[0:16] Winchester's
[1:16] all right welcome everyone we will call
[1:21] this February 20th 2020 meeting of the
[1:25] Murray City Planning Commission to order
[1:27] I'd like to welcome everyone tonight and
[1:30] first order of business I'd like to
[1:32] introduce the people that we have here
[1:35] with us on staff we have Jared Hall and
[1:38] Zach Smallwood I was gonna say little
[1:42] wood and that would have been very
[1:43] demeaning I'm sorry Zach Smalley
[1:47] we have ned hacker i'm phil markham the
[1:50] chairman tonight we are missing a few
[1:55] members tonight for various reasons but
[1:57] we do have a quorum and so things will
[1:59] run smoothly I'm sure before we get
[2:01] started tonight I would like to go over
[2:04] just some rules for the meeting when we
[2:09] have I I will bring up the agenda items
[2:14] I will review the agenda with you and
[2:16] then as I bring up the agenda item then
[2:19] we will have a presentation from staff
[2:21] we will have discussion with the
[2:24] Planning Commission we will allow for
[2:26] public comment and we will bring it back
[2:28] up for a decision and when we have
[2:31] public comment I would first of all
[2:33] appreciate if you could turn off any
[2:35] cell phones that you may have at this
[2:37] time so we don't interrupt the meeting
[2:40] we request that anyone's anyone's
[2:43] welcome to speak when you come up please
[2:45] wait to be recognized by myself come up
[2:48] to the podium state your name and
[2:50] address for the record and then you have
[2:52] three minutes to address the topic at
[2:55] hand we would ask that if there's a lot
[2:57] of comment on one particular item that
[2:59] you try and keep the information flowing
[3:02] with new information each time not not
[3:05] repeat the same information over and
[3:08] over if you would please and if there is
[3:10] anyone here representing a group of
[3:12] people we will allow five minutes for
[3:15] so with that I think we're ready to
[3:19] start so we'll we'll go to the agenda
[3:22] and first item on our agenda there are a
[3:26] few business items and the first one is
[3:28] approval of minutes we have the three
[3:30] minutes that we need to approve for
[3:33] tonight and we have minutes from January
[3:43] 16th Wow well let's let's start yeah
[3:47] January 2nd all right here we go
[3:49] December 5th January 2nd and January
[3:52] 16th I had my backwards after I clipped
[3:54] them so has everyone had a chance to
[3:57] review those minutes yes
[3:58] any Corrections that anyone saw great we
[4:05] did have one mention of a minor
[4:07] clerical correction in our pre meeting
[4:09] and that has been noted and so that that
[4:12] has been entered into the record but
[4:14] with that I will I will call for a
[4:17] motion to approve the minutes mr. chair
[4:21] I'll make a motion that we approve the
[4:22] minutes from the December 5th January
[4:25] 2nd and January 16th fine and Zoning
[4:27] mean like the second motion have a
[4:30] motion from Scott Woodbury a second from
[4:32] Lisa Malkovich to approve the minutes as
[4:34] read into the record tonight those in
[4:37] favor aye
[4:38] any opposed no ok carries unanimously
[4:42] the next item on our agenda is conflict
[4:46] of interest do any members of the
[4:48] Commission have any conflict of interest
[4:50] with any item on the agenda this evening
[4:52] no no and I do not either so the final
[4:57] business item is approval of findings of
[5:00] fact we have two findings of fact that
[5:04] have previously been discussed by the
[5:07] Commission we have one for Smith Family
[5:09] Dental and an additional one for fashion
[5:13] place mall for signage fashion place
[5:15] mall everyone's had a chance to review
[5:17] those yes any Corrections I'll entertain
[5:22] a motion mr. chair all make a motion
[5:23] that we approved the findings of facts
[5:25] and conclusions for Smith Family Dental
[5:27] which is a condition
[5:28] use permit to approve the construction
[5:31] and operation of a new dental office and
[5:32] fashion place signs which was to
[5:36] conditional use permit to allow multiple
[5:39] signage throughout the fashion place
[5:41] mall property including an electronic
[5:42] message center okay do I have a second I
[5:46] second that motion you have a motion by
[5:48] second Woodbury a second by Ned hacker
[5:50] to approve the findings of fact for
[5:53] Smith Family Dental and fashion place
[5:55] signs all those in favor aye
[5:59] any opposed okay passes unanimously
[6:02] thank you alright now we'll get to the
[6:04] meat of our agenda tonight and the first
[6:10] conditional use agenda we have it is a
[6:18] beautiful fence item number for a
[6:20] beautiful fence incorporated at 41 95
[6:22] South 500 West unit number 34 and Jared
[6:27] Hall will be presenting this for us
[6:29] tonight it is for a fence contractor
[6:37] this is m-g zoning in d what commonly is
[6:40] referred to as the Garko industrial park
[6:43] unit number is right in here I believe
[6:46] it is M G Zoning contractors are
[6:48] required to get conditional use permit
[6:50] approval to operate they're in that zone
[6:54] it's a standard unit number 34 nine
[6:57] hundred square feet there's a small rest
[6:58] room a small office the rest of the
[7:00] space is shop space that they plan to
[7:02] use for this fence contracting business
[7:05] and installation they have a couple of
[7:07] places where they all set up their table
[7:09] saw metal saws have a little bit of
[7:11] storage inside the unit that's all all
[7:14] fairly appropriate one of the conditions
[7:17] was that we look at the electrical
[7:19] situation with a permit to make sure
[7:20] that everything has been done correctly
[7:22] you'll see that in your conditions
[7:24] another condition that we worry about in
[7:26] Garko is storage of anything outside
[7:28] materials cannot be stored outside
[7:30] there's not a space for emergency
[7:31] services to get through if that happens
[7:33] so we don't allow outdoor storage of any
[7:35] materials or of the work vehicle in this
[7:37] case because there are only two parking
[7:39] stalls available for any unit in gar
[7:41] and that's no exception here we do just
[7:45] wanted to mention also that we look at a
[7:47] DEA requirements when we process
[7:49] anything in this industrial park the
[7:52] Commission a couple of months ago
[7:53] recently required someone else to have
[7:54] install an ad a compliance stall nearby
[7:57] and so we're not requesting that in this
[8:00] case we are recommending approval of the project with the following five
[8:04] conditions one of them being that they
[8:07] get a license for this also that they
[8:09] keep all the storage and the activity
[8:10] for the work inside the unit including
[8:14] the storage of the vehicle the work
[8:16] truck and that that clear access be
[8:18] maintained you have any questions for
[8:20] staff George can you address the
[8:22] handicapped parking yeah I'm sure you
[8:25] bet
[8:26] so I'm gonna forget which unit it was or
[8:28] I think it was number 31 or 30 31 and 32
[8:31] perhaps that we just recently in
[8:33] November or December process that
[8:35] application for Lake City motors and one
[8:37] of their conditions was to to turn one
[8:39] of the parking stalls they had available
[8:40] into an ad a compliant but an accessible
[8:42] stall they're working on that now and
[8:44] that will that will cover the
[8:46] requirements as a reminder one out of
[8:50] every 25 stalls is supposed to be a DA
[8:53] accessible in the project so years ago
[8:55] with Garko we started looking at the
[8:57] project and making sure that we got one
[8:58] about every 25 stalls so that row will
[9:01] be taken care of with that Lake City
[9:03] motors application excellent thank you
[9:05] thanks any any questions for Jerry not a
[9:08] question but Jared just a small little
[9:09] clerical error condition number three
[9:12] one letter adequate fire land I think it
[9:16] should be adequate fire lane I'm
[9:21] constantly learning alright
[9:27] well seeing that we have no further
[9:30] questions from staff on this right now
[9:32] we'll we'll open this item for Pablo
[9:35] excuse me we'd like to the applicant to
[9:37] come forward please and address us and
[9:40] add any additional information if if
[9:43] there is anything you'd like to add or
[9:44] ask questions sorry about that
[9:46] hello my name is Michelle Castro and I
[9:49] don't have any questions did you state
[9:51] your address
[9:51] my home address is 42 93 west stain
[9:55] Avenue West Valley City Utah 841 to zero
[9:59] okay and you've you've read the
[10:01] conditions attached to this and and are
[10:04] you able to meet those yes okay anything
[10:07] else you'd like to add okay if you'll
[10:11] take a seat we'll we'll see if there's
[10:13] public comment for this and if there is
[10:16] we'll ask you to come back up and
[10:17] address anything that might come up okay
[10:19] thank you all right with that I will
[10:23] open this agenda item up for public
[10:26] comment if there's anyone here that
[10:27] would like to address any any part of
[10:30] this application we welcome you to come
[10:32] up to the podium at this time okay
[10:38] seeing none I'll close the public
[10:40] comment bring it back up here to staff
[10:42] and see if there's any further
[10:45] discussion or if you see fit a motion
[10:51] I'd like to make a motion that we
[10:54] approve a conditional use permit to
[10:55] allow the operation of a fence
[10:57] installation business on the property
[10:58] located at four one nine five South 500
[11:02] west unit number 34 subject to
[11:04] conditions one through five as discussed
[11:08] I'll second have a motion by Lisa
[11:11] Malkovich a second by Scott Woodbury to
[11:14] approve a conditional use permit to
[11:16] allow the operation of a fence
[11:17] installation business on the property
[11:19] located at 41 95 South 500 west unit
[11:22] number 34 subject to conditions one
[11:25] through five as stated in the
[11:27] application call for a vote please yes yes yes okay motion carries the
[11:37] conditional use permit has been approved
[11:39] and so just communicate with staff and
[11:42] know they'll get you all taken care of
[11:44] welcome to Marie I hope the business is
[11:46] successful for you okay all right our
[11:52] next agenda item is a little bit
[11:54] different from from a typical item that
[11:58] we handle in that we have three agenda
[12:02] items that will be combined into one for
[12:04] presentation purpose
[12:05] tonight this this particular
