I agree with that.

All right, we can get started now, thank you.

Wanna welcome everybody to our planning commission on this July 9th, 2026.

We will call this meeting to order.

And I will entertain discussion or motion over the consent agendas.

I'd like to make a motion that we approve two point item two point one approval of amendments from the June 4th, 2006.

And the June 11th.

2026.

2006 was a great year of my second the motion for those meeting minutes from 2026.

Motion and a second.

All in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed.

All right.

Katie.

Okay.

Um item 3.1 is consideration of trademark visuals request for conditional use approval of two pylon signs for the collective commercial development.

Um located at 3700 North Morning Star Morning Vista Road, and requesting exception for greater height and sign area.

Um so this item was tabled from the um six eleven meeting.

And let me just pull up the plans here.

Um there will be two signs.

The first sign will be located at Morning Vista Road and Timpanogas Highway.

It is proposed to be 45 feet tall and 457 square feet in size.

This is reduced from the original proposal of 70 feet and 595 square feet.

The second sign will be located behind the apartments on the west side of the collected development.

Um and it is proposed to be 35 feet tall and 285 square feet.

And this is also reduced from the 70 feet and uh 595 square feet.

Both will still require an exception um to the development code, um chapter 23 of the development code.

Um as they require the code requires um a maximum 25 feet and 200 square feet unless the planning commission um finds other considerations.

There were four red line comments from the DRC, um, including to provide scaled and dimension detail foundation drawing showing the public utility easement and clearances.

But please consider all DRC comments in your motion.

Uh this is a conditional use.

The planning commission has discretion in granting exceptions for the development code.

Um this is not a public hearing item because this was there was a public hearing at the last meeting.

However, you can open public hearing um if you wish.

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

Thank you, Katie.

Uh any questions for staff.

Is the applicant present?

Sorry, it's way down there.

Last person was really short.

I'm short.

Um Justin grew up with trademark visual here representing our client.

Um I'm sure you guys have had a chance to see these new drawings or whatever.

That west or that east pylon much more well represented now.

As before, it was very poorly represented because there was nothing really to scale it from.

So I think that'll help a little bit.

There are two options in there though for that ease pylon.

We're actually want to pursue the 40 footer, and it's all due to square footage and letter size.

Like that's what we're really after is the viewing distances.

It sits back about 100 feet further than the west pylon, we'll say.

Um so we're pursuing that for it to be at that 40 foot height.

It's about 397 square feet, which will give us about one foot four tall letters.

So like we're that's what we're looking for.

So I know there wasn't a whole lot of questions about the West Pylon.

Um we were kind of a little bit in agreement on that on the last kind of meeting, but I don't know if there's any talking points that we want to go over about any of that.

Any questions for the advocate?

I know there was a little bit of a question too about kind of ambient light and or light pollution per se against the apartments.

And I can say with this thing, you know, this this sign, like it on that previous rendering, it was very ill represented.

It looked like it was right next to the building, whereas in reality it's nearly 300 feet.

I think it's like 285 feet away from the building, um, let alone it sitting back that 160 feet per se to get over the wall that it needs to be in to stay out of that easement.

So those are kind of those things that we're fighting, but at the same time, that's why we're looking for that 40 foot, so we can get those one foot four letters because our readability distance right there in that corner.

So as far as the light pollution goes, I don't think we're gonna that's really a key thing because this sign isn't gonna be a big flashy sign, and more of the kind of street lighting and the apartment lighting that they've got out there, that ambient light is going to overpower that sign.

Um just the natural light that's going on around there.

So what not natural light security light and whatnot that's going around with the development is going to be equal or greater than what that sign's really going to produce.

Uh what time would this uh forgive me, these are backlit?

The illumination in it, yeah.

Um fluorescence inside.

No, LEDs, it'll just be LED, right, right, right.

Yeah.

Forgive me.

Yeah, just little low voltage LEDs and only the lettering of light.

Um what what time would these turn off?

That hasn't really been discussed.

I mean that's something I know that uh we deal with with some of these different cities or whatever with it being on the highway, I'm sure they'd want it to go from you know, dust till dawn.

But I'm sure it could be negotiated that there's that uh time period in the middle of the night.

Maybe it's you know, this thing shuts off at I mean developments closed everything up by midnight, so maybe it's shut off from midnight to 5 a.m., 6 a.m.

I mean, because most of those places are maybe you know what I mean?

But they want to do have the opportunity to have peak hours, right?

But I'm sure that's something that could be easily negotiated to shut down during those midnight hours.

I know the questions.

Uh there was discussion of the orientation of the east sign, the one that's closer to the apartment building to turn it a little bit towards the road.

And so it did not face directly to the building.

I didn't see any movement there.

Well, we thought with really kind of recognizing the actual distance from the building.

Like I don't think it's necessarily going to change anything or help anything, especially with the due to it being set back.

We did talk about trying to maybe I mean V it a little bit, not necessarily V it, but only V the apartment side.

You know, so it just it does kind of make create more indirect lighting, but with the distances, it it's not gonna make any difference realistically.

I mean, the it would actually kind of benefit us to direct it a little bit more the other way, but we're trying to stick with the concept of the design.

That's that's the whole thing is struggling and losing height, proportionately shrinking, you know.

We're it just gets so it it changes so drastically to maintain the design integrity at the same time.

Two of the DRC comments were about the sign facing the same street, like to they both face Timpanogas Highway.

Is there do you have an answer for that?

Like why why you need two signs on the same road?

Well, it's just the viewing distance between them.

You know, we have that 1300 feet of frontage, and what we're trying to do is capture being able to capture enough tenants for that frontage.

Um of the DRC comments was yeah, is it we're allowed to have the sign.

It doesn't necessarily direct orientation.

Um so I mean it was this comment, there were comments that we could twist that sign, um, but it kind of is doesn't do a whole lot of good either way.

So I mean it's kind of a gray area right there.

I mean, we're trying to do what's the best thing for the development and not necessarily you know twisting stuff up to go up like point up that road that uh is the side road.

Okay.

I'm going back to the lighting.

Does it have a dimmer on it?

I know a lot of signs seem like they get brighter, you know, they're on during the day.

They just get brighter, right?

Do you have it?

No, we don't usually you don't usually do that with just pain channel lettering.

They do that with a lot with the big electronic LEDs because of daytime light versus nighttime light.

They don't really do that with uh, you know standard populated LEDs.

But like I say, the part of the big differences too on this is that you know we're not going with those big backlit graphics, like most of the signs you see, kind of like the terrace and stuff that is up further up the road or further down the road.

Um, the other where they have the big white backgrounds and then dark copy for legibility.

Like we're just lighting up only the copy.

That's the point of this, you know.

Simple, clean, tasteful.

I feel like the 40 feet is more in line with what's already on that road up there.

I think the one to the east is about the same, 45, 50 feet.

There's one to the um west nearer than the breakfast place.

What's that place called?

On uh original paint accounts?

Yeah.

The terrace, I think is the name of that development.

I wasn't able to look up what that height is there, but it's definitely not 70, so I appreciate you coming down to 40.

I think that's much more manageable.

I'm not sure I'm convinced with having two signs at each corner.

I do like, you know, I have the one at the one corner if I'm coming from the east going west, I'll see that before the turn.

And I'm not sure if one by the apartment buildings.

So I I don't know.

I'm I'm open.

If you want to convince me there, I'd be great.

But I don't know if you kind of took a look at those new conceptuals kind of really that were portrayed properly with the distance, the viewing distance.

You know, we're actually uh able to go out there now that they've put the wall in and survey that and actually see all of you know how far away that sign really is.

So that you are we're gaining the readability at the distance that it's just basically set at.

So that's it's kind of set at that kind of impact distance.

So the moment it's seen, it's you know, being able to be recognized and gets just gets better until you drive by it.

So like I say, the whole purpose of it too is the amount of tenant spaces.

This client is not interested in having an electronic sign out there, you know, a big flashy LED rotating client, like or rotating tenants through it.

That's the opposite of what they want to try to do with this development.

Like they're they're trying to stay away from that kind of big flashy stuff.

So we're we're trying to stick with that and you know, keep the signs simple, clean and easy and uncluttered.

So I mean, if we broke this sign in half and put double the tenants, you wouldn't be able to read them.

And so that's why they're trying to chase the second pylon in order to be able to capture and advertise for all the other tenants that are going to be in the complex.

So the pylons would have different tenants on each one.

That's uh how far is it from the apartment buildings?

KD.

About 280 feet, I think.

Two eighths on the plan, yeah.

Other side.

Right, east side.

And our client representative would like to if you don't have any more questions for me, he would like to be able to speak in.

Thank you.

Is that right?

Yeah.

Sorry.

Thank you.

Welcome back.

Thank you, thank you.

Um I think I can answer the bias chair's question.

If we go to the site plan, page nine.

One of the main reasons we need two pylon signs in the same road is first of all, the code's ambiguous.

It's not clear exactly that you need one on each road.

Um A1, which is the Western one.

If we were to orient it to morning vista, it would kind of defeat the purpose of having a sign on such a busy thoroughfare because we would be essentially trying to cater to the traffic turning into morning vista, whereas we're trying to cater to the traffic going through Temp Highway.

And then A2, call it A2 on the East side.

We're trying to cater that sign specifically to the building that's um perpendicular to Temp Highway.

And the reason for that is as you can see, there's limited opportunities for signage on the back of that building because it's facing the residential.

So for the tenants that are in that building for them to survive and thrive, we want to provide a signage opportunity along Temp Highway that the tenants and buildings A, B, and C don't have.

So that's really the intent behind this as to why we need two signs.

So the buildings, can you can you see those buildings from Temp Highway?

And do they put the name of their business on the back like they do at the Harmon's?

I can tell what's there.

I believe that's allowed by code, yeah, correct.

For buildings A, B, and C, the ones that are um parallel to Temp Highway, you could do that, but for building D, which is the one up north, plan north and down, uh, you couldn't really do that because they're all facing the apartment conflict.

So A102 is for the ones facing east.

Or sorry, they're facing west, but they're not facing Timp Highway.

Correct.

Those tenants don't have any signage.

So our um planes.

So this the sign by the the apartment building, that one is for those tenants.

Correct.

The one A101 is for the ones on Timp Highway.

It's for the pads.

Okay.

Which don't have visibility to the freeway, which poses a leasability challenge.

So we're trying to maintain like healthy tenants by creating signage opportunities for both of the tenants that really aren't uh along Temp Highway.

Is that east sign?

Um I remember from last time it seems like it was below the retaining wall.

No, it's on top of the retaining wall, which was one of your guys' comments.

Like, why do you have a sign on top of a retaining wall asking for 70 feet?

So we brought it down to 40.

And as Justin stated, we're okay with going down to 35, but below 35, it just becomes kind of a point where you can't really see the sign that well, so why have it?

So uh anywhere between 40 and 35 would be kind of the sweet spot for that sign.

And that's the east sign.

Correct.

There's roughly a 10 foot differential in the grade when you account for the wall between the west sign and the east sign, which is why we went lower.

I'm still struggling with the west sign, the orientation being east-west.

But the west sign?

The west sign.

Okay.

Right?

Because we've already talked about how close it is to that apartment building, which would be the east sign.

Excuse me, correct.

Thank you.

Um if we're at 300 feet, right?

So we have a small window of when you could capture some visibility.

I think we took a picture, I think it's 14.

That shows where you would have the visibility.

Or is it the other one?

So that's the west sign.

Um maybe it's both of those with the west sign, correct?

Yeah, that's the west sign.

I thought we had um something in the document that showed.

Sorry, let me find it.

There you go.

That's the window where you could capture it.

You have to get past halfway through the last building of the residential complex.

So really we have a 300 to 400 foot space that you're trying to capture the eyeballs there.

Right.

Traveling at 60 miles per hour, you're looking at a four-second window or less, right?

Correct.

That sounds like a distraction more than it does help.

Like it sounds like a distraction to drivers.

It sounds like a problem that it could potentially cause safety issues, especially if you're trying to draw their attention, so you're bringing that there.

It just doesn't feel like an effective mode or medium to get the eyeballs.

Now, the other direction, I understand, right?

And so eastbound traffic.

Um just for knowledge of what's there, not necessarily for wayfinding, because again, they're going away from your development here.

Correct.

Um but westbound traffic is gonna not have the opportunity to really see that sign for what it is.

It's a beautiful sign.

We've acknowledged that.

And I do appreciate the design of the sign.

Um but as far as it being an effective medium.

I I'm just struggling to get there, right?

Of why that location or that orientation is needed.

We did talk about potentially turning it, so it did have a little bit more visibility as people pass, right?

Um I think angling would kind of create even worse of a distraction.

Which is why we didn't turn it.

So again, we're the burden of proof is on you guys to help us get there.

Yeah.

Right.

Um I don't believe, or I'm not hearing too much concern with the west side.

I appreciate the the size and height limitations that you brought back.

Um but the east side I'm struggling with.

Yeah, we did bring the height down and obviously took pictures to show you.

Because I think one of the initial concerns was like you just have a sign tucked back where you can even see it behind the apartments, which actually isn't the case.

There's an angle where you can see it, which is what we're trying to elaborate here.

Um other than bringing the height down and lowering the square footage at this point, we can make the sign smaller.

Um you take it out altogether.

What's up?

You just eliminate it and just keep the east or that.

Uh they're they're allowed to have two pylon signs, right?

Yeah.

You were correct that the code is a little ambiguous about where those signs need to be located.

Um it's our interpretation that they shouldn't be on the same street.

Your interpretation is a little bit different than that.

And that's why we tried to clean up code.

But um the uh the question there is is this the correct location for the sign?

I have yet to feel that it is.

Okay.

The things that there's nothing nowhere else to put the sign, right?

So you're essentially just asking us to get rid of the sign, which going back to the site plan, like we're killing a third of the tenants in the developer.

I didn't say those words, but uh essentially I I just think that there might be somewhere better to put it.

And maybe it is on Morning Vista.

Right.

Maybe it's somewhere up towards the other end of the property.

Forgive me, remember your name.

Juan.

Juan, I just want to be able to dress you by your name, sir.

Thank you.

Um I uh I take Juan's point.

Uh I don't think it's gonna serve as a wayfinding sign by any means.

But if I were him, I'd want to spread them out.

Um I appreciate that he's not looking to crowd the sign.

I think that having two separate signs that are actually legible is better than all of it being crammed onto one.

Uh or having to scroll through the different tenants that is more I'm thinking about this myself as a driver.

Uh though I would again love more data.

Um all that say I I take his point.

Uh I appreciate these they've come down where we've discussed how nebulous uh our signage.

I think we're all frustrated with our signage situation in the city.

Um I did for me uh not treating this as a wayfinding sign, but as something that will be seen by people who like myself who live in this area and will commute back and forth.

Yeah, I'm gonna be aware of of what's in there.

I'm not gonna turn in immediately, but unless you go, okay.

So that shops there, that's duly noted.

And next week, two weeks from now.

Um I if we're weighing out sky pollution, I'll uh not sure that's a term, but I'm using that now.

Right.

Well, I'm talking about just signage in the sky.

Right.

Um I I think that uh this is as aesthetically pleasing as as I could imagine seeing and the two, I think makes for a greater symmetry and beauty than what we would otherwise have if it gets crammed onto one.

So I think Juan's got some okay points.

Um I can be sold on I I guess I'd rather say I am mostly sold on this, other than I would want to know now light pollution.

I want to know what um light we're actually going to be giving off the the one that's closest to the tenants.

