[0:08] Don't you because that's

[2:26] Oh my god.

[5:37] Notice we looked at when we said was talking about this.

[5:53] Okay, it's

[6:08] You ready, Steve? All right. We will call to order our planning commission

[6:12] meeting for September 8th, 2026 for Roy, Utah. And we will begin with the pledge

[6:17] of allegiance uh led by Commissioner Reid.

[6:25] I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic

[6:32] for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and

[6:38] justice for all.

[6:44] » Thank you. We'll begin by declaring any conflicts. Do any of the commissioners

[6:48] have any conflicts they need to declare? >> I have a clarification. One of the

[6:52] petitioners for the quick clean is uh was David Young. That is not me. And as

[7:02] far as I know, I am not related to him. >> Okay. And then typically if we have a

[7:08] financial interest and there's is there a financial interest there at all?

[7:13] » There's no financial there. >> All right. Thank you for that

[7:16] clarification. Probably quite a few David Youngs in this world. So

[7:20] » at least seven. common name. Um, seeing no conflicts, we will move on to agenda

[7:25] item number two, which is approval of the July 14th, 2026 regular meeting

[7:30] minutes.

[7:33] » Um, I do have a few amendments to be made.

[7:38] On line 216, it states that Commissioner Bills moved

[7:43] to approve the site plan. Uh, that was not correct, but I'm not sure which

[7:47] commissioner did make that uh motion. On line 217, it states Commissioner

[7:53] Tanner seconded the motion. That's not correct. It was Commissioner Bills that

[7:56] seconded that motion.

[8:00] » So 21 16 would have been you. >> I believe so.

[8:04] » Okay. Thank you. On line 221 it states Commissioner Reid

[8:10] moved to approve the architectural review. I believe that was Commissioner

[8:14] Bills. And then on line 222, it states that I, Commissioner Graph, seconded the

[8:21] motion, but I was not in attendance that evening, and I'm not sure who seconded

[8:25] that motion. I went through the recording, but couldn't quite identify

[8:29] the voice.

[8:36] » Those are all of my notes. Thank you. >> So, Steve, do you want us to hold that

[8:43] or just make the amendments? as appropriate. Okay.

[8:50] » Any other comments or a motion is in order?

[8:54] » Motion to approve July 14th, 2026 regular meeting minutes with the

[8:58] amendments. >> Second.

[9:00] » I have a motion, a second. All in favor? >> I. Any opposed?

[9:06] » All right, those minutes are approved. Um, next we have,

[9:10] excuse me, I have a little bit of a cold, so if my voice goes out a little

[9:13] bit, uh, bear with me. Um, next we have a public hearing, and this is to

[9:17] consider the following request for property located at approximately 3934

[9:23] and 3960 West, 5,500 South. And these requests are to amend the general plan

[9:28] future land use map from single family residential to multifamily residential.

[9:33] Amend the zoning map from R18 single family residential to R4 multifamily

[9:38] residential. And if the applicants are here, if they would please come forward.

[9:46] May I make a note or a clarification on this request under section B. It dates

[9:52] from R-1-8 single family residence to R3. That is

[9:58] the only point. I think it's just a typo. Said R3 there. Everywhere else

[10:01] it's R4. Y agenda is to go to R4. >> There's staff recommendation and

[10:05] everything that went out is R4. >> Thank you.

[10:09] » Okay. Um go ahead if you'll please state your name and then tell us which city

[10:12] you live in and then tell us about um why you want to resone this property.

[10:16] » Okay. My name is James Openshaw and I live at 3066 West 4600 South in Roy. Uh

[10:23] this property that's located there uh belongs to my mom and dad which have now

[10:29] passed on and Kathy Ben. And this is a representative for Kathy Benion. It's

[10:33] her son that's here. He'll get up. If you need him to get up now, he will. Or

[10:37] he'll wait till after I'm done. >> He's fine. However you want to present

[10:40] that. >> So, uh, our parents have just, my mom

[10:43] just recently passed away. And we've had this property in our family now for 56

[10:48] years. Uh, my mom dad bought it back in 1970. And, uh, we had all intentions to

[10:55] keep it the way it was, the five acres that we had at the time. Uh you can't

[11:00] see it all here, but in the yellow part there, it went clear on back to 5 acres

[11:04] and then there was another 10 acre parcel next to it that my uncle had. But

[11:08] uh through as time went on and houses were starting to move in around us, uh

[11:14] there was developers that come in and tried to buy the property from my dad.

[11:18] They was able to get my uncle to sell his his 10 acres which went back clear

[11:23] back to that second road back there. uh and he sold his part and then they

[11:30] wanted my dad to sell his and my dad says, "No, I'm not going to sell mine. I

[11:33] want to keep my acorage." We've had horses, cows, pigs, raceh horses. We've

[11:38] had all kinds of different animals on that property throughout the 56 years

[11:42] that we've lived there. Well, have had the property. So, um they finally come

[11:48] to an agreement with my dad that they would go ahead and trade him some

[11:52] property. So he ended up trading the back half back there for the front half

[11:57] there. And we ended up with roughly about three acres there that goes just

[12:01] to the first road. And so uh they were able to have the access to come in and

[12:07] do do the zoning of the R18s. Uh so they come in and they did that. Uh

[12:13] and then they wanted to buy some more from him and he says no, we're just

[12:17] going to hang on to that. We don't want to get rid of it. So meanwhile, when

[12:20] they come in and done some more housing in there and they put that road in

[12:23] there, we went ahead as a family and decided, well, we want to put the um uh

[12:29] the utilities and everything in that road. So, if we was going to de uh do

[12:33] anything with them lots in the future that there wouldn't be such an impact on

[12:37] a new road and stuff. I worked for the city of Roy for for 28 years and in the

[12:43] city government for 32. So, we thought that'd be the best way to go about doing

[12:48] that. So, we did that and then uh about 10 years ago, we decided to uh sell

[12:56] seven lots back there right just behind the yellow part there. And the Benyons

[13:03] uh we got with them too and they Yeah. Right here. This is what we tried. We

[13:06] sold about eight years ago. We sold these lots. We developed them and then

[13:10] sold them. We asked the Benyons if they wanted to go on board with us at that

[13:14] time because they had this property the same thing. had had an oversized lot in

[13:21] Roy that could no longer have any animals. So, they thought that their

[13:25] best interest and ours was, okay, we'll go ahead and we'll uh we'll sell these.

[13:31] We had seven and they had three lots. So, we went ahead and sold those seven

[13:35] lots. And when we was laying those lots out, we thought, well, what we'll do is

[13:39] we'll make them lots a little bit bigger. So we come in to give them a

[13:43] little bit more room in their backyards and stuff to make them a little bit more

[13:48] feasible for people to to want to buy and stuff. So when we did that, at one

[13:53] time we had when we did all this in the future, we had uh a cullisac

[14:00] coming into that lot there that's all around the yellow part and we was going

[14:04] to put like five or six more homes in there. Well, when we did when we added

[14:10] them other ones, it made it too almost a little bit too small to do the R18.

[14:15] So, we thought, well, maybe what we can do is we'll uh because the there's an

[14:20] existing house there and the Benyons have an existing house and on the west

[14:24] side on that side of the map, uh the Benyons got some property that go all

[14:29] the way back. Makes for their big lot. They had plans to sell that lot and we

[14:35] had plans to develop three lots on the east side of there to make them R1AS.

[14:42] Well, the state come in and they told us that uh you guys I wanted an access for

[14:48] the property there so I could get in and out and do whatever I needed to do

[14:51] because I got a lot of maintenance and pull out trailers and do different

[14:54] things in there. And uh we asked the state and they says, "No, we're going to

[14:58] give you the one access you got right now." And they wanted to change that

[15:03] access. They wanted to have that access to that home line up with that road,

[15:08] which makes sense, but it doesn't make sense for the home that's there. So

[15:13] talking with the engineers in Roy City, we was able to get the the driveway put

[15:18] in and the Benyons were able to get their driveway put in next to ours with

[15:22] the separation of the curb where it ramps up. So at that time we was getting

[15:28] ready to to do the lots there on the east and on the west side and they told

[15:32] us that they would not give us access to another uh access into that property. So

[15:39] we was stuck with one we had. So that time it put a hardship on us. Here we

[15:45] are. We're we're orphans now is what my brother says. We've lost our parents and

[15:51] uh we've got this piece of property that nobody's living in. We all got our own

[15:55] homes in our own places and uh we want to get rid of it and uh we don't want to

[16:00] just try to sell it as an R18 because it's no good for horse property. It's

[16:04] really an oversized lot for an R18. I don't know what somebody would do with

[16:09] it, but what I've seen in the future and I mean in the past is people that's got

[16:14] lots like that, they bring in a lot of things and you kind of get hoarders that

[16:18] move into places like that and before long it ends up being a a junkyard. So,

[16:24] we're coming before you today asking you that with the hardship that we have been

[16:30] put upon us from the state of Utah, we would like to reszone both of these

[16:35] properties here and and do them together as an R4 that would make it for

[16:41] multiling. So if they we could sell it to whoever a developer or whoever we

[16:47] sell it to. We can sell it as an R4 property and then they can come in there

[16:52] and they can put the multiling in there. Then they could line the road up with

[16:56] the road that's across the street and that would only be the one access. So

[17:01] right now there's two accesses there. And if we was to sell it, then there

[17:05] would only be the one access where they would uh go in and out for the uh

[17:11] multi-living uh houses that I mean not houses but forplexes that would be in

[17:15] there for affordable living. Uh we really think it'd be a good idea to

[17:19] bring something like this to the community. uh there's not a whole lot

[17:24] down in that part of that that area of Roy and uh you know things are getting

[17:29] tougher and tougher every year and I think if we was able to you know to uh

[17:34] redo that as an R4 and come in and do that that we maybe we might be able to

[17:38] have some more affordable living so some of these young kids that are first

[17:41] getting married can come in and and uh have a place to live. We're not

[17:47] developers. We're just regular people and we're just trying to get the best

[17:51] bang for our buck on this property. So, you know, we've had it for 56 years. Um

[17:58] I I've been to these kind of meetings before. I kind of have a good idea what

[18:02] happened. But as of right now, we're we're asking for your permission to move

[18:08] on to uh council and and approve this so we can uh move on and get rid of this

[18:14] piece of property that's going to kind of be a hinderance to us.

[18:18] So, do you have anything to say?

[18:22] » Yeah. My name is Jason Harrison. I live at 736 Healey in Ogden, Utah. I'm

[18:28] representing my mother, Kathy Ben, who resides at 3960 West 5500 South here in

[18:33] Roy. Uh uh my parents have uh um lived on this property for uh over 30 years

[18:39] now. Uh and and have loved the place that they called home. from uh uh my my

[18:44] stepfather Richard passed away in in 2018 to my mother as the only occupant

[18:49] with my sister on the current property uh and has asked me uh to to represent

[18:55] her tonight as her health does not allow her to to be able to to come out. Um

[19:02] it's a big piece of property with only one access point now. Uh we're pretty

[19:06] limited in what we can do. Uh we had hoped to be able to downsize the

[19:11] property uh and perhaps sell off the portion on the west side of the house uh

[19:16] uh to to limit some of the upkeep that needs to take place. Uh with only the

[19:21] one access point that makes that uh uh next to impossible uh it's a big lot but

[19:28] we don't have many options uh for what we can do with it in the future. Uh Jim

[19:34] here was kind enough to inform us of their desires with their property. Uh

[19:39] mother was in agreeance that uh she wanted to go in with him on this to

[19:44] expand our options uh uh as we look to kind of take care of her in the future

[19:49] and and what that what may come from that. So uh we fully uh support this

[19:56] proposal and hope that you'll consider that.

[20:02] Is that the end of your >> Yeah. presentation?

[20:04] » I don't want to talk anymore. >> Okay. Do any of the

[20:07] » I'll answer questions. So, >> yeah, we we may have a few questions for

[20:10] you. >> So, with this um proposal, is your

[20:15] intent to remove the two homes, Bonnie and and Kathy's homes from the property?

[20:20] eventually if a developer I've had some developers approach me and they want to

[20:25] just buy it and I thought well you know why don't we take the first step and

[20:28] then they can but they have mentioned of removing both homes.

[20:33] » Okay. And you mentioned there's the one point of access that you do has

[20:36] indicated that they'll keep and that's the joint

[20:40] » area where the driveway current the current

[20:42] » they want to line it up with the road that's across I think it's 3925 is what

[20:46] the road is across the street there. You can see it's on hits almost

[20:52] threequarters of the way of the property, but it would be a a good good

[20:57] access for that multi-living. And then it would eliminate the other two

[21:01] accesses. But like I said, they wanted us to move our driveway to that so it

[21:06] lined up so it wouldn't be, you know, entering the traffic zone from this side

[21:10] and then down the road 50 or 100 feet there's another one and then another 10

[21:15] feet there's another one with the benions. So that's our whole thing is it

[21:19] that it would be best to have it as an R4 that would eliminate only the other

[21:25] two accesses and have just one access to that property with the multi- living.

[21:30] » Okay. And then my last question is have you kind of laid out I know we're

[21:34] talking about a reszone, not necessarily the the subdivision itself, but have you

[21:37] laid that out to kind of see what it would look like if it were to remain an

[21:41] R18? I haven't, but I have had somebody that has gave me a a picture of it and

[21:47] showed me kind of what they was going to do.

[21:50] » But I've it's been like eight years ago I got that picture.

[21:54] » So if it wasn't to be reszone though, have you looked at what it could is it

[21:57] even possible to develop? >> No. I mean the current zone that it is.

[22:01] » No. The way it is? No. Not at R18. I mean we're stuck with the one access for

[22:06] our property, the one access for their property. Like I said, we had plans to

[22:10] put three more lots on the east side. They got plans to put one more lot on

[22:14] the west side. We can't. The state won't let us do it. I would imagine if we

[22:19] fought hard enough and went through the battle three, four, five, six years, you

[22:24] know, that we may be able to get something to happen. But I'm not into

[22:28] developing property. I, you know, that's I've been taking care of that place for

[22:33] my mom and dad for the last 10 years because they just not been able to do

[22:36] it. and I got my own things to take care of and it's we want to be we want to get

[22:40] rid of it. So that's why we're trying to go down this and and I know if we just

[22:45] go ahead and sell it just as a a lot R1 R18 that whoever's buy it I know

[22:52] somebody a developer is going to jump on it and then they're going to be in here

[22:56] trying to reap the benefit of it. So we're just trying to be a little

[22:59] proactive on our behalf to to get the benefit if it is approved of our four.

[23:06] Okay. Any questions from any of the other commissioners?

[23:10] » Thank you. We may have some more questions afterward and so be be ready.

[23:14] But thank you. >> I will be. Okay. Thank you,

[23:17] » Steve. As mentioned, this is a request to change the general plan from single

[23:22] family to multifamily and from R18 to R4 zoning. Uh property here on 5600 South.

