I imagine those need to be made by the city council and not by you, because you'd be right.

Our body is black and white.

Their body is gray.

Yeah.

So uh no vested rights in any particular zone are allowed within the general plan designation.

So this is a legislative decision.

We are, by and large, black and white.

Uh I will say uh four motions made.

My reading uh is that yes, the general plan designated this as heavy commercial.

I expect it will become heavy commercial.

Um I don't know if that happens this year or if it happens in ten years.

But my guess is that that is the route of the development of Lehigh City.

Uh in my mind, uh what we're seeing is ample evidence that the region is still far more residential than perhaps the general plan anticipated or reflected.

And that leads me, if there is not a vested uh right in changing the zone, which is what I heard, uh, to not uh make the zone change at this at this point in time.

That's of course not a permanent decision.

Um that uh it is a legislative decision, and furthermore, we are a recommending body.

So even if I already get my way, commission were to vote with me on that.

Uh the city council could still nonetheless do otherwise.

Um though I like to hope and think that they do indeed pay attention to our recommendations.

Uh so that's uh I mean to me, the decisions that we make are to conform with code and to do what we see as within the within that code within the best interests of Lehigh City, while respecting property rights.

Uh for instance, uh Mr.

Johnson, I appreciate his his comment.

But you know, asking for what the plan of development is is absolutely a non-starter.

That's that's not a factor.

If if a zone is what it is, a property owner has every right to develop the land within any specification that fits that zone, period.

And so when we look at a zone change, we don't actually we try to stop this.

Uh we we're we're not worried about what the plan is for that zone.

We're first asking if that is a good idea.

Because once that zone change happens, we no longer have any right to tell them that they can't build whatever is in there.

So it's not really for us to sit here and say, well, do we like what you're gonna do?

Then we're going to do the zone change.

No, that gets away from now.

We are I mean, being a planning commission, the name itself is a little um uh I'm not gonna say it's disingenuous, but there's sometimes this impression that like we're master planning like puppets, the the city.

This is America.

We believe in free enterprise, people buy property and they develop it.

Uh the limitations we place are zones.

So that's where making zone changes are big deals because it is Pandora's box.

Uh and that's why we try to make a general plan.

We try to to hold it to that general plan.

As I look at the specifics of this, I would I would be disinclined to make the zone change at this point as I see the specifics.

But that's where I'm at.

I absolutely respect uh my fellow commissioners if you feel more that the hands are tied on this one.

Um love to hear a motion.

No, it's not much place to call for it, and I apologize.

Um will you read what you texted and then his response again, please?

Yes.

Into the microphone.

We're gonna FOIA yeah for the case.

I know.

Yeah, I'm sorry, I just I'll be all censored somewhere.

No, uh so I asked Ryan, does the general plan best any rights to property owners?

Um, for instance, if they want to change the zone to what is allowed under the general plan.

Ryan replied, no.

A zone change is always a discretionary decision.

No vested rights in any particular zone are allowed within the general plan designation.

Um then I just point you again to your scope of approval specifically that second.

It's not really a paragraph, that second sentence.

The public can speak to this item understanding that it will be approved unless there are significant legitimate concerns.

So one of the two was quoted twice was the section on Lehigh City and helping the residents and thinking of the residents first, essentially.

And I think that's where I'm a little bit.

I mean, remember the property owner certainly has but the question here is if there are vested rights.

Right.

That's there's not.

I I'm not seeing vested rights, and that leads me to look more at yeah, what the general area is.

If there were a vested right, like you know, it if if uh Ms.

Walker were uh applying to build a structure and our code calls for it, right?

And it feels like a nuisance to the neighbor.

She wants to tear down a tree.

It's it would be her right to do that.

Sure.

So that's not that's not the question.

My concern is this is a legislative issue.

The neighbors in the area, this will could potentially once it's heavy commercial, whatever if if Ms.

Walker wants to sell it, of course she she can.

She's the property owner, she has that right.

If she wants to develop it, she could turn around and do that.

It would be her right.

And whatever our city code permits under heavy commercial, it would be her right or any future owner's right to do anything and everything under heavy commercial.

Yep, got that.

But my concern is is this detrimental to the residents that are still there?

And that is it's still a residential neighborhood because of those three homes that are in between all this commercial.

That's my read.

And I point out to all of you what the code says about considering general plan amendments.

This is the criteria it says the applicant shall identify in the city, staff or any departments, planning commission, and city council will consider the following.

The effect of the proposed amendment on the character of their surrounding area, consistency with the goals and policies of the general plan, consistency and compatibility with the general plan uses of nearby and adjoining properties, the suitability of the properties for the uses requested, and their suitability for the uses identified by the general plan.

Whether a change in the uses proposed for the affected properties will unduly affect the use or proposed uses for nearby and adjoining properties, the gain to the public health safety and welfare from the existing classification to the proposed amendment, and the overall community benefit of the proposed amendment.

Yeah, this is that's that's all great for a general plan amendment, but that's not what we're looking at.

We're looking at a zone change.

