[0:06] Uh welcome welcome to planning commission. Um commissioners present are

[0:12] commissioner Ross Sandal Shenoda Humphre Williams and Aquedov. And then we also

[0:17] have Commissioner Southwick and H and uh Commissioner Williams online. So uh

[0:24] we'll go ahead and get started. Uh we'll begin with our pledge of allegiance by

[0:27] Commissioner Aquedolf. Please stand

[0:35] al

[0:39] to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with

[0:45] liberty and justice for all.

[0:51] » Thank you. Uh our first item on the agenda is to approve the agenda.

[0:58] I make a motion to approve the agenda. >> Second. Uh I have a motion by

[1:05] Commissioner Sandow and a second by Commissioner Hen. All in favor? I

[1:09] » I >> uh now we'll go to item two, the consent

[1:14] agendum. Is there any items on the agenda that commissioners would like to

[1:18] have pulled for discussion for this? Uh >> yes. I'd move that we pull items 2B and

[1:24] 2D for separate discussions, please. Okay. Any others? Commissioners,

[1:31] any for you commissioners online?

[1:36] » Move to approve. >> No.

[1:40] » Okay. Thank you. >> I'll move to approve the consent agenda

[1:44] items A and C. >> I get a second.

[1:49] » Second. >> Okay. We have a motion for to approve

[1:54] the consent agendas A and C by Commissioner Shenoda and seconded by

[1:58] Commissioner Okov. All in favor? >> I

[2:01] » I >> All right. Any oppose?

[2:05] » Okay. Uh we will uh go ahead and uh I guess we'll have discussion on item 2B,

[2:12] the encroachment permit for Lotus Forge ADA ramps in the rightway uh 2270

[2:17] Lincoln Avenue. Uh Mr. Simpson.

[2:34] [clears throat]

[2:42] » Yep.

[2:45] All right. Chair, members of the commission, it is really good to be with

[2:49] you tonight. Um, so what we're looking at with this item

[2:57] is request to have um ADA ramps, stairs, landings, and

[3:05] railing extend into the Lincoln Avenue right away. And for that, the commission

[3:11] will be making a recommendation to the mayor. And actions would need to be

[3:16] based on if there's good cause for the encroachment and if there's going to be

[3:20] issues that will cause the encroachment to interfere with use of the public way

[3:26] or utilities. Um so we have some perspective. This uh

[3:33] encroachment is related to um a project that um has come to the commission

[3:39] before for some exceptions um for a mixed you a large mixeduse

[3:46] building consisting of 193 dwelling units, eight live work units, and over

[3:54] 8,000 square feet of nonresidential space, commercial daycare, things of

[3:59] that nature.

[4:03] So the encroachment takes up a portion of the lot fronting Lincoln. Um

[4:11] this kind of shows um the plat and that location. The extension is approximately

[4:17] 4T into the rideway. Conditions of the site. Um something to

[4:23] consider historically. Um the um Ogden City Plaza area has been fairly

[4:32] underutilized for an urban core area. Um I know it had many many years ago had

[4:40] some density to it but um during the um 70s 80s have a development of more of a

[4:50] um strip mall kind of setting with lots of surface parking. Um, this proposal is

[4:56] a a the pro that's associated with a project that would significantly

[5:02] increase density, add um building height and mixed use um in line with the CN or

[5:11] commercial entertainment zone that we have designated for this downtown area.

[5:17] This is a perspective of that building. Um the colors on this are not exactly

[5:23] right but um the form is this is just a rendering but kind of showing the

[5:28] layout. Um there is with the requirement um in the CNT the areas along um Lincoln

[5:37] and uh 23rd Street are required to have nonresidential use portion. So, there's

[5:43] this creation of um storefront areas um which would allow for um live work units

[5:51] and other non-residential uses to accommodate access into those

[5:57] non-residential areas. Um the project is having to incorporate um some ADA access

[6:06] um due to elevation with with the uh with the building and the design. So the

[6:12] request is to um basically install um approximately 10 um ramps and and

[6:21] landings with railing um at various heights. Um they start at a lower

[6:28] elevation at the corner and would slowly rise to the north.

[6:34] Um this kind of shows the the grading as you can see from the bottom image. the

[6:40] right is much less um encroachment and smaller need for grade change and then

[6:48] that increases further to the north end of the building. Um the grading is

[6:56] consistent along 23rd Street. So no um additional ramps or access uh uh

[7:04] entrances would be needed on the south side of the building.

[7:10] So with that um staff finds feels that there is good cause to provide this

[7:18] access and interaction with the street has been reviewed by um city staff and

[7:26] um just have all have found that it does meet the clearance requirements

[7:32] um and would not impact the right of way and are recommending approval subject to

[7:37] just completing the site plan review for the project.

[7:42] » Okay. Thank you. Um maybe real quick, I I

[7:46] failed to have the petitioner give him an opportunity to speak, so maybe I I

[7:50] kind of jumped the gun there. Uh so does the petitioner have anything they'd like

[7:53] to add to Mr. Simpson's remarks before we discuss as a commission?

[8:00] » Hello, my name is Adam Hughes with Lotus and my colleague here, Matt Ratali with

[8:04] Lotus as well. And we've done a lot of work on this project to uh try and

[8:08] accommodate um the commercial requirement with the city and these live

[8:13] work units represent uh uh a component of that effort. Um, you know, when we

[8:19] purchased the site, we recognized that this was a failed retail center. And um

[8:24] by activating the site and bringing uh some pedestrian activity uh to the

[8:30] downtown core, it will reestablish vibrancy uh and activity. And there's

[8:36] some complexities associated with this and um the encroachment uh will help us

[8:44] to accommodate the ADA requirement for these commercial units.

[8:50] » Okay. Anything you'd like to add? Yeah, just I think just in addition, we love

[8:55] this this zone and we would love to activate this part of Lincoln and we

[8:59] feel this project in in its current design achieves what the city intends

[9:03] for this section and so yeah we we appreciate all your time especially

[9:07] Joseph with and staff and uh yeah that's all. Thank you.

[9:11] » Okay, thank you. Before you sit down, is there any questions from commission that

[9:14] would like to ask the petitioner anything?

[9:17] All right, see go ahead and have have a seat. So

[9:20] » thank you. >> All right. Um, let's open it up for

[9:22] discussion from the commission. Any >> your thoughts? Go ahead, Mr. Chair.

[9:26] Commission. >> I have a question for Joe.

[9:30] There's another project between the two schools that are on the same block. I

[9:35] don't remember how many units there are on that project. Can you refresh my

[9:38] memory? >> Um, I would have to look. I don't know

[9:40] off the top of my head. You're talking about the uh on the north end of the

[9:44] block. >> Yeah. That burned down and was being

[9:45] rebuilt again. Yeah. >> I think it's something like 97 or 98

[9:49] units if I remember. I believe that's correct.

[9:51] » Okay. So, we're going to have 300 units here and 100 units there, two schools,

[9:58] and we still have a quarter of the block that needs redeveloped. We're going to

[10:01] have a significant, >> well, we would hope a significant

[10:05] increase in pedestrian traffic, bicycle traffic, and so forth. That is along

[10:09] Lincoln 23rd and 22nd Street. >> Correct.

[10:13] » Okay. I I don't want to be difficult. That's why I wanted this item separated.

[10:20] The developer knew, planning knew going into this the ADA was going to be

[10:24] required for commercial in the first place. Why was this not considered

[10:27] beforehand? Why are we coming and asking the public right ofway which is now

[10:31] going to be narrowed with a significant increase in public traffic in the space

[10:35] on a why was this not dealt with before when it was brought to us in the in the

[10:40] original spot? Why are we now using public rightway that's going to create

[10:44] an impediment to some degree for the amount of increased traffic we expect

[10:50] when that should have been designed in the building to begin with?

[10:54] » Sure. And I I couldn't speak to all the factors that may have been involved that

[10:59] has led to this point. I do know that there have been um is is a project of

[11:06] this magnitude and size. There's a review process that goes through and it

[11:11] goes through all of the different departments and divisions at the city

[11:15] that have certain requirements that have to be met.

[11:19] » So the initial review that was done with the commission was before really all of

[11:24] those um site review um were completed. So there was not complete engineered

[11:31] drawings when we were it was anticipated with some of the exceptions to reduce

[11:37] some of the non-residential square footage requirements on the main

[11:41] level. Um but I [clears throat] know as we've gone through reviews and it's

[11:46] determined certain requirements. I I would I'm and I'm just making an

[11:50] assumption. And I'm assuming that it's it's something that has come up through

[11:54] the site official site plan review process in determining to make um access

[12:01] um ADA requirements met. Um and again I just point out that this has been

[12:07] reviewed by city engineering by um all of the department staff and really um

[12:13] we've found that the the clearances and the the access is not inhibited by the

[12:21] by the uh encroachment. Um like you said it's about 4T.

[12:25] » It's not presently inhibited. >> Mhm. you factored in how many people are

[12:29] going to be on the street, how many are going to use cars to make that

[12:33] determination in advance. I mean, I love the project, don't get me wrong. I think

[12:36] that activation and the additional people in the downtown core is extremely

[12:41] important, but I'm concerned that this wasn't addressed before it came to us to

[12:46] begin with. And I and I would have to defer to the the engine because it's

[12:50] heav he heavily weighs on the engineering department the traffic

[12:54] engineer to evaluate um accessibility and needs of the rightway space like I

[13:00] could just defer to the review of the project which does

[13:07] it again it it finds that it wouldn't impede um the pedestrian access and

[13:13] would comply. >> Okay. Thank you sir. Yeah.

[13:18] » All right. Any other questions from commissioners?

[13:20] » Vice chair. >> Mr. Sh.

[13:22] » So 4 feet of encroachment leaves how many feet of rightway

[13:32] » minus the trees. >> I I don't know the exact distance. Um I

[13:37] know the rideways are pretty large in this area. Some areas are um sidewalks I

[13:43] believe are probably around 12 to 14 feet is what I would guess. So

[13:49] » what's that? >> Yeah, that's what I suspected. 9 and 10

[13:54] ft >> is left for

[13:56] » That's right. And [clears throat] does the does the encroachment

[14:02] um is does granting the encroachment on the ground level

[14:07] um include upper levels as well or will they have to come back if they want that

[14:12] » they would have to come back and that was evaluated. There was some question

[14:17] of whether balconies would be one of those things but they are not. Those

[14:21] balconies actually are recessed into the building. So the only encroachment that

[14:26] would be be requested is these 10 um ADA and stair

[14:33] access points. I mean, encroachment is

[14:39] is

[14:43] the the the public rightway belongs to the public

[14:47] » and we're considering whether or not um a property owner can

[14:54] take away some of that public right away.

[14:58] » Yeah. And I I guess the point of view and that it's discussed in the staff

[15:04] report um would be that you know having these encroach provide access to

[15:10] multiple entrances along the rightway and so it's it's provides a good

[15:15] interaction and access accessibility between directly between the sidewalk

[15:21] and the building itself. So,

[15:27] » chair, I have a question. >> Go ahead.

[15:29] » Um, on the picture that's up here right now, it looks like you have like a drop

[15:33] off zone. In that drop off zone area with an encroachment right next to it,

[15:39] what space are we going to have there? Do you see that? Like the darker area

[15:44] right off the road that almost looks like part of the road. Is that still

[15:48] going to be there? Because if you have an encroachment right there and that

[15:51] comes in as well, that could be awfully narrow.

[15:56] » I'm not aware of a drop off zone on the street.

[16:00] » I might be reading it. I don't know what that darker area is.

[16:03] » That's like the approach. >> It's the approach has to be removed.

[16:06] There is there's an existing approach there.

[16:09] » Okay. So, that'll go that won't be there.

[16:11] » Yep. >> Okay.

[16:12] » What's that? >> That that's correct. So, Jeremy Draper

[16:14] with Reven Associates had here for the project. So that that gray area that is

[16:20] an existing approach that's going to be removed and replaced with sidewalk.

[16:23] » Thank you. >> Okay.

[16:28] Any other comments or questions? Commissioners,

[16:32] any comments or questions online? Commissioner Southwick or Williams?

[16:38] » Chair. I had a question. Um [clears throat]

[16:41] so these are stairs and walkways being added. Is this mainly just due to an

[16:46] elevation difference? Um, and is that not

[16:50] » Hi, let the engineer come up. >> Joe deferred real quick.

[16:55] » Yes. So, this is a result of an elevation difference. Uh, just with the

[16:59] size of the building, the location of it. Um, the southeast corner of our

[17:04] building is a high spot and as we go around the corner up to the northwest,

[17:07] there's about a foot and a half difference in there. We've worked with

[17:10] the architect to lower some of these units internally as much as we could.

[17:16] That's why, you know, this very northwest

[17:19] unit does not have a ramp because we're actually able to lower that inside the

[17:23] building and still maintain ADA compliance inside the building for

[17:27] current circulation as well as outside. These units here as well as the main

[17:32] entrance. Uh we did uh go with the ramp just because we couldn't maintain ADA

[17:38] access inside the building that we needed to um at the level

[17:42] [clears throat] that we needed to as well as tie into the existing sidewalk.

[17:48] » Okay. Thank you. >> Y

[17:52] any other comments question?

[17:57] This kind of seems like one of those that we progressed so far and we run

[18:00] into an error and it fits within the code and the well the intent of the code

[18:05] » some extent. So >> yes, but have you ever walked any of

[18:08] those blocks after the 24th parade or the Christmas parade or the I mean

[18:13] people on Grant Avenue alone, which is made for pedestrian walkway, they're

[18:17] still all over the street because there's nowhere near enough width in the

[18:20] sidewalk already for that. I I presented that argument la last commission meeting

[18:25] with the trees and stuff but >> so

[18:28] » it does give you the access though I guess and but

[18:32] » could move the building four feet back too. Could you chair

[18:37] » when commission >> could the encroachment be decreased if

[18:41] the approach was not perpendicular but or or is it

[18:45] already um at a at an angle

[18:55] » parallel? >> Could you repeat that? So the

[19:00] encroachment um stairs or railing is it perpendicular to the entrance or is it

[19:07] um at an angle? >> Yeah. So the ramps themselves are

[19:12] actually parallel to the building. That way we can minimize the amount of

[19:16] encroachment into the rightway. Uh we would work with staff. Originally did

[19:21] have additional steps coming further into the rightway and working with staff

[19:25] we actually adjusted that design. of the stairs were also parallel to the

[19:29] building to minimize that encroachment. Uh with the shape of the building, we

[19:34] can't really get it any closer to it and still maintain the accessible access to

[19:41] the doorways.

[19:45] » Okay. Any other comments, remarks, or

[19:49] questions? >> My only question would be, are they ADA

[19:52] accessible in the back? Do they have to be both? They they do have to be both

[19:57] because it in the backside that provides the access into the building itself.

[20:02] » And so with the depth of these particular units, we weren't able to get

[20:06] ramp inside the unit and it was also ADA compliant that didn't just eat up all

[20:11] the space inside the inside the unit itself,

[20:14] » right? >> That's what tightens the space up that

[20:16] requirement for the ADA. So any comments from commissioners online?

[20:24] All right. >> No comment from me. I don't have a

[20:27] comment. >> Sure. Just just a clarification

[20:30] question. >> Is this a building that's already

[20:33] constructed or is this is a a proposed construction?

[20:38] » Proposed. >> Proposed.

[20:40] » Yeah. Proposed. >> Yeah. Rick, that it is a proposed

[20:45] building um that's currently uh completing a site and construction plan

[20:51] review. So, >> okay. So, well, and these ADA issues

[20:56] arose through those reviews. >> Well, what one of the other

[20:59] commissioners uh raised, I mean, given the fact I my initial thought was it was

[21:05] the building that was already under construction. Uh given the fact that

[21:09] it's not constructed, one of the other commissioners asked a question I don't

[21:14] think was was answered. Is it possible to set the building back farther from

[21:20] the street? Is there room in the foot uh in the parcel to do that and and

[21:26] maintain uh the rightway or is this the only option?

[21:31] » So our downtown zoning codes actually have a zero foot requirement for a

[21:37] certain percentage of the building along the street and so you would have to give

[21:42] an exception to shift the building back further. it actually complies with the

[21:48] code by being at at the sidewalk. And that's again the intent is to have close

[21:54] proximity and interaction between the public rideway space and and the

[22:00] building itself. Um I think there would be a lot more concern if the walkway

[22:05] areas were narrower. Um but where there is you know the 9 to 10 ft of of space

[22:12] we feel um that would be sufficient

[22:18] » to the >> and that's to the tree great. Yeah.

[22:21] » Okay. >> Okay.

[22:23] » Okay. >> So the tree isn't taking up part of that

[22:26] 9 ft. >> So

[22:28] » no. So you got a little extra. So

[22:31] » okay >> you walk under if you're short.

[22:35] » That's it. All right. Any other comments or questions?

[22:40] Any from commissioners online? All right.

[22:44] » No, you have a >> motion.

[22:47] » Finding that there is good cause for the encroachment and that the encroachment

[22:50] will not interfere with the use of a public w public way or utilities with

[22:55] the permit being issued concurrently with the site plan review approval. Um I

[23:00] forgot the address. It's an encroachment permit to allow ADA ramps, stairs,

[23:04] landings, and railings for the new Lotus Ford mixeduse building to extend in the

[23:08] Lincoln Avenue right away at 2270 Lincoln Avenue. Um, I motion to

[23:14] recommend approval of the proposed encroachment permit subject to the

[23:17] permit being issued concurrently with the site plan review approval.

[23:21] » I'll second. I got a motion by Commissioner Sandow and a second by

[23:26] Commissioner Shenoda. This roll call vote. Uh, Miss Bamo.

[23:31] » Commissioner Almadov, >> yes.

[23:33] » Commissioner Humphre, >> no.

[23:36] » Commissioner Ross, >> yes.

[23:39] » Commissioner Sando, >> yes.

[23:42] Commissioner Southwick,

[23:49] » no. >> Commissioner Williams,

[23:53] » no.

[23:57] Commissioner Shenoda. >> No.

[24:00] » Okay. So, that doesn't pass, right? Correct. So, all right. Um, I guess

[24:05] we'll go back to the drawing board, uh, work with planning staff and, uh, see

[24:10] what you can do. >> Uh,

[24:13] » you want them to explain their no votes? >> Yeah. Do you want to?

[24:16] » So, the next step would actually be going to the mayor for what you're

[24:20] making as a recommendation. >> Okay. So, Okay. So, we'll go to the

[24:23] mayor as a recommendation that we denied it. But, uh, do you want we start online

[24:29] uh for the nos and we'll finish up with the ones here. You want you want to

[24:34] explain why you chose no? >> Yeah. I uh, chair, I given the fact it's

[24:41] a proposed building, uh, I I think it's it's problematic to have that many

[24:47] encroachments in there. And I I think the the clean, simple solution is to set

[24:54] the building back several feet. >> All right. Thanks, Commissioner

[24:58] Southway. Commissioner Williams. >> Um I agree because it's a proposed

[25:03] building and it's not currently under construction. I think that they could um

[25:08] use their own land instead of taking land from the public for their project.

[25:13] » Thank you. All right, Commissioner. I've made the same argument on uh balconies

[25:18] encroaching into the public right away. I just think um owners of the properties

[25:24] need to plan their developments better not to encroach on on a area that's

[25:32] meant for the public that's owned by the public. Okay, Commissioner Humphre.

[25:38] » Yeah, it's a proposed facility and not to be difficult, but once it's up, we

[25:44] can't fix it. And I'd like to ensure that along an entire block of space with

[25:49] that many units and that many people which I assume the developer is going to

[25:52] do well with at least I hope they will pencils well. I'd like to make sure that

[25:57] we did not create an environment that might be less than conducive because we

[26:02] can't fix it after the fact. I'd like to fix it beforehand.

[26:06] » Thank you for everyone's comments and uh that will go on to the mayor's

[26:10] recommendation. We wish you the best on your project.

[26:13] Uh we'll now discuss the uh the consent item D that was pulled. Conditional use

[26:18] permit uh contractor services at 121 North 8:30 West. Um

[26:25] we want to hear from the petitioner first. Looks like Zack

[26:31] Zack. >> Zack. Yep.

[26:33] » Zack. [laughter] >> I'm not sure if he's the applicant is

[26:37] here, but um >> is he online, Joe?

[26:43] is the petitioner online.

[26:52] » All right. >> Okay.

[26:53] » Well, we'll go ahead with staff's report and go from there.

[26:57] » Sure. Um, so what you're looking at is a request for a conditional use permit to

[27:03] allow a contractor services office at the BDO which is located exactly at 121

[27:09] North A30 West. Um, so it is in an existing warehouse style structure but

[27:16] they're using the lower half of the existing structure. So the

[27:21] considerations for the motion would be does the proposed use create detrimental

[27:25] impacts that cannot be mitigated? Is the project consistent with the general plan

[27:30] and if the use and the site is compatible with the surrounding

[27:34] development. So to go over some context for the

[27:39] location of the property, this is in the DDR zone u best known as BDO and it is

[27:47] as you can see in the top right image it is an existing structure. So they would

[27:52] be using the southern half of the existing structure for their uh

[27:58] landscape offices. And the applicant did mention the different kinds of

[28:03] day-to-day activities that would be done in this location. But uh we're going to

[28:08] look at that in the next slides. But quickly to run through the location. So

[28:13] it is part of the BDO in a property size of 7.29 acres. The actual building size

[28:19] that he would be taking over is 2500 and it is proposed as a contractor

[28:26] services offices. So the request is the applicant Zach

[28:32] from Mountainside Landscapes is requesting approval for the conditional

[28:36] use permit to allow contractor services use for business storage located at 121

[28:42] North 830 West

[28:47] and uh as I talked before about the different day-to-day activities and the

[28:52] actual use that would be happening at this location as for the applicant was

[28:57] more or less to do with the storage of his equipment and other small machinery

[29:04] inside the building. And the applicant did mention that there would not be any

[29:08] outside storage or anything where they would have to use the outer

[29:14] parts of the building and the only thing which is in the scope of work happening

[29:18] outside is the proposed parking on the east side of the building. So, yep.

[29:27] And the factors for consideration in this project would be detrimental to the

[29:32] property or persons since it does not produce any noise, odor or light. It is

[29:38] not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the public. And

[29:42] the other consideration would be if it aligns with the general plan. So when we

[29:47] look at the defense depot district plan, it few of those aims and redevelopment

[29:55] goals do align with the proposal which is redevelopment of the DDO district

[30:01] plan and to allow businesses to reuse the existing structures. And when it

[30:06] comes to the design compatibility since they would be using the existing

[30:09] structures so there is no expanding of the footprint and the only new thing

[30:15] happening would be the proposal of new parking which is five stalls.

[30:19] So it would be 2,500 ft². So they would need one stall for every 500 ft². So

[30:25] five stalls in that case. And the use compatibility. So they would

[30:31] be using the existing structure rather than new one. And the hours of operation

[30:35] proposed are Monday to Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and no outdoor

[30:40] operations. And coming to the compliance of

[30:44] regulations, the different um reviewing officials of the city did review the

[30:49] project and they all have approved it. So I would say it is uh in compliance

[30:55] with the regulations of the zoning ordinance and the BDO. and adding on

[30:59] even the buyer company has given acknowledgement that they are good with

[31:04] the new proposal. Okay. So yeah based on that the staff recommends approval for

[31:10] the proposed conditional use permit and the consistency of general plan for the

[31:15] use of contractor services office. So in the findings we did find that it does

[31:21] meet the conditional use permit uh criteria under the Ogden code

[31:27] and it is also consistent with the general plan and the DDO plan.

[31:34] Okay. All right. Thank you. Well, this is a conditional use permit that meets

[31:39] that requirement. I guess we only can talk about the conditions of of

[31:43] occupancy. So, uh we'll open discussion up to commissioners. You have any

[31:47] comments? Commissioner Humphre. >> Mr. Chair, yes, I have no problem with

[31:50] this project at all. I just want to make sure that we add the sunset clause for

[31:55] if the business goes out of business or moves that another business that might

[31:59] qualify for a conditional use permit would at that point in time have to come

[32:03] before the commission again, whether that's 5 years or 20 years, etc. I don't

[32:07] want a soft zoning change permanently in any area with a conditional use permit.

[32:12] If we can have the sunset clause, I'm good with everything.

[32:15] » Okay. Any other comments from commissioners?

