[0:00] Hey, I want to welcome everybody out to

[0:02] Planning and Zoning Commission for this

[0:04] night, April 1st. Um, to get started

[0:07] with, I've asked Commissioner Woodhouse

[0:09] to lead us in the pledge of allegiance.

[0:20] To the flag of the United States of

[0:22] America and to the republic for it

[0:25] stands one nation under God indivisible

[0:29] with liberty andice for all.

[0:35] » Thank you Commissioner Woodhouse.

[0:38] Um, our first

[0:41] uh agenda item for the night is the

[0:43] approval of the minutes from

[0:45] >> the last three months. It looks like

[0:49] >> my all. Sorry.

[0:51] >> Has anybody had a chance to review

[0:52] those? And if so, I'd take a motion.

[0:55] >> I'll make that motion. Approve the

[0:57] minutes.

[0:58] >> Have a second.

[0:59] >> I'll second.

[1:00] >> A motion second. All in favor?

[1:02] >> I.

[1:03] >> Motion is approved. Any opposed?

[1:08] Um,

[1:10] we have a preliminary plat to come

[1:13] before us. It's the Andy Ridge

[1:14] subdivision.

[1:20] So, the next two items on the agenda are

[1:22] related. Uh, one is the preliminary plan

[1:25] and the other is the zone change. I'll

[1:27] present uh both or I can do it

[1:30] separately. But we do have two separate

[1:32] motions as well as a public hearing for

[1:35] uh the zone change. So this is the

[1:38] property that we're looking at. Um here

[1:40] on the screen uh just barely over three

[1:43] acres in size. Next slide please. Um on

[1:47] the left you see the zoning

[1:48] designations. Uh arrowhead subdivision

[1:50] wraps around the property and it would

[1:53] also provide the street access to the

[1:55] standard subdivision that's being

[1:57] proposed. Uh sorry back. So, we've got

[2:00] R112 north, east, and south, and then

[2:04] existing RR rural residential to the

[2:06] west. Um, and Quail Run, uh, is a

[2:10] private road which serves a number of

[2:12] houses off of it. Um, next slide. So,

[2:15] this is the proposal. Um, there is an

[2:17] existing house on the property which

[2:19] would remain and it would continue to

[2:22] have its access off of uh, Quail Run

[2:25] Road. the five new lots being proposed

[2:28] uh would have access only via the

[2:31] culdeac that's being uh shown here on

[2:33] the on the image. Um as a standard

[2:36] subdivision, each lot needs to meet the

[2:38] minimum uh lot size as well as

[2:40] dimensions. And so we've got 100 ft

[2:42] width on each lot uh over 100 ft of

[2:45] depth. Three of the lots are in the

[2:47] range of 12 to 13,000. We have a 13 to

[2:50] 14, a 15 to 16, and then the existing

[2:53] home uh is on 51,000 square ft.

[2:57] Um the DRC did look at this uh earlier

[3:02] or excuse me last month. We're in April

[3:05] now and recommended approval. If we go

[3:07] to the next slide,

[3:09] uh this shows the street that would be

[3:12] extended and become the culdeac from the

[3:14] east. Next slide. U next slide.

[3:19] Uh next slide.

[3:21] So uh as mentioned the development

[3:24] review committee does recommend

[3:26] approval. Um this is the proposed fi uh

[3:30] motion for the preliminary cl uh

[3:32] findings and conditions as as written.

[3:35] Um five was specific. Um if we go back

[3:39] to

[3:41] the coldest Yep. So five states that

[3:45] one, two, three, and four will be

[3:46] addressed and accessed from the

[3:48] culde-sac and that lot five uh will be

[3:51] addressed off of Quail Run Road. And

[3:53] then lot excuse me uh condition five

[3:56] also that the frontage for lot five

[3:58] which is the lot with the existing home.

[4:02] Um as far as setbacks, fencing,

[4:05] landscaping, um that would be treated

[4:07] like a front yard. So we wouldn't have a

[4:09] stretch of fencing that would be uh up

[4:13] along uh the culde-sac.

[4:16] Um any questions on the subdivision

[4:19] request?

[4:20] >> So what does that mean for the fence on

[4:22] the the to the rear of lot five? So

[4:25] that's saying that it would that would

[4:27] be their backyard. They would have to

[4:29] run it in a shorter fence like a 4ft

[4:32] fence. They could do a 4ft fence or if

[4:34] they wanted six feet it'd have to come

[4:36] off um

[4:37] >> I believe 15 feet from the sidewalk.

[4:42] >> Would that only be a fence? I assume

[4:43] like because access is on Quail Run,

[4:46] there's no like back entrance or

[4:49] anything like that or do we

[4:50] >> There's no restriction as far as them

[4:52] not having a a second driveway. So they

[4:54] could have a driveway access off of the

[4:56] culde-sac. Um, but as far as structures,

[4:58] like if they wanted to place the shed,

[5:00] it wouldn't be able to fit uh here. They

[5:03] could do it over here. And then there's

[5:04] some existing buildings over here.

[5:09] And so this request is for a standard

[5:11] subdivision. Uh so the planning

[5:14] commission would be the approving body.

[5:16] Obviously, it's subject to the council

[5:19] approving the zone change from RR to

[5:22] R112 so that it could develop um as

[5:25] currently indicated on the general plan.

[5:28] >> Okay. One thing you uh just for the for

[5:31] the public's information, can we go back

[5:33] to the map and show exactly where this

[5:35] is in Spanish Fork?

[5:39] » One more Ian.

[5:43] » Okay, so this is offered ahead.

[5:46] Main Street

[5:48] >> and then this other one right Oh, wrong

[5:52] way.

[5:53] >> This is Woodland Hills Drive right here.

[5:56] >> Yes. And then Mill Road.

[5:59] >> And then Mill Road. Okay, great. Thanks

[6:02] for that orientation.

[6:12] » The applicant is here tonight. um for

[6:16] just for the format of this. You you'll

[6:20] we'll then have a public hearing

[6:21] presenting on the zone change.

[6:22] >> Yeah, we can do this. We'll need to do

[6:24] them separately. So, we could do the

[6:25] motion first on this item and then I'm

[6:27] happy to uh answer any questions

[6:31] >> on the zone change and then we'll need a

[6:33] public hearing at that time before we

[6:34] act on it.

[6:35] >> Okay. So, then to reiterate, I I'm sorry

[6:38] that I'm just So, to reiterate, this is

[6:41] the existing home. This is their front

[6:44] door. They have a drive or something

[6:46] that that goes this way.

[6:48] >> Yes.

[6:48] >> And then the front of these homes of all

[6:52] the other homes will be here. This will

[6:54] be their access. And then this is their

[6:56] rear and they'll have a fence there.

[6:59] >> If they do, it'll have to be set back as

[7:02] if it was a front yard. So that the

[7:04] culde-sac will have uniform look instead

[7:07] of one lot that has

[7:09] >> Okay, that was a

[7:10] >> sixoot fence for instance. was what was

[7:11] striking me funny. Okay.

[7:13] >> But a fence is not required. They could

[7:15] optionally choose to not have a fence.

[7:16] >> Correct.

[7:17] >> Yeah.

[7:20] » Thank you, Brandon. Would the applicant

[7:22] like to come up and address us?

[7:25] >> You have any points that you feel you

[7:27] might want to clarify or

[7:29] >> highlight?

[7:29] >> I think Brandon did a great job.

[7:31] >> He did a good job.

[7:32] >> He does a great job. So,

[7:33] >> would you please state your name?

[7:35] >> Andre Christensen. Great.

[7:38] >> Uh, do you have any questions for me?

[7:42] Are you do you currently own this

[7:44] property?

[7:44] >> I don't. I'm working with

[7:46] >> You're in the You're in your due

[7:47] diligence trying to secure. Okay.

[7:50] [snorts]

[7:51] >> Great.

[7:52] >> So, this isn't your home that's already

[7:54] existing on the property?

[7:55] >> Yeah.

[7:56] >> Okay.

[7:59] » Was that the original property owner?

[8:01] The homeowner there that they own the whole

[8:05] >> that owned it that I'm working with.

[8:07] Yes.

[8:08] and and he lives in he he doesn't live

[8:10] around here. He rents the home now.

[8:12] >> Maybe not.

[8:13] >> Yeah, he he lives out in Vernal. Super

[8:16] nice guy.