Can you go to the zone change?

Yeah, right.

What are we supposed to take into account for a zone change?

Yeah.

So it's an amendment to the development code or zoning district maps shall not oh that's just authorized.

Is that up here?

Yeah.

So it's yeah.

The effect of the proposed amendment on the character of the surrounding area consistent with the goals and policies.

I yeah, I think it's pretty much the same language.

Yeah, it is the same.

It is the exact same list.

So it talks about consistency of nearby properties, but not it says consistency with the general plan.

Yeah.

General plan, not the current zoning.

Yeah.

That sucks.

And I think the biggest thing is this unduly affect the uses or proposed uses for nearby and adjoining properties.

So, you know, it's again, it's kind of what Nathan had shared that last statement of is there something above and beyond is this unduly impacting?

Not will there be some impact, because every development's going to impact the neighboring properties to some extent.

But is this an undue effect that would happen?

Can you uh Brindy, could you remind us what OS stands for?

For what for the designation here?

Um the heavy commercial.

So probably this is open space.

Open space.

Okay, so that's that's a part.

Yeah.

So she's surrounded on three sides by not residential.

And this is where it was I I understand with what general plan has proposed, but we're talking about an area that is surrounded by a park.

It's got residential, and when I look at the general welfare, which is one of those seven points.

For me, there is substance to uh to to deny the request.

But the re the residential is behind this property.

There's not going to be access other than on State Street.

There's no access from Triniman on this other side.

We don't know that.

Okay.

It's a super narrow road.

So I I would think that would be harder for them to get into their space if they turned on from on 1800 north, which is not even a hundred yards and came in through the bag.

Yeah.

I hear you.

I just know that.

But I'm not an engineer.

Um I I'm very torn on this one.

Letter of the law, letter of how it's written, I believe, states that this is something they can ask for, and that we should give a positive recommendation to.

It meets the general plan.

Um I would be encouraged to recommend to the city council where they do have the purview to look outside the lines that we don't.

They evaluate if this is truly the right choice for this area.

Well, and the good news is they are going to do that regardless of what we recommend.

True.

So I'll entertain a motion if anybody has one.

Can I ask?

One more question.

You may.

That is a question.

For staff.

Uh what is on A1?

Because I think what is the zone map?

Yeah.

Go to the zone map for me.

And that A1 parcel right there.

Agriculture level.

That's agricultural.

Yeah.

So on Goo.

On maps.

That's a.

There's a semi-truck pulling out of there.

So uh it's a kind of a junkyard.

Like that one.

My kids hate that I call it a junkyard, but it's it's got a lot of cars and so this neighborhood's already turning into this heavy.

But I think I'm with you, or I don't think these folks still live there and they just purchased a home a year and a half ago.

I I feel like I'm just transitioning the bigger.

I just think that it's not transition as quickly as the city may have anticipated.

What was that?

I think it's transitioning just not as quickly as the city might have anticipated it would.

Well, general because the general plan is 30-year plan.

It's not a two-year plan, right?

Um so this may be the first step in that process that the city.

Sorry, public hearing's closed.

Thank you, though.

Um but I I don't hear that argument where yes, maybe it's transitioning slower, but I mean, we just barely did this, what a year and a half, two years ago.

So I mean we're very early in the general plan process of of what it was.

Like we anticipate in 30 years that it might look like this is kind of what that general plan is.

I I have no doubt that that's right.

I twenty three years from now.

Now, of course, these residents choose not to sell, right?

They can be like the gentleman in the movie up, they can hang in there.

Uh and they would have every right to do it.

But my my guess is yeah, it it probably will be heavy, heavy commercial uh down the road.

And maybe that down the road is soon.

That will really be city council's decision and we'll give a recommendation.

Um another hand, the walkers have been here for 40 plus years.

And shouldn't they have the advantage of being able to change the zone instead of having to sell it as residential and get a lot less money for their property?

And then have that person sell it heavy commercial.

Shouldn't they have the advantage?

So I don't think that the city should really weigh it into deciding which private residents could be able to do that.

But in that case, the does their do their property rights of 40 years outweigh the ones who have been here for a year and a half.

So the property rights that went out are the ones that are vested.

Now right now we're considering a question that doesn't really get to vested, which is where in my mind you can pull back to thinking more just general welfare because we're not looking at it.

Look, if if if walkers had vested property rights, you know, the pitchforks come out, it doesn't matter.

That's just not the case here, at least as I see and understand this problem.

Absolutely.

But also there's no one putting a gun to the walker's head saying that they have to sell it right this minute.

They can hold on to that.

Also, we could vote, and I could be the lone vote who disagrees, and maybe it goes to city council and they all say, you know, Commissioner Jackson's nuts.

And uh right.

So it's it you you want to follow where the vested property rights are.

Um the fact of the matter is 90 plus percent of what we do is purely administrative.

This one is not.

This is legislative as it identifies so very clearly um on the commission report right in front of us.

And um I think that there are very valid reasons to to disagree with me, just as I I feel that the validity leans more toward not seeing this zone change happen today.