[23:29] Really the only access is to 50 or 55 sorry 56 55 is all kind of the same but

[23:35] uh it only have access to 55 not into any in the neighborhood in the the north

[23:40] of them. Um as mentioned it's about three and a half acres. Um maybe a

[23:46] little bit more in total. Um so looking at the future land the

[23:53] general plan future land use map on the left there you see it's single family

[23:58] and then on the right is the zoning map. Um there is R4 on the parcel to the

[24:03] south that was reszoned a couple I think a year and a half ago to R4. It's that

[24:09] kind of the vacant parcel there with the vacant barn and house. Um so that's

[24:15] their request is just to reszone it R4. So, planning commission recommend

[24:20] forwarding a positive recommendation.

[24:25] Any questions? >> Could we just get a quick review of what

[24:30] the R4 zoning entails >> as in what it allows? Uh, multifamily

[24:36] 12 units an acre. It could be town homes, apartments. Um, it could be

[24:41] single family homes on 6,000 foot lot. Um,

[24:48] yeah,

[24:52] » thank you. I appreciate that. I was trying to find that in our code and was

[24:56] not able to locate that exact breakdown. So, I appreciate it.

[25:01] » Any other questions for Steve?

[25:06] » Okay. Uh, time for a motion to go into a public hearing.

[25:11] » I'll make a motion to move into public hearing.

[25:14] » Second. have a motion and a second. All in favor?

[25:17] » I. Any opposed? >> That's unanimous. So, we're now in

[25:21] public hearing. Um, so what we'll do is we'll invite members from the public to

[25:24] come forward. Um, please state your name and the city in which you live. And then

[25:28] just a couple of ground rules that we have. You'll be given three minutes each

[25:31] to speak. Um, which is almost a full page of notes. So, it actually is quite

[25:35] a bit of time, even though it it doesn't sound like much. Um, when I raise my

[25:39] hand, that means you have about 15 seconds left to wrap up. Um then during

[25:43] the public hearing, please refrain from clapping or cheering. Um be respectful.

[25:48] Um the people who've proposed this are members of our community that do do live

[25:52] here. So um be respectful of that. And then if uh somebody before you has

[25:57] already stated what you want to say, um you don't necessarily need to repeat

[26:01] that. You can just say, "Hey, I agree with this." And then tell us the the new

[26:04] points that you would like to make. Um so with that, we'll go ahead and open

[26:07] public hearing. And you can also stack up. So, if

[26:11] somebody's at the microphone, we can have one or two people behind them just

[26:14] to keep things flowing as well.

[26:20] My name is Kevin Homer and I live here in Roy. Uh, just a clarification, I have

[26:25] no financial or relational conflicts to declare. There is another Kevin Homer in

[26:30] the area, but I'm taller and better looking than he is. Um, I had took some

[26:36] time to review the information in the packet. I do live just a block uh to the

[26:41] north of of these these lots. Uh I thought that it was a a little bit

[26:48] strange that there was no development agreement. We have very little

[26:51] information about what would be done on this land. So for me that was a little

[26:56] bit of a concern, but it was not in any way big enough of a concern for me to

[27:02] oppose this. I just want you to know that after my review and looking at what

[27:06] could be done here, I think it would be of of benefit to Roy and for whatever

[27:12] it's worth, I would support this initiative. Thank you.

[27:20] » And just for the record, um if you have questions, we're going to take notes and

[27:24] then once the public hearing is over, we'll answer all of those at the same

[27:27] time. So, >> okay. Um my name's Ryan Barrett. I live

[27:31] in one of the houses that was developed on the north side of that property. Um I

[27:37] have some notes just to follow along. I get a little nervous in settings like

[27:40] this and just have a few questions and items I'd like to address. Um one item

[27:45] I'd like to address is that in the document it stated that um

[27:50] the property is looking at being developed into multifamily because that

[27:55] is needed in the city um for moderate income housing. Um my question to that

[28:01] is that um more density doesn't necessarily mean

[28:06] moderate income housing and my concern with this development and changing this

[28:10] at this point without a development plan or developer online is it it seems a

[28:17] little limiting to the guard rails that are put in place to achieve that. Um,

[28:22] just because you're allowing that much density in this area doesn't mean the

[28:26] developer is going to come in and create something that's going to be affordable.

[28:29] It it doesn't mean it's going to be moderate income housing. It means that

[28:33] the developer is going to capitalize the best they can on the property and do

[28:37] what's in their best interest with the property. Um, I I completely support

[28:42] their understanding and wanting to sell this property and gain from it the best

[28:46] they can, but I'm I'm kind of concerned and don't understand why there's this

[28:51] happening at this point and what what would be the guardrails to help protect

[28:55] later on um what that development looks like down the road. Um,

[29:00] it was also stated that 5500 South is an arterial road and this type of housing

[29:05] seems fitting against that scenario. Um, I don't disagree that at some point in

[29:10] time it does. I I feel like right now it doesn't necessarily. Traffic on that

[29:15] road is is pretty bad. Um, and I I understand this will be a process and

[29:20] take some time to be developed, but that side of things will as well. And it it

[29:24] goes from two lanes down to or from four lanes down to two. It's congested.

[29:29] Things back up when the school's in session at Freedom Elementary. um adding

[29:33] more density to this area just it doesn't seem like it's well thought out

[29:37] and well planned fully. Um I I don't want to disparage development and and

[29:42] density. I I think that's needed, but I I just don't see how this parcel really

[29:48] fits fully within that. Um another thing I wanted to address is in the staffing

[29:53] document it said me as a citizen that lives next to this property is going to

[29:56] come and say the usual I don't like change. Um, I disagree with that

[30:01] characteriz characterization. Um, it's not that I don't want change. It's that

[30:06] I want thoughtful change. It's that I want change that allows what we're going

[30:11] towards. And I I just don't see at this point where this makes sense and gains

[30:16] us that. So, >> 15 seconds.

[30:19] » Um, so yeah, that's that's just what I wanted to voice my opinion on. Um, and

[30:23] ask those few questions like what what are the guardrails? What are the

[30:27] guardrails for those of us that live around it? We're transitioning from

[30:31] higher density, if this happens, into a neighborhood around it that's lower,

[30:36] that's single family. What are those guardrails to help us to understand

[30:40] privacy, traffic flow, storm water management, and all those things?

[30:44] Thanks. >> Thank you.

[30:54] » Good evening. My name is Daniel Evans. I am lot six James Place. So, um, my wife

[31:01] and baby and I are actually very grateful for your choice earlier on.

[31:04] That's been a god-given blessing to us to be able to live here in Roy. Never

[31:10] thought we'd end up around here. Um, I'm not going to take my full three minutes

[31:15] because Ryan said everything I wanted to say. Um, it's just there's not a thing I

[31:20] want to do to prevent folks from getting into a home and owning a home.

[31:25] Um, so many engineers I work with are commuting from Tremont because they

[31:29] can't find something affordable closer to Hiller Force Base. Um, so it's it's

[31:34] kind of crazy. It needs it needs help. And so my chief concerns are are the

[31:39] same is how how do we how do we protect about how this would be developed at a

[31:45] future point? Um what other um guard rails are in place between resoning now

[31:51] and what a developer may do with it. Um, also, is there anything we can do to

[31:57] actually make sure that that goes towards facilitating affordable home

[32:00] ownership um, of these properties that border it?

[32:04] I think at at least three I know of are rentals now. That's not in that's not

[32:10] facilitating affordable home ownership. These people are paying $2,400 a month

[32:14] rent. That's going the wrong direction. And um

[32:21] and then a small comment I actually did agree with again with Ryan the comment

[32:25] that says we'll come and we'll complain because it's what we know and it's what

[32:30] we're used to. Um that kind of irked me too. I don't like being talked about

[32:33] that way. We need more affordable housing. I'm used to a tenth of an acre.

[32:38] I moved to Royce so I could have a third of an acre and some privacy. Um, so

[32:45] yeah, how do we how do we protect it going forward? If not now, when? Thank

[32:50] you. >> Thank you.

[32:59] » Is there anybody else who'd like to speak to this one?

[33:04] I want to make sure everybody has a chance. So, if you do want to come on

[33:06] up.

[33:12] » I'm sure. Hang on. Okay, there we go. My name is Mandy Openshaw. I live at 366

[33:18] West, 4600 South. Um, this is my mother-in-law and my father-in-law's

[33:25] home that they lived in. It is a beautiful property and the folks that

[33:31] have come up today tonight to give their concern,

[33:38] my father-in-law sold that property so they could have those homes. Okay. So,

[33:44] it's better to have forplexes

[33:49] like three or four forplexes. Look how many homes that provides for people.

[33:55] affordable homes. And we did go through the cost and we put a big fence along

[34:01] the whole back. So all those people that got to build because of my father-in-law

[34:07] selling those lots, we put a fence up. It's private. It's private. It's as

[34:12] private as that road can get. It is a heavy road. It is a direct shot to

[34:18] Hillfield. And I think it's a wonderful thing for Roy to really consider

[34:25] because if we could put four or five forplexes, that's a lot of homes. That's

[34:31] a lot of people we're housing lowincome homing.

[34:36] Other than that, go take a look at it. It's gorgeous. Somebody would be very

[34:39] happy to land in that area. Thank you. >> Thank you.

[34:47] Anybody

[34:50] else? Okay, a motion is in order.

[34:54] » Motion to go out of public hearing. >> Have a motion. Do we have a second?

[34:58] » Second. >> And a second. All in favor?

[35:00] » I >> I. Any opposed? All right. We are now

[35:03] out of uh public hearing. Steve,

[35:09] » um there's a lot of comments or questions about safeguarding the

[35:13] property. Um the ordinance does require if if you got multifamily abuing against

[35:20] single family uh section 101 can't remember the exact one it does

[35:25] have two pages of what needs to be done for to protect the single family homes

[35:30] abudding up against um multifamily whether it be town homes apartment

[35:36] building forplexes or what have if it's single family those kind of go away but

[35:42] there are things in the code that already have safeguards anything abuing

[35:47] single family residential which this would on the west and north south and

[35:52] east it wouldn't come into play because you got the Howard Slooh right there and

[35:55] or no that's Lelayton canal never mind >> and then the street

[36:01] um traffic

[36:05] 5500 south UD do's going to probably widen in the next few years or at least

[36:12] on you know in the next 20 years because Hooper is growing. In fact, Hooper is

[36:16] slated to be bigger than Roy in 20 years. So, more vehicles will be coming

[36:22] along there. So, you don't really want single family fronting against this. So,

[36:26] it would have to be backside like the the subdivisions or the culde-sacs to

[36:32] the west. But when you you start talking about multif family and affordable, yes,

[36:37] there's no safeguard that says that um someone couldn't come in there, build,

[36:42] we'll just say 36 homes because it's about 3 acres or more um and make it

[36:47] affordable unless the city's willing to invest money into it um saying, "Hey, if

[36:54] you make 10% of this affordable, we'll give you money to help with the

[37:00] infrastructure or what have you. So knowing Roy is having budgetary

[37:05] problems, that's not going to happen. So unless they get with the state agency to

[37:12] help with that, um to make it affordable, kind of down to that supply

[37:16] and demand aspect. The more supply we have and less demand,

[37:22] prices go down. Right now, we're kind of in that little supply, high demand, so

[37:27] prices go up. Um, that's kind of how the free market would work to help lower it

[37:32] unless state, county or the city are willing to devest money into the project

[37:37] itself. And the city's not going to doesn't can afford that right right now.

[37:44] Uh, storm water is always something that's looked at in developments,

[37:46] whether it's commercial, single family, or multifamily. Um FEMA and the EPA

[37:54] strongly discourage water flowing across property lines unless it's a natural

[37:59] slope. You know, if we got a mountain side and water flows downhill, that's

[38:03] going to happen. But mostly flat ground, we it'll have to contain the water on

[38:08] site, then discharge it into the storm storm system. So those are aspects that

[38:12] will come into play, but you really don't know what that's going to look

[38:15] like until a site plan is submitted. And by law, we can't require a site plan at

[38:20] this at this point in juncture. Um, as Commissioner Graph had had asked, what's

[38:25] allowed in this zone? And it's single family, town homes, apartments. I mean,

[38:30] those are the the aspects of multif family that can can be built in there.

[38:33] So, you've got to judge it based on that aspect. Uh, why no development

[38:38] agreement? probably because there's no developer at this time seeking for

[38:42] increase in in units or smaller lots for single family or or or what have you.

[38:49] Just the property owner hoping to reszone it to to sell.

[38:57] Yeah, I think that was all the questions.

[39:01] » That's all them that I had down. Uh I just wanted to throw in there you

[39:06] referenced um our zoning municipal code 10-11-9

[39:11] is the exact section. So um and there is a note in there um section 3 uh se

[39:18] subsection B regarding height um speaking about this kind of a a property

[39:23] change where maximum maximum building height is 35 ft. Additionally all multif

[39:27] family structures of two stories or more will be reviewed with respect to the

[39:31] following elements. perceived height building mass compatibility with

[39:34] existing development and and it and it goes on. I just want to double check

[39:38] because my understanding of this is that if this were to be zoned R4, this would

[39:44] be part of those requirements. So, we wouldn't be looking at higher than 35

[39:48] ft. We're not >> R4 only allows 35 foot tall buildings.

[39:51] » 35 feet is the current requirement for R18 as well. So, the height wouldn't

[39:56] change with the reszone. >> Thank you. I just wanted to clarify and

[39:59] make sure that I wasn't making an assumption here or making a decision

[40:03] based off of that height when it was actually going to be allowing something

[40:06] different.

[40:11] » Any other questions? >> Question for Steve. The U access off of

[40:16] 55. Um, is there a is there a width limit on

[40:21] the access? We talking can we do a 30-foot

[40:25] road access off of 55 into this property?

[40:28] » That's a great question. You'd have to ask you doc.

[40:31] » I was not that that meeting probably happened years ago

[40:35] um without the the city or without me involved. So I I don't know the the the

[40:41] ins and outs, but it's pretty likely that they said needs to match up with

[40:44] 3925. You're probably only going to get one if it redevelops.

[40:49] that would be consistent with the way they've done in the past

[40:51] » is if it's gr if it's granted as that. I mean, it's not

[40:56] um unreasonable to believe that R18 could

[40:59] stay that way that they could go in with that access road and then split it into

[41:04] two culde-sacs and just have some larger lots but still stay within the R18.

[41:08] » I mean, yeah, you'd have one main road, one road going in and how they how it

[41:14] divided up. >> Okay. and wouldn't need a secondary

[41:18] access because of its >> uh I don't think you're gonna meet more

[41:21] than 30 in order to have a requirement. >> Right. So

[41:26] um >> and again if the town homes or

[41:29] apartments come into play, fire code can or circumvent and say not circumvent but

[41:35] put into place that it's the building is sprinkled or right if there's no second

[41:39] access. >> Right.

[41:42] Okay. >> Right.

[41:45] It's up to

[41:49] I just Oh, may I? So, sorry. One more thing. Um, and this kind of ties into

[41:55] the the comments that have been made by the residents about that um that wording

[41:59] of uh the residents most likely want to keep things the way as they are because

[42:03] it's what they know and what they are used to. And um just as we're going

[42:08] through this process and everything, there is some

[42:13] lack of just like clear this is how this is going to go. And that's not

[42:17] necessarily like anyone's not giving all of the information. It's more that we

[42:22] kind of know how it works and sometimes we don't always remember to portray

[42:26] that. And so our residents rather than being um upset because something is

[42:32] being changed from what they're used to there there's probably a bit of that

[42:37] coming from not not really knowing what is actually

[42:42] being done what that's what that will look like with this change. So real

[42:46] quick just before we get into this next um decision I want to make sure that

[42:50] what I understand us to be deciding here is actually correct. If we were to

[42:55] change this to R4, then moving forward, a development agreement would only be

[43:01] coming through if it was going to require something that didn't match the

[43:05] R4 zoning. >> Correct.