[8:17] >> So then why keep the So he wants to keep

[8:22] he's planning to keep this part of the

[8:24] property.

[8:25] >> He'll keep that property. Yes.

[8:27] >> Huh.

[8:32] » Okay.

[8:33] >> I guess we have any questions. That was

[8:34] easy. Thank you.

[8:35] >> Thank you. That's all. Mr. Chairman.

[8:38] >> Yes.

[8:38] >> Can I add one thing now? And it I don't

[8:41] know exactly how we'd look at how it

[8:42] would apply, whether it's more on the

[8:43] platter, the zone change, but one of the

[8:46] neighbors reached out to me yesterday. I

[8:48] appreciate just being able to talk with

[8:50] Mr. Christensen a minute ago about the

[8:53] neighbors concern

[8:55] of having an arena. I believe they ride

[8:58] horses there right up against the

[9:01] subdivision, what would be the

[9:02] subdivision. It's against the subject

[9:04] property now. and they have uh suggested

[9:08] that some fencing should be put in place

[9:10] with the development.

[9:12] >> She's not able to be here tonight. Uh so

[9:15] my thought would be that uh it'd be best

[9:18] if the applicant who has talked to her

[9:22] before, as I understand, on different

[9:23] issues. I think good relationship there,

[9:25] but I think it'd be helpful if before

[9:27] this goes to the city council, we have a

[9:29] conversation with that neighbor about

[9:32] what they're thinking and just try to

[9:33] come up with something that works. Where

[9:35] is the writing arena located?

[9:37] >> Right there.

[9:39] >> As far as a fence, what are they

[9:41] desiring?

[9:43] >> It's right there.

[9:55] Yeah, there's certainly different ways

[9:57] to look at it and I'm not ready at

[10:00] tonight at all to talk, you know, about

[10:01] what might make sense to, if anything,

[10:04] to require of the of the applicant. But,

[10:08] um, I think there's reason to be

[10:10] sensitive to somebody having something

[10:12] like that next to a development and

[10:14] where

[10:15] >> reason being that kids play in the

[10:16] backyard might startle a horse or

[10:18] something like that or

[10:19] >> Yeah. And she's concerned about people

[10:20] complaining about dust.

[10:22] >> Yeah, cuz they've also got that kind of

[10:23] thing. They have they have lights in the

[10:25] arena there

[10:26] >> which are going to be over six foot

[10:28] vinyl fence

[10:29] >> and yeah so they're going to be up and

[10:30] there's going to be dust

[10:32] >> and I think there might be another arena

[10:34] over here too

[10:36] but

[10:38] yeah I would bet that the city's going to get

[10:42] some calls in the future that they those

[10:46] neighbors complaining about it

[10:47] >> and there might be a way to address some

[10:49] of that now. I think that's the idea.

[10:51] And um

[10:52] >> Yeah.

[10:52] >> So, do you feel like that should be a condition a condition six that's put

[10:59] on there that the

[11:01] >> there's a solid fence?

[11:03] >> Um [clears throat]

[11:04] I would not so and I'm just going to

[11:06] speak for myself and I think Brandon,

[11:09] you know, he he identified that there

[11:11] are different ways to look at it and I

[11:15] appreciate what Mr. Christensen and I

[11:17] just talked about. But I think it's true

[11:18] that um whether the developer install a

[11:21] fence or the homeowner that will buy the

[11:24] lot and build a house there, they likely

[11:26] would. So I think

[11:30] somehow

[11:32] the most fundamental ways to make that

[11:34] relationship work as well as it can.

[11:36] They're going to be addressed. I think

[11:37] it just is helpful when a neighbor

[11:39] reaches out like they did.

[11:41] >> Sure.

[11:41] >> To have some dialogue. And that's really

[11:42] all I'd suggest right now.

[11:44] >> Okay. And

[11:45] >> it sounds like you're willing to reach

[11:46] out and talk to her.

[11:49] >> Great.

[11:51] >> Yeah. And just I don't even know that needs to be a condition of

[11:53] approval. I mean, the city council could

[11:55] always consider that if they want,

[11:56] right? And I think we have this uh uh at

[12:00] least tenatively plan to go to the city

[12:02] council on the 21st of April. So, we

[12:04] have a couple of weeks um if that

[12:06] schedule gets followed. And

[12:08] >> so, there's no fence there right now.

[12:09] And there's nothing keeping the person

[12:11] that owns the arena from building a

[12:13] fence as well. Correct.

[12:14] >> True.

[12:15] >> Correct.

[12:16] >> There is a fence, but it's not a big

[12:18] It's not a large privacy fence or

[12:20] anything.

[12:21] >> So, it could go both ways and neighbors

[12:23] can work together just like they do in

[12:25] any other neighborhood. Is that what

[12:27] you're saying?

[12:28] >> Uh, that is certainly a possibility.

[12:31] Yeah,

[12:39] » ideally we'd get off

[12:40] >> sensitive. We're proposing a zone change

[12:43] from what was existing what has been

[12:44] existing there

[12:46] >> when they put the arena there and we

[12:47] want to be sensitive to their

[12:49] >> their what they're seeing

[12:52] >> might be impacting their current

[12:55] situation.

[12:56] >> That makes sense, too.

[12:57] >> Yeah. I'm just wondering about this

[12:59] strange lot that is Could I borrow your

[13:02] pointer?

[13:03] >> For sure.

[13:03] >> Thank you. I'm just wondering if I I I'm

[13:08] just wondering about this strange big

[13:10] lot

[13:11] in a home that is the owner doesn't is

[13:14] not it's not owner occupied.

[13:18] Somebody is renting it. And I'm all for

[13:21] renters, but why keep it in that shape?

[13:24] Why keep it in

[13:27] like all that extra property.

[13:30] It just is a strange configuration to me

[13:33] to all of a sudden have a backyard

[13:36] on a culde-sac.

[13:40] I it it's probably fine, but it just

[13:42] seems kind of anyway strange to me.

[13:45] >> I guess I comment maybe strange, but

[13:46] it's it's what's there right now, right?

[13:48] It's a large thing and

[13:50] >> I mean it's just what we run into as we

[13:51] get growth. There's existing properties

[13:53] that

[13:53] >> it's what the existing owner is probably

[13:55] willing to sell to the the new

[13:57] applicant,

[13:58] >> I guess.

[13:58] >> And this complies with the the

[14:03] zoning he's trying to achieve,

[14:04] >> but it's well over whatif over five

[14:07] 50,000 square feet.

[14:09] >> Yeah.

[14:10] >> And this that lot actually matches up

[14:13] with the neighboring this property and

[14:16] the other property over here. They're

[14:17] all animal properties,

[14:20] >> horse properties, and similar size.

[14:24] >> That makes sense.

[14:25] >> So,

[14:30] any other comments or concerns?

[14:33] [snorts]

[14:37] » If not, I'd entertain a motion on this

[14:39] subject, then we can move to the zoning

[14:42] part of it.

[14:47] I uh move that we approve, this is an

[14:51] approval, Dave, is that right?

[14:53] >> That we approve the preliminary plat for

[14:55] the Andy Ridge subdivision

[14:59] uh based

[15:01] on the findings and conditions.

[15:05] >> I have a motion. Do I have a second?

[15:07] >> A second.

[15:08] >> A motion second. All in favor?

[15:10] >> I. Any opposed?

[15:13] That was uh the recommendation is

[15:15] approved.

[15:17] Go along with that. We'll move into our

[15:19] next subject which is a public hearing.

[15:20] The next two items are both public

[15:22] hearings

[15:23] and it is the Andy Ridge zone change. Uh

[15:26] the only thing I'll add on this is so

[15:28] the designation [clears throat]

[15:30] for the general plan is low density

[15:31] residential. The proposal is R12 which

[15:34] is consistent with that. Um the

[15:38] development review committee also looked

[15:40] at this in March. And if we look at the

[15:42] motion here, they did recommend approval

[15:44] with the findings as written.

[15:49] Any questions for staff before we invite

[15:52] the applicant or go into public hearing?

[15:57] Thank you.

[16:04] » Do you want to address us on this at

[16:06] all? You don't have to.

[16:09] >> Brandon does a great job.

[16:10] >> Great.

[16:12] >> You guys have questions and

[16:13] >> No, we're good. We'll open it up to a

[16:15] public hearing on this subject if

[16:17] anybody is here to speak about the zone

[16:18] change for the Andrew subdivision.