[12:09] presentation will deal with agenda items
[12:11] number five six and seven and they are
[12:14] the Utah education association new
[12:17] office building project also a
[12:20] subdivision project dealing with
[12:22] Arrowhead Lane condominiums and
[12:24] amendment to that and that pertains to
[12:27] this particular piece of property and
[12:29] also the Pontiac subdivision so it's a
[12:32] one lot subdivision amendment so it's uh
[12:35] it's a little more complicated just in
[12:38] reading it out but I'm sure Zach
[12:40] Smallwood will be able to explain it
[12:44] very clearly so we all know what's going
[12:46] on very clearly Thank You chair for that
[12:52] introduction so yeah this is a a
[12:57] multi-step process what I'm going to do
[13:02] for the sake of the audience here today
[13:05] is I'm going to go through this through
[13:08] a number of steps and I apologize I
[13:11] should have put it as the next slide but
[13:13] we'll get the property kind of
[13:15] information out of the way it's located
[13:18] here on ninth east between Arrowhead
[13:20] Lane and Pontiac Drive it's in the Geo
[13:24] Zone which actually leads to what we're
[13:28] going to talk about here so these are
[13:30] what I've laid out is the six steps that
[13:34] we are working with UEA
[13:37] so that they can obtain a new office
[13:41] building that is the ultimate goal here
[13:43] is so that they can get a new office
[13:45] building and stay within Murray because
[13:48] they do like the community here so I
[13:51] will start with number one the general
[13:56] plan end zone change was heard and
[14:00] approved by it was heard by you guys who
[14:05] sent a positive recommendation in 2018 I
[14:09] think October or so and the City Council
[14:12] approved in December of 2018
[14:14] so you can tell how long they've been
[14:17] working on this they've been working for
[14:19] over a year on just getting to this next
[14:22] step which is the most complicated step
[14:24] which are steps two three and four which
[14:27] is what we're here for tonight step two
[14:31] is a partial vacation that sounds a lot
[14:36] more fun than it really is of the
[14:39] Arrowhead Lane condo subdivision so what
[14:43] that entails so here you can see the
[14:46] property as it sits today or what
[14:50] they're proposing to do what they're
[14:52] proposing to do sorry I'm trying to keep
[14:57] my thoughts right so this goes along
[15:01] here this is the existing property line
[15:04] that has the condo subdivision I'll back
[15:07] up a little bit as well
[15:09] condos much like if you were to you know
[15:13] buy a townhome or buy a condo and the
[15:15] high-rise businesses are also able to
[15:18] condominium eyes and sell portions of
[15:21] their building and that's what had
[15:24] happened at some point in the past you
[15:27] EA had decided they used to own this
[15:30] entire building I believe and then we're
[15:32] subletting some of it out and then
[15:34] decided to Conte condo these out so that
[15:36] they could sell portions of the property
[15:38] so you can see here this is the location
[15:44] of UE a currently this is a condo out
[15:49] into I believe four units so what you EA
[15:54] is proposing to do is withdraw from that
[15:58] condominium plat a portion which is this
[16:03] part here which is about half an acre
[16:07] which is largely used as parking right
[16:10] now in that area and as part of that
[16:13] they need to demolish a portion of the
[16:18] building in this location here that
[16:22] building code does not allow for
[16:25] property lines to run through existing
[16:28] building
[16:28] this was an addition that's no longer in
[16:31] use by UEA
[16:32] and so this would allow them to
[16:36] construct that lot so that will be that
[16:41] is agenda item number five but step two
[16:45] in this process I didn't know the most
[16:49] appropriate place to place the pictures
[16:51] so they're right here in the middle of
[16:53] the presentation this kind of explains
[16:55] where the property is in location pretty
[17:00] much where these pictures are taken is
[17:01] where this new property will be located
[17:04] along these sections here so that's
[17:10] number two number three is a single law
[17:13] subdivision so when you withdraw from
[17:16] that condo you have just a piece of land
[17:21] sitting there state code requires that
[17:24] any land be subdivided so that's what
[17:29] the single law subdivision entails which
[17:34] would result in this which is just a
[17:37] single lot that does meet all of the
[17:41] requirements for the general office zone
[17:44] there are sorry let me get to that page
[17:50] so has to happen there's no lot area
[17:55] requirements it does have to have a
[17:58] width of 90 feet which we would measure
[18:00] that here they have approximately 195
[18:03] there hundred ninety six there is a 20
[18:09] foot front setback again would be
[18:12] measured here and then a corner side
[18:16] yard setback of 20 feet as well which
[18:18] would be measured here but there is no
[18:22] rear setback unless you are adjacent to
[18:27] a residential zone because this is not
[18:29] adjacent to a residential zone it would
[18:31] not have a setback requirement that
[18:37] being said we will jump into
[18:42] step four which is the conditional use
[18:45] permit for the actual building itself
[18:48] anything within the general office zone
[18:52] does require Planning Commission review
[18:55] and approval through a conditional use
[18:56] permit for any new buildings being
[18:58] constructed in this zone so this is the
[19:02] existing or the new building site plan
[19:05] as it sits will sit if if approved
[19:09] temporarily and we'll get into that in
[19:11] just a moment the building would be
[19:14] built approximately here does meet those
[19:18] setbacks the front is required 20
[19:22] they're proposing 31 the corner side is
[19:30] approximately 33 feet so 33 feet from
[19:33] the back of sidewalk here to the
[19:36] building so there's additional nine and
[19:41] a half feet or so of park strip and
[19:44] sidewalk as well so you're roughly 40
[19:47] feet from the street 40-something feet
[19:51] from the street and then you have the
[19:52] street there as well so some of the
[19:59] items that we look at during a
[20:01] conditional use permit approval was
[20:05] those setbacks
[20:07] we do have height requirements height
[20:12] requirements in the Geo zone are 30 feet
[20:15] in the any single-family residential
[20:19] zone is allowed to build up to 35 feet
[20:22] in height so this is actually lower than
[20:25] you could be built within a
[20:27] single-family residence they are
[20:30] proposing actually 32 feet and in your
[20:34] staff report I have called that out and
[20:35] stated that it was a mess on my part and
[20:38] that I've called it out as a condition
[20:41] of approval that they need to reduce
[20:43] that by 2 additional feet the
[20:47] landscaping
[20:48] our landscaping requirements requires
[20:53] One Tree I'm sorry
[20:57] can't remember it I'm losing my mind
[20:59] with all this information I have to
[21:01] throw out so three trees five 5-gallon
[21:07] shrubs and ten 1 gallon shrubs for every
[21:10] 100 linear feet of frontage on a public
[21:13] right-of-way so that would have been
[21:15] along here along 9th east and pontiac
[21:18] drive through review they are meeting
[21:22] the tree standards I'm gonna need a more
[21:26] detailed site plan at the time of
[21:28] building permit submit all for me to
[21:30] review that make sure that they're going
[21:32] to meet up with it most of this just
[21:35] said general landscaping lawn shrubs
[21:38] things like that so that will have to be
[21:41] addressed this is kind of the fun part
[21:46] this is the floor plan this is the main
[21:49] level floor plan you can see most of it
[21:51] is almost all of it is used for
[21:55] conference space office space much of
[21:58] what they're doing now and just as an
[22:02] aside here part of the reason that they
[22:04] wanted to do a new office building is
[22:07] the costs to repair the existing
[22:11] structure were far outweighing the cost
[22:15] of a new building and so apparent I
[22:19] believe they've said the applicant has
[22:21] told me that there are leaks in the roof
[22:23] and repairing that is just an exorbitant
[22:25] cost that they can't incur and so it's
[22:27] actually cheaper for them to build a new
[22:29] building and stay on site than it is to
[22:32] do that so this will provide a new
[22:36] updated facility for them to continue
[22:39] their operations as they've been doing
[22:44] this is second level floor plan a lot of
[22:47] this I believe I'm sorry it was on the
[22:50] first floor where a lot of this actually
[22:52] provides them opportunities to grow as
[22:54] well these are kind of office spaces
[22:56] that aren't using at the moment so this
[22:58] does provide them some additional growth
[23:00] possibilities there some of the
[23:05] elevations for you
[23:10] this is the illustrative stripe site
[23:13] plan this kind of shows more this is
[23:17] more reflective of what the building is
[23:19] going to be and what the full build-out
[23:21] of the site will be and as you can see
[23:25] this is where the existing building is
[23:27] right now this little outline here which
[23:29] is going to stay for the time being
[23:32] while they build this new building and
[23:37] then once they move out of that building
[23:39] or once this new building is is
[23:41] constructed they will be moving out of
[23:44] that and demolishing a portion of this
[23:46] building so that they can recoup some of
[23:50] the the parking that may have been lost
[23:52] which I apologize I didn't address at
[23:55] all the parking that they did have the
[24:00] site is currently parked with 295 stalls
[24:05] I believe was my final number yes 295
[24:09] stalls the requirement for the buildings
[24:13] the the entire site even the neighboring
[24:15] site which is go back to this aerial
[24:20] here so for this building and this
[24:24] building I calculated the total parking
[24:28] because they are connected
[24:30] that was the 295 they are required to
[24:33] have 185 so they're well in excess of
[24:37] that with the new building at
[24:40] approximately I believe I think it's
[24:44] 24,000 square feet they need to have a
[24:48] total of 253 with construction of that
[24:52] new building with the parking removed
[24:56] they will still be at 258 spaces
[24:59] provided so there's still five spaces