It doesn't mean it's a wrong zone change down the road, but uh to to me the uh the weight stacks up against it.

We'll still be friends if you disagree with me, Nicole.

I want you to know that.

There's there's no bad guy in in any of this.

The walkers are right to ask for.

I appreciate that it's been discussion.

Yeah.

No, it's uh it's good and important.

You are the bad guy.

Well, sure.

I'll take that.

I can be the villain.

Um other thoughts?

Questions, comments, concerns, feelings.

I speak a lot less from breaks here.

I know I miss you.

I wholeheartedly agree.

It's yeah.

I feel the same way.

As you oh, okay.

I would entertain a motion.

I'm genuinely curious how this is gonna go.

I'd love to hear your motion.

Mine?

Yeah.

All right.

Uh, geez, this is item 3.4, right?

Yes.

Yes.

Okay, item 3.4 public hearing recommendation of Deborah Walker's request for a view of Walker Zone change at 915 West State Street.

Uh changing from the zone from R18 to heavy commercial.

Um we um send a recommendation of uh uh denial to the city council uh with the findings that there are no invested rights to the zone change at this moment.

Uh that the zone change may yet make sense down the road as it is called for on the general plan, but that in weighing the uh concerns of of adjoining properties and resident and residents uh that it is not currently in the general welfare of Lehigh City to make this zone change.

Second DRC.

Yes, DRC comments.

Motion and a second.

No, does your second still stand with his DRC?

Oh keep it.

Uh all in favor.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Nay.

Okay.

It does carry forward with a negative recommendation to the city council.

Three city fourteenth.

And you know it's truly legislative because we've really had things to disagree on.

That's uh yeah.

Thank you though.

I appreciate the input.

Item 3.5.

Item 3.5, public hearing and consideration of Thanksgiving points request for approval of the Thanksgiving Point Science Center site plan located at 2356 West Wheatley Lane, requesting exceptions to the EFIS, glass, and setback requirements.

So this is going to be an addition to the existing red barn showburn that's there.

Um transitioning it to a science center with classroom lab space.

Um again, it's just looking at those three exceptions.

Um the setback from the street, it's um probably actually both on Sycamore and um from Wheatley.

And a lot of it has to do with where the existing building is and yeah, just hard to.

So the there's a maximum 25-foot setback, and they're at like 47 feet.

So just asking for an exception for a larger setback from the street.

One is for more EFIS than allowed.

And in the urban tech mixed use, there's 20% maximum.

And yeah, they exceed that, but they're asking for it because it's kind of a design choice.

Trying to make it look more science oriented, I guess.

And the glass requirement for their urban tech mixed use is for uh 40% minimum on the facade facing the street.

And this one they're asking for the exception because with the use of having labs and things having that much glass would make it challenging.

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

Thank you, Steph.

Any questions for staff?

Is the applicant present.

McKay Christensen Thanksgiving Point.

I brought along architect Brad Beecher from Beecher Walker in case you get really tough questions.

This is uh children's science and technology center museum.

We're super excited about it.

On the interior of this is a theater, it has a large dome digital theater, which is about a 60 by 60 by 80 theater.

And adjacent to that are labs, um, exhibit labs, where we will have permanent exhibits mounted against the wall, lots of interactive, lots of digital elements.

So having less light inside for a theater and for those things is ideal for being able to set up those types of interactives.

Uh in the on the sh on the old show barn side, uh we are actually putting in more windows than there is with the show barn.

I think with the show barn, there's no windows today.

But having lots and lots of windows in a meeting space is also a bit problematic when you're trying to host a meeting.

So those are some of the things that will happen.

So on the interior of this, we have five or six major labs along with theater along with meeting space.

Uh the uh the setbacks on the north side.

Uh that's against uh private lane, Sycamore Lane.

We do a lot of queuing there for field trips, education elements, etc.

Uh having a little more setback room increases the safety and functionality of the space and allows us to do those queuing elements really well.

On the south side, the setback is from there's a there's a parking strip that goes in from the other parking lot.

So the setback is uh pretty close to that existing parking area, and we'll maintain that existing parking area.

In regards to the EFIS, the bottom level is not EFIS on the text, the new building portion of this, but there are a lot of architectural elements.

Um the ethos is going to be sculpted, and it will have a tech design sculpted into the ethos along with it will be lit.

So it won't look like a square building with just plain EFIS all the way around.

You can see these other design elements that wrap the building uh that are in EFIS.

That adds a really fun architectural element uh to the building along with the dome that is uh that is shaped into the building.

Uh those will stand out and be uh uh quite attractive.

The soft around the building uh uh is metal and uh well the fascia is metal and the soft, well, the soft it's metal too, but look wood.

Uh so we've tried to create this building in a way that has lots of architectural variation design and says to the outside world this is a tech and science museum.

And this building does reside on the interior of our resort.

So it is buffered on the on the west side by Curiosity Farms, on the east side by other elements on our property, and to the north and south as well.

Anything you want to add?