[32:18] » I'm just wondering what the norm is on something like that. So, if we do do a

[32:21] conditional use permit and a company goes out of business, does it

[32:24] automatically sunset or is that something we have to put in here?

[32:28] » Well, we have to add it. The conditional use permit is permanent.

[32:34] » So, it's permanent to the building, not the company.

[32:37] » Correct. >> Oh, okay.

[32:39] » So, we're getting uh planning that barn. You shaking your head? Yes.

[32:43] » Yeah, that's correct. the conditional use permit uh is goes to the use and not

[32:47] to the particular >> owner tenant or stuff. So yeah, it

[32:51] passes on >> and it's my request that we don't do

[32:54] soft zoning changes that don't go through everyone else's permission

[32:58] without >> creating a sunset clause.

[33:00] » Yeah, >> we are changing the traditional use of a

[33:03] space. We don't want to do that permanently anymore.

[33:07] » Just add that. >> Uh any other comments?

[33:14] Um, chair is I mean yeah with uh I mean with legal that that's is that fine to

[33:21] that's a fair condition to add. >> Yeah, you can add that.

[33:27] » We did to the church. >> We did do the last one in our last

[33:30] meeting. So we're being consistent with what we've kind of decided to try to do

[33:33] moving forward. Correct. >> Right.

[33:34] » Which is why you bring it up. >> Yes, sir. That's why I brought it up

[33:37] because we did that on the >> I can't remember the name of the

[33:40] business but the church on the church. >> Yeah. Yeah. What's the process for the

[33:44] new owner to rem remove the conditional use?

[33:49] » It just happens automatically and they would have to revert to the existing the

[33:53] original use. And if someone wants a different use, they'd have to apply for

[33:57] a new conditional permit at that time. >> The use would continue and unless it was

[34:04] discontinued for more than a year, then the conditional use would be lost. Mhm.

[34:10] So, >> so what are some of the

[34:13] conditions for revoking the permit if if um if a neighbor, let's say the owner or

[34:21] the um the owner started parking the vehicles

[34:27] and machinery outside, would that that would be detrimental to the

[34:34] or they started um doing service on the vehicles outside then that would be

[34:39] detrimental to the um property and that would be a cause for revoking

[34:46] the conditional use permit. >> If they violate any of the conditions on

[34:50] that conditional use permit then yes it can be brought before the administration

[34:54] can bring it before the the commission for review of the of the conditions and

[35:00] potential revocation of that uh per the conditional use permit.

[35:04] » Thank you sir. And the conditions include

[35:09] um no no parking out I mean no uh machinery outside and everything going

[35:14] on inside. Those are part of the conditions.

[35:17] » If those are the conditions listed on the permit, that is correct. And so if

[35:20] they violate though any one of those conditions, it can be brought before the

[35:23] before the planning commission for review and potential revocation.

[35:28] » James, would that come through code enforcement? they'd ex you know when if

[35:31] a complaint was called in it would be investigated kind of by them and then or

[35:35] how would that how would we come to know that

[35:37] » typically it would come through the community and economic development

[35:39] department probably that the director but uh you know if it comes through code

[35:43] enforcement if even if it's mentioned to planning so to to Joe Barton they could

[35:47] actually discuss it with the community economic development director and he

[35:51] would probably be the one to to put it on the agenda.

[35:53] » Okay that's your question commissioner.

[35:57] » Thank you. >> Okay. Uh any other uh comments or

[36:01] questions or discussion?

[36:06] » Any from commissioners online? >> No.

[36:13] » No. >> Okay.

[36:16] Well, someone want to make a motion?

[36:21] » Sure, I'll try. >> Okay. I make a motion that the

[36:25] conditional use permit for contractor services at 121 North 830 West be

[36:31] approved um with staff conditions as written and

[36:36] one modification that should the business cease or move from the location

[36:41] that the conditional use permit would sunset and revert to its original zoning

[36:47] requirements. >> Okay. friendly addition to include the

[36:52] findings that meets the cup criteria under OMC 1574 subject to conditions and

[36:58] it's consistent with the general plan and defense depot district plan.

[37:02] » Okay, >> perfect. Thank you.

[37:04] » So, is that a second? >> Uh I will second.

[37:07] » Okay, so we have a motion by Commissioner Humphre and a second by

[37:10] Commissioner Shinoda. This roll call vote. Miss Pagano.

[37:14] » Commissioner Amadov. >> Yes.

[37:16] » Commissioner Humphre >> I. Commissioner Sandow,

[37:20] » yes. >> Commissioner Southwick,

[37:23] » yes. >> Commissioner Williams,

[37:26] » yes. >> Chair Ross,

[37:30] » yes. Uh, that passes. So, uh, let's see. I guess that is the final on that one.

[37:37] So, good luck. >> Thank you, Commissioner.

[37:39] » You're online. >> All right. All right, we'll move on to

[37:41] item three of the agenda, exterior materials review, uh, metal building,

[37:47] uh, 102 Century Drive. Um, do we want to hear from the is the petitioner here?

[37:53] Uh, Teresa Roberts, if you'd like to say something before staff.

[37:58] » Uh, she's online, so I will give her permission to talk here.

[38:04] » Hello. Um, it's pretty, this is a pretty simple

[38:09] one. Um the code is requires um 60 well first of all it doesn't allow metal

[38:18] buildings. Um and then there is an exception if we do 60% glazing on

[38:27] the front of the building. Um but the we're we're building a post frame

[38:32] construction building and there's just engineering wise is no way to do 60%

[38:37] glazing on the front of the building. Um the existing building is metal with a

[38:43] about 4 foot uh I think it's brick Wayne's coat. Um

[38:49] and so that's what we plan to do for this this uh proposed building as well.

[38:54] Um that's what we're proposing is doing a a 4ft um brick or rock ways coat to

[38:59] match the other building with metal. Um besides that and then also we will be uh

[39:07] adding some glass to the overhead doors and the man door to meet the 20% glazing

[39:14] requirement. Um and then we also did add a a gabled porch on the front to meet

[39:20] the um varying depths requirement. The only one we couldn't meet was the

[39:26] building has staggered roof line heights along with flat cornises. um the you

[39:30] know the there's only the one roof line so we we couldn't meet that requirement

[39:34] but we did were able to meet the rest of them

[39:38] and yeah I think that's it on my end. >> All right thank you Miss Roberts I will

[39:44] now we'll hear from Miss Thomas from staff and

[39:47] » thank you good evening um so this is an exterior materials review for a metal

[39:52] building at um with or sorry on Century Drive. These are the three factors for

[39:59] consideration that we'll be discussing. Um, like the applicant has stated, metal

[40:04] buildings are not permitted in our commercial zones with the exception of

[40:08] if you are in our regional commercial district or our C3 zoning district. You

[40:13] can have a metal building if it has 60% glazing on the front facade. If so, if

[40:19] it meets those two, then it is permitted. If it doesn't meet the

[40:23] glazing requirement, then it can come before the planning commission to um be

[40:29] reviewed with different requirements. And that's what the applicant is here

[40:33] today to discuss. Uh just a site plan of their proposed

[40:39] uh new building with their parking um and the existing building.

[40:46] Um, so I just wanted to show an aerial image

[40:50] of the site. Um, there is a metal building that uh fronts Century Drive

[40:58] currently. Um, and then the rear portion of the parcel is not been developed. Uh,

[41:04] with this addition of the metal building, the entire site will be

[41:07] brought up into current code compliance.

[41:12] Uh so back to our factors for consideration. The first one is twofold.

[41:16] Uh the front facade has to have at least 20% glazing and two or more exterior

[41:20] materials. So as the applicant has stated, they meet that 20% requirement.

[41:25] Actually exceed it. Um with the doors and the the front door um sorry the

[41:32] overhead doors and the front door. Uh they've also got uh four feet of stone

[41:37] um that comes up from the base of the project and then the steel walls meeting

[41:43] that those two exterior materials requirement. Uh I'm going to skip two

[41:48] and go to three, the varied building depths. Um this is specific to the front

[41:53] facade, not the entire building. So they do meet that with their porch feature um

[41:58] on the front of the building. And then back to two, this is the only one that

[42:02] they didn't meet with their proposal. Um there is just that 412 pitched roof. Um

[42:09] there's no flat sections or varying heights. Um

[42:14] but the applicant is requesting an appeal to the planning commission under

[42:18] the provision title 15 chapter 4 section 5J2C

[42:24] um to uh to seek flexibility from this

[42:29] requirement um rather than modifying the proposed building. So planning or sorry

[42:35] staff believes that um this would not impact the compatibility

[42:40] um or this would still be compatible with the area. Uh it is also behind the

[42:45] existing building. So there's not a lot of visibility and it does meet all other

[42:51] requirements that we've set forth. So we are okay if you are okay with granting

[42:56] flexibility on that second uh item. And then this is the staff recommended

[43:03] action um to approve the alternate exterior materials um finding that or

[43:09] sorry following our staff conditions of final site plan approval and obtaining

[43:14] all building permits for the project. >> Okay, thank you. Um before we go to

[43:20] staff comments, is there anybody here in the audience or online that would like

[43:24] to have anything to say in regards to this?

[43:27] If you do, please state your name, your address, and uh keep your remarks to

[43:30] three minutes, please. So,

[43:35] » no one online. >> Not seeing none. Uh we'll come back to

[43:39] the commission uh for discussion. >> I don't have a problem.

[43:44] » I like this project. I'm good with it. >> All right. Uh any comments online from

[43:50] Commissioner Williams or Southwick? >> No comment from me.

[43:54] » Done. >> Okay. Thank you.

[43:56] » I have one question. If we >> recommend this based on the current

[44:00] setup, that will allow them to not meet the roof requirement. Correct.

[44:05] » That's correct. >> Okay. Perfect. Like I don't want to have

[44:07] to amend it again. >> Yeah. Thank you for clarifying.

[44:10] » Wonderful. All right. Can I get a motion?

[44:13] » I can do a motion. find that the proposed use of new

[44:18] architectural metal as the primary exterior surface material is compatible

[44:22] with the area and approve the alternate exterior materials for a metal building

[44:26] in the C3 zone subject to the following staff conditions. One, obtain final site

[44:30] plan approval. Two, obtain all required building permits for the proposed

[44:34] building. And I keep forgetting to put the address on there. This is for

[44:38] exterior materials review metal building in the C3 zone at 102 Century Drive.

[44:44] Second. >> All right, we got a motion by

[44:47] Commissioner Sandow and a second by Commissioner Humphre. Roll call vote.

[44:51] Miss Pagano. >> Commissioner Almadov.

[44:55] » Yes. >> Commissioner Humphre.

[44:57] » I. >> Commissioner Sandow.

[44:59] » Yes. >> Commissioner Southwick.

[45:02] » Yes. >> Commissioner Williams.

[45:06] » Yes. >> Chair Ross?

[45:08] » Yes. >> Can you get my vote, please?

[45:10] » Oh. >> Oh, sorry. [laughter]

[45:13] Commissioner Shinoda >> I and also I on the last vote.

[45:17] » Oh, did we miss you on that one, too? Sorry. You should have spoke up sooner.

[45:21] Uh well, that passes. Uh uh we wish you well on your project uh for the

[45:27] petitioner and that is a final decision. So, good luck on that. So, we'll move on

[45:32] to item number four, preliminary sub subdivision modification, Kelly Court

[45:36] and 1425 Kingston Drive. Uh if the petitioner's here, Mr. Canon, you want

[45:42] to come forward and tell us a little bit about your project?

[45:47] » Um, Mr. Vice Chair, I think before then I think uh Mr. Southwick would like to

[45:53] recuse himself. Is that right? >> Yes, I'm a partner in the project. So, I

[46:00] will not be uh uh voting or participating in the discussion on this.

[46:05] » All right. Thank you. Please note that in the minutes.

[46:08] All right. Hi again. >> My name is Gary Cannon.

[46:13] I live at 1397 West 13400 South in Riverton, Utah. Uh, first I'd like to

[46:22] thank you and tell you how much that I appreciate your service to Ogden City.

[46:28] I'm also an eighth term planning commissioner in the city of Riverton.

[46:32] So, I understand the commitment that you all make and it does not go unnoticed.

[46:36] Trust me. And I know you don't hear that enough.

[46:39] Um, I I what's been so great the last couple years, this is the second

[46:43] subdivision that I've been fortunate enough to and I I'm I'm going to try to

[46:48] condense this as much as I can. This second subdivision that we've been

[46:51] involved with in Ogden and I've been very impressed with

[46:55] uh the quality from the admin to to going through the process. So, I I just

[47:01] want to tell you that we just had an interesting situation last week in

[47:05] Riverton where uh um car dealer wanted to set up a a

[47:11] dealership and we had we have restrictions for for the zoning that

[47:14] they wanted to go in and thought it was odd that the you know dealerships are

[47:19] generally based on um visual being able to see the vehicles

[47:25] and traffic count and for whatever we've never approved one in Riverton before

[47:29] but for whatever reason the zoning that it sat in had

[47:34] a lot of vegetation and trees and shrubs out on the main street. And I questioned

[47:39] that because there's these business models that have been successful over

[47:44] the years. And I don't think it's always the right thing for us trying to change

[47:50] a successful business model. And when you think of a car dealership, you don't

[47:54] think of trees and shrubs in front of it. You want to be able the visibility

[47:57] of the cars. I want to point something that hits home for you. We're fortunate

[48:02] to have I think the first Warren's uh restaurant in Salt Lake County, which

[48:07] I know is a very successful uh restaurant up here. And I I frequented

[48:13] it two or three times a week for breakfast. It was I can say my favorite

[48:16] restaurant. I got to know the employees there. And I watched the traffic count

[48:20] or the the number of people go down and down. I says about Trauma Shields,

[48:25] people don't know we're here. and they're on a busy road. They're on 114

[48:30] south across the street from the district, but they're about 60 ft off of

[48:34] the main road. And that and it wasn't in Riverton. It was in South Jordan. And

[48:38] the signage was so small that I felt like a a business model like that

[48:44] deserves every opportunity to be successful. And when we in the

[48:50] government side of things try to come in and change change those things,

[48:54] sometimes doesn't always work the best. So, I applaud listening to you tonight.

[48:57] I love the fact that you asked the commissioners who' voted nay why. I've

[49:02] never in a years I've never been asked why I voted nay. And uh I think that's

[49:06] good for the applicant to hear. So when if they do if and when they do come back

[49:10] but anyway that's all I have to say about that.

[49:13] » Okay. Yeah. We're here to hear about your project.

[49:15] » Yeah. But I just want Thank you. Thank you for letting me give you those three

[49:18] or four minutes. Um is there a picture of that up Joe?

[49:24] Anywhere? Yeah, I'm sorry. Um, while you're doing

[49:29] that, sadly, this is um we started this

[49:35] project over a year ago and and I I I know it, but I'm going to read it. This

[49:42] is this was our original design, but based on the moratorum on Poke, we moved

[49:48] the culde-sac to the entrance down on Kingston. Uh when we originally started

[49:53] this design, we had 11 lots. If you look at it this evening, we are down to nine.

[49:59] This isn't the most economical thing to do when developing a subdivision is

[50:03] reduce your density. Um I really wasn't happy about moving it to

[50:11] Kingston, but the logistics, what I didn't like was the fact that it had a

[50:16] negative flow or it had a flow running down onto Kingston. And with the the

[50:21] weather we've had lately, I can see why rules like that are in place because if

[50:26] if we had a torrential downpour like that, the storm rains wouldn't be able

[50:28] to handle that. And it would hit the street, but it may also go to the

[50:31] neighbors to the north. So I sadly in a year it's taken to get

[50:38] to this point now, we don't have a moratorium on Poke anymore. We can't put

[50:41] the entrance out on there, but it's cost us um

[50:45] couple lots. Um, another reason we had to move it, there's a major power line

[50:50] that runs through the property. When we originally started at the project, the

[50:56] Rocky Mountain Power, the person we dealt with said it was going to be okay.

[51:00] We could put it underground. That person has since retired, I believe. And uh, so

[51:06] we came back to this this design, which I like better. Anyway, a lot has

[51:11] happened in a year. We paid interest on a million dollars. We have downsized the

[51:15] plat to nine lots. cost have increased almost 10% and most sadly our

[51:20] underground excavator who is my best friend passed away a few months ago. So

[51:24] we're coming to you. This is one of the few project in my I've been in the real

[51:27] estate industry 42 years. This is one of the few projects where we actually had

[51:32] and a lot of you know this already. We actually had a lot of the neighborhoods

[51:35] show up and welcome this project into their

[51:39] neighborhood. This is an old LDS church site. Um not a lot of crazy things you

[51:45] can do on it. Um, we've been we've done the best we could with what we had. Um,

[51:49] and I'm open for any questions you may have.

[51:52] » I have one question and I I we we went and visited this site again today. Uh,

[51:56] second time we did that. We did it last time you were here with the public

[52:00] hearing and >> I remember with you downsizing the lots.

[52:03] Remember part big part of the discussion had to do with the size of those lots.

[52:07] Did as you downsized, did any of the other slots increase in size as far as

[52:11] like square footage wise or did it mostly downsize to because of your

[52:16] limited with the power poles and that on that side?

[52:19] » Overall, I would guess that and I I'm not Yes, they went up. I don't know how

[52:25] much. >> Okay.

[52:26] » But all of I don't want to say every one of them went up in size, but

[52:29] cumulatively we have more square footage in the lots now than we did on the last

[52:34] time we were here. >> Okay. Thank you. Is that correct, Joel?

[52:36] Have you had a chance to look at it? I couldn't tell you the exact number, but

[52:41] » I just remember there was a lot of public that they were just a little

[52:44] small and they some of them wanted and but I mean I mean it was great project.

[52:48] So, >> thank you.

[52:49] » But yeah. All right. Any questions for the

[52:54] » petitioner from question? >> Um my only concern would be that part

[52:59] that's connected to lot nine >> and that turning into

[53:04] » I don't know an eyesore because it's not being taken care of well that is a lot

[53:07] of land. Do we have any thoughts on how that could add to the community instead

[53:13] of just be dead space there? I would love to find another option for

[53:20] that. And and we went back and forth on do we turn it into a retention basin? Do

[53:27] we just zerocape it, but then you then we deal with the maintenance that's

[53:31] involved in it. We thought about maybe moving the road a little bit to the

[53:34] south and move but then it in interferes with the power line running on the north

[53:39] end north property line of Cali Court. So if if we can come up with something

[53:44] as we're moving along, we would love to come up with another option than than

[53:48] giving it to that because I don't know I don't I don't place a lot of value in

[53:52] that either. We just don't have a lot of options.

[53:56] » Have you contact the the homeowners to the south and see if they would want to

[54:00] expand their just a question. >> No, it's a very good question. The

[54:04] elevation change there is about probably three to five feet.

[54:07] » I noticed that there's good painting wall there. We we would give it to them

[54:11] if they would accept it. I just I don't it's so narrow and it's such a I don't

[54:15] know what kind of value they would get out. It might end up being worse because

[54:18] if they used it as an RV park or storage or I mean there's but we're open if we

[54:24] could find something better. We went we went around and around on what to do

[54:27] with it and that that was the best solution that we came up with.

[54:32] » What about some kind of an HOA where you could have a park there?

[54:37] It wouldn't be that much to maintain and then it would be the responsibility of

[54:40] the whole >> certainly up for that. I mean the the

[54:44] dirty word right now is HOA and for that small though.

[54:49] » Yeah. That small of a space. It might be a good little pocket park or dog park or

[54:52] something for the entire community. Very open to that idea. Thank you.

[54:56] » So >> we would not look down on that.

[54:59] » City doesn't want to take it. >> City too long. Maintenance is long.

[55:03] [laughter] All right. Any other uh comment or questions for the petitioner

[55:08] from the commissioners? >> All right. Hearing none, uh we'll go

[55:13] ahead and hear from Miss Patrick [clears throat] staff.

[55:16] » Thank you very much. >> Thank you.

[55:21] » Hello, commissioners. Good to see you. This is for amending the preliminary

[55:27] subdivision for a nine single family lot subdivision located in the R18 zone

[55:34] called Cali Court located at 1425 Kingston Drive.

[55:40] So this property consists of about 2 point uh.24 of an acre or 106,000 square

[55:50] ft. This is located in the Mount Ogden Community Plan and this is where it's

[55:57] located. The applicant is proposing to amend the

[56:01] Kelly Court subdivision to a nine single family home subdivision in the R18.

[56:08] Ogden Municipal Code 1425 states that any time after pre

[56:14] preliminary subdivision plan approval or and before the submission of the final

[56:19] plat, the applicant may request that an amendment be made.

[56:25] So it could either be a minor amendment or a major amendment. In this case, this

[56:30] is a major amendment. uh a total redesign of the original plat.

[56:38] The criteria are the same in this case. The we review the preliminary

[56:45] subdivision on the same criteria as we did before.

[56:49] Uh the applicant may not propose more than two amendments uh whether ma minor

[56:56] or major to any preliminary subdivision plan. So, this will be the first of and

[57:03] hopefully the only as the applicant stated this was the

[57:08] former location of the LDS church. The property and some of the surrounding

[57:13] properties will make up the nine lots. This area was reszoned uh to R18

[57:20] December 3rd at 2025. The first preliminary subdivision for

[57:26] Cali Court was s was arranged in this manner with the c with a culde-sac

[57:32] coming off of Kingston Drive. Uh this was approved April 1st of 2026.

[57:40] There is a main power line that was going to be relocated, but Rocky

[57:45] Mountain Power has determined that this is not economically feasible and cannot

[57:49] be removed or moved.

[57:54] So when we're looking at the factors for consideration of action, we want to look

[57:59] at is the design of the preliminary subdivision in relationship to streets,

[58:06] lots, units, and other design factors, are they in in harmony with the intent

[58:11] of the applicable zoning regulations? This is a picture of the power lines

[58:18] that were supposed to be moved or relocated or buried. Uh

[58:24] this is no longer the case. So as you can see those there's quite a few power

[58:31] lines that run through that easement. That picture to the lower right is where

[58:36] the Utah Power Line or Rocky Mountain Power Line easement runs. So this runs

[58:41] east and west.

[58:46] Uh the as far as the factors for consideration

[58:52] of action, the the burden of potential

[58:58] of the of lot 9 could be potentially a lot. Uh that would be more maintenance

[59:04] for the homeowner. it would um create unusable land

[59:13] that's attached to lot nine. So that could be a potential future

[59:20] property owner burden that might have to be rethought.

[59:25] This is the previously approved on the left and the modified subdivision on the

[59:31] right. When we look at the second of the

[59:36] criteria, the proposed subdivision will not result

[59:41] in scattered subdivision of land that leaves undeveloped parcels. So if the

[59:49] if lot 9 were to be subdivided in a traditional way, it would leave a

[59:55] remnant piece of land. And that's represented in the split lot with the

[1:00:00] orange being lot nine and the leftover uh remnant parcel.

[1:00:08] So the applicant has decided to include that in lot 9.

[1:00:15] While the current configuration of lot 9 is really not preferred, an alternative

[1:00:22] solution has not has yet to be identified

[1:00:26] due to the existing power line to uh easement that cannot be relocated.

[1:00:35] When we're looking at the third of the criteria that we need to consider is the

[1:00:40] subdivision provides for streets, utilities, and other improvements

[1:00:44] identified in the general plan. The general plan found in 14.J of the

[1:00:51] Mount Ogden Community Plan. In the community comment section of this plan,

[1:00:57] the community had concerns about public infrastructure and services. Cali Court

[1:01:03] subdivision will accommodate this future growth without sacrificing public

[1:01:08] infrastructure and services to the area. Staff recommends approval of the

[1:01:15] proposed subdivision, finding that the subdivision complies with preliminary

[1:01:19] subdivision requirements for zoning and utilities. It doesn't create scattered

[1:01:24] tracks of land without utilities. It provides for streets, utilities, and

[1:01:30] other improvements identified in the general plan on the following

[1:01:34] conditions. List the addresses on the subdivision dedication plat for each

[1:01:38] lot. Show the distance of Cali Court intersection in relation to Kingston

[1:01:44] Drive and 36 Street. Address the plaque corrections listed from legal on the

[1:01:50] correction report and address utility corrections listed on the correction

[1:01:55] report. Do you have any questions?

[1:01:59] » Yeah, Commissioner, >> I have a question.