[16:21] Come on up and please state your name

[16:23] and what your comments or concerns might

[16:26] be.

[16:30] » So, my name is Kenan Pine. I'm a

[16:32] realtor. Um, I'm the realtor that that

[16:36] the Grovers have hired to sell this

[16:38] property. And so I just wanted to

[16:40] briefly just say that I do feel like uh

[16:44] Andrade has has thought about the

[16:47] private street that's there and that the

[16:49] property does match those properties

[16:53] well. Um I know that that uh the Grovers

[16:58] love it there. They did actually live

[16:59] there um with their family. I sold it to

[17:02] them probably 10 or 15 years ago. Um and

[17:07] then they love it. uh they decided to

[17:09] keep it because

[17:11] uh they were kind of a little sad about

[17:14] selling it because they were they they

[17:16] were going to just sell it. Um so they

[17:19] are um I guess emotionally invested over

[17:21] there. But um anyway, I I just think

[17:25] that Andre's been very good uh with the

[17:28] neighbor. Um, I went with him on on I

[17:32] don't know if he met with her more than

[17:33] once, but I I went to one of those and

[17:36] he was very um from my perspective good

[17:40] to her and listening to what her

[17:42] concerns were and actually changed uh

[17:44] some things that um that were in the

[17:48] works on that to make it better for her.

[17:50] So hopefully she's feeling uh good about

[17:53] that situation. But um but I yeah, I do feel like it's highest and best use

[18:01] for that area because you have that

[18:02] whole new subdivision over there and

[18:04] it'll match that. And with the driveway

[18:08] staying on the front on the private

[18:09] lane, it'll look nice and and hopefully

[18:13] uh they'll be able to put some money

[18:14] into that yard and make it look great

[18:16] and make your city look better. But

[18:18] anyway, I appreciate you guys letting me

[18:19] make a couple comments.

[18:21] >> Thanks.

[18:23] Anybody else?

[18:26] Okay, we'll close the public hearing for

[18:29] this topic.

[18:31] Um, commissioners, do you have any

[18:32] comments?

[18:36] » Okay, I will entertain a motion on the

[18:38] Andy Reed zone change, Andy Ridge zone

[18:41] change. [laughter]

[18:46] » I'll make the motion that we accept the

[18:48] zone change as written.

[18:51] Let me read.

[18:52] >> Move to recommend approval of the

[18:54] proposed Andy Ridge subdivision zone

[18:56] change based on those findings.

[19:00] >> Great. I have a motion. Do I have a

[19:01] second?

[19:01] >> I'll second.

[19:02] >> A motion second. All in favor?

[19:04] >> I.

[19:05] >> Any opposed?

[19:07] Okay. So, this will then go before the

[19:10] council at their next meeting for

[19:11] approval of the zone change.

[19:13] >> The next topic is also a public hearing.

[19:16] It's the Hell's 2 lot infill.

[19:28] Um, this one came before you, um,

[19:31] looking at my notes back in March of

[19:33] 2023 as a town home concept. Since that

[19:37] time, the the owner, the applicant has,

[19:40] um, changed the proposal. Um, and we'll

[19:43] present that tonight. Um, this is the

[19:46] location we're looking at, 208 North,

[19:48] 600 East. Let's go to the next slide. Um

[19:51] on the left you see the zoning. The area

[19:53] is R16. On the right you see the land

[19:56] use designation which is medium density

[19:58] residential. Um what he's looking to do

[20:03] uh in my opinion if you go back a slide

[20:05] Ian or Josh whoever is driving sorry.

[20:09] Um, in my opinion, this concept that

[20:13] he's changed to uh will will fit better

[20:16] in the neighborhood um than the town

[20:18] homes would have. Um, existing home on

[20:21] the property built in the 30s. Uh, per

[20:23] the county records, it sometimes they're

[20:26] accurate, sometimes they're not, but

[20:27] it's an older home. The applicant is

[20:29] looking to tear that down and split the

[20:32] property into two. Um what's unique

[20:34] about this application is the minor plat

[20:37] was recommended for or excuse me it was

[20:40] approved by the development review

[20:41] committee um as a standard subdivision

[20:44] uh and the only condition was that with

[20:47] reduced setbacks it would need this

[20:49] infill overlay. And so let's go to the

[20:51] next slide.

[20:53] This is showing the property. It's a

[20:55] corner lot. Um the white home is what

[20:58] would be removed. Let's go to the next

[21:00] slide. This is the two lot subdivision

[21:03] that the development review committee

[21:05] looked at and approved contingent upon

[21:07] the planning commission and city council

[21:09] action for the zoning overlay. Both of

[21:12] these lots are over 6,000 square feet uh

[21:15] meet the dimensions and widths. Um once

[21:18] again the key is the product that he

[21:20] would like to place on it does require a

[21:22] reduction in the setbacks which the

[21:25] infill overlay um would allow for that

[21:28] modification. Let's go to the next

[21:30] slide. So, this is showing the two um

[21:34] product home types that he's he's

[21:36] proposing to build. Um the caveat with

[21:39] the infill overlay is we would expect

[21:41] them to follow the building elevations

[21:44] and plans as presented and approved. Um

[21:48] and so looking at the staff report, the

[21:51] north uh setback, they're looking to

[21:53] reduce that uh to 16 feet. Um along 200

[21:58] north uh where both garages

[22:01] uh face the street, they're looking to

[22:03] reduce that from 25 to 20.

[22:06] Um and then the interior side setbacks

[22:10] are proposed at 7 ft and on the corner

[22:13] um that complies with the 15 ft uh

[22:16] required by code. Um house on the left

[22:20] uh

[22:21] is uh 30

[22:25] I have it in my notes over there. One of

[22:26] them's 3200 ft and the other one is just

[22:29] under 3500 square feet. So they they are

[22:32] well sized. Um let's go to the next

[22:34] slide.

[22:36] This is the corner lot uh basement

[22:38] upstairs twocar garage with twocar

[22:41] driveway. Next slide. Um these are the

[22:44] po proposed building elevations. Um the

[22:47] applicant did uh discuss with our

[22:50] community development director a couple

[22:52] times as far as as uh materials and look

[22:55] and we feel that they've they've done a

[22:57] good job in in updating these elevations

[23:00] uh for presentation to you. Um, you've

[23:03] got sighting, you've got a brick or

[23:05] excuse me, on this one you have a stone

[23:06] Wayne's coat. Let's go to the next

[23:07] slide. This is the elevations that would

[23:10] uh face the uh interior side. So the the

[23:15] elevation on the top that would be

[23:17] between the two homes and then the rear

[23:19] the north elevation would be uh the

[23:22] backyard. Let's go to the next slide. So

[23:24] this is the interior lot that's not on

[23:26] the corner. Um, next slide.

[23:30] Basement on this one as well. Next

[23:32] slide. Um, this one's got vertical board

[23:35] and batten uh and a brick Wayne's coat.

[23:38] Um, next slide. You can see they've

[23:41] carried it around all four elevations on

[23:44] this one. Uh, next slide. So, once

[23:47] again, the reason why they need the

[23:49] infill um is for the modified setbacks.

[23:53] Um

[23:55] the development review committee when

[23:56] they did look at it, they feel uh as

[23:59] it's written here in their recommended

[24:00] motion that it it fits in well with the

[24:03] area meets the intent of the infill

[24:04] overlay zone. Um and then the third

[24:07] condition uh there is the expectation

[24:09] that these elevations uh would be

[24:12] followed as presented.

[24:15] Any questions for staff on this item?

[24:19] So between the two uh homes there is a

[24:23] 14 foot there's 14 feet between the two

[24:26] >> Yes.

[24:26] >> houses. 7 ft on each lot.

[24:28] >> Yeah.

[24:29] >> Okay. And on between it and their

[24:31] neighbor to the east they're set back is

[24:33] 7 feet. Where can you pull up the map to

[24:35] show what is the

[24:36] >> Yeah.

[24:37] >> The neighbors where is their next

[24:39] building located a garage or the side of

[24:41] their house? How far over is it?

[24:43] >> Uh we can pull that up.

[24:46] So their house is here. Driveway here,

[24:49] garage back here.

[24:56] » Is there any concern with where the

[24:57] driveway for the furthest west house

[25:00] will fall as in relation to the corner?

[25:03] >> I believe it has to be 34 feet off the

[25:06] corner.