Yeah, just generally the overall aesthetic of the building, uh, we've really studied it and put a lot of care into what's the use of this building, which is the science and tech center, and taking that and carrying that to the outside and creating elements that kind of speak to that so that as public pass and they go by the freeway or on any of the public roads.

You know, there's no question that this building draws interest and and uh helps people want to come and visit and see what's going on inside and create a great space for families.

Um yeah, to to the the ethos point, we took a lot of care in different planes of ethos.

Each one of the bands that you see in that is a different step in the ethos to create you know some relief in the in the facade itself.

So we feel it's it's conveying you know our aesthetic really nicely.

Any questions for the applicant?

I have a question.

Are you taking the barn down completely?

Are you making that part of the structure?

We're gonna take the skin off the barn, we're gonna put a new skin on it.

Obviously, we'll eliminate the steeple and the middle run that's on the barn today.

That'll be replaced by the long run of windows along the roof, and then uh we'll uh just put a new exterior on the barn structure, and we'll remodel the interior.

So the show barn um is a place where you had lots of events.

Is there an event space within this?

Can you go to the is there a floor plan in here?

We'll show it to you.

Go to one more, one more.

One more, maybe.

There you go.

So you can see that this is the uh revised space inside of the old show barn.

It'll have about the same capacity, but the stage is a little bit smaller than it was.

And if you remember right, on the top of your screen, there's risers today that are on the inside of the show barn.

We'll be taking those risers out, and so it will be a flat hall altogether.

But the roof will remain the same, the restrooms will be in the same location, uh, and it will be approximately the same capacity.

Thank you.

78 tables is a lot.

Yeah, fire does that meet fire code?

It's about what we do today.

Make sure it does.

I'm probably just missing this in the report, but for the exterior, how much is ethos and how much is glass?

Do you have the count for the I do, right?

So we break it down by facade.

Um on the east side, we have 71% ethos and 7% glass.

On the north facade, 72% eFus and 4% glass.

On the south facade, 66% ethos, 13% glass, and on the west facade, 81% ethos, and um 5% glass.

The west facade doesn't have a lot of wall space, which is why those numbers are higher.

Yeah.

A lot of that west facade is the roof shape of the existing show bar.

Yeah, it's hard to see in just a straight-on elevation.

If you saw it in perspective, it'd make more sense.

But the the standing seam of that show barn comes down at an angle and turns all the way to the ground.

And that's what you're seeing right there.

Um again, I I'm being wazy.

I could read the report, but reiterate for me one more time.

The theater or the stage.

I'm assuming that's going to get dual use where you're gonna you can show like films, videos, but also it could be an actual stage where children or performers go up and use it.

A lot of our use today is exactly that performances, dance recitals from the community.

Um yes, corporations come now and then and use it for presentations.

We do show um movies in there from time to time.

So, yeah, a lot of those uses that that require a little bit of a darker room from time to time.

Yeah.

Can I also clarify?

There's a difference between the stage area and the theater.

The theater is a dome shape that's in the new building and the stage is in the barn.

Can you go to that floor pan part, Brittany?

Would that be okay?

Thank you for clarifying that.

Yeah.

So you can see this is second floor, so you can see in the new building is where the Cosm theater will go.

And that runs from the floor to the top of the second floor.

So that's that's a space without a first and second level.

That is that theater will carry all the way up to the top of the second floor.

Thank you.

Okay, this helps me.

So my thought behind all this is because the theater and the classrooms are closed off, I would expect that you'd be able to have a greater capacity to be able to control light.

So because that I would expect the window percentage on the outside to increase and the eFIS percentage to decrease because you're able to put more out there because you could have a greater capacity to be able to control light inside the building was my thought process.

Can you say that one more time?

Yeah.

Yeah.

So because the theater and the classrooms are enclosed, I expect that you have the greater capacity to be able to set the lighting within the building to whatever you want given whatever lights you install.

Yes.

So you are able to install more windows.

Bringing your glass up and your ethos on the outside down.

Meaning he thinks it's possible for you to get closer to the code.

Oh there.

And navigate the area.

And how would we control the light on the inside with more windows?

Is that what you said?

Yeah, yeah.

It sounds like your argument for increasing your use of ethos and decreasing your use of glass is because you need to control the light needed for the stage collapse.

But those rooms are all enclosed, which leads me to believe that there's a greater capacity there for you to be able to get closer to code.

So you could have light outside of those spaces through windows because you still have an enclosed theater.

You have an enclosed space inside where you're blocking light coming into that theater.

Is that correct?

Well, I don't think so.

We would have, let's just take look at the AI computer lab.

So if we put windows there, we would have to build a wall immediately on the inside of those windows to keep the light from entering into the lab.

And we want to build onto the exhibits onto those walls.

In a museum space, it's it's very convenient to have walls that you put you mount your exhibits onto.

So you're keeping your center space open and using that wall space for 10 or 15 foot interactive exhibits.

So if we did what you said, which is on the Cosmo theater as well, we'd put windows, but then you know, just a few feet in inside of those windows, you'd have to build a wall to keep the light out.