[43:08] » And if a developer came in and wanted to develop this according to the R4 zoning,

[43:13] then that would be coming through. Um, similar to the administrative items on

[43:18] our agenda today, a request for site plan approval. That would be the step

[43:22] there. >> Correct. And so if we've got something

[43:26] that doesn't fit our four zoning, we go back through the process of a

[43:30] development agreement, discussing it here, taking all of that into account.

[43:35] If we change this zoning, a developer can come in and submit a site plan for

[43:39] approval at a future date. Okay. Thank you.

[43:45] Being the newbie, if we do approve it as a R4, we can't guarantee that it will be

[43:52] duplexes or any of that other stuff because there's no site plan in place

[43:57] now. >> There likely will never be a site plan

[44:00] with the reszone most of the time. Um, sometimes they'll tell us what they want

[44:04] to do. >> As mentioned, by law, I can't require a

[44:07] site plan. >> So, you got to think about it just

[44:09] logically. >> I haven't boughten the property. Mhm.

[44:12] » I want to build on the property. A site plan can cost me $15$20,000

[44:18] just to ask somebody, can I change the zoning?

[44:22] » So, logically, I got a lot of money in there with an unknown result.

[44:28] » Yeah, exactly. >> So, being able to get the reszone and

[44:31] then put the money into it is is generally how it goes. Uh, when you have

[44:36] state legislators that are developers, it's kind of how everything falls into

[44:40] place. >> Yeah.

[44:42] But again, just moneywise, it doesn't make sense to put in 20 grand on

[44:47] something that may never >> be approved.

[44:50] » Exactly. >> Because of the zone.

[44:53] and also just dictating between whether or not the property is going to be used

[44:57] for personal home ownership versus rental property is outside of what we

[45:02] are allowed to uh >> I mean I I can't even guarantee that the

[45:05] single family homes to the north >> can remain owners owner occupants this

[45:12] there's no law that says I couldn't rent my house out

[45:16] » so I could own it and rent it there's nothing that says that you know 30% or

[45:20] 50% have to be home owners There's nothing in there. So, this could be all

[45:25] rentals or it could be all up for for sale.

[45:32] Steve, is there a study that talks about that you've seen? Sorry, you grin at me.

[45:39] um that shows if we were if they were to develop an R18 homes and what that

[45:46] potential cost could be versus the multifamily

[45:51] when we're talking about the affordable housing. There anything that says that

[45:56] you know the R18 would would be less affordable than if we did a multifamily

[46:01] in this lot. Is there anything that would help people understand that when

[46:06] we talk about affordable that yes this does mean affordable because it's not I

[46:10] know rents are high but like you said supply demand will change that but does

[46:15] it mean R18 if we if we keep it R18 doesn't mean it's going to be any better

[46:20] it sounds like it'd be actually less affordable under that definition

[46:23] » well I mean there probably is studies out there and there's probably places

[46:26] like strong cities or um >> other you

[46:33] high density type residential. Um just looking at I mean 2016 we did a

[46:40] community development block grant with CDBG

[46:43] um to get $250,000 to help replace uh curb gutter, sidewalk, streets, sewer

[46:49] line and water line for I think it was threequarters of a mile. And in 2016 it

[46:55] cost $750,000 just to do that. And that served

[47:01] 20 homes. Um, mult usually multifamily R4, they're

[47:07] going to be private roads. So, we this we the citizens aren't responsible for

[47:12] upkeep of that road to replace it. The water line and sewer line will still be

[47:16] public, but that's a a minor aspect of of everything. So if you have 20 homes

[47:23] and it costs almost a million dollars and you have 40 homes on the same line,

[47:28] if you just divide what the house per linear foot of of roadway, it comes into

[47:34] a lot cheaper if you have more homes on there.

[47:38] » So higher density does help with affordability

[47:42] um in the long run. I mean upfront the developer still has to put the lines in,

[47:47] still has to put everything in. It's going to cost them a lot of money, but

[47:51] 20 years from now when things start breaking or coming apart on the city

[47:55] aspect, if it's a private road, it's not coming from our pocket.

[47:59] » Right. >> Thank you.

[48:03] » With the road access and everything and with that level of density, would it be

[48:07] more feasible to consider an R3 zoning for this?

[48:11] » There's no difference between R3 and R4 on density.

[48:14] » Thank you. tried but it was denied.

[48:23] » Okay, a motion's in order. Motion to forward a positive recommendation to

[48:27] city council for request with the findings as outlined within the staff

[48:30] report >> for which

[48:33] general plan >> for sorry

[48:36] the is the reszone right >> there's am

[48:39] » you got to do the general plan first >> sorry I'm coming back to it

[48:43] » so amend the general plan >> to amend the general plan future land

[48:47] use map from single family residential to multif family residential sorry

[48:53] » so I have a motion for favor favorable recommendation. Do we have a second?

[48:59] » I'll second. >> Have a second. This will be a roll call

[49:02] vote. >> Okay. Commissioner Graph

[49:09] » I. >> Commissioner Bailey.

[49:11] » I. >> Commissioner Felt.

[49:13] » Hi. >> Commissioner Callie.

[49:14] » I. >> Commissioner Tan.

[49:19] » I'm going Tan. That's You're not here anymore.

[49:22] » Commissioner Tanner. >> Hi.

[49:26] Commissioner Reid. >> Hi,

[49:27] » Commissioner Young. >> I

[49:28] » Okay, that passes 70.

[49:33] » Yeah. Second motion is in order. >> Motion to amend the zoning map um

[49:41] for the addresses at 3934 and 3960 West, 5,500 South from R18 to R4

[49:50] multif family residential. Seconded.

[49:55] » Again, roll call vote. >> Commissioner Young,

[49:58] » I. >> Commissioner Reid,

[49:59] » I. >> Commissioner Tanner,

[50:01] » I. >> Commissioner Callie,

[50:03] » I. >> Commissioner Felt.

[50:04] » Hi. >> Commissioner Bailey.

[50:06] » Hi. >> Commissioner Graph.

[50:07] » Hi. >> It's both passed unanimously. Steve, do

[50:11] you want to tell them the next part of the process?

[50:13] » I believe this is going to council next week, but I'll let you know Thursday.

[50:20] » Okay. >> Thank you. If not, it'll be the 1

[50:23] October. >> Okay. Thank you.

[50:25] » Thank you. And thank you everybody for your comments from the public.

[50:31] » All right. The next item on the agenda, we'll wait just one second here.

[50:58] All right. The next item on the agenda is another public hearing and this is to

[51:02] consider the following request for property located approximately 3426 west

[51:06] 5300 south. And this is also to amend the general plan future land mass map

[51:12] from single family residential to mixeduse commercial and to amend the

[51:16] zoning map from RE15 residential estates to UC urban corridor. And as the

[51:22] applicant here for this one, go ahead and please come forward and state your

[51:27] name, what city you live in, and uh why you would like us to to make this

[51:30] change. >> My name is Jerry Robinson. I'm the

[51:34] architect on the project. I live in Sandy, Utah.

[51:38] And I think that this zoning change will facilitate

[51:43] several of the city's goals, specifically related to the land to the

[51:49] north, where my client is interested in

[51:52] developing that property as multifamily housing

[51:57] of 55 and older, affordable. And uh this particular part, by the way,

[52:04] does it show on there? The the the multif family I just spoke of is north

[52:11] of that. It's the green grassy stuff, but the subject is the yellow. And our

[52:17] intention is to put a pickle ball court on that so that the people in the

[52:23] multifamily can play pickle ball. We need some additional parking stalls

[52:29] and there's a trail around the perimeter.

[52:33] There will be no structures. It'll facilitate the development of the

[52:39] land to the north and the remaining lot to the south is

[52:44] unusually large. The zone requires 15,000 square ft. after

[52:50] after deducting this part part from it, the remaining lot is over 15,000. I

[52:56] think it's about 15,500. So, we comply with the original zoning,

[53:02] current zoning, CCNRs. Uh there will be no pedestrian or auto

[53:08] traffic from this parcel into the neighboring subdivision.

[53:14] So, I don't see any direct impact. If people in the neighboring subdivision

[53:19] want to come here, they'll have to climb the fence or walk around. And

[53:25] I think this would having this additional parking and the pickup ball

[53:28] court will help to facilitate some of the goals of the city and of

[53:33] course the goals of my client. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, one question for

[53:39] me. So you're basically going to split the parcel in two and this area would

[53:45] have a pickle ball court and things like that. The other parcel would remain

[53:49] basically as is just missing this part. Is that correct?

[53:52] » The house remains as is. The the rear yard is still uh quite large. The

[54:00] minimum setbacks are still maintained. So it it would have been a

[54:06] an approvable lot had it been designed this way in the beginning.

[54:10] » And then the reason is just to make this match the remaining part that will be

[54:14] developed in the future. Is that >> it's it's to help Yes. It's to match it

[54:18] with the urban corridor so that we can make the thing work better. I have to

[54:24] have certain distances required for garbage trucks to turn around, fire

[54:28] trucks to turn around. I've met several times with the fire department and this

[54:32] allows for a hammerhead that we otherwise have a difficult time creating

[54:38] could be done. It's just this facilitates the hammerhead for the fire

[54:42] truck. Anyway, no structures on the site, no

[54:47] noise except the pickle ball whiffle waffling back and forth.

[54:53] » Okay, any other questions? This triangle will be amended to the

[54:59] other parcel. Is that correct? Over by U the Ogden clinic. Is that That's

[55:05] » right. It's the parcel directly east of the Ogden Clinic. It's a big vacant

[55:09] field right now. >> So, yes, it would be amended to it with

[55:12] the same zone and physically attached. >> Yeah. I went and visited the site.

[55:18] » That's It's a good site. Yeah. Nice and that guy's got a big backyard.

[55:23] » Has a huge backyard. >> Yeah.

[55:26] Thank you. Um, yeah, if we have further questions, we'll we'll let you know, but

[55:31] thank you very much. Uh, Steve, um, as mentioned, this is again an amendment to

[55:35] the general plan from single family residential to mixeduse commercial and

[55:41] amending the zoning map from RE15 to urban corridor.

[55:47] Um, so kind of location, you got the Ogden Clinic there on the corner of 52

[55:51] and 3500 West and just the east of it is a large vacant parcel that's currently

[55:57] zoned R or urban corridor. So this pro property being zoned RE15 if it gets

[56:03] changed just kind of correlates with it. I'll show you the zoning maps here in a

[56:07] second. So, kind of a description of what would be subdivided,

[56:14] excuse me, still meets the requirement of 15,000 square ft for the single

[56:19] family home to the south. As mentioned, there's no drive access or any other

[56:23] access to the residential roads right there. It would only be to 52 as part of

[56:29] the complex. Um, the general plan calls this area to be mixeduse commercial. And

[56:37] then the zoning map calls it to be urban corridor. So this would just match the

[56:41] general plan with the requests. So staff would recommend forwarding a positive

[56:46] recommendation to the council.

[56:50] » Thanks Steve. Any questions? >> So can I

[56:55] pose a scenario? What if the two owners of these properties

[57:00] decided to do a boundary line adjustment between them and move the line? What

[57:04] happens to the zoning in that scenario? >> The property line moves but the zoning

[57:09] remains. >> Okay.

[57:10] » So that's why they have to reszone this portion.

[57:13] » Okay.

[57:16] » And then it would have to develop it under that portion under RE15. So

[57:23] So by connecting it to the urban corridor, it can be developed as a

[57:27] larger project. as as he mentioned um I know there was a

[57:32] question came up earlier in a discussion item or with one of your commissioners

[57:38] this parcel's too small to put a building in because there is

[57:43] requirements within this urban corridor mixeduse zone that certain setbacks have

[57:49] to be before a building can start and then the building can only be 25 ft tall

[57:53] and after a certain distance then it can grow. um they're very aware of that

[57:59] issue. So all the buildings will be on those two larger ones. They were just

[58:03] needing extra parking and some open space. So that's where this this thought

[58:08] came in and the property owner to the south was agreeing to kind of subdivide

[58:12] the land to to be able to accommodate those extra things that they needed.

[58:22] » Perfect. All right. With no further questions, a motion to go into public

[58:25] hearing is in order. >> Motion to move into public hearing.

[58:29] » Second. >> Have a motion, a second. All in favor?

[58:32] » I. Any opposed? All right. That, uh, means we're now in public hearing. And

[58:36] the same rules apply. Please state your name and address. Um, you'll be given

[58:40] three minutes. Um, no need to restate things that were said before to state

[58:44] that you agree with it. And then just remember to to respect the other people

[58:48] in the room. So, with that, go ahead and come forward if you would like to speak

[58:51] to this issue. And uh more people are welcome to to stand in line for a queue

[58:56] if if you want to. >> Hi, my name is Nikki. I literally will

[59:00] be living right behind it. This is my house right here. This pickle ball car

[59:07] is going to be my backyard. This is news to me. I am in shock right now that this

[59:14] is going to be my backyard. I thought it was just going to be town homes, which

[59:20] was bad enough because I was going to lose property or lose privacy. And now

[59:25] I'm going to have a pickle ball court in my backyard.

[59:29] Here's the problem that we already have because I live on 3,400. It is a one

[59:36] strip from 56 to 5200. So many people use my street as it is to

[59:42] avoid the corner of Midland and 5600. And so they are constantly racing down

[59:49] my street as it is. Okay. 5200 South. They also come down on 5300 to get down

[59:58] there to avoid all that congestion. So getting on to 5200 onto Midland can be

[1:00:05] at times a nightmare, especially during rush hour. So when you have this tiny

[1:00:11] little street on 5200 and you're going to be putting all these homes, it is

[1:00:16] going to make that traffic even worse on my street. We have had to put out signs

[1:00:22] that tell people to constantly slow down. It is that bad. especially on

[1:00:29] Sunday because everybody's late for church. So, here's the thing, though. I

[1:00:33] I I'm in shock. I am getting a pickle ball in my backyard.

[1:00:40] It was bad enough. That house before was a drug house where they were sheltering

[1:00:46] homeless people. We had to deal with the rats from all the shelters that were in

[1:00:51] that backyard and all the activity that was going on.

[1:00:56] Now I'm going to be having non-stop noise in my backyard literally. And the

[1:01:02] surveyor even came into my yard without my permission

[1:01:07] to and put a little This is where the property line goes. So that was as it

[1:01:14] is, but the traffic is already bad as it is because of that thoroughare. And now

[1:01:20] I'm going to have a massive noise problem with this pickle ball.

[1:01:25] I I I don't I have no words. I literally just found out.

[1:01:33] I'm sorry. I'm just This is just unbelievable to me.

[1:01:38] » Thank you.

[1:01:43] » Any other comments on this one?