[25:02] over what's required even though they
[25:06] intend to remove the building in the
[25:09] future and provide more parking in the
[25:12] future so that gets us through steps 2 3
[25:17] & 4
[25:17] the last thing I'll touch on I apologize
[25:20] it in
[25:20] so the the nice pictures the the L of
[25:24] the renderings that they had provided of
[25:27] the building so this here would be nine
[25:29] hundred east this would be turning into
[25:33] Pontiac over here this would be kind of
[25:36] in the parking lot area this would be
[25:41] again within the parking lot area it's
[25:44] not so this is in the parking lot area
[25:50] and then this would be on nine hundred
[25:52] East itself so like I said that gets us
[25:56] through step four this is purely
[26:00] informational at this point but steps
[26:04] five and six which will require you to
[26:06] an additional approval in the future
[26:08] after they are done they anticipate to
[26:14] demolish like I've mentioned the
[26:16] remainder of their site so that they can
[26:19] improve the rest of it to show
[26:21] additional parking additional
[26:23] landscaping etc and leave this portion
[26:27] of the of the arrowhead condominium
[26:30] commercial condominiums
[26:31] intact so with that we are recommending
[26:38] approval on all three the withdrawal the
[26:42] partial withdrawal of the condominium
[26:44] which is step two here the single law
[26:49] subdivision preliminary and final and
[26:52] the conditional use permit for the
[26:56] building itself that was a lot of
[26:58] information I just threw at you I'm sure
[27:02] there will be questions and I'm happy to
[27:04] answer anything that you have at the
[27:06] moment
[27:07] I'll start Zack just do we have a slide
[27:11] of what it will look like with a a
[27:15] future building with the portion that
[27:17] they are going to demolish wiped out and
[27:21] then that remaining part there I'd just
[27:23] like to see kind of a footprint of what
[27:25] that might look like I like this one or
[27:30] all of that is not going to stay the old
[27:32] building
[27:33] right what do you know the old building
[27:35] outline that's that's gone right right
[27:38] but you're talking about maintaining a
[27:41] portion of the condominium ice-t-- old
[27:44] office did I did I get that correct is
[27:47] that more of the long the lines that
[27:49] you're looking that has the this is the
[27:52] new building okay this is the existing
[27:55] and everything that's existing will be
[27:57] gone eventually well except for this
[28:01] little okay that's that's kind of what I
[28:03] was getting at is I I just we don't know
[28:07] right Zack we don't have a desire map
[28:10] that shows us what it'll look like after
[28:14] they've demolished some of the existing
[28:15] building that's correct
[28:17] and and it's at this point that would be
[28:20] coming more at a later point they'll do
[28:23] final design work and final improvements
[28:26] during steps five and six that will lay
[28:29] out the rest of the site work to make
[28:31] sure that it it is complete I mean it
[28:34] meets code as it is but to make it
[28:36] better and Zack if I'm correct and
[28:42] traditionally when we're reviewing you
[28:45] know subdivision projects we're not even
[28:47] necessarily looking at the building per
[28:48] se right now during that for the
[28:52] preliminary yes
[28:54] during that preliminary part yes this is
[28:56] a unique situation I know this is unique
[28:58] but that's I'm trying to draw some
[28:59] comparisons so they will be coming back
[29:01] we will see additional designs for the
[29:04] final the final yes so there may be some
[29:07] tweaks obviously the building has to be
[29:08] a little shorter two feet and some of
[29:09] those other things it would be great you
[29:12] know to commissioner markings and share
[29:14] Markham's to see what it would look like
[29:16] long term with whatever building if they
[29:18] have that yeah and Ashley Atkinson she
[29:21] just stood up and gave me this is an
[29:23] updated version of of that same drawing
[29:25] with the portion of that building there
[29:27] I can if you guys permit I can allow you
[29:30] guys to see it if you'd like that's it's
[29:32] just illustrative at this point it
[29:34] doesn't serve I didn't sure addition
[29:35] that would make sure that would be great
[29:36] I think yeah additional comments and
[29:41] questions for Zack
[29:47] Zach and in terms of impact on
[29:50] neighborhoods as you addressed earlier
[29:53] and thank you for your detailed
[29:54] information you know this the height
[29:56] restriction is actually lower than if it
[29:58] was a single-family residential home
[30:01] they are addressing ingress and egress
[30:03] through closing to some some different
[30:06] accesses and that if you go to the next slide
[30:08] Zach now the previous one sorry that
[30:11] colored one yeah so what you're saying
[30:15] is where these will be our future
[30:17] entries which will actually allow a
[30:19] little bit better traffic flow to be
[30:22] able to come in on to Pontiac or
[30:25] Arrowhead and go back out to the light
[30:26] is that what you're saying yeah and
[30:28] actually I did not address that as as
[30:31] well in this part as as much as I should
[30:35] have
[30:36] so what I would this probably shows the
[30:40] best version of it so as you can see as
[30:45] the property sits today there are three
[30:48] entries into this site there's an
[30:51] entrance here right adjacent adjacent to
[30:53] 900 East there's actually this serves as
[30:59] one but it's technically two because
[31:02] this this sidewalk here actually is a
[31:06] raised sidewalk so you can't cross this
[31:09] with a vehicle so there's an there's an
[31:11] entry here entry here entry here and
[31:15] then an entry here on the north side as
[31:20] well and Zach and what they're proposing
[31:22] is to eliminate essentially the the
[31:24] furthest to towards ninth east on
[31:26] Pontiac that's correct
[31:27] let me have the one so they will have
[31:29] they will be removing that section this
[31:32] the one that would be right here they're
[31:34] consolidating this one so that you can
[31:36] actually get through and circulate into
[31:39] the site a little bit better as well
[31:44] we're talking about flow of traffic
[31:46] little bit but we really haven't talked
[31:48] about traffic numbers like a traffic
[31:50] study but we're not anticipating change
[31:53] in visits to the site because the same
[31:55] company same business that's correct
[31:58] yeah and and that's
[31:59] actually I believe it's conditioned in
[32:01] one of the motions here that a temperate
[32:03] that at most we will only accept or we
[32:07] will only provide a temporary
[32:09] certificate of occupancy that way we
[32:12] have a control that they would not that
[32:17] you ei could not build this building and
[32:19] then decide oh we're not going to tear
[32:21] it down after all we're going to lease
[32:23] this out and use additional stuff so
[32:25] there's a temporary certificate of
[32:28] occupancy that allows them to move in
[32:30] but we wouldn't issue a final
[32:32] certificate of occupancy until after
[32:34] that the demolish demolition of the rest
[32:40] of that site that's a nice addition of
[32:43] information yes any other questions at
[32:49] this time for Zack we'll have another
[32:51] opportunity I'm sure here shortly okay
[32:54] is is the applicant present if you'd
[32:57] like to come up sir and and address the
[33:00] Commission with any additional
[33:02] information or perhaps answer any
[33:04] questions that you may have heard Thank
[33:06] You Commissioner Markham I appreciate it
[33:08] and thank you Planning Commission for
[33:09] the opportunity to speak my name is Brad
[33:12] bartels
[33:12] I am the executive director of the Utah
[33:15] Education Association and I'm here to
[33:17] speak to you on behalf of our 18,000
[33:19] members that are statewide our Murray
[33:23] headquarters is basically our spiritual
[33:26] and organizational home and it has been
[33:29] for quite some time I personally have
[33:31] always wanted the challenge I'm working
[33:34] with these professional associations to
[33:35] be part of building a new building we're
[33:39] part of the National Education
[33:40] Association it's fair to say there are
[33:43] state affiliates in every state in fact
[33:45] Utah has - one of them is currently one
[33:48] of our partners in our building and it's
[33:50] fair to say that a lot of those
[33:51] buildings are in disrepair and I used to
[33:54] work in Colorado and we had a very large
[33:56] building that was in disrepair and we
[33:58] are unable to basically make changes and
[34:00] build a new building so this is a huge
[34:03] opportunity for our Association here in
[34:05] Utah to actually kind of revamp our home
[34:08] in Murree and keep that going
[34:11] I sought that challenge I've never had
[34:14] that opportunity before so that's big so
[34:16] I've been here for about a year and a
[34:18] half and I've come to know our building
[34:21] and I can to think about our partners in
[34:23] our building is it's more like a condo
[34:25] maximum than a condominium we have our
[34:29] other state affiliate of the Utah State
[34:31] Employees Association that actually
[34:33] houses in our building we're gonna
[34:36] maintain they're part of the condominium
[34:38] association along with two of our unit
[34:40] affiliates so ultimately in step six of
[34:44] this process that part of the building
[34:46] will still be there that's not part of
[34:49] the application here tonight but that's really our future plan and I
[34:53] believe Commissioner Markham you saw
[34:55] that kind of the picture of what that
[34:58] footprint of that remaining buildings
[35:00] going to be so so again our home is here
[35:03] in Murray and our current building is
[35:05] housed our association for 53 years
[35:08] there to say that our current building
[35:11] is in disrepair probably is really an
[35:14] understatement
[35:16] it is if we didn't demolish it on
[35:18] purpose
[35:19] it would probably demolish itself very
[35:21] quickly and so we're in a position where
[35:23] we really have to do something it is
[35:26] true that the the cost of remodeling
[35:29] this building is in the millions of
[35:31] dollars and it's not something we felt
[35:33] like was a good investment of our
[35:35] members money all the money that Utah
[35:37] Education Association uses is member