Does that make sense?

Totally understand it doesn't make sense to put windows outside the theater.

It was more the other space that it probably made sense more sense to me that windows, I would expect to be able to do that.

That's a real I understand now.

Uh the AI lab, for example, will be largely digital led.

So to the extent we don't have light into that AI lab space, for example, it would also help.

Yeah.

What is the dome that's on the outside, exterior of the building to be made of?

Yeah, so that dome is kind of a derivative or reflection of the interior cosm space.

So to kind of help people understand some of the function of the building.

And right now we intend that to be ACM metal panels.

So metal.

Make it glass.

There you go.

And we were hoping for the we were hoping to project onto that and to be able to have some imagery.

Our code doesn't say you have to have windows that you can see through, right?

You can put fake windows up.

We've done it all around.

We made Target do it recently, right?

So I just feel like there's more opportunity to put something that meets the code.

I love the design.

I'm all for it.

I love the step in the FIS, everything.

But I worry about the precedent that it sets.

Just because we like this building when we have held other people to the high standard that our code is.

And our standard is high.

We expect we demand a high level of things that are built in our city.

I struggle with being firm on somebody and being less firm on somebody else.

And I haven't come to a conclusion or to a degree, even though the use is great.

I love it.

I even love the look of what you have presented.

But just because I like it, I still can't justify in my head of why give such a great degree of variance from our code.

I would suggest that we look at something or go back to a drawing board where even if they are not real glass, but you put some form of glazing that gets there, whether that looks like that's light through into the building or not.

That would be my suggestion of what we would look at.

To the extent that we would go on the exterior of those labs and put in glazed glass.

We would have to step in and build a wall immediately on the inside of those, because we're mounting exhibits against those walls.

Does that make sense?

Yeah.

Can I also just clarify that the city code is referencing the first floor only, correct?

Correct.

So we're not we're not addressing the second floor.

It's just I believe.

I'm not misspeaking, am I?

The city code is specifically referring to the first floor.

The ground floor.

Yes.

Yes.

Which that also has lab space directly behind it.

No, it's the same thing.

We have a we have an aerospace lab and an energy lab.

And both of those will be heavily against the walls inside of those labs.

So we'd have to put glass, step in, build wall, mount against those walls.

I'm sorry.

It seems like one of our past when we're talking about the reason for the code having a percentage of glass is to provide variety.

So it's not just a solid wall of one material.

And to me, this meets the code in a spirit of the wall, if I may.

Is that where you're going with that?

Say it again.

Meets it in spirit of the law.

Exactly.

Like the variety is there.

So I don't know that it needs to be glass.

I absolutely take Tyson's point, right?

You don't want to be picking winners and losers.

I'm I'm sitting here looking for exactly what you're saying though, Nicole, because my mind also goes back to when I had lived in an HOA and on the south side of the city.

My neighbors put in this gorgeous fence.

Absolutely stunning.

And uh it was too high a quality for what the HOA permitted.

So the HOA made them rip it out.

So what did they do?

They put up the most piece of crap fence humanly possible, just as a big send a message.

You know, and that that is where yeah, I'm pretty hesitant to get into the space of making those sorts of interpretations, and yet at the same time I feel like we're looking at a frankly a work of art masquerading as a building.

And um I those are the tensions that are going through my mind right now.

To give you some clarity from my thoughts, uh which I've already given we recently saw um the gym.

What's the gym of lifetime?

Yeah, lifetime fitness.

They came forward, again, beautiful design, love the design that they're doing, but it doesn't meet our code, right?

It doesn't meet the glazing requirements of our code.

But they specifically were like, but we've got these variations, we've got these things, and it's it it looks good, at least in the drawings, right?

But we did push back.

We we didn't bend our code just because we thought it looked good, and we did.

And I I really do think this looks good.

I just don't know why we're trying to justify away from our code to the degree that we are.

You know, and they did, they negotiated, they said, how about we do 15, 20, 30, 15, 25% instead of 40, right?

And we did look at those different aspects and ask them to come back with something else.

They didn't yet, but I'm aware of, unless I missed the meeting.

But that's where I'm having a hard time, especially because of how recent it was that we it would feel like an injustice and in preferential treatment to an absolute great partner of the city of Thanksgiving Point, yes, but still someone that we would want to hold to the same standard that we hold anybody else.

Chairman, do you think it makes any difference where this is located?

If it's located in the interior of this resort property, um you think that carries anyway?

It is interior now, but I know that there's a lot of opportunity that is being talked about and being developed as far as where people will be walking and driving that it is not exist today.

But yes, as it exists today, I do see that as different.

But from what I know is planned in that area, no, I don't see it as different.

I'm sorry to be so disagreeable tonight.

I do.

You can't see it from the freeway, and you can't see it from Ashton below our uh I think I think that's where I struggle, is that we're we're talking about this massive sprawling space.

Um I just think it's giving point deep inside of it, putting in a building that in my mind absolutely supersedes the code in a in um in terms of I mean because the code is about um uh uh uh avoiding the the city being run down.