I'm not worried about the other one.

That's fine.

But whether or not that either needs to be turned off at sleeping hours or um what level does that need to be set to.

I I don't want someone uh excitedly checking out this apartment at two o'clock in the afternoon and not realizing you know they signed the lease and now they move in and they feel like they can never fall asleep at night because I'm at on.

No, that makes sense.

Um we can definitely evaluate lighting controls.

I don't know how that would work personally, like I can't answer that here in front of you guys.

Um the one thing I do want to point out uh there's a development down the road that's currently being built, and it got two pylon signs approved on the same road, way closer than what we're showing here, just because there's a road that bisects them.

So they're also showing two pylon signs on the same road.

The only difference is that here we don't have a road that bisects them, but we have way more distance between the two.

So that's kind of where I'm struggling here, trying to answer your questions because I get where you're coming from.

But I think we're trying to be as good neighbors as anybody else that's developing the city right now.

And these signs aren't cheap either.

So it's not like we're cheaping out on signs, which a lot of developers do.

And that sign on the east side is vital for the development to survive, especially that building that goes north-south, really is.

Like I'm not going to have an easy time leasing it if I can't tell tenants, hey, you're not on the freeway, but here is a pylon sign that you can utilize to get some visibility to your store.

So we can definitely evaluate lighting at a different times so the apartments are not impacted.

I think that's something we would definitely consider.

But getting rid of the sign altogether would it's a really tough pill to swallow candidly.

I'm with you on that one.

I think you probably get that.

Um add that this is all part of the important work that the commission suffers through and tries to do is worrying about precedents that we set, uh worrying about here you are pointing at other things that happened in the city, trying to ascertain whether or not those things speak to a precedent or not, because every situation has its unique components and also enforcing code, right?

Uh so I I um anyhow I I take your point.

Um the commission also has the right to you know be hard-nosed.

I can't speak for the rest of the commissioners here.

Um I don't know if there's anything more to add at this point.

Any other questions?

Do you know how high the uh buildings that are backing up the Tempanolis Highway will be?

How high the buildings what their finished height will be?

Oh man.

So it's 15 internally, so call it like 22 feet.

12.

I'm just trying that proportionally, right?

If you've got the sign, if you got a building, what's that going on?

Yeah.

It's probably 22 feet, I would say with parapet and everything.

Okay.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Do you have a time constraint here?

Like do they have to go in at the same time?

Are you uh like could you put it could you put the West sign in?

And see if there's another option once things are settled and everybody's there and see if there's another spot that you could put that second sign.

So as far as another spot.

You've already researched.

So the site, I wish I could show you guys, but the site's encumbered by six different retaining walls because of the grade.

No, we I feel like we talked about that and we talked about the easements.

And the easements to the south.

So like there really is not another location for us to put it.

Uh I think it was Commissioner Kenneth who brought up maybe putting it between buildings B and C.

We need the space to have the anchor tenant turn around WB67s.

So that's it would be very difficult to put it elsewhere.

And you've rolled out morning side.

Morning Vista, sorry.

Putting it there's a wall that goes along morning vista that holds up Sunrise Way.

So it would be very difficult to find some space with the PUEs and everything else to quit a sign along morning vista.

So the answer to my question of do you have to put them in at the same time is yes.

Yes.

Okay.

Do both sides operate independently?

Could you turn the lighting off on one side of the sign and still eliminate the other side?

I'd have to go ask the sign experts.

Hello, I'm Zane Latimer with Trademark Visual.

So as far as turning off one side uh Yes, there is a way that we could do that.

Uh it's just a little bit different build, but it it is a possibility.

Uh and ultimately both of these signs are going to be on an energy man management system.

And with that, the energy management systems have the capability of shutting the sign down at certain times.

And independently of each other.

Now the faces, like I say, that's a different build and it could be done there.

And with that east side, given the location and the distance that you will be able to view it, you should be able to view that at least at the very least about 400 feet when you're hitting that.

And that 400 feet for a sign and the letter height of that is really kind of the optimal point and getting those that letter height to where it is on the 40 foot sign.

It's I believe one foot two on there with all the studies and everything that's been done and that height the letter even though you're going to see it one or two seconds, you will be able to read it without being a distraction and as you're going down the highway.

I mean ultimately we're wanting to obviously let people know that these tenants back here are in the in there.

And also when they're coming down there you you have several shopping centers to the east and the west and if they're looking for a particular place you know which shopping center I'm going oh there it is as they're coming by.

You know and that's partially why we're wanting to get this sign and prior to the other sign is give them the optimal time to get over and into the lane that they need to without causing a huge traffic distraction.

So my thoughts is that we would put a lighting restriction from 10 p.m to 6 a.m is that something that you think could be achieved?

Yes.

On the just on the one even if you keep the other side of the east different just the east side of the east sign.

On the east elevation yes.

That would also I think relieve really worrying about the angle.

So do is optimal for visual impact for the driver.

And one thing about that east sign it actually sets back a little further than that apartment complex.

So it's not going to be directed directly into any of the windows so it is back further than the building itself.

And partially I mean that's why we're looking to you know get the height and and the size of the sign is because it does sit back 160 feet from the street.

And you know thank you.

I will say I've come around a little bit I I do have a strong opinion about signs and trying to protect some of our visual clutter I guess right?

Or trying to keep some of our visual corridors as open as possible to protect some of the natural beauty that we have around us.

I think one of the things that I came around on to be honest is I was discounting the ability for you to be able to keep tenants and attract tenants I do know that's important and we want this to be a successful project.

And so I have come around that it is necessary right to have that opportunity to attract a tenant and you know away from the I-15 corridor because you're removed from that space.

I I'll say I have a strong opinion about these and we do try to break them through the calls a little bit we want them to be well thought out and well planned and I appreciate the work that has gone into this.

Let's see here.

And if I would, so they present two options on the east side, so a 40-footer and a 35-footer.

If they're going to give me a smaller option, I would go with that one.

If everyone's okay with that.

So we go with the 35-foot on the east side.

I'd say Juan's been a good partner.

Okay, up to 40.

So if they were maybe seven, they can do it.

Right.

So up to 40.

Uh and uh the DRCs and all the things.

All right, I'll second it.

Motion in a second.

All in favor.

Aye.

Any opposed.

Thank you.

Juan, go get yourself a tree or you know whatever, whatever you're into.

Okay.

Yeah.

Uh item 3.2.

Okay.

Um item 3.2 is public hearing and consideration of Andrew Ward's request for approval of an exception to an eight-foot fence located at 1337 south, 1880 west.

Uh the code allows for up to an eight-foot fence.

Any fence over six feet requires an exception to allow that eight-foot fence.

The applicant is requesting the additional height to help with safety for the usability of their corner lot yard.

The lot borders 1300 south and has seen an increase in traffic.

Uh there were four DRC comments, including um to verify that any fence taller than three feet is at least 35 feet away from the back of curb along both frontages.

Um please consider all DRC comments in your motion.

The planning commission has discretion in approving the exception.

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

Thank you.

Uh any questions for staff?

Uh yeah, uh I'm just looking at the DRC's uh number four.

Is that is that Kim's comments here?

Uh yes.

Okay.

Okay.

Is the Alpha Kim present?

Hi.

I'm Steve.

I'm Andrew Ward.

Welcome, Andrew.

Did you have anything you wanted to add or any context you wanted to help us with?

Um, I mean I ideally a six-foot fence would be great to preserve views, but that is our primary yard for our children.

And I had a lot of issues with speeding and traffic along there despite calls to the police department and the planning, excuse me, the um traffic division, and I haven't received any feedback from anyone there.

So this was a way just to keep balls in the back of our yard, keep our kids from having to go out on the street to get anything, essentially.

So I assume you'll have other fencing that you're putting in.

So six foot um in the front, so on the west side, and then right now a six-foot fence along the back side.

Um but that may change and we may tear it out depending on what ends up being developed so they used to us.

Do you have intentions to taper down to six feet at the corners or would you keep it at eight foot solid on that side?

So it would be all the way to corner corner.

It would be eight foot on 1300 south.

Okay.

What materials are you gonna build with?

It's a vinyl fence.

Any other questions for the applicant?

Have you thought of putting on that up to help keep the um playground equipment inside the yard?

That would be an option as well.

I mean, it but I think part of it too is road noise.

I probably developed a relationship with some of the teenagers in my neighborhood that they like to actually accelerate and rev their diesel trucks as they pass my house now because of the dirty looks I get when they go above the speed limit.

So this way it would block their passing vehicles and then hopefully reduce that noise and then keep my inks down slightly.

So any other questions.

Thank you.

This is a public hearing.

If anybody is here to item for item 3.2 and would like to speak, this is your chance to do so.

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

Let me just kind of get this better sense.

You guys, of course, don't need to agree this.

This is why we have a commission different views.

I'm pretty quick to feel okay with allowing people to go to eight-foot versus six on their private property.

Um the real matter on extending the fences up.

Uh Tyson, you've been on the commission long enough.

You've heard me tell the story of Charlie Crocker spite fence, right?

Like we're not looking at a spite fence here.

Uh but we don't have uh someone who's looking to literally throw shade on his neighbor in perpetuity with a 40-foot tall fence.

Um the only real question to me is if there is um a significant, you know, meaningful mitigation of uh of safety.

Um on the corners here at 1300.

Um that that's it.

That's the only thing I I'd wonder about.

And that is I guess where I'm just asking.

So I'm looking over the DRCs, and I don't think I'm getting that sense from them.

Uh staff, did you have anything here?

We're good.

We just put the code language in to keep you aware of the requirements of you know approving the exception.

It's really up to your guys' judgment.

It's okay.

Very good.

So you just to be clear, Gary's comment that it needs to be 35 feet away from the back of curb.

Is that being met?

Is that 35 feet away?

The line?

Well, I don't know how it's drawn, but yeah, that is in the development code as for site triangle, of course, coming around the corner.

So it needs to be 35 feet away from the back of the curb.

Yeah, so you take the back of the curb and come parallel or perpendicular to it.

It needs to be 35 feet.

And that's on the corner, right?

Yeah, for the site triangle, just on the street intersection there.

Not 35 feet off the curve of the trip.

So that makes more sense than.

Okay.

So you're saying 35 from the corner.

Yeah, it would be like a I don't know what 35 feet is, but it would look something like that.

We want to maintain visibility for the sidewalk and turning traffic.

But yeah.

So we're good.

Yeah.

So we've got the side triangle.

Okay.

Fantastic.

Then I have I have no concerns.

Yeah.

I'm going to put the motion for item 3.2.

One second.

I'm sorry.

Um this is a driveway on the other side.

Oh, here.

1880.

Yeah.

Is that a road or is that a driveway?

I believe it isn't.

Like a driveway.

Sorry, guys.

So this guy's going to be able to see.

Yeah.

Right.

You should have said on the front row, sorry.

So that initially for the um the Clark residents, they owned this lot and then they owned one across the creek.

And that was a driveway to acts to cross the creek to get to their prior their previous property, which they sent they sold to a lab a neighbor who butts up to that property.

So he doesn't need access to it anymore.

Um I submitted pictures to the planning committee about it being completely overgrown.

It's the house is empty while they're waiting to develop it.

So the planning um the planners uh considered it abandoned.

Yeah, there was a concept to the east there that the council had approved.

So yeah, I think it looks like it's gonna be developed so that driveway shouldn't be a concern for the site triangle there.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, Bill.

All right, okay.

Motion for 3.2.

The motion being that we approve uh the proposed exception to the site uh to the fence heights, with the findings being that the proposed eight foot fence will allow the applicant added enjoyment of their yard.

And we'll provide adequate um that the applicant did provide adequate justification for why they want or need the eight-foot fence, and it will not have negative impact on the neighborhood or the community, and please include the DRC findings.

Second.

Motion and a second, all in favor.

Aye.

Any opposed?

No.

Did you get that in the room over there that we can't see?

Okay.

Uh item 3.3.

Thank you, by the way.

Okay.

Um item 3.3 is public hearing and consideration of JDH's developments request for approval of Vivian Estates phase 5A preliminary subdivision, including two single family lots located at 2070 north, 600 east in the RA1 zone.

One lot is approximately 30 uh 30,500 square feet, and the other is 35,000 square feet.

Both exceed the minimum 15,000 square foot lot minimum.

Um they also both have over 100 feet of frontage.

There were seven red line comments from the DRC, um, including to provide a detail of how driveways will um cross the trail.

Please consider all DRC comments in your motion.

This is an administrative item, um, and this is also a public hearing item.

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

Thank you.

Uh any questions for staff.

Is the applicant present?

Ooh.

No applicant present.

TISC TIS.

Did we have any questions for JDH development?

No.

Um this is a public hearing.

If anybody is here to speak to item 3.3, we'll invite you up to speak to the item now.

Seeing none, we will close the public hearing.

And I'm willing to entertain a motion on this or discussion if there were no questions for the applicant.

Just in case staff knows, did the applicant provide any sort of justification for their proposal?

I'm assuming not, just asking the question just in case.

Um just for the two lot subdivision or just so they can develop.

Was this the one that didn't have the trail connection, or was that the next one?

Um, this one, this one has the trail along the frontage, and that's all that's on our master plan for this phase.

So there's no issue with that on this plan.

Yeah.

Across the trail, right?

It's not my favorite.

We'll be kind of a continuous design of I believe one of the DRC comments is to even wrap the trail around it a little bit so that cars will have to slow down to cross it, so they're not gonna be flying past the trail.

Sure.

So you're content with this mic.

I c I caught about every other word of what you said there.

Sorry.

I don't know how well this microphone's there it is.

There we go.

Yes.

Yeah, basically the trial is one of the DRC comments that uh we should make sure we're doing the access points right because they don't know where the accesses are gonna be yet until they do the building permits.

They haven't showed it on the plan.

Um the the ask was to have a detail uh to show how the trail would stay at grade and be continuous, but then cars when they go pull into the driveway will have to go up a flared approach, just like we see around town.

But that helps slow things down.

So when cars cross the trail, they're not flying past that.

And in your professional assessment, are you saying that it is not properly detailed?

No, we're saying we're saying the trail and it's actually being built.

It's already got the road base and everything.

But everything's addicted.

But when they bring the driveways in, if they follow the detail, we'll be okay.

Okay.

Um I confess I really am a little bothered that a development of this level uh has no applicant present, but I am also not seeing any way in which it is not meeting code.

Correct.

And we have no public comment.

So it moves forward.

Am I wrong?

The RA1 zone.

And if that we prove with the findings that there's no public concern expressed, and the applicant appears to be in complete compliance with code.

And please keep those DRCs in there.

Second.

Motion and a second.

All in favor?

Any opposed?

All right.

3.4.

Okay.

Item 3.4 is public hearing and consideration of JDH's developments requests for approval of the Vivian Estates 5B preliminary subdivision, including 10 single family lots located at approximately 600 east and 300 east.

That's not right.

Sorry.

That's what it says.

The lots all exceed 15,000 square feet, which is the minimum lot size requirement in the RA1 zone.

The smallest is around 20,000 square feet, and the largest is over 64,000 square feet.

All lots also exceed the 100 foot frontage requirement.

There are also parcels that will be dedicated to the city, including portions of Dry Creek, the Dry Creek Trail, and a small park space.

The DRC had 25 red line comments.

Many of these were technical just to clean up for the final plat.

But some of note include to clarify if there are areas of steep slopes greater than 30%.