[35:40] dues all of our money comes from our
[35:42] eighteen thousand members so we've got a
[35:44] strong fiduciary obligation and make
[35:46] sure we're spending that money wisely so
[35:49] I have come to find out in the last year
[35:51] and a half I've been the recipient of a
[35:53] lot of marie-laure and a lot of Utah
[35:57] Education Association lower yes our
[36:00] building is haunted our current building
[36:02] so we're gonna try to lay some of those
[36:04] ghosts to rest with this move it is we
[36:08] are a neighborhood partner I mean I when
[36:11] I go to work in the morning I see people
[36:12] walking their dogs around our campus
[36:14] I've heard stories about romance as
[36:17] being initiated with picnics and are in
[36:19] our grass over the years it's a very
[36:22] friendly neighborhood and we are
[36:24] definitely a part of it
[36:25] there is a I don't know how else to say
[36:27] it it's a really good vibe there and
[36:30] it's something we really want to retain
[36:32] it's very important for our association
[36:34] to retain that so now we've got an
[36:37] opportunity to really build something
[36:39] new and really strengthen that
[36:40] relationship with the city of Murray in
[36:42] with our neighbor and with our neighbors
[36:44] in our neighborhood and we can build new
[36:46] traditions new relationships we can
[36:49] continue to have that kind of community
[36:50] integration that's so important for us
[36:52] Murray is our home in our association we
[36:56] want to build a new and attractive
[36:58] building to really strengthen that
[36:59] tradition we want people coming to
[37:02] Murray statewide our members patronising
[37:05] Murray businesses and understanding that
[37:07] Murray is really our home so it's very
[37:10] important that we stay there and not
[37:12] just sell the building or move elsewhere
[37:14] or develop other property this is a long
[37:17] term tradition and it's very important
[37:20] for us to make sure that we retain that
[37:22] tradition so we're really excited about
[37:24] our future as you hear about our request
[37:27] for our conditional use permit and the
[37:29] Arrowhead condominium and Pontiac
[37:31] subdivision projects we hope that you'll
[37:33] be excited about that too and I'm happy
[37:36] to answer any questions you might have
[37:37] questions from I have one just projected
[37:44] numbers of employees that will be
[37:47] utilizing the facility exclusive of the
[37:50] new building obviously that's that's
[37:52] proposed down the road in that that's not part of this discussion
[37:56] tonight but is there going to be any
[37:58] change in the number of employees and
[38:01] cars so we currently have one lessee but
[38:10] it's one of our our local we call them
[38:13] local option units it's one of our state
[38:16] of like smaller state affiliate offices
[38:18] they have a number of employees they are
[38:20] actually going to be leasing from us in
[38:22] the new building we have the potential
[38:25] that one of our partners that is that
[38:29] it's still part of the new footprint may
[38:31] be leasing from us in the future we have
[38:34] two what we call state option affiliate
[38:36] units
[38:37] one is in Ogden one represents Eastern
[38:40] Utah and they office in our building and
[38:42] so we're gonna have the same number of
[38:43] employees the same number of lessees in
[38:48] our building so it's not going to impact
[38:50] parking at all all right thank you I
[38:53] appreciate that
[38:54] anything anything else for the applicant
[38:56] at this time thank you very much I think
[38:59] we may have some questions here you're
[39:00] following this all right we have heard
[39:03] from the staff and from the applicant I
[39:06] will open up this agenda item for public
[39:10] comment if you would like to speak just
[39:13] please wait momentarily to be recognized
[39:16] we'll have you come up to the podium
[39:17] state your name and address for the
[39:19] record and and allow you to voice any
[39:22] comments or concerns that you may have
[39:24] so with that public comment is open
[39:28] please
[39:39] I'm Lori Sweeney I have a residential
[39:42] home at 51 95 south 820 east within the
[39:47] 500 feet where we got the notice to
[39:49] about this meeting our biggest concern
[39:52] is parking egress and the timeline for
[39:57] building because it's getting impact how
[40:00] we access our homes during construction
[40:04] it may stay within the parking lot but
[40:07] that's one of the things that were
[40:09] concerned about the timeline how long
[40:11] that's going to last one year two years
[40:14] five years that kind of thing one of the
[40:17] thing couple things are addressed that
[40:19] we're good to hear that they're going to
[40:23] accommodate for parking for their
[40:25] employees but are they considering how
[40:27] many people visit their office building
[40:29] and then are they going to be open to
[40:33] how many people want to drive through
[40:35] their parking lot to access Arrowhead to
[40:38] use the light to get on to 90s as long
[40:42] as there's maybe speed bumps or
[40:43] something to prevent speeding through
[40:45] that parking lot because that will be it
[40:47] will be used for that from both sides
[40:49] probably those are our biggest concerns
[40:53] the fact that they're not planning to
[40:57] least anybody else bigger corporations
[41:00] or something that might what come in and
[41:01] want to use that building for something
[41:03] else I'm sure that would be further down
[41:04] the line sounds like they want to stay
[41:06] in Murray but those are our biggest
[41:08] concerns okay thank you anyone else
[41:20] please
[41:30] my name is Linda Brown
[41:32] I live at 738 Arrowhead Lane I am NOT
[41:35] within the 500 foot area but because I
[41:39] Drive up arrow head lane all the time
[41:43] obviously this is a concern for me
[41:44] leaving our subdivision I am one of
[41:48] those people that on a winter day when
[41:50] it's snowing and right there is at the
[41:52] top of Arrowhead Lane there is an
[41:55] incline that I can't get up if the roads
[41:57] have not been salted or it hasn't melt I
[42:01] am one of those people that drives
[42:03] through the UEA in order to get over to
[42:06] Pontiac which is a flat area for me to
[42:09] make a right-hand turn or left-hand turn
[42:10] depending on traffic so I just wanted to
[42:13] say that what Miss Sweeney's just said
[42:16] as is actually accurate because although
[42:20] I don't speed through there there will
[42:22] be traffic from one entrance to the
[42:25] other based on those those Road
[42:27] conditions
[42:27] I just wanted to add that thank you any other takers please
[42:44] some Glenn Bancroft I live at 51 95
[42:49] South 860 East so I'm in the cul-de-sac
[42:53] immediately south of the and the concern
[42:59] I have is really the parking during
[43:01] construction because it seems like you
[43:05] know our cul-de-sac because we made
[43:06] prime location for folks that want to
[43:08] park and it's really not conducive to
[43:10] street parking because it's so tight so
[43:12] that's okay thank you
[43:21] anyone else okay with that I will close
[43:25] the public comment portion of the of
[43:29] this agenda item and I would invite
[43:31] staff to come up first and address some
[43:34] of these concerns Zac it looks like the major concerns are of course you
[43:41] know parking both in entering an egress
[43:45] time line for construction visitors
[43:48] slash construction parking all of those
[43:51] types of things definitely would be the
[43:53] major topics yeah and that was actually
[43:55] a it was brought up during our planning
[43:59] review meeting that we have with our
[44:01] staff internally the city engineer
[44:03] brought up state the term for
[44:05] construction construction stuff is the
[44:10] staging so where they put their their
[44:12] stuff at night you know why are they
[44:15] impacting construction so that's all
[44:16] called staging so he was concerned about
[44:18] staging for the site and we had talked
[44:21] through that and I believe from what I
[44:24] understand it's going all in here is
[44:27] going to be staying within this area
[44:30] here
[44:36] yeah that was the that's that's the best
[44:40] one I can show so staging will be be
[44:43] happening in that location so we don't
[44:49] anticipate there being construction
[44:51] equipment within the parking areas and
[44:54] we would ask that you EA and the other
[44:58] condo association owners make sure that
[45:01] if they are seeing that to move them off
[45:04] of it or you know move them out of any
[45:06] potential parking areas that will be a
[45:09] responsibility for you EA to do I think
[45:13] you're right excuse me right now there
[45:15] is there's a surplus of surface area to
[45:19] accommodate that to be very honest with
[45:21] you so I I don't see any reason that
[45:24] there would be any construction traffic
[45:26] parking on neighborhood streets or that
[45:27] however would would it be appropriate
[45:31] for us if if there's enough concern to
[45:34] make a condition that construction
[45:37] traffic cannot park on the the
[45:40] subdivision streets you definitely could
[45:42] do that that would be definitely within
[45:45] your ear might be somewhat reassuring
[45:47] yeah it could be reassuring for sure
[45:49] yeah if the Commission would so like
[45:52] that's definitely something that is
[45:54] something that could be considered yeah
[45:55] for sure
[45:56] the second was the circulation at least
[46:01] during this this process where they have
[46:04] both it's actually probably going to be
[46:07] a little harder to get through through
[46:09] the site and from because what you'll
[46:11] have to do is in essence this better
[46:15] actually you'll have to come off
[46:19] Arrowhead here and then loop around to
[46:22] go out so I I'm not I don't anticipate I
[46:25] drove this today I don't anticipate a
[46:28] lot of speeding through here and then
[46:32] this this portion we and I apologize
[46:36] that the public can't see it but the the updated illustrative plan that I
[46:45] showed you guys up there it actually
[46:48] it carves out where this existing
[46:51] building will stay yeah just the owner
[46:53] just this corner here so it's not going
[46:55] to be a complete straight shot through
[46:58] so I think that will help slow traffic
[47:02] down in that area - I don't I didn't
[47:04] anticipate that becoming a huge concern
[47:09] time line that was my last question I