[1:02:01] » Commissioner Cinda, >> I know I'm not a planner, but I just

[1:02:04] have a question of what if we went off 36 Street, that was the road, and then

[1:02:10] that became lot nine where the road is, and then you wouldn't have that parcel

[1:02:13] of land sticking out there. Is that even an option?

[1:02:17] » I think due to topography it may not be because it is um at a higher elevation

[1:02:25] than the rest of the parcel. >> So it would have to go down into the

[1:02:28] culde-sac. It would have drainage issues >> and that's not allowed.

[1:02:33] » Okay. All right.

[1:02:36] Any other commission? Commissioners, you have any other questions for Miss

[1:02:39] Patrick?

[1:02:43] » Yeah. Um, for that lot nine, I don't know if it

[1:02:46] was already addressed, which where would the be fronting?

[1:02:50] » Would it be fronting? >> It would front off the Cali Courtack.

[1:02:54] » So then the properties adjacent to it facing 36th Street. So its back would be

[1:03:00] so it'd be kind of flipped from the >> It'd be kind of double fronted.

[1:03:06] » I believe that's right. >> Is it?

[1:03:09] » I think you do either. I think it would be property owner choice.

[1:03:21] » Yeah. Okay. [clears throat] Interesting.

[1:03:26] Any other questions from commissioners?

[1:03:32] All right. Miss Patrick, this is not a public hearing, but does anybody in the

[1:03:36] public want to speak on this project? And if so, uh, you come up. Please state

[1:03:40] your name, your your address. You have three minutes. Uh

[1:03:45] » Steve Van Wagner, I live over in this neighborhood. I am I love the proposal.

[1:03:52] I please urge you all to vote yes. this has been sitting there vacant since the

[1:03:57] church came down and this uh project moving something forward uh for that

[1:04:03] portion of land uh would be great for our community and um uh having some more

[1:04:08] neighbors uh nearby that would be great as well. Thank you.

[1:04:12] » Thank you.

[1:04:17] » All right, seeing none other we'll come back to the commission for discussion.

[1:04:20] Any other questions or thoughts or My only thought is that sliver of land

[1:04:26] and what options we have here. I love everything else about it.

[1:04:31] » They're kind of stuck. I don't know what you have.

[1:04:33] » I I think the idea of a potential HOA space there makes the most sense

[1:04:39] » in order to make that a usable spot. >> Uh question for staff. If they were to

[1:04:45] choose to do that, would that modification be considered significant

[1:04:49] enough it would have to come back or would that be considered minor and it

[1:04:52] could just be handled inhouse?

[1:04:59] I would say that that would maybe put that more into the realm of a

[1:05:05] private subdivision because you would have to have an HOA.

[1:05:08] » Yeah. >> So, it would change.

[1:05:15] » I have a comment. HOAs are very unpopular with the public. I think it

[1:05:21] would be >> Yeah. Uh, I think it would be a problem

[1:05:24] to have the developer turn this into an HOA. I think we could maybe find a

[1:05:29] better solution. I think somebody asked, do the owners to the south, would they

[1:05:34] like to have that property added to their current property? Is do we need to

[1:05:40] solve that today before we can vote on this?

[1:05:44] » And James, can we can we ask that? I mean, but that's kind of outside our

[1:05:48] realm if I'm right, but can we ask that as a

[1:05:53] » I don't think we can make it a requirement.

[1:05:55] » Yeah, >> because I mean your your job is to is to

[1:06:00] look at it and see if it's approvable within the current land use regulations.

[1:06:06] Um, it's not really to design and figure out what to do with certain remnant

[1:06:11] parcels. >> Can we can we impose an that they do an

[1:06:14] HOA? That's falls in the same realm, right?

[1:06:18] » We can't require an HOA, not unless it is truly a private subdivision.

[1:06:21] » Thank you. >> Can we put a condition work with staff

[1:06:24] on a plan for it? >> Landscaping plan maybe

[1:06:30] » so at least starts manageable. They don't have to come in and at least

[1:06:34] landscape it because that's the hardest, most expensive part.

[1:06:38] » Yeah. I don't see why we couldn't have a [clears throat] condition to work with

[1:06:41] staff on that piece. um understanding that if something major has to has to

[1:06:47] happen, it may have to come back. >> Okay. I'm gonna I know the petitioner

[1:06:52] would like to say I'm gonna invite you back up just one. I would like to hear

[1:06:55] what you have to say because we've offered kind of a lot of

[1:06:57] » Thank you. I appreciate all of them. Um it is not below me to go to that

[1:07:03] property owner and ask him if he wants the ground. I with zero expense. I worry

[1:07:09] about the integrity of what it may do to the subdivision if he's given that

[1:07:15] ground and doesn't >> what he does with it. Correct.

[1:07:17] » Yeah. Yeah. So, I would like some conditions put on that if he was to

[1:07:21] accept and it might be a great might be great people. I don't know. But I I

[1:07:25] worry about that. >> Yeah. And future future people that own

[1:07:28] it too. Correct. >> Yeah. Could we do that, James?

[1:07:31] If that property owner does accept that piece of property and he doesn't

[1:07:35] maintain it, that is a property maintenance violation and code

[1:07:37] enforcement would take care of that. >> But again, that falls in the

[1:07:41] » but that would fall in after it was a mess. Correct.

[1:07:44] » I think the owners of the property doing the subdivision would prefer it didn't

[1:07:48] become a mess to begin with. >> Yeah.

[1:07:50] » And again, that's not what our decision. So,

[1:07:53] » all right. Any other >> I'm okay with it.

[1:07:56] » Everybody good? >> I can make a motion.

[1:07:58] » Okay. Go ahead, Commissioner Sheno. regarding preliminary subdivision

[1:08:02] modification for nine single family lots in the R18 zone called Cali Court

[1:08:07] located at 1425 Kingston Drive finding that the subdivision complies with

[1:08:12] preliminary subdivision requirements for zoning and utilities does not create

[1:08:15] scattered tracks of land without utilities and provides streets utilities

[1:08:19] and other improvements identified in the general plan.

[1:08:22] I move to approve the [clears throat] proposed subdivision with the following

[1:08:27] conditions. List the addresses on the subdivision dedication plat for each

[1:08:31] lot. Two, show the distance of Cali Court intersection in relation to

[1:08:36] Kingston Drive and from 36th Street. Three, address the plat corrections

[1:08:41] listed from legal on the correction report. And four, address utility

[1:08:45] corrections listed on the correction report.

[1:08:52] » Second. >> Okay, we have a motion by Commissioner

[1:08:54] Shinoda and a second by Commissioner Sandow. It's roll call vault. Miss

[1:08:58] Piano. >> Commissioner Amado.

[1:09:01] » Yes. >> Commissioner Humphre.

[1:09:04] » I. >> Commissioner Sando.

[1:09:06] » Yes. >> Commissioner South. No. Commissioner

[1:09:10] Williams. >> Yes.

[1:09:12] » Commissioner Shenoda. >> Yes.

[1:09:15] » Chair Ross. >> Yes.

[1:09:17] That passes. So that's the final decision. Good luck on your project and

[1:09:20] moving forward. Um all right. We'll move on to item five of the agenda. the

[1:09:25] Jefferson Junction development at 2731 Jefferson Avenues. And there is two

[1:09:31] parts to this, a preliminary group dwelling and a preliminary private

[1:09:34] subdivision. Um will uh if the petitioners here,

[1:09:40] Jonathan Shaw, you can come forward and tell us a little bit about your project

[1:09:43] before staff does a report.

[1:09:53] Well, thanks for your guys' time today and we appreciate you coming forth and

[1:09:57] helping us get this project together. So, we're working through the 26 town

[1:10:01] houses we're proposing here for a private subdivision in [clears throat]

[1:10:06] in the Jefferson district between 27th and 28th. I don't know if you guys have

[1:10:10] seen the property. It it we feel that it will drastically help because a lot of

[1:10:15] the homeowners around us have actually come to us say we're excited because

[1:10:18] they have a lot of homeless people that kind of just trash the area and

[1:10:22] everything. So, we're excited to bring some home ownership in there and clean

[1:10:26] up the area for sure. So, and we're working through all the the red lines

[1:10:29] and everything with Joe and his team. So, yeah. So, thank you guys for your

[1:10:33] time. >> I [clears throat] thank you. We did

[1:10:34] drive by your place today also and took a look so we could have fresh eyes on

[1:10:38] it, too. So, thank you. All right, Mr. Simpson. Well, before you sit down, is

[1:10:42] there any questions commissioners have for the petitioner? All right, seeing

[1:10:46] none, uh, we'll let you have a seat. And >> Joe, you're up.

[1:10:52] » Thank you, chair, members of the commission. It's good to be with you

[1:10:55] tonight with this item. Um, is chair mentioned, this is a there's two

[1:11:03] applications that have come in with this proposal. includes a preliminary group

[1:11:08] dwelling approval as well as a subdivision plat that was submit at the

[1:11:13] same time. And I believe the intent was and the hope was um from Mr. Shaw and

[1:11:20] his team that we could have had a a great project that could get preliminary

[1:11:25] and final group dwelling approval together, which is an option that can

[1:11:30] occur on um lots this size being under 2 acres is 1.32 acres. and then look at

[1:11:37] the subdivision plat. So, I'm all about efficiency and doing things all at once,

[1:11:42] but um we'll dig into the preliminary. We need to make sure we're to that

[1:11:48] point. And so, I'll we'll dig into it now. But, um just to give some

[1:11:52] perspective of of the site and what we're dealing with, it is a a kind of an

[1:11:59] L-shaped lot, a larger flag lot, I should say. It's got a lot of um street

[1:12:04] frontage. um but uh has a significant amount of topography does slope um

[1:12:12] around from the north downwards to the south uh towards 28th Street. Um

[1:12:20] the uh property has been vacant for quite some time. Um it is in the east

[1:12:27] central area. The proposal is to do um single family row housing and though the

[1:12:33] zoning doesn't require subdividing for individual ownership, the request is to

[1:12:40] plat it for individual unit ownership with the town homes. So that is their

[1:12:46] own free will and choice to do so. Um this is a good look at the uh the

[1:12:52] property. some of those we were on the tour. We did go and see um it drops

[1:12:59] quite a bit down from Jefferson and then slopes even further down to south.

[1:13:07] » Um it is all one solid piece of property. Um so

[1:13:12] technically again no subdivision would be required but um we are grateful that

[1:13:18] um ownership um home ownership opportunities are being considered with

[1:13:23] this project by the applicant. Um

[1:13:28] this showing the existing site the topography you can see how drastic that

[1:13:34] is um off of Jefferson. There are some um larger trees on the property as well.

[1:13:40] And that's one thing that um was not sufficiently staff's not sufficiently

[1:13:47] addressed with the application is those existing trees and how they might be

[1:13:53] incorporated into the design of the project. And so um that would be one of

[1:14:00] the conditions staff would recommend um is that we have that uh detailed tree

[1:14:06] preservation plan identifying existing trees, their conditions and um

[1:14:14] see if if they are significant and can be preserved with the development.

[1:14:20] Um this is showing the site layout. As we can see, there's multiple town home

[1:14:25] buildings being proposed, access coming directly off of Jefferson with a

[1:14:30] hammerhead turnaround um in two locations, one at the very

[1:14:36] south end and one at the north end um to meet fire um access requirements.

[1:14:44] Um there is fencing shown um though the details of the fencing have not been

[1:14:49] provided. Due to the topography, there is quite a few uh retaining walls that

[1:14:54] would be done on the site which would include fencing on them. And our code is

[1:14:59] kind of unique in uh fencing on retaining walls where technically half

[1:15:05] of the retaining wall height is counted towards the the fence height. Um, of

[1:15:13] course, if you have a five- foot fence or five foot retain wall, we don't want

[1:15:17] a one- foot fence on top of the retain wall. So, a minimum of of four feet. So,

[1:15:23] um, we just want the plan, the plan doesn't clearly identify the type of

[1:15:28] fence, those locations, but the group dwelling code does require,

[1:15:32] um, that that fencing, a six-foot fencing be placed along, um, the

[1:15:38] perimeter of the property excluding the front yard setback, um, which is 20 ft

[1:15:44] from the street, which as noted on this, there's some concerns about that where

[1:15:49] we're showing a 15t setback. um these buildings would need to be shifted

[1:15:54] slightly to meet that 20 foot setback requirement.

[1:15:58] Um additionally um the the project has done good as far as um internal

[1:16:04] sidewalks and crosswalk connections um with all the individual uh front doors

[1:16:11] of the units. However, the code does require those units fronting um the

[1:16:17] public street. So, Jefferson that they have larger sidewalk connections. Those

[1:16:22] are required to be six feet and have direct connections

[1:16:26] um to tie into the neighborhood. Additionally, uh 24T uh driveway widths

[1:16:32] are required um in the development and these are measuring out about 22 feet.

[1:16:38] So, that's something that would need to be increased as well.

[1:16:44] um some of the amenities that have been shown. I know it's really hard to see

[1:16:49] the gazebo elevation, but that was one that was provided on the landscaping

[1:16:53] plan. It discusses a playground and there's um an image showing some of the

[1:17:00] playground, a dog park, and then um it shows some of the the uh the decorative

[1:17:08] uh concrete um crosswalks um that would be put in place um which

[1:17:16] that would meet code. there are um a number of outdoor amenities um um

[1:17:24] requirements that have to be met. Um and so we're we're asking that uh those

[1:17:31] details be provided. There seems to be some inconsistency between the um

[1:17:36] landscaping plan and the site plan as far as you know what those amenities

[1:17:41] are, how they relate to each other. Um and so just having those clarity and

[1:17:47] then of course just meeting those amenity requirements as far as quantity,

[1:17:52] location, and the design that is compatible with the development.

[1:17:58] Um again, we've talked about tree preservation. Uh this is a landscaping

[1:18:03] plan um that kind of outlines um the proposal. Um we we feel um you

[1:18:12] know a lot of this is is has potential you know as far as meeting our code.

[1:18:17] There are some things some that need to be addressed and looked at. Um of course

[1:18:22] trees that could are significant and could be incorporated into the

[1:18:27] development. Also the streetscape the areas along um the sidewalk and the

[1:18:33] street um and incorporating that in the design. And then of course again

[1:18:39] um meeting those outdoor amenity uh requirements on the site. We see on this

[1:18:44] one the landscaping plan shows gazebo. I don't know if this is a gazebo covering

[1:18:50] um the playground or or how that is is functioning. But yeah, just some clarity

[1:18:56] and then you know showing that it meets those requirements. But we feel the

[1:19:00] intent is good as far as centralizing those and and having the access to them.

[1:19:08] Additionally, we need an entry sign for the development off of Jefferson with

[1:19:13] some landscaping around that. So, that is an additional um recommendation.

[1:19:20] Um we've got some good floor plans that have been presented. Um they there are

[1:19:26] some things that the commission consider um when we look at floor plans. Mainly

[1:19:31] we want to see the garages are big enough for the parking

[1:19:36] requirements which um those are being met. Additionally

[1:19:41] um having outlets to support electrical electric vehicle um charging which those

[1:19:47] have been shown on the floor plans washer and dryer hookups. They have all

[1:19:52] that. Um, one thing that isn't being met is it does show uh balconies um with the

[1:20:00] units and 50% of the units are required to have either a balcony or uh a patio

[1:20:06] and there are certain size requirements for balconies. They need to be at least

[1:20:11] 6t deep and 8 ft wide. um they're short on the balconies shown

[1:20:17] on on these plans or we could have um patios that are 100 square feet. And so

[1:20:24] we're we're just saying we need to have this group dwelling requirement met.

[1:20:29] This shows the the design. Um it does um implement a lot of brick with um the

[1:20:38] elevations which is um outlined in the group

[1:20:42] dwelling code as um main material um and particularly needs to be incorporated to

[1:20:49] the top the first level on all sides. And um the buildings for the most part

[1:20:54] meet this. Though there are a few sides where the grade is um at the um the

[1:21:01] heart the siding level or the horizontal planking

[1:21:05] level. And so there would need to be some additional brick on those sides.

[1:21:10] So that was one condition that has been added. Another

[1:21:16] uh concern is dealing with the street presence and I find it interesting as I

[1:21:22] drive through other cities and how new we have you see a lot of town home

[1:21:28] projects going up and a lot of them are really don't pay attention to the

[1:21:34] interaction of this new development and how it uh connects with the public way,

[1:21:41] the street and the neighborhood. Um, and our code really hits hard on this as far

[1:21:47] as creating a front elevation facing the public street. And I um, Greg

[1:21:56] Montgomery, our old plan manager, you always say we don't want the the

[1:22:00] development turning its back on the community. We want it to face and

[1:22:04] interact with the street. And so, a lot of the code language leads to that. Um

[1:22:11] we do show on on this proposal having you know a front entrance but really

[1:22:17] ultimately this this looks like a side of a building and um staff um is

[1:22:24] recommending that conditions look at the design of this and implementing some

[1:22:30] more um front elevation features whether that's bringing roof lines down um or um

[1:22:38] adding additional windows. Um there is a minimum laz uh glazing or glass

[1:22:44] requirement 20% along the main level facing the street which is not being met

[1:22:50] with this design. So we we're in an area that is our east central and we really

[1:22:57] like to see a good design on these front elevations that would um support um the

[1:23:04] neighborhood and and be conducive with it.

[1:23:10] Um the other is not the the group dwelling code requires that all the

[1:23:16] entrances have uh porches and that the buildings incorporate a list of

[1:23:22] architectural elements. There's three of them.

[1:23:26] Three that a minimum that need to be applied to the development

[1:23:31] um which um you know we we feel are missing from these elevation designs.

[1:23:38] So, it's a condition we're recommending that we get these uh get the covered

[1:23:44] porches element and the architectural elements met in the design and really

[1:23:50] kind of look at keen towards um are in east central neighborhood.

[1:23:59] And then lastly, um there was a phototric plan. I'm sure they're meeting

[1:24:04] it, but um it was just not readable um as far as what those uh foot candles or

[1:24:12] lumens are. Um, additionally, we want some details to see. No one ever thinks

[1:24:19] about these things, but AC units and electrical meters and transformers, our

[1:24:25] code um stresses the need to make sure those are not in public view. Um we get

[1:24:31] you have to work with um you know uh Rocky Mountain Power, other utility

[1:24:36] companies, gas companies and being strategic with landscaping, evergreens

[1:24:42] and and fencing and location to provide good screening of that and of course

[1:24:48] having lighting so we don't impact neighboring homes around this project.

[1:24:54] It is somewhat an infill project as there are homes adjacent to the

[1:25:00] development.

[1:25:03] And then lastly, as I talked about the sub private subdivision plat, and there

[1:25:08] is a plat included, and we don't want to discourage this. Of course, we want to

[1:25:13] see the individual units be subdivided for owner occupation rather than rental.

[1:25:21] Um and so

[1:25:25] um but there is concern where going through our subdivision process, it

[1:25:30] seems to be a quicker process than than the site plan. And we want to make sure

[1:25:35] that the layout of the building footprints match the actual site plan,

[1:25:41] which we've got the first step of the preliminary. We feel there's a lot of

[1:25:46] corrections that we want to have addressed and we're recommending to the

[1:25:51] commission that this subdivision be continued um and to come in with the

[1:25:57] final group dwelling review so the layout of the the units in the

[1:26:02] subdivision match the layout of of the site plan.

[1:26:07] So it's always talking about the bad

[1:26:10] things. There are a lot of good things but um we kind of focus on things that

[1:26:14] we want to resolve so we can get the project moving forward and get it

[1:26:18] approved. So um there is quite a list I know 20

[1:26:23] » three items >> three items have a lot to work through.

[1:26:26] » Yeah. >> But uh staff feels that we could get

[1:26:29] there and again this is a preliminary so this is the first step. we would do a

[1:26:33] notice again for final group dwelling and for the subdivision to come back and

[1:26:38] look at it. But there are some things we we feel we could work um with the

[1:26:43] applicant and and get prepared and we just want to list those out for you in

[1:26:48] consideration. So well it gave us plenty to consider. So thank you. So, uh, yeah,

[1:26:54] we did. I mean, when I drove by the this project, you know, I thought I can't I'd

[1:26:59] love to come and see this thing when it's done because I mean there a lot of

[1:27:02] unique challenges with elevation and a lot of things, but what a wonderful

[1:27:06] project if it can go all the way through to finish. So,

[1:27:09] » I have multiple pages of this so you can >> go ahead commissioner.

[1:27:14] » I have a question. Could you go back to slide eight for me?

[1:27:17] » I sure can. Why we number them? >> Yeah. Thank you. Yeah. My biggest

[1:27:22] concern is you're coming off Jefferson Avenue and you've got quite a slope

[1:27:26] there. I worry about unit 18 and 19 being in direct ice during the winter

[1:27:32] and cars going into it. >> Yeah.

[1:27:34] » Just because what is the the slope going to be on this?

[1:27:38] » There are minimum slope um or maximum I should say that can be um applied.

[1:27:45] Generally that's a 10% is the absolute max. Um,

[1:27:50] » well, because a thought that I had, and I love to throw my I have no idea what

[1:27:54] I'm doing in here, but what if the road were to continue on and you were to turn

[1:28:00] 18, 19, and 20 the other direction and that's just a dead-end road so that you

[1:28:06] don't have the possibility of cars going into garages.

[1:28:10] » That's something that could be considered. I know that the layout was

[1:28:14] chosen this way um because every 150 feet the fire marshall turn around and

[1:28:22] so that it's though it looks like it's access to unit 20 it is it does provide

[1:28:27] that but it is also so a fire truck could back into it and turn around. So,

[1:28:32] » what if the road went straight and then they can back this count?

[1:28:38] » Maybe. And that might be something that could be considered

[1:28:41] » because I've seen pictures like this before.

[1:28:44] » Yes. >> Where cars go into houses and where we

[1:28:47] have a slope there. That's something to really consider here.

[1:28:50] » Well, and and challenge too with drainage as well, you know, is

[1:28:55] » your garage all of a sudden fills up with all the water coming down that

[1:28:58] road. So, and I I know the engineers would would be looking into that, but

[1:29:03] those are good suggestions for sure. >> That'll mostly all come to light during

[1:29:08] the private subdivision portion if we were to continue it on. I correct.

[1:29:12] » Well, and yeah, and through the site through the site plan review, which is

[1:29:16] part of this group dwelling review, but no, this is

[1:29:19] » why it's good to get many eyes on it so we can get good feedback and kind of why

[1:29:24] we do a two-step. So, >> this is a preliminary. So this is just

[1:29:28] saying >> that's why it's

[1:29:29] » good idea, right? >> Yes.

[1:29:31] » So yeah. >> And we got to admit this is this is a

[1:29:35] very challenging site to to work with. >> It is.

[1:29:38] » Yeah. All right. Uh any commission any questions for uh Mr. Simpson from the

[1:29:43] commission? >> Yeah. Joe, I've got I've got a couple.

[1:29:47] Um >> kind of had a rude awakening last week.

[1:29:51] I was uh had an appointment over by the by Grand View where we approved that

[1:29:58] project >> there and they've got their first

[1:30:02] buildings look beautiful. first two first two buildings are up and I I don't

[1:30:08] know how that compares to this but the narrowness of the driveway

[1:30:15] and the complete lack of any parking other than inside the garage and no

[1:30:21] parking. I mean, I I was just kind of shocked when I actually looked at that

[1:30:28] versus looking at it when we approved on the plans

[1:30:33] that I think it just I mean the the congestion

[1:30:37] I'm not even sure you could pull an F-150 into into one of the garages with

[1:30:43] the width between the two buildings. So I, you know, contrasting that with some

[1:30:48] of the other things we've approved where there are

[1:30:51] » there is driveway parking >> in addition to

[1:30:56] » what's in the lane there. I question that. I question the slope on this.

[1:31:00] » Sure. >> So I I would say yeah, we we recognize

[1:31:04] they're narrow and we are that's why we're requiring they meet the minimum

[1:31:08] driveway width for code. Um, they also need to meet the code requirement for

[1:31:13] parking, which is the two stalls per unit. Um,

[1:31:17] I know that this has come up of of guest parking requirements. Um, but yeah, that

[1:31:24] is not a not part of our parking code or a code requirement. So,

[1:31:30] » Mr. Chair, >> go ahead. Did did I understand you

[1:31:34] correctly, Joe, that you were thinking even with 23 items that maybe we should

[1:31:38] postpone this a little and narrow that list a little bit before we approve the

[1:31:41] preliminary? >> No, I was say I was saying we should

[1:31:44] continue the subdivision plat. >> Okay.