[25:08] >> So, you usually measure, if I'm correct,

[25:10] Josh, from the curb, [clears throat]

[25:12] you go in 34 and that's as close. It

[25:16] just pretty close to that looking at the

[25:20] >> the site layout.

[25:21] >> Yeah.

[25:24] >> So, where are the front doors for these

[25:26] two homes? If you go back to

[25:28] >> So, this interior lot would be facing

[25:31] south and then this corner lot, the

[25:33] garage would be facing south, but the

[25:35] front door would be facing west as it

[25:37] currently is.

[25:39] >> And and so the really the backyard for

[25:43] that the

[25:45] corner house really is on the side and

[25:48] not the functional the functional

[25:51] backyard would be probably that area.

[25:53] >> Yeah.

[25:56] » Um

[25:58] how are the setbacks compared to the

[26:00] neighbors?

[26:04] » Which neighbor?

[26:05] >> The one to

[26:06] >> we didn't necessarily do an analysis of

[26:08] the neighbors setbacks.

[26:12] » Can we pull up the map to look at the

[26:14] neighbors?

[26:16] Which one are you concerned with?

[26:18] >> Uh, I'm not concerned. I'm just

[26:19] interested east.

[26:22] So, is that 645?

[26:25] Yeah, that one there.

[26:30] » So,

[26:31] >> I think we'll have to pull up an

[26:33] internal map if you're

[26:34] >> they had seven feet from this property

[26:35] line to the house.

[26:37] >> What they're showing,

[26:38] >> right? I'm more looking at what the

[26:40] setback is from the street from 200

[26:43] north. Yeah.

[26:44] >> Yeah. Give us a second and we can pull

[26:46] up a map that we can do measurements off

[26:48] of.

[26:51] >> I'd be [clears throat] interested to the

[26:52] also in the house to the north.

[26:56] >> Okay.

[26:56] >> Just if there's a big difference, but it

[26:59] looks like it probably wouldn't be a big

[27:01] difference.

[27:02] >> Okay. Yeah, we can pull that up. Is

[27:04] there any other questions for staff?

[27:06] >> I think you covered the one I talked to

[27:07] you earlier because parking I know if if

[27:09] you've been in that area, it's tight. So

[27:12] I my biggest question was parking, but

[27:13] if we got two car garage and driveway

[27:15] for two, it makes me feel a lot better.

[27:17] So

[27:17] >> yes, that's correct.

[27:18] >> The driveway 20 feet that is enough for

[27:21] a car, probably two. So they could fit

[27:23] four conceivably off-road.

[27:25] >> Yeah. And

[27:26] >> as everyone knows, they're using the

[27:28] garage for probably storage, right? So

[27:29] maybe we're still two.

[27:31] >> I'll let the

[27:32] >> This is a 3,000 foot home. This isn't a

[27:34] town home.

[27:34] >> No, they're questioning the use of the

[27:36] garage

[27:37] >> for storage or cars.

[27:39] >> Cars.

[27:39] >> Ideally cars.

[27:41] and as there's basements too. So

[27:44] >> yeah,

[27:45] >> the applicant is here. We'd love to

[27:47] invite him up to

[27:49] >> any questions you've got if there's

[27:51] nothing else for staff at this time. And

[27:53] oh, looks like we've got it.

[27:55] >> Yeah, sure.

[27:56] >> Thank you.

[28:00] » So I think Commissioner Warick was

[28:02] asking what is this setback here from

[28:05] the sidewalk to the house and then the

[28:07] same on this property here.

[28:11] So 33

[28:16] » is it different to the

[28:18] >> front? Yeah. Right there.

[28:20] >> Yeah.

[28:21] >> Would be

[28:23] >> 20.

[28:24] >> That one's at 22. Well, 20.

[28:27] >> So about the same.

[28:29] >> So do you count it from that porch or do

[28:30] you count it from the

[28:32] >> closest closest

[28:34] >> piece, right?

[28:35] >> Yeah. So let's try that porch on the top

[28:38] of the north property. So 19 on the

[28:40] porch and then Josh, what is the porch

[28:43] from here?

[28:52] » And so then going back to what are the

[28:54] setbacks we're looking at?

[28:56] >> You were 17 and a half this direction,

[29:00] then 20 in the front around the

[29:03] >> Yeah. So 20 along 200 north. uh almost

[29:06] 18 feet on 600 East.

[29:11] >> And didn't you say it's only they're

[29:12] only required at 15 feet on that?

[29:15] >> So they're well with

[29:18] >> within the

[29:18] >> Yeah.

[29:20] >> No change to the sidewalk. That would

[29:22] continue to be the same size and

[29:23] dimension.

[29:24] >> Correct.

[29:32] >> Thank you.

[29:35] want to come up and address us, please

[29:38] come state your name and tell us a

[29:40] little bit about your project.

[29:48] » My name is Travis Hells. I'm a little

[29:49] nervous. Um, so the project, this was

[29:52] originally my grandma and grandpa's

[29:54] property. Um, I bought up the house on

[29:56] the interior lot we're building for my

[29:58] daughter that's here, um, for their

[30:00] first home. The second home we are

[30:03] tentatively going to keep for my son

[30:05] that's currently on a mission. Um we may

[30:07] end up selling it, but one of the we

[30:09] don't know yet. Um we looked at putting

[30:12] a forplex on it. Um it was two stories

[30:15] and I kept driving up there thinking

[30:18] everybody would hate me um because it

[30:19] would have towered over everything. Um

[30:22] so we played around with this and came

[30:24] up with this and uh thought that it

[30:26] would fit in. Um,

[30:29] we had it originally where we were going

[30:31] to put the garage on the exterior lot

[30:35] facing the other way, but when we came

[30:36] here the first time, they asked us not

[30:39] to make it look like a corner lot. Um,

[30:42] so we tried to make it look like there

[30:45] was kind of two fronts with the garage

[30:47] door and the front door. I It's still a

[30:50] corner lot, so but we did the best we

[30:51] could do to make it look right. Um, but

[30:54] yeah, that's what we're doing. So, Any

[31:00] questions for the applicant?

[31:03] >> Great.

[31:04] >> Okay.

[31:04] >> Thank you.

[31:07] >> commissioners. Any comments? Any

[31:09] discussion points you want to go over?

[31:11] >> I I like that we went over the setbacks.

[31:13] I I think the numbers are reasonable

[31:15] within what's there in the neighborhood.

[31:17] Um I actually kind of have a question

[31:19] for Mike. I mean, I know you have family

[31:21] in that area. You feel good about the

[31:22] parking situation?

[31:23] >> Oh, I do. Yeah. Once Brandon cleared it

[31:25] up for because if you've been down

[31:27] there, it's tight. But if you're going

[31:28] to fit four cars in there, that's that's

[31:30] a lot better than what it was. So, yeah,

[31:32] >> I like it.

[31:32] >> And and I I'm I'm just going to say

[31:34] generally I like I mean these are some

[31:36] larger places making good use of the

[31:37] land. I actually really like that quite

[31:40] a bit in that old area. You like more

[31:43] mature established area. The variety

[31:45] there is actually pretty good. I've seen

[31:46] that in a couple places in town and I

[31:48] think it fits quite well. I feel very

[31:50] good about what I'm saying.

[31:51] >> I I really like this design. Much better

[31:53] than than a town home or a duplex. It's

[31:55] two nice homes.

[31:56] >> Yes.

[31:56] >> In that area

[31:57] >> because again, it's probably more

[32:00] established homes around there with

[32:03] people that have been there a while.

[32:04] They'll be happy that it's not

[32:05] >> they're going to love not having the

[32:06] duplexes. Yes. Yes. I did hear that

[32:09] >> with people moving in now. Yeah.

[32:11] >> Every

[32:12] >> And these these prop this these house I

[32:14] think would add a lot to the

[32:15] neighborhood. So

[32:18] >> I like it. Good.

[32:20] >> I think so, too. I think the only thing

[32:22] that uh that I I I think the elevations

[32:26] on this on this home are pretty good. I

[32:28] think it's a little bit boring in the

[32:30] front, but I think it like with the roof

[32:34] line there. I love the elevations on

[32:37] this on this one here. But I think that

[32:42] I can't complain too loudly about it.

[32:46] Anyway,

[32:46] >> you're going to talk quiet then? Anyway,

[32:49] that's

[32:50] >> So, this is what would be facing that

[32:52] corner street

[32:54] >> facing sixth or second.