[47:12] will leave that up to you EA to answer
[47:15] because I do not have that information
[47:17] well anything else I can answer see I
[47:22] think other than the timeline I think
[47:25] that that pretty much you might be able
[47:32] to address the construction concerns
[47:34] slightly I believe it's this SW pp plan
[47:39] the swampland this yeah place to
[47:40] minimize the construction influence on
[47:43] the neighborhood around yes but that's
[47:47] not what swip is it's a stormwater
[47:51] pollution prevention but that just
[47:58] controls it in any disturbance on site
[48:01] has to remain on site yeah and yeah that
[48:03] that's pretty much what it does and make
[48:05] sure that like no dust or anything gets
[48:07] in the air or pollutes waterways that's
[48:10] kind of what swip would cover I'm
[48:12] assuming because it's somewhat new to me
[48:14] it might be new to the public as well
[48:16] keeps the streets clean and clear the
[48:18] dust - that's correct and yeah they will
[48:23] have to any construction in this in the
[48:26] state has to obtain swept so these guys
[48:29] would have to get a sweat permit as well
[48:32] Zack was there any concern from the
[48:35] staff review about which road
[48:38] construction will be able to access are
[48:41] they going to go from on to Arrowhead
[48:42] and Pontiac are they gonna go just one
[48:45] or we direct they just because of the
[48:49] nature of the building we haven't we
[48:51] haven't stated which side they can and
[48:54] can't I they might have to get up north
[48:58] and getting through that narrow part of
[49:00] the bill
[49:00] that was not a concern though not a
[49:04] concern I know some some developments
[49:06] that come in you know it is a concern
[49:08] and we have putting conditions where you
[49:10] know it can only be accessed on a
[49:11] certain Road yeah now though tre the
[49:14] city ins and City Engineer did not have
[49:16] any concerns with accessing on either of
[49:20] them so he doesn't have concerns tonight
[49:22] yes tonight any other questions for Zach
[49:26] at this time okay all right
[49:29] mr. Bartels if you could come back up
[49:31] please and and address the construction
[49:34] timeline if possible so I can't start
[49:38] too soon for me we're anticipating 12 to
[49:41] 18 months for construction - okay and just so everyone here is clear we
[49:47] have no intention of parking
[49:49] construction materials or vehicles on
[49:52] any of our adjoining streets we have we
[49:54] have plenty of parking space and other
[49:57] space that we can use particularly after
[49:59] the initial demolition demolition of the
[50:01] corner of the building that we're still
[50:04] going to be well over what our minimum
[50:06] is rendering construction on the egress
[50:09] issue I confess that I've driven across
[50:11] our parking lot so I can get out of here
[50:13] myself I think it's the wise thing to do
[50:17] to be very honest so I'm not
[50:20] anticipating that our neighbors who want
[50:22] to use our parking lot for egress one
[50:24] way or the other are gonna feel any
[50:26] difference once the project is completed
[50:28] and as the engineer said I mean at least
[50:31] during construction even if that little
[50:33] tight area between the new building and
[50:36] the old building prior to demolition is
[50:38] used by construction it's still going to
[50:40] be possible to move through our parking
[50:42] lot right I know we have a lot of people
[50:44] that use our parking lot that way and
[50:47] sometimes Park in our lot if they're
[50:48] neighbors right our intention is to
[50:50] continue to be a good neighbor okay well
[50:53] thank you I have another question about
[50:55] the parking so one of the questions was
[50:57] parking not only for your employees
[51:00] which numbers stay about the same but
[51:02] then when you have visitors coming
[51:04] meetings and that sort of thing is that
[51:06] obviously increases the number of
[51:09] parking stalls needed but as you see
[51:11] that as being a an issue in the future I
[51:13] don't
[51:14] see it as being an issue in the future
[51:15] we are gonna have ultimately about the
[51:18] same number of parking places that we
[51:20] have now there are some times that we do
[51:23] have events in our auditorium which you
[51:25] know seats maybe people and we will have
[51:27] people coming in and our parking lot
[51:29] will be more full to be honest with you
[51:32] in eighteen months I have never seen our
[51:34] parking lot full I have rarely seen it
[51:37] half full we are we are blessed with a
[51:40] wealth of parking spots far over what
[51:42] the minimum would be for a building like
[51:45] our so and again I mean our intention is
[51:47] we want to continue to be good neighbors
[51:49] and and we we're not going to make any
[51:53] changes as far as sort of a the volume
[51:55] of people that are using our building
[51:59] and you know that's our intent thank you
[52:03] very much thank you so you have an
[52:06] auditorium you currently have an
[52:08] auditorium that you invite other people
[52:10] into yes we do
[52:11] so that okay thanks very much mr.
[52:15] Bartels thank you all right with that I
[52:18] will bring it back up to some more
[52:24] discussion for this particular
[52:28] combination of agenda items I am
[52:32] required to have three different motions
[52:34] we do have to have a motion and vote on
[52:37] each of the agenda items the conditional
[52:41] use permit for the new office building
[52:43] the subdivision the condominium
[52:46] amendment and partial withdrawal and
[52:47] also the 1 lot subdivision amendment as
[52:51] well so we will handle those separately
[52:53] we felt it was best to take public
[52:56] comment on all three at one time so we
[52:58] didn't just beat the subject to death a
[53:09] good question I did not specifically ask
[53:13] mr. Bartels if they have read all of the
[53:16] conditions with the first agenda item
[53:18] and if they are able to meet those
[53:21] conditions
[53:24] yeah and and I'll go I'm gonna repeat
[53:27] this a couple more times to you just so
[53:29] we we cross all the t's into her all the
[53:31] eyes we certainly have had an
[53:33] opportunity to read the conditions in
[53:34] the report and we believe we can meet
[53:36] all the conditions that was pacified for all three of the agenda items okay
[53:41] all right thank you I appreciate that
[53:44] statements all right now I think we're
[53:47] any questions so I I appreciate all the
[53:54] comments that everybody made I really
[53:56] think this is a wonderful opportunity
[53:57] for you a to both vacate their current
[54:02] dysfunctional building build new stay in
[54:06] Murray
[54:07] and as we saw in the staff report for
[54:10] them to have some opportunity to expand
[54:12] as we're growing community across the
[54:16] region we know that will happen and to
[54:20] close a couple of driveways or perhaps
[54:22] two driveways or consolidate them which
[54:25] should help traffic probably on both
[54:29] streets both Arrowhead and Pontiac so I
[54:35] think this is a good opportunity for
[54:39] both you EA the neighborhood and frankly
[54:42] for Murray City so I agree mr. chairman
[54:48] we had discussed potentially condition
[54:53] yes actually after the discussion I
[54:56] don't personally feel like it's
[54:57] necessary based on I mean it's you know
[55:01] there's adequate parking the staff
[55:04] typically does a very good job at
[55:06] policing those things mr. Bartell said
[55:09] that they will not be parking or staging
[55:11] off property having seen similar
[55:15] projects I don't necessary I personally
[55:21] don't feel like it's necessary to add a
[55:23] condition for that all right and as
[55:28] chairman I can't make a motion
[55:31] I think that's fine I think that's up to
[55:35] the staff also to ensure that that
[55:38] happens on all construction sites good
[55:42] job of that just the discussion when the
[55:45] staff calculates parking they calculate
[55:48] employee and visits so I feel like in
[55:51] the past they've shown competence in
[55:53] this area have they did a great job and
[55:55] also the discussion suggests that the
[55:59] construction traffic will be respectful
[56:02] yeah I mean I mean if tre would have
[56:04] felt like that there was an issue with
[56:05] it and it was going to be tight either
[56:07] on parking or on staging any of those
[56:09] then certainly I would feel more
[56:12] compelled to add a condition but at this
[56:13] point I don't feel like it's also
[56:16] believed just so the public knows I
[56:18] agree I don't think it's necessary but
[56:20] if there is a problem the public is
[56:21] always welcome to come to staff and
[56:23] discuss it if the problem does occur it
[56:24] can still be addressed well there's a
[56:26] condition or not mr. hacker I like to
[56:36] make motion that Planning Commission
[56:38] approved the partial withdrawal of the
[56:39] Arrowhead Lane condominium subdivision
[56:42] located at 875 East Pontiac Drive
[56:46] subject to the following conditions one
[56:48] through four okay I second that motion
[56:52] yeah I have a motion by Ned hacker a
[56:54] second by Lisa Malkovich that the
[56:56] Planning Commission approve a partial
[56:58] withdrawal of the Arrowhead Lane
[56:59] condominium subdivision located at 875
[57:02] East Pontiac Drive that's yes yes yes all right now item number six the
[57:18] preliminary and final subdivision
[57:20] approval we actually conditional use
[57:25] permit motion Zack put the motions in
[57:35] the wrong these permits actually the
[57:40] third one but it's like actually item
[57:41] number five on here I see so it was just
[57:43] an agenda seeing moment but just
[57:47] technically Ned did do the right motion
[57:50] because we need to do the withdrawal and
[57:52] then the yes so so the next and the next
[58:01] one will be the preliminary and final
[58:03] for sure yes so you can you can state
[58:06] what we're doing the motions and
[58:08] different orders from how they're
[58:10] agendized but mr. chair we need to call
[58:23] mr. chair Mary make a motion yes please
[58:27] excellent can I move the plan commission
[58:31] grant preliminary and final subdivision
[58:33] approval for the proposed Pontiac
[58:35] subdivision on the property located at
[58:36] eight eight five East Pontiac Drive
[58:38] subject to conditions one through four
[58:40] as discussed I'll second okay I have a
[58:43] motion by Lisa Malkovich
[58:45] a second by Scott Woodbury that the