[1:01:54] I I do have some questions. >> Yeah. Would you please state your name

[1:01:57] and city that you live in? >> I'm Rebecca Klinganberg. And so this the

[1:02:02] property that they're talking about going into their backyard. We're we're

[1:02:07] right next door. And so if we have a pickle ball court that our property is

[1:02:14] up against and and she is concerned about the noise. I know

[1:02:20] has anybody studied that how much noise, how popular they are. And I mean, this

[1:02:26] is the first I've heard about them putting in a

[1:02:31] um like multiple I guess use housing right behind us in that field, but I

[1:02:39] figured it was zoned for something cuz it's been like that for a long time. Um

[1:02:43] anyway, I just didn't know what kind of noise does that create. How many pickle

[1:02:50] bar ball courts are near single, you know, family homes? Is there anything

[1:02:55] like that here in Roy? Any studies done? >> Emma Russell Park is pretty close.

[1:03:01] » Yeah. Have you guys had complaints about anything like that? Um, you know, is

[1:03:08] this a pickle bar ball court that's only be only to be used by those residents

[1:03:13] there? And are there certain times where they cannot use it? Um, I mean, for me,

[1:03:19] like I I work at 4:00 in the morning and so I

[1:03:25] have to go to bed early and so if I'm constantly hearing pop pop, which I and

[1:03:31] let you let you know that when all that stuff went on next door when that house

[1:03:35] was a drug house and we could hear a lot go on. Um

[1:03:41] anyway, my our bedroom window would be right up. It's right up against that

[1:03:45] property and we can hear a lot. And so that's my concern is

[1:03:50] the noise and the people and the day, the time of the day, you know, what's

[1:03:56] allowed. Um, these are questions I have and you know,

[1:04:02] I don't know where to look for the answers, but if you guys have some

[1:04:07] studies or anything done, you know, that's comparable here in Roy, I'd like

[1:04:11] to know. >> Okay.

[1:04:22] » Respond at some point. >> Yeah, we'll give you a chance to do

[1:04:25] that.

[1:04:36] Hello, my name is David Clingingerberg. I live here in Roy adjacent to the

[1:04:40] property in question. Um, I currently have a pretty nice tall brick fence that

[1:04:47] runs across the back of my property. This will adjust into uh basically we'll

[1:04:53] be sharing a fence line. I'm wondering if the aesthetic of that fence line is

[1:04:57] going to be continued onto my pro along side of my property. Um, that's sort of

[1:05:03] my only concern at this point. I'm I'm a lot less concerned than when I

[1:05:06] originally came in thinking that it was some sort of housing and it was going to

[1:05:10] be back there. So, thank you for your time.

[1:05:12] » Thank you.

[1:05:25] Hello. Uh, my name is Brian Smith and I'm

[1:05:30] I bought the property and it was in rough rough shape. Um, took out some big

[1:05:36] trees that were dangerous, pretty expensive to do that. Took out a trailer

[1:05:42] that was back there, four sheds that were definitely

[1:05:47] not savable. Who knows what was going on those back sheds. Um, so compared to

[1:05:53] what I took over and what's going to happen with the property when I bought

[1:05:58] the property, I wasn't thinking. I just said, "Wow, this could be a really great

[1:06:02] big yard." Right? And then, uh, as we got going on it, we found out that the

[1:06:07] people behind us were developing and they had interest in purchasing part of

[1:06:11] that land. We still would have a third of an acre, which is pretty goodized

[1:06:14] lot. And so, we thought, hey, this would be great. We thought we could do it with

[1:06:18] just a boundary lot adjustment like Jason has said, but I guess some things

[1:06:22] have happened in the city where this is the more proper way to do it is to go

[1:06:26] and and have it amended and have the zoning done. Um, but that is what's

[1:06:31] going to end up happening is this property where that where it's

[1:06:35] delineated will will go. It looks a little bit more triangle on this than

[1:06:40] when you look at the other page where it really does show the shape of it. Um, I

[1:06:46] I think it's going to be an upgrade to the community and I know that I have an

[1:06:51] interest in it. My brother and I um are the ones that that are trying to to sell

[1:06:57] off this back portion of the property. So, I I think if you look down 5200,

[1:07:03] there's a lot of parking there and people just park right in front of this

[1:07:07] field already. Um, I think having more parking is going to be a good thing. Um,

[1:07:12] uh, to be completely honest, I I think that the pickle ball court is is one of

[1:07:17] the ideas and maybe that's what they're going to do there. I I'm not the

[1:07:20] developer on it, but regardless, it's way way way

[1:07:27] better than what it was. And um, and the house looks nice now. And it's it's I

[1:07:34] think it's an improvement for the for the area.

[1:07:45] Hello. Uh Tony Blaze, Living Roy. Um I didn't plan on getting up, but just

[1:07:51] hearing some of the comments, I thought I'd give some input. Um pickle ball,

[1:07:56] it's an activity. Everybody can do it whether you want to or not. Um the

[1:08:02] decibel for uh pickle ball is less than a vacuum.

[1:08:08] So, if you look at it, um, it's between 59 and 70 dB, which is comparable to the

[1:08:14] sound of a vacuum cleaner or normal conversation at normal volume.

[1:08:18] So, I'm sure this community will have parameters on time frame, but to me, I'd

[1:08:23] rather listen to laughter and games and having fun versus a drugs and everything

[1:08:29] else. And I think change is scary for people. And I think that's the whole

[1:08:32] problem is everybody's afraid of change. And I think anything to do to increase

[1:08:39] Roy as like prosperous. I live on 5600. I know what it looks like. I know the

[1:08:45] traffic. So to have a couple more cars down the road, it's not a big deal. And

[1:08:51] driving today in front of that vacant lot, the whole street was lined with

[1:08:55] cars. So adding that extra parking, it's going

[1:08:58] to take it off the roads. So to me, I think a lot of change is scaring people.

[1:09:04] And a pickle ball shouldn't be scary.

[1:09:08] Thank you.

[1:09:20] » Ryan Hunaker, 5215 South, 3,400 West. So, um while my backyard doesn't abut

[1:09:28] this proposed change here, um

[1:09:34] it would be helpful at some point in time

[1:09:38] to hear about some of these plans um that are coming because of that empty

[1:09:45] lot that this is next to. Just think golden rule. If this was in

[1:09:50] your backyard, what would you want to protect your property? Okay, there

[1:09:56] already is a fence. It's a nice, you know, big thick one for some of the

[1:10:01] properties whose backyard is next to the clinic.

[1:10:07] What about those of us who have backyard abuing this proposed

[1:10:15] higher density residential dwelling plus you know the pickle ball court? what has

[1:10:23] been done to study the impact that this proposed property and I know this is

[1:10:29] just like a piece that's going to be added but and maybe that's going to be

[1:10:35] in a future council meeting but what has been done to study the impact

[1:10:41] of this on the community?

[1:10:46] What will be done to see how this will impact our lives?

[1:10:53] you know, for those of us that have kids, I mean, this doesn't seem like it

[1:10:56] would be a bad thing necessarily, but what has been done to study this?

[1:11:05] » Thank you.

[1:11:10] Would anybody else like to speak to this one?

[1:11:16] » Okay, a motion is in order. >> Motion to close public hearing.

[1:11:20] » Second. >> Motion to second. All in favor?

[1:11:23] » I I We're now out of public hearing. >> Um

[1:11:26] » either myself or applicant can >> Yeah, let's maybe give you the first

[1:11:30] opportunity and then Steve can go through the

[1:11:36] » just two small things. One of the people speaking tonight talked about the

[1:11:41] traffic going from 53rd down. have no idea what that has to do with

[1:11:46] anything because you can't get from our site to that without going clear out on

[1:11:51] to 3500 west, going south, turning left, and then going back in. There's no

[1:11:56] connection between this property and neighboring traffic.

[1:12:03] Am I missing something?

[1:12:06] Oh, 5200. Okay. Well, 5200. Well, the property is already zoned multifamily.

[1:12:14] It's going to be multifamily regardless what you do tonight. There's

[1:12:18] going to be a lot more traffic on 5200 because of how it's zoned now. Urban

[1:12:23] corridor. Have I got it right? >> You do have it right.

[1:12:27] » Somebody is going to build something there in the urban corridor and it

[1:12:30] allows multifamily up to four stories. As terrible as that is, somebody else

[1:12:34] got that approval long before me. Um, by the way, we will be back talking about

[1:12:39] specific plans and how we can be considerate of the neighbors. I realize

[1:12:46] that considerate is a relative word, but we'll talk about that later. Uh, this is

[1:12:51] not tennis. You won't be hearing the pingpong pingpong. This is like hitting

[1:12:57] a um bad mitten back and forth. Think bad mitten.

[1:13:03] And as far as late night hours keeping people awake,

[1:13:07] I think that we could consider hours,

[1:13:11] nothing after a certain time, but that would be at a later time once the site

[1:13:15] plan approval is here for your consideration.

[1:13:19] » Um, >> would this be open to the public? I

[1:13:22] think was one of the questions that >> it's not open to the public except to

[1:13:26] the extent that the residents would invite their friends to come, which I do

[1:13:31] expect them to do. They're not going to be hermits living in in the neighborhood

[1:13:36] without friends. They will go to the local church. They'll go down to the

[1:13:39] local golf course. They'll go to the exercise area. Sooner or later, these

[1:13:44] new people will make friends. And I would guess that some of them may invite

[1:13:49] some members of the public to come and play in the pickle ball court, although

[1:13:53] it's not open to the public in the usual sense, but only by invitation.

[1:14:00] Well, there was a comment that was made about the substantial fence that's there

[1:14:03] now. Um, would it would it be reasonable to

[1:14:08] say that you could continue with that that fence that would kind of block some

[1:14:14] of the noise? I you familiar with pickle ball courts and the noises they make,

[1:14:19] but they've talked about this center block fence they've had there. Is that

[1:14:23] is it feasible that >> it's worth considering when we when we

[1:14:26] get to the site plan approval? >> Okay. I'm just saying I just don't know

[1:14:29] where the >> nobody's identified where they live.

[1:14:32] They all are near there, but I don't know whether it's north, southeast, or

[1:14:35] west. So, um when we get to the site plan approval, which we will be back to

[1:14:40] do, then we're totally open to all of those things, time limits, fences,

[1:14:47] whatever. But at this point, we're just talking

[1:14:50] about the zoning that would allow the the parking and the other uses there.

[1:14:57] » Okay. Thank you.

[1:15:01] » Okay. Um, not a lot of questions, more of just statements, but um,

[1:15:10] if I had a large backyard and I wanted to play pickle ball, I could put a

[1:15:14] pickle ball court in my backyard today or a tennis court or a basketball court

[1:15:20] or anything. So, there's nothing different that this would be than what

[1:15:24] could be allowed on a single family parcel today. Um, now the noise

[1:15:29] ordinance says it you can start being noisy at this I think it's 7:00 a.m. and

[1:15:34] have to be done by 10 p.m. So, I assume their hours are going to be similar to

[1:15:38] that just like Emma Russell Park that has pickle ball or municipal park that

[1:15:42] has tennis courts. There's there is time frames that the city ordinances

[1:15:47] do not allow for um

[1:15:52] decibb to go over. I can't remember what it is, but um there is a noise ordinance

[1:15:57] today. Um sharing fence line will just it will

[1:16:02] be whatever the ordinance requires. Um there will need to be some sort of

[1:16:07] fencing for privacy. Now, if it requires to be brick and mortar or vinyl, that's

[1:16:13] going to be up to the developer, but the code, I think, just says vinyl.

[1:16:20] Um, so it's just one of those things that we just have to go by whatever the

[1:16:24] the code requires. Um,

[1:16:32] if I remember right, he mentioned it to be 55 and older community. That right,

[1:16:37] Jerry? So, not many kids. Just a

[1:16:42] » lot of older a lot of older people like me.

[1:16:46] » 20% younger people are allowed in that. >> Okay. So, it looks like 20% could be

[1:16:51] younger, but um you're not going to have a lot of kids

[1:16:56] out there playing around and and goofing around. Even if it was just a park, um I

[1:17:01] I think it'd be a good amenity to have. Now, maybe they

[1:17:07] put it somewhere else because of comments and just have parking in this

[1:17:10] area. Um, you know, that that's up to them when they actually start doing the

[1:17:15] site plan and and coming before you. So, I I think I got

[1:17:23] most everybody's questions. So, if this parcel were to split and be sold, right,

[1:17:31] the whole reason we're talking about a reszone is so we don't just have a

[1:17:34] little orphaned triangle that's part of a development. Could a pickle ball court

[1:17:39] be built on that parcel as is? >> Um, yes. Now,

[1:17:45] » we the property can't subdivide if it's not associated with a parcel that has

[1:17:49] access to a public road. So if if someone denied say it's reszone's denied

[1:17:55] for this parcel, it can't just be subdivided

[1:18:00] because it doesn't have direct access to a to a a public road like the house or

[1:18:05] like the development. So if the council somehow denies everything,

[1:18:12] the subdivision won't occur. >> And I guess my point is it's kind of an

[1:18:16] allowed use now. We're not really changing the allowed use. It would just

[1:18:20] be part of this development or potentially remain with the other

[1:18:26] » clarify court is about 40 by 60 ft probably the size of

[1:18:37] » Okay. Any other questions from any of the commissioners?

[1:18:41] » I have a comment. Uh pickle ball. Um Randy Scadden probably remembers. Um the

[1:18:48] city put one in George Wallen Park and the neighbors came out in droves that it

[1:18:54] was going to be way too noisy. The city put it in. There hasn't been a complaint

[1:18:58] since in the summertime during the heat of the day. There's nobody on it.

[1:19:06] And I drive past there all the time. It's very seldom used except like at 8

[1:19:14] in the morning until 9 and then it's empty and maybe somebody shows up about

[1:19:19] 7 and plays till 8 and then they're gone.

[1:19:23] But it it is YouTube cranked it up to where it's, you know, explosion after

[1:19:29] explosion. It's not so.

[1:19:34] » Okay, a couple of motions are in order.

[1:19:39] A motion to forward a positive recommendation to reszone property

[1:19:43] located at 3426 West 5300 South or amend the general plan, pardon me,

[1:19:49] um of property located at 3426 West, 5300 South from single family

[1:19:54] residential to commercial mixed use. >> Second.

[1:20:00] » Okay, this will be a roll call. >> Okay, Commissioner Felt.

[1:20:04] » I Commissioner Tander I I

[1:20:10] » Commissioner Young >> I

[1:20:12] » Commissioner Callie >> I

[1:20:14] » Commissioner Bailey >> I

[1:20:16] » Commissioner Reid >> I

[1:20:18] » Commissioner Ga Graph >> I

[1:20:20] » and I'm getting everybody's name wrong today.

[1:20:26] » Okay. A second motion is in order on this one.

[1:20:31] I move to amend the zoning map from RE15 residential estates to UC urban corridor

[1:20:37] for the property located approximately at 3426 South 5300 South and to uh

[1:20:46] that does not require a positive recommendation to the city council. It

[1:20:49] does. >> Yes, we recommend

[1:20:51] » with a recommend a positive recommendation to the city council.