If so, we need to identify them on the plan as they would be subject to the Chapter 12A hillside preservation.

And to add a note to the plat describing what is happening with parcel A and parcel B.

Please consider all DRC comments in your motion.

This is an administrative item and this is a public hearing item.

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

Thank you.

Are we good on block length on this?

So this one would require the exception because of the creek there, which there was an exception given on the phase three and four next to this.

Just because there's so much grid going down to the creek, it would require a bridge and then grade back up.

So it does require an exception to be approved as part of it.

And we did grant the exception on the other side.

Yeah.

Yeah, it was granted on the other side.

Any other questions?

Yeah.

Um there is on a report analysis, there's a question about the steep slopes greater than 3%.

Is this what you're referring to, or is there any other place where this is a concern?

So that is something we want clarified on the final is showing where the steep slopes are because anything over 30 percent you're not supposed to be able to build a building on.

So we want to clarify that.

This is the preliminary.

So like Katie said, there some of these comments are kind of more final type comments, but we do want to see when this comes back to final where those areas of 30 percent slope are so it can meet our uh hillside grading ordinance.

Okay.

And what about on DRCs?

Uh Gary, this was under yours number 19.

This development will need to detain on site and release at a rate of uh well, I'm gonna read it wrong, but can you talk to that?

Yeah, that's a requirement for all developments that they need to retain or detain on site their own stormwater, and then according to the code, you can release it in this case 0.2 CFS per second.

Um, can you lean forward, Gary?

It's hard to hear you.

Oh, sorry.

It sounds good to me, but yeah, so that is required to all developments that uh they retain or detain on site the stormwater, and if they detain it, then they are allowed to release at that rate 0.2 CFS per second per acre.

So that's just a requirement that we have.

And the way the original drawings were shown is it just dumped right straight into Dry Creek without being detained.

So that is a requirement of the cities.

So that is an outstanding concern at this point.

Um I think it'll be addressed when it comes to for the final.

They'll have to go through the system and get this checked off before it can move forward.

So they'll have to provide a way to retain or detain that.

Um then what about the gas easement?

Uh do we know if that's been added per instruction?

So that comment was if there is a gas lane running through here, um, it is going to be vacated.

If it's vacated and gone and the easement is vacated before they file the plat, then they don't need to show it on the plat.

But if it's still there at the time they filed the plat, then the easement still needs to be shown on the plat.

Okay.

Any other questions for staff?

Is the applicant still not present?

Okay.

This is a public hearing.

Anyone here in the public that would like to speak to item 3.5 will open the public hearing.

No.

My name is Greg Smith.

I'm here representing Robert Smith, who's uh just on the south side of this proposed development.

Um we built this house 51 years ago, and um it's uh we've been on the septic system, and you know, we've been kind of waiting, you know, for the uh development to come so that we could tie into the city sewer.

So we're interested in having um having that made accessible to us.

I know we can't obligate obviously this developer to bring us in, but we want to make sure that it's it's developed in such a way that infrastructure is done in such a way that we can tie in easily because we don't want to stay on the steptic system forever.

Um that was that was my main concern.

I'm representing myself and also my uh mother, Beverly Smith.

I'm Sarah Christensen.

My question is just as far as the um park space or whatever, is that on the north side of the creek or the south side of the creek?

Great question, and we will get an answer to that.

Okay.

What was that?

We'll get an answer to that and address it.

We don't know that.

Not yet.

Okay.

Um and then just looking at the road, how is that gonna tie into the existing road?

You don't know that yet?

Is that am I too are we too far down the road on this?

Just by way of how things happen.

This is a hearing.

Okay.

We don't go back and forth.

You ask questions, and we'll try to give the answers before we make a motion.

Sorry, I just go.

These are good questions.

Um then I'm just gonna state the issues that we're facing we have a runoff issues on that road already.

And I know that um you know this development's gonna have to contain their runoff, but also I'm just not quite sure how it's all gonna work out.

So it's an area to look at because the road is being undermined there.

And it's not it's coming across the road.

So it just needs some attention.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else would like to speak to this item?

Seeing none, we will close the public hearing.

Um, but engineering, did you have any of those answers as far as where the route is going to tie in?

Or are you concerned that they will be able to retain their own water?

Um I'm not.

I think it might cost them a lot to do that, though, or smaller lot anyway, to provide a basin for that.

Um they'll have to address that when they come through for the final for sure.

Okay.

But that will be a record.

But per code, it is required that they have to create some sort of a retention basin.

Yeah.

They're not allowed to let water run off onto adjacent properties.

That's just a requirement.

Um I feel like we have questions.

And at least I I do that I really want to hear from the applicant before I would give the green light, even if this is you know early on stuff.

I'm inclined to table it.

I'm inclined to hear a motion.

Great.

This is uh three point four.

Can I just say one thing about the park to address that question?

Oh please do, yes.

Um it will be on the south side of the creek, kind of on the northern portion of the property.

Um it will be kind of where the two inner the two roads intersect up here.

So to clarify it as a small open space, but they have a little open space there that they're putting on that south side of the creek, but you can see that little sidewalk on there and right where the dry creek trail will come through.

And to the other gentleman's question, it does look like sewers not quite making it to the South Property Line, but it would be much closer to try and access for them within about a hundred foot.

That green line right there is where the proposed sewer line would get to right there.

All right.

Motion?

Yes.

All right.

Uh for item uh 3.4 public hearing of JDH developments request for approval of the Vivian State's 5D preliminary subdivision at approximately 600 East, 300 East.

Uh I move that we table this.

Uh do we want to set a date?

Uh the next meeting that is available is will be the August meeting.

Um August 13th.

Great.

Let's take uh m a move that we table this until August 13th.

Uh with finding that uh we have a number of questions that would really be we need the applicant to be able to speak to.

Um if if I may let me include that we we'd specifically like addressed um uh availability of uh sewer development um being able to be accessed by a neighbor and uh we want to understand an impact on roads um other things get into a little bit of uh plans for retention.

Yeah, yes, publ plans for retention as well as slopes, um any parts of the development that are uh more than uh exceed 30 percent on slope that that we're still unclear on.

And of course any other questions that that may occur to us at that time, but those are the specific reasons why we are tabling it tonight.

Can we note that we do recognize this as preliminary and not final?

Yes, absolutely.

We know that it's preliminary, not final.

Umetheless, those are uh adequate cause for us to want more information.

Love it.

I'll second it.

Motion and a second, all in favor.

I need a post.

Okay, so we will hear it when it is come back and come back.

August 13th.

August 13th is the next meeting okay.

Item 3.5.

Okay.

Okay.

Item 3.5 is public hearing and consideration of Kevin and Sarah Gordon's request for approval of the Lehigh Child Care Facility site plan located at 808 north, 2300 west, and requesting exceptions for buffering standards and building footprint size.

Um this is um in a development agreement, and the child care facility is the only permitted use um per the 2022 Gordon Development Agreement.

The applicant is requesting two exceptions to the development code.

The first is to increase the building square footage size beyond the 5,000 square foot um allowance in the neighborhood commercial zone.

The proposed foot foot footprint is 10,500 square feet.

The planning commission will have to determine if a larger building for a child care center meets the intent of the neighborhood commercial zone.

The second exception is to waive the landscaping buffering requirements on the north and east property lines of the child care property.

Um the buffer may be waived or modified as deemed appropriate by the planning commission.

Um it should be noted that the they're the same owners for both the child care facility and the flag lot.

Um the DRC had 11 red line comments, including to show park strip landscaping and to add plant material to achieve 50% plant coverage at maturity.

Please consider all DRC comments in your motion.

Exceptions may be approved at the discretion of the planning commission.

Uh this is a public hearing item, but there were no online comments for this, so that's the commission for any questions.

Thank you, staff.

Uh any questions for staff?

And just for legal, we can look at the exceptions independently.

It's not an all or nothing, is that correct?

Let me check your possible motions and this this one's development agreement.

So it's a little more interesting.

Yeah.

Let me text Ryan real fast.

Please do.

I'll get back to you.

They are requesting multiple exceptions.

I believe protocol allows us to look at them independently and not necessarily as a joint requirement, but just want to confirm.

Okay.

While you do that, we will um op or yeah, we'll open the public hearing.

Uh for item 3.5.

If anybody is here that would like to speak to item 3.5.

Applicant.

Applicant, excuse me, I'm all out of sorts.

Come forward.

You're just excited here from the respect that's very excited.

Hello.

I'm Sarah Gordon.

This is Kevin Gordon.

As you know, this has been like years in the making, and we're like so excited to finally be here.

We've been working really hard to like design the building to meet the neighborhood and make it look really nice.

So we're asking for two exceptions, the first being the buffering standards.

But since we do own the other lot, we'd like to waive our rights if possible for those standards.

And then the other one is the square footage size, the footprint.

So it's very similar to another child care center size that we had built.

It's 289 north, 500 west.

Yeah.

The only difference, um, because we had come back to the city before and we had asked for 8,000 square feet and we had gotten approval.

The only difference is we've added on a large b uh room in the back that is like um like an indoor play area for the kids.

So when it's like really hot, really cold, really windy, they have a place to play and run around.

Because obviously kids do better when they get to run around.

So uh we've added a vaulted ceiling room in the back, and so that's why there's a difference between the original 8,000 we'd asked for versus the 10,000 we're at now.

Um am I missing anything?

No.

Okay, sorry.

Questions for the applicant.

So where where is the 8,000 square foot?

I I only saw um 5,000 on the oh from our original concept plan that we got the smooth the development agreement.

So the eight 8,000 was part of the development agreement?

No, no, no, sorry.

That was just what we were proposing at the time.

Yes when they asked us like about how much square footage we want the building.

Yeah, when we had asked for like the agreement and when we came to explain what uh what we were the plans were for the property.

And so we had asked uh for the 8,000 square feet.

We hadn't designed the building yet, and that's where we come up with this indoor play area.

What the big change was.

It's very similar to our other center, it's across from the rodeo.

Um the rodeo grounds?

Yeah.

Yeah.

What's the square footage on that one?

That one is also in the neighborhood commercial.

It's 8,000 square feet.

Are you still gonna have some kind of buffering before between your property on the back on the east end and the uh the campus?

I mean you're gonna have a fence, you're gonna have something there.

Yeah, we'll have fence and we'll plant like trees and stuff, but we don't necessarily need the 12 foot, is it 12 feet?

Buffering standards.

Um it doesn't really matter to us on in the back one.

I'd just think what happens when you sell.

Well, actually, I mean I never plan on selling it.

So whatever.

I understand what you're saying, but I would not plan on selling it now.

So what's gonna happen to all of the RVs that are parked?

Oh, there hasn't been gone for pictures all the time.

That's really old pictures.

Sorry, they're still in the picture.

Yeah, for a long time.

Yeah.

Yeah, that was hotly discussed last time.

Yeah, we had to remove them to get the subsidized.

Right.

Yeah.

Greg, did you have sound looked like you were making some wild calculations over there?

Yeah.

Uh well.

A few things going through my head.

Um first, I realize that it is our purview as the commission to approve buildings.

Um at a larger size.

Uh I guess this gets back to our to our dear legal friends if uh texting is going on as well.

Uh that that is included with development agreements.

Development agreements are hashed out with city council.

You guys aren't gonna put things before us that aren't our thing.

It just strikes me as a little odd, I suppose.

But um with regard, sorry if you're ready for me, Chairman.

What's that?

If you're ready.

Um so they neither of them have answered.

Um I did a quick search.

You are given broad latitude as long as you're complying with state and local laws.

It seems that you would be able to consider these exceptions separate from each other instead of an all or none package based on what I can tell.

I believe that to be the case, and I I think that's how we've acted in the in the past, but just wanted to confirm.

Okay.

And then the adjoining property is the uh the A1, is that right?

I want to make sure I'm reading the uh sorry, are you talking about the Ascent Academy or the flag lot is the flag lot is um R22?

R122 zoning.

Okay.

Okay.

R122.

Got it.

Okay.

Do you have any plans for what to do with that flag lot?

Uh well yeah, we're planning on building a house on it.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Uh I guess my my concern is yeah, I've appreciated it.

You don't plan to ever sell it.

It is again that uh they are nonetheless separate properties.

If they were I guess what was going through my head is if they were merged as one property.

Um I I like I I I like um Tigos of the runner.

Oh, when it comes to property owners, you know, I I'm inclined to always within within reason uh within the code to want to uh facilitate people being able to use their property as they want.

Um I I guess I'm not saying that it's that it's the neat deal breaker.

I'm just trying to think this all through still.

Where my comfort levels are on this.

Okay.

I think my wheels are still turning here.

I'm sorry, I've got no specific question for you at this juncture.

Yeah.

We'll we'll invite the public to speak if they'd like to.

And then if there are other questions, we'll invite you back up.

Um this is a public hearing.

We will invite anybody from the public that would like to speak to item 3.5.

We will open the public hearing and invite you to come up now.

Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing.

Um bring it back for further discussion.

Okay.

We've looked at a let several of these throughout the city over time.

Not necessarily daycares, but neighborhood commercial.

There's often a question of the size that comes up and seems like almost every one of these that gets come up.

5,000 square feet is fairly limiting.

Um but it was intentional.

We were looking to make sure that we keep this scale to a neighborhood level.

Um we have approved others in the past to be larger.

Um struggle with doubling a little bit the size.

Well, I I suppose that's where I want to understand.

So there's a five 5,000 is what is permitted in this zone withouthing whatsoever.

Right.

Clean.

You could hate it, wouldn't it matter?

Property owners have the right to do it.

That's a 5,000 footprint.

I mean, they could do 10,000 square feet two-story, 5,000 square feet.

Right.

Right.

And that's permitted as well.

But the footprint.

The the regulations in the code talk about a 5,000 square foot footprint.

Then the development agreement in 2022.

Yes.

And they proposed 8,000 or were approved 8,000.

Um it was proposed.

Um there's no mention of the square footage of the building in the development agreement itself.

Okay.

The development agreement was to allow for what specifically?

What was that to what was that agreement?

Was to allow for this use?

Uh because it is neighborhood commercial on the general plan, same with the flag lot, and that's why they can request the exception on the buffering, because they're both neighborhood commercial and they own them.

Um then this site, rather than zoning a neighborhood commercial for any use that's allowed in any neighborhood commercial, basically this was the council and the Gordon's uh saying we're gonna allow this use, but not you know, we're gonna limit the neighborhood commercial zone just to this use basically instead of leaving it open.

So there was a lot of concern just having houses on both sides, but they felt like it was use was compatible, so that's why they um still changed the zone, but made sure that the zone only allowed for this particular use.

The lot in the rear, the potential residential lot.

Does it need to be rezoned before they could build a home?

It's it's R122.

Okay.

So their rezone was included both of those.

So they left it R122, but because it's neighborhood commercial on the general plan, that's what allows them to and the buffering and screening exceptions just between that property and theirs, not for the neighbors to the north and the south.

So the exception is only on the east.

Okay.

Okay.

Isn't the exception on the north as well?

That's what you read.

It's just for it's the exception specifically for the flag stem itself.

Because it is right against the property.

Yeah.

So there would technically have to be a 12-foot buffer to like the driveway, essentially.

So this is getting clearer.

Any other questions for staff or the action?

Probably just not.

Yeah.

Okay.

I'm disinclined to grant the exception to the buffer.

Just because, yes, now there are the same landowners, same owners of both parcels, but again, we're not necessarily looking for just today.

We're looking to future proof as much as we can.

And although there is no intent to sell, that's not in our purview.