[32:57] >> Yeah. Yeah. I think that'll be great.

[32:59] And it's so awesome to have families

[33:02] come in. And that's kind of the thing

[33:04] these days is smaller lots and a decent

[33:07] sized home on a lot that's you can do

[33:10] some good things in.

[33:13] >> Okay. So, if there's no other comments,

[33:15] I would entertain a motion.

[33:16] >> You need a public hearing.

[33:17] >> Oh, public hearing. Thank you so much.

[33:19] Is there we'll open the public hearing.

[33:21] Is there anybody here to talk on this

[33:23] topic?

[33:25] Please state your name. And

[33:27] [clears throat]

[33:28] >> uh my name is Corey Fur. I own the house

[33:30] just to the north.

[33:31] >> Um and I mean as far as a a plan, we are

[33:35] way happier with this idea than like the

[33:38] forplex thing which was only rumored um

[33:40] as far as we were concerned. But um I

[33:43] don't know that I have any concerns for

[33:45] myself. I was I was interested to see

[33:47] kind of how close the the houses were to

[33:52] the property line and and how much

[33:54] distance between the two houses. And I I

[33:57] think that's okay. Uh my one question

[34:00] was um the house to the east

[34:03] um where they where it's so close to

[34:05] that property line, there's those giant

[34:07] willow trees um that you can see that

[34:11] are kind of hanging over that property

[34:14] line. And I know that's not anyone's

[34:17] fault, but I know the owner of that home

[34:19] is going to be um a little concerned

[34:23] about impacting the health of those

[34:25] trees. So I I um that is I think my only

[34:30] comment that um if if the plans impact

[34:34] those trees in any way, what that impact

[34:37] is and and what can be done to kind of

[34:39] [snorts] find a happy medium. Mhm.

[34:43] >> So that's it.

[34:44] >> Well, thank you.

[34:45] >> Thanks.

[34:47] >> Is there a way to estimate the how that

[34:51] canopy of that tree

[34:53] would go over the site? Just

[34:56] >> we could go to the street view real

[34:58] fast. And what I do like is the house

[35:00] design on that interior lot. That

[35:03] souththeast corner is open because the

[35:07] garage is pushed to the west. Uh anytime

[35:10] you have issues with trees, it usually

[35:13] in this case where it's between two

[35:14] properties, it becomes a civil matter.

[35:17] Um and sometimes uh

[35:21] you have to go to lengths to show that person's actions actually were what

[35:26] caused the damage to the tree. And so I

[35:29] think I would probably turn to the

[35:31] property owner and just say, you know,

[35:33] kind of keep in touch with the neighbor

[35:34] and

[35:36] >> and show the house.

[35:38] >> Go back two slides.

[35:43] » So how does that work if you're if a

[35:45] tree if

[35:50] » So the one tree is obviously gone.

[35:55] » The pine tree is actually property,

[35:57] >> right?

[35:58] >> And then the other two trees, like they

[36:00] overhang my property by probably 15 to

[36:04] 20 feet and they're they've never

[36:05] maintained them. Like my grandma and

[36:08] aunt lived there as long as I can

[36:10] remember.

[36:12] So

[36:14] >> yeah, that's my question is is what are

[36:16] the if you have a tree hanging over your

[36:19] lot, can you just be like, "Sorry,

[36:22] I'm

[36:23] >> Yeah. trimming your tree back that's

[36:26] over my lot.

[36:26] >> Yeah. Well, I think it's a good point

[36:28] where the driveways on the other side. I

[36:29] mean, there you can see from the picture

[36:31] it will, but I don't think it'll

[36:34] >> go back.

[36:34] >> You'd expect with a 7 foot setback that

[36:37] you you'd probably be excavating to

[36:39] within 5T of the property line, I would

[36:41] think.

[36:41] >> Yep.

[36:42] >> So, you'd have 5T to the property line

[36:44] plus whatever you have between the

[36:46] property line.

[36:47] >> Yeah, that's the picture I was wanting

[36:48] right there. looking that that tree is

[36:50] the canopy of it is probably

[36:53] in this area, right?

[36:54] >> Yeah,

[36:55] >> I'd agree.

[36:56] >> So, you're not going to be too close to

[36:59] the roots with your excavation here.

[37:01] >> Yeah,

[37:01] >> but you are going to be trimming back

[37:03] that tree, I imagine, quite a bit.

[37:04] >> There's another tree set back

[37:06] >> in the back behind it.

[37:07] >> Okay. I couldn't see that in the

[37:08] picture. trees. The one the front one is

[37:10] much bigger, but I mean our I even if we

[37:13] don't do this, our intent is to cut the

[37:15] trees back because they're overhanging

[37:17] our property and killing our grass and

[37:20] we can't do anything. So our our intent

[37:21] is to cut them at the property line,

[37:23] >> right?

[37:24] >> And and to be clear, I don't I don't

[37:25] have a stake in the in the game. I just

[37:27] know that they are going to be

[37:28] >> concerned about it. So I just wanted to

[37:30] >> Sure.

[37:33] >> Great. Thanks for bringing that up.

[37:35] Any other

[37:38] comments?

[37:39] >> I think this is a fantastic idea.

[37:41] >> I do too. I like it. I think it's a good

[37:44] old project right there. Uh,

[37:47] of course there will be change. Probably

[37:49] will be things that people don't like,

[37:50] especially during the construction time,

[37:51] but

[37:53] that happens. I'll entertain a motion if

[37:55] anybody wants to present one.

[37:58] >> That was the public hearing.

[38:00] >> Public hearing.

[38:01] >> I'll close the public hearing. Wow. and

[38:04] then we'll go to a motion.

[38:06] >> I'll make a motion. I move uh to

[38:08] recommend approval of the proposed Hails

[38:10] two lot infill zone change based on the

[38:12] findings and um following findings and

[38:15] subject to the following conditions as

[38:16] noted.

[38:17] >> Thank you. I have a motion. Do I have a

[38:19] second?

[38:19] >> I'll second.

[38:20] >> Motion second. All in favor?

[38:22] >> I.

[38:23] >> Any opposed?

[38:25] Okay. Motion carries.

[38:28] Um that closes that section of it. Our

[38:32] next item of business is a title 15

[38:34] amendment. This is also a public

[38:36] hearing.

[38:38] It looks like Dave is going to present

[38:39] to us on this amendment.

[38:46] Mr. Chairman, thank you. I think the

[38:48] language that's proposed to be added to

[38:50] Title 15 in this case really speaks for

[38:52] itself. Um, of course, what we're

[38:55] talking about here relative to churches

[38:57] or houses houses houses houses houses of worship, we're not talking

[39:00] about any particular denomination or

[39:02] faith or anything like that at all. Yet,

[39:04] at the same time, I don't want to come

[39:06] across as being koi in any way. Um, this

[39:09] is proposed by Spanish work city staff

[39:11] in advance of receiving what we think is

[39:14] going to be an application that would be

[39:16] submitted by the Church of Jesus Christ

[39:18] of Latter Day Saints for a big building

[39:19] like they like to build. we understand

[39:22] on the east bench. So, we've had enough

[39:25] correspondence with them thus far to

[39:27] know that uh they'd like to build that

[39:31] building larger than what currently is

[39:34] allowed. So, in this case,

[39:36] >> larger or taller?

[39:38] >> Both.

[39:38] When I say larger, I guess uh

[39:41] taller in two ways. Um we don't limit

[39:44] the square footage, which would maybe be

[39:47] one way to look at larger. Um, you can

[39:50] see from the language that's proposed

[39:55] that

[39:56] we're looking to limit the height of

[40:00] what can be built

[40:02] um, in two different ways while at the

[40:05] same time allowing for more height than

[40:07] what today the code expressly would

[40:10] permit.

[40:12] If that makes sense. I'll talk more

[40:14] about that and maybe fill in any gaps

[40:16] that I created there. Um I want to

[40:19] mention first of all just kind of by way

[40:20] of the approach in terms of um

[40:24] suggesting that the code be made more

[40:26] permissible uh there are a couple of

[40:28] parts to the proposal. One is to create

[40:34] a new uh use effectively that would be

[40:39] allowed in different residential zones

[40:42] in the city. And that use

[40:45] simply titled churches taller than 35

[40:49] feet.

[40:51] Um which incidentally today the maximum

[40:55] height as is defined in our zoning code

[40:59] for churches is just that 35 ft.