[1:20:56] » Second >> motion in a second. And this is another

[1:20:59] roll call. >> Commissioner Callie,

[1:21:01] » I. >> Mr. Bailey,

[1:21:02] » I. >> Mr. Young,

[1:21:04] » I. >> Mr. Tanner,

[1:21:06] » I. >> Commissioner Felt.

[1:21:07] » Hi. >> Mr. Graph.

[1:21:09] » I. >> Commissioner Reed.

[1:21:10] » I. >> Just like the other one most likely be

[1:21:14] on Thursday, but I'll let or next week, but I'll let you know.

[1:21:19] » Okay. Thank you. And thank you for the public for their comments. We'll now

[1:21:23] move on to agenda item number five, which is also a public hearing. And this

[1:21:28] is to consider request for a development agreement with Cole West LLC regarding a

[1:21:33] project located approximately 5154 South 2700 West to allow 26 single family

[1:21:40] dwellings on similar lots. And if the applicant could come forward

[1:21:49] » and go ahead and tell us your name and uh what city you live in and then tell

[1:21:52] us about your your project here and what you want in the development agreement.

[1:21:56] » All righty. Uh, someone forgot their phone here, so they might come and grab

[1:22:00] that. >> I'll leave that there. But my name is

[1:22:03] Chase Peterson. I'm representing Cole West, uh, 610 North 800 West,

[1:22:09] Centerville. And Steve, I did send you a quick slideshow or I can just hand you

[1:22:14] these. I brought these. >> Yeah,

[1:22:19] » depending when you send it depends on what I've got.

[1:22:22] » A little late. My bad. >> Oh, you're good.

[1:22:24] » There's that. And then these

[1:22:35] All righty. So, as those are going around,

[1:22:40] um,

[1:22:44] » so the the purpose of this development agreement and and hopefully to discuss

[1:22:48] tonight is to >> That's just extra.

[1:22:51] » Sorry, I'll wait just a sec. >> There's four of these and five of the

[1:22:55] other. There's some extra site plans as well.

[1:23:00] Sorry, I'm a little short.

[1:23:08] Um, thanks for thanks for bearing with me and thank you planning commission for

[1:23:12] being here as well as city staff and thanks to all the residents. So the

[1:23:17] purpose of this development agreement um is to point out that we are actually

[1:23:23] planning on um this 2.89 acre parcel to be or to have 26 um single family

[1:23:33] detached homes put on it. Uh that would then allow this site to have a a density

[1:23:40] of 9 acres per unit as opposed to the 12 acres per unit which is allowed in this

[1:23:45] current zoning. Um hopeful that this will allow more homeowners in this city.

[1:23:51] Um as well as helping hopefully with more attainable housing

[1:23:56] as as the site plan shows. Um there's 26 detached homes,

[1:24:02] uh allowing good private space, um good lawns, good lawn space. And then on that

[1:24:10] third sheet in there, it shows the spec specifications of each lot a little bit

[1:24:15] more, which you can see is 35 wide. Um on the smallest W is smallest lot, 35

[1:24:23] wide, and then 87 deep. And those last two pages will show some

[1:24:29] of our product. Uh hopeful to bring in an aesthetically pleasing uh home and

[1:24:37] home looks looking homes to the area. Our Benton home which is the product

[1:24:45] that we would uh build here is 25 wide. So again, hopeful to uh really establish

[1:24:52] a a good community in which these single family detached can allow more

[1:24:56] homeowners in the area. And um just want to specify it. It says so in there, but

[1:25:01] all of these units are two-story homes with twocar garages, uh three bed, two

[1:25:06] and a half bath, and have a little bit of range and square footage there, but

[1:25:11] that's it for us.

[1:25:15] » Yeah. Yeah. My name's Doug Cherry. I'm the current

[1:25:19] owner of this property. I've had it for quite a few years and if it stands as

[1:25:24] is, we could build 36, well, probably 34 town homes and I made the choice to do a

[1:25:29] single family home and make it a little bit nicer in that neighborhood. Then I

[1:25:33] reached out to Cole West and this is where we're at today. I'd like to I

[1:25:37] guess it's a reszone or is it is it reszone? Nope, just a

[1:25:42] » agreement >> change. Thank you.

[1:25:46] » Thank you. Any questions before you guys sit down? Any questions from any of the

[1:25:50] commissioners?

[1:25:54] Okay, thank you. We may have some questions in a minute. So, Steve.

[1:25:59] » Okay. So, as mentioned, this is a request for a development agreement.

[1:26:02] Now, I want to stop here. The difference between a development agreement and a

[1:26:06] reszone very little different. What it is is the

[1:26:10] development agreement will just basically say, okay, yes, we understand

[1:26:13] there's an R3 zone there. Now, we just want some changes in that. And in this

[1:26:19] case, it would be lots that are smaller for single family, detached, um, and

[1:26:27] private roads versus public roads. Um, that's the reason for a development

[1:26:33] agreement. Um, uh, the site plan kind of had up for a

[1:26:37] bit. So, just kind of looking at it, as Mr. Secretary said they could build 34

[1:26:43] town homes today, but if they developed it in a single

[1:26:49] family residential under the R3 zone, requires 6,000 square

[1:26:53] foot per lot and on a public street.

[1:26:59] This is where that development agreement comes in. It's still single family homes

[1:27:04] on smaller lots and a private street. So again, an HOA will be taking care of the

[1:27:10] street except for the sewer and water lines which will be public. Most reason

[1:27:14] for that is the state changes. If you have an I can't remember the number of

[1:27:18] units on a water line. They become their own district. So we've decided as a city

[1:27:24] not to do that. We'll always have a public water line in there. So we are

[1:27:29] the district and we don't have other districts around. Plus, it makes it a

[1:27:34] lot easier for us to maintain it and have control over what comes in and out.

[1:27:41] Um, currently it's 12 units per acre. I know the developer talked about 12 acres

[1:27:47] per unit, but it's 12 units per acre. What they're requesting is about 13

[1:27:52] units per acre on the size. And at 6,000 square feet, you can get seven units per

[1:27:57] acre. So they're they're asking for a little bit more, but in essence, I can

[1:28:03] build 34 town homes. They're only wanting 26 single family. So it's less

[1:28:08] than but more. So kind of in the in the middleish area. Setbacks will be a

[1:28:13] little different. Um town homes, single family on 6,000 foot lot, 25 front yard,

[1:28:20] eight sides, 20 rear. So, they're looking at 20 sat back rather than 25 in

[1:28:27] the front, four on each of the sides. Um, yes, it's only eight feet between

[1:28:32] the two, but building code will require firewalls, so there'll be no windows, no

[1:28:38] nothing. Can't reach out and touch your neighbor if you open up a window. Rear

[1:28:42] yards will be a little less 12 feet. Um, still required, can't be taller than 35

[1:28:49] feet to peek a roof. still require twocar parking. That's a garage,

[1:28:54] carport, or just open. Um, so all the same requirements as a single family

[1:28:59] home would apply. Um, I brought you put the the zoning map

[1:29:04] on there just so you can see. Um, it is zoned R3 today. In that neighborhood,

[1:29:09] there's R18, RE20,

[1:29:13] light manufacturing. So, it's it's a mlange of everything in

[1:29:18] the neighborhood. So, um, will it be out of place? Not really. Everything's out

[1:29:24] of place already. Um, this will just kind of help with if you do single

[1:29:28] family homes, just continue with what it is. They're just on smaller lots. Um,

[1:29:32] you project that we've got already similar to this is the

[1:29:39] whatever gate it's called, Highgate, next to the Bridge Academy on Midland.

[1:29:44] Those are on about 3200 square foot lots and these ones are about 3100. So

[1:29:49] similar type of project. Sounds like similar type of housing too.

[1:29:56] » So staff would recommend forwarding a positive recommendation to the council.

[1:30:02] » Thanks Steve. Any questions for Steve?

[1:30:06] » So we have the one access road. The second one um blocks instead of going.

[1:30:12] Is that is there a code reason for that? >> Approving site plan just

[1:30:18] » thank you. I retract my question as we are approving site plan.

[1:30:21] » Reason why um you have 5200 south right there and

[1:30:26] there needs to be a minimum of 100 ft between that intersection and where

[1:30:29] another road can come in and out. So that's why it's been moved to the north.

[1:30:34] » Perfect. Thank you. >> That's that's why this other one won't

[1:30:36] go through. >> But it still would meet fire because

[1:30:39] they have a hammerhead to get in and out. Got it.

[1:30:42] » And again, I think it's 30 or 32 homes before it has to be a second access or

[1:30:47] homes are sprinkled. >> So,

[1:30:50] » thank you. >> But that's a fire department question.

[1:30:54] We'll refer to the fire department to answer that later.

[1:31:01] » This is all conceptual still.

[1:31:06] » Okay, I think we're ready to move into a public hearing if there's a motion.

[1:31:10] motion to go into public hearing. >> I'll second.

[1:31:15] » We're going to go with Anna. >> Okay,

[1:31:17] » Commissioner Graph had that one. >> All right, so we have a motion to go

[1:31:21] into public hearing and a second. All in favor?

[1:31:23] » I. Any opposed? All right, we are now in public hearing and I think by now you

[1:31:28] all know the the drill. So, please come on up, state your name and address and

[1:31:32] if more than one of you want to comment, please let's make a queue and keep

[1:31:36] moving here. Uh, my name is Kevin Homer and I live

[1:31:40] here in Roy.

[1:31:44] As I look at the little bit of information that's been provided to the

[1:31:48] public in the 30 seconds that we've had to look at it on on the monitors and the

[1:31:52] five minutes or so that you all have had to look at this development pro

[1:31:57] proposal,

[1:32:00] I think that there's probably some merit to this.

[1:32:04] One thing that I'm concerned about is the information provided to the public

[1:32:09] has not even happened until we saw it on this screen. And you as planning

[1:32:13] commission members didn't even see it until five minutes be, you know, when we

[1:32:17] started five minutes ago. For me, I think it's rather insulting to

[1:32:22] the commission and insulting to the public to not have access to this

[1:32:26] information. This is a public hearing. there's very little chance that we're

[1:32:31] going to provide valuable feedback because we didn't have a chance to look

[1:32:36] at this. I appreciate the re recommendation of

[1:32:39] the staff to go go along with this, but I would recommend that you table this

[1:32:46] until you as a commission and the public have had a chance to actually review the

[1:32:51] development proposal. Thank you. >> Thank you.

[1:32:59] Good evening. Uh my name is Tom Spencer. I live at uh 5085 South, 2700 North,

[1:33:05] just north of this property. Um I have a few concerns. The first one, um this has

[1:33:11] been a historical problem where a uh proposal was uh put forward, was denied,

[1:33:18] was come back. Um the initial one was for an R R13. um came back and denied uh

[1:33:26] within the neighborhood. We kind of comprom or we accepted that an R16 would

[1:33:31] be acceptable and that was approved. Later on, it was then approved again for

[1:33:35] an R13. Um again, we're now kind of following that same trend. It was uh you

[1:33:40] could say it was a uh 20 houses could be fit and now we're asking for 26. So

[1:33:45] again, we're taking that uh approval or uh how you want to say standard and then

[1:33:51] asking for more. Um our my biggest concern, however, is uh

[1:33:57] for fire. Um as you know, we've had a number of fires along the rails uh this

[1:34:02] summer. Um we've had five in Weber County alone. Um six if you want to

[1:34:06] count the one just over the border in in Clinton. We've had three houses here in

[1:34:10] this city that were destroyed and one fatality in in uh uh Washington Terrace.

[1:34:16] Um talking on on the social media groups,

[1:34:19] um it was discussed that Union Pacific will not trim the grass along the

[1:34:23] trails. Um they'll only spray, which of course we know just creates more dead

[1:34:27] grass. Um and then has actually threatened homeowners with trespassing

[1:34:32] charges if uh they went out to try to protect their own properties. Begs the

[1:34:37] question, is $1,000 or whatever the fine is for trespassing worth your house? But

[1:34:40] that's neither here nor there. Um the three homes that were lost um I looked

[1:34:45] on Google Earth had about a 50 to 75 foot standoff from the property line. Um

[1:34:49] this proposal gets a 12T standoff to the property line and is only 8 ft between

[1:34:54] the houses. I understand you mentioned the uh the the firewalls, but when

[1:34:58] you're talking that close, if you get a fire going that quick, it's going to be

[1:35:02] uh going to be um pretty uh pretty going. Um, I I actually would like to

[1:35:08] hear the fire fire department's comment, especially if they have tabletoppped an

[1:35:12] a tabletop exercise on this scenario on if a fire got going on the tracks and

[1:35:17] got going to the houses even with station 32 just down uh 5200,

[1:35:22] how many houses would be expected to to be lost. and with that number is to know

[1:35:28] what this planning council planning commission excuse me and the city

[1:35:32] council what that number is acceptable to you. Um, additionally, um, the the

[1:35:39] home itself has a lot of history. It's it is currently the only the oldest

[1:35:43] house on 2700 between 6,000 and00. Um, the number two is actually our house.

[1:35:49] Um, also during the uh the Weber County Heritage Foundation and at least one

[1:35:53] history of Roy Book has mentioned the the infirmary had a cemeteries. Um, I

[1:35:57] would like uh to know if there's possible to do a survey so that way we

[1:36:01] can take care of any former Roy residents that are actually could

[1:36:04] possibly be there to make sure they are reentered somewhere else with honor.

[1:36:08] Thank you. >> Thank you,

[1:36:16] » Dustin David. Oh jeez. Dustin Davis, Roy City. Uh my home is the one right south

[1:36:24] of it. So I'm potentially looking at eight new neighbors. Uh it brings to

[1:36:30] mind privacy. Uh it's a lot of potential neighbors that are going to have an

[1:36:36] opinion on uh the state of my property. and uh I maintain and manage the

[1:36:45] easement there for Weber Basin Water and a portion of UTA's property in the back.

[1:36:51] Am I going to be in conflict with these new neighbors maintaining that property?

[1:36:56] So, I'm just wondering how that's going to go

[1:37:00] down pertaining to that. >> Thank you.

[1:37:07] Would

[1:37:11] anybody else like to speak to this?

[1:37:27] » My name is David Tracy. I live across the street from Doug's property. And

[1:37:32] Doug's a good guy. And you know, I really like him and he's been a good

[1:37:36] neighbor. I want to disagree with him a little bit, but I want it to be civil.