We still consider the future and what uh use may potentially go in that rear lot.

And I would be more favorable of protecting that buffer and maintaining what the code states.

I don't believe just because they are currently owned by the same owner that that's a justification to go outside of code personally.

I don't mind.

I'm sorry, you can see my wheels turning, can't you?

As far as a 10,000 square footprint, I don't mind I'd rather see that in this situation than having a two-story building on the these neighbors, you know, to the south in their backyard.

Yeah.

So I'd feel I'd 10,000 square foot footprint.

And it looks nice.

It's a good looking building.

Um the buffering.

I don't know.

It is theirs.

But it also, I mean, we all have the intent to stay and never move, but eventually we all do.

So I don't know.

I go either way on that one.

On the north side, I mean I feel okay with not needing to put that 12-foot buffer against the flag stem.

But on the east side is where I would want to protect that buffer.

Great.

Please speak.

Yeah, all right.

We uh all the years we've been on this commission, Tyson.

This is unique.

I don't think we've had this exact sort of at this point, like 98% of things.

We've we've seen it.

We have seen.

We've seen it.

Uh having the property owner looking for an exception between their own properties.

I don't recall.

Can you guys all hear him?

Sometimes he mumbles a little bit.

Can you hear him okay?

Yes.

I'll use my booming voice.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Uh yeah, so I'm just I'm just really weighing out here the um this oddity of giving the property owner an exception to obligations to themselves.

Uh it's it's an intriguing one.

Um and I know I initially started there where I I think I'm halfway on on the fence here, is if we grant them this this exception.

They own the property, if this makes more sense for them to be more efficacious in operating their business.

And it then turns into an albatross that ultimately is um you know it they do want to sell if they think they don't today, right?

Tomorrow that does come about.

Uh I mean part of the reason that we put the buffering is because it's gonna make the the property more attractive to someone else.

Uh basically it would be an albatross of their own making uh that would actually perhaps lower the property value.

Um I guess uh I I don't know that I'm debating if that's really if I have a problem with not protecting someone from themselves.

Um like I I I feel like government's kind of getting in the way at that point.

And this is just an intriguing scenario to have to weigh this out.

I got all philosophical on you.

So to me it's not a question of land value.

It's more just that person that might potentially live there one day.

I want to have let them have less of a nuisance of being next to a commercial property.

That's what the buffer is for.

It's designed to give some buffer to in this case would be future residents.

And so that that's my thought there.

It has nothing to do with the perceived value of now or in the future.

Sure.

And they would want that because either one, for some reason that they don't want a buffer, or two, the price points come to a place as a result that they go, yeah, I can love with that to give them get myself in that into that home.

Well this always be a child care facility.

Or could it change?

No, no, and it clears.

So they could change and then you would want to.

Or the development agreement may specifically state that it has to be a child care unit.

Is that correct?

Does it?

Child care facility.

It does, according to the development agreement.

So unless the development agreement dissolves, it will remain a child care facility.

But in a normal situation where there wasn't a development agreement, yes, it would be open to all of the users.

If it would change ownership.

Anything else, Greg?

Not just yet.

This is this is a fun one.

Huh.

Well, I guess I will say I I think I agree with uh with Bo and Ken on in this situation.

I I would rather uh approve the exception than push the applicant to say themselves, well, then up we go.

I I I think that the layout makes sense.

It's it's a beautiful building.

I I think I'm I'm pretty on board with the exception on the the footprint.

So I guess the it's the buffer that's the the one I'm mulling.

Does anyone else have any thoughts?

Yeah, I I think having it be more than twice the size of everything else around it is defeating the purpose of neighborhood commercial.

So I that just means more kids, you know, and that's more traffic, that's more maybe potent potential nuisance to the neighbors.

They're surrounded by homes.

I I think they should stay with the agreement that they made.

Or even ask for 8,000.

Like the one the one on 300 west is I think there's houses on one side and they're pretty far away.

So uh the it's a 5,000 square foot footprint.

Right.

Right.

So they can't do they're asking for 10 but not a second floor.

So the footprint is actually more than twice as big.

Yes, but I I guess what I'm what I'm seeing is that they could go that big, they just would have to make the footprint smaller.

A second floor.

Correct.

Right.

So it's not I I would without question be in agreement with you if it was about total square footage of the structure.

But this is the square footage of the footprint only, meaning that they could still build a 10,000 plus square foot structure.

It would it would likely go up.

Right.

Which would be worse for the neighborhood.

Yes.

But those homes over there are also two-story.

Right?

Yeah, the surrounding homes are two one or two-story homes.

Yeah.

Just a quick note on that.

If you're exploring increasing it to two stories, our buffering requirements do state that it increases by care.

I can't remember that off the top of my head, but um every additional foot of height over 20 feet is an additional foot of buffer.

That's right.

So it would be increasing the buffer if it's over 20 feet.

Any other discussion?

Or a motion.

By way of discussion before a motion, I think that I've landed on leaning toward approving both exceptions.

Because they because they are the property owners.

And because they're the property owners, and I want to give them the ability to be able to do what they want with their land.

Sounds like the beginnings of a motion.

Okay.

Anticipating a few nays.

If I may just that please.

I am in in your same campo, and but I want to be clear that it's because I'm not seeing pushback on the community.

I'm not seeing negative externalities that we are protecting against.

Is that makes sense?

If if I were seeing negative externalities here, then granting the exceptions would very much be an issue, but where this is all the same property owner.

It's internal, no negative negative externalities.

Yes, I'm with you.

And those are good points I had, so I like those.

Okay.

Uh putting forward a motion for item what are we, 3.5?

Yeah.

3.5 public hearing consideration of Kevin and Sarah Gordon's request for approval of the Lehigh Child Care Facility site plan located at 808 north, 2300 less requesting exceptions for buffering standards of building footprint size.

The motion being that we approve the proposed site plan, with the findings being those that are laid out in the report.

And please include our D all DRC comments.

Second.

Motion and a second.

All in favor.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Nay.

Carries.

Let's go to 3.6.

Okay.

Item 3.6 is public hearing and recommendation of Symphony Holmes request for review of the Fox Trail subdivision concept plan requesting nine lots and a development agreement located at 2850 west, 1500 north.

Symphony homes was previously approved to have an eight-lot subdivision located at this location.

They are requesting nine lots to better match the surrounding existing development of college farms.

The current zoning of R 122 connectivity requirements and layout of the parcel do not make it possible for nine lots.

The lots do not meet the minimum R122 zoning requirements.

Therefore, Symphony Homes is requesting a development agreement.

The justification for the extra lot is to better match the surrounding existing lot sizes of the college farms, additional funding and amenity contributions to the college farms HOA and an additional housing unit.

Symphony Holmes is also willing to complete a section of sidewalk along 1500 north that ends short of the Jordan River Trail to create more connectivity to the Jordan River.

It is up to the planning commission to determine if a development agreement for an extra lot is justified.

But please consider all DRC comments in your motion.

So this is not the final meeting.

Any questions for staff?

Not yet.

Is the applicant present?

Thank you for having us back.

As they said, we were approved prior for eight lots, so this has been a discussion prior.

But for a little history on it and why maybe it's back at the table.

Recently, um Symphony Holmes released the control of the HOA to the residents.

And shortly afterwards, um they approached Symphony to ask about Fox Trail, this um current subdivision's name, to be included into their HOA.

Um as I understand there's several reasons for that.

This is one of the main interests and will be one of the main entrances in and out of the college farms or river walk subdivision.

So in a lot of ways, geographically it is part of their neighborhood in most uh regards.

So having them in their HOA, having them in their community, not awkwardly excluding them as they have a pool and open space and things like that that likely they'll use anyways.

And with that, instead of you know excluding them or having them use it, they can be a part of it naturally, but then also contribute dues.

So nine more homes that contribute dues to that neighborhood.

And then, as was mentioned, part of it with Symphony getting the benefit of an extra lot and what we think more cohesive lot sizes to the neighborhood.

Some improvement to their open space and their community areas like the pool and park.

So to clarify everything on the cul-de-sac, so on 1450 north, none of those homes will change.

The right of way, the road, everything there will stay exactly the same.

It's the lots on the west side, lot one and two that are fairly excessive in size right now, that would be the ones that split into three lots from two to three.

So college farms and river walk, or river walk, whatever you call it.

There's many names now.

But there's 98 lots in that current HOA in that subdivision that Symphony built.

Their average lot size is 18,276 square feet.

Smallest being just over 14,000 square feet, and the largest being just shy of 23,000 square feet.

It leaves a lot of space that typically isn't utilized in the building of the home unless it's a massive home that would far exceed any of the square footages and profiles of this neighborhood.

So when we go to, if we can go back to the proposed subdivision, what we're proposing would be an 18,258-foot square foot lot, a 19,423 square foot lot, and a 22,902 square foot lot.

So those still either meet or exceed the average size of college farms and surrounding area.

And the largest of which still will be, if incorporated, the largest lot in the neighborhood.

So just want to make that small clarification as we are asking for more lots.

It's not to get small lots, it's just to kind of conform in the neighborhood.

And hear the HOA, hear their complaints, or not complaints necessarily, but their new desires in the direction they want the community to go.

As the builder, developer, all of that, we agree with all of their desires to improve their neighborhood and improve the HOA funding, and we agree with lot sizing here and obviously have the benefit of an extra building lot to go along with it.

But as mentioned, we'd like to conform, if at all possible, to any requirements to be able to improve the public benefit in some way or another.

So there are, as mentioned, I think a lot of comments from online, and then I've heard there's a few people here that might be commenting as well.

So my thought was maybe I can turn it over to the public, let the community speak to their thoughts on it, and then if there's any more questions, I'm happy to jump back up.

Or if you have questions now before that, I'm happy to speak to it as well.

Yeah, I I I guess I'd I'd be curious to know and it'd be a wouldn't kill the thing, but are to understand that Symphony Holmes would not hand this neighborhood over to this HOA, a lot permitted to join if uh the additional you know is not granted.

It was not um the plan for one reason or another when we had the eight lot scenario.

Yeah.

So it wasn't I don't think it's something that wouldn't happen, but it was kind of what happened when we when they approach us.

The first time we came around, I think there was some miscommunication in the neighborhood wasn't as excited about it, but when they took control of the HOA and looked at it maybe through a different lens, and there was maybe more communication and discussion around all of it, um they changed their minds.

So I can't say every single neighborhood that it's felt like the map the um large majority of the neighborhood.

So I think there's a possibility that yeah, the HOA could still maybe absorb it.

It would change the dynamic of the agreement that they've come to with Symphony Homes at this point.

Okay.

But it's still possible.

I'm sure I'll have more questions later, but I'm good for now.

So I have a similar question.

Um with the nine lot and some of the benefits that were outlined.

One was the Kermagutter along, I think it's 1500 north.

Is that right?

1500?

That's not I don't think it's part of the application, but it was something that has been discussed in and out.

Yeah, just in your narrative that says, you know, these are the benefits.

So I'm similar, like, well, if you only do the eight lots, are you not going to do the trail in the Kerb and gutter?

Correct.

Yeah, we're approved for the eight lots regardless.

Um the idea is that giving us the ninth lot gives us the funding to be able to do these other improvements, not just to the HOA, but if the city said, hey, we want to do I think it's just sidewalk, um, a sidewalk connection that made it safer for pedestrian access to that trail system, that would provide us an ability to do it.

Right now we've you know, we've already kind of maxed out financially what we can do here, and this is our avenue to be able to explore further public benefit um and fund that.

Why go this route with the development agreement rather than ask for zone change?

I think the HOA had interest in in bringing it in.

I think we were denied a zone change prior A zone change would acquire a general plan amendment.

Um so it would have to go through the general plan amendment first and then the zone change application.

Um I did counsel Symphony Holmes in stating that it was unlikely to happen because zone change in the past have tried to come through on this property and they have been denied.

So I mean uh the zone change would grant you potentially more lots, right?

Not the that's where we're trying to go.

But yeah, and then to be clear too, we've already started construction.

That's one reason among many that the road wouldn't change and those cold sec lots wouldn't change.

I mean, we feel like we've optimized the site.

We're not a builder who searches for high density.

Um we just search for quality, beautiful neighborhoods that the residents like.

So that's why we've listened to further comment from the residents to continue that direction.

Any other questions for the applicant?

You mentioned additional amenity contributions to the HOA, and you said that you haven't fleshed out exactly what those are.

Can you just give me some ideas of what those might be?

Um it comes down to what we can do really.

I mean, it's kind of been discussed that hey, maybe if we have to extend that sidewalk, that's part of the funds going from one bucket to another.

But they have a large open space area within the community that we built for them.

There's a pool, a playground, but then a really large grass area.

So within that large grass area, um, a lot of things could be done, whether it was I don't know.

I really can't speak to what those could be, but any kind of park amenity that is agreed upon between the HOA and Symphony and that funding is available for.

But um sounds like they've had quite a few conversations that were enticing and interesting to the residents that they could fulfill.

If I I just I don't want to say the wrong thing, I wasn't in a lot of those discussions.

So just looking for price guys.

If I start setting expectations and can't say that.

So thank you.

We'll invite the public to come up.

Okay.

This is a public hearing.

If anybody is here that would like to speak to item 3.6, we'll open the public hearing now and invite you to come up in an orderly fashion.

Thank you.

Good to meet everyone.

Putting some names or faces and names I should say.

Um my name is Neil Farrell.

I am the HOA president for College Farms.

Um just want to share a couple things.

Um I I myself and our board engaged with Symphony Homes uh right after we got the um HOA turned over to us and we were put in place.

I'll share a couple things.

So I think one question was about the connection of the sidewalk.

I personally actually use that connection probably three or four times a week when I'm walking or running.

Just so you guys know when the sidewalk ends, there's enough unusable space where you just can't walk straight.

So you actually got to cut over and you're you know four or five feet away from the actual road and with oncoming traffic.

And so it's a bit of a safety issue, and that was actually an idea that I put forward with Ross Wilson, who uh I think works with the applicant here.

Um the other thing too is that when we went around, we wanted to make sure, and Symphony also wanted to make sure that there was broad community support for this.

Um they didn't want to obviously override or use their authority to override you know community support.

And so we went through and got um we created a digital petition and ran it around um, you know, for people to look at and sign, and we have over 70 signatures recorded on this uh these uh papers here I can provide to you if you like.

But so we've we've had really broad commit community support.

I haven't spoken with anyone who's been against it in our uh community HOA.

Um, and Symphony's been a really great partner.

Um so just wanted to share that.

We've got a number of other neighborhood members and HOA board members here too.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, um sorry, I just got back from a family reunion about 20 minutes before your meeting started, so I'm not dressed great.

Um I want to thank the planning commissioners.

Um my name is Candace Jones, and I reside at 2784 West River Park Way.

I'm also an adjacent property owner to this um agenda item.

Um I attended, I you might recognize me from before, uh, multiple planning commission and city council meetings in 2024 and 2025 because I originally opposed the ninth lot proposal.

Um my opposition was to keep the development consistent with the existing surrounding lot sizes by limiting it to half acre lots.

Uh I just want to say that I love our neighborhood.

I love our Symphony home.

I believe that they are wonderful home um builders.

We've lived in Lehigh since 2012, and when we looked to build our now forever home three years ago, we wanted to stay on the west side because of the schools and the community and the larger half acre lot sizes.

Um in August and October of 2024, I spoke in opposition to a previous zoning change that was already mentioned, where a previous developer tried to change it to VLR, allowing the owner to take the lot sizes down to 0.18 acre.