[1:31:47] » But um we'd be recommending I guess I could jump to our findings. So we we

[1:31:53] feel that we could recommend approval including there is a a driveway

[1:31:58] reduction. Um those and those are really just at the end

[1:32:03] » of the driveways and

[1:32:06] » Okay, then I have a couple more notes. >> Okay,

[1:32:09] » the first is like so many town houses that we've approved and are being built

[1:32:14] everywhere. The front doors are on the back side of the driveways. the

[1:32:18] driveways in the middle of this subdivision, which means that the vast

[1:32:22] majority of the front doors, specifically on the east side of the

[1:32:27] property, are going to step right out six feet in

[1:32:31] front of them. They're going to have a little sidewalk and a wall and a fence,

[1:32:35] and there's nothing else there. I mean, it's just right in front of you, which

[1:32:40] seems counterproductive because that's very usable space that

[1:32:44] could be used for landscaping and other things, but it's just right there. And

[1:32:48] secondarily, those are all houses on the other side. So, on the second floor,

[1:32:52] especially on some of the plans that were submitted for for layout plans, you

[1:32:57] didn't show all of them. You showed a sample of them. Um, in the most cases on

[1:33:01] the second floor, the kitchen's not so bad. But on some of them, it included a

[1:33:05] bathroom on that back wall, which is easily

[1:33:11] you can easily see into a space like that from all those backyards and see

[1:33:15] into the backyards from the bedrooms on the third floor as well as the kitchens

[1:33:19] on the second floor into the backyards of those individuals.

[1:33:23] I'm not as concerned about a bedroom in the sense you use it late at night and

[1:33:26] most people won't be outside but and kitchens aren't usually an issue but a

[1:33:30] bathroom is. And we need to make sure that there's not a lot of uh

[1:33:35] crosscontamination if you understand my meaning in that sense.

[1:33:40] » Uh and I think that's a challenge and I I echo Commissioner Sandal's concern.

[1:33:45] We've seen a number of people who have slid in winter times on roads. And if we

[1:33:50] can find a way to work with the developer and the fire marshall and

[1:33:54] others to address that so we can remove that particular concern and get the

[1:33:59] right kind of curves we need, that would be quite wise. Um because there's been a

[1:34:04] lot of damage that's happened from that kind of material.

[1:34:09] » Chair, I have a question. >> Go ahead, Commissioner Williams.

[1:34:13] um 26 doors seems like a lot in that space. And if we're talking about um the

[1:34:20] drainage right there, would it be possible to

[1:34:24] for for everything to work out with just 24

[1:34:29] doors instead of 26 and just take out 18 and 19? Maybe make that more of like a

[1:34:34] green space if this is going to be a private subdivision. Anyway, Joe, I

[1:34:39] guess the question is for you, Joe, or for the petitioner.

[1:34:43] » I mean, there's nothing in the code that says

[1:34:47] you you can't have less units than what you're allowed. It's a maximum. So, if

[1:34:52] they build less units to to do redesign, that's that's not something that would

[1:34:57] violate code.

[1:35:01] » So, a formality issue here. So, we got two different items here. Is it going to

[1:35:05] be two different action items, motions, or that would be

[1:35:08] » it? It would. Yeah. And I I didn't do a presentation with the subdivision, but I

[1:35:14] did because it's so over overlapping with, you know, us needing to address

[1:35:22] three slides of corrections. So, this would be the recommendation with the

[1:35:26] subdivision. that you know that the subdivision be uh um continued to be

[1:35:33] reviewed with the final group dwelling review. So

[1:35:36] » because I'm going to read the list twice.

[1:35:38] » Well, no, you will just read the list once and then we'd make a vote at the

[1:35:44] end of that and then this one be for the subdivision. So Joe, one last thing then

[1:35:48] I would add is this particular neighborhood has cost restrictions with

[1:35:55] regard to the type of buyers that are going to be looking in the space to

[1:35:58] begin with. And we, one of the things that I noted that I

[1:36:04] checked earlier today on is that the median income for people who live in

[1:36:10] Weber County can't afford the median house in Weber County,

[1:36:16] which means we're turning into a generation of renters instead of

[1:36:19] homeowners. And I would love to see this as a homeowner project like we've done

[1:36:24] so many in the recent weeks, but I also want to make sure that these are

[1:36:29] affordable enough for people to actually buy them.

[1:36:33] So I I get concerned that this has to pencil economically and how the

[1:36:40] developer is going to be able to meet those needs. We'll look at that in the

[1:36:42] final obviously, but I think we have to be a little flexible in certain cases

[1:36:47] with some of the things we're looking at to make sure that it can pencil properly

[1:36:51] and sell in that neighborhood. I mean it is an important issue but I I

[1:36:57] guess what I would go back is you know what the what the findings are that

[1:37:01] we're going to be making today relating to the group dwelling code and standards

[1:37:06] and the findings and com and uh the design of the site and the buildings and

[1:37:11] compatibility. So I that would just be my direction.

[1:37:15] » Yes sir. Thank you. >> I ask another formality. Sorry.

[1:37:19] » Anything. This is what I get to do. So, the first part I notice will be a final

[1:37:23] decision. Uh, but the on the private subdivision would go to the mayor. So,

[1:37:28] we just recommend something the mayor could approve this and it could or how

[1:37:32] does that work? Could we go to the mayor? You know what I'm saying?

[1:37:34] » Well, and I think it and I I have had that thought. My concern is I would

[1:37:40] really like for the commission to see that the plat is matching with a more

[1:37:46] final site plan. It's not as big a deal with lots, you know, where

[1:37:53] » you have a setback and there's there's room to play, but in these private

[1:37:58] subdivisions, those footprints are pretty specific. That's where those

[1:38:02] units are going to go. And it just makes more sense to have that

[1:38:08] » more refined and looked at together by the commission.

[1:38:11] » I guess that's what I'm saying. Would we recommend that it just continue on and

[1:38:15] it's tabled and it doesn't go to the mayor at this point? That's what that's

[1:38:18] why I'm asking. I didn't know if we could do that or if it would go to the

[1:38:21] mayor and he made a decision. We don't get to see it and we don't get a look at

[1:38:25] that. So, >> yeah. No, this so our recommendation

[1:38:28] this is the findings and the motion that we have is, you know, that it it is the

[1:38:33] the private subdivision is subject to change um from conditions from the

[1:38:39] preliminary group review and to uh continue it to come in with the final

[1:38:45] group review. >> Great. Thank you. answer my question.

[1:38:48] » Joe, what's what's our requirement for green landscaping, open space, green

[1:38:53] space? Does this meet this just seems like an awful lot for for that size

[1:38:59] footprint? Yeah. So it require this is a small lot

[1:39:04] group dwelling. So it requires um the setbacks to all be landscaped and then

[1:39:11] it requires a percentage or not a percentage but a square footage based on

[1:39:16] the number of units of gathering area and the those uh uh gathering areas have

[1:39:24] amenities. There has to be a certain number.

[1:39:27] » And does this proposal meet those requirements? It it it looks like it may

[1:39:32] there's just some as I was mentioning there's some inconsistency with some of

[1:39:37] the amenity areas and that may change those may change as well shifting to

[1:39:43] meet like the front setback and the driveway width. So there's going to be

[1:39:47] some redesigning that needs to occur and we have in the corrections you know

[1:39:52] referred to those um those codes. So we we get you you move one thing and it's

[1:39:58] like well that moved this and that moved this and now we got to oh we got to keep

[1:40:02] that in mind and so it it can be challenging because you think well I

[1:40:06] fixed that but by fixing that you've affected these items. Um yeah, so there

[1:40:12] are some some requirements landscaping wise generally. I mean big thing that we

[1:40:17] have in our code is you know restricting the the amount of turf to certain

[1:40:21] percentage which it appears that that is the case with this plan. Um there is a

[1:40:26] lot of shrubs. One thing that we have to be careful of was like with ornamental

[1:40:30] grasses can't have more than 20% of the ornamental grass and that's a fire

[1:40:36] safety code that we have. So yeah, we we're looking at some of the symbology

[1:40:42] like for the turf areas and that we're we've asked, you know, for some of those

[1:40:46] calculations so we can make sure they're meeting it. But again, it's it's

[1:40:51] preliminary, so we understand that a lot of times we don't those things are not

[1:40:58] fully there yet until the final. >> One last question. So if we were to

[1:41:03] approve the preliminary, we're not approving this exact

[1:41:08] » setup, right? >> No. What what we would you'd be

[1:41:12] approving is that you know t the the town homes and the projects the project

[1:41:17] itself has has uh the potential to be approved. There are some corrections

[1:41:23] that need to be made and some modifications and some additional

[1:41:27] information provided for us to make a final group dwelling approval. So,

[1:41:34] » and then we see it again. Great. >> You will see it again. We will notice

[1:41:37] again do it again. [laughter] >> Awesome. All right. Any other

[1:41:42] commission? Any other questions from commissioners?

[1:41:45] » Do you want the public? >> Yeah, I'll ask that. Um, all right. Um,

[1:41:49] thank you, Mr. Simpson. Is there anybody, this is not a public hearing,

[1:41:52] but is there anybody in the audience or online that would like to comment on

[1:41:55] this project? Uh, come forward. And again, uh, keep your comments to three

[1:42:00] minutes. State your name and your address, please. [gasps]

[1:42:05] Brian Scaddyy 26:15 Van Burren. I want to paint a couple of paintings,

[1:42:12] pictures for you, brother members of the commission.

[1:42:16] And you look at the access off of Jefferson,

[1:42:20] you first look at the 30 foot drop. It goes from the top of where the access on

[1:42:26] Jefferson is to the land on the bottom in less than a half a football field.

[1:42:32] That's fairly steep. So when that fire truck comes over the edge

[1:42:36] » in the winter, first thing he's going to see is the porch of uh probably number

[1:42:42] 16, something like that. Number two picture.

[1:42:47] If you'll look at where I'm standing, I'd be standing on on the porch or the

[1:42:54] side of the building of a single story home and where you're sitting will be a

[1:43:00] 40ft wall from my side of my house. I'm not sure

[1:43:07] that meets what we want to do in downtown Auggan.

[1:43:14] May I suggest that we have either forgotten the vision or lost the vision

[1:43:22] or never had the vision for East Central.

[1:43:27] I don't think we need more of those 40ft tall buildings. If you want to look at

[1:43:32] the quality of one of those, just turn around the corner, drive up 20 Swift

[1:43:37] Street, Fifth Street or 28th Street, and look at uh the homes there that are

[1:43:44] standing next to a 40ft wall and a singlestory home next door to it. I

[1:43:50] think we've lost the vision. I hope we can gain the vision for East Central.

[1:43:56] Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr.

[1:44:00] Any others? Is there any online board? >> No.

[1:44:04] » Okay. Thank you. All right. We'll bring it back to the commission. Uh any more

[1:44:08] comments, questions, or want to make a motion? And again, it'll

[1:44:15] be two different ones on the preliminary group drawing with that one.

[1:44:19] » Well, my thought is there are 23 things here. I don't want to stop development

[1:44:25] moving forward, but I wonder if we've given enough feedback of things we don't

[1:44:29] like so that when the final gets here, they're not surprised when some of us

[1:44:34] are not willing to safetywise approve it.

[1:44:38] » Yeah, I thought the same thing. I kind of wondered if we ought to postpone a

[1:44:42] vote on this alto together until next month and give the developer and the

[1:44:45] planning department a little bit more time to narrow the focus a bit and help

[1:44:50] address some of those bigger issues so there's less for them to do before the

[1:44:54] final gets to us. >> I'd be interested to know how planning

[1:44:58] feels about that. Do do you feel like it's good to put it off a little bit and

[1:45:04] address them now or does it kind of stunt it?

[1:45:08] I just didn't want to make him pay another fee to come back.

[1:45:12] » Well, and and I know it'll add a a bit more time to the review because um we

[1:45:18] have deadlines and noticing that would have to be met. So, it probably would

[1:45:22] add a couple more months to the project. But, um you know, we're as far as staff,

[1:45:30] we're fine either way. um we can we're planning to work with the applicant

[1:45:36] either way and and moving forward, but if the commission feels that there's

[1:45:42] things that they need to see before it take makes that step to the final group

[1:45:48] dwelling that I would I would say that's that's the decision that would have to

[1:45:53] be made in order to continue um preliminary.

[1:45:58] I I just think there's so many changes that the project could look almost

[1:46:03] completely different by the time it comes back to us.

[1:46:05] » Well, that's why there's 23 items on there, you know, that's that's the whole

[1:46:09] reason why you preliminary just gives them good faith to move forward, you

[1:46:12] know, and work with staff. But I think the staff's well aware of all the things

[1:46:16] and even when we drove by this, you know, there's a lot of I mean just

[1:46:21] hearing their concerns and all the things. I think most of those all be

[1:46:24] resolved and [gasps] keep notes these will be here. We can

[1:46:28] address them when they come back, you know, but and it may look different when

[1:46:32] they work with staff. Their project might look totally different. So, but I

[1:46:35] think we need to give them the opportunity to develop under the codes

[1:46:39] and things that we've established through through

[1:46:43] Tone Ogden and everything. So, but I know that's why we're here to discuss as

[1:46:47] commissioners. So, any other comments or remarks?

[1:46:52] » I'll just say it's it's easier for me as a commissioner to move forward

[1:46:57] when there's less >> uncertainty.

[1:47:02] Um, but I'm okay moving forward this time. So just for your next uh

[1:47:06] development, just keep in mind that the more exceptions and and uncertainty,

[1:47:11] you're there's more risk of us needing clarity in order to move

[1:47:18] forward.

[1:47:22] This may be a little premature, but I'm going to make a motion that the

[1:47:27] Jefferson Junction development at 23 2731

[1:47:32] Jefferson Avenue, both preliminary group building and preliminary private

[1:47:36] subdivision be tabled, which gives everyone a month to to address this

[1:47:41] before we give final review on the preliminary.

[1:47:44] » I'll second the motion. Okay, I got a motion by Commissioner

[1:47:48] Humphre, a second by Commissioner Southwick. This is a roll call vote.

[1:47:53] » Commissioner Almad.

[1:48:05] » Yes. >> Commissioner Humphre.

[1:48:08] » Hi, >> Commissioner Sando. Yes,

[1:48:13] » Commissioner Southwick. >> Yes,

[1:48:16] » Commissioner Williams. >> Yes,

[1:48:21] » Commissioner Shenoda. >> No.

[1:48:25] » Chair Ross? >> Yes.

[1:48:30] » All right. Uh, well, there's a decision on that and so, uh, you want to give

[1:48:35] Commissioner Shinota a chance to explain what's

[1:48:38] » Yeah. Go ahead, Commissioner Shena. >> Yeah, we we [clears throat] have

[1:48:44] we have voted in favor of other uh projects with a similar number of

[1:48:50] exceptions.

[1:48:54] » Okay. So, >> thank you.

[1:48:58] » All right. I guess we still need to make some take some action on the preliminary

[1:49:02] subdivision or does that kind of go away as we're putting it on hold?

[1:49:08] Sorry, what was that? >> So, do we still need to uh vote on the

[1:49:12] preliminary subdivision? >> I believe that was in the east.

[1:49:16] » That was by sign included both together. >> All right.

[1:49:21] [sighs] Well, thank you. All right. We'll move on to item number six, which

[1:49:24] is public hearing of the West Ogden zone changes. Um, Mr. Ripian, I guess you're

[1:49:31] up to

[1:49:48] I was going to ask for a fight.

[1:49:54] While you're getting this up, can we take a five minute break? A few of our

[1:49:57] commissioners need to take a second. So, be all right. All right. Let's let's

[1:50:02] break for five minutes and we'll come right back. So stretch your legs. Those

[1:50:06] who've been sitting things

[1:50:12] » you're a good dude. >> I hope you like that. Don't you

[1:50:17] need a little bit of [sighs]

[1:50:31] » It's a good one.

[1:50:37] I'm very happy.

[1:50:41] » You too. >> That's good. That means there's action.

[1:50:49] » You're wrong. >> No, I have a team.

[1:50:54] » I've got a good I've got a good I've got a lot of good teammates. everybody in

[1:50:59] there. >> They work so we all work so hard.

[1:51:04] » It's really nice. So >> So you kind of like

[1:51:09] go

[1:51:14] » mean could take a day off.

[1:51:18] » Maybe I'll go to spring.

[1:51:25] might be in southern Utah again.

[1:51:29] » I don't want it to be like >> I think that's where the last spring

[1:51:32] was. >> But I do think

[1:51:40] » Yeah. You just drove what hours?

[1:51:47] » New Hilton Hotel.

[1:51:52] » Big conference. Lot of lot of AI still

[1:52:21] » that's there now. And it's not I wasn't trying to be harsh. You weren't all

[1:52:26] those5

[1:52:56] in there.

[1:53:00] » This is grand view. >> Yeah, that

[1:53:03] » but it's kind of hard to talk about first rows.

[1:53:11] » I'm sorry. >> We're making this meeting.

[1:53:22] » No, my thoughts on the pulinary.

[1:53:32] Huh?

[1:53:49] » The amount of items isn't what bothered me the most. It was what wasn't on those

[1:53:53] items.

[1:54:00] » Yeah.

[1:54:09] » Oh, yeah. The one that's not happening now.

[1:54:21] This one's a little better than that, I think.

[1:54:32] » All right, we'll start back up in one minute.

[1:54:36] » Hey, they didn't even leave till I got back.

[1:54:40] They're supposed to leave the same time. No.

[1:54:48] Well, and there's a difference between like a difference of opinion versus a

[1:54:52] safety issue.

[1:55:05] [laughter] >> What's that?

[1:55:08] » All the public.

[1:55:11] » It's all on you. >> Oh, yeah.

[1:55:14] good. So, >> I mean, they won't want [laughter]

[1:55:34] » You could feel it. You're not supposed to be able to feel it.

[1:55:40] » All right, if we have everybody seated, we'll go ahead and get started. So,

[1:55:49] thank you for your patience. Um, as we are heading into public hearing, uh,

[1:55:54] before, uh, Mr. Ripian gets going, want to thank everybody for their

[1:55:58] correspondence and the emails we received over the next few items, uh,

[1:56:02] they have been forwarded on to us as commissioners and we've read them and so

[1:56:06] we really appreciate that. it gets us thinking and then as we go drive by the

[1:56:09] sites uh you know it helps us uh know and get a feel for the history and

[1:56:14] things. So I just want to thank you for that. So all right Mr. Ripian.

[1:56:18] » All right. Excellent. >> Thank you

[1:56:23] Chair Ross and planning commission. So the um item on the agenda today that

[1:56:28] we'd like to review as a public hearing is the West Ogden zone change associated

[1:56:33] with the future land use map. Um, so as you look at this item, we'd like you to

[1:56:39] consider um should the proposed zone change area be zoned M2 based on

[1:56:44] following the future land use map. So I have um just some background

[1:56:50] information. So, as we've been uh preparing the future land use map as

[1:56:56] part of the general plan update, um we looked at several areas throughout the

[1:57:01] city. And um we compared the the general plan or the future land use map with the

[1:57:09] um the zoning map for the city. And there are several areas that we felt uh

[1:57:13] were appropriate to consider for reszoning to um to align the the zoning

[1:57:21] map with the future land use map. So the West Ogden area is one of those one of

[1:57:26] those areas. So you can see in the future land use map the West Ogden area

[1:57:32] and then the zoomed in uh image on the right hand side shows the area that

[1:57:38] we're considering or that was considered um at a previous meeting to be reszoned

[1:57:44] from uh R15

[1:57:48] C3CO and M1 uh to M2. So the the yellow outlined area was the previous proposal.

[1:57:58] Um so we did notify all the property owners within this area and we received

[1:58:03] feedback which has been shared with the planning commission. So as I stated

[1:58:08] before you can see the relationship between the future land use map and the

[1:58:12] the zoning map. So originally the um the area that's outlined in black on the

[1:58:18] right hand side shows um the the original proposal from going from R15 C3

[1:58:27] or C3CO and uh M1 to M2. Um, so we did, as I said before, we

[1:58:36] received feedback on the original original, um, area. And so, um, the

[1:58:44] feedback that we received was to from the kitchen family. They're we're

[1:58:49] proposing to include several of their properties within the

[1:58:55] zone change area, which was just north of the C3CO.

[1:59:01] And so you can see that area outlined in yellow. And then we also received input

[1:59:06] from existing residents on Doxy Street and they um requested that their

[1:59:12] property be removed from the proposed uh zone air zone change area. So after um

[1:59:20] our previous meeting, we um we did a windshield survey. We went out and um

[1:59:26] looked at all the different land uses in the area. And so this map highlights

[1:59:31] the existing land uses in the area. The brown signifies

[1:59:37] manufacturing. The light um yellow or beige signifies residential and then the

[1:59:44] green is for vacant properties. So after uh we had our discussion at our

[1:59:52] previous meeting, the uh staff proposed a modification to the original proposal

[1:59:59] which included some of the properties just north of the or I guess on the

[2:00:04] south side of Benford Street, the area outlined in yellow. So that was our

[2:00:09] modified proposal. And then we also shared three options

[2:00:14] with the planning commission. One option was to um follow the future land use

[2:00:19] maps boundary which was the straight alley is what we called option one.

[2:00:25] Option two was Benford Street. So it included some properties

[2:00:30] uh on the south side of Benford and then option three expanded even further uh

[2:00:36] north and um yeah captured several um areas north of Benford Street. So those

[2:00:44] were the three options that we explored. The planning commission uh decided that

[2:00:51] option one was the preferred option out of those those three.

[2:00:57] This option um so it includes the all the property that's shown on the future

[2:01:02] land use map uh with without the residential area um along DXY Street. So

[2:01:11] that was the that was the preferred proposal. This also highlights the

[2:01:17] different land uses and um how this area would interact with the future um 24th

[2:01:25] Street interchange. Um since the last meeting, we did um

[2:01:31] some more research um and I I actually learned a lot more about what's uh

[2:01:36] happened in the past. So the the kitchens had a previous application to

[2:01:44] modify the West Ogden community plan to include part of their prop or some

[2:01:50] additional properties along Benford Street. So, the area outlined in red

[2:01:56] um was proposed to be reszoned and to um to yeah be part of of the property

[2:02:07] that's also south of the yellow line which they use for kennel. They build

[2:02:14] kennels um on their property and so this was proposed as a future expansion.

[2:02:21] So this is um in the West a community plan amendment and the proposed reszone

[2:02:28] that was proposed in 2021 stated that the planning commission's

[2:02:35] recommendation stated that if the um that the entire block between G Avenue

[2:02:44] and H Avenue from Benford Street to 27th Street should be considered for uh

[2:02:51] reszone to either C3CO or M1CO. Um so that was the planning commission's

[2:02:58] previous recommendation. Um which yeah included that that

[2:03:03] property that was outlined in red. Um here's just some more documentation

[2:03:10] of what the planning commission reviewed in 2021.

[2:03:16] » [clears throat] >> So outlined the the entire block

[2:03:20] as potential M1 CO or C3CO and then just the the notice. So and

[2:03:27] then this was the conceptual site plan. So on the

[2:03:32] the there's the existing building on the south with parking to the I guess it' be

[2:03:38] the east and then the new facility to the north that would be along Benford

[2:03:43] Street. So, this was a proposal that was considered by the planning commission in

[2:03:48] 2021 and it was forwarded to the the city

[2:03:53] council, but that's basically where where it stopped. So,

[2:03:59] um yeah, so that's basically the the history that I wanted to share with with

[2:04:03] you. Um

[2:04:07] and so um our recommendation, sorry, go back.

[2:04:17] um or the plan is that the planning commission finds that the proposed zone

[2:04:21] change is consistent with the general plan and that it meets the state federal

[2:04:27] laws and zone criteria in in the OMC 14-18E and recommend the city council

[2:04:34] adopt the zone change as presented. So our recommendation would be to follow

[2:04:40] the future land use map boundary. Um so that would be our recommendation.

[2:04:49] which is >> which yeah let me get there

[2:04:53] is option one. So it was the option that the planning commission originally

[2:05:00] » was preferring. So and that is my presentation. So

[2:05:05] » okay can you keep that on there just I want the public to look at that as well.

