[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