[58:48] Planning Commission grant preliminary
[58:49] and final subdivision approval for the
[58:51] proposed Pontiac subdivision on the
[58:53] property located at 885 East Pontiac
[58:55] Drive subject to conditions one through
[58:57] four yes yes yes yes okay and we have
[59:06] one more mr. chair I'd like a motion
[59:09] that we approved the conditional use
[59:10] permit for new office building on the
[59:11] property located at 885 885 East Pontiac
[59:15] Drive subject to conditions one through
[59:17] eight I'll second that motion to have a
[59:22] motion by Scott Woodbury a second by Ned
[59:24] hacker that the Planning Commission
[59:26] approve a conditional use permit for a
[59:27] new office building on the property
[59:29] located at 885 East Pontiac Drive
[59:32] subject to conditions one through eight
[59:33] as listed in the application yes yes yes you know I and I would like to
[59:42] mention something my I know miss Sweeney
[59:47] and my daughter also lives in this
[59:50] neighborhood down there and it's a great
[59:52] neighborhood you've you've got a real
[59:54] responsibility to maintain that and it's
[59:58] you've been a great partner for many
[59:59] years I
[1:00:00] of seeing the people walk through the
[1:00:02] neighborhood during the day I think
[1:00:05] that's really important that's part of
[1:00:06] what is that's that's why you don't have
[1:00:10] any opposition to this to be very honest
[1:00:12] with you a new building new impacts
[1:00:14] whatever as long as things continue the
[1:00:17] way they are I think it's a real asset
[1:00:18] to the community and I hope that
[1:00:20] continues thank you all right with that
[1:00:25] we will move to agenda item number eight
[1:00:27] Stallings construction it is a four lot
[1:00:30] commercial subdivision preliminary and
[1:00:33] final approval when when reporting on
[1:00:39] subdivisions was being doled out
[1:00:41] I gave Zack all the hard stuff and kept
[1:00:43] the simpler subdivision for myself
[1:00:45] because I'm gracious that way that's
[1:00:47] gonna go home and he is gonna be so
[1:00:49] confused tonight experience speaking
[1:00:51] there is good experience items item 8 is
[1:01:00] Stallings construction this is a it's a
[1:01:01] commercial it's a commercial subdivision
[1:01:04] there are multiple addresses listed but
[1:01:07] really those are those are addressed for
[1:01:10] buildings that three of which exist and
[1:01:12] the fourth is coming in the near future
[1:01:13] I'll just go to the aerial slide this is
[1:01:16] the property it's on Commerce Drive on
[1:01:17] the east side you're seeing right here
[1:01:19] the my fingers not working but the
[1:01:21] Inverness condominiums are just to the
[1:01:24] north and east or sorry to the south and
[1:01:26] east of the project property these two
[1:01:29] buildings that you can see right there
[1:01:30] have been in place for a while and
[1:01:32] there's a third building now that's just
[1:01:34] finished construction right here and a
[1:01:35] fourth one is planned eventually right
[1:01:36] here they're all mirror images of each
[1:01:38] other stock on Business Park there are
[1:01:41] they are all commercial in the mg zone
[1:01:46] the site plan for those buildings is not
[1:01:49] required to be publicly approved by the
[1:01:51] Planning Commission so the site planning
[1:01:53] for those buildings has been done for
[1:01:54] some time and the new the new site plans
[1:01:57] for the two newer buildings the one
[1:01:59] that's just finished in the one that
[1:02:00] will be underway soon has already been
[1:02:01] performed this is just the subdivision
[1:02:03] tonight so we won't be talking about the
[1:02:04] buildings much the proposal is to take
[1:02:08] this existing property that you see here
[1:02:09] the Stallings property it's just under 2
[1:02:11] acres and
[1:02:13] carve it up into four Lots for these
[1:02:15] four individual buildings right now it's
[1:02:18] showing the existing structures in this
[1:02:20] drawing the potential fourth building on
[1:02:22] that fourth lot the Lots are all tied
[1:02:25] together for parking and access all the
[1:02:27] parking is between the buildings and the
[1:02:28] accesses from a single 35 foot just just
[1:02:32] a little over 35 feet actually on
[1:02:33] Commerce Drive letting you in to and out
[1:02:35] of the building the building's kind of
[1:02:37] for for general access faced each other
[1:02:40] with overhead doors and they're kind of
[1:02:42] dressed up doors facing Commerce Drive
[1:02:44] etc I'll show that in a picture or two
[1:02:46] here installment
[1:02:47] this is utility planning that's as I
[1:02:49] said that's all been reviewed and taken
[1:02:51] care of over the last few months in in
[1:02:54] other meetings with staff just a shot
[1:02:58] from across Commerce Drive showing the
[1:02:59] property again you can see those two
[1:03:01] buildings and the the newer third
[1:03:03] building is just right there the area
[1:03:05] behind it where the new construction
[1:03:06] could happen you can see that more
[1:03:07] clearly right here so they do have some facades facing Commerce Drive that
[1:03:12] look a little more inviting and then the
[1:03:14] general more useful access for these
[1:03:16] kind of structures is facing that
[1:03:17] interior parking lot again they're all
[1:03:19] tied together with cross access
[1:03:21] easements for parking and and access and
[1:03:25] they're there CCR's that control those
[1:03:27] are attached to your reports so those
[1:03:29] will be recorded with the subdivision if
[1:03:30] it's approved because it's less than ten
[1:03:33] Lots we do have an ability to have it
[1:03:35] approved preliminary and final tonight
[1:03:37] and there's nothing super complicated
[1:03:39] about this application so we are
[1:03:41] recommending that the Planning
[1:03:42] Commission approve both the preliminary
[1:03:44] and final subdivision for Stallings the
[1:03:47] stockholm subdivision with these four
[1:03:49] conditions that you see before you you
[1:03:52] have any questions for staff at this
[1:03:54] point it's rare that we only get four
[1:03:56] conditions so and I think that speaks to
[1:03:58] the the project a lot of the things that
[1:04:00] we normally have to condition for
[1:04:01] subdivisions have been taken care of
[1:04:02] with site planning on this that's been
[1:04:04] underway for a couple of years alright
[1:04:07] that is the applicant present if you'd
[1:04:11] come forward sir state your name and
[1:04:13] address for the record and present any
[1:04:16] information that you feel would be
[1:04:17] beneficial to us my name is Reed
[1:04:21] Stallings are our business address is
[1:04:23] right here at 47 33 South Commerce
[1:04:26] dr i reside at 106 61 south by 40 east
[1:04:31] sandy just just a clarification on the on the application it did talk
[1:04:41] about a fourth building being built but
[1:04:43] as it was stated before that there is
[1:04:46] not the third building is just being
[1:04:48] finished being built there are no
[1:04:50] immediate plans for a fourth building as
[1:04:53] a matter of fact the concrete parking
[1:04:55] lot has been completed in that lot
[1:04:58] number four already and the whole
[1:05:01] parking lot all the buildings are
[1:05:03] complete the other the other thing just
[1:05:07] for information is the conditions that
[1:05:12] were stated the four conditions we we we
[1:05:16] do comply with all except the fourth one
[1:05:18] which is a future final plat that has to
[1:05:22] be submitted the the buildings in all
[1:05:25] three buildings were built along
[1:05:26] existing property lines and do comply
[1:05:30] with the 30 inch parapet requirement and
[1:05:35] so this is just talking about the to
[1:05:37] east east sides of the two front
[1:05:41] buildings and so they were already
[1:05:43] compliant with that requirement and and do meet that so that's just those
[1:05:51] clarifications any questions all right
[1:05:54] any questions no to the applicant no not
[1:05:58] at this time thank you
[1:06:00] Jared do you want to clarify number for
[1:06:02] the that condition they're sorry with
[1:06:10] respect to the two different conditions
[1:06:11] that mr. Stallings mentioned item two
[1:06:13] was the building and fire comments from
[1:06:16] the Planning review meeting that we had
[1:06:18] subdivision and they like to see those
[1:06:21] things just kind of memorialized it was
[1:06:23] part of the site for interviews and he
[1:06:24] did comply with those but they made him
[1:06:25] again in the subdivision comments and we
[1:06:27] don't like to omit them if if they've
[1:06:29] made them as commenters so we kept him
[1:06:31] in there although we did realize that
[1:06:32] he's already met those because of the
[1:06:34] meeting that we had an item for yeah
[1:06:36] clearly we we anticipate that the final
[1:06:38] subdivision will be prepared that's
[1:06:40] two conditions so the condition really
[1:06:42] exists to say when the final
[1:06:43] subdivisions were prepared it has to
[1:06:45] meet engineering standards and all the
[1:06:47] requirements okay thank you all right
[1:06:51] with that I would like to open this
[1:06:54] agenda item up for public comment if
[1:06:55] there's anyone here that would like to
[1:06:57] comment on this please come forward okay
[1:07:04] seeing none I will close the comment
[1:07:06] public comment portion of the meeting
[1:07:08] and bring it back up here for more
[1:07:10] discussion or a motion mr. chairman I'd
[1:07:14] like to make a motion that the Planning
[1:07:16] Commission grant preliminary and final
[1:07:18] subdivision approval for the stall comm
[1:07:21] business complex subdivision on the
[1:07:23] property located at 47 31 South Commerce
[1:07:26] Drive subject to the following
[1:07:28] conditions one through four yeah nice
[1:07:32] all right I have a motion by Ned hacker
[1:07:34] a second by Lisa Malkovich that the
[1:07:37] Planning Commission grant preliminary
[1:07:38] and final subdivision approval for the
[1:07:40] stall comm business complex subdivision
[1:07:42] on property located at 47 31 South
[1:07:45] Commerce Drive subject to conditions one
[1:07:48] through four as presented yes yes yes all right thank you
[1:07:57] and it's a nice project I wish all of
[1:08:00] our commercial projects were this nice
[1:08:03] and and this easy to deal with so you're
[1:08:05] to be complimented thank you all right
[1:08:08] our final item of the evening is just a
[1:08:20] land use a text amendment for the RnB