[41:02] And incidentally it's not uncommon to

[41:04] see other architectural features

[41:06] associated with churches that are taller

[41:08] than 35 ft. I think in fact if you

[41:10] looked at most of the buildings that

[41:12] have been built over the course of the

[41:13] past 20 years in Spanish Fork a lot of

[41:15] them might approach

[41:18] 35 feet in height on the roof line of

[41:21] the building and that a lot of times

[41:23] there's a something that stands beyond

[41:26] that in terms of height steeples I think

[41:28] most commonly is what they're called and

[41:30] I think those oftentimes end up being

[41:32] about 70 feet tall

[41:35] um so in this case uh the ultimate

[41:39] provisions would allow for

[41:42] the structures to be as tall as

[41:46] 80 feet to the roof line.

[41:49] >> So, can I just get a little bit of

[41:50] clarification? So, you're creating a new

[41:54] um subject use for structures over 35 ft

[41:59] because our existing one would cap that

[42:01] at 35 ft.

[42:03] >> Exactly.

[42:04] >> Yep. And this is in residential zones.

[42:08] >> And this would only apply in residential

[42:10] zones. Exactly. Y

[42:11] >> zones.

[42:12] >> Yep.

[42:12] >> So in commercial zone, they'd be fine.

[42:14] They could build it.

[42:16] >> Um

[42:18] I would want to just double check that,

[42:20] but I think you're right. Yeah. Because

[42:23] right now we don't limit the height in

[42:26] zoning districts by use of the property

[42:29] in most cases that I can think of at

[42:31] least. So you're right. in other zoning

[42:33] districts. For example, I believe in uh

[42:36] our commercial two zone, for example,

[42:37] the maximum height is 45 ft.

[42:40] >> 48t.

[42:40] >> 48 ft. So, in that case, make it go to

[42:44] 48t. Um, if somebody wanted to build a

[42:47] church, I don't know if we But I'd have

[42:49] to say this talking about this use. Um,

[42:53] I don't believe churches are allowed in

[42:54] a lot of our non-residential zones.

[42:56] That's another thing that would would

[42:59] come into play by way of where somebody

[43:01] could build something

[43:03] as big as what we're talking about here

[43:05] tonight.

[43:06] Um,

[43:08] did I answer your question?

[43:10] >> I was just clarifying. I That's what I

[43:11] understood. I just want to make sure

[43:12] that I was understanding that correctly.

[43:14] >> Okay. So, um, it would allow for up to

[43:18] 80 feet to the roof line, which if you

[43:21] were to look at maybe a structure like

[43:23] what we're talking about from a

[43:24] distance, that would be the the bulk of

[43:26] the building. And then extending up

[43:28] beyond that height here, you know,

[43:30] whether somebody called it a steeple or

[43:32] a tower or couple of any one of a number

[43:35] of different types of features, they

[43:37] could uh conceivably be as tall as

[43:43] 200 feet. um

[43:46] provided that those features are

[43:49] constructed in such a way that we could

[43:51] deal with that from a firefighting

[43:52] perspective. Um so we have a materials

[43:55] requirement that would go with that um

[43:58] for those features, anything that at

[44:00] least would be taller than 70 feet and

[44:03] the 70 ft ties to what currently we have

[44:05] in the community if that makes sense. So

[44:07] that delta between what currently is

[44:09] allowed and what is proposed with this.

[44:13] Um, now that's the language in terms of uh the change in terms of what would

[44:20] be allowed

[44:21] from what somebody could do today and

[44:25] what somebody could do with this

[44:26] proposal.

[44:28] But I appreciated Commissioner Warner

[44:29] bringing up uh earlier tonight maybe the

[44:32] difference between a conditional use and

[44:36] a use subject to condition. So in this

[44:38] case, as proposed at least, churches

[44:40] taller than 35 ft

[44:42] uh would then become a use subject to

[44:46] condition. So somebody could only take

[44:48] advantage of those provisions to allow

[44:50] for bigger buildings if the project

[44:54] involved a lottery parcel that was

[44:57] larger than 8 acres in size, uh with the

[45:01] structure being at least 65,000 square

[45:04] feet in size.

[45:07] And um then we have the additional

[45:09] provision that talks about the materials

[45:12] that would need to be used on that

[45:14] steeple part if it's any taller than 70

[45:16] ft. So provided that

[45:20] you know first condition that the site

[45:22] is 8 acres in size. The next condition

[45:25] provided that the building itself has

[45:27] 65,000 square feet which incidentally is

[45:29] not the footprint of the building but

[45:31] the total square footage of the

[45:33] building.

[45:34] and uh you know that that other

[45:37] condition relative to the materials on

[45:40] anything taller than 70 ft is met,

[45:43] somebody would be able to get a building

[45:45] permit for that structure essentially by

[45:47] right and that means they wouldn't need

[45:49] to come to the planning commission.

[45:51] There wouldn't be a public hearing.

[45:53] there wouldn't be an opportunity to

[45:55] impose you know maybe sight specific

[45:58] conditions on a project and that type of

[46:00] a thing which would be the case if it

[46:03] was simply listed as a use subject to

[46:05] condition. So the difference there being

[46:08] use is subject to conditions. Um there

[46:11] aren't the prescribed conditions like

[46:13] what we have here where it's simply a

[46:15] matter of if you meet these conditions,

[46:17] you get the permit, things are a little

[46:19] bit um

[46:21] less defined and maybe less predictable

[46:25] with a conditional use. And with

[46:27] conditional uses, the planning

[46:29] commission is the land use authority

[46:30] that that grants those.

[46:33] Does that help? So when that come so

[46:35] when it comes before us they they are

[46:37] looking for a conditional use permit. We

[46:40] look to see if it makes sense in the

[46:43] area. We talk about why

[46:46] all of that. But when we're changing

[46:49] this in title 15 use subject to

[46:52] conditions

[46:54] adding this makes it so it won't come

[46:56] before us to get permits. This is what's

[46:59] allowed.

[47:01] I'm going to adjust one slight thing

[47:03] that you said [clears throat] or maybe

[47:05] just suggest something that's a little

[47:06] bit different. If you're talking about a

[47:09] conditional use, it's not a matter of

[47:11] whether or not that gets approved. And

[47:13] there's a lot of misunderstanding

[47:16] um throughout public bodies all over the

[47:19] place in terms of what conditional use

[47:21] means, which is why legal councils at

[47:25] all different levels have suggested that

[47:26] cities don't have conditional uses. they

[47:29] are the source of litigation

[47:31] um at least occasionally

[47:34] um because of misunderstandings and that

[47:35] type of a thing. What a conditional use

[47:37] means is that if you feel like there's a

[47:39] need with a particular proposal to

[47:42] impose conditions that are reasonable on

[47:45] a project to mitigate the impact that project has on something else

[47:50] neighbors maybe the community at large

[47:52] uh you as a land use authority would

[47:54] have the ability to do that. Um, so when

[47:56] we talk about conditional use um,

[48:00] requests,

[48:01] that's what we're talking about

[48:02] typically as staff is what needs to

[48:04] happen with this particular property to

[48:05] make it not adversely impact neighbors.

[48:10] Um, which would be one approach that

[48:12] could be taken here in this particular

[48:14] case. I think that would be a mistake.

[48:16] Um, I think this can certainly be

[48:18] handled more uh, from the administrative

[48:21] perspective. I think it's easy to

[48:23] understand what the intent is with the

[48:26] particular proposal that we're talking

[48:28] about in terms of size and I think it's um easy to anticipate what other

[48:34] impacts will be uh with the project and

[48:38] we as staff are working with um the

[48:41] property owners engineers for example to address for example just traffic and

[48:46] other things that come with this kind of

[48:48] a use. Um, and

[48:50] >> but Dave, you're you're talking about a

[48:52] particular case

[48:54] >> right now.

[48:55] >> We're talking about Title 15 adjustment,

[48:57] which is not a particular case. It's for

[48:59] a citywide change.

[49:01] >> I would say the same would be applicable

[49:03] with any project that had 8 acres in

[49:05] size that wanted to do a 65,000 foot

[49:08] building. So that's

[49:09] >> the church.

[49:10] >> That's my And that exactly that's what

[49:12] we're talking about. Yeah.

[49:15] Um,

[49:16] >> so this exception

[49:18] is only for churches.

[49:21] >> Yes.

[49:22] >> Churches taller than 35 ft.

