They'll do like a base zone.

And so you'll have like, you know how we have GC and R1, R2R3.

You just have the same zoning structure, only you put like a D next to it.

And so that because the state's been after cities to update their zoning maps a little bit because there's so many nuances and that the state tries to keep uh keep track of all of the city's different zoning ordinances and they get these shape files and then they can like compile them all, but it's not doesn't really reflect the true thing because there's all these little asterisk notes, conditions and things like that.

And so a lot of cities are doing revamping their whole zoning ordinance to have like a it you use a base zone and then you know that you're required to have a development agreement with the specifics of that rezone, and then that goes into the map and it actually shows as like a hash or a different color, and then you like know which ones, and we've been talking about updating our zoning map to just sometimes we do have specific development agreements on there and just having like a layer that has a hatch or a uh whatever the little dots or something to say this is a zoning, this is a development agreement zone.

I I like that idea, and I think that would be something that would be a good thing to be investigated in the future.

In the meantime, I in my opinion, pretty clear, I think it's a good system.

Sorry.

I do agree with you, Mr.

Baker a little bit.

Tiny that might be a good thing, but uh three years.

Kelly is a three year plus year extension.

I just kind of along these lines.

I I feel like you should have some kind of plan that you can move with.

If if you give them potentially four years, it's like, well, I have no idea what I'm gonna do, and I'm gonna figure it out, and then whatever falls through, and then I'll I'll keep changing my mind and you know it just seems like it could potentially just be a blank spot in your commercial zone, things develop and then you just end up with weird parcels and it just seems like we could kind of guide that a little bit more and require maybe a little bit more uh skin in the game before we just allow a rezone.

I had a question.

Will the will the section that we're referencing provide um notice to the to the applicant who filed the zoning change and or the building, the property owner it would provide so that they're not caught unaware and not aware they can file for an extension?

It would like a standard noticing goes off of property ownership with the county, so the property owner should be aware that their property was rezoned unless it's been transferred.

An applicant probably not, but it'd go off property ownership.

Okay.

One thing to consider, as well as the the rezones that would never have a building permit associated with them.

So uh we do every so often get somebody who's with these old farm parcels and stuff, you get a house in the setbacks, so they rezone their property to bring their property into compliance because they had a title report to sell their house, whatever new building permit required.

If we do this with those folks, it's gonna revert them back into non-compliance.

Uh same with people who rezone for animals.

Uh, we also re-rezone or set up uh what is it, the agricultural sort of agro-tourism stuff.

A lot of that stuff wouldn't require building permits.

We'd say, Yeah, you can do that, and then I guess maybe they have to add nauseum, I guess.

Uh apply for extensions.

So just things uh to consider if it doesn't require a building permit, some sort of indication of that.

Well, and that's what I'm saying.

Well, I was gonna say his original suggestion of the I'm sorry, I forget my fellow commissioner's last name.

Um at the end in the blue.

Uh if we tried in something about the option for an exemption, that would cover a lot of these issues of the city council would still have the discretion to say this reversion doesn't apply blanket to every re zone.

There are some rezones that are beneficial to everyone involved.

And we would want those to be in perpetuity without waiting for like an entire comprehensive update to our zoning that.

So does that mean that everything's available for exemption and we have to review every single one, or would we specify specific exemption opportunities they would qualify for?

Otherwise, we might be in a whole lot of paperwork looking at every possibility.

I I think maybe if we look at the word building permit, really we want them to start their project.

Like we don't really care whether or not it's building permit or occupancy, or we want them to start the project.

And if there was never really an anticipated project to begin with, like you're just rezoning for animals or you know, like like you're saying I don't think it should expire.

So maybe we need to change the word.

I don't know, maybe there's a different hurdle to clear.

I was gonna say actually, in regards to the building permit requirement, what if it was just like show substantial progress towards development?

Um, since building permit is a little is probably a bit too rigid to apply to everything.

What if they had to come back to us every year and just kind of give us a report on progress?

That sounds like a hardship for a homeowner who not trying to go through a development process you know, process.

Yeah, I think there's kind of two different buckets here.

There's people that are rezoning for development and people that are rezoning for other reasons.

And yeah, maybe we can figure out a way to we don't have to wordsmith it right now, but maybe that can be part of your recommendation, is just that there's an exception written in for non-project-based rezons.

That makes sense.