And that was not in consistency with the surrounding area.

Um we were in support of Symfony to procure the land, creating cohesiveness to our neighborhood.

By adding Symphony homes to this property, it allowed the lots to be held to the same field that we enjoy.

However, my opposition came because the only benefit offered to the existing homeowners was land for an entrance, and the smaller lot sizes in the cul de sac as you see were um smaller.

Um residents also opposed the city's decision to strictly enforce the connectivity ordinance, requiring a road to 1500 north.

Lehigh City required three closely spaced access points onto 1500 north, which is a very busy road.

There was an accident earlier today, which not only forced smaller, less compatible lots, but more concerned for traffic.

So why do I support the current proposal?

Um the city changed their outcome in February after we made significant progress towards more compatible lots.

Um the planning commission reverse course, Symfony submitted multiple eight-lot out layouts that were better matched for the surrounding neighborhood.

But Lehigh City repeatedly rejected them.

Left with few options, Symphony returned to the original layout much closer that's being shown today.

And combining the three lots into two, we call it the jumbo lots, I guess, to meet that eight-lot requirement, which I was very much part of that.

But now I am voicing my support because I kind of feel like that we're all in a lose-lose situation.

The advocacy that we did for the past year was not taken into consideration.

There's still small lots behind us.

But now to meet the eight-lot requirement, um we we have the jumbo lots, but we saw the same um lots behind us.

Um but our HOA board is now turned over, or the HOA has been turned over to the homeowners.

They've gotten lots of um feedback, they've been vigilant in maintaining open communication.

They've surveyed all the residents on how the community can move forward.

In negotiations with Symfony, they have created a development agreement to secure tangible neighborhood improvements.

Um I'm sure Symphony would have preferred the additional value that came with the nine lots.

But with the development agreement, at least there are now commitments for the neighborhood enhancements beyond just an entrance.

As an adjacent neighbor, I support that we graph the nine lots into the HOA to maintain continuity, continuity, and covenants.

This proposal provides benefits to the neighborhood that was not previously offered.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello, thank you for hearing us out tonight.

Um my name is Janessa Baker.

I also am a resident in the college farms neighborhood.

I am much more south than they are, though.

Um I'm also on the HOA board and have talked, have gone door to door and talked to several, several people in our neighborhood.

And I do know that there's neighbors outside of the HOA that may be not may not support this.

And I I understand their point of view from I understand their point of view too.

But I also think that the people that are objecting are mostly a lot more south, and they will they won't even really be driving that road at all, and it won't really affect them as much as they think it might.

Um, and as far as setting precedents for future developers, um, I actually think this is a great precedent that the homeowners worked with a developer and came to a plan, came to a point that worked well for both of us.

And it wasn't just the homeowners getting run over by a developer or a developer just getting whatever they wanted, and we actually are making them give us something in return.

Like it is, I think that's actually like Candace said, it is kind of a lose-lose situation, but we're making the best of it, and this is how we can see a path forward.

And I think if developers worked with homeowners more, then there'd be a lot more happy height residents.

So that's why I support it, is because I've like it's one more lot and our neighborhood is great, and I would love to welcome one more family into our neighborhood.

And as far as letting the other eight homes into the HOA when talking with people in the neighborhood, the reason um for the letting the nine lots in is because our HOA is seeing a benefit.

Our pool and our playground really aren't that great, like that big.

So seeing an enhancement of the amenities is kind of why they want the nine homes.

If it's just going to be eight homes and we don't get an enhancement with HOA, they don't really want.

I don't think it will be annexed in just because to get two-thirds of the owners to annex them in just to add eight more families to the pool probably won't happen.

But with the enhancement of the amenities and everything, that's why we would let the nine homes.

I think that was a previous question.

So it will come up for discussion and we it will be voted on.

But from my point of view, it's less likely to have the eight homes annexed into the HOA compared to the nine homes.

So thank you.

Hi, my name is Katie Beckham, and I am one of the residents who's not part of the HOA but live, like San Jose was saying a little further south than everybody.

And I I oppose this.

And I know it's probably gonna go through anyways, and I can see the benefit for the HOA and they're getting the $65,000 and the walk, the sidewalk extension.

I recognize all of that, but we were recently in here with Terry Bishop's expansion on 900 North.

And it feels like you guys, why do we have zoning laws if we're not gonna be following them and just constantly making amendments as they come up?

Is what I think.

I think every lot should be 22,000 square feet for the whole entirety of 1500 north to all that's zoned R122.

So I know that my comments probably will make little to no effect.

But I think it feels a little bit like pay-to-play.

They're gonna they have their list of 76 people in the HOA who they talk to, which I think is great, and if they all like it, and I'm not opposed to people being in the HWA or out of the HOA.

But of course they're for it.

They're gonna get $65,000.

How would you not be for it to increase your own amenities?

But that's kind of what I have to say.

So I think it's lame that we don't follow the rules.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else would like to speak to this item?

Before we close the public hearing, can you give us a synopsis of the online comments?

Yes.

So there were six positive and eight negative.

Most of the positives were a lot of the same reasons set here tonight, the additional amenities, the sidewalk connection.

The eight that were opposed were also echoed from what we've heard tonight.

Just concerns over, you know.

We have zoning for a reason.

Um having larger 22,000 square foot lots is what um a lot of people move to this area for.

So thank you.

Um seeing nobody else, we will close the public hearing and bring it back for further discussion.

Um we'll actually invite the applicant up to speak to anything they heard.

Was there anything specifically you wanted to address that you heard from the public?

Um, I think they voiced the same kind of opinions and thoughts we we anticipated.

So that's kind of the opinion.

I will say I think I was maybe misleading on the trail.

I I wasn't aware that it was fully in the application.

Sidewalk connection.

So yes.

That is something that we're looking to do as part of this, it sounds like.

So being only 400 feet away, we feel like it's directly impacting this neighborhood along with the college farms and uh be something we'd be happy to do for the public in the city and in part of this.

Is that regardless of the ninth lot?

Uh no, that is in connection with the ninth lot.

Funded through the ninth lot along with any other amenities.

Uh gotta ask.

Yep.

The uh north of 70 signatures.

I'm just curious, does that represent uh 70 separate households?

Does that represent 20 households?

Do you have any idea there?

I think the age gentleman who presented those numbers could probably answer that question who clicked.

How about the thumbs thumbs up or thumbs down?

It's probably between 50 and 60 union households is one of exactly that.

Thank you.

Okay.

For the record, if they could not be heard, that was 50 to 60 households with the 75 signatures.

This would not go forward then if I'm understanding the implication of the CC and Rs would be the two-thirds of the current HOA needs to approve that also correct.

Um I believe so now that the community runs the HOA, they would be voting that through.

And I think that's part of why they did the polling to make sure that we didn't go through all their effort and then not have it happen, but that is something they control on their end.

All right.

Okay.

Any other questions for the applicants?

All right.

Thank you.

I will say I do have some photos of the trail or the sidewalk trail connection gap, if at any point that's relevant or helpful.

So not at this point.

Thank you, Bill.

Um further discussion.

We've seen this many times, right?

Like they've alluded to some of us have been here on the commission for several years and have seen and heard many different layouts, designs, uh pros and cons and questions and heard lots of negative.

And tonight we heard more positive, which was different than we have in the past.

But I would entertain a motion if someone is ready to present one.

Gary has something he would like to say.

Oh, Gary, with that proper introduction.

How could I not?

So if you remember the history of this, when the this came through as a base density layout, they only appoint it only could be approved for seven lots, right?

But and according to the code and the zoning and everything, um, according to the code, they were allowed an extra bonus density lot and some lot flexibility for improvements along 1500 north.

So according to the zone, and according to our code, they would only be allowed eight density units in here.

And I think it's engineering's position too is that we would stick to the code and only allow the eight density lots, just for whatever that's worth.

That's our position in the engineering there.

So they're asking for a development agreement.

Right.

I appreciate that, Gary.

Yep.

I think I I have I hate seeing us overstepping the code.

The codes are for a purpose.

People move in, they rely on that for the property knowing that there's something consistent.

Um and then on the other side of the coin, uh I like the three lots better than having two giant lots.

I mean I don't know.

I've driven through this area.

I don't know of a lot of horses or cows that are being raised on these lots.

So to have a 22,000 square foot lot seems a lot.

Sorry for that.

Well, uh, thanks, Bo, for the whatever.

Um I'm kind of I would love to hear some discussion as to why some of you think that this might be a good thing, or why if there is anybody that doesn't think it's good.

Um I have a few thoughts here and inquiries.

Uh Gary, would you expand a little bit more?

Uh I understand your your position from engineering.

Um would you like to go just to cut deeper?

Um Yeah, I don't know that there's a whole lot more to say other than that's why, as was stated earlier, that's why we have zoning and that's why we have laws and stuff is to stick to those.

Um this uh development agreement was kind of a shock to me.

It kind of came out of the blue.

I didn't know this was coming up.

Um just kind of seems a little bit of an end run to kind of go around the system.

And I mean, they have the right to ask for it.

I I don't fault them for that at all.

They have the right to ask for it.

I want to understand it more scientifically, if if you will, explain in it it in a way that you know it will land with us uh us common folk um the engineering um trepidation at going from eight to nine.

I don't know that I mean there isn't any like utility issues or anything like that that would do that.

It's just that normally when these things kind of come through, we stick pretty hard to the guns that we need to stick to what is allowed.

Um we don't when we go through and we figure out the bonus densities for this.

I mean, we need to be able to justify that to the city council and to the planning commission too, that this is what it is.

And so we like to draw kind of a hard line on this that you know we stick to the code and this is what it is.

And um, I don't know if that answers your question at all, but um what I really want to understand is if there's look we're talking about the rules, and that that is an important thing.

Um we come up with codes, laws, whether we're talking about the city level, state, federal, uh, because these are things that we as a society, through our legislators or whoever that body may be, have determined that we all agree we as a whole benefit.

And we don't need to debate really uh, you know, we all want to go ahead and say murder is just not gonna happen.

I'll give up my ability to murder to ensure I'm not murdered, and we all go, yeah, that that's a pretty good that that's pretty square deal.

Um I mean it's the same reason we've amended the the Constitution 27 times.

The reason we have an ongoing legislative body is because life continues to present new situations.

Um so you know, we do need to deliberate.

That doesn't mean you just up and change everything overnight, right?

So yeah, it's noteworthy to see an entire community, perhaps speaking to wanting to see this this added unit.

That's a value.

Nonetheless, is there a negative externality coming from an engineering perspective?

That would lead me to say this is actually going to be so detrimental to the health and welfare of the community that we need to not have it, which is why I'm digging a little bit deeper, wanting to understand, you know, is there a really, you know, this is gonna completely screw up sewage or whatever the case would be.

That that's what I'm going for there.

Um because really the question is uh in our pursuit of happiness here, that to go really big picture.

Uh are are we using the codes, are we using the constitution, all these tools that we had for building society to move toward what is serving the greater good.

That is the framework that I come from.

And yet that is what it comes down to.

So I need to know about negative externalities.

Because if they are, then that would kill it, even if the whole neighborhood is in favor.

Meanwhile, I would also say that we're not respectfully, we're not throwing the rule book out if an entire community is saying, yeah, we would like to see one unit added because we also didn't go wild wild west.

It's not like we just approved a skyscraper on that lot.

In fact, what happened is the e even if this is approved, which it may not yet be.

Well, we'll see when we get to the vote.

But the fact of the matter is that the zoning as it has been, has even put the infrastructure that's already been put in place, has made it such that they wouldn't even try to ask for more.

So the bounds have in fact played a major contributing factor.

Now, perhaps not everyone will be happy with how those bounds ultimately play out because one unit is added or not.

But uh you know, they they've played a very significant role.

They've shaped this entire neighborhood.

Um the question that any body that's serving the people should be perpetually asking is what are we doing that is best serving the the whole and moving us toward uh you know the the best for society.

All those are the questions that go through my mind when I debate if we need to go from eight to nine.

So I have a question um for legal.

Well, actually let me ask you guys first.

But I'm coming your way.

Really, what are they asking for?

They're asking for a ninth law in lieu of what?

What are we really talking about here?

Because the HOA stuff, is that really involving the city?

That's not.

That's not what we're giving.

That's not part of our concession at all.

That is something between two private parties.

So what are we giving or getting in lieu of that ninth lot?

Which is in our purview.

That all that HOA stuff is not in our purview, right?

Sidewalk.

We're getting sidewalks for how many feet?

Trail for how many feet.

Yeah, that would be the only thing that we would be getting is the sidewalk connection to the Jordan River Trail.

How many feet are we talking?

And we're getting a straight taken over, right?

85 feet?

Approximately.

Yeah, I think a drawing would have to be put together to come up with actual square footage or linear footage of any connection.

We'd have to determine where does the city want the trail connection concrete to go.

There's you know, aged asphalt that kind of just it probably isn't exactly a standard.

It was just put in.

So a lot of design would have to be put in to understand all those points.

Uh I think the question is can we are we going the direction that we want to go to be able to calculate that and and make it happen?

I think another benefit that might be overlooked is the idea that currently the city is taking over maintenance of all of the landscaping in the part trip.

No, I saw that in the packet.

Yeah, that to me is uh So that's uh it's you know it's something that I think long term does put a strain on the cities um resources, and I think that'd be another piece that would be considered a public benefit.

There is debate on HOA being separately public benefit versus all that, so you guys can weigh out you know the neighborhood needs to be able to do that.

Well, is there not a public benefit?

But I mean the the residents are doing something.

So I know that's how they feel, and that's how they've approached us, is all I want to voice for them then.

Sure.

So we're we're really talking sub-100 feet.

Uh I don't know.

To connect to the trailer.

Well, I have not made because I don't know where the connection would be to.

I know that there's a gap between asphalt and and sidewalk.

Which is why I'm giving a buffer, right?

If someone said 80-ish feet, I'm saying sub 100.

Is that roughly what you think is?

I think we've minimal to that.

Yeah.

Depending on how where it connects, it could exceed that.

I don't know the state of some of that asphalt slopes.

There's a lot of city standards that go into trail building as well.

So if they wanted to improve it, I don't know how far those improvements would stretch or how far you want them to stretch.

That part is that scope is up for I think debate and decision still.

Okay.

To meet that kind of qualification to public benefit.

Thank you.

Yeah.

So really that's what we're ultimately that's what we're considering though.

Sidewalk and some strips.

And again, it's not our purview per se.

We get we are recommending body, but that would be up to the city council to decide if that is a worthy endeavor to pursue, and that's where the development agreement would come into place.

It was brought up that why do we go outside of the rules per se?

I I understand the sentiment of the question, but these are the rules, right?

They can ask for these things, and they're allowed to ask.

Doesn't mean they have to be granted, but they're allowed to ask.

So these are the rules.

We're not trying to break rules here.

Um it's within their right to ask for that consideration.

Um ultimately it would rely on the city council to out earn away the outcome of what that would look like, or if that would be granted at all.

Um the eighth lot, which has already been approved, was in already came with the condition of the sidewalk and gutters to be done on 13th or 15th.

Correct?

Well, technically it was for the road widening of the extra property.

The curb and gutters were already required to be right by the code.

Okay.

So the widening of the road there.

And so that's not being changed no matter what we're discussing here tonight.

So really it's just the additional connection to the trail system, which is a value.

I don't want to discount connectivity and opportunities for recreation and safety that come into that.

