[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