It's about holding to a standard.

And um Tyson is not without a valid point.

I want to be very clear on that.

That that yeah, I I definitely feel that tension.

Did you hear that?

He never says that.

That's right.

That's right.

But you know, yeah, it it it I don't know.

Run out of analogies.

It feels like telling James Bonnie showed up in a black tie uh, you know, in talks, and this is a suit event.

Okay.

So you're not dressed well enough?

Is that what you're you're saying?

Um we'll run out of analogy someday.

I don't know what's going on.

No, I won't.

Okay, you're right.

So I I'm kind of hearing two different problems on your side is the light coming in and mounting space on the wall.

Yes.

To me, I thought, oh, lights coming in, put some blinds up.

We all do it at our homes, and there's some nice blinds on the butt doesn't solve the mounting stuff to a blind would that's something I would try at my house.

It hasn't worked in the past.

Um all of your walls on your classrooms are exterior walls.

There's no exterior hallways that lead to these classrooms.

There's a few, but the majority of the space is exterior.

And I agree with these guys, you know, our code is such a make it look good.

You got the movie theater right there that it is all stucco and a giant box.

The design's great.

Uh but it just it seems like it's so far.

I think 4% was on one of the uh facades of glass.

Did I hear that right now?

7%.

Yeah, it's all on that chart right there.

Uh-huh.

Yeah, but you want to zoom in on the exterior material chart right there?

Yes.

Like on the west side, the glass is very minimal because it's really roof, is what it is.

Yeah.

And I can see West that West sun coming in in the summer is brutal.

Oh.

I'm kind of, I don't know.

It's I understand what you're trying to do.

I think it's great.

Thanks for great asset to the city and the state, really.

So it's also within your right to ask.

You know, ask for the purview to grant it.

So again, I do not hate the design.

If that design were to go up, I would still be proud of that in my city.

I think it's a beautiful design.

I just struggle with the precedent that we have set with holding other people to a higher standard.

That's that's my only beef.

It has nothing to do with your design.

Well, other than you're not meeting code.

But this is a public hearing.

Did you have anything else to add?

No.

Okay.

Then we'll invite you to someone.

Okay, thank you.

This is a public hearing.

If there's anybody that would like to speak to Ida 3.5, we'll open the public hearing and invite you to the microphone.

Oh.

All right.

No, I'm not here for this, but I happen to be here.

Um we've been involved around Thanksgiving Point.

What's your what's your name?

Oh, John Peterson.

Thank you.

Yeah, for 20 plus years.

We're actually just happened to donate.

We've seen this.

This is a remarkable thing.

The only thing I would say the difference between a lifestyle, the gym, a target, and all these others, this is a museum.

And this is something that is extremely unique to the area, to the country.

Travel outside the country.

None of their museums would be built, if you will, to a certain standard.

Building codes, yes.

But but outside of that.

And I understand what's happening with those walls.

The reason why.

Because it's interactive.

And they have to be that way.

So whether there's a design change, I just know that this is an incredible opportunity for not just the city, not just the state.

But this is a regional.

I happen to be involved in all the Thanksgiving development for the last 21 years.

And you can travel anywhere.

You can travel to Idaho, Arizona, Nevada.

Everyone knows where Thanksgiving Point is because of what the Ashton's have done there on such a first class level.

So that's all I had to add.

Thank you.

Was there I don't believe there were comments online, Brittany.

No, there's no public comments.

So that will close the public hearing and bring it back for further discussion or motion.

I will say that did not I I didn't get lost in the use.

The use of this is unique.

It is different.

Our code doesn't say if the if the use is this, then it's that.

I and I again I'm just leaning back on what we're asked to do, which we're asked to look at code.

We're not asked to love or why you know we may we may absolutely hate it, but if it meets code, we would say oh go ahead.

Right?

Um I love this.

I love the use.

I mean, I have children in this area, and I also think this is cool for myself, right?

This opportunity to bring this into our community.

We approve this.

Yeah, this is us.

Yeah.

Um Tyson, I appreciate that you brought up lifestyle fitness.

From what I remember, we told them that we were willing to work with them that they needed to come back and they needed to reduce their ethos levels and increase their glass, but we would work with them.

And holding to that same spirit, I appreciate what the gentleman just shared, and that I think this is a very special building.

And so I'm okay to put forward a motion of approving it.

Um, but very open to also hearing different comments.

I'd love to hear your motion.

Okay.

Does you guys have questions or concerns first?

Oh no.

Let's do this.

You're ready.

Item 3.5 public hearing consideration of Thanksgiving Points request for approval of the Thanksgiving Point Science Center.

Site plan located at 2356 West, Wheatley Lane, requesting exceptions to the ethos class and setback requirements.

The motion being that the planning commission does approve the proposed site plan, with the findings being that the proposed uh at the proposed location, the plan will not be detrimental or injurious or uh to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience.

In fact, I would suggest it does the opposite, that it will be awesome.