But ultimately it's we're a recommending body, and we will give our recommendation shortly here to the city council, and they will ultimately decide um the outcome of what this is to be.

Any other questions, comments, concerns?

Mike, did you have something?

You look like you might have something to say.

I don't know if this is helpful or not.

I just wanted to read out of the code about development agreements, because we have chapter on development agreements.

Um basically it is a negotiation and it is ultimately up to the council.

So the planning commissioner just make the recommendation.

But the I guess just to think about your recommendation.

The code does say obviously it's the city council we're recommending on it, determines the best interests of the city and its residents are advanced by the adoption of such agreement.

So you just maybe think about the city and its residents are advanced by the agreement.

So that's probably maybe some of the criteria you want to think about when you're doing your motion.

Thank you, Mike.

Any other discussion?

Or a motion.

I think I know where I'm at, if you want to hear it.

Or you'd rather just make a motion.

Sure.

Whatever you want.

Yeah, I do given that uh the HOA uh it requires a uh two-thirds of some understanding uh approval.

Um again, I I do look at the multitude of people who are in favor of it.

Personally, I think with respect, HOA is often worst.

But um I I recognize that they exist.

And um, you know, play the role that they do.

Um given given the excessive uh buy-in that's required for this to actually have legs.

Um I see the additional connectivity, I see the positive uh impact uh on the city here worth adding a unit if the city council is in favor.

So I I think I would I know I'm using softer language, but always not beat around the bush.

Yeah, I'd say that this isn't overall, though I can understand so I'm being opposed to it.

I'd say the net gain.

My only comment to that, if I may.

Please is that I would want to hopefully gear our recommendation to be completely separate from what happens with the HOA, because that's not in our purview.

Sure.

This is basically us giving a recommendation to the city council.

In my opinion, it's a recommendation to the city council, yes or no, in lieu of that trail connection.

Right.

And sidewalk.

Has nothing to do with the HOA, because that's a completely separate thing.

So the recommendation basically is City Council, yes, we think this is a uh a positive direction, or no, we do not think this is a positive direction, irregardless of what happens with the HOA.

So is this a recommendation or approval?

Yeah, it's a recommendation.

No, this is a development agreement.

This is city council.

So it's not correct on the uh report.

It is you are recommending to city council.

Yeah.

Yeah, we don't we don't get to approve these things.

That's above our above our pay grade.

We get paid.

Yeah, apparently that's it's that was my only comment is that it's a completely simple.

Because the city council will likely vote on it before the HOA does.

Sure.

Right?

Sure.

I guess what I'm pointing out is rather the safety lever in there, if you will, if we're thinking about the the will and interest of the community and the people is that this the HOA members themselves, especially since it's not the board.

It's two-thirds of members that that the residents of the in this area by and large could effectively reject it if they were deeply opposed, which I think is a it's a unique piece.

I completely am with you though, that as the city's board.

Representing the city.

It's about the connectivity.

But even then that rejection would not be the nine lots.

Right?

The nine lots of would be decided by the city council beforehand.

Or likely beforehand.

Their rejection would be allowing them to join the HOA or not.

It has nothing to do with the ninth lot at that point.

Although that's what it's being proposed as.

Yeah, you're right.

No, that's their vote is.

Do we want them to join the HOA or not?

Thank you.

Solid point.

Yeah.

Unless I'm incorrect, but that's how I understand what their vote would be in the HOA.

Which is again outside of what we're technically discussing.

I'm with you.

How many strips will uh will the city um be relieved of if this goes through?

Park strips.

How many strips?

Yes.

There were landscaping strips that were mentioned in the packet.

That would be taken over.

No, I don't know.

I'm not aware of that.

Oh it's just along 1500 north.

That would be so this whole section here would be turned over to maintenance of the HOA.

I think there's a dimension on the top line.

There's 678.

678 feet on the other side.

Other side.

I think 678 park strip landscaping meetings.

Okay.

But again, that's also that's an HOA vote if they're gonna accept them or not.

That is not if I may.

You may think the vote could probably be before.

I mean, they could probably do something prior and prepare themselves to be ready to be able to say yes, it's coming in if you approve it.

But I think also if it's approved, um that park strip would be our obligation as Symphony in our development to take over the maintenance.

Currently with the eight lots, it's been agreed that the city would maintain it and take it over.

With this, we're saying, hey, we're taking it over.

We will give it to a HOA.

If it has to be created because hides turn, that would be what happens.

So I think it could be weighed in irregardless of the existing HOA's decision when that comes.

Okay.

Sorry.

Thank you.

Just things that I also think about when we go from eight to nine.

Absolutely.

Absolutely.

Um I don't know, I feel strongly enough on it.

I have also made a number of motions tonight.

Is anyone else feeling it?

You're a good.

I don't think anybody can score.

Oh, I am.

You are?

No, I'm kidding.

All right, I'll make them all.

Yeah, let's hear it.

All right.

Take swing, yeah.

So it's a recommendation, and I don't know.

I've been down here thinking of reading over here it's said approval, and I'm like, changes a little bit.

All right, public item 3.6, public hearing and recommendation of Symphony Holland's request for review of the Fox Trail Subdivision Concept Plan.

Now requesting nine lots in a development agreement located at 2850 West, 1500.

1500 north.

I move that we provide a positive recommendation to the city council with the findings that there is outstanding community support and there is a benefit to the neighborhood and to Lehigh City.

And please include all the RC comments.

Would you specify that those benefits are this trail connection park strip and perhaps it's so that's part of the benefits to the city, the trail connection will be.

I think we are the benefits.

Well, and the vacation of the uh maintenance.

Yeah.

So what the minimal state maintenance of the another benefit to the city, right?

The maintenance of that strip and the trail connection.

Yeah.

I just think it's worth specifying.

Sure.

What it is.

We have a motion.

Include DRC comments, and I'll second it.

I think I did, but yeah, include them again.

Double double include.

Does your second stand?

Yeah.

Okay.

We have a motion and a second.

All in favor.

Any opposed.

All right.

Thank you.

When will this go to the city council?

So the public knows.

Yes.

Let me see.

Yeah, it will be the so this will go to the city council meeting Tuesday, August 11th?

August 11th.

Tuesday, August 11th.

Okay.

3.7.

Okay.

And thank you for that motion.

It was very elegant.

Item 3.7 is public hearing and recommendation of Gardner Plum Group's request for review of an amendment to the Gardner Plum Development Agreement requesting to transfer 124 equivalent residential units from the northern portion of the development agreement to the southern.

The Gardner Plum Development Agreement was originally recorded in 2015 and created a northern and southern portion of the development agreement that permitted a certain number of ERUs in each portion.

The original agreement also set up zoning along the 2100 North Corridor that deviates from city zoning, namely that there are residential overlays allowed in commercial areas.

The first amendment to the development agreement was recorded in 2019 to transfer 181 ERUs from the northern portion to the southern portion.

In both versions, no ERUs were allowed to be transferred between the northern and southern portion.

So an amendment to the agreement was necessary for this to be allowed.

The original number of ERUs, uh 1,933 remain the same.

In this amendment, the applicant wishes to transfer 124 ERUs from the northern portion of the development agreement to the southern, specifically to the parcel directly west of the Willow Point town homes.

36 ERUs were allocated for that parcel, so the total amount that can be built there would be 160 ERUs.

As with the previous amendment, the total ERUs for the entire agreement remains the same at 1,933.

There were three red line comments from the DRC, including that a circuit study will be required.

Any development will be limited to the ERUs that can be serviced with available utilities.

This will require serv uh studies to be to determine the capacity and to include a map with updated ERU calculations showing the northern and southern uh portions to be updated.

Please include all DRC comments in your motion.

Um this is a legislative item.

Um this will the planning commission will give their recommendation and this will be scheduled for a city council meeting, likely on that same August 11th date.

Um this is a public hearing item.

There were seven online comments for this, so I can uh summarize those during the public hearing, but I turned it back to the commission for any questions.

Thank you, Katie.

Um any questions for staff.

Is the applicant Was there an explanation for why it wasn't in the original agreement that they could move um lots or is it lots or what are we calling them?

The area, yeah.

The area from north to south.

Um I unfortunately I was not here in 2015.

Um I believe the applicant can speak to why that was um not included in either version, or I don't know if Mike knows here, but I don't know if the top of my head on that.

I believe I know I think part of it was the infrastructure, right?

That we had planned sewer capacity and power and everything that they were kind of divided in ways that made sense for the planning of this area, and we didn't want them to be able to move those around.

Yeah, I don't I can't speak to the reason why it wasn't included in that, but that is one of the comments that we had on there that that needs to be studied.

That's a very real issue.

So that needs to be studied.

I I mean I I'm not gonna definitively put that as the reason, but I'm pretty sure that was the reason.

So anyway.

It's uh 2100 is here.

I think so.

All right.

Sorry, applicant, please come forward.

Good evening.

My name is Steve Maddox Edgeholmes.

Um I think is I have gotten older, I've gotten nostalgic.

Um on my drive over here, I count 11 cranes that are being constructed on the east side of Lehigh, putting together LEGO land, which is overwhelming to see.

Uh and hope somebody knows what they're doing over there because that is overwhelming.

And then certainly we have had the great privilege of building a community on the other side of town, which has kind of grown together with Saratoga and all of the road construction.

And when we first started out there, 2100 was kind of a small road, and now it's standing room only and Pioneer and then Main Street.

So it has been interesting to watch.

And then this is our first time in the building here tonight.

So very, very nice.

Just in case there are questions, because we are going back almost 15 years in an agreement that was done, and we find ourselves with one section of ground left, essentially two sections, and there's been some swapping back and forth.

So Walt Plum is here tonight.

He's been on a three-year vacation in Brazil, so he'll he's here for any questions to kind of walk down the history of the wise, and that was one of the questions that we had to answer.

Second, the Hardman family is here.

Um and then we took the opportunity to go meet some of our community at Willow to see what their position was and disposition.

The property is zoned heavy commercial um slash residential, which is kind of a flex space that allows both both commercial applications, but it's a very broad zone, which um we found out Willow is still zone that, and so we need to kind of work on some things to clean up.

But there are some heavy uses there that would potentially impact.

Um, and then we understand that we are not adding a single unit.

Um Katie has tirelessly gone through and counted every single doorstep that has been built on that section of the south side, to which we agree with, and I think we have audited it and feel very comfortable with your findings, and thank you for doing that.

So we have kept in check with that, minus a few units that we weren't able to construct because we sold some property to the LDS church.

Um but I think that we have fulfilled.

Um Gary during DRC had indicated that we need to do a study on all utilities, which we certainly will do because now we have a better vision of what has been built out.

Lauren and I um argued early on what the capacity was going to be.

Um and we knew we'd be at this conversation 10 years ago.

So um we kind of wanted to walk through history.

I understand tonight is not a zone change, it's not uh land use, it's not are we adding extra density?

And my overwhelming thought tonight was the amount of time that is spent on one lot is impressive to me.

When I know you guys have commercial pieces that you're working on, I can't even imagine what Texas instruments went through to get to the point where they are.

But I commend all of you for having the patience that Walt and I don't have.

So thank you for your time tonight, sincerely, and in this venture that we are trying to do, and then I will address the final reason as to why we want to do this.

So, Walter.

It was Peru, not Brazil.

But I I I would love to learn Portuguese as well.

Um roughly around 2000, I don't know, 1314 is when I first met the Hardman family, and they were in a development agreement with a company named Anderson Company, um, Gerald Anderson.

Um he had entered into an agreement with the city um and he was taking the position that he had over 3,500 ERUs.

And so the city was taking a different position.

It was getting pretty confrontational, and that's where I first met uh Paul Hardman up at his house on the hill working on his tractor.

And we talked, um, we looked at the agreements, we met with Lehigh City, and we came up with something much lower than what you know his agreements were.

What he was he was ascertaining on his agreements.

And so we came up with a unit count with the city, and we we settled on that of uh 933.

There's different property owners in all of these areas, and so um it it really didn't have anything to do with infrastructure at the time.

There really wasn't any infrastructure.

The only thing that had been put in was the big corridor down 2100 north.

Um we built all of the water tanks, we ran all the lines, we did all of the with the power with the city, we did substations, we we did all that.

And so you know, as we've gotten further along, um the uses on the north side lend itself to to bigger lots.

Um it's also kind of a historic area, and Paul built his home over there, and he he just didn't want people over there.

Um, and so that's why we first initially moved 181 units over um to the south side.

And then as we've looked at it further and the uses, this particular piece that you're looking at with at tonight has some challenges.

And in around 2021, the University of Utah came to them and wanted to move the big armory up there on the hill at the University of Utah.

And so they they didn't purchase the Hardman's property.

But no ERUs were given to the Armory.

It was just an exchange of property.

So yeah, there's a lot of history.

I'm happy to answer any fill in any tidbits or any questions that you may have.

Any questions for the applicant?

Well, I hope not.

He just walked away.

No.

Did you want to add anything else?

Fully understand tonight that we're asking for units.

We understand that we would go back to the very beginning of the process, which is preliminary.

Concept actually go back to DRC traffic study.

It's one of those uses of property which is super restricted now as far as accessibility off of 2100 because of U DOT and the use of that road.

So it really is going to be a challenging site.

Commercial is going to be on the west side of the canal, which Walt and his company will be presenting at some point in the future when this is kind of built out.

But we appreciate your consideration in this tonight, just trying to fit the last piece of the puzzle in on the residential portion here.

Is that the lots that are in the green would become a state lots of much larger in scope, so we're not adding to the density.

That's the equestrian streets, right?

Yeah.

Wasn't there some kind of a development going on there?

And this would sit until the Hardman's are ready to develop that, and those lots would just be significantly larger in scope, probably more in harmony with what is in that area.

And we would just continue what's um essentially lower density because we don't have the unit count that we did at Willow and new product because of the topography because it's it's very steep in in nature.

So we have laid this out conceptually, we've presented that to DRC, but we understand there's a lot of uh road to cover here.

You mentioned that you would get to the why.

I mean why are we wanting to move this many units?

Yeah.

Um there's two families that we've had the privilege of dealing with here, uh the McLaughlins and the Hardmans.

Um part of this is legacy.

And uh the day that we were tearing out the road of trees to the Mink headquarters for the McLaughlins, um Scott called and asked when we were doing it and um wanted to be out of town while we cut down trees that he planted his saplings.

And it's just a reminder that although this is perhaps our business as a totality with the city and me as a developer and builder, um, that this is an emotional parcel.

So part of this is to preserve the legacy that's on the Hardman piece with larger lots and congruity with what they see for that little vision of of the land that they had controlled.

So that is the real purpose of what we're trying to do here.

Um in closing that um last chapter, if you will.

Thank you.

Did anybody have any other questions for the applicant?

All right, this is a public hearing.

Uh this time we will open the public hearing and invite anybody that would like to speak to item 3.7.

Hi.

Um I'm a resident there at Willow Point and just came to vote against that just for two obvious reasons.

Um increased traffic.

Can you state your name?

Oh, sorry, Kyle Sheffield.

Thank you.

Um sorry, it's my first time ever coming to one of these.

Meet me too.

Yeah, I've learned a lot.

Thank you for coming.

You're wonderful.

We're glad to have you here.

Yeah, I live in that area.

So it'll have more residents there will increase the traffic, obviously, and then decrease the parking.

Traffic will be increased at the 2100 intersection and 3600 right there, right next to our new beautiful grocery store that we just built.

So we're already getting a ton of new traffic with that there.