Yeah, there's the rub right there.

That also opens up the uh option for even more point to the argument of looking at our zoning in general and saying, okay, somebody doing this is not gonna be uh uh affected by this particular rule.

So if they're in this zone, they don't get a little B or the dot dot dot next to their zoning or whatever.

But anybody that fits within this, they and I think that would be the opportunity for us to be able to say, okay, somebody doing an agro tourism, obviously not going to be affected by this per se.

Somebody that's doing it to bring on animals or something like that, not going to be affected by this, but somebody that's doing general commercial that is specifically looking to build something uh and bring something to the city that way, they definitely could look right up to the standard.

Satisfy me.

I'm I'm just concerned about big gaps in our in our development plan.

Right.

So if if we could be amenable to people that are just trying to live their lives in a way that is not affecting kind of the main general plan, then I'm I'm fine with that.

Yeah, I just don't want to have.

I mean, you hear about these cities, uh voice it for example, they had a whole downtown where a building was torn down, and it was like 10 years before something was built there, right?

You don't want to have a situation where you just have something locked up and people keep making promises, developers come and go, and oh well it was commercial, so I'm just gonna ride that out, and then nothing ever happens, right?

You just want to have that uh that retained and protected.

Well, maybe instead of building permit, we can say uh failure to show substantial progress toward the anticipated development plans as communicated to city council at time of approval, something like that.

I like the works, and I think that that would happen.

Another thing to consider would be maybe city council at their sole discretion at the time of the original rezone approval can choose to waive this requirement too.

Because any of these examples we're talking about where it's a beneficial rezone, regardless of that would be known before that project's plays and you don't have to wait three years to know that in the first maybe it could be baked into the approval process in the beginning.

Yeah, if if what they sold us on was always just a easy rezone for animals, like it's it's just by the nature of it, it's not going to expire.

Yeah, right.

And then what if they rezone it for animals and then decide to develop it?

And then they bypass that whole mechanism, right?

Well, a one zoning, you're not gonna be development developing much.

But it aren't we talking about rezoning to potentially commercial or like what if they went from A zone A1 to commercial.

So it so at the time that they approach the city, the initial rezone, they they present some sort of vision or a plan, right?

And if they haven't made substantial progress towards that original vision or plan, we could, you know, then that qualifies it for the expiration.

I would think, yeah, I would think so.

Yeah, and I don't think it's a little bit of a gray area.

Like a non-development, a non-building permit kind of situation that's this is going to affect.

Um would be good to have the verbiage in there to you know, if you're not making substantial, like you said, no uh that would be good verbiage to have in there, but um I want to protect I want to protect the city to be able to control what we want to say goes in our city at the same time, not provide a over extenuating burden to or hardship to um somebody that is just you know trying to do some agro tourism or something along those lines.

So as long as we have that verbiage in there, I think that that would suffice the plan of protecting the little guy at the same time protecting the city from big guy.

Okay, so I think I'm gonna make two little tweaks before we pass this on to city council.

Uh rework the word obtain a building permit to what we talked about, and then do like a reference of how to how zoning is reverted, so consistent with ordinance, blah blah blah.

And as we do that, I agree with Blake too.

You know, within two years is kind of like a compromise because you give them that extra year, there's three years they're working on it.

You give it to them, they're gonna use it, right?

I mean, especially if you're doing the exemptions for the home the specific people, so it's very targeted, and I think you can easily shorten that direction.

Yeah, there we go.

Yeah, does every so does everybody want two years?

Well, we'll find out that's what we take a vote.

I have no problem with two years.

I I three three years is is a very long span.

The one project that you mentioned is in particular is what are we going on year six now?

That particular one I wrote about.

Spend a minute.

That one came on when I first started on the commission a few years back.

So yeah, that one would do well from yeah.

I mean being involved in these projects for as long as I have, like from the time that they come into a rezone to the time that they're actually building it, it's amazing how long they take to really come to fruition.

I I feel like a lot of organizations will take as much time and leash as you you give them, right?

You want to be fair and give them a chance to have a few hiccups along the way and reorganize, but you gotta have some kind of guide.

Is the two or three year time uh approval um or uh limit that's in there?

Is that uh in line with other cities that have done similar things?

Are we I think they're usually two years?

They were two or three generally.

Okay, okay.