[2:05:09] So, >> all right. Um, have any uh questions for

[2:05:14] Miss Ripian from commissioners?

[2:05:19] » Is there anything that would prevent the kitchens in the next week, 6 months,

[2:05:24] years, whatever the case would be, to come back with a proposal that might

[2:05:28] include the property that's just outside the space and request a zone change at

[2:05:32] that time for just those two parcels? >> No, they would be able to do that. Okay.

[2:05:37] Thank you.

[2:05:41] All right. Uh, seeing none others, uh, we'll, uh, go to p our public hearing

[2:05:48] portion of this. And so, we'd like to invite anybody in person or online to

[2:05:52] come forward at this time and state your name if you'd like to say something.

[2:05:55] Keep your comments to three minutes. Uh, and your address, please. And then also

[2:06:01] if if something's already been said, we don't need to have redundancy, you know,

[2:06:04] we don't just to hear about it because we we make notes and we address them per

[2:06:08] item. And so, uh, if we can be mindful of that with we got a lot to go over it

[2:06:12] this evening. So, uh, thank you. Oh, and one other thing. So, I had him leave

[2:06:18] this up here. So, I'm curious to which option, if you don't mind sharing, if

[2:06:22] you looked at it, which one you would prefer, uh, just so we have an idea of

[2:06:28] what that looks like from your perspective. Thank you.

[2:06:31] » Okay. I'm representing 811 Benford and option three would be best. I'm happy

[2:06:36] with option two. >> And what's your name, sir?

[2:06:39] » Uh, Matt Kitchen. >> Option one just does not work. Uh it

[2:06:44] just seems like the word manufacturing is a dirty word or a bad word, but as

[2:06:50] you I'm sure you all understand, manufacturing is the engine of the

[2:06:54] economy. If we don't produce anything as a as a community, we don't create any

[2:06:59] value, then all you all you've got is valets and lawyers left that are just

[2:07:06] trading money around. So as a community, we want to produce something. We want to

[2:07:11] make something and h and add value to our economy. That's the only way it's

[2:07:16] going to work. And by going to, you know, by expanding allow us to

[2:07:22] manufacture in your community, we're producing jobs. We're uh producing a

[2:07:27] product which is going to in turn bring some influence there. The other thing

[2:07:31] that manufacturing does in this in this where this is located, everybody knows

[2:07:37] this area. It's it's kind of already there. And if anyone's

[2:07:44] a homeowner there, by having the option of going manufacturing or residential,

[2:07:48] it gives them the opportunity to to if they ever do sell that they're going to

[2:07:52] be able to maximize the prop their profits or whatever their property,

[2:07:57] whichever way, you know, it just exposes it to much more uh many more buyers. So,

[2:08:03] I don't, you know, we're not asking for a huge change, but it seems like we're

[2:08:08] we're right there. Everything's been noticed up and stuff. I I I don't know

[2:08:13] why we would want to go through all this again. Uh, you know, years down the

[2:08:17] road. We've been planning this. We've been saving for it. The freeway has

[2:08:21] thrown a big stick in the spokes and that's that's prevented, you know,

[2:08:28] some some of this progress. But there's no reason

[2:08:32] uh you know I don't I don't know why this would harm any anyone in any way to

[2:08:38] be able to do this. So yeah, option option one or I mean excuse me option

[2:08:42] two or three. Okay, but not option one. >> So thank you.

[2:08:45] » All right. Thank you, Mr. Kitchens.

[2:08:57] » Hi, I'm Mark Kitchen. I'm representing um 875 and 835 West Benford. Um I'm an

[2:09:04] owner of that those properties which is um and I'm in favor for option two,

[2:09:11] preferably option three, but not option one. Uh we like uh he did really well

[2:09:18] explaining I was going to put in a building there. Um M I mean right on the

[2:09:24] exit of 24th Street, we have a bunch more property

[2:09:28] that is M1. We were going to build a building there as well, but the city or

[2:09:33] the UD do is going to come in and buy me all out and this is two years ago. They

[2:09:39] were talking about buying me out, but we had several meetings with UD do. They

[2:09:43] were going to come and I didn't want to sell, but they're going to put in the

[2:09:46] that interchange on 24th Street. So, I was going to come in with a bunch of

[2:09:51] money and I was going to put in this really nice really nice building. Um,

[2:09:57] but they haven't they haven't done anything. So, I had to put it on hold

[2:10:01] until, you know, who knows when they're going to but we are saving up to do this

[2:10:06] and we really do want to build a n building there. Um, and we can do it

[2:10:12] pretty soon. Um, we just didn't have the cash flow at the time, so we had to let

[2:10:18] it lapse. Um, so that's what we did there. Um, so yeah, I'm an option of two

[2:10:26] or three. Do you guys have any questions for me? I' I'd love to answer them for

[2:10:30] you. >> Are your Are your properties currently

[2:10:33] rented to residentially then? >> Yes, they are. And we have in this area,

[2:10:39] we have 12 properties. So, and I I feel like we didn't get heard last time

[2:10:47] last meeting. We I don't know if we had one spokesman and it it didn't really

[2:10:52] resonate with anyone. It it seemed like to me with 12 properties.

[2:10:58] So, anyway, another any other questions? >> Any other questions of commissioners?

[2:11:05] » Commissioner Williams.

[2:11:09] » All right. >> Okay. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Thanks.

[2:11:23] This hopefully this won't be too much more of the same. I'm part of the the

[2:11:26] kitchen group representing um 944 Benford um two or three. Uh if if I

[2:11:35] don't know if you're all familiar with that area, but it's very mixed use right

[2:11:38] now. I mean, if you drive through it, it's very chopped up. Um, so moving it

[2:11:44] to something more >> [clears throat]

[2:11:46] » um uniform like option three or or even expanding to option two um to me makes

[2:11:53] more sense. Um, I think it would give, you know, us the opportunity and

[2:11:59] flexibility to sell, especially with the new interchange coming in where

[2:12:04] I think the idea for that area is that it could um, you know, become a really

[2:12:10] nice part of town with the new interchange and um, some new

[2:12:13] opportunities there. So having it open to M2 allows us to expand um our

[2:12:19] businesses but also allows the homeowners in that area um the

[2:12:22] flexibility to sell. Uh I think one thing that was brought up is that um

[2:12:27] maybe a previous meeting someone said that their home insurance would would

[2:12:30] maybe go up if the zoning changed. We checked with our agent and that's that's

[2:12:34] not true. Well, according to them um they wouldn't see uh increases in their

[2:12:41] insurance. Um that's just according to our agent. Um so so I think it would

[2:12:46] have a positive impact. I don't I don't see negative impacts to it. Uh just

[2:12:51] create more revenue for the um city if we were to put in a manufact another

[2:12:56] manufacturing building there. Uh more jobs in the area and it's already a

[2:13:00] really chopped up kind of interesting area. So to make it something more

[2:13:04] uniform like option three uh makes a lot of sense to me. So

[2:13:08] » are you a kitchens or you get so what's your first name? Zack.

[2:13:12] » Zack. >> Okay, thank Kitchen.

[2:13:14] » Just if we have any questions, I want to know which one to call. So, thank you.

[2:13:17] » Sure. Yep. That's That's me. >> Okay. All right. Thank you, Mr. Kitchen.

[2:13:31] » How you guys doing? >> Good. My name is Matthew Daniel. I'm at

[2:13:35] 2722 Hav. So, I'm struggling to figure out where my house sits on this map.

[2:13:43] I don't know if there's anyone that could show me that.

[2:13:48] » Sorry. >> Pull up a different map.

[2:13:52] » I'm going to pause your time just for a second while we find that information.

[2:13:56] Give you time to speak. >> Is it in that lower yellow?

[2:14:00] » Let's see. You're on H and what? >> 2722.

[2:14:04] So, it's in that green, right?

[2:14:12] Street

[2:14:15] is here.

[2:14:20] No, pardon me. 272.

[2:14:25] Yeah.

[2:14:45] I hope. >> Oh, sorry.

[2:14:48] [laughter]

[2:14:56] » Right there. So, you're right in that green area right there. See where the

[2:14:59] red dot is? Right in this square at the bottom.

[2:15:02] » Yeah. So you would be outside of the area that's

[2:15:06] » okay. So I would with the maps up there I would support option two

[2:15:15] » and all the options that we don't include property

[2:15:21] » right >> all of them cover you as residential.

[2:15:27] » Okay. >> Thank you.

[2:15:29] » That was easy.

[2:15:37] What's that? Yeah, go ahead and put it up there just for funsies.

[2:15:41] Is there anybody else online?

[2:15:44] » So, all right. Uh, will you give us their names, Barton?

[2:15:51] » Yes. Uh, what Colton call? There they are. Sorry.

[2:15:55] if you would uh hold on.

[2:16:03] Yeah, Colton, if you would uh say your name and you can

[2:16:08] » Yeah, good evening everyone. Thank you. Yep. Colton College. Um I'm an owner at

[2:16:13] 834 West Oxy Street. Just just my two cents. I know we've gone quite a while

[2:16:17] in this meeting tonight, so I don't want to take much much time, but I would be

[2:16:21] in favor of the M2 zoning, preferably option three. Um, option two would be

[2:16:28] okay. Um, but you know, I I just personally uh and respectfully ask that

[2:16:33] you know that property could be included in that M2 zoning. So, thanks for your

[2:16:36] time. Really appreciate it. >> Thank you, Mr. College.

[2:16:42] » Okay. And then the next uh we have Becky.

[2:16:50] » Can you hear me? >> Yes.

[2:16:53] » Hello. >> Yes. Okay. I'm Rebecca Kitchen

[2:16:57] and I own the property at 834 West Benford Street, which is on the north

[2:17:02] side of Benford. So, I support the proposal to change the

[2:17:06] zoning in this area to M2. Um, there's already a business on the north side of

[2:17:12] Benford at G Avenue called Connected and it's only 100 feet from my property

[2:17:18] and there's only two small rental houses in between that were built in 1936 and

[2:17:24] 1950 and also the street has heavy traffic,

[2:17:28] heavy, very heavy truck traffic going to and from Cargle. Um,

[2:17:34] so anyway, I am a proponent of the M2 zoning.

[2:17:41] » Which option? >> Oh,

[2:17:43] » option two. >> Two.

[2:17:45] » N or three. >> Two or three. Okay.

[2:17:49] Thank you, Miss Kitchens. >> You're welcome.

[2:17:53] » Then we have uh Cody Kitchen. All right. >> Yeah. Hello. Uh my name is Cody

[2:18:01] Kitchenen. >> [clears throat]

[2:18:02] » um representing 833 West 27th Street. Um and I'd be in favor of option two or or

[2:18:09] three. Um not to repeat too much, I just feel like it'd be a positive thing. Um

[2:18:15] job creation and and growth in the economy. Um you know, like was said

[2:18:20] earlier, I just think there's value in producing something and um it's already

[2:18:25] mixed. So I appreciate your time. Thank you.

[2:18:28] » Thank you, Miss Kittens.

[2:18:34] Okay, that was all the people we had raising hands online.

[2:18:37] » All right. Is anybody else in the audience like to say anything? All

[2:18:40] right. Can I get a motion to close the public hearing for item number six?

[2:18:45] » So moved. >> Second.

[2:18:48] » Motion uh by Commissioner Shenotto, second by Commissioner Humphre. All in

[2:18:52] favor? >> I.

[2:18:55] » All right. We'll bring this back to commissioners uh for discussion. So,

[2:19:05] I know we chose option one, but uh sounds like

[2:19:09] » option two is not that much different and those homeowners are the ones that

[2:19:13] have been speaking. >> Yeah.

[2:19:21] » What? Okay. does mean. >> Oh, does it

[2:19:26] » does it require we Yeah, we move it forward. So, it would require another

[2:19:30] one. So, >> I believe you you could uh choose option

[2:19:35] any of the three options >> and that would be it come back.

[2:19:39] » They wouldn't have to come back because we this is our

[2:19:43] » Yeah. >> Okay.

[2:19:45] » Okay. >> Okay. That's good. We have options.

[2:19:49] » I'm good with option two. Well, >> I don't know.

[2:19:53] » What's the feel from the commissioners?

[2:20:03] » I think historically there's no question that everything south of Benford is

[2:20:08] likely in option three is likely to turn manufacturing at some point in time.

[2:20:15] But, you know, UD do's also going to at some point in time in the next 50 years

[2:20:19] decide whether they will or will not build an interchange that they've been

[2:20:22] trying to build for four decades. So, my faith in how quickly any of this happens

[2:20:28] is small. But I am concerned in West Ogden in

[2:20:33] particular, as much as we want to do things better, that there's nowhere near

[2:20:37] enough inventory for those who may be displaced to be able to find a space to

[2:20:42] be. And considering that that has the lowest property values in the city, even

[2:20:48] those folks who sell are going to struggle to find a place in

[2:20:55] the wider area to live. And we have not planned, prepared,

[2:21:01] or we have nothing in front of us or or or you know any potential folks to help

[2:21:07] offset those losses.

[2:21:12] Sure. >> Go ahead. Commissioner,

[2:21:15] » the reason why we chose option one last time was

[2:21:19] to preserve the homeowners and to keep to keep that area

[2:21:27] residential so they could stay in their homes.

[2:21:35] So, option one

[2:21:39] keeps more people in their residential homes.

[2:21:51] A question for the realtors that we have on the commission would be something I

[2:21:56] I'm thinking I'm only making assumption, but if we were going from residential to

[2:22:01] mixed use, the value of the property is going to go up with or without the

[2:22:05] building on it, but going from individual residentials to manufacturing

[2:22:10] means the value of the land likely goes down

[2:22:14] because manufacturing wants a lot more space. Well, when you go to

[2:22:17] manufacturing, they're going to look at price per square foot of the land. The,

[2:22:23] you know, the homes are going to be demolished.

[2:22:25] » No one's going to want to buy the prop the structure on the property.

[2:22:29] » So, >> I don't think they'd pay fair market

[2:22:31] value for a residential property. They'd be looking at the land value more than

[2:22:38] the residential value. So for those who would want to sell to

[2:22:43] leave the area that aren't renting from the predominant owner of the properties,

[2:22:48] their land value will be lower. >> Correct. And that's what they were

[2:22:54] talking about when we had our last meeting. That's what the residents were

[2:22:58] concerned about. >> Okay.

[2:23:02] One thing that was brought up is um those properties we're talking about are

[2:23:06] being rented right now and the owners of those properties are the ones wanting it

[2:23:11] resed. So they're not going to lose any money that because they're asking for

[2:23:15] it. >> Absolutely.

[2:23:17] » And these aren't owned by the people living there. They're owned by

[2:23:21] » Well, not all of them, but some of them. They're just these three that are

[2:23:24] difference between

[2:23:27] » because those are all three property of the

[2:23:30] » and they're being rented >> to family and they're being rented.

[2:23:35] » Okay. >> So, I'm good with option two.

[2:23:42] Mock, you look like you've had a comment before. Sorry.

[2:23:45] » Yeah. No, I was just saying, you know, the only difference between one and two

[2:23:49] looks like just those three. So, >> yeah.

[2:23:51] » And so, They were requesting that then,

[2:23:55] » right? That's >> okay.

[2:23:56] » All right. Um, I'm going to back up a little bit here real quick. Uh, so out

[2:24:01] of all the public comments that we did receive, were there really any concerns

[2:24:04] that we need to answer? Because all of them were kind of in affirmative for

[2:24:09] option two or three and getting the most value. I didn't Is there anything we

[2:24:14] need to address that was of a concern that we need to answer? I I didn't catch

[2:24:18] any from the note I wrote down. just a >> I was just going through my email to

[2:24:22] look for exactly what you were talking about and I could find anything that was

[2:24:27] not the kitchens. >> I don't know if anything

[2:24:31] » I mean I after our last meeting I was you know solidly in favor of option one

[2:24:37] but I don't think that option two is a significant change and it grants the

[2:24:44] request to the property owner. So, >> I'm comfortable I'm comfortable with

[2:24:48] option two. I think option three impacts too many residences and it doesn't

[2:24:55] preclude I mean I think the the the biggest unknown here is if and when

[2:25:02] you do ever comes up with a I mean at some point when that happens I think

[2:25:06] we're going to be reviewing the entire area again.

[2:25:11] » Mhm. I think option two is probably a reasonable middle ground that

[2:25:17] addresses property owners that have existing

[2:25:21] businesses and desires to potentially expand it. Also, I mean, I've spent some

[2:25:28] time out there driving around and, [snorts] you know, there's there's a mix

[2:25:31] out there, but there's a there's a good little core of of well-maintained old

[2:25:38] older homes that show pride of ownership. I'm I'm comfortable with

[2:25:42] option two. >> Yeah.

[2:25:43] » Okay. Sounds like we're all kind of on the same page.

[2:25:46] » No, we're not. >> Oh, sorry. Go ahead.

[2:25:48] » Option option two. Those cutouts um

[2:25:55] threaten the homeowners on on either side. So, I I don't like option two. I

[2:26:01] like a nice big solid block of residential, not uh cutouts, not the

[2:26:07] zigzag.

[2:26:13] I think we have to consider um the kitchen's private property rights though

[2:26:19] and if they want to change their zoning for their private property that should

[2:26:28] be considered. If that creates a cutout then so be it.

[2:26:38] Mhm. >> We don't we don't have to consider

[2:26:40] individual property rights. We're looking at

[2:26:44] zoning of a neighborhood as a whole and what we

[2:26:49] envision it to be in the future. So the houses in the residential cutouts

[2:26:57] of option two are going to be right next to manufacturing.

[2:27:04] Whereas in an option one, at least you have uh a nice

[2:27:10] straight swath of neighbors that can hang out. It's contiguous.

[2:27:20] » So if that cutout wasn't there, was straight across, you'd be in favor of

[2:27:23] option two. >> Just a question.

[2:27:27] » That would be a square. >> That's option one.

[2:27:28] » That's option one. >> Well, it goes it goes further though. go

[2:27:32] clear over to the kitchens property. So >> it does. So it does

[2:27:36] » I'm immunable to option two, but I understand where Commissioner Shenot is

[2:27:41] coming from in the sense that where are those people going to go?

[2:27:46] » So >> based on median household income, fact,

[2:27:48] we know that that's a bluecollar neighborhood. Um property values are a

[2:27:53] little lower to begin with. >> There's already a housing crisis that

[2:27:58] exists in our area. costs are rising every day. I'm concerned that we're

[2:28:06] putting the cart before the horse. I mean, I'd feel a lot more comfortable if

[2:28:10] UD do actually had money and was going to do something and that would suggest

[2:28:14] that other people are going to develop other housing opportunities in the area

[2:28:17] as well. But right now, they're not. All we're looking at is displacing people.

[2:28:29] And we have we have four parcels there. >> They're all owned by the kitchens. So I

[2:28:35] have to respect where they're coming from.

[2:28:38] » But I also understand where Commissioner Shenoton is coming from. The an island

[2:28:42] like that makes the property on either side of a new manufacturing space less

[2:28:47] desirable for residential. It doesn't mean it can't be sold as residential. I

[2:28:51] don't know what will or will not happen to those property values, but it's

[2:28:54] certainly less desirable to live next to a manufacturing plant than it is to live

[2:28:59] next to another house. >> Right.

[2:29:02] That's what kind of surprised me when >> Go ahead, Commissioner Williams.

[2:29:06] » Sorry. No, you go ahead, Chair. I apologize.

[2:29:09] » Uh, you know, when we drove through the neighborhoods, I was surprised. One of

[2:29:13] the petition, one of the public comments was how cut up the block. Like, there's

[2:29:18] so much inner Nick. So, it's it surprised me. I hadn't been out that far

[2:29:21] for a while. I go to the archery range and you know used to ride my motorcycle

[2:29:25] out there behind Pillsbury all the time, but you know I it surprised me how much

[2:29:29] there is intermixed in between everything. So I I don't think you get

[2:29:32] away from being next to a manufacturing or or you know type of stuff. Uh it's

[2:29:37] just the nature of where the area is going. But just my two cents. So go

[2:29:43] ahead, Commissioner Williams. Well, that was my comment is that that area is so

[2:29:47] chopped up already and I always I'm just so in favor of

[2:29:54] personal property rights that um it's really hard to

[2:30:00] put zoning over a personal property right, especially when you have an

[2:30:05] entire family. And it's not like they're, you know, they're making

[2:30:08] kennels. They're not making bombs or whatever, you know, it's not.

[2:30:16] » And everyone who lives out there lives out there and they know they're in

[2:30:19] manufacturing areas.

[2:30:24] » Okay. >> The the future land use map is

[2:30:30] is changing the zoning on multiple property rights. So,

[2:30:37] » I understand that. But those people aren't here arguing for their property

[2:30:41] rights. They're not showing up over and over again.

[2:30:45] » And we have two people here in support of it that are live right in the middle

[2:30:49] of it. So, yeah. >> Well, that's because we cut their houses

[2:30:52] out at their request. >> Well, yeah.

[2:30:56] » Yeah. So, anyhow,

[2:30:59] » could this might not be available, but could we see what the zoning is right

[2:31:03] now? Do you happen to have a slide of that?

[2:31:08] » Yeah, that's

[2:31:11] » it's right there. >> Right. So,

[2:31:14] » yeah. So, the green yellow is R15 and then yeah, the light light pink is

[2:31:21] M1. The darker pink is M2.

[2:31:26] And then the red with the hatch is C3 CO.

[2:31:36] So, we've got a mix. >> Yeah, it's just these were talking about

[2:31:39] everything is the same.

[2:31:44] » Okay.

[2:31:47] » I mean, is including those, too. >> Somebody make a motion. Let's

[2:31:51] » Yeah, I see. I think we just need to make some decision individually.

[2:31:57] » I think Commissioner Humphre or Commissioner Shenot should make a

[2:32:00] motion. [laughter] All right, I'll make a motion uh

[2:32:04] regarding

[2:32:08] West Ogden area zone change between the east side of I-15 from F Avenue to H

[2:32:13] Avenue and approximately from Benford Street to Doxy Street associated with

[2:32:17] future land use map

[2:32:22] finding that the proposed zone change

[2:32:27] changes are consistent with the general plan, state and federal Paul and the

[2:32:32] zone change criteria in OMC14-18-4E

[2:32:38] move I move to recommend I move to

[2:32:45] recommend that the city council adopt the zone change as presented in option

[2:32:51] one

[2:32:55] » I have a motion from commissioner Cernoda do I have a second [snorts]

[2:32:59] » I'll second the motion Second from Commissioner South.

[2:33:03] » We can discuss and vote. >> Yes, this will be Yes. This will be a

[2:33:06] roll call vote. So, Miss Pagano. >> Commissioner Amada.

[2:33:12] » No. >> Commissioner Humphre.

[2:33:15] » No. >> Commissioner Sando.

[2:33:18] » No. >> Commissioner Southwick.

[2:33:21] » Yes. >> Commissioner Williams?

[2:33:25] » No. >> Commissioner Shenoda?

[2:33:28] » Yes. Chair Ross.

[2:33:30] » No. All right. Uh, that'll go on to the city

[2:33:34] council and >> we can revote.

[2:33:35] » Oh, I guess we can revote. Okay. >> We can do another motion.

[2:33:39] » So, uh, does someone want to make another motion

[2:33:43] or do we are we okay with what that is knowing that it's going to go to another

[2:33:47] council to also have debates and see our minutes and notes and conversations and

[2:33:54] what was been in this meeting. Um, I can make a motion. I just don't

[2:33:59] know how to do it with all these um roads.

[2:34:04] » So, I could just say um West Ogden area zone change option two. Make a motion to

[2:34:10] accept to send option two to the city council for

[2:34:16] um approval or whatever. I can't get my

[2:34:20] » Does that suffice, Barton? He's g. So, good good job. There we So, I have a a

[2:34:25] motion from Commissioner Sandow. Is there a second?

[2:34:30] » I second. >> A second from Commissioner Odo. Uh,

[2:34:34] again, roll call vote. >> Commissioner Amad,

[2:34:38] » yes. >> Commissioner Humphre,

[2:34:40] » yes. >> Commissioner Sando,

[2:34:43] » yes. >> Commissioner Southwick,

[2:34:52] » yes. Commissioner Williams,

[2:34:55] » yes. >> Commissioner Shenoda,

[2:34:59] » no. >> Chair Ross,

[2:35:02] » yes. Thank you. That passes. We'll go on to

[2:35:06] city council for their decisions. So, Commissioner Shota,

[2:35:11] you you've already spoken on, but you want like one last.