And then the parking right where that's highlighted is already super full.

It's over it's overflowing on Hardman Way.

Almost almost all the way up the hill every night I see it.

And so with extra parking happening there, that's just gonna push back all the other cars along the whole neighborhood.

So those two reasons are the things I wanted to bring up here.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Beautiful new building.

I own property on the far north of the north piece.

Um right adjacent to Camp Williams, and right before the gate, the road that goes to the um not sure who it is, the water access.

Anyway, um thing in the preservation of the area is that area currently is designated animal rights, and one of the things that we would like to preserve in the area is making it possible for people to have animal rights and have horses.

Um the property I currently own there is historical.

It is um where the pioneers crossed the river.

It um you can still see where the wagons crossed.

It makes more sense not to create more traffic for the other side, but it does make more sense to move the ARUs over to the other side in order to preserve this north end, as they call it, that um to preserve that property as well as the rights and anyway, preserve that access.

So that's my comment.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Dennis Beatty, and I am the HOA president in the Willow Point neighborhood.

And I yeah, I want to start by making something clear.

I'm not opposed to density at all.

That's why I chose to live in Willow Point.

Um I spent a year of my life living in various cities around Europe, and I actually really like density.

Um that being said, uh one of the one of the issues that I have with this is that I think that density needs to be planned and it needs to be um really thought through.

And as uh I don't remember your name, but as was mentioned, the the parking is one of the biggest issues that we deal with as an HOA.

Um every single HOA meeting, it's one of the things that we hear about the most, people complain about.

We tried to speak with the city about trying to add more parking on our streets.

Um of the issues in our neighborhood is the grading in Willow Point was done such that many of the units have to have stairs in the garages that um only allow for one car to be parked in the garage because of the length of those of those stairs.

And uh because of that, um many of the garages can then only fit one car.

And those uh many of those units only have uh a shorter driveway.

And so there's no space in the driveways to park a vehicle either.

And so many of the townhome units in Willow Point only have one off-street parking space.

Um because of that, we have two city streets.

Um we have 4100.

I have to think about directions here.

Um 4100 west that cuts through the Willow Point neighborhood.

And that one has unfortunately Google Maps does not have maps of it.

If you look at Brahma, um Bing Maps should have satellite images if if you want.

Thank you.

Anyway, so 4100 North has is always full.

But because of visibility issues, the traffic engineer Luke recently painted the curves red on the one of the main corners in our neighborhood right next to our clubhouse.

So 4100 north no longer has much parking.

And so now the other city street, um, Hardman Way has cars parked.

Um basically all the way up the hill, as he was saying.

4100 north is the street just west of the pool.

Um so basically we've had a lot of issues with the parking.

And so Hardman Way west of Willow Point, which is bordering this parcel that we're talking about, adding 116 more units to basically already used as kind of overflow parking for Willow Point, but then across the street on Hardman Way, you have condo complexes that Edge built as well.

And those condo complexes, um, most of them have one garage space and then one driveway space.

And so when you have a unit that has more than two cars, or when one of the owners is storing things in their garage and only has the one space, you end up with this the city streets being that overflow.

And so basically what we're seeing is that our parking situation is already really bad.

Um we've tried to do everything we could to work with the city to try and improve that.

And basically what we've been told is because of the needs of fire engines to be able to turn around, there really isn't anywhere that we can add parking inside of our neighborhood.

And so my biggest concern with adding more density um in in this area is that we're going to have these parking issues exacerbated even more.

That um the residents in the new neighborhood are gonna have nowhere to overflow to that isn't already being used as overflow parking.

Um so I I would support adding some density, but not to the degree that that they're applying for.

Um see, did I have anything else I wanted to say?

Yeah, and um also I I did want to say too that this I I just heard about this um last week.

Uh our HOA board was asked to share a letter from Edge.

And I really appreciate y'all reaching out to us about that.

Um but I wish that we had been given a little bit more notice to to be able to discuss it and and to be able to talk to Edge um to be able to see if there was something we could do uh about including additional parking in the plan or something like that.

But it in my mind, the arguments for this proposal have been so that we can preserve the the nicety of this other parcel and and just move that density over to to this one.

And in my mind, yeah, it's great to preserve that, but do we have to move those to this parcel to be able to do that?

Could the developer not choose to forego some of those ERUs that they have over there to create a better situation for both sides?

So thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anybody else would like to speak to this?

Uh Katie, would you mind going through the online comments?

Yes.

Um yeah, there was one in support citing that they would rather have residential units instead of um heavy commercial, and then there were six against which were again for a lot of the same reasons that were shared here tonight, just concerns over traffic, parking, um, and infrastructure.

Thank you.

Uh seeing no more comment, we will close the public hearing and uh invite the applicant back up.

As far as density is concerned, we are somewhere around 130 units, is what we're proposing.

I think the plan that you had in front of you was 168.

Um there will be some uses that will the the ERUs would go to, which are needed to facilitate the commercial portion that will be done on the um west portion of this property.

So the density would be willow is somewhere around 16, we'd be somewhere around 10 units of the acre.

So the parking should be contained.

Um if that lends credibility to what we were proposing tonight.

I was hoping for clarification.

You'd mentioned the west side of this canal would be commercial.

Yeah.

So really we're looking at all of these units on the east side of the canal.

Is that correct?

Correct.

Okay.

Everywhere.

Yeah, that's all we're talking about tonight.

Right.

Is everything east of 2100 or everything hard it's it's essentially landlocked with the canal.

Yeah.

So but twenty one hundred.

Right.

Everything else would be commercial.

The image that we saw earlier showed the entire parcel, but we're really only looking at a little less than half of the parcel.

Because the other half would be commercial.

Correct.

Correct.

Yes.

Uh the total acreage is 12.

Um for the residential portion.

Yeah, everything that's on the on the east side of the canal, I believe, is around 12.6.

Yeah, it's around 12.

Yeah.

So we're proposing the 130 units.

And the balance of the ERUs would be transferred to the other portion for uses that require a little bit higher ERU usage.

Any other questions for the applicant?

Or was there anything else you heard that you wanted to address?

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um further discussion deliberation.

So can the This isn't a site plan.

This is just a request for a development agreement, right?

That's in view of the amendment to the area plan.

It's amendment to the development agreement.

To the development agreement.

So can the city council require more parking like on their when they come with their plan.

Can that be part of the development agreement?

Um amendment.

It could be, yeah.

Um development agreements are very fluid.

Um they could uh put that in.

Yeah.

Yeah, basically the development agreements are just a negotiation between the property owner and city council, what what it comes down to.

But that comes with your recommendation with the public input that's been here tonight.

As far as my input or feedback, I appreciate bringing more units closer to commercial.

I know the we often try to avoid that in different parts of the city, but when we're in a more dense situation, I I like the idea of bringing more units closer to that, which should potentially cut down on further trips and cars, etc.

In theory, right?

That's that's the intent or the idea.

Um similar to someone discussed living in Europe, right?

There's it's often discussed that Europe brings a lot of commercial opportunities closer to the residents.

Um I do I do like that.

I worry about the precedence of just moving it around.

We've done this before with the same um development agreement where the they were moved or changed in the past as well.

There's so there's a history of of this type of a request.

I don't love that part of this, to be honest.

I wish there was more foresight and thought and knowledge put into it before because there was a lot of there's been a lot of planning that has gone into this area.

Um that uh obviously I don't need to tell you.

Right.

You you guys understand that very clearly.

So I I don't love that we're looking at changing it again.

Um but I also understand that things change.

Um yeah.

So I I see pros and cons.

Yeah, a couple thoughts I had.

Um I love the idea of protecting your land up there, that river crossing.

I think that's important that we remember that and what what happened up there.

I'd love to come up and see the wagon ruts.

I will.

So if I'm swimming while waiting across the river, don't shoot me.

Um try to golf as much as I can.

But anyway.

Uh so I love that part.

And I would love to see this area not have those short little stubby driveways.

I know that's outside of what we're talking about right now, just moving the units, but in the future, hopefully we can get away with we all store our stuff in our garages and park on the street or in our driveways.

So if we can somehow stay away from the short little stubby driveway, would be great.

But I know that's outside the side.

I don't know if this would have that.

I think this might hurt agenda to be honest.

But question for staff, just to make sure I'm getting this, uh I'm able to visualize this.

So one ERU is equivalent to one.

Sorry, one residential unit is equivalent to one ERU.

So as you're showing here on the screen, I'm equating one town home to one ERU.

Correct.

Okay.

Yeah, please.

Um there that is correct, except like on the commercial use, for us to do a hotel on the corner, like a high hotel, um, that's calculated differently.

So to do like a hundred-room hotel, we would use 31 ERUs on that corner.

And uh Mr.

Maddox alluded to, there are uses on the west side of the in the commercial area that um we're trying to do that require us to move these units over.

And we really think by doing something like a hotel there, it it helps the retail pop and fill in.

So the canal is a natural buffer.

We can't do anything about it.

It's it's there.

We and and then there's a hill side, and so yeah.

Are there any intentions to bury it?

Uh no, I don't even think we're allowed to bury it.

You would know that.

It it's it's quite a steep pitch up that that hill to to that canal.

So do you buy chance know or staff do you buy chance know how many ERUs are just in that block section um west of the clubhouse?

So that just that one block that's being shown here on the screen.

Would that be like a hundred ERUs?

Like right here.

Um a little bit bigger, so more north as well.

Oh, this, yep.

I don't know how many.

I mean a guess.

Would that be like a hundred?

Uh I can pull it up here in just a second.

Thank you.

The density there is almost 15 units more per acre than what we are proposing.

So when we're talking about parking and open space.

Um when we designed Willow, um, part of the design there was to front homes on a streets, which uh which creates alleyways, which is kind of a dumble road situation, so that's why we went away from some of those driveways.

Hindsight, um probably really nice aesthetically, probably not the best as far as parking is concerned.

So we have we will work with staff on coming up with a site plan that's more harmonious, but we also have more land to work with and more parking would be allowed in that because the density is reduced significantly, and we're still held to the same open space requirement.

So I think parking will mitigate itself just based on density.

Awesome.

Thank you.

Yeah, that that's what I was getting at.

Just trying to better understand how dense it would be compared to the surrounding areas.

To answer your question, that block there has a hundred and sixty-one units.

And uh I have talked to a canal company about piping that ditch before.

They're open to it, but you gotta come up with some money.

Yeah.

But it's not a cheap project for sure.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions?

Comments, concerns, feelings.

Um I'm sorry, can I just clarify one thing?

Because it's come up a couple times tonight.

So when the Gardner Pump when this development agreement came through originally, it not only set up designated ERUs for each area, but it also set up specific zoning for each parcel.

And so when we're looking at this parcel in particular, this is actually designated as commercial with um high density residential overlay.

So our zoning map says heavy commercial, but this development agreement overrides it and it's actually commercial with the overlay.

Just want to clarify that.

Thank you.

And Katie, forgive me, we've talked through a lot of numbers here at this point.

I want to make sure I'm clear on um Kim's comment in the VRCs.

He seemed to be taking issue with the count of units.

Um that though, is it is this old.

Did Kim not follow what was?

Yeah, so um when this came through DRC, I just had the question of where that 124 ER use was coming from.

Um because in our calculations, the armory piece that we're talking about transferring down had 11.

Um but Steve Maddox explained that it was about five units left over from the IHC development, the primary children's development that they're kind of pulling and putting in this calculation.

Okay.

Is that accurate?

Yeah.

Okay.

If I can just clear clarify, I mean the the armory doesn't have any ERU units.

They were never given any ERU units.

Um they don't own any ER units.

They're they weren't required to.

They're a federal, they're a federal entity.

And so um when the Hardman's tran uh exchange parcels, um no ER units were included in the transaction.

And we've given copies of the city to the city of those of those contracts.

So I think there's just some confusion on that point.

But um yeah, it's just for clarity, I think the 119 is what they've had on that parcel they traded.

So the 119 were transferred to the parcel that they gained in trading the armory.

But the armory didn't gain anything.

Or the Hardens didn't lose anything.

Well, there's there's 200 units on the north side.

And so we're just asking uh for 124 to be transferred to the other side, so 76 would remain.

Right.

Um Thank you.

Did I misspeak or was that accurate?

That was that yeah.

Thank you.

I'm ready to make a motion.

Unless we want to keep talking.

Do it with it, please.

Love to hear it.

Item 3.7 public hearing and recommendation of Gardner Plums Plum groups.

Request for review of an amendment to the Gardner Plum Development Agreement.

Requesting to transfer 124 equivalent residential units from the northern portion of the development agreement to the southern.

I move that we give a positive recommendation to the city council with the findings that the proposed development agreement amendment aligns with the goals and policies of the general plan.

And please include all DRC comments.

Do I need to be more specific about where those units are going?

Or is it already kind of this?

Is it in the theme?

If it's you can just say from the north to the south.

Yeah, the development agreement defines what the south is, so as long as it's within that south.

But are we trying to define that it goes specifically to the parcel that we've been discussing, or are we comfortable with it being anywhere in the South?

You could recommend the specific parcel if you wanted.

That's something that could be.

I mean, we're we're looking at this one spot, right?

Is that in the proposal?

Specifically put it in there.

Either the council could say we'll approve this if you put it on this parcel, or they requested and everybody agrees, then it's okay.

But yeah, I mean the the property is almost completely built out.

So we're just requesting that it goes from the north to the south side.

Um this is the only parcel that we're allowed to do um residential for sell product on, according to the zoning that the property has.

So there's no other place we can put it.

We are asking that it goes just from the north to the south.

So we have the option on the West commercial property to do a hotel.

On the corner.

Thank you.

So the zoning per the development agreement is in alignment with the general plan at this point.

Because we we were discussing earlier portions where it's different from general plan, right?

Um yeah, the majority.

Let me see if the map is working.

That that's where my my my question was coming in about de facto by moving it to the south.

There is just that one left that has the R3 overlay.

So would de facto go to that parcel.

Um yeah, sorry, my map is not working.

But um the majority of the properties along the 2100 North Corridor there, like right here.

Um there's this piece that is zoned commercial.

However, all of Willow Point and this portion here are zoned heavy commercial.

Um, what?

With the overlay.

So that is our city zoning, is that it's zoning it as heavy commercial.

But the development agreement overrides that designates this, the specific property that they're looking at transferring those units down to as having commercial with the residential overlay.

So it's so it's legal, but in contradiction with the general plan.

Yeah, and that's how this has been since 2015.

So we don't need to specify in our in my motion.

I don't need to specify where they can have where they can move these ERUs.

From the north to the south.

Because the ERUs they apply to both residential and commercial.

You don't need to specify which area exp except the north and the south.

Parking traffic, which residents have spoken to.

I I just want that addressed within the motion.

I'm sorry.

What's that?

Sure.

My motion addresses the the parking in the now set the willow.

Willow point, thank you.

Will have adequate parking.

So that residents don't have to park on the street.

Yeah, we'll probably be a lot of parking in the street.

Just parking.

Adequate parking.

Period.

I'll second it.

Motion in a second.

All in favor.

Any post.

Thank you.

I'm gonna ask for a quick two-minute recess.

Yes, please step away.

Um I make a motion that we have a two-minute reaction.

Three minutes.

Oh, let's let's say yeah.

All right, three.

Second.

All in favor.

We need a post.

Okay.

I have to go and get my choice.

And then to the right.

Invite Mr.

Jackson to come back up here.

Thank you.

Um Katie, let's go on to 3.8.