The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in compliance with the goals and policies of the Lehigh City Journal Plan and the purposes of this code, and that the property on which the use building or other structures proposed to be established is of adequate size and dimensions to permit construction of the facilities and the conduct of the use in such a manner that it will not be detrimental to adjoining properties and the area, and please include the DRC commerce.

A second?

Would you add uh that has a uh museum?

It uh also merits special consideration as it stands out categorically in a very unique way from effectively any other buildings that we consider uh that every museum is going to be quite unique depending on what it specifically does, and that this is a nationally drawing structure.

Love that and welcome it.

Thank you.

Second stance.

Motion and a second to all in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed.

Thank you.

I will say it was that last thing you added that got me there.

Right.

Look at that.

All right, item 3.6.

Okay, item 3.6.

Public hearing and recommendation of Lehigh City's request for review of development code amendment to both table 050B and section 12.130, updating the regulations for automobile cells businesses.

So Kim worked a lot with the city council on this.

This is at their direction.

Um, but chapter 12 is updating some of the standards.

Um it does add that the dry aisles shall be a minimum of 24 feet in width.

Um it removed um which is just kind of summarizing some of this, um, cleaning some of the things in here that don't need to be like the there was the parking requirement, but that's already in the table of parking.

Um the landscape setback and things, um, you know, covered in other places with our landscape requirements and buffering if it's next to residential.

The lighting is in our lighting standards and it's the same language.

Um, so it didn't need to be in here.

And um one of the big changes is getting rid of the acre, one acre minimum.

So that's some of the language in here, and then also in the table, you know, it's a one acre larger, so eliminating that, because this will allow it on smaller properties, and also adding it to be a permitted use in the commercial zone.

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

Thank you, Brittany.

Uh any questions for staff.

I have questions actually.

I remember we talked a lot about that one acre.

And it was put there for the reason that we liked the limitations that that created.

And now we are not, we're removing that limitation that we loved so much.

Why?

Why?

Yeah, I guess the best answer I could give is just a different policy that the newer newer city council.

This was a lot of the one acre and things that was done seven years ago, eight years ago.

Sure.

The new a lot of the new council members are you know very pro small business and things like that.

So but yeah, no, I I totally acknowledge this was in here for a reason, just so that we didn't have a lot of little small, you know, where you have a house that gets purchased and they turn the front yard into their display.

Um we'll just have to do our best.

Well, you can make whatever recommendation you feel is appropriate.

But yeah, the uh this came up.

That was actually the issue that started this was they said why, you know, why do we have that restriction?

Let's look at revising it, and they directed us to work on that.

And then as we got into some of the other language, uh Brittany's done a good job of explaining, you know, those are just updates that for things that we didn't really need in there.

So I'm all for elected officials to be able to put their input in.

I don't see I was just curious if there was a history or if there was a specific application that led to this.

But great.

Thank you.

Any other questions for staff?

I have a question.

Um if you'll go back to the link.

There was a right there six.

So the landscape initial include street trees is perceived.

That's being crossed out.

Oh is that so it won't need to meet the standards of the city for the trees?

It will.

It's still the landscape requirements still apply to it.

Um and the design standards, everything.

So it's just moving it from here.

So it's just getting rid of it from this section.

Yep, there's uh another section which we could pull up if you want, but uh it's it had dual requirements for landscaping, so we're just getting rid of the one, but the other one still stands.

Still it's just for general any commercial site has a certain tree requirement.

So I I'm all for getting rid of redundancy, but is it easier for an applicant if they're looking at this?

Oh, um, there's no landscape.

I guess they gotta go do their due diligence and find out.

Yeah, so it that's under right now, it's under the design district that you're in.

So they'd have to look at that anyways, because that's the design of the building.

Okay.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

So is there no minimum acreage size now?

If this is approved.

It's approved.

Any other questions for staff?

This is a public hearing.

Are wait.

Applicant, did you want to add anything?

Okay.

This is a public hearing.

At this point, we will open the public hearing for item 3.6 and invite anybody that would like to speak to do so.

This is why I'm here.

Um, John Peterson again.

We own the 23 and a half acres on the east side, referred to as the ridge.

We've had that for 13 years.

And I actually have a letter of intent for that entire purchase from a very well respected car family.

There's only a couple of them, so we'll let you figure that out.

Um currently in the commercial zone, you have the Porshowdy Garfs, and also Garfs had the land rovers across the street.

And it kind of shocked me when I didn't see this was on as part of the zoning.

And so uh I my recommendation is as many of you have said to move forward with this because this uh like our development in particular will be done completely first class with this family.

And there will be various uses within that 23 acres, and we're excited to see that.

Um as I've read through the changes to the code.

I didn't see anything.

Um the only thing I would add, and I don't know if this is possible.

I'm not a big fan of the rebuilt title kind of schlocky car lots.

That won't affect me, other than I do care because we own a significant part of the area with Thanksgiving Park and the retail there.

So I want everything protected, and that's that's why I've been very selective of who to put under contract on this land.

I've had actually small car dealers come to me, and I've just said, what's your use?

No.