[49:24] >> Only for churches

[49:25] >> and only because I want to be clear

[49:27] about the phrasiology. For me, exception

[49:30] just means something different. So, I

[49:33] would not call this an exception, but

[49:34] it's [clears throat] something that, and

[49:36] maybe back to your point,

[49:39] not that we anticipate that there's

[49:40] going to be a run now of, you know,

[49:42] religious [snorts] institutions that

[49:43] want to mimic this, but this would apply

[49:45] elsewhere and isn't isolated just to

[49:49] >> my my concerns, I don't I don't know

[49:50] what Sean's concern was. My concern with

[49:52] it is not having site plan oversight on

[49:56] that is a concern to me. If this goes in

[49:59] eight acres or not, you put a building

[50:01] the size of a hotel next to somebody's

[50:04] with a 200 foot

[50:07] steeple on it, then

[50:10] existing homeowners are going to be

[50:11] concerned. And we take time to talk

[50:13] about trees and 7 foot setbacks and

[50:16] things like that on properties. And here

[50:17] we're going to put an 80 foot tall

[50:19] structure with a taller

[50:23] uh structure on its roof. who knows

[50:26] where on an eight on an 8 acre property

[50:28] with all the traffic congestion which is

[50:30] the other biggest concern we have in

[50:33] this body. Um I just see that as a

[50:36] concern I'd like to have I would like

[50:38] the city not so much this this body this

[50:42] body included to have more oversight

[50:44] over that or to have more say in the

[50:46] matter. I don't know if we'd ever have

[50:48] oversight but say in the matter of where

[50:49] things are located and how it functions

[50:51] in our community

[50:53] >> to be able to review

[50:56] plans and have a presentation, etc.

[51:02] Sounds I I don't disagree.

[51:05] >> I mean, I trust I generally trust the

[51:07] entity that we're really making this

[51:10] change for,

[51:12] >> but yet I mean I just

[51:13] >> there's possibility for other entities

[51:15] to do the same. To be clear, this

[51:16] >> I don't I don't care what the entity is

[51:19] that

[51:20] >> there are certain instances where the churches had things of

[51:25] It's impacted the neighborhoods, right?

[51:27] And it's

[51:28] >> most of the people live around them are

[51:29] happy with it. Some people are not. And

[51:32] some people that may not be ought to

[51:34] have a chance to have their voices

[51:36] heard.

[51:37] >> And there's from what I gather from what

[51:39] you you said, if

[51:43] this would pretty much take away the

[51:46] city's ability to dictate lighting,

[51:50] entrances, you know, control

[51:54] how we want it to to look or how the

[51:56] city

[51:58] want what the what the city and the

[52:00] residents want and need versus

[52:03] >> what this certain entity

[52:05] >> or tell us about that.

[52:06] >> Well, yeah, I that's a great

[52:08] >> I don't want to I don't want to do

[52:09] something that's going to take away from

[52:11] the city's ability to control what comes

[52:13] into the city

[52:15] and how it is maintained, how it, you

[52:17] know, lighting 247, all that.

[52:23] That's a great point to make. I should

[52:25] have thought of that. I should have

[52:26] brought that up. We are not suggesting

[52:29] that any of the criteria that apply to

[52:31] churches in terms of any of what you

[52:34] just described change at all. So, that

[52:37] would still be in place. Um, I guess you

[52:40] could say as well, we're not suggesting

[52:41] that those criteria get well that the

[52:45] standards get ratcheted up or that we

[52:47] become more stringent in terms of what

[52:49] needs to be done with site plan

[52:52] approval, which is something that staff

[52:53] administers

[52:55] um for churches, you know, because of

[52:57] these size changes. We do have lighting

[52:59] regulations that

[53:02] >> um staff would still have a say in that

[53:05] approval through the permitting process.

[53:07] Correct. Yes.

[53:09] >> Would the planning zoning commission,

[53:12] the design review board, and the city

[53:14] council still have

[53:15] >> a chance to review that and comment or

[53:17] make changes?

[53:18] >> Uh, conceivably no, except for I mean,

[53:21] you said design review board that

[53:23] essentially is staff. Yeah. So, this

[53:25] would be a situation where if somebody

[53:28] met these criteria and wanted to apply

[53:29] for site plan approval

[53:32] and to apply for a building permit for

[53:34] something like what we're talking about

[53:35] here, those would be administrative

[53:38] approvals.

[53:40] Um, there is something beautiful I think

[53:44] about administrative approvals. So, I'm

[53:46] going to push back a little bit about

[53:49] opening up the door for there to be some

[53:51] type of additional review, particularly

[53:53] if that review is subjective. You know,

[53:56] somebody maybe feels like there's one

[53:59] impact that warrants attention, maybe

[54:00] somebody else doesn't, and you know,

[54:03] maybe how you go about mitigating impact

[54:06] becomes less defined than what we're

[54:08] talking about here. That's not always

[54:10] the best position or situation for a

[54:12] regulating body like Spanish Fork City

[54:14] to be in. Um so in as much as we can

[54:19] make things objective where again it's

[54:22] if this happens then

[54:25] um you know there's just an automatic

[54:28] it's if then um almost in like a

[54:32] checklist kind of a fashion where if you

[54:34] meet certain criteria the end result is predictable.

[54:39] Uh there's certainly value in that as

[54:42] well. Um I think situations where we're

[54:46] talking about sight specific conditions

[54:49] that really becomes helpful when we're

[54:51] talking about

[54:53] um

[54:54] uh uses where I think it's easier to

[54:57] anticipate

[54:59] uh really unique impacts that that you

[55:02] have on neighbors. And I think it's

[55:04] maybe because I understand just a little

[55:06] bit more about the site that we're

[55:08] talking about and how conceivably that

[55:10] would be put together. um not talking

[55:13] about just eight acres where maybe big

[55:16] building like what we're talking about

[55:17] would be located but also how another

[55:19] you know 19 acres around it would be

[55:23] developed. Um

[55:24] >> I don't have that information so I don't

[55:26] know how to make a judgment on that.

[55:27] >> Exactly. Right. Um but because I do

[55:30] that's partly why I'm I have the

[55:33] perspective that I have. So um

[55:36] >> another concern I have Sorry.

[55:39] >> Nope. Please. I don't want to cut you

[55:40] off, but um is if this takes it out of

[55:47] public comment. I mean, no, the public

[55:49] gets zero input on on this basically

[55:52] once this goes change to this title, 15. And I'm not comfortable with

[55:59] that

[56:00] because I think, you know, we're we're

[56:03] in a res a residential area. There's

[56:06] going to be a lot of opinion, you know,

[56:08] probably a lot of support, but you know,

[56:11] I think the public deserves the right to

[56:13] show that and we shouldn't be here to

[56:15] take that away from them. I

[56:17] >> I agree with Commissioner Woodhouse.

[56:19] That's my main concern is that if this

[56:21] was approved tonight and it's approved

[56:22] by city council, what opportunities the

[56:25] public would have to come and voice

[56:28] their opinions about lighting impact on

[56:31] their neighbors. Um I I think the public

[56:34] needs to be involved in the process.

[56:36] >> I think public buyin is a good thing

[56:38] too. I understand uh I understand the

[56:41] reasons for for doing that and uh

[56:45] trusting staff etc etc. I have a few I

[56:49] have a few comments and questions. So

[56:51] number one

[56:53] uh when I was traveling in India a few

[56:55] years ago I was talking with a driver

[56:58] and said I would like to go visit my

[57:02] church and they said oh you're a

[57:04] Christian and I said how do you know

[57:05] that and he said because you said church

[57:08] and uh and so I look at a definition

[57:11] that says church and we're not in India

[57:13] so maybe this is a moot point but if you

[57:17] say church that could imply one thing

[57:19] and I So that the intent could be that

[57:21] we could have uh we could have a mosque

[57:25] here in Spanish Fork in this kind of

[57:27] situation. We could have a cathedral. We

[57:30] could have a Hindu or Buddhist temple.

[57:31] We have a um place where uh our friends

[57:36] who are Jewish

[57:38] worship is there's a temple also anyway.

[57:40] And so

[57:42] uh for me a definition that this is

[57:46] nitpicky but it could be house of

[57:47] worship instead of church. I I don't

[57:50] know if anybody cares about that in

[57:52] Spanish for Utah.

[57:54] >> That's a very valid.