Yeah, it's just jog, so that's fine.

Um public hearing and a recommendation of Lehigh City's request for review of a comprehensive development code amendment to chapter 23 signs, updating requirements and simplifying the text.

This update comes after noticing there are several conditional uses required as part of the signs chapter, and after local companies and the planning commission have pointed out issues within the chapter that required further examination, including tonight's.

Can you give us the highlights of exactly what you've changed?

Uh-huh.

There's a lot of how it's a lot.

Um we have decided to remove the definitions and move them into chapter 39 definitions chapter.

Um see.

We removed a lot of redundancies across the entire chapter.

Um we removed exemptions pretty much across the board.

Um let's see.

Yeah, we just kind of changed some definitions around as well, like civic institution signs were exempt from permitting requirements, but we figured they should actually be upholding to our regular permitting requirements.

Um yeah, those are kind of like the high-level highlights.

We didn't we didn't tighten up on pylon signs, right?

Just making sure I read this right.

So there's a little bit more incentive to meet the code with that.

Yeah.

When was the last time a pylon sign came in that didn't ask for an exception?

The 12th East, just south of SR92.

There's a pile on there that's like 25 feet.

The date was 2016, 17, 50.

Ah, there it is.

There it is.

Yeah, he asked when, not where.

No, I can't admit that I know the latest one that made it.

I don't know for sure off the top of my head.

I just wanted to be noted that almost never happens.

But uh I I always appreciate a cleaner code.

Yes, please, on so much on this one.

Sounds like a motion.

I'll make a motion.

Uh public hearing?

I'll have a public hearing first.

Is there anyone from the applicant that would like to speak?

Just kidding.

All right.

Uh we will open the public hearing and invite anybody that would like to speak to item 3.9.

Seeing none, I believe there were no comments online.

We will close the public hearing.

Um I'll put forward a motion.

For item 3.9.

Uh public hearing recommendation of Lehigh City's request for review of an amendment to the Lehigh City Design Standard.

Oh, I'm reading the wrong one.

3.8, excuse me, public hearing and recommendation of Lehigh City's request for review of the comprehensive development code amendment to Chapter 23.

Um I move that we offer a positive recommendation to the City Council with the findings that the proposed development code amendment is in conformance with the purposes, intent, and provisions of the general plan and its various elements, and I'll include all the RC comments.

Motion and a second.

All in favor.

Aye.

Any opposed.

All right.

3.9.

Look at all these cleaning up the codes.

Good job.

Yeah, we're oh yeah, that's what we're doing.

Um item 3.9 is public hearing and recommendation of Lehigh City's request for review of an amendment to the Lehigh City Design Standards and Public Improvement Specifications Manual, adding section 3.08, temporary construction site safety measures for commercial and residential construction projects.

This would apply to all commercial developments and residential projects over 10 units.

Uh temporary fencing will be required that is at least six feet in height.

Warning signs will also be required.

Uh there were 10 red line comments relating to specific wording changes within the um document itself, but please consider all DRC comments in your motion.

Um this is a legislative item and this is a public hearing item, but there were no online comments.

So turn it back to the commission for any questions.

Any questions for staff?

No.

This is a public hearing.

If anybody from the public would like to speak to item 3.9, we will open the public hearing now.

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

Make a motion.

Item 3.9 public hearing and recommendation of Lehigh City's request for review of an amendment to the Lehigh City design standards and public improvement specifications manual, adding section 3.08 temporary construction site safety measures for commercial and residential construction projects.

I move that we give a positive recommendation to City Council with the findings with the proposed amendment to the design standards and public improvement specifications manual seeks to keep people safe during construction activities.

And please include all DRC comments.

Second.

Motion and a second, all in favor.

Any opposed?

All right.

3.10.

Okay.

Item 3.10 is public hearing and recommendation of Lehigh City's request for review of a development code amendment to uh Chapter 11 development application requirements.

Umdating requirements for site plans, infrastructure site plans, preliminary and final subdivisions.

Lehigh City receives many applications for infrastructure projects such as water, water lines, fiber lines, and new water storage tanks or reservoirs.

Currently they use the site plan application, but many of these items require many of the items required on the site plan application are not relevant.

The DRC reviewed this amendment several times to ensure all of relevant requirements were included while others were removed.

If approved, this should add clarity for applicants during the application process and help with DRC review.

This is a legislative item and a public hearing item.

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

Thank you.

Any questions for staff?

Does this make the application process simpler or does it it makes it simpler?

Yes, yeah.

So we removed a lot of like outdated and extraneous requirements.

Um there was stuff like they have to print off like paper um copies of all the plans still.

Um so, but this also adds the infrastructure site plan process, and we've been getting, you guys don't see these, but we've been getting almost every week we have infrastructure site plans coming in, and it just makes it difficult for the applicant to know what exactly is required and what's not.

So this should simplify the process and make it easier for them.

Any other questions for staff?

All right, this is a public hearing.

At this point, we will open the public hearing for item 3.10.

Seeing nobody, we will close the public hearing.

No comments?

And uh I'll entertain a motion.

I'll put forward the recommend approval to the city council for item 3.10.

The reasons being those included in the report, which are short, so I will actually read them.

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

And there were no DRC findings.

Okay, we're good.

Second?

Motion and a second, all in favor.

Aye.

Any opposed.

All right.

31.

Okay.

Um item 3.11 is public hearing and recommendation of Lehigh City's request for review of updates to the Lehigh Stormwater Management Plan 2026.

Um, this is a tech you uh technical document required by the state that we have to update.

It establishes Lehigh City's legal responsibility to manage stormwater pollution through a program and outlines the penalties for noncompliance.

Uh the plan is required to be prepared, implemented, and continued, and focuses on six required areas.

Best management practices have been developed to meet the requirements in the permit over the last several years and are updated for the submittal.

Each best management practice details its purpose, targeted pollutants, personal responsibility, and goals slash milestones.

Uh the DRC had seven redline comments, including um points about hazmat control and containment.

Um, but please consider all DRC comments in your motion.

Um this plan actually does not need to be approved by the planning commission or city council.

However, it was determined that this item should go to both planning commission and city council to allow for feedback from the public.

So this is a public hearing item.

Um yeah.

And there were no online comments, so turn it back to the commission for the example.

In a way, that is feedback in a sense.

The screen is the thing that stood out to me from some of the maps were that we still have quite a bit of unincorporated county land within our boundaries.

More than I thought.

Especially on the uh south side.

Yeah.

So anyway, any questions for staff?

Um, this is a public hearing.

We will open the public hearing for item 3.11.

And invite you to come up and speak now.

Seeing none, we will close the public hearing and further discussion or a motion can be had.

I'll make a motion.

On item 3.11 public hearing of recommendation of Lehigh City's request for review of updates to the Lehigh Storm Water Management Plan for 2026.

I'd recommend that we give a positive recognition.

Recommend move that we make a positive recommendation.

The uh amendment isn't conformant with the purposes, intent, and provisions of the general plan and its elements.

And please include all the RC comments.

Motion and a second, all in favor.

Aye.

Any up post.

All right, 3.12.

Item 3.12 is public hearing and recommendation of Lehigh City's request for review of an amendment to Chapter 38, updating requirements for the mixed use zone.

Uh this change emphasizes mixed use is primarily a commercial zone that allows for residential.

Um, it requires non-residential uses for at least 50% of the gross floor area, and states that C of O for approved residential is limited to 60% until all of the non residential uses are in place.

There is a provision to allow 30% of the required non-residential space to be used for residential or live work units if the market will currently not currently support the full amount of commercial.

The DRC had five red line comments, including how will this be enforced and who will monitor this?

In some areas, this may be difficult due to market conditions or locations.

Are there options that could be considered for short-term housing and phase into commercial?

Or can the council consider requests for an exception to this if an applicant can show they still meet the intent of the mixed-use zone?

Please consider all DRC comments in your motion.

Uh this is a legislative item and a public hearing item.

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

Can you repeat the convoluted sentence?

It didn't compute in my mind.

So you're saying if the market doesn't allow for the commercial development portion.

What percentages then you threw some percentages out there?

Yeah.

Um let's see.

So approving a loss 30% to be used.

If that yeah, so it's 30% of the required non-residential space um to be used for residential if the market will not currently support it.

Um let's see.

Which part are you reading?

What page?

Um well, these are just my notes.

But it is it's item B in the um under section 38.110.

So at least 30% of any approved housing shall be designed and platted to allow for individual ownership.

That's not what we were discussing.

Oh, wait.

That's different.

Oh, you said G?

Uh G.

You say G?

G.

Yeah.

It's the last point.

Okay.

Up to 30% of the total required non-residential finished interior gross floor area.

Is there a cleaner way to write that?

I mean, I'm not saying it's bad.

No, no, that's right, it's fair.

It's just a lot.

That's a lot of words.

We can yeah, if we can clean that up.

That could be in your motion.

Yeah, I know I only got through halfway through.

Floor area within the development can allow interim occupancy of ground floor spaces by residential or live work units until the commercial market supports.

Yeah, I I agree with the DRC comment.

How do we determine if the market is viable or not?

Do we get like does a developer just get to say I can't build this right now?

Or there should be some statistical aspect that goes along with that.

I don't know how you would do that, and that sounds like a nightmare.

Basically, what I think this does is says you build it to commercial standard, but you can use 30% of your floor space for residential.

Yeah, because there's that requirement that 50% of the ground floor has to be non-residential.

And this is saying of that 50%, 30% could be non-residential if you can show us, you know, maybe they're not getting leases or interest or whatever.

Um then if that's the case, they could do it as residential, but built to commercial standards.

So if the market is there in the future, they could change it over.

But that's not in the is that something that you tell them or because it's not that's not the same.

Yeah, so that is something we could change in the draft to be more clear about.

And I do think this G, we could put some sub bullets just saying, you know, you can use up to 30% if you do the following.

So we can put a list so it's a lot easier to look at the code and see what it means.

Right now there's there's a couple different requirements in that paragraph.

Maybe easier just to make it a list.

Is there some value to saying for us to review are we seeing commercial applications coming in and saying, oh, why are they viable there and not here?

Like if if a developer says, hey, the market's just not there, but we're still seeing commercial applications in throughout the city.

I guess they'd have to show us.

Yeah, I think we could require like a market analysis study showing like a like an economic analysis.

Yeah, they would have to provide that, I think, as part of that.

Yep.

Can we put that in the code?

Sure.

Yeah.

Good.

You can recommend that.

I want to put something because again, I know we've seen a lot of these developments that come forth with this cool mixed use concept, and it doesn't ever come out because they're like, well, we'll do that later.

And then later never comes.

The thing I think you want to weed out with this is sometimes it really is challenge to get things to lease because like up in Murray at their Fire Clay District TOD, they put the whole ground floor as commercial and they're having a tough time spacing it.

So there is some definitely areas that that might be viable.

But sometimes we get developers that residentials are bread and butter and they don't really do commercial and they just want to do their bread and butter, and it doesn't quite fit what our code is asking for.

Even if it could be viable for commercial, they may still try and opt for just residential.

And that's what I think we're trying to weed out with this saying.

Look, there is a lot of the other.

Even over at the uh property we went and visited, right?

They've put in the residential apartments.

Oh sanctuary?

Yeah, the sanctuary.

They are having a hard time getting the exact units they're looking for.

I get that.

That's possible as it builds out in the future.

Maybe it's more you know especially if the transit station is there at some point, hopefully sooner than later.

But we you know there might be more of a market for commercial in the future.

Um so that's where we say, hey, if you can build it to commercial standard, then they're they are gonna be incentivized in the future if they get more lease rates from commercial space.

They are gonna be inclined to do that some point in the future.

But you have to set it up from the start to do that.

But we do want to make sure we're getting the right kinds of developers that are like there's that West Main Street project that uh I believe it was Larry Lindstrom had done.

They put commercial on the ground floor, and they've whether it is or isn't the businesses we hope for, but they have commercial leases in there and it's working.

So yeah.

And it looks nice.

Yeah, glad that we held them to a good standard.

Yeah.

Okay.

Sorry.

I just was concerned about that.

Questions there.

Any other questions for staff?

I have a question for staff.

Uh in the red line comments number three, just in the end.

Um the last part of that sentence there.

In some cases, small lots, single family or twin homes could be good too, more towards the periphery.

That was actually my comment.

DRC.

Is that supposed to be moved to move?

So, comma.

Because it just puts an example that some of it has to be um owner-occupied units for the housing, because there's that 30% requirement of the housing in mixed use, at least 30% has to be owner-occupied.

But it just mentions townhomes and condos, but I do think twin homes or small at single family could be a viable owner-occupied type of a unit as well.

I just wouldn't place it right in the middle of the mixed-use district, but maybe towards the edge or something.

I'm just basically saying it it's a unit type we should consider in mixed use as well, not just be condos and townhomes.

Um I would be hesitant to a single family home.

But like a thing like cottage style, triple.

Like a 2,000 square foot lot, you know.

Yeah, I guess.

It doesn't have to be that way.

I'm just thinking of providing some kind of uh mixture of housing type.

Okay.

Yeah.

That was just a suggestion.

That's not something you have to do.

It's in the DRC comments, and we're asked to say we approve this or we recommend approval.

Except for normal minus conference, darn mics trying to bring on single family housing in here.

Um other questions?

Okay.

This is a public hearing.

We will invite the public to speak to item 3.12 at this time.

By opening the public.

I think I'm supposed to say those exact words.

So open the public hearing.

Uh we will now close the public hearing and further discussion or a motion.

All right.

I'll make the motion on item 3.12 public hearing and recommendation of the ICD's request for review of an amendment.

Amendment to chapter 38 updating requirements for the mixed use zone.

A move that we recommend uh positive approval.

Uh seeing that this will be requires let's see.

Requires greater commercial uses in the city and development code amendment that is in conformance with the purposes, intent, and provisions of the general plan.

And please include all the RC comments, even those ones I don't understand.

Do you want to include language changes?

Like for G was discussed.

Particularly for G.

Yeah.

We re-evaluate the language of G, make it cleaner.

And potentially adding that those requirements, the or Yeah, yeah.

The yeah, the analysis that they would have to bring forth to justify not putting the commercial in.

Yes, please update my uh motion.

Second still stands.

Yeah.

Oh I will defer it to the call.

Motion and a second.

All in favor.

Aye.

Any opposed.

All right.

City business.

You got anything for us?

Where's where's Kim?

Where's Kim?

Come fill in.

But uh for city business, I guess just a reminder that we don't have a second meeting in July.

August 13th is our next meeting.

So we're just session.

Sorry, August 13th next.

First week of August, right?

Yep.

Okay.

So we will see you first.

Do we have plans for that work session already?

Oh, we have some ideas if we can get some work done, but we wanted we are really hoping to wrap up the bike pet plan.

Five years in process.

Can I can I request that we get some statistics on how the 600 South experiment has been going?

Oh yeah.

Yeah.

We have some stats on that.

Sure.

600, right?

700, sorry.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I'm gonna be gone.

Oh.

And I and I'll be too.

Yep.

Um Katie's last hey, can you come back out here?

Say thank you on the record.

Can we do that?

Maybe.

She's got my shit.

Oh, she's on her.

We are sad this is your last day, but we're excited for you.

So good luck with your next endeavor.

And don't be a stranger.

Thank you for all your help.

You've made my life easier.

Yes.

And so thank you.

Thank you, Katie.

Um motion to adjourn.

Second.

Motion and a second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed.

Called it to three.