[1:37:43] Uh the thing that bothers me is that

[1:37:49] uh down on 56,

[1:37:54] you just allowed I can't remember how many more uh single family homes down

[1:38:02] there. There's another project that's probably in the works on 4,800

[1:38:09] on the other end. And then there's uh Doug's property and

[1:38:14] there's actually another property that's like uh I think it's about three acres

[1:38:20] across the street and further north. The people that have bought houses

[1:38:28] along 2700 from 56 to 48 wanted an area that had a big backyard,

[1:38:37] which the houses on the west side have very large backyards. They wanted to be

[1:38:44] able to have a garden or have an animal or just have a nice place to grow some

[1:38:50] trees and and sit out and enjoy the the backyard. That's all going away with

[1:38:58] this high density. And so when

[1:39:04] you approve more and more and more high density in Roy City, it just takes away

[1:39:11] from the life of the residents that moved here

[1:39:18] because they didn't want to be in high density. If they wanted to be in high

[1:39:22] density, they probably would be living in somewhere in Ogden or Salt Lake. See

[1:39:28] what I mean? So that's the one objection I have to

[1:39:35] all this high density that's coming into Roy because with the high density

[1:39:40] there's also you know uh cost to police cost to utilities cost to snow removals

[1:39:47] cost to the city has more and more and more costs when they have more and more

[1:39:51] residents and I know that you want a better tax

[1:39:56] base but you know sometimes if you have to put in a new sewer line, it takes you

[1:40:02] a long time to catch up to that uh tax base. See what I'm saying? So, it's not

[1:40:07] a free ride for the city. They have a lot of expenses when they put in more

[1:40:12] structures. So, the only other thing that I would

[1:40:16] like to ask Doug is uh about two or three months ago, uh a big uh track hole

[1:40:26] came in on a semi and parked in front of the property and it went down to the

[1:40:32] south. >> That's your time. If you

[1:40:35] » Let's see. That would be the southwest corner.

[1:40:42] Let's see. No, the southeast corner of the property. And it's the the question

[1:40:48] has never been solved whether there's graves in that corner of the property.

[1:40:53] It's come up before in in other uh hearings and I think Doug has said that

[1:41:01] there wasn't graves there. But uh I think you know the city should find

[1:41:08] out one way or the other if there if there are graves in that corner of the

[1:41:13] property because >> the

[1:41:17] rumor or or what the story that we hear is

[1:41:21] » they like if you could wrap up. >> Okay. like at the the turn of the

[1:41:26] century when the hospital was there, if a person died and there was nobody to

[1:41:32] claim their body, they just moved the bodies over there and buried them. So,

[1:41:36] we don't know for sure, but it would be nice to find out. Thank you.

[1:41:41] » Thank you.

[1:41:46] » Comment. >> We'll give you a chance to respond

[1:41:50] afterward. So,

[1:41:54] I'm um Bill Underwood. I live on the north side of that property and I'm

[1:42:01] concerned about um the value of my property and it what how this

[1:42:05] development will affect that when I have five new backdoor sideyard neighbors.

[1:42:12] I understand that you can have two dogs per house.

[1:42:16] So, I might be introduced to 10 new neighborhood dogs.

[1:42:21] And um so I'm concerned about the value of my property and I'm also concerned

[1:42:25] about my lifestyle that might be affected by having five

[1:42:30] new neighbors next door. Um I appreciate trying to make the most out of that

[1:42:36] property, but those um houses will only be 20 feet from my property line now. So

[1:42:44] anyway, thank you. >> Thank you.

[1:42:51] Right. Any anybody else?

[1:42:55] » Okay. >> Motion to go out of public hearing.

[1:42:58] » Seconded. >> Motion and a second. We are now out of

[1:43:01] public hearing. >> Oh, sorry. We need to vote on it. Yes.

[1:43:05] All in favor? >> I. Any opposed?

[1:43:09] » All right. Passes unanimously. We're now out of public hearing. Um, Mr. Terry, go

[1:43:13] ahead and come back up. Uh, first of all, I think it's been well

[1:43:17] documented in books about Roy that there was no graves on that property.

[1:43:23] My grandfather probably purchased that property around 1930

[1:43:27] and I've talked to my dad quite a few times about it and there's never been an

[1:43:32] incident where there's a grave on that property. There's prop there's graves

[1:43:35] definitely to the south of the property where our neighbor lives behind his

[1:43:39] house. And as far as the high density where I'm

[1:43:43] trying to lower the density, you know, if this gets voted no, then we're going

[1:43:47] to come right back. We only need approval. We'll do town homes in there.

[1:43:52] And I'm trying to be a good neighbor.

[1:43:57] » Yeah. Just Well, Doug just said it, but the the zoning does allow that 34 or 36

[1:44:04] units, and we are trying to appease the the um feelings and and what the

[1:44:10] neighbors want. Again, just want to thank all the residents for their

[1:44:13] comments as we are trying to um hopefully make this a great development

[1:44:17] to be a neighbor to. Thank you.

[1:44:23] » All right, Steve.

[1:44:30] » Um it was commented about you not having access to the information that was

[1:44:36] presented. Um, the only thing that's being asked for is smaller lots, 26

[1:44:41] units, and setbacks. And that was all part of your packet.

[1:44:45] » Um,

[1:44:49] page 12 and 13.

[1:44:51] » We did have the packet on Friday from Steve with the information on there. I'm

[1:44:55] not sure what was available to the public.

[1:44:57] » That package is available to the public when it's put on the the public website.

[1:45:01] So, as for the types of homes, it could be

[1:45:05] » when was that put on the public notice website? Do you know off the top of your

[1:45:08] head? >> As a notice or as a

[1:45:12] agenda? >> So, we got the packets on Friday. I'm

[1:45:15] just trying to see when that was. >> The agenda goes on the public website

[1:45:18] that same Friday. Okay. >> The packet goes on the public our

[1:45:21] website on Friday. >> Okay.

[1:45:24] » And that information disseminated to several different community pages. you

[1:45:29] know that I I don't know because I don't do that.

[1:45:31] » Well, I I I do know that we have someone that's very diligent to make sure that

[1:45:35] that trans. >> But as for the types of homes that could

[1:45:37] be there, that's not what's being asked for in the development agreement. So,

[1:45:41] that's just extra information of these are the types of homes that they have

[1:45:45] built previously on these type of of lots. So, it's not they're not asking

[1:45:50] you to approve these homes. It's does 26 single family homes on smaller lots on a

[1:45:57] private street in this area make sense or not with those setbacks. So those are

[1:46:04] things you need to look at. They can change the type of home if they

[1:46:08] want. Can't go over 35 ft. Still has to have

[1:46:13] twocar parking. Still has to meet the setbacks as as designed in the

[1:46:17] development agreement. So there there are things that are already set in

[1:46:21] place. They're just asking for an increase in single family homes on small

[1:46:27] smaller lots on a private street. Um, as mentioned in my presentation and

[1:46:33] um by the property owner, they could build 34 town homes today.

[1:46:38] They don't want to. They want to do single family, drop it down to 26. Um,

[1:46:46] so they they're they're looking for some stuff to get some stuff. They'll

[1:46:51] give you single family on smaller lots is what they're they're looking for. Um,

[1:46:58] as a historic preservationist in the past, I always like older homes, but

[1:47:05] there's nothing unless the city's willing to to buy it and preserve it or

[1:47:10] the historic society to buy it and preserve it, there's nothing that says

[1:47:13] homes can't be demolished. Um, in Clinton City, the oldest home, there is

[1:47:19] now a Holiday Oil They took that down without even

[1:47:24] thinking twice. And it had seven pitches at different pitch levels. And I mean,

[1:47:29] it it was a beautiful home, but unless someone's willing to to preserve it and

[1:47:34] put on the National Register or create a local register, there's really nothing

[1:47:39] there that we can do about the the part of it. Now, does that mean we couldn't

[1:47:44] put a plaque in there? Very similar. That's on 2700 West and 6,000 South.

[1:47:49] There's placards that are there talking about what used to be there and what I

[1:47:54] mean those are things that we could put on there and even have a picture of the

[1:47:57] old house as part of it still recognizing the historic aspect of it.

[1:48:02] Um

[1:48:06] because it's not part of it. I mean this the site plan may come back with a a

[1:48:11] sound wall between the railroad and this that's you know 10t tall and made of

[1:48:15] concrete which will help with the fire. That's not part of this review. nor nor

[1:48:20] a requirement. Um they could leave it open very similar to everybody's

[1:48:24] backyards that are just chain link fences. So um if a fire is to come out,

[1:48:30] I don't think that this will be the only project they'll have issues. It'll be

[1:48:34] everybody will have those concerns and problems.

[1:48:39] Um they usually do do an alta survey to find out what's there. Um, if there are

[1:48:45] concerns of graves, those are things that, you know, the the property owner

[1:48:48] will have to divulge if there are. Um, he's already mentioned that there are

[1:48:52] not. Uh, the number of dogs. I mean, not everybody has dogs. Yes, you could have

[1:48:58] up to 10, but you may only have two. It's hard to say, but if I have 34 town

[1:49:04] homes, there's going to be a lot more. So, I I think that's really all the

[1:49:10] questions unless you have a a couple that I didn't

[1:49:13] » the value. >> Um, that's always hard to say because

[1:49:16] usually it's like for like. So, if this is a threebedroom, twocar and they've

[1:49:21] got a five bedroomedroom, three bath, twocar, they're they're not going to be

[1:49:25] appraised. No appraiser is going to make that a

[1:49:29] comp to to what they have. So value is always hard to to figure out will it or

[1:49:36] will it not? No, it shouldn't because it's not the same comparable aspect, but

[1:49:43] I'm not an appraiser either.

[1:49:48] It's it's an unknown.

[1:49:52] » Okay. Any further questions or comments?

[1:49:57] » I've also got some background working with um historical groups and such. And

[1:50:04] um so we don't have anything

[1:50:08] in our ordinances or anything like that to provide an avenue for preservation

[1:50:12] for something like this because nobody has come in and already identified and

[1:50:18] had those those homes registered. >> No. And at the same Oh,

[1:50:22] » I I'll kind of There is no city or landmarks commission or north city

[1:50:29] code for historic preservation. Doesn't mean it couldn't be put on the national

[1:50:33] register for historic places, but that only comes into effect if they want to

[1:50:38] rehab it for tax credits. >> Even in the National Register, it can

[1:50:42] still be torn down. >> Yes.

[1:50:45] » Nothing stops it. >> Thank you. That was actually where I was

[1:50:48] heading. Okay. Thank you. Um, and then also with that, as far as the

[1:50:54] questions about whether or not there may be um, residents entered on the

[1:50:59] property, we also don't have any kind of ordinance or any kind of avenue to have

[1:51:06] that as part of the process to to check any I'm not even sure what that would be

[1:51:13] called >> from the graves. Yes. or what he

[1:51:16] » a way to evaluate a property to see if at some point in the past there had been

[1:51:21] » I yeah I don't know >> do we have anything

[1:51:24] » I mean other than an alta survey that just kind of shows you what's there

[1:51:29] » I mean it's going to have to go off of historic knowledge and if someone

[1:51:33] remembers that there was something somewhere

[1:51:36] you know it sounds like it's more of the southwest corner is in question than the

[1:51:40] rest of the property but uh property's owner saying there is And

[1:51:46] if there's still a question, then the developer will have to kind of look at

[1:51:49] it and tread lightly as they dig. I It's hard to say when there's no record of

[1:51:56] it. There's no record of it. >> And we don't have any ordinance or code

[1:52:01] to fall back on as this is how we handle it. Okay.

[1:52:03] » Not unless you're in a grave site that's been dedicated.

[1:52:07] » Thank you.

[1:52:14] Any other questions?

[1:52:18] And I've thought long and hard about this one and it really is a question of

[1:52:22] is single family homes at a higher density

[1:52:27] or leaving it as it is or town homes. And and I think if we leave it like it

[1:52:32] is, it's probably town homes. And I'm just thinking out loud here, but I've

[1:52:35] kind of wrestled with that. And I think that's kind of the choice I have

[1:52:42] to make tonight is really do I think single family homes here are the best or

[1:52:45] the the town homes.

[1:52:52] So a motion's in order.

[1:53:00] A motion to send a favorable recommendation or a positive

[1:53:03] recommendation to the city council for the proposed development agreement for

[1:53:08] the property located at 5154 South 2700 West.

[1:53:13] » Okay. So, favorable recommendation for the development agreement. Is there a

[1:53:17] second? >> Seconded.

[1:53:19] » Have a second. And this will be a roll call.

[1:53:22] » Commissioner Reid, >> I.

[1:53:23] » Commissioner Felt, >> I.

[1:53:25] » Commissioner Young, >> I.

[1:53:27] » Commissioner Callie, >> I. Commissioner Graph

[1:53:30] » I. >> Commissioner Tanner

[1:53:31] » I. >> Commissioner Bailey

[1:53:33] » I.

[1:53:36] » This will most likely be on the October 1st meeting,

[1:53:41] the first Tuesday, but I'll let you know for sure.

[1:53:48] Okay. We are now on to our last public hearing of the night uh to consider

[1:53:53] amending title 10 zoning regulations amending chapter 10 general property

[1:53:58] development standards, chapter 17 table of uses and chapter 19 off- streetet

[1:54:03] parking and loading regarding detached access accessory dwelling units per

[1:54:08] SB284 from this past legislative session.

[1:54:15] As if you haven't already heard about this one a few half dozen times already.

[1:54:21] So in our conversations and as mentioned this comes from Senate Bill 284 that

[1:54:27] requires all cities to allow for detached accessory dwelling units on all

[1:54:33] properties that are 11,000 square feet or more. Um it goes into effect October

[1:54:40] 1st of this year. So regardless if we if this passes by that time or not,

[1:54:47] I already know of three people chomping in the bits to make application for it.

[1:54:52] So the question comes in, do we want to have those developed under what we want

[1:54:58] or what the state allows? There are some differences, but for the most part,

[1:55:03] we're meeting all state aspects with what we've got written here. So

[1:55:10] here in table 17, which is the table of uses,

[1:55:13] here we'd show that all zones except for the

[1:55:18] mobile home parks can have this um allowed on 11,000 foot

[1:55:24] lots or larger. Um additional parking spaces per table 19-1, which we'll get

[1:55:30] to, must be occy occupied at least one of those units by the primary resident.

[1:55:36] So, it can't be two rentals. Property owner must live there. Um, only one

[1:55:43] detached ADU per property. Um, must be rented for consecutive 90 consecutive

[1:55:49] days or longer. Must obtain a rental license through the city. Um, then here

[1:55:54] I've got some other standards that they need to look at. These are dealing with

[1:55:59] detach or just accessory dwelling accessory units.

[1:56:06] accessory dwelling, whatever. Anyway, sep yeah accessory units that will get

[1:56:10] part of it, especially nine. Um, and then a notice will be recorded to

[1:56:16] the county. Now, granted, that notice could be the building permit because

[1:56:20] they'll have to get a building permit to build one or a building permit to

[1:56:24] convert one or I just put one on there as well that this is a legal unit, can

[1:56:29] be rented as long as the property owner lives there.