[1:08:26] zone proposing the addition of Lu number
[1:08:29] one one two which would allow twin homes
[1:08:32] as a permitted use in RMB
[1:08:40] thank you um I'll be talking about this
[1:08:43] tonight as well this is as you said an
[1:08:45] amendment a text amendment that's been
[1:08:47] proposed by Brad Reynolds construction
[1:08:49] working with staff to allow or to add
[1:08:53] land use 1 1 1 2 as twin homes in this
[1:08:57] particular zone in the RnB zone just to
[1:08:59] give a little bit of background about
[1:09:00] that and and talk about it the first
[1:09:02] thing I want to be clear about is that
[1:09:03] we're only talking about the RnB zone in
[1:09:05] this case there is one or two other
[1:09:08] places where you can see RB zone but
[1:09:09] this is capturing this this particular
[1:09:11] slide captures 95% 96% of the R&B zoning
[1:09:16] in the city or the places this is
[1:09:17] actually a snippet from this future land
[1:09:19] use map so not all of those properties
[1:09:21] that are shown in pink there are
[1:09:23] actually zoned RnB but they're all
[1:09:25] supported for R&B by the general plan
[1:09:28] and that's about 95% 96% of the property
[1:09:30] in the city that would be that way some
[1:09:32] of those have been rezone to R&B
[1:09:34] recently mr. Reynolds mr. Reynolds
[1:09:37] applied and was approved to rezone these
[1:09:41] properties here for
[1:09:47] I always overestimate everything about
[1:09:48] four and a half acres that's the largest
[1:09:50] single segment of R&B land that we've
[1:09:53] seen and probably we'll see actually
[1:09:55] looking at the properties um given that
[1:09:59] talking with staff his his plans for the
[1:10:01] property were to develop series of twin
[1:10:04] sorry a series of twin home or duplex
[1:10:05] Lots on the property duplexes aren't
[1:10:08] allowed permitted use in the RnB zone so
[1:10:11] our single-family homes and then beyond
[1:10:13] single-family homes and duplexes you
[1:10:14] have allowances for neighborhood
[1:10:16] oriented commercial types of businesses
[1:10:17] as you're familiar with mr. Reynolds and
[1:10:21] speaking with staff and having met with
[1:10:22] the neighborhood really wanted to
[1:10:24] propose twin homes but there is a subtle
[1:10:26] distinction between a twin home and a
[1:10:28] duplex and twin homes were not listed
[1:10:31] specifically in the RnB zone to be
[1:10:33] allowed as a as a use in the way that
[1:10:35] mr. Reynolds had proposed his project
[1:10:38] duplexes as you know and I'm just gonna
[1:10:41] we'll come back to this slide in a
[1:10:43] moment a duplex just to be clear is a
[1:10:47] single lot with a two-family dwelling on
[1:10:49] that lot it can only be owned by a
[1:10:50] single person
[1:10:52] you can't on one side of a duplex you
[1:10:54] have to own both sides that is duplex in
[1:10:57] a twin home and that's depicted here in
[1:10:59] this category 1 1 2 1
[1:11:01] that's a permitted use in this
[1:11:03] particular RnB zone as it exists 1 1 1 2
[1:11:07] that we're proposing adding with this
[1:11:09] with the sub moniker twin home is just
[1:11:13] like a duplex configured exactly like a
[1:11:14] duplex but with property line through
[1:11:16] the middle of that building allowing you
[1:11:17] to own has an individual owner one side
[1:11:19] or the other and the land that's
[1:11:21] associated with it in this case it would
[1:11:23] be about five thousand square feet a
[1:11:24] duplex lot is required to be at least
[1:11:27] 10,000 square feet meet certain setbacks
[1:11:30] we'd like to create the opportunity for
[1:11:33] the same thing that's already allowed in
[1:11:36] the RB zone but to be owned or the
[1:11:39] potential ownership to be there with it
[1:11:40] to an Home Instead so if I can get back
[1:11:42] to the other slide what you see in red
[1:11:46] line is what we're proposing to add so
[1:11:49] we're not only adding the land use 1 1 1
[1:11:51] 2 which is single-family dwellings
[1:11:53] attached but with that sub moniker twin
[1:11:56] homes and then those additional
[1:11:58] statements requiring the 10,000 square
[1:12:00] feet so they can't be on smaller Lots
[1:12:02] than the 10,000 square feet five
[1:12:04] thousand for each one of those two twin
[1:12:06] home units and then with the the
[1:12:09] setbacks spelled out as well so there's
[1:12:11] no question about what kind of project
[1:12:13] it can be there was some some question
[1:12:16] earlier - about whether you could do
[1:12:18] attached homes if you could do rows of
[1:12:20] townhomes in this in the zoning in the
[1:12:22] R&B zone what's proposed here is not
[1:12:25] that these are this is a proposal to
[1:12:27] allow twin homes under that land use
[1:12:29] category 1 1 1 2 however to be perfectly
[1:12:33] clear that that category above 1 1 1 1
[1:12:37] single-family dwellings subject to
[1:12:40] meeting the requirements of the RM 10
[1:12:41] zone would actually allow you to do
[1:12:43] townhomes if you wanted to in the RnB
[1:12:46] zone because in the RM 10 zone it will
[1:12:48] tell you and this is complicated so I
[1:12:50] hate even data but I'll try to be as
[1:12:52] clear as I can in us in any
[1:12:54] single-family zoning a multi-family zone
[1:12:56] like this you can propose a PUD the PUD
[1:12:58] chapter says it's applicable in any of
[1:13:00] these zones and in a PUD you can propose
[1:13:04] any kind of change
[1:13:06] want to the setbacks attached instead of
[1:13:08] detached etc the only thing you can't
[1:13:10] change is the density of that underlying
[1:13:12] zone so in in this case it would be
[1:13:14] Garen 10 zone and the underlying zone
[1:13:16] would be 8,000 square feet per lot so
[1:13:18] you could do a series of townhomes
[1:13:20] instead but you're in the PUD if you had
[1:13:22] two acres you could do it you'd be in a
[1:13:26] PUD you'd have to create an open space
[1:13:28] and a homeowner's association and
[1:13:30] because you have to create that open
[1:13:31] space that's a certain size you clump
[1:13:34] the homes together and and we didn't
[1:13:36] feel like that that you could do that in
[1:13:38] the RnB zone I just have to be clear
[1:13:39] that's probably less appropriate as a
[1:13:42] buffer then the the twin home concept
[1:13:45] allowing the duplexes was what the city
[1:13:47] when they initially created the zone
[1:13:49] wanted and allowed duplexes it became
[1:13:53] clear looking at the minutes from those
[1:13:54] meetings and things that they weren't
[1:13:55] really making the distinction and we
[1:13:58] felt like allowing under the same kind
[1:14:00] of proposal that mr. Reynolds has made
[1:14:02] here allowing that same duplex concept
[1:14:04] to be owned individually was not in
[1:14:07] violation of their original intent with
[1:14:08] the RnB so we have recommended as staff
[1:14:11] that the Planning Commission forward
[1:14:13] this change to the City Council is a
[1:14:15] text amendment allowing this land use 1 1 2 single-family dwellings attached
[1:14:20] to twin homes in the RnB zone as a
[1:14:23] permitted use you have any questions for
[1:14:25] staff at this point does that make some
[1:14:27] sense thank you all right is the
[1:14:33] applicant present mr. Reynolds if you'll
[1:14:35] come up state your name and address for
[1:14:36] the record I'd appreciate it okay Brad
[1:14:39] Reynolds 2500 East Haven Lane holiday
[1:14:44] Utah
[1:14:45] I appreciate the Planning Commission
[1:14:48] taking the time to consider our
[1:14:50] application
[1:14:52] I think Jared did a great job and
[1:14:55] detailing the text amendment and what it
[1:14:59] actually does and what we're proposing
[1:15:01] as you know this property is an RnB zone
[1:15:05] and initially as we met with the
[1:15:07] neighbors and as we went through the
[1:15:08] process it became very clear that they
[1:15:13] were hoping for some kind of a
[1:15:15] residential product where it would be
[1:15:17] owner occupied
[1:15:19] and they were concerned about the
[1:15:21] commercial and the traffic and the look
[1:15:23] but yet as you look at the property
[1:15:26] there has to be a transition with the
[1:15:29] busy street how they're on Winchester
[1:15:32] from residential homes so the duplex
[1:15:35] look like a nice solution that might be
[1:15:38] a nice transition from the residential
[1:15:41] homes and not be a commercial product
[1:15:44] and unfortunately as you know sometimes
[1:15:46] as you look at the duplex and the twin
[1:15:48] home they're kind of confusing and I
[1:15:50] must admit I was a little confused too
[1:15:52] because I look at them and kind of
[1:15:54] consider them to be the same thing but
[1:15:57] obviously a duplex you have to sell the
[1:16:01] same you'd have to have an investor buy
[1:16:04] that duplex wearin' is what we're
[1:16:06] proposing with this text amendment we
[1:16:09] could individually sell these to
[1:16:11] homeowners where they could live there
[1:16:13] and they wouldn't be investor rental
[1:16:16] units so I think looking from the city
[1:16:19] perspective it would be a win-win as
[1:16:22] well as for the community this would
[1:16:24] certainly be a better fit than a rental
[1:16:27] duplex where one person or one investor
[1:16:31] owns one building lot as you go through
[1:16:34] so we hope you look at that and I think
[1:16:39] I can't see any negative from approving
[1:16:42] this text amendment but do you have any
[1:16:46] questions for me on it um just maybe a
[1:16:48] slight I don't know clarification or not
[1:16:51] really a clarification but just
[1:16:52] additional information that I I know
[1:16:55] from our previous presentation that
[1:16:57] you've had with this the price point
[1:16:59] that you are proposing and I realize
[1:17:02] we're not considering an individual
[1:17:04] project right now or anything but the
[1:17:05] price point you're proposing would
[1:17:07] probably preclude these being rental
[1:17:10] units well exactly so that's that's what
[1:17:15] our desire was is we wanted to build a
[1:17:17] more quality product where and if we're
[1:17:19] doing them as rental units they would be
[1:17:22] very simplified and the cost would have
[1:17:24] to be much less expensive to make the
[1:17:26] rentals work on a investor duplex where
[1:17:31] and now we
[1:17:32] would make a much nicer unit because
[1:17:35] we'd be selling them as individual homes
[1:17:37] so to speak even though their twin homes
[1:17:38] and they would certainly be a lot nicer
[1:17:42] and the price point would be higher okay
[1:17:45] thank you any other questions for mr.