[2:35:13] » Yeah, [laughter] I don't have anything to add.

[2:35:16] » Thank you. Thank you. >> So, all right. We move on to item number

[2:35:19] seven. Uh public hearing of the Harrison Boulevard 24th to 25th Street mixeduse

[2:35:24] zoning text mixeduse master plan and the zone change. Um Mr.

[2:35:31] Bileley right Barton >> you're up.

[2:35:39] Yeah.

[2:35:50] Usually there's >> Hey,

[2:35:53] » good evening. >> Good evening. [laughter]

[2:35:56] » So, this is a hearing to consider a uh mixeduse zone text amendment, master

[2:36:04] plan, and zone change. And there's a bunch of things to consider in this.

[2:36:08] This is a the third time we've had uh consideration of this area, which is

[2:36:14] fun. >> Start. Can I get one clarification?

[2:36:18] » Yes. Are we voting on three separate things, A, B, and C, or is this all

[2:36:22] Okay, you'll clarify that then. >> Yes, it's three separate things. It can

[2:36:27] be one motion, but there are three separate things.

[2:36:29] » Okay. One Oh, that's what I was asking. >> I like that. Can you line them all up

[2:36:32] like that? That's I'm just kidding. >> Yes, you can do one motion.

[2:36:35] » Okay, great. >> Yeah. So, yes, the first would be a

[2:36:40] zoning ordinance text amendment. uh because a mixeduse zone is not an

[2:36:46] offtheshelf off therackck uh zone. It's got to do a

[2:36:50] custom fit. So there is a particular zoning text that you have to adopt a

[2:36:55] master plan for that area and then the zone change.

[2:37:00] So I wanted to just back up and say why are

[2:37:04] we doing this? We've just uh done a general plan. We've engaged the

[2:37:08] community uh and had incredible um input from a broad spectrum of the

[2:37:16] community. Uh there were a number of things that really resonated with a lot

[2:37:20] of people. One of them is to have a neighborhood center. have something

[2:37:24] where you can walk in short distance where you might be able to to buy

[2:37:30] something or go to church or go to a park or, you know, maybe get your

[2:37:36] haircut or any sorts of things, places that are close to you that really

[2:37:40] resonated with our community. And uh so we adopted we recommended that as part

[2:37:46] of the general plan. Uh we described what this a neighborhood center could be

[2:37:52] and it' be a a small pocket of commercial or institutional style

[2:37:59] buildings, walkable commercial nodes that connect

[2:38:02] residential neighborhoods to cafes, parks, gathering spaces, and smallcale

[2:38:06] services to help maintain the vibrance of neighborhoods. So that was the vision

[2:38:12] that we would have these neighborhood centers throughout the community. And

[2:38:16] then looking at the map, one of the areas that uh we saw

[2:38:21] would make a great community center and really is a community center is on 25th

[2:38:26] and Harrison between 24th and 25th Street. And so as part of the general

[2:38:32] plan, uh we recommended that that be a neighborhood center. And then we looked

[2:38:37] at the the zoning of what a neighborhood center should be and can have a

[2:38:44] different zonings because you could have a a residential component, you have a

[2:38:48] mixeduse component, a commercial component, offices. So there's all these

[2:38:53] zones that uh could fit within a neighborhood center. Um the one that did

[2:38:58] not fit in a uh neighborhood center was R4 is a little higher density housing

[2:39:05] than would be envisioned because we said homes would be or it' be mostly house

[2:39:12] scale. So think about the scale of a typical house with some block scale

[2:39:17] buildings which might be a little bit bigger. So the R4 just didn't really fit

[2:39:20] that vision. So as part of the general plan like with the previous one uh we

[2:39:25] said hey let's make the zoning match the plan. So, we had recommended a change to

[2:39:30] the R4 zoning and uh we had public comment on that and there was a desire

[2:39:36] from a number of the property owners to make this a mixeduse zone. And then we

[2:39:41] had the hearing last month and one of the directions that you said was well

[2:39:46] you doing on the west side of Harrison but we also have these uh neighborhood

[2:39:51] commercials on and offices on the east side. would you propose would you look

[2:39:57] at uh including those also in the mixeduse zone? So that's what we're here

[2:40:02] this week for. So current [clears throat] land uses to

[2:40:07] the west of uh Harrison. You've got some uh several homes there. You've got uh

[2:40:14] the one home in the upper left was an office at one point. You've the the top

[2:40:20] there that was a original mansion. Then it was a uh um converted to a

[2:40:26] chiropractic clinic for a while. The building on the bottom was a pharmacy.

[2:40:32] Remember the the park there used to be a hospital. That's why you have this sort

[2:40:36] of concentration of uses in this area. Um and then looking at the east side,

[2:40:42] you have a uh service station there. You have some personal service uses. You

[2:40:48] have a home that's been converted to personal services and then a service

[2:40:52] station that's been converted to more of a personal services use and uh and a

[2:40:58] couple homes there that uh and a duplex. So the changes from when you heard this

[2:41:06] math last month uh we've added the properties on the east side of Harrison.

[2:41:10] Uh there was some comment about the height limit. We proposed a 35 ft height

[2:41:14] limit. Um you discussed that uh perhaps you'd want it a little bit more for more

[2:41:20] the block scale uh maybe more like three or four story buildings. So we uh

[2:41:26] increase that to 45 ft. Um had a lot of discussion about the

[2:41:31] setback on Harrison. So we proposed reducing that from 20T 10 ft and I'll

[2:41:35] discuss that more in my presentation. I also had some discussion about the

[2:41:39] minimum lot size. Uh we proposed that to be 5,000 square ft. So, we reduce that

[2:41:45] to 2500 square feet. And we've updated the master plan to

[2:41:51] include the uh properties on the east side. The master plan discusses what

[2:41:58] kinds of uses these properties could be to. Um the overall idea of a a mixuse

[2:42:05] zone is that you have a mix of land uses. uh residential development shall

[2:42:10] not exceed more than 80% of the total ground floor area because sometimes when

[2:42:15] we do a mixeduse plan then people say oh I can put apartments there and so that's

[2:42:20] all you get you don't get the mix so um so it is wanting to have a mix of land

[2:42:27] use and that's why we're recommending that along Harrison Boulevard that uh

[2:42:33] you can have multi uh what we call mixed use dwellings so upper floor

[2:42:39] residential, but let's keep the the ground floor as a non-residential use.

[2:42:43] So, uh use like this, uh I know this was one thing that this is currently in zone

[2:42:48] R4, and that was always a little bit uncomfortable for potential reuses of

[2:42:53] that. So, the mixed use would allow uh a variety of of uh commercial and

[2:42:59] services, office uses in this building. Um, again, this building uh could be

[2:43:06] either an office or potentially at some point a mixeduse building.

[2:43:12] Uh, there's some homes in this area. I mentioned the one on the left was an

[2:43:16] office at some point. Uh, you know, the other homes in the area. The zoning

[2:43:21] would allow them to stay. That's one thing I want to emphasize. If you want

[2:43:24] to just keep it as a house, you can keep it as a house. Um, if it burns down, you

[2:43:29] can rebuild a house. Um, you know, the zoning would allow it to remain as a

[2:43:34] house. Uh, but the mixed use would allow that if you wanted to convert it to a a

[2:43:40] lawyer's office, a nail salon, a a little commercial shop or so, you could

[2:43:47] do that also in the zoning much like uh this bu this one building has been. This

[2:43:53] former home has been converted to a salon

[2:43:57] and there could be new buildings there. And this

[2:44:00] you know, the audience hasn't seen this. This is just an artist rendering. Um,

[2:44:05] it's not anything that anybody proposed, but it's something I think would fit

[2:44:10] nicely in there. A couple story building, maybe a ground floor um

[2:44:15] commercial use with some upper floor residential in there.

[2:44:20] And uh part of it would propose keeping the East Central guidelines there. So,

[2:44:26] you know, the designs here like the brick and the the more classic roof

[2:44:30] styles and other items for that. So the

[2:44:36] with the mixed use zoning, it would allow, you know, number one there,

[2:44:40] single household dwellings, um, duplexes, town houses, new ones would

[2:44:46] again not be, uh, along the Harrison Street frontage, but you could do

[2:44:50] mixeduse dwellings and other uses, schools, churches, daycarees, office,

[2:44:54] retail sales, restaurants, personal services.

[2:45:00] Now on the setbacks, I know you got some very thoughtful uh input on setbacks and

[2:45:05] we appreciate that. Um so we did look carefully at what the setbacks are.

[2:45:10] There's uh I mentioned on the side se streets is mostly a 20 foot setback. Um

[2:45:17] so we're recommending it stay at 20 ft on the side streets on Harrison

[2:45:23] Boulevard. It uh was historically more office uses in there. there were

[2:45:29] several buildings that were built very close to the property line and you know

[2:45:32] streets been widened over time and stuff like that. So, we looked um the average

[2:45:37] setback along Harrison Boulevard's 19T, median's 18 feet there approximately. Uh

[2:45:44] but there are I counted four properties that are less than 10 ft. Some that are

[2:45:50] just like right up to the where the property line is because you have the

[2:45:54] curb, the planter strip, the sidewalk, and then there's even space behind the

[2:45:58] sidewalk in the right way. So uh so based on that

[2:46:03] we looked at the really thinking you know how close

[2:46:07] should that go in [snorts] be if that came in um I think a zero setback would

[2:46:12] be probably too close but keeping others would be fitting 10 ft

[2:46:19] uh seem to be right based on the um feeling of the neighborhood the

[2:46:24] buildings that are closer they can stay there um if they wanted to demo and

[2:46:28] rebuild But then they'd have to meet the 10 foot setback. But that's certainly

[2:46:32] something you can talk about there. Um made the other changes that we noticed

[2:46:39] that I mentioned there. So the recommendation would be for the mixeduse

[2:46:46] zone, the map. Um I did want to point out

[2:46:52] there's a couple kind of on the edge here. Um 1170

[2:46:58] Capitol Street is a single family dwelling. I know we talked about this

[2:47:02] last month and uh there were a couple others there. Um we actually did get a

[2:47:09] couple letters from the property owners there who do not want to be mixed use.

[2:47:14] They would like to keep it in a residential zone. Um and staff would

[2:47:21] concur with that. Uh I think this particular

[2:47:25] property is better suited for just a residential zone. It's not along

[2:47:28] Harrison. Um and we need single family homes. So and then likewise the 1216

[2:47:35] 25th street. I think the zone boundary just got drawn straight when it was a

[2:47:39] professional office included this one house. Again it's not on the main drag.

[2:47:47] So, uh, we would recommend, um, not including those in mixed use,

[2:47:53] but again, that's something you can decide. So, oh, there here's what those

[2:47:57] two homes would look like. So, looking at the criteria, uh, the

[2:48:03] mixeduse zone master plan does promote the things

[2:48:07] that supposed to be compact, efficient form, mobility, and connectivity. Need

[2:48:11] to point out it's the the OGX stopped there. OGX is really doing well and you

[2:48:19] ride it you're you see there's a lot of people there so it's it's a good

[2:48:23] location here uh does provide for some additional housing needs you know again

[2:48:28] if you do uh some mixeduse dwellings there I think by adding some uses there

[2:48:34] you'll improve the economic vitality there is some uh shopping and other

[2:48:38] things there um public spaces there's a park right across the street so you're

[2:48:45] provided that and design quality. That's why we're recommending those uh e

[2:48:49] central design guidelines so that we we uh keep to the character of that area.

[2:48:55] Uh the text amendment is nice thing about doing the new code

[2:49:00] is that we can slot this in another column and make that fit. Uh so the

[2:49:07] zoning would be con consistent with that neighborhood center and really goals and

[2:49:12] objectives of creating a neighborhood center. Um I think there's

[2:49:17] compatibility and I think with some additional uses there make that a little

[2:49:23] more bustling neighborhood center and it is suitable and there's not really much

[2:49:29] need for additional public services there. So, so we're recommending that uh

[2:49:34] you recommend approval of the the three things, the the the

[2:49:40] code update, the the master plan, and um the zone change um with those,

[2:49:48] but we would recommend removing those two houses.

[2:49:53] » Thank you, Barton. uh you know we I remember last month we were here uh we

[2:49:58] were really close but we had talked about so many things we just we asked

[2:50:00] you to kind of clean it up and I think all all all the things that I remembered

[2:50:04] were addressed except the two houses that have asked to be requested but uh

[2:50:08] we'll open up to commission well let's go to public can we go to public first

[2:50:13] or well let's have yeah let's go to public first then we'll call you back up

[2:50:16] Barton and have the commissioners ask any questions so if there's any public

[2:50:20] who would like to speak on this matter please come forward state your name your

[2:50:23] address keep your comments to three minutes. And uh again, let's try not to

[2:50:28] have redundancy, but don't look like there's many here. So, thank you.

[2:50:31] » Hi. >> Hi, I'm Robert Miles. I own the house at

[2:50:33] 1170 Capitol Street and have for 36 years. Uh it's been a fun house. The

[2:50:38] house was built in 1915. It has a lot of character. It has a lot of of the nice

[2:50:43] old wood in the interior and the crown molding. And we've been trying to to

[2:50:47] bring the house back up into a condition that would match that and preserve that.

[2:50:52] Uh, we've done a lot of work inside. I just put $15,000 into the bathroom.

[2:50:57] We've surrounded our Bearclaw bathtub with marble, so it looks very nice and

[2:51:02] some kind of cross period uh cabinetry to make it look uh kind of fit in with

[2:51:06] the theme. Our next step is the flooring. We want to put down hardwood

[2:51:10] floor in the in the main still 1915 kind of feeling areas. And uh after

[2:51:17] that, we would like to reskin it. We put up the sighting when uh finances were

[2:51:22] quite constrained. I'm no longer a firefighter. I was a firefighter for 26

[2:51:26] years here in Ogden and finances were a little tight. Uh but now I work on the

[2:51:33] space launch system for NASA's Artemis program and we have much much much freer

[2:51:39] uh uh finances to be able to try and restore this to the way we'd like it to

[2:51:44] do. I'd like to put something a little more period. Unfortunately, the roof is

[2:51:47] aluminum, which is not 195 era. But I'd like something different

[2:51:53] than that sighting. That sighting is just they said it wouldn't fade. It did.

[2:51:57] I'd like it redone. I'd like it to look nice. And I'd like to redo the the

[2:52:02] sprinkler system with the new modern valves and that sort of thing. And I I'd

[2:52:06] also like to redo the driveway. But uh those are the things I finally have the

[2:52:11] ability and the the resources to pursue now that the income is six figures

[2:52:18] instead of otherwise. And um please allow me to continue doing so. I'd like

[2:52:23] my house to stay a house and stay residential. Was R1 would be great, but

[2:52:27] you know R2 I'll take whatever you can do. I appreciate your time. And uh also

[2:52:34] I've been around like I say 36 years. I've seen the businesses come and go.

[2:52:38] Uh, I've seen what's worked in that district. I know that certain things do

[2:52:41] really well. I walk to my dentist. That's why I like him there. I walk

[2:52:45] across the street and it's get my teeth worked on. I walk to my barber. They've

[2:52:50] been seller barber's been there for a very long time. That area supports

[2:52:54] destination type businesses, places you go to to get a specific service done. Uh

[2:52:59] they've had daycare, they've had pizza places, they've had I think a taco

[2:53:04] place, and then for the last what, eight years, it's been sitting pretty much

[2:53:08] vacant. It's been pretty hard to find tenants there. Uh you can see what

[2:53:13] thrives and you see what you can see what doesn't. And uh I'd like to have

[2:53:17] input on that at some point as what I've seen, but I appreciate your time and

[2:53:21] hope you'd consider that. Thank you. >> Thank you for your comments.

[2:53:30] » [snorts]

[2:53:34] » Greetings. Uh, [clears throat] I'm Herman Jensen. I live at 67525th Street

[2:53:40] and I own the Harrison corner of Harrison 25th, the two properties there.

[2:53:47] Let's see. First thing I think we ought to take 1170 and make it a restaurant.

[2:53:54] Great rush restaurant there. >> No, I'm just kidding. [laughter]

[2:53:59] » You're talking to a bunch of people that are really hungry right now, so we

[2:54:01] probably >> Yeah.

[2:54:04] » Uh well, I we've reviewed the whole thing and had a meeting with Barton and

[2:54:10] I I'm in favor of doing it this way. I think it allows us a lot of latitude

[2:54:15] with our building and our properties there and and everything else. So, I'm

[2:54:20] not opposing. I'm this uh change. I think it's a good change. So, that's all

[2:54:28] all I've got to say. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Jensen.

[2:54:35] [snorts]

[2:54:39] » Chair Commission, thank you for all your hard work over the past three months. Uh

[2:54:44] when this came to us, it was R3, sorry, I always forget that part. Steve Van

[2:54:48] Wagner, property manager for uh uh Harrison Boulevard property there. Um

[2:54:54] » again, thank you to all of your work and to uh Barton, his presentation. Uh he's

[2:54:59] taken in a lot of emails from us. He's taken a lot of consideration. Um the

[2:55:03] only thing that I would like to there's two things that I'd like to ask for.

[2:55:06] I've kind of already sent you an email here at the beginning of the week and I

[2:55:10] I I think that you've seen that. But the setbacks I would ask especially after

[2:55:16] seeing what I saw earlier with the other project that you considered there had a

[2:55:22] 9 ft threshold. We have a 12 ft threshold currently up there. Uh 12 ft

[2:55:29] from curb to property lines. Um a 0 to five out of all of your mixed use zones

[2:55:36] on your chart. we would be the only zone with a with a 10 plus foot setback.

[2:55:42] That's that's that's a big setback, guys. So, what I would ask is, and I did

[2:55:47] in the email, is I'd ask that we do a zero to five foot setback. Give the

[2:55:53] building property owners the ability to have flexibility. If they need to use

[2:55:58] that zero to five for ADA, if they want to set their buildings back five and in

[2:56:04] incorporate that in the front, they can do that. If they want to have decks in

[2:56:08] that zero to five, they can do that. But it gives flexibility rather than a hard

[2:56:14] limit. So a zero to five is what I'm asking for for all setbacks in this

[2:56:20] district, not just the front setbacks. The other thing that I'm asking for

[2:56:25] and and I've heard it repeated so many times is carveouts. Um, I don't know if

[2:56:31] everybody understands the mixeduse zone increases their property value. It

[2:56:39] doesn't change their use. They can continue living as a home. They can

[2:56:42] rebuild it. They can make it beautiful. They can do everything to make it

[2:56:46] period. That will never change. But their value of their property being

[2:56:50] mixed use does change. It changes that. And so I would say look at this section

[2:56:56] as it is. approve it as it has been suggested, but don't let's let's be

[2:57:03] careful about continuing to make carveouts in districts and and making

[2:57:09] them look less cohesive. That's all I got for you.

[2:57:13] Thank you for all your hard work. >> Thank you, M. Van Wagner.

[2:57:18] » Any other comments?

[2:57:24] » Hi. Hi. I'm Angela Anderson and I live at 2456 Harrison Boulevard. I So I

[2:57:32] understand that it will increase my property value. I'm in my I'm in a

[2:57:37] house. I I am right next door to the salon. I but it's commercially zoned and

[2:57:43] to the best of my knowledge, it's only ever been a residence.

[2:57:47] But this is going to improve my property value if it becomes mixeduse.

[2:57:57] Okay. And then what is a setback? >> It's how far your house be to the road

[2:58:04] to the property line. >> So, does that mean that it's going to

[2:58:07] you guys can broaden the road? >> And no, that's not going to change the

[2:58:13] sidewalk in front of my house, >> my yard, any of that.

[2:58:17] » No, >> it would let you build something closer

[2:58:21] to your road. That's all it would do. Yeah.

[2:58:23] » Okay. >> But intimate domain could I mean if if

[2:58:28] you do wanted that >> if you don't want it they could

[2:58:30] » they could take it but this zoning wouldn't affect that.

[2:58:34] » Yeah. >> Hopefully they're focusing on 24th

[2:58:37] Street [laughter]

[2:58:39] » instead of that. >> Okay. I I think then that I'm in favor

[2:58:45] of mixeduse zoning. >> I So thank you for your time. Thank you.

[2:58:51] Thank you.

[2:59:00] » My name is Jeff Smith representing 2453 Harrison Boulevard. Just wanted to say

[2:59:06] thank you for all the hard work you've done on uh the improvements made to this

[2:59:11] proposal. I'm in favor of them. Uh my one concern is the 10-foot setback. Uh,

[2:59:17] I'm the owner of one of the properties that goes almost right up to the

[2:59:20] sidewalk and we've actually been a victim of arson in the past and if we

[2:59:26] had to move it back an additional 10 ft, uh, we wouldn't be able to have much of

[2:59:31] a footprint there. We'd lose parking in the back if we had to to rebuild and

[2:59:35] move it further back. Um, so luckily that wasn't the case. We're able to

[2:59:39] rebuild on the original footprint. Um, but I do have concerns. Hopefully

[2:59:44] lightning doesn't strike twice and that happens again, but uh if it did, I think

[2:59:49] it would be really difficult to to rebuild and have what we currently have.

[2:59:54] Um but again, thank you for all your work in favor of everything else.

[2:59:57] Appreciate your time.

[3:00:03] » All right. Anybody else? Anybody online? >> No.

[3:00:07] » No one online. Chair. >> Okay. Anybody else in the

[3:00:11] » move close the public hearing? >> Got them. Go ahead.

[3:00:14] » Second. >> So, got a a motion from Commissioner

[3:00:17] Southwick, second from Commissioner Sandal. All in favor?

[3:00:20] » I >> I thank you for your comments. So, uh

[3:00:25] let's open it up for uh discussion with the commissioners. So,

[3:00:31] » go ahead, Commissioner Humps. >> I have a question for Barton.

[3:00:36] As the last gentleman just mentioned, if his property burned down under the new

[3:00:40] guidelines, would he have to rebuild his property meeting the new setbacks if

[3:00:45] he's already at close to zero? >> No, you can uh rebuild it u provided you

[3:00:50] do so soon after, but you could build at the

[3:00:55] same footprint. and our our gentleman at 1170

[3:01:00] the mixed use change when I'm looking at this I want to respect his property

[3:01:04] rights at the same time I also look at this and go well he gets an increase in

[3:01:09] value he doesn't have to change anything it doesn't change he could sell it as

[3:01:12] residential he could do any number of things there but also um we have to

[3:01:18] maintain a certain number of residences in the district and having a house

[3:01:22] that's a house because single family homes are part of what is mixed use

[3:01:26] would help us to meet that criteria as well. Correct.

[3:01:30] » Yes. Yeah. And it wouldn't he could continue his house and improving it.

[3:01:36] » Well, and we want to see it improved. That's awesome. But then 1215 25th

[3:01:40] Street is currently zoned professional. >> Yes.

[3:01:44] » And has been zoned professional for 30 years.

[3:01:48] » It's not presently residential. >> Correct. So taking it out of

[3:01:52] professional and adding a residential component in a mixeduse space actually

[3:01:56] improves their situation significantly and their options as well. Correct.

[3:02:01] » Uh yeah >> doing anything.

[3:02:03] » Yeah. Going from >> professional to mixed it would increase

[3:02:06] the >> it doesn't change their existing uses

[3:02:09] either in any way. >> Right. They could continue using

[3:02:12] » well that remains and it does the same thing for us in keeping residential

[3:02:15] inside the district. >> Mhm.

[3:02:17] » Okay. >> Thank you sir. Oh, the setbacks. The Has

[3:02:22] anyone ever done a zero to five like a variance in setbacks with conditions? I

[3:02:29] I've never heard of anything like that, but like we were dealing with earlier

[3:02:32] this evening, I don't want to set a zero setback and then have someone come back

[3:02:36] and say, "Oh, I need to put steps out there.

[3:02:39] » I don't want to do that." >> So,

[3:02:42] » if you have a 0% setback and then somebody

[3:02:45] » and then someone says, "I want to do 88." Right? And if we want to improve

[3:02:48] Harrison to make it a little bit nicer in that area, additional trees or

[3:02:52] something that makes it more distinguishable as a neighborhood

[3:02:55] center, that takes up space as well. But I've never seen in code anywhere where

[3:03:00] anyone's done you could do zero if you do this and five if you do that.