Well, and again, substantial progress towards I mean, they could document that you know they've got 90% of their CDs then, but they don't have it ready for permit yet, or the permitting, they got a lot of comments.

It's like there are a million reasons they could be close, but not great.

That's right.

That rework line in there that says an extension where good costs be shown.

Great.

You're almost there.

We're gonna give you.

I mean, we can we can use our judgment, that would be tough.

We just have to have that opportunity to review it.

Right.

And I did look into it in West Haven only gives 12 months.

So there you go.

All right.

Well, we're ready.

Take motion.

So there's there's three changes, and we think it's going to two.

Is that what I understand?

Two years.

Uh, with one year extension, and obviously the city council can drop me extension.

Um the the wordsmithing of building permit on that, and then um what was the progress?

Code reference to the rezone process.

Okay.

Commissioner, I make a motion that we approve um this recommendation with the changes that's been discussed.

Okay, we have a motion uh for recommendation for approved city council.

Do we have a second?

Second, all in favor?

I any opposed.

All right, motion passes.

We'll move on to the next item.

Public hearing for text amendment amendment to SCC chapters eight and ten, amending the land use authority and final crap flat approvals.

Okay, this one should be a pretty easy one, just because the state has come down and said we can't, we're not supposed to be sending these final plats to planning commission or city council.

Our process currently requires that final plats go to planning commission.

So this proposed language would send them to the development review committee.

Uh, which I'm missing a parentheses right there.

Which uh it consists of planning, engineering, and fire.

So it's administrative team that reviews it for compliance with the ordinance and subdivision plots are administrative in nature anyway.

So if you've noticed, usually I think the reason why we've had it still go to planning commission for as long as we have, because it's always good to get extra eyeballs on it, and sometimes especially with this commission, we've a lot of times we've had engineers and people with technical expertise, and sometimes they pick up little things that we've missed.

And so I I don't totally think it was bad that we sent them to planning commission, but now the state's coming down on us and saying we can't.

And this is all part of the push to get more housing and affordable housing crisis and kind of streamline the creation of a standard single family lot to make it easier and faster for developers.

Um the legislature's asking us to do this.

Now, whether or not this is the right solution, I guess that's you guys' roll to weigh in and decide.

But I think it's basically just saying staff will review it instead of planning commission.

So I've just kind of gone through and replaced that reference to planning commission to with uh development review committee DRC.

Okay.

All right.

We have a public hearing.

This will be open for a public hearing as well.

Same rules as before.

If you have any comments that need to be made about this particular item.

Seeing none, I'm assuming no one online.

We'll go ahead and close public hearing.

Um bring back commission on this one.

Uh I do have a quick question.

We is this a requirement by the state legislature.

Yes, it is.

So we do we even double double check the the this the you know the severity of of that.

Yeah, we we uh we have a recent subdivision that application, and we were planning on we told them what their date would be to be on planning commission, and they said, Well, we don't have to do that.

And we said, Well, our current ordinance requires it, and they said we don't care.

And here's a letter from our attorney.

And for once the other attorney was correct.

I'm sure they were part of the task force that wrote that still.

So in this case, we're between a rock and legislature here.

We just have to do what the state has told us to do in this case.

You can try to swim upstream, but you may get washed away.

Well, we'll just get others bringing their letters from their attorneys.

And this is this is just uh a vote, it's not a recommendation, correct?

Uh, this is a recommendation to city council because this would be changing the ordinance, right?

Any further I is there any way for us to tighten it without how how how how close to the old system can we get without relinquishing our ability to say yay or nay to uh to a plot chain or something, you know.

We we could have we could still provide a report to planning commission and say, like, hey, we met with these guys, and their final plat's been completed.

Staff has signed off on it, the development review committee signed off on it, and they're gonna be moving towards construction.

So it could be a report to planning commission.

But there's really there's no approval.

There would be like G Wiz, thanks.

Yeah, and I I think we're creating extra red tape for staff and work for public.

I mean, we're always happy to share what we're what we've been working on and what's ready and where things are at.

You look like you have something to say.

Uh, you didn't hear this from me.

But the the issue here was yeah, once in the microphone.

The issue here was gee, I can't wait to get my property developed, and state statute says it doesn't go back to the planning commission, so we need to move forward now.

I don't know that there's anything that says the development review committee couldn't wait until the day after the planning commission meeting, and we could come in and tell you.