And so I'm very protective of this area, as you can tell with the previous comments to make sure that it's preserved.

And I hope the city uses that to some degree uh in their permitted uses uh just just to protect Lehigh.

I have kids.

All two of our kids live just south of Thanksgiving now, and I'd like to see it maintained in a manner that's first class.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Seeing none.

I don't believe there were any comments online close the public hearing.

I'll bring it back for further discussion or motion.

Only part that kind of makes me I don't know, gives me butterflies is uh uh reduce in order to get rid of the acreage, which would mean uh if I'm on a three-quarter acre lot or smaller my neighborhood.

Could I open a car a lot, put a couple of signs in the cars and my kids' cars and I mean, doesn't it still have to be in the right zone?

Perfect.

Does this still protect is Main Street still protected?

Because that was a big concern before.

In fact, that was one of the main reasons we limited it to an acre, right?

Was Main Street.

Yeah, Main Street is most of Main Street is mixed use, and this only opens it up to commercial.

So in mixed use, I believe it's still not an allowed use, but we can pull it to the table.

Yeah.

So yeah.

So it's permitted in commercial, heavy commercial, light industrial, and I can't remember what the other one was.

Regional commercial.

Okay.

Any other comments, questions, feelings?

I'm just glad we could take care of a small 23-acre business.

That's just easy.

Um respected dealer family.

Well, that's how I know we narrowed down with the respected adjective.

Not the disrespect.

That's a big one.

That's a good idea.

I appreciate the distinction.

I'll take your word for it.

Um I'll entertain a motion.

I'll make a motion.

Great.

Item 3.6 public hearing and recommendation of Lehigh Cities request for review of a development code amendment to both table 05.030B and section 12.130.

Updating the regulations for automobile sales businesses.

I move that we give a positive recommendation with the findings that are listed.

And please include all DRC comments.

Second.

All right, motion and a second.

All in favor.

Aye.

Any opposed.

All right.

3.7.

All right.

And then 3.7 public hearing and recommendation of Lehigh Cities request for review of a development code amendment to Chapter 12, Chapter 39, Table 05030A, and Table O Five O30B, adding a neighborhood exchange structure use.

And this one came from the parks department mainly.

Um there's little free libraries that are kind of popping up everywhere.

And then also some neighborhood food pound pantry kind of uses that have caused some challenges being put in the public right away.

Um there are places that it makes it hard for for them.

And so this is really um a way to try and show where they are allowed, where they're not, and create some regulation for them.

So permits it in all of residential zones.

So if anyone wants to put one in their yard, that's fine.

Um it's allowed in a lot of the commercial areas as well.

Um not in public facility and um some of the other light industrial um tech manufacturing, those kind of uses.

And then just adding the language that um allowed on private property.

They're not allowed on public property, including parks or schools without written permission and approval by the entity that owns the public property.

Um and they're not allowed in any public ride-a-ways, including park strips, and then can't be constructed in a way that overhangs onto any sidewalks.

Because we do have one that does that currently.

And then yeah, just the definition of it is an enclosed or unenclosed semi-permanent structure for the exchange or distribution of items such as books, food, household goods, or other similar items.

Um these items may be for sell or free.

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

Does that include food?

Um, yeah.

I think if the food is for sale, that's okay.

Okay.

Yeah.

Oh, it says food.

Sorry.

Yeah.

You looked at me like I'm an idiot.

All right.

Sorry, any other questions for stuff?

Seeing none.

This is a public hearing.

We'll invite anybody in the public that would like to speak to this and open the public hearing now.

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

Great.

Object point seven.

Uh recommendation of Lehigh City's requests for review of so many things.

Uh chapter 12, chapter 39, etc.

Um high move that uh we give a positive approval for the reasons listed.

Check out the right.

What's that?

Positive recommendation.

I believe I said positive.

I didn't.

Positive.

Recommendation.

Great recommendation.

How's the recommendation?

Do reasons listed include DRC comments?

Yes, sir.

All right, motion in a second, all in favor.

Any up post?

All right, send any business.

Uh so the only thing we were just gonna mention is as much of a rodeo that sometimes this meeting is.

We want you to go to the real rodeo next.

Yeah, there's no other meeting this month because it falls on one of the rodeo nights.

So enjoy the roundup festivities.

If you haven't gotten tickets, it's way too late for the rodeo.

But there's still lots of other things to enjoy.

Uh, and then no work session in July because it's on the second, and we figured that's there maybe people that wanted to go forth.

Uh so our next regular meeting would be the July uh 9th.

Yeah.

Did we get shirts this year?

Do we um yeah, they haven't come in yet.

So I I hope we got your order.

Noreen is no longer with us.

Sounded bad.

So it's it's the um barbecue tickets and the t-shirt at the same time.

So Danielle will send an email when they come in.

Okay.

And you'll just have to come to the office and pick them up.

Yeah.

So yeah, I know that that's been a tradition for a while.

Yeah, no, thank you for all you guys do.

Thank you.

Motion to adjourn.

Second.

All in favor.

What are you doing here, dude?

We are so