[1:56:34] other aspects in 10-28 accessory buildings. That's the word I was looking

[1:56:39] for, buildings. Um because one of the aspects that the state wanted is if you

[1:56:44] already have a accessory building and someone wants to convert it to a

[1:56:49] dwelling, cities must allow for that to occur. Um now that existing building

[1:56:55] that was built legally had to have had a permit

[1:57:00] as long as it met the setbacks at the time

[1:57:04] can be converted. Now years ago it was only a two-foot setback rather than

[1:57:09] today's code of three-foot setback. So again if it was built legally they can

[1:57:14] convert it. Building code was will require certain things to occur but

[1:57:20] we're not saying you can't do that. Now, it doesn't mean you couldn't have an

[1:57:24] accessory building and an accessory dwelling unit on the property, different

[1:57:29] different buildings. Um, so this kind of goes through where

[1:57:34] it can be. Um, can be within the public utility easement, cannot be in the front

[1:57:40] or side yard. So, we're making sure that it's in the backyard. Um, B, it talks

[1:57:45] about 10 feet or more behind the primary than it could be within 3 ft of property

[1:57:49] lines. um consistent with the design consistent

[1:57:55] design design consistently with the home. So you don't want some big metal

[1:57:58] structure that's on a nice brick building. At least have some

[1:58:02] consistency. Now I'm not looking for brick for brick, but colors, you know,

[1:58:07] if you want to met a building, at least paint it the same color as the house. So

[1:58:11] there is con consistency. Um

[1:58:16] yeah, utilities has to you can't have separate utilities for all of them. They

[1:58:21] have to go through the main building or main homes utilities, water, sewer,

[1:58:26] electrical. Um that's same with the existing accessory buildings. Anyway,

[1:58:33] um, now number 14, we're scratching out cuz while we're reviewing this section,

[1:58:38] the question comes, why can't I have an an attached to my house that's bigger

[1:58:45] than the house? If it meets the setbacks, do I care if

[1:58:50] your new addition is two and a half stories and your old house is only one?

[1:58:55] I shouldn't care as long as it meets building height setbacks and meets

[1:59:00] building code. So, this we'll just take out. Has nothing to do with the detach,

[1:59:04] but it doesn't make sense to leave it in. Doesn't make sense to me, nor did it

[1:59:10] to any of you when we're first talking about it.

[1:59:14] Um, I'd mentioned that there was two sections of the code to reference the

[1:59:18] 101029. Um, we're not changing anything in it.

[1:59:22] Again, it just goes over location, size. Um, so it can't be bigger than,250

[1:59:28] square feet if you're in most of the R1 zones or no more than 25% of the rear

[1:59:33] yard can be taken up in impervious surfaces. So those things still will

[1:59:38] apply to this. Um, parking wise, um, this is more of a

[1:59:44] state requirement. So if it's 649 square feet or less, we can only require one

[1:59:50] additional parking space. If it's 650 square feet or larger, we can require

[1:59:56] two. And that's what we've got written down

[1:59:59] here is is one and two. Now, these spaces cannot be within the required

[2:00:04] front yard setback. So, they got to be in the side or in the rear.

[2:00:09] So, after further review, again, staff would recommend forwarding a positive

[2:00:16] recommendation to the city council of the amendment as written.

[2:00:22] Okay. Any questions for Steve?

[2:00:27] If not, a motion for public uh hearing is is in order.

[2:00:32] » Motion to go into public hearing. >> We have a second.

[2:00:36] » Second. >> Have a motion to second. All in favor?

[2:00:39] » I. Any opposed? All right. We are now in public hearing. Um same drill after the

[2:00:45] being the fourth one. I think everybody knows the drill, but um is there anybody

[2:00:49] here who would like to speak to this change?

[2:00:54] Keep looking at you, Mr. Homer.

[2:00:58] » Okay. All right. I want to make sure everybody has a chance. So, last last

[2:01:03] call. All right. >> Motion to go out of public hearing.

[2:01:06] » We have a motion and a second. All in favor of Bailey. Sorry, Commissioner

[2:01:11] Bailey. >> Second it. All in favor? I.

[2:01:15] » Any opposed? Okay, we are now out of public comment.

[2:01:19] Any further discussion or a motion is in order.

[2:01:26] I know we've had a lot of work sessions. So,

[2:01:29] » yeah, killed this one. Make a motion that we recommend a forward a positive

[2:01:35] recommendation to city council regarding the proposed amendments to title seven

[2:01:41] zoning regulations amending blah blah blah. Title 10. Sorry,

[2:01:47] looked like a seven for a second. Um, the Z and the 10 got there.

[2:01:52] » Yeah. Okay. >> Okay. Um,

[2:01:55] chapter 10, General Property Development Standards.

[2:01:59] Um, 28, accessory building and accessory

[2:02:03] uses, general requirements. Chapter 17, table of uses. Table 171, table of

[2:02:10] allowed uses, residential zoning districts. Chapter 19, off- streetet

[2:02:16] parking and loading. Eight, required off- streetet parking. Table 19,

[2:02:21] required off- streetet parking. >> That was a mouthful.

[2:02:25] » Thanks for that. >> Holy crap.

[2:02:27] » We have a motion. Do we have a second? >> Second.

[2:02:32] » Okay. Okay. And this is another roll call vote.

[2:02:35] » Commissioner Bailey, >> I.

[2:02:37] » Mr. Reid, >> I.

[2:02:39] » Commissioner Felt, >> I.

[2:02:40] » Commissioner Young, >> I.

[2:02:42] » Commissioner Callie, >> I.

[2:02:43] » Commissioner Graph, >> I.

[2:02:45] » Commissioner Tanner, >> I.

[2:02:49] » This is the only one I know for sure will be on next week.

[2:02:53] » Because if not, then >> it doesn't won't get passed in time.

[2:02:57] » There you go. Um, we'll now move on to item number seven, which is a request

[2:03:02] for site plan approval for Ironwood Station located approximately 2275 West,

[2:03:07] 3775 South. And is the applicant here for that one?

[2:03:16] The Ironwood Station.

[2:03:24] » I'm fine with tableling it if the applicant's not here. You need a motion

[2:03:27] for that. >> Well, do you want me to kind of explain

[2:03:30] it in aspect? Then you can table it or >> no

[2:03:33] » table right off the bat. It's up to you. >> Table it.

[2:03:35] » Just table. >> My opinion,

[2:03:39] » right? >> Let's see what's there because if there

[2:03:43] is nothing I mean historically, we want the

[2:03:46] applicants to be here. >> Okay.

[2:03:51] » So, is this a site plan? >> You know what? Let's sorry, let's do

[2:03:54] let's do this. I make a I can't make a motion, but I suggest maybe we move to

[2:03:59] the rest of the agenda because we're supposed to finish our meetings by 8:30

[2:04:02] and then let's address this at the end of the meeting so that those other ones

[2:04:06] that are here. >> So, motion to move this agenda item to

[2:04:10] the end of the list. >> Motion to move on to the next agenda

[2:04:13] item. >> Agenda item.

[2:04:14] » Second. >> Okay. Motion a second to move forward.

[2:04:18] All in favor? >> I. Any opposed? Okay. We'll move on to

[2:04:22] agenda item number eight, which is a request for site plan approval for park

[2:04:27] 43 phase 2 located approximately 4375 west 5460

[2:04:33] South

[2:04:36] to it so you guys can get done quick. That work

[2:04:41] um

[2:04:46] in um with Advanced Homes. Um we're excited to present this to you. Request

[2:04:51] for site plan approval um to expand on a current development that we just

[2:04:56] finished uh off of 4300 West. Uh this is to utilize portion of property on the

[2:05:01] west side of Howard Slooh. Um providing access for three single

[2:05:06] family homes to be added to the existing HOA

[2:05:10] um uh via a p private road. Uh we spent quite a bit of time coordinating with

[2:05:16] Hooper City uh to uh verify access because the private lane access is off

[2:05:21] of 4375 uh currently abuts the city boundary. Uh

[2:05:26] so as you can see uh looking to access off of the circle with a driveway for a

[2:05:31] private lane um to construct three single family homes. Uh the first

[2:05:37] picture you have in there is schematic of of what we're tenatively looking at.

[2:05:42] The second is what is currently built uh in the town homes on the east side of

[2:05:47] the Slooh. Our intention is to maintain general architectural principles from

[2:05:52] the town homes uh to continue the property. Uh we reviewed the site uh

[2:05:57] working with Steve to identify uh open space requirements to ensure that the

[2:06:02] overall development maintains the open space requirements of the current zoning

[2:06:07] as well as the open usable space. Um it'll also incorporate access to the

[2:06:12] trail system that connects throughout the city along Howard Slooh. Um and

[2:06:18] we'll access water through uh Hooper uh water improvement district. We have uh

[2:06:24] will serve letters for both them as well as Roy in the process of Roy Water

[2:06:28] conservancy district for secondary. Um, this is consistent with what was

[2:06:34] approved when the original development was approved for the town homes uh on

[2:06:38] the east side of the Slooh. Provides a good buffer between the multifamily and

[2:06:42] the single family uh development as well as allowing us to uh try and construct

[2:06:48] somewhat affordable homes uh within Roy City limits.

[2:06:54] » Thank you. Any questions?

[2:06:58] Okay, we may have some questions in a minute, but uh Steve,

[2:07:02] » um as mentioned, this is a phase two of Park 43. They're off of 4300 West and

[2:07:07] about 5460 south. Um just kind of give you geog geographic holiday oil in the

[2:07:14] northwest corner of 56 and for or 55 and 4,300. Um, this is one of those little

[2:07:21] outcroppings that's in Roy and north and south and

[2:07:26] west of it is Hooper. So to the east of this development is our

[2:07:32] town homes. There's 32 town homes that were approved. Uh, when the property was

[2:07:36] reszone, the council approved the reszone subject that anything west of

[2:07:41] the Slooh was single family only. So that's what this aspect is. where if it

[2:07:46] would could have been town homes, I think they'd have already built them,

[2:07:50] but this is the the single family aspect of it. They still have to maintain open

[2:07:55] space for the whole project. Um the unfortunate part is it did take, I'd

[2:08:00] say, several months, I'll give them that, to

[2:08:05] have Hooper allow them access off of their rideway,

[2:08:10] which was pretty sad, but I won't go there.

[2:08:15] um my state statutes there are no design guidelines for single family homes so I

[2:08:21] can't impose but it's great to know that they're still looking to have similar to

[2:08:26] what those town homes were um like they said in the pictures you've got you got

[2:08:29] the town homes that are already built there now so it'll still be of similar

[2:08:35] design um I can't require anything more than that if they're willing to do more

[2:08:41] that's up to them aspect wise the DRC See, most of the comments um aren't

[2:08:47] planning related. They're more of sewer lines, water lines that come from the

[2:08:52] engineer and public works. Building or planning wise, there is pretty I mean,

[2:08:58] yes, there are a few, but nothing that could couldn't be completed with very

[2:09:04] little um information provided. So, a number of parking stalls. didn't know

[2:09:08] how many were going to be there until the picture, but you know, every single

[2:09:12] family homes requires twocar parking and multif family, it's two and a half cars

[2:09:18] parking. So, you get some visitors. Um, so many of that aspect is can be

[2:09:24] satisfied with no changes the way this layout is. So, staff would recommend

[2:09:29] approving the site plan um with the conditions in the staff report.

[2:09:37] And this is what, six years in the making since we

[2:09:40] » Yeah, I couldn't tell you how long it's been.

[2:09:42] » I know it was during co because we were still remote when we when we did it, but

[2:09:46] it's it's kind of interesting because we had kind of that buffer even though

[2:09:49] they're in hoop or the buffer between the residential and the multifamily. And

[2:09:54] so it's interesting to finally see this one come before us. That's been a while.

[2:09:59] So any other questions for Steve?

[2:10:04] Okay. Okay. And this one is just one motion

[2:10:09] » us to approve, not to recommend or >> forward a positive.

[2:10:16] » I motion to approve the site plan review with the conditions that all current and

[2:10:20] future DRC review comments are complied with along with any conditions as stated

[2:10:24] in the staff report or during this meeting.

[2:10:27] » We have a motion. Do we have a second? >> Second.

[2:10:32] » Motion to second. All in favor? >> I. Any opposed? Passes unanimously. We

[2:10:38] will now move on to agenda item number nine. Thank you for for coming. Um this

[2:10:43] is a request for site plan and architectural approval for Quick and

[2:10:47] Clean located approximately 1865 West Riverdale Road. And this is not the

[2:10:53] David Young that's on the planning commission.

[2:10:57] Is the applicant here for that one? go ahead and come on up and tell us your

[2:11:03] name, what city you live in, and then tell us tell us about your project here.

[2:11:12] » Well, my name's David Young. Uh, and yet I've met another David Young. There's a

[2:11:17] lot of us out there. Uh, I live in South Weieber and, uh, I'm the owner of Quick

[2:11:22] and Clean. We uh purchased this property that was formerly uh TNT uh self-s

[2:11:28] served car wash in the Harmon's parking lot and we own and operate multiple car

[2:11:34] washes up and down the wash front and we were able to convert the old wash into

[2:11:40] actually a dog wash along with the self-s served bays and were able to uh

[2:11:45] put a lot quite a bit of money into bringing it up so it looked a lot nicer.

[2:11:49] We enclosed that bay. We finished the exterior with blackwood steel panels. We

[2:11:54] really chose that because it matched what what would had already been up

[2:11:58] there um on on top of the black fascia and roof line. So that enclosure uh

[2:12:03] reads as part of the original structure rather than a patch. Um before that it

[2:12:07] was a drive-thru uh inbay automatic that we that we

[2:12:12] converted. And that's basically the project. We

[2:12:16] updated the sign uh based on the name of the car wash as well.

[2:12:22] » Right. Any questions, >> Steve?

[2:12:27] » Um as mentioned, this is a request for site plan and architectural approval um

[2:12:31] for the quick and clean there at 1865 West Riverdale Road. Um previously the

[2:12:36] TNT uh car wash next to schooners and I want to say a rent a car hearts or

[2:12:44] something like that. Um, site plan wise, this is what was

[2:12:48] proposed. They had several parking stalls. Um, th this came into existence

[2:12:57] without approval. It was it was already done. Um, so we're trying to get it so

[2:13:02] we can move forward and get to the appropriate approvals.

[2:13:08] Um, the enclosed area along Riverdale Road,

[2:13:12] um, it's just glass and black. um framing. I mean, I think it looks

[2:13:18] good. If they enclosed all of them, this is probably what it would look like.

[2:13:21] Even if they did roller doors, it'd probably still have, you know, black

[2:13:25] framing and probably some sort of glass or tempered um

[2:13:30] glass or plexiglass or what have you. Uh the backside, they did use a material

[2:13:36] that looks like corrugated metal, but painted it similar to the the brick or

[2:13:41] the not brick. Um name is escaping me.

[2:13:48] » No cinder block. There we go. >> Yeah.

[2:13:51] » Um as you know corrugated middle is not allowed in the zone but it is an

[2:13:56] improvement. It does be is consistent with so the planning commission you know

[2:14:01] you can approve it with this kind of little change. Metal is allowed. It just

[2:14:05] needs to be architectural but it is small. It's only

[2:14:11] I wouldn't say 20 it's probably 20% of the of the overall building. Um

[2:14:17] parking wise it does require a couple stalls where

[2:14:21] before none were required because you're just driving in washing and going and

[2:14:26] you had a a place to park to vacuum. So the place really only needs three

[2:14:32] stalls. They provided six or no seven six

[2:14:37] I can't read that too small now but staff kind of overlooked that and we

[2:14:42] just need the three that are in front we don't need the two in the back because

[2:14:45] there's real no access from the backside and the one up to towards the street we

[2:14:49] can get rid of and then just improve the site by put putting some trees that will

[2:14:54] improve the site drastically from what it was before. um don't have to increase

[2:15:01] more landscaping elsewhere. Um again, it was it was minor changes, but still

[2:15:07] needed to to be approved from this body. Um so staff would just recommend

[2:15:12] approving it, both the site plan and and the architecture.