I'm not suggesting this, but we could come in and say this is an issue before the development review committee, which by the way meets tomorrow afternoon, and we're just letting you know, and then the approval would still be done by someone other than you.

That's again, I'm not suggesting that you do that, but I think there's a loophole there.

That just gives us that second set of eyes to look at it, but we have no authority to do anything but suggest.

Yes, and and then clearly the intent of the statute was to speed things up, not to slow things down.

So I I wasn't even here tonight.

This planning commission currently reviewed preliminary plots.

Yeah, we still have a public hearing at planning commission, and in all honesty, a lot of times the there's not a lot of changes between preliminary plat and final plat.

And so you guys do already see that, and there's public hearing, and all the neighbors can come in and weigh in if there's any things.

Usually the final plat is almost like a formality, like they're just preparing the the uh the plat to be recorded at the at the county, they've already have all of the plan and profiles designed for the roads and things like that at preliminary.

So it's up to you guys.

I know it does take a little bit of your, you know, uh what is it?

Uh uh uh an arrow out of your quiver, I guess.

Yeah, but I I feel like we're already fairly meticulous on the preliminary plat anyways.

So I think this would just be uh an advisement to us to make sure that we are paying attention on that preliminary plat, but I don't think it really changes a whole lot.

And I I mean, if it's good to begin with, you know, I I would trust the that DRC to mark any major issues that are really important.

Yeah, I'm I really don't have any issues with it other than it's nice to see the you know the progress from beginning to end is kind of cool, but that and I personally don't like that uh state legislature telling us how our state window down.

So when I first started here, all three stages went all the way to city planning commission and city council.

Yeah.

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

So take a motion unless there's further discussion.

I'll make a motion.

I move that we recommend to the city council that they adopt the recommendation of the state legislature and use the uh swap the language of the planning commission to the development review committee in the language of the uh city code for the final subdivision review.

Thank you, Commissioner Breaker.

We have a uh the motion, we have a second, second all in favor?

I mean motion passes.

Item number six public hearing for site plan converting existing park into electrical vehicle charge station within the Walmart site area at that address on the all right.

So um this is gonna be uh well we're we're reviewing this uh very much on a technicality, I guess.

The the code says that if you have a change in uh a change in a building site and they require a building permit, then we have to review it.

So they're just putting in some charging stations and changing the uh orientation of some of the uh the parking out there.

So let me zoom out here.

So it's a small area out here.

Um for those who may be interested, ADA uh requires that specific types of parking, um, which this would be a specific type um because it's EV charging that they have to have ADA accessibility, which means they have to be close to the building.

They did get an exception through ADA provided proof of that.

So for anyone who maybe was interested in that.

Um, but what's what they're proposing is just the same kind of EV charging that you see uh popping up more and more around.

So they they currently have this like 60 degree parking, and they're gonna be changing the 60 degree parking here uh to 90 degree parking, so it reduces a few of the stalls.

They're still severely overparked, so they're good to go there.

Um then they're putting in some electrical infrastructure over here.

So there is uh some rock mulch up here, which will be removed, replaced with some sidewalk area, but the trees are gonna remain.

So um they've got just a slight change in the ground area, but uh let's see.

There we go.

So here's what's proposed.

Uh a couple of handicapped spaces that will be EV, and again, that's an ADA requirement.

And then they'll just have standard EV spaces over here, and then tie the electrical into the gas station convenience store to the south, and then have their transformers and everything and bring the electrical across.

So it is a little bit unorthodox, uh, just because they are changing the direction of the parking and our parking standards are such that we have different uh widths required between parking spaces uh for the dry aisles.

So normally if they were both 90 degrees, this would be 26 or 24 uh and four inches, which because of the different type of parking and average still meets the code there.

And then these are going to be limited to compact car parking, which they don't have any.

They're allowed to do out to five percent uh of of their entire parking area as compact car parking.

Uh I can't guarantee that's going to be enforced, but it is required to be put in.

So um, but that's that's pretty much it.

So pretty standard stuff, just putting in a couple of electrical stations requiring the building permit, which is why we're looking at it.