[3:03:05] » Well, what are but what have we done with our

[3:03:09] you know the commercial and the apartments that are right up against the

[3:03:13] sidewalk? Is that >> is that a zero setback?

[3:03:16] » Yeah. Like in downtown zones, we have a a zero setback. And we have actually we

[3:03:22] kind of corrected that in the proposed code update cuz

[3:03:26] » zero is hard because you end up with stuff that

[3:03:29] » they're balconies >> hangings out the right place.

[3:03:32] » I know we've we've uh adjusted a lot of those to like instead of saying zero,

[3:03:37] it's like 0 to two, you know, just give us

[3:03:40] » So there is some variance or we moved them from zero to two.

[3:03:44] » Well, yeah. So the the minimum I think in like downtown we said instead of a

[3:03:50] zero minimum we said twoft minimum just to allow a little bit of space there.

[3:03:56] But there's minimums and maximums. So how far back if you build your building

[3:04:02] like in downtown we don't let you build your building 20 ft back. We want it

[3:04:06] pulled up. So >> I don't know if when we talk zero to

[3:04:10] five are we saying five feets a a maximum. So if you want to build it your

[3:04:14] building 10 ft back, nope, you can't. You got to bring it forward, which in

[3:04:19] downtown we want to do that cuz we want to really be

[3:04:22] » five to 10. >> I I put a maximum on it at all. We just

[3:04:28] want to look at the minimum. >> And I I think five makes some sense for

[3:04:33] those that are already there. But I also understand the it doesn't stop someone

[3:04:38] from building an example where they're 20 foot back and have a front patio and

[3:04:41] so forth. But we also have to recognize that most of these lots aren't deep

[3:04:46] enough to do a lot of that >> realistically. They're a lot shallower

[3:04:50] than they are in other parts of the residential area of the city.

[3:04:54] » When we say five though, we're talking the edge of the sidewalk to the

[3:04:58] building. >> Uh talking the curb to the building.

[3:05:00] We're we're talking actually >> propertine

[3:05:03] » property line which there's there's curb there's planter strip there's sidewalk

[3:05:08] and then here there's uh four five six feet between the sidewalk and the

[3:05:16] actual property line. So you got a little bit of space there.

[3:05:19] » So >> so you could you you could actually

[3:05:23] justify the zero to five with that. You can. Yeah,

[3:05:27] » because you've already got five. >> If you look at that building on I want

[3:05:30] to say the corner of Capitol and Harrison

[3:05:33] » on the north side that's the yellow duplex.

[3:05:37] It's like 4 feet from the property line and the side pan steps and the steps

[3:05:43] take it right to the property line. It's at zero.

[3:05:46] » So it would qualify as zero. >> Mhm.

[3:05:49] » Right now, right? >> Yeah. Yeah. You got some of those

[3:05:52] » and that doesn't affect existing. That's just anything new.

[3:05:55] » It's just what we do in the future. And if of course one of those buildings was

[3:05:58] destroyed and had to be replaced, these rules wouldn't apply to replacing it.

[3:06:01] They have to replace it as is. They just have to bring it up to fire and

[3:06:05] earthquake codes and stuff. But >> okay, [clears throat]

[3:06:10] » but if if that did happen, >> they could

[3:06:13] » and you wanted to do something, if you wanted to,

[3:06:16] » you could >> go two or three stories,

[3:06:18] » you could.

[3:06:22] Can you under that? I mean, if you weren't if you were going to do

[3:06:26] something more than what was there, you could still use that existing line.

[3:06:36] » This is like the most flexible thing we've done since I've been on the

[3:06:39] commission. I really like it >> for this particular neighborhood.

[3:06:43] » Yeah. If the property line is like five feet on this side of the sidewalk, I'm

[3:06:47] good with another five feet being enough. Yeah, I think so, too.

[3:06:52] » One concern I kind of have, well, just depends how close that if there's zero

[3:06:56] and if but right up if you have >> Yeah, just depending I guess you

[3:07:01] probably have enough room, but we've had issues with balconies and we're allowing

[3:07:05] to go up three stories 30 45 ft. Now you're going to Our big concern is what

[3:07:11] snow and things that come off the >> and we don't want that. We don't want

[3:07:14] that encroaching in the public space. said that many times which is why I'm

[3:07:18] kind of okay with five >> five foot minimum is what

[3:07:20] » well maybe what we has to be six by eight if I remember from earlier tonight

[3:07:24] so maybe we need to set that to six feet so that if they have a balcony it goes

[3:07:28] to the property line

[3:07:32] » just thinking about that in advance before we get asked for a variance

[3:07:37] » what would be the benefit of 10 feet in your mind

[3:07:41] » uh more than anything consistency with what

[3:07:45] on there. I just think about looking at this uh corridor and thinking about

[3:07:49] those buildings being really kind of close to the the property line. And I

[3:07:55] think uh just a little setback gives you better visual quality for homes. It gets

[3:08:01] you a little bit further from the street, little protection from noise.

[3:08:04] » And they can come and get an uh encroachment, right? They can come and

[3:08:09] petition for [sighs] >> they want a balcony.

[3:08:12] » Well, they can. Well, >> yeah.

[3:08:15] » We're trying to eliminate that, but >> Right. Yeah.

[3:08:18] » Yeah. It's easier to handle this up front.

[3:08:22] » All right. >> A bunch of

[3:08:26] » one thing that just kind of crossed my mind, you know, and you know, just

[3:08:29] because I, you know, we're getting older, got a elderly mother and I had

[3:08:34] grandparents to live up off 25th Street. And, you know, I know how I know that

[3:08:38] this will increase the value. Uh unfortunately there's certain people

[3:08:42] that are your house increases so does your taxes and you know

[3:08:46] » family members that come in trying to file stuff with the county to get

[3:08:50] exceptions to drop their taxes because their value of the property has gone up.

[3:08:55] I mean some people that is a concern especially up in that area. We got a lot

[3:08:59] of retired people that are limited to fixed incomes but just something that

[3:09:03] kind of to think about too as we look at uh the mixed use. So I that would be

[3:09:09] more in favor of those residents that want to stay residential. I'm I'm in

[3:09:13] favor for that. So the two parcels that we'd take out of this. So

[3:09:17] » kind of my comment. >> One isn't residential now.

[3:09:20] » Yeah. It would stay. >> It's professional office.

[3:09:23] » Yeah. But it would stay the same. So it wouldn't change really anything there,

[3:09:26] right? So I'm okay with that. But >> I think that ought to be cleaned up.

[3:09:31] That's an oddball to have that one little professional office there.

[3:09:41] Does it clean up to make it a >> Are you talking this one here

[3:09:45] » on the east side? >> Yeah. At some point, someone may want to

[3:09:49] take down the commercial building that's on Harrison and replace it with

[3:09:52] something else. >> The news gives them that option if they

[3:09:55] want to potentially purchase the additional land.

[3:10:00] » Again, that's out of our control. So, it is.

[3:10:03] » Well, it's not unless we change the zoning.

[3:10:05] » Yes, I mean. Yeah. So, um, what are the side and the rear setbacks,

[3:10:11] Barton? >> Like five, right?

[3:10:16] » Yeah, we >> Yeah, we're recommending

[3:10:20] » five feet. >> Five.

[3:10:22] » Allowing them to maximize. They are small. Some of the lots are

[3:10:25] » Some of those lots are very And we've deliberately gone with 25.

[3:10:28] » I think those are good. I think that makes sense. Yeah. Are we

[3:10:31] » Are we saying five on the front then? Well, with balconies, I think maybe we

[3:10:36] have to say six. No, you're okay. If we get an encroachment for a foot,

[3:10:39] » you're saying in 10ess the balconies in,

[3:10:43] » right? >> Yes. There you go. Perfect. Okay.

[3:10:45] » With that with that? >> Yeah, you can do

[3:10:46] » with that close of a set. Yeah. >> Yeah. I'm good with that.

[3:10:49] » Or the two-footer. [laughter] >> That's why it's bonus owner.

[3:10:53] » So, what do you Jeremy? >> What?

[3:10:56] » I didn't hear what you said. Well, the two foot the twoft uh balcony that's the

[3:11:00] rest of um on the rest of Washington Boulevard

[3:11:04] » in downtown. That's what we gave um uh property owners on Washington.

[3:11:12] » They asked for six, we gave them two. >> Now the Wonderblock, they asked for six

[3:11:17] and you gave them six. >> They were fickle.

[3:11:21] » But I I I wanted to give them two. I wanted to be

[3:11:26] consistent. >> Yeah. So, all right.

[3:11:30] » Okay. >> Uh

[3:11:33] I think we've talked a lot about this. It's been cleaned up. Where we want to

[3:11:36] go with this. >> All right. How do we Let's see.

[3:11:38] » Someone think >> So, our mixed use zoning text.

[3:11:43] » Let's leave it the way. Yeah. >> I've got it here.

[3:11:49] » The only other thing is that

[3:11:57] Okay. I guess I didn't give me the rationale on the R2 on that. Uh

[3:12:03] » 1170 capital. >> That's a it's a block bat.

[3:12:07] » Yeah. >> This is this is R2.

[3:12:11] » It's currently R2. >> It It's currently R4.

[3:12:14] » It's currently R4. And make it >> R2, which is what this is. Oh, so it's

[3:12:19] not make it >> same as just what's

[3:12:22] » plus they block off >> that was the restaurant.

[3:12:25] » Yeah. >> Hence the reason I it doesn't make a

[3:12:28] massive adjustment. It doesn't change their use in any way. It just gives more

[3:12:32] flexibility to either them or future people who purchase property. So I'm not

[3:12:36] sure the carveout is the right thing. >> It's not really a carve out. It's giving

[3:12:40] it the one that's right next to. >> It's not on the other side.

[3:12:44] » So you painted it one way or the other. >> Yes.

[3:12:47] » It's being changed one way or the other. Correct.

[3:12:49] » Um, >> so that it doesn't all look R4 by

[3:12:51] itself. >> Um, but I mean on the previous one,

[3:12:55] right, there were property owners that asked to get it added to the, you know,

[3:13:00] their zone to be added, >> I think.

[3:13:03] » And so, no, I know I'm saying like on the previous, you know, in West, right?

[3:13:07] They like they added and so it's like now now this property owner is also

[3:13:11] asking >> now we're flop with Commissioner Snowd

[3:13:14] trying to save them, right? >> Well, there's a vast difference between

[3:13:17] someone's There's a big difference because this doesn't change his zoning.

[3:13:22] He can still have a residential property. This doesn't take away his

[3:13:26] right to still reside in his property, >> you know, improve his property. It

[3:13:31] doesn't take that a right away from him. It just gives him more potential in the

[3:13:36] future as a property owner. So, we're not taking away his personal property

[3:13:41] rights. We're just giving him more. So, it's totally different, actually.

[3:13:45] » Yeah. Yeah. I I'm against cutting the two parcels out personally.

[3:13:52] » Leave them in, have clean lines. >> Yes, sir.

[3:14:00] » Or cut them cut them [clears throat] out because we want to make sure that they

[3:14:05] always stay >> residential.

[3:14:09] » Residential. >> We have to maintain a certain amount of

[3:14:12] residential in the zone in the first place. And if they're already

[3:14:16] residential and they're going to stay residential, that helps meet that

[3:14:18] requirement. >> Well, each property has to have so much

[3:14:20] residential. >> No, the entire mixeduse zone has to have

[3:14:24] so much residential >> allows it. Yeah, that was the idea of

[3:14:28] why you would have a master plan so that >> we guarantee so much residential, so

[3:14:33] much commercial. Yeah. >> And you kind of point out this is going

[3:14:36] to be the residential and this is going to be the commercial.

[3:14:38] » Punches. I'd really hate all that work that you're putting into restoring that

[3:14:44] house and have someone turned into commercial. I'd hate to see that, but it

[3:14:48] » Well, it certainly wouldn't happen. >> He's never going to let that happen.

[3:14:52] » That's true. But >> and we certainly don't want to stop him

[3:14:54] from doing the great work he's doing, >> right? So, I mean, it still allows it,

[3:14:58] but Yeah. >> Yes.

[3:15:00] » I'm kind of on the fence on that one. >> How does he feel about it now?

[3:15:03] » Yeah. So I know the petition or

[3:15:08] » if his son decides he wants to inherit the house and he wants to put in a you

[3:15:13] know an accounting office at home or a daughter wants to put in a nail salon

[3:15:19] right now that would require as a residential unit that requires

[3:15:23] significantly more work as a mixeduse development it's automatically allowed

[3:15:28] for them to use that as they wish. There's significant values in those two

[3:15:34] properties being able to stay in the mixed use space.

[3:15:37] » Yeah, I noticed he's shaking his head back there. Can we have you come up one

[3:15:42] uh remind me your name? Uh >> Robert.

[3:15:44] » Yeah, Robert Miles. Can you come up and just after this conversation just give

[3:15:48] us >> just really just a one minute. My

[3:15:51] thought is that if the house is included in in the mixeduse zone, which I'm not

[3:15:56] exactly certain how what they want to do with it or how it would improve the area

[3:16:01] of of for businesses there, is that people that are close to it might have

[3:16:08] ideas that they would like to then say, "Hey, if we can just grab that one

[3:16:11] property, it would we'd be able to do this project that would allow us to."

[3:16:15] And if it's not part of that, then they have another hurdle to go through to

[3:16:19] stop them from just saying, "Hey, if we can just build this bit business a

[3:16:24] little bit bigger and then present it as some starry eyed pie in the sky idea

[3:16:29] that they can then, you know, annex the house or have it become uh part of their

[3:16:35] plan to put in it as a business. We'd like to keep our house. We just been

[3:16:39] living there 26 years." >> Yeah. It wouldn't change it.

[3:16:42] » And we don't want it to >> We wouldn't change anything with your

[3:16:45] health anything other than he he wants to remove the incentive for somebody to

[3:16:50] » Yeah. >> Yeah.

[3:16:51] » Yeah. All right. If they're if it's available for them to be able to do

[3:16:55] that, we don't want them eyeing it and going, "Huh, maybe we can

[3:16:58] » combine it and go in and grab that property, too." That's that's our

[3:17:02] thought. >> Thank you for your additional comments.

[3:17:04] So we'll >> also a house at 9:15 built in 1915

[3:17:11] » restored in such a way there could be other hurdles that could

[3:17:15] be added. It could be part of the landmarks commission.

[3:17:18] » Yeah. So all right I think we beat this. Let's make a vote.

[3:17:23] » Okay. >> Let's go. Let's see where everybody

[3:17:25] » Okay. finding that the proposed text a well proposed text amendment, master

[3:17:29] plan, and the zone change are consistent with the general plan, state federal

[3:17:34] law, the mixeduse master plan criteria, OMC 1428

[3:17:41] 5D, and the zone change criteria in OMC 14184E.

[3:17:47] Recommend the city council adopt the text amendment, master plan, and the

[3:17:51] zone change with the following changes. uh remove the house 1170 Capitol Street

[3:17:59] from plan and reszone that as R2 uh include

[3:18:06] the house at 121625th and reszone that as mixed use.

[3:18:14] Um, and

[3:18:18] the only other change is that the front set back be uh 5 ft.

[3:18:24] » I'll second that. >> Have a motion by Commissioner Southwick

[3:18:27] and second by Commissioner Shenot. Roll call vote. Uh, Miss Pagano.

[3:18:32] » Commissioner Amadov. >> Yes.

[3:18:35] » Commissioner Humphre. >> I.

[3:18:37] » Commissioner Sando. >> Yes.

[3:18:40] » Commissioner Southwick. >> Yes.

[3:18:42] Commissioner Williams. >> Yes.

[3:18:45] » Commissioner Shenoda. >> Yes.

[3:18:47] » Chair Ross. >> Yes. That passes that. We'll go to the

[3:18:51] city council. Uh again, you know, they'll go there. Go voice your opinions

[3:18:55] there as well as you have here. Thank you for coming and being part of We've

[3:18:59] been we've been working on this one for a little while and so this is good good

[3:19:03] to see progress. So, thank you. Uh all right. Um, we'll go to item eight,

[3:19:09] public hearing, airport development guidelines. And I believe that's

[3:19:14] Barton, too. So, >> Brandon,

[3:19:17] » do we have someone from community development? Yeah. Oh, there you go,

[3:19:21] Brandon. Sorry. So, okay.

[3:19:26] » Awesome. Thanks, Bon. >> Thank you.

[3:19:32] Um so yeah item uh last item on the agenda is the airport development

[3:19:36] guidelines. Um we have Brian Condi our airport director here and uh Jud Hill

[3:19:44] our consultant from Lochner or Egyp. Yeah. Okay. Um so they're here in case

[3:19:52] uh you have any questions. Um, but some of the thing items that we'd like the

[3:19:57] planning commission to consider are do these guidelines provide a structure

[3:20:01] that establishes procedures and expectations for developing on the

[3:20:05] airport? Uh, do the guidelines help improve safety and professionalism?

[3:20:10] And last, do the guidelines help accomplish the airport's mission? Um, so

[3:20:16] just give a little background of the airport. So it was um established in

[3:20:21] 1943 and um so it's seen a lot of years. Um

[3:20:29] it's changed quite a bit from what it was originally to what it is now. Um

[3:20:34] some of the buildings that were built in uh when it was originally

[3:20:38] um I guess well in 1943 there are still buildings there that are original. So,

[3:20:47] um, so you have a big variety of, um, new buildings and buildings that have

[3:20:52] been there, um, a long time. Um, here are some images that I took. Um, so

[3:20:58] there are some, um, some buildings that need some love, that need some

[3:21:04] renovations, um, redevelopment. Um but then uh yeah the Ogden airport or Ogden

[3:21:12] Hinkley airport is uh has seen a lot of investment um throughout the years as

[3:21:18] well. We have the the Breeze Airways um we have our new uh terminal um that was

[3:21:26] recently opened which is is amazing. Um there's lots of businesses that have

[3:21:31] invested um on the airport as well as um around the airport. So

[3:21:38] um you can kind of see that the airport's changing um in a positive way.

[3:21:44] um also has a lot of fixed space operations um where airplanes are

[3:21:50] maintained and um where um people using the airport um can can

[3:21:58] receive service. So there's um our goal is for the airport to to be a

[3:22:05] professional regional airport. And so um as the airport grows there are three

[3:22:12] areas three group areas um that are part of this the guidelines. So group one is

[3:22:19] your general aviation. So um your small airplanes single prop airplanes um so a

[3:22:27] lot of lot of the older hangers are generally in this found in this area. Um

[3:22:33] just I guess said to be yeah south of the

[3:22:38] terminal and group two is more of your commercial or corporate um hangers

[3:22:45] associated with um sky share and your skydiving other um

[3:22:54] yeah just airplane what am I trying to say? Um basically

[3:22:59] airplane training. So, and then group three is an area that's planned for

[3:23:05] larger uh airplanes for large hangers and um we have seen interest recently um

[3:23:13] in this area as well. So, um the airport's trying to adapt to change and

[3:23:19] the development the airport development guidelines are um supposed to help

[3:23:26] achieve the the goal of becoming a professional regional airport. This uh

[3:23:31] aerial shows just ex existing structures on and off the airport. Um it highlights

[3:23:39] structures that are um part of the airport and then the the

[3:23:44] yellow uh just shows those uh buildings adjacent to the airport boundary.

[3:23:53] Um so what do the guidelines achieve? So they provide an overall framework uh for

[3:23:57] how development, redevelopment and infrastructure occur on the airport.

[3:24:02] They establish clear processes and procedures. They help improve safety and

[3:24:08] security. They improve professionalism and how it operates. And then it also

[3:24:14] assures that FA standards are met for funding uh future funding. And then it

[3:24:21] sets expectations on um what happens once uh someone receives a building

[3:24:27] permit and has a lease agreement with the airport.

[3:24:32] So the guidelines these are this is kind of like a table of contents. So you have

[3:24:36] your purpose that describes the purpose of the development guidelines. Um there

[3:24:41] are definitions specific to the airport um different than what you would have in

[3:24:48] our like zoning ordinance. And then it includes the design review process,

[3:24:53] development areas, building guidelines, structure, exterior or exterior

[3:24:58] structures and then construction. So it describes the timeline and expectations

[3:25:05] of what happens during construction. And then there is a pend an appendix that

[3:25:10] includes checklists and um other criteria.

[3:25:15] So I'll kind of go through these uh three that are highlighted.

[3:25:19] So, the design review process. So, the airport um anytime they have a property

[3:25:25] available, they'll um they'll put out an RFP or request for proposal and um so

[3:25:32] anyone that's interested in developing on the airport can submit a proposal and

[3:25:39] there there's a pre-application meeting that's required with the airport staff

[3:25:44] and it allows them to review all of the um applications

[3:25:50] to see what fits the airport's mission best and then there's a conceptual plan

[3:25:57] um that's part of or that's required after that and then the RFP selection um

[3:26:06] criteria is included in that. So once a applicant is selected they'd be required

[3:26:12] to submit a preliminary development plan. It's reviewed by the airport and

[3:26:18] then it's also reviewed by city staff here at at um at city hall. And then the

[3:26:24] final development plan would be checked for meeting NEPA um approval FA airspace

[3:26:32] clearance. So it's typically with heights and then building plan approval.

[3:26:37] So building would uh the building division would verify that it meets all

[3:26:42] building codes and then there would be a lease established with that applicant.

[3:26:49] Um and I'm not going to go through all these but there um the building

[3:26:54] guidelines address things such as height limits uh the size of a building what

[3:26:59] the setback requirements are. that verifies that fire protection is

[3:27:05] considered. Um considers uh the type of structures that are allowed, what type

[3:27:10] of building materials they can have. Um so yeah, it just verifies that

[3:27:16] everything is in compliance. It uh makes sure that any new construction meets

[3:27:22] current building standards, that any remodels or additions or changes to use

[3:27:28] that those buildings um if there is a modification to them, they would be

[3:27:35] required to be um brought up to current building standards. And then it sets

[3:27:40] clear limitations on residential uses. So only snooze rooms would be allowed.

[3:27:46] So, no residential uh uses. >> Can't live in your hanger anymore.

[3:27:49] » Can't live in your hanger anymore. Nope. That's no longer allow or wasn't

[3:27:54] allowed. But >> hanger has to have a plane in it.

[3:27:57] » Yeah. Yeah. The hanger has to have a plane.

[3:27:59] » No more running businesses for security for nothing.

[3:28:02] » And all construction uh must be done by a licensed contractor, which

[3:28:06] unfortunately hasn't always been the case.

[3:28:10] So uh so the highlights um so as I said before we want the Ogden airport to be a

[3:28:18] professional regional airport. Uh we want the all hangers to be designed with

[3:28:24] um using still and compliant and be in compliance with fire code standards. Um,

[3:28:31] so one of the regulations would be that buildings that

[3:28:37] are visible uh and within 100 ft of the public rideway that they meet the same

[3:28:42] requirements that we have for commercial and industrial building standards that

[3:28:46] are outlined in the unified development code. So, um what that does is it just

[3:28:52] um improves the overall appearance of the airport. Um

[3:28:57] and it still allows um hangers that are not

[3:29:02] visible from the public rideway to be completely metal. the the requirement

[3:29:09] for commercial and industrial buildings basically states that um they have to

[3:29:15] have some sort of uh masonry or hardy board some sort of material that

[3:29:20] improves the appearance of the the structure.

[3:29:24] So that's what that requirement is addressing

[3:29:28] um utility services or utilities serving uh buildings. So the lease or lei is

[3:29:36] responsible for connecting the existing systems.

[3:29:40] So such as power, water, natural gas, storm water, waste water, all those

[3:29:44] things um would be the be required. And then um the guidelines also address

[3:29:53] things such as you know how the property around the hanger is maintained. Um it

[3:29:58] addresses outdoor storage. Um it ver or it makes sure the FA standards are kept.

[3:30:08] Any attached um structure or an accessory to the the hanger would be

[3:30:14] required to be approved by the airport director and FAA. And then also set

[3:30:19] standards for lighting, landscaping, parking, signs, fencing, and security.