[2:15:21] » Okay, any questions?

[2:15:26] would require two motions, but on the architecture, if you're okay with the

[2:15:30] the metal that they have back there, just make that part of your motion. Um,

[2:15:36] I'm indifferent on it. It's in the back. It's painted the same color. So,

[2:15:44] » can I just ask a question because I couldn't find the historical um

[2:15:47] background on why downtown district, this area, that's not allowed.

[2:15:54] um just part of the the district when we went through the the code and and

[2:15:58] creating it, we wanted more of um aerospace design, so more glasses and

[2:16:04] metals that are more flat in nature rather than corrugated.

[2:16:09] » Okay. >> Better aesthetics. That's kind of the

[2:16:12] gateway that is why we better aesthetics. That's why we kind of went

[2:16:16] that >> but knowing the fascia is kind of the

[2:16:19] sim similar material. That's why I'm I'm indifferent if if you prove it this way

[2:16:23] or not. corrugated adds a little bit of strength

[2:16:26] to it and it has been an improvement.

[2:16:35] » Okay. Anybody want to make a motion? >> Uh I motion that we approve

[2:16:43] uh where am I? I've just lost my spots. site plan.

[2:16:47] » Uh the site plan um as long as it meets the minimum requirements of the zoning

[2:16:53] ordinance, right? With the exception of the metal is the site plan. The

[2:16:59] architecture will cover them. >> Perfect. Um so yeah, the site plan uh

[2:17:03] and meeting the minimum requirements of the zoning ordinance.

[2:17:06] » Okay. >> Okay. Do we have a second?

[2:17:10] » Second. >> All in favor?

[2:17:12] » I. Any opposed? >> All right. That passes unanimously. Now

[2:17:16] the architectural approval.

[2:17:29] I make a recommendation we approve the um architectural aspect.

[2:17:34] Um as long meet the minimum standard. >> We want to approve it or make a

[2:17:37] recommendation. >> Recommendation.

[2:17:39] » It's approved. >> Approve. Wait.

[2:17:41] » Approve it. Do you want the >> I want to approve.

[2:17:45] » Make a motion to approve the architectural aspect.

[2:17:49] » With the corrugated metal or without it? >> With the corrugated metal.

[2:17:54] » Second. >> Okay. So, I have a motion to approve the

[2:17:57] » Bailey or Felt. >> Bailey architectural plan with the

[2:18:00] corrugated metal and a second by Commissioner Bailey. All in favor?

[2:18:05] » I >> I. Any opposed?

[2:18:07] » That passes unanimously. Okay. Okay. Agenda item number 10 is a

[2:18:12] request for site plan and architectural approval for Mountain America Credit

[2:18:15] Union located approximately 1919 West 5600 South. And is the applicant here

[2:18:21] for that one. >> If they're not, I understand.

[2:18:27] » My understanding is you were going to present first.

[2:18:29] » You are. >> Okay.

[2:18:33] » I don't want people thinking this is my project.

[2:18:35] » Well, I thought where it was presented last month that you were doing that.

[2:18:38] » I will go first.

[2:19:00] While you're passing that out, um, I will introduce myself. I am Shane

[2:19:03] Sanders with Sanders and Associate Architects. Um, we're in Ogden and I am

[2:19:08] representing Mountain America Credit Union.

[2:19:12] This was presented last month. Um, we reubmitted and there were some

[2:19:18] additional concerns. Um, we've looked at that. I just want to kind of give you

[2:19:22] um, kind of an example of what they're doing or want to achieve at this corner.

[2:19:27] Um that first picture is a similar branch exterior of another branch um

[2:19:34] that kind of shows the the elements that um achieve that aerospace design theme.

[2:19:39] I don't think that's in question, but just kind of want to give you um uh an

[2:19:44] example. If you turn to the second page, um this is the lobby of a typical

[2:19:50] branch. That large glass wall um is to the back of the the teller line. Um

[2:19:58] behind that gray wall in the middle is a wall that sits in about 3 feet from the

[2:20:03] glass wall that uh a mural will be painted will be painted by a local

[2:20:08] artist and that mural will be based on kind of the history of Roy and some of

[2:20:14] the um things that are going on in the city. Um, for example, Hillfield and

[2:20:20] that aerospace theme. You would probably see that in the mural. Um, so there's a

[2:20:26] desire for Mountain America to make that connection with the community. They want

[2:20:29] to be a part of the community. There will be that 90 wall that you see to the

[2:20:33] left of that picture is a wall that talks about the history of Royal also.

[2:20:37] And you see that in their branch as they try and make that connection um with

[2:20:41] their members to the community. Um the third page, if you'll turn to

[2:20:46] that, that's the site plan. Um this is a very challenging site. Um given the

[2:20:52] short depth north to south, it only creates a 50ft frontage on 1900,

[2:21:01] which makes it difficult to to design a building that can function for their

[2:21:05] use. Um the recommendation was to push that building all we thought we had

[2:21:11] achieved it but um based on Steve's review we hadn't. So um what we're

[2:21:16] recommending to solve the problem is to rotate this building. Um the the black

[2:21:22] is the original layout. The green would be the rotation. So that t tall tall

[2:21:27] large glass wall would face north facing 5600.

[2:21:32] And then we could with the red line expand towards 1900 with offices.

[2:21:40] So those offices surround that lobby which is the kind of the function they

[2:21:44] need in these branches. Um we would move the south entrance that

[2:21:49] we were proposing to the west. That would be the entrance from the parking

[2:21:53] lot and from the development from Ocean Mart.

[2:21:57] Then we would do the front entrance and move that to 1900 which is um identified

[2:22:03] on that site plan. Um

[2:22:07] the only concern is that entrance. There was a comment in Steve's report that

[2:22:13] that entrance need to be needed to be more grandiose and I

[2:22:18] and it needed to match more that what we had proposed for the the west entrance.

[2:22:24] Um, the ordinance says that that portal or entrance can only be 8 feet maximum

[2:22:30] and that's what we had done on the north and we would propose doing here on the

[2:22:34] on the east. Um, it would have all the same elements that the west entrance

[2:22:38] would have. We'd have a covered canopy that would be lit, um, metal frame, wood

[2:22:44] sophet, um, and glass going in.

[2:22:48] The west entrance is going to look bigger because it can be bigger. Um, but

[2:22:54] we're limited to 8 feet on that width of the primary front entrance.

[2:23:00] Um, I think that I guess if you turn to the

[2:23:05] last page and I just stated in the next page kind of the ordinance where we can

[2:23:09] be no wider than the 8 ft. The very last page and I don't this wasn't a concern.

[2:23:15] Uh Steve had just asked that we show how we've met the glazing percentages.

[2:23:20] Um in this new configuration we're proposing it would be a little

[2:23:24] different, but we would meet those. And I just want to make sure Steve's in

[2:23:30] agreement how we're coming up with this on the two street elevations. Um it's

[2:23:36] that band, that transparency band that's identified in the ordinance that's 2

[2:23:40] feet off the ground and 8 feet to the top. And that's where that 60% is is

[2:23:46] calculated. >> Unfortunate part is I there was only

[2:23:49] enough packets for them. So >> Oh, you didn't get one. I sorry. I could

[2:23:53] have given you one. >> We got an extra.

[2:23:54] » Y but >> yeah to review it on the fly. It's kind

[2:23:58] of hard to say it meets it or not. So >> Well, it meets it and I was just showing

[2:24:02] showing you how we come up with it and I just want to make sure

[2:24:05] » my comment was just provide that >> information on there.

[2:24:09] » Okay. And again, that's going to change a little bit in the new um site

[2:24:14] configuration, but we will meet that when we resubmit.

[2:24:19] So, we would ask that you approve based on that new site configuration

[2:24:24] and um the entrances that we're proposing

[2:24:31] that this this new configuration would meet your 80%

[2:24:35] frontage on 1900 West and on the corner

[2:24:42] at the 15t setback. Again, very challenging site with that

[2:24:48] tight space we have to work with on 1900.

[2:24:53] Um, but I think we have a solution here that meets the ordinance and satisfies

[2:24:59] Mountain America's um kind of needs functionally to make

[2:25:04] this branch work.

[2:25:08] and all the other um items that were mentioned in the report we will we will

[2:25:14] meet and address in the resubmitt.

[2:25:20] » Okay. Any any questions? >> All right. We may have some questions in

[2:25:26] a minute, but for the meantime, let's uh go over to Steve.

[2:25:30] » Well, my presentation isn't up to date. Um, again, this is the southwest corner

[2:25:37] of 56 and 1900 West where the old Wells Fargo building was, but much of it has

[2:25:43] been chopped up, so it's a lot farther than it used to be. Um, here's the

[2:25:48] previous site plan. Um, and then kind of the design features of

[2:25:54] the of the building prior. Now, planning commission, if you kind of

[2:26:00] like what's going on here, you can go ahead and approve it subject

[2:26:04] to this meets the the aspects of the code. Um, I can bring that those aspects

[2:26:09] back to you just so you you have an idea of what the DRC comments would be, but I

[2:26:16] don't I don't think tableabling it because just

[2:26:21] the setbacks is the biggest issue and it looks like they're conforming to that.

[2:26:26] having a a doorway and the fun and the the good and the bad and

[2:26:30] the ugly is knowing this is one of few buildings that we've actually looked at

[2:26:35] in this new code. I was unaware that it's only 8t wide. So if this is 8t wide

[2:26:41] that meets the code, not much I can I can change about that. So um the access

[2:26:46] point there it meets aspect needs to be along the front or on the corner. So

[2:26:51] this would be ability there and then parking lot would just assimilate a

[2:26:57] little bit to what this building change. So I mean I could bring you back the the

[2:27:02] DRC comments for the new submitt just so you are aware of if there's any large

[2:27:07] concerns but you could approve it just conditions on the DRC comments are

[2:27:11] satisfied. I don't foresee huge things at the moment that would

[2:27:18] say, you know, don't do it, red flags come up um into it. So,

[2:27:25] » I think that this meets the questions that I brought up and and concerns that

[2:27:30] I had prior to this. So

[2:27:35] » I think they've they've looked at it knowing that the only 15 ft needs to be

[2:27:39] met and by changing around a bit will does help it. So

[2:27:45] » and they still have to meet the other standards. So

[2:27:50] » okay, anybody want to make a motion? There'll be two total, but we can start

[2:27:55] with the first.

[2:28:00] I make a motion to approve the site plan for the Mountain America project with

[2:28:06] the condition that the DRC comments are satisfied.

[2:28:09] » And we want to make sure that that states as presented to us tonight.

[2:28:14] » That's fine. >> And as presented to us tonight.

[2:28:17] » Okay. Do we have a second? >> Second.

[2:28:20] » Motion to second. All in favor? >> I. Any opposed? All right. That takes

[2:28:25] care of the site plan. Now the architectural

[2:28:38] » I make a motion to >> go ahead

[2:28:40] » to approve the archite architectural review um with the condition that the

[2:28:47] DRC comments are satisfied and with what we learned tonight

[2:28:52] » tonight. Second. >> Okay. motion and a second. All in favor?

[2:28:57] » I. >> Any opposed? That passes unanimously.

[2:29:01] » Okay, let's do it. >> Agenda items number 11 and 12 and then

[2:29:06] we'll see where we're at as far as addressing the other one. Um,

[2:29:09] commissioners minute. Do any of the commissioners have anything that they

[2:29:12] would like to bring up?

[2:29:18] » I just want to recognize Mr. Scatteren. Who is

[2:29:21] » There goes my items.

[2:29:25] All right, Steve, it's all yours.

[2:29:30] » Go for it. >> There was a flyer on where you were at

[2:29:34] before. They're just looking for planning commissioners and city and or

[2:29:39] city council members. We'd be interested in join joining them. So, if you're

[2:29:44] available, um

[2:29:47] please look at attending. You can give them a call. If you have questions, I

[2:29:51] can give you the gentleman's card. I only had one, so I can email that to you

[2:29:57] if you have more questions, but they're just looking for some elected and

[2:30:01] appointed officials to help serve on there.

[2:30:06] And then second, we have a new planning commissioner since uh Jeremy Thompson

[2:30:11] stepped down for health reasons and unfortunately the mayor had

[2:30:15] appointed and the council ratified Randy Scad. No, actually I'm I'm excited. I

[2:30:21] know Randy pretty well as all of us having served on the council for many

[2:30:25] years. I think he will bring a some information. I can't say wealth of

[2:30:30] knowledge. I have to retrain him as a planning commissioner.

[2:30:35] » True. It's true. Is it like can I defend myself?

[2:30:39] » Come on up. Introduce yourself. >> Yeah.

[2:30:42] » If they don't know who you are. >> Does anybody not know who I am?

[2:30:47] » Oh.

[2:30:53] Yeah. Has he been sworn in? So he can >> He's been sworn in. Appointed

[2:30:58] » sworn in. Sworn out. >> He's He's alternate number two. So

[2:31:03] » my homework

[2:31:14] city for all of us doesn't exist. We also have this cool thing called the

[2:31:19] internet that you can look that up on just just for reference.

[2:31:24] » Little badge, Randy. >> Welcome.

[2:31:26] » Little badge. What badge? >> Oh, just a certificate. Sorry. The

[2:31:29] certificate. >> The same one hour required training you

[2:31:32] all went through before you could vote. >> So you know which hat you're wearing.

[2:31:36] » Yes. >> Um

[2:31:38] » I sent him those videos, too. >> Yeah. Welcome. Um be fun serving with

[2:31:42] you. So um any other items, Steve? I really don't have much. I mean,

[2:31:50] yeah, I'm going to end it there. I had more things I could say, but I'm not

[2:31:53] going to put it online. >> Okay. So, I'm going to leave the last

[2:31:57] item, the fate of the last item up to the commission. We can either try to

[2:32:02] hear the item without the applicants here. I like to have the applicants

[2:32:06] here. I think that's fair for them. Um, so either a motion to rehear that item

[2:32:10] or we can do a motion to adjurnn. I'll go ahead and motion to uh table item

[2:32:16] number seven for a future time when we can uh hopefully hear from the

[2:32:20] applicants. >> Second

[2:32:22] » motion to table and a second. All in favor? I. Any opposed?

[2:32:27] » Okay, last motion. >> Motion to adjurnn

[2:32:29] » in order. Did you get that, Steve? Hold on.

[2:32:32] » Who seconded it? >> Me

[2:32:33] » because apparently I can't hear people's voices on

[2:32:36] » Commissioner Bailey. >> Bailey seconded it.

[2:32:39] » Bailey second. certainly sound like t 10 or 10.

[2:32:43] » Okay. So, that was for the motion to table it.

[2:32:46] » Yep. >> Okay. So, now the last motion of the

[2:32:48] night, we're going to redo that so that we have that

[2:32:50] » clearly on the record. >> Motion to adjurnn.

[2:32:54] » Second. >> Motion to adjurnn and a second. All in

[2:32:57] favor? >> I I

[2:32:58] » I. >> Any opposed?

[2:33:01] » We are now adjourned. >> You've been looking

[2:33:04] » just for you. >> Oh, thank you. Yes.

[2:33:08] I love the clack, >> especially when there

September 8, 2026 Roy City Planning Commission Meeting

Transcript