[1:17:48] Reynolds at this time I have a question
[1:17:49] so you said do you have you met with the neighbors since we met a while back
[1:17:55] no in trying to be transparent we had
[1:17:59] actually had met with them prior to
[1:18:03] getting a couple of those properties
[1:18:05] zoned to the rmb zone we have not met
[1:18:09] with them since the property has been
[1:18:11] rezoned
[1:18:12] and I remember what you said tonight and
[1:18:16] what the neighbors had their concerns
[1:18:18] were last time and it was something that
[1:18:23] was more family oriented a little closer
[1:18:28] to a residential versus business
[1:18:31] properties so it seems like this kind of
[1:18:35] is that half way meeting point to suit
[1:18:39] what they were looking for based upon
[1:18:42] the meeting and the comments that
[1:18:45] everyone shared at the meeting
[1:18:47] I think this text amendment allowing
[1:18:50] twin homes is what they were looking for
[1:18:54] I know they had concern that they're
[1:18:56] gonna be all rental units and they were
[1:18:59] concerned about the commercial building
[1:19:00] and I think with this text amendment it
[1:19:03] will help us be able to have those a
[1:19:05] sellable residential homes thank you
[1:19:09] thanks very much thank you all right
[1:19:13] with that I would like to open this
[1:19:15] agenda item up for public comment if
[1:19:17] you'd like to address the Commission
[1:19:19] please my name is Davis Hanson
[1:19:22] I live at 736 labrum Avenue I actually
[1:19:26] didn't come to this meeting planning to
[1:19:27] comment on this but ironically or
[1:19:30] whatever the circumstances are here I am
[1:19:33] and I I have a very I'm very well-read
[1:19:37] and the army zoning and you are correct
[1:19:41] this is probably a best-case scenario
[1:19:44] for that property so I wasn't at that
[1:19:49] mean I was at the very first meeting
[1:19:51] where they proposed something entirely
[1:19:53] different which was terrible
[1:19:55] this is a best-case scenario
[1:19:58] I think it's a great a great plan
[1:20:01] honestly so twin homes they'll be nice
[1:20:04] you'll get some new neighbors in there I
[1:20:06] think it's great so thank you
[1:20:11] anyone else all right seeing none I will
[1:20:16] close the public comment portion bring
[1:20:19] it back up here I don't think we've got
[1:20:22] any additional questions of the
[1:20:23] applicant or staff so mr. chair I'd like
[1:20:27] to make a motion that we forward a
[1:20:29] recommendation of approval to the City
[1:20:31] Council to include land-use number one one two twin homes as a permitted
[1:20:37] use in the rnv zone by amending the text
[1:20:40] of section 17.1 for 0.020 be as follows
[1:20:47] single-family dwelling attached twin
[1:20:49] homes twin homes shall meet the
[1:20:51] following yard and area quirements
[1:20:53] 10,000 square foot lot minimum five
[1:20:56] thousand square feet each dwelling each
[1:20:58] dwelling must maintain the following
[1:20:59] minimum setbacks from property lines 25
[1:21:02] feet front yard zero interior we're
[1:21:04] adjacent to second dwelling 8 feet
[1:21:06] interior side yard 20 feet corner side
[1:21:08] yard and 25 feet rear yard thank you mr.
[1:21:13] Woodbury I'll second that
[1:21:14] mr. chairman I have a motion by Scott
[1:21:17] Woodbury a second by Ned hacker to
[1:21:20] forward a recommendation of approval to
[1:21:22] the City Council to include land use
[1:21:23] number one one one two twin homes as a
[1:21:26] permitted use in the RnB zone by
[1:21:28] amending the text section the text of
[1:21:32] section 17 point 1 for 0.020 be as read
[1:21:37] into the minutes by mr. Woodbury yes yes
[1:21:48] good luck mr. alt we look forward to
[1:21:52] seeing you again with some more details
[1:21:53] and and a project I'm sure I'm sure
[1:21:56] there'll be a lot of interest Thanks
[1:21:59] all right with that that concludes our
[1:22:02] regular agenda for this evening
[1:22:04] staff additional information or anything
[1:22:08] we need to know any parties Zach yes
[1:22:15] always free to come down I'll just give
[1:22:19] an update for those of you that weren't
[1:22:20] able to attend didn't plan on doing it
[1:22:23] but the fashion place West open house we
[1:22:25] got between 30 and 35 people that was
[1:22:30] much better than they were expecting so
[1:22:33] was it good yeah so plenty of cookies
[1:22:38] yeah I got shanghaied by three or four
[1:22:41] different people I didn't know it to
[1:22:42] really delve into the actual it was nice
[1:22:48] to talk to the people that were there
[1:22:49] for sure yeah so it was really well
[1:22:52] received we'll have we got a draft
[1:22:57] existing conditions report that I'm kind
[1:23:00] of going through and we'll have more
[1:23:03] information later so any idea when a
[1:23:05] follow-up meeting or discussion will be
[1:23:09] or anything um I believe probably I
[1:23:12] think it's April May okay yeah so either
[1:23:17] sometime between there yeah I'm excited
[1:23:20] I really do think there's a lot of
[1:23:22] potential for that gateway right there
[1:23:24] yeah it really with the subdivisions on
[1:23:28] either side of Winchester there yeah
[1:23:30] there's a lot of potential yeah it's a
[1:23:33] lot of fun and it's exciting to go
[1:23:35] through it so next the next agenda just
[1:23:40] went out today it's not very big right
[1:23:43] so might be complicated but it's not
[1:23:46] very big
[1:23:47] so all right we're good to go how does
[1:23:49] anything else
[1:24:00] one second opposed no one second of it I
[1:24:04] would drop my motion you're a same Scott
[1:24:07] so I just wanted to point out just for sake of of so you know so there's a
[1:24:13] City Council that mr. Davis sorry mr.
[1:24:16] Hanson it's confusing for people like me
[1:24:20] mr. Hanson filled out a city council
[1:24:23] comment for him because he thought that
[1:24:25] we have a comment section we don't we
[1:24:27] don't do that so I'm gonna use my sort
[1:24:30] of other items time to point out to you
[1:24:33] what he wanted to bring to your
[1:24:34] attention we have some we have some
[1:24:36] complaints in the neighborhood around
[1:24:37] the advocates about parking on the
[1:24:39] streets we're delving into that with the
[1:24:42] code enforcement interest to have its
[1:24:44] own traffic and safety it's on corn for
[1:24:46] sment we've been looking at that so I've
[1:24:47] advised mr. Hanson to go to the
[1:24:49] council's comment section to bring that
[1:24:50] up but he wanted to make sure you guys
[1:24:51] knew about it because you are the body
[1:24:52] that approved the conditional use for it
[1:24:54] so that surprises me is does it have to
[1:24:57] do with who they've sublet officers to
[1:25:01] the original business would would cause
[1:25:04] that it has to do with reservation of
[1:25:06] parking stalls is what I'm understanding
[1:25:07] just this last couple of weeks it has to
[1:25:09] do with practices of preserving of our
[1:25:11] keys they're hoarding and the new
[1:25:13] tenants we're trying to find a way to
[1:25:15] work that out as as we speak so it's
[1:25:19] really a quality development and we're
[1:25:20] very proud of it but at the same time
[1:25:22] it's got its got to work it's again it's
[1:25:24] a functional deal we were quite enough
[1:25:26] parking right it's just how it's being
[1:25:28] used and we have to address that it's
[1:25:30] tricky but we're trying to figure that
[1:25:32] out now all right thank you that's all I
[1:25:48] had all right now I'll make a motion to
[1:25:50] adjourn
[1:25:51] second we're adjourned