[3:30:27] Um, as I said before, so this makes it very clear that the uh airport struct

[3:30:34] any structure within the airport property would not be allowed to have um

[3:30:40] sleeping accommodations. So it does allow for snooze and crew rest

[3:30:45] facilities, but those would be um required to be followed by the or they

[3:30:51] would be required to follow the FAA policies for those. So no overnight

[3:30:56] state. And then um last just the this I think is

[3:31:04] going to really help and be important is the construction timeline. So once um

[3:31:09] someone receives a permit uh to construct their their

[3:31:14] hanger or other structure, they're required to um do it in a in a specific

[3:31:21] time frame so that someone doesn't get a permit and then start their their hanger

[3:31:27] and then five years later, you know, they're still under construction. So

[3:31:31] this this is meant to protect against that. So once someone once property is

[3:31:37] leased to someone, they're actively making progress and um that property is

[3:31:43] just not kept forever and doesn't um does I guess the permit is um not not

[3:31:51] finished. So >> So how do you in what's the consequence

[3:31:55] of not finishing? Do they not get to finish or it's taken away from them or

[3:32:01] » Yeah. So they they're they would have a lease agreement.

[3:32:04] » So they would agree to a specific timeline

[3:32:07] » and then um I don't know if we got into the details,

[3:32:12] but I'm sure you could probably speak more to that.

[3:32:18] » Yeah. Are you okay? >> Yeah.

[3:32:23] » Hi, my name is Jud Hill. I'm with Eegis. Uh we're the firm that was working on

[3:32:28] putting this together. Um, as far as what happens, it is set up basically so

[3:32:35] you don't get uh two situations arising. Someone leasing the land and never

[3:32:40] building on it, at which point >> um it's going to be a net negative

[3:32:44] benefit to the airport. Yes, the >> airport is gaining the revenue of the

[3:32:48] ground lease, but that's it's uh also about the functional use of it. There's

[3:32:53] a lot of people that want to be there. You're in a place where people want to

[3:32:55] be. you've got a great facility >> that more people are wanting to be at.

[3:32:59] So, if there's space available to use for the benefit of aviation, you want to

[3:33:04] make sure that's happening. So, you don't want the land banking of just

[3:33:08] leasing it and not building anything. And then through stuff like uh

[3:33:13] construction type bonds where hey, you have to get it done by X period of time

[3:33:17] or um you've got the money set aside to return it to its natural state at the

[3:33:23] your lease gets terminated. you have to return it to the original state, which

[3:33:27] usually includes um completely tearing out any foundation that may have been

[3:33:32] built. Um or it could just be a matter of the land lease or the uh going to

[3:33:40] keep the land where they may have done some bit of earth work, get it back to a

[3:33:44] point where it's no longer and then it can go on to the next available person

[3:33:48] that uh would want to put in an RFP. Is that common for people to come in and

[3:33:53] land bank? Yes. At airports. Okay. >> I actually before this job, I had

[3:33:57] Brian's job. I was an airport director down to Moab. And I actually made sure

[3:34:02] to put this in there because I had that exactly happen to me where someone came

[3:34:06] in. They were really excited, really convinced the county that they wanted to

[3:34:09] they were going to build this great massive hanger and it was going to

[3:34:13] benefit the airport. Lots of planes could stay there. Two years later, there

[3:34:16] was absolutely nothing. and eventually had to work through the process and they

[3:34:21] had to relinquish their lease. Someone else built on it and it's now a great

[3:34:25] big hanger that lots of people use. >> Great. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome.

[3:34:33] [clears throat] >> So yeah, uh we would recommend that the

[3:34:37] planning commission recommend approval of the airport development guidelines.

[3:34:42] » All right, that's my presentation. >> Any questions uh for Mr. Ripia?

[3:34:50] I figured I'd wait till after the >> Yeah. So, okay. Uh well, this is a

[3:34:54] public meeting, so uh if public hearing, so there's anybody here like to address

[3:34:59] this project or uh moving forward, uh please come forward now. So,

[3:35:10] so >> do

[3:35:13] just one question. So as part of this proposal, we're existing

[3:35:19] users at the airport notice on this. >> Okay.

[3:35:25] » The picture I >> All right. Please state your name.

[3:35:29] » So Brian Condi a Ogden city resident also the airport director

[3:35:36] Ogden. >> Um the important part here is that we

[3:35:39] have separated out the groups. So, the master plan that was approved by the

[3:35:45] city council and the mission of the mayor is to protect the local pilots,

[3:35:50] promote commercial air service and promote economic growth. And so, this uh

[3:35:57] layout development guide protects that. Group one protects for the small

[3:36:01] aircraft owners. So, no large corporation could go into group one and

[3:36:05] tear down a bunch of small hangers and put up a large hanger. So, that

[3:36:09] accomplishes that. The group two uh the terminal area is protecting for

[3:36:14] commercial expansion and that area we can get six uh jetway gates in there

[3:36:20] which is about half a million passengers. We're 40 years away from

[3:36:25] that. Don't get excited but we're preserving for that eventuality.

[3:36:30] We are too close to Salt Lake. If you want to go anywhere in the world, go to

[3:36:33] Salt Lake. But if you want to go to a leisure destination, that's our market

[3:36:37] right there. So um we're preserving that. The business growth is in group

[3:36:43] two. So that's like the King Airs or the small jets. And the group three is for

[3:36:48] economic growth either for manufacturers or for um Wasatch Peaks type um hangers

[3:36:57] up there. Now we were in the middle of our primary management documents and

[3:37:03] this was an important item that came up. So last year we were tasked with

[3:37:08] developing this. We've talked with um internal city organizations, the mayor

[3:37:14] appointed airport advisory committee and we've had several airport user groups

[3:37:19] which is open to the public and Jud came out and presented this to the public. So

[3:37:24] they have had this since November and given us their input. So, this is like

[3:37:29] the 16th uh revision that we've taken everybody's

[3:37:33] input to make sure we can accomplish the mission of the council's master plan and

[3:37:39] the the mayor's vision of the airport. So, that this document will help us do

[3:37:44] that. >> Sweet. Thank you, Brian. All right. Is

[3:37:48] there any other comments from the from the public online?

[3:37:53] » Online. >> All righty. I could get a motion to

[3:37:55] close the public hearing. Make a motion to close the public hearing.

[3:37:59] » Second. >> Got a motion from Commissioner Sandow

[3:38:01] and a second from Commissioner South. All in favor?

[3:38:04] » I >> I Okay, let's bring it back.

[3:38:07] » Move. Any oppose? >> Move to approve the

[3:38:09] » I have some questions. >> Okay,

[3:38:12] » go ahead. >> Um, sorry.

[3:38:15] » Not a problem. >> As I look at this map in particular,

[3:38:17] there are two things that strike me that I kind of like to have some answers to.

[3:38:21] The first is in the terminal area for its preservation expansion are a large

[3:38:26] number of hangers for small private general aviation folks that will

[3:38:30] eventually be removed. There is not enough room in group one to

[3:38:35] accommodate replacing them in any way, which means shrinking the number of

[3:38:38] general avi general aviation hangers available on site for the small private

[3:38:42] pilots that live in the area right now. How is that being addressed?

[3:38:48] » Maybe. Yeah, Brian, can you come back up and address that?

[3:38:56] » The are are you talking the redevelopment district?

[3:39:00] » I'm talking the terminal district. There's a significant number of small

[3:39:05] private pilot >> hangers in the current terminal district

[3:39:08] that will eventually be removed. >> Correct.

[3:39:11] » There is almost full buildout and currently as identified as group one.

[3:39:16] How are you intending to replace those? >> We're not planning on replacing.

[3:39:20] » So, >> we we've been given three missions.

[3:39:26] » Ogden is primarily a general aviation airport. It primarily services the local

[3:39:32] pilots in the area from South Davis and so forth. The next thing I noticed that

[3:39:36] I was going to ask about is the area that's on the west side or yeah, I guess

[3:39:41] it's west side of development of the jet center space where AV is at is not

[3:39:45] identified for future development or is that already owned by someone? Is it

[3:39:50] between the end of the thresholds of runway 3 and 35?

[3:39:56] Uh yeah, that area is not uh able to be developed because of the uh airspace

[3:40:01] restrictions in that area for for a vertical construction. We can put ramp

[3:40:05] out there and park aircraft, but no vertical.

[3:40:08] » But that so the westside development that was originally planned for that

[3:40:11] can't be built now. >> Correct.

[3:40:14] » Okay. and under this configuration. >> So in 2016, it was brought up in the

[3:40:21] master plan that uh runway 321 is your primary runway and you don't need runway

[3:40:29] 1735 and that would open up a lot more development

[3:40:35] uh potential 600,000 square feet. Uh but we would lose several of our flight

[3:40:41] schools because that's their main >> the primary runway that's used as 1735

[3:40:47] » because it's primarily for flight training.

[3:40:49] » Correct. >> But again, what's the mission of the

[3:40:52] airport? I don't see flight schools anywhere in the mission of the airport.

[3:40:57] » Protecting the local pilots is in group one. Protecting for commercial air

[3:41:02] service that is in the terminal area. Now, if we let somebody come in there

[3:41:07] and build a hanger with a 40-year lease, now we can't do anything in that

[3:41:11] terminal area for 40 years. So, that group of individuals, they will be able

[3:41:16] to keep their hangers on 5-year renewing terms for probably 20, 25 years until we

[3:41:22] need that space. So, that is protecting the local pilot. Well, short term

[3:41:29] long term, you're shrinking what the local pilot has access to.

[3:41:33] Uh, has there ever been any discussion to like Salt Lake number two and Salt

[3:41:38] Lake International both have the in essence tea hangers without the sides

[3:41:42] that they lease >> um and rent out for a lot less expense

[3:41:46] behind all the large hangers. Is there any discussion about any of that

[3:41:49] happening at Ogden? >> Um,

[3:41:51] » because I did notice that there were a few older spots that are empty in group

[3:41:55] one when I looked last night. Uh those are all in the redevelopment

[3:42:00] district and we have individuals wanting to come in and put in new tea hangers.

[3:42:03] » That's fantastic. >> That are compliant with the FA

[3:42:06] standards. Okay. >> What's put in now is not compliant with

[3:42:09] any FA standard. Not even for the group one.

[3:42:12] » We don't have the proper wing clearance. So a group one aircraft is 49 ft or

[3:42:17] less. >> But we have small aircraft and jets in

[3:42:20] that group one area right now. We don't want to build a 300,000lb ramp

[3:42:25] for a jet and put a 3,000lb aircraft on it. So, anyone that goes into the group

[3:42:30] one, they're going to put in small tea hangers or box hangers. If we want to

[3:42:34] maximize it, we will put in tea hangers. And we have four options in that area to

[3:42:39] maximize the number of hangers, more than we have now, or to put in box

[3:42:44] hangers. Now, the shade hangers, uh, they pencil out not much more than a a

[3:42:50] tea hanger. >> Yeah.

[3:42:53] » That they not only have to have the downward lift, but then the wind comes

[3:42:56] up underneath. They've got to be structured to withstand, you know, gale

[3:43:00] force winds. So, that that's a possibility. If somebody wants to invest

[3:43:05] in that, the land is going to be available for them

[3:43:09] to invest in that. >> Can I ask a quick question? So, our two

[3:43:12] closest airports that would be available for like these small pilot planes is

[3:43:15] what? Bountiful and Logan. Is that correct?

[3:43:17] » Morgan. >> Oh, there is a Morgan one. Just curious

[3:43:21] what what the options are close by >> for

[3:43:25] » Yeah. >> That is a

[3:43:28] » Yeah, go ahead. That's >> Are we looking reason why is flying?

[3:43:33] » That's an elected official decision on how much they want to protect the flight

[3:43:38] schools at the expense of the other three. I asked just because uh you know

[3:43:42] uh my father's private pilot had a small plane. He houses it at the Ogden airport

[3:43:46] for a while and but then uh my other friend has one in Bountiful and he just

[3:43:51] commutes down to there and you know I got a few friends that that do have

[3:43:54] small planes but I know there's options around.

[3:43:57] » There are there are to answer those specific airports. U Bountiful is a

[3:44:02] unique situ well semi unique situation. Um there's 46 public use airports in the

[3:44:08] state. And two of them are privately owned,

[3:44:12] Fairfield and Bountiful. Okay. >> So basically the FAA rules do not apply.

[3:44:17] They generally try to keep so like the spacing they won't allow things to be

[3:44:22] get built that are too close to one another, but not any of the existing

[3:44:27] hangers have proper spacing. Their new ones built do have that. They do have an

[3:44:33] incredibly long wait list at last I heard just for a

[3:44:37] » not even undercover just a parking space. They have a

[3:44:40] » 75 person plus weight list >> to get into there. Um

[3:44:46] so this as Brian said the terminal area. Yes, there are the small hangers there

[3:44:50] but that's protecting for the very long term. Obviously they're not just getting

[3:44:55] being displaced at this time. >> No, but they will be displaced at some

[3:44:59] point in the future. Yes. that reduces the protection of the small

[3:45:04] pilot in this area because the total number of hangers available becomes less

[3:45:08] and if there's already weight lists no one wants to fly out of Salt Lake as a

[3:45:12] general pilot and number two is a long ways and in the middle of nowhere and

[3:45:16] Bountiful is difficult because there's a long wait list so that pushes pilots to

[3:45:20] Brigham City >> Brigham City would be the next closest

[3:45:23] they're developing Logan >> and we're comfortable pushing our local

[3:45:26] pilots up there because there's not enough space in Ogden

[3:45:30] comes our choice, right? >> Yeah. It's and I, you know, on on the

[3:45:34] larger picture, the state is um Salt Lake is very not in favor of small

[3:45:41] aircraft. Every one of those shade hangers describing

[3:45:44] » an hour to get to the runway from they rip those out. Those are being I had a

[3:45:50] couple friends that >> Yeah.

[3:45:51] » had to move down to South Valley. Um, and then Logan, they're actively

[3:45:56] building hangers as well >> because Ogden used to be the largest

[3:45:59] general aviation airport in the state and we're not anymore.

[3:46:03] » Yeah. All right. Well, thank you. I appreciate it. Thanks for answering

[3:46:06] that. >> Now, now the people in the terminal

[3:46:09] area, when I showed up, there were some issues on the um surrendering of their

[3:46:15] property, the reversion of their property. Uh-huh.

[3:46:18] » With the new lease policy, there's no reversion, so they can keep their

[3:46:22] hangers. So, they were going to give them up. Actually, some of them were

[3:46:25] going to give up in 2020. So, the fact that they've got another 20 years

[3:46:29] potential out of their hangers gave them much more value than they would have

[3:46:35] under the old system. And I have not heard anybody complain about the new

[3:46:39] system because they're happy with 20 more years rather than surrendering

[3:46:43] their hangers. there also were part of that discussion and again I have not

[3:46:49] received any verbal or written um complaints about that. We need to

[3:46:53] protect uh for commercial growth hopefully sooner than later because that

[3:47:00] aviation population is only a very small portion of the users of the airport and

[3:47:05] we want to let the rest of northern Utah come to the airport and fly to leisure

[3:47:09] destinations. So short term we are protecting the

[3:47:13] local pilots and giving them 20 extra years that they didn't have two years

[3:47:17] ago. I think most of them are very happy.

[3:47:20] » Yeah. Thank you. >> Did is that all your questions you have?

[3:47:23] » That's everything. Yes. All right. >> Chair, I'll now move to approve the

[3:47:28] airport development guidelines and forward it to the city council.

[3:47:32] » Second. >> Motion from Commissioner Southwick.

[3:47:34] Second from Commissioner Sandal. It's roll call vote. Miss Pagano.

[3:47:39] » Commissioner Amada. Yes, >> Commissioner Humphre.

[3:47:42] » I >> Commissioner Sando.

[3:47:45] » Yes, >> Commissioner Southwick.

[3:47:48] » I >> Commissioner Williams.

[3:47:50] » Yes. >> Commissioner Shenoda.

[3:47:53] » Yes. >> Chair Ross.

[3:47:55] » Yes. That passes and city council. Thank you everyone. Appreciate it.

[3:48:01] » Sorry to keep you so late. Had a lot going on tonight. So, all right. Uh

[3:48:06] we'll move into our review correspondence.

[3:48:10] So, we did uh send you several pieces of correspondence. Uh, one of them was a a

[3:48:16] survey from a private consultant who's also served on

[3:48:22] the diversity commission and helped us out planning. So, you you aren't

[3:48:27] required to take that, but if you do, you can.

[3:48:30] » I did just because. >> So, all right. That all

[3:48:35] right. Thank you. Um, review. Well, let's go from the Manny's not here, so I

[3:48:40] guess citizen advisory. >> So, we didn't meet, but our next meeting

[3:48:44] is scheduled. Oh, so this is for the community and economic development

[3:48:48] citizens advisory committee. Their [clears throat] next meeting is planned

[3:48:52] for Wednesday, October 14th at 6 p.m. There is a vacancy. So, if you're

[3:48:57] interested in how the city spends federal grant funds

[3:49:05] uh from the uh Department of Housing and Urban, United States Department of

[3:49:10] Housing and Urban Development and how it spends money in uh on the four priority

[3:49:17] needs which are improving quality and increasing supply of decent affordable

[3:49:23] housing. two, expanding home ownership opportunities, and three, stimulating

[3:49:29] economic growth, and four, improving physical appearance and safety of

[3:49:34] neighborhoods. If you're interested in that, I encourage you to attend and

[3:49:37] apply for the uh opening. It's exciting. >> Anything else?

[3:49:48] » That it, Jeremy, >> that's it.

[3:49:50] » No, we were laughing at Michelle. He realized that we can see to see you

[3:49:54] Michelle's big enough off girl. >> So tired. [laughter]

[3:50:00] » We can tell you James review a meeting.

[3:50:06] » I think this is the longest meeting we've had in a long time.

[3:50:10] » Blame it on the guy that's filling in for chair. Sorry. [laughter]

[3:50:15] » Um overall, I think everything went good. One thing that I want to caution

[3:50:18] on is um before the meeting there were some

[3:50:22] emails sent around if let's not uh discuss some of the cases that we're

[3:50:28] going to be reviewing in a meeting in emails because that that could violate

[3:50:32] the open and public meetings act and we don't want to do that. Um other than

[3:50:37] that I think everything went pretty well. Um

[3:50:43] except I think everybody else is tired too.

[3:50:47] If I can just jump in. Um I think we saw the real value of zoning. We had a

[3:50:52] neighborhood where it's industrial, residential, industrial, residential,

[3:50:56] and it's like, you know, how much that neighborhood

[3:51:00] would have just benefited from >> a 100 years ago having zoning.

[3:51:06] » Yeah. So, >> yeah. Yeah. Amen to that. We're coming

[3:51:09] in a little late. >> Yeah. And um just to let you know for

[3:51:13] the work session, we'll have a pretty full work session too. Um we're going to

[3:51:20] have a public hearing for just a technical thing. The uh on this the

[3:51:28] exchange building, the stock exchange building. There's we got a

[3:51:34] federal grant 10 years ago to do historic preservation of that area

[3:51:41] and um that expired and so we've got to renew the plans for that uh to continue

[3:51:49] on with that and in order to do that we have to have the public hearing on it.

[3:51:55] So, it's you're not going to be requested to do any action, only to hear

[3:51:59] anybody in the public who wants to hear it. So,

[3:52:02] » are we going to be in here then or? >> Uh, we'll be in the

[3:52:05] » we'll be in the workroom. >> Okay.

[3:52:07] » Okay. >> Um, I don't expect more than two people

[3:52:11] to show up to that. Uh, and we'll also talk about uh the Wall Avenue corridor

[3:52:17] plan and we also want to talk a little bit about the Nine Rails Creative

[3:52:20] District. So, >> all right. Thank you. I have a comment

[3:52:25] on the um preliminary hearing for the one that we tabled. When you see a

[3:52:30] conceptual view of something, you almost feel like you have to um be okay with it

[3:52:35] to pass it. I know the the housing and where it was going to be can change. But

[3:52:41] I don't have a problem with something that has 22 things of and passing it if

[3:52:46] planning is going to work on it. I don't have a problem with that. But I wonder

[3:52:50] sometimes if we pass something with the conceptual view if we're saying okay to

[3:52:56] it. That was my concern. I didn't want them to think we were okay with the

[3:53:00] plan, but I didn't want to stop it either. Yeah.

[3:53:02] » So, how do we manage that? Well, I I was what I was kind of

[3:53:08] thinking is if you feel like the project is on track, like you're you kind of

[3:53:13] see, oh, if we just make some of these changes that that will I can see what

[3:53:19] that's going to look like. But if you're like, I need to see this again

[3:53:23] » and see what all those changes are going to look like. That that would be the

[3:53:29] time I'd say you would kind of >> That's kind of how I was feeling. I

[3:53:32] needed to see that those houses weren't going to be at the bottom of a heel,

[3:53:36] » you know. And I just didn't feel like I could see it. But yet, I know we've

[3:53:39] passed things with 22 things before. >> Yeah.

[3:53:41] » But they were different 22 things in my mind.

[3:53:44] » Yeah. >> So, I just don't know if there's a

[3:53:47] » that that hills a challenge. >> Yeah.

[3:53:51] » Yeah. I I think it was valuable to have the meeting and get the input that was

[3:53:56] received for the developer to hear that and go,

[3:53:59] » "Okay, I see what we need to do." It's probably going to change a lot of our

[3:54:04] layout where and I we get why we need to come up. It's going to add quite a bit

[3:54:09] of time to the review, but >> it's it's important because like you

[3:54:14] say, once we build this, we're going to live with it for many many years. So,

[3:54:18] » well, and if we didn't make those comments in the preliminary and waited

[3:54:21] till the final, that's even worse. >> Yeah.

[3:54:23] » Yeah. That that was my issue. There is the key I got from you, Joe, tonight was

[3:54:30] I don't understand what they're doing here. There's this doesn't make sense

[3:54:34] with this and this doesn't make sense with that. Well, then I'm wondering,

[3:54:37] well, if you haven't dotted the eyes and cross the tees, if there's 20 things

[3:54:40] that need fixed, there's 20 need fixed. But if you haven't dotted the eyes and

[3:54:43] crossed the tees on your preliminary plan, don't bring it to us. Clean that

[3:54:48] up a little bit more. If you don't sound like you're confident in it, I'm not

[3:54:53] confident in it. >> He said,

[3:54:56] » I think they've got the right to submit it

[3:54:59] » and we have to look at it. But I >> I think it benefits the developer too

[3:55:05] because then they get other perspectives rather than just what they what they've

[3:55:10] gone through and what they've talked to planning about. They they have they've

[3:55:14] got another what seven people that that have looked at it and said I don't know

[3:55:18] about this and and and some of them really could be sight specific like on

[3:55:23] on this one. Yeah. with the elevation change coming down off of Jackson that

[3:55:27] that could be a pretty significant issue. Whereas if it's if it's a flat

[3:55:32] run in, you're not going to have the same problem. And so if there's 22

[3:55:37] items, then there's 22 items. But if some of those items are potentially

[3:55:42] drainage based and safety based, then yeah, they're they need to look at that

[3:55:46] a little bit closer. >> Yeah. Particularly if it's going to

[3:55:50] really affect the layout. It's the layout's going to change significantly.

[3:55:56] You probably want to see that >> there happens to be a piece of property

[3:55:59] for sale on 27th Street that butts up against this that the previous I think

[3:56:06] there's been an ownership change on this. Maybe, maybe not.

[3:56:09] » We've we've tried making them connect and it and

[3:56:13] » I I have the property currently listed for sale. They had communicated with my

[3:56:18] seller previously and had tenatively discussed purchasing it and it would

[3:56:26] significantly >> improve.

[3:56:30] Not that I have any >> we don't have control over it. Things

[3:56:33] like that come and go. >> Yeah.

[3:56:35] » But but I think uh Mr. Scatty's comment of

[3:56:42] » Well, I was seeing that too. I don't think that's a good one. off.

[3:56:47] » Yeah. >> But I think my thing is I always want to

[3:56:49] just move it on and I think sometimes it's okay to step back and say,

[3:56:53] » "Yeah, >> and I know we passed it with 22 before,

[3:56:56] but I don't feel good about this one with 22."

[3:56:59] » Yeah. >> Um things.

[3:57:03] » Good job. >> Move to journ.

[3:57:07] » I commissioner I

[3:57:16] We should now. Okay. >> Yeah, I finished my report, but I'm kind

[3:57:22] of like

Planning Commission Meeting | September 2, 2026

Transcript