So I but does meet the code would recommend approval.

parking which they don't have any they're allowed to do out to five percent uh of of their entire parking area as compact car parking uh i can't guarantee that's going to be enforced but it is required to be put in so um but that's that's pretty much it so pretty standard stuff just putting in a couple of electrical stations requiring the building permit which is why we're looking at it so I but does meet the code would recommend approval all right this is also open to public hearing so we will open this up to the public to make any comments about the um electrical EV stations seeing none we will go ahead and close public hearing take it back to the mission I think it's a good thing to have some added electrical parking seeing more and more cars and bring them into our city and hopefully they'll use the retailers they're there it was mentioned that Walmart's already overparked did I hear that right just just a little bit just a little bit is that is that been modified in the code since the Walmart was built I'm not sure what the code was when it was approved I I know it's significantly overparked even for what we require now.

I I can add a little bit of color there I remember at one time our parking table it had a minimum and a maximum and somewhere along the way about a decade ago they took out the whole maximum all together it's like we don't care just build as much like there is no maximum anymore in any of our ordinance for parking for all the discussion that we've had in previous meetings about better urban planning and better philosophy with the city it's it seems odd to me that we would not address that in some way but that's that's tangential to this discussion.

I don't I don't have any issues with this and I think it's it's good seems like it's uh gonna be positive so yeah in in general uh for economic development parking lots don't do us a lot of good and so I think we've been seeing some infill development going along the large parking lots it's not the most ideal but the good news is when you have parking lot it's always there and it can be torn up and for future like almost like a placeholder okay but yeah if you want to reference a good urban planning classic is the high cost of free parking that's a book to read we'll take a motion chair I'll make a motion that we adopt the site plan for converting existing parking into electrical vehicle charging stations and move the planning commission approve the request of Julie Hacking for the approval of commercial site plan for electrical vehicle charging stations the address that's located here on Walmart to in the GC zone.

We have a motion do we have a second second all in favor aye aye any opposed motion passes take a motion to adjourn to work session.

Move the adjourn all in favor aye aye we're adjourned to work session uh city council liaison yes right here sorry right behind my monitor go ahead I'm filling in for a color do you have anything for us I don't have any oh awesome all right so the attorney callin I'm not even here sorry I I was calling on a on a blank space so that I'll be coming upcoming agenda items uh so we have a couple that are pretty close the holiday oil uh and also the Rocky Mountain wellness those are uh I talked with Rocky Mountain well this a couple days ago they said they're they're getting really close on resubmittal so hopefully that takes care of it and we'll see it next time um Rocky Mountain or not uh holiday oil uh similar I guess probably end of August hopefully uh those those uh uh projects down there in the corner 2700 south and 2000 west we're still waiting on updates on those so nothing there um let's see not a whole lot of new stuff we did receive a rezone application uh actually for uh animals so uh we'll see that next time and then um we also yeah let's see I guess we already talked about the other ones yeah we've got a bunch of the the the stuff that we've been working on is still working its way through city council the code changes we recently did but uh those have not been voted on yet but we don't have anything new uh currently the Rocky Mountain what's the name of the project would be right to the west of us here is that the Rocky Mountain yeah that's the one okay the the architectural review committee which I'm liaison for that we reviewed it and it we we were made aware that they're that right now at that point they were planning on placing uh electrical components on the roof that will generate quite a bit of noise i e data center related equipment and the concern was brought up at that point that with the senior housing project to the to the south and to the west and the assisted living facility directly to the west that we needed it the the committee was asking for more information on that some legitimate you know it input back to us on that and I don't know whether it's going to come back to the architectural review committee or if it's just going to come straight to planning commission but we we need to be aware of that that that's that's potential there yeah that's that's uh well I guess where it isn't scheduled for tonight

That we needed it the the committee was asking for more information on that, some some legitimate uh you know i input back to us on that.

And I don't know whether it's gonna come back to the architectural review committee or if it's just gonna come straight to planning commission, but we we need to be aware of that.

That that's that's potential there.

Yeah, that's that's uh well I guess where it isn't scheduled for tonight's meeting.

It's I don't want to get too into the details on it, but we are working on that.

That's been a major component of the review, uh especially recently.

So pending uh dealing with that amongst a couple of other comments that I had.

Uh hopefully they're taking care of it and I can bring it in.

But if they haven't, then we'll just continue to work on it with them and only bring it in when it's ready.

All right.

Any other commissioner report.

Okay, we'll take a motion to adjourn.

So moved.

All in favor?

I we're adjourned.

Thank you, everyone.

I am here enough to follow that.