[57:55] >> I'm just saying it. Number two is

[57:58] >> on that point. Yes.

[57:59] >> Can I jump in now? Yes. I'm

[58:01] >> go

[58:01] >> realize I'm interrupting. Sorry. We feel

[58:03] the same way. And that was some counsel

[58:05] that we were given by our legal staff

[58:08] and we could pull up pull up title 15

[58:10] real quick and just look at the

[58:11] definition of a church.

[58:12] >> How church is defined.

[58:13] >> It it is more encompassing than just

[58:16] what you know maybe

[58:17] >> where the definitions matter. So that's

[58:19] good.

[58:19] >> But yet, like we talked about in the

[58:22] work session before, as we're going

[58:24] through definitions, I think you will

[58:26] see the definition change to exactly

[58:28] what you just said or the title change

[58:31] from churches to houses of worship just

[58:34] to be even more clear.

[58:36] >> So you're saying this would require

[58:37] maybe a change elsewhere in the code to change that name?

[58:41] >> No, because I think it's really an

[58:43] encompassing definition that we have

[58:45] encomp today. It does

[58:46] >> in the United States. a church means a

[58:49] house of worship.

[58:50] >> Well, in title title 15 of our municipal

[58:53] code as it's defined, I think you'd see

[58:54] that several of the different

[58:57] >> um

[58:58] >> structures that that accommodate people

[59:01] of different faiths fit into that

[59:03] >> that definition already.

[59:04] >> Okay.

[59:05] >> Nonetheless,

[59:06] >> I think what you suggested is much

[59:08] better from a practice perspective, but

[59:10] we have let's stop calling it churches

[59:12] and let's call it houses of worship. So,

[59:14] sorry to cut you off, but we're on it.

[59:15] >> No, that's great. That's great. Okay.

[59:17] Number two, if I am going to

[59:21] vote to recommend to the city council

[59:23] this change, there's a few questions I

[59:25] have I have because this is this I have

[59:29] colleagues that might not vote for this

[59:31] because of this particular thing. But if

[59:33] I do vote for it, then this is my one

[59:35] bite at the pie. And is that the right

[59:38] word? Way to

[59:39] >> sounds good to me. [laughter]

[59:41] Uh, I'd like to know about what the

[59:45] city's uh what what's the city code

[59:47] about lighting and like and lighting the

[59:51] same brightness of lighting all day 24

[59:54] hours or less at night or could you I'd

[59:56] like to know about that. I'd like to

[59:58] know about

[1:00:00] um parking and road like what how's the

[1:00:03] road going to be finished uh along those

[1:00:06] two corridors because

[1:00:10] anyway and then what parking will look

[1:00:13] like in those areas.

[1:00:15] >> Okay. Three things,

[1:00:18] >> three bites of the

[1:00:18] >> streets, parking, lighting.

[1:00:21] >> Yeah.

[1:00:22] >> I parking we have parking requirements.

[1:00:24] Those have to be met and those are based

[1:00:27] on a number of different things. I think

[1:00:29] in fact for churches we might still have

[1:00:32] kind of an antiquated way of way of

[1:00:34] regulating that. I think it might be by

[1:00:36] number of seats or like space on pews

[1:00:39] even. We can check that but it's simply

[1:00:42] it's a numerical thing that uh comes

[1:00:45] into play. I believe with what we're

[1:00:48] talking about here that the city's

[1:00:49] parking requirements would likely be

[1:00:51] exceeded um in enough of a way that um

[1:00:55] it doesn't come into into play in this

[1:00:57] case. But regardless, it's just defined

[1:01:01] by some quantifiable measurable

[1:01:05] u metric.

[1:01:08] streets. You know, again, whether we're

[1:01:10] talking about site in question or any

[1:01:12] place else, if somebody were to develop

[1:01:15] a new site next to a street that um

[1:01:19] isn't currently brought up to the city's

[1:01:22] standards for design, whether it's

[1:01:26] street width or maybe the absence of a

[1:01:28] sidewalk or any of that type of a thing,

[1:01:31] they simply have to follow the city's

[1:01:34] requirements for developing the site.

[1:01:38] which means uh developed streets. Um the

[1:01:43] exception would only be if somebody were

[1:01:46] maybe purchasing, you can almost call it

[1:01:48] a finished lot if all of the streets

[1:01:51] around it are already fully developed.

[1:01:53] Um more specifically with the site that

[1:01:56] we're talking about, uh particularly the

[1:01:58] street, and I think it's both a street

[1:01:59] on the north and east side of the

[1:02:01] subject property, they're not fully

[1:02:02] developed. And uh the property owner is

[1:02:06] aware that they will need to enhance

[1:02:08] those um

[1:02:10] >> both sides or

[1:02:12] >> north and south

[1:02:16] the frontage side. So on the property

[1:02:18] side they will be improving those um on

[1:02:23] the north side

[1:02:25] of the street that runs along the north

[1:02:27] side of the subject property. I think

[1:02:28] that's already improved. on the east

[1:02:30] side. I don't believe it is. And we're

[1:02:32] talking with them about making

[1:02:34] improvements on the east side as well as

[1:02:36] their side on the west side of the road

[1:02:39] that runs north south along the east

[1:02:41] side of the property.

[1:02:43] >> But it's it's that's defined in our

[1:02:46] development standards by way of what

[1:02:47] somebody would have to do. And you know,

[1:02:48] the location doesn't matter. It's it's

[1:02:51] predetermined in terms of what somebody

[1:02:52] would have to do to improve streets

[1:02:56] um in order to get a building permit for

[1:02:59] any kind of new land use.

[1:03:02] >> So for a church taller than 35 feet,

[1:03:05] would you need would the width of the

[1:03:08] road need to be changed because there'll

[1:03:10] be more traffic in that area? We have a

[1:03:14] school close by, too. Is that there's a

[1:03:18] lot of traffic already? There'll be a

[1:03:20] lot more. What What's the planned widths

[1:03:24] when they're finished?

[1:03:26] >> Yeah. So, I'll talk about that.

[1:03:28] uh agnostically,

[1:03:31] if that's a way to

[1:03:33] >> It doesn't matter what the use is.

[1:03:35] >> Doesn't matter the use.

[1:03:36] >> Yeah. So, our engineering folks, Josh,

[1:03:39] if somebody submitted a site plan for

[1:03:41] something and he felt like potentially

[1:03:43] there is going to be an adverse impact

[1:03:45] on the city's local street network,

[1:03:48] whether it's adjacent to the property or

[1:03:50] occasionally, I would say even

[1:03:52] oftentimes, we're thinking about maybe

[1:03:53] intersections that are remote to a site.

[1:03:57] An applicant would be required to

[1:03:59] prepare a traffic study which is a sight

[1:04:02] specific analysis that takes into

[1:04:04] account what the specific proposed use

[1:04:06] is and it identifies where improvements

[1:04:08] are needed to address the additional

[1:04:11] traffic that's added to the system based

[1:04:12] on the use that's in front of us when that project's getting reviewed and

[1:04:18] we work with applicants to make

[1:04:20] improvements. Occasionally we use funds

[1:04:22] that we collect as the city to make

[1:04:24] improvements, impact fees, you know,

[1:04:27] both off-site and adjacent to subject

[1:04:29] properties to deal with traffic impacts.

[1:04:32] And again, it doesn't matter if we're

[1:04:33] talking about a church that's 25t tall,

[1:04:36] 65 ft tall, or a maverick or a Costco,

[1:04:41] whatever, right? It's just

[1:04:43] >> or a schools. [clears throat]

[1:04:46] I think schools are

[1:04:47] >> a lot of those traffic impact studies

[1:04:49] we've had in the past have said, you

[1:04:51] know, no significant impact or the impact's

[1:04:56] been uh controllable and we've had a lot

[1:05:02] of community feedback on it that has

[1:05:04] generated changes. Even though the

[1:05:06] traffic study said one thing, we've had

[1:05:08] such feedback from neighboring residents

[1:05:10] that there have been certain changes

[1:05:13] made to uh help alleviate those

[1:05:16] problems. And as Commissioner Woodhouse

[1:05:20] and Carol said, without that public

[1:05:22] hearing, the community doesn't have

[1:05:24] promise a a platform to be able to voice

[1:05:28] those concerns.

[1:05:30] >> Correct.

[1:05:31] >> True. Yep. What uh

[1:05:35] [snorts]

[1:05:36] how is there would there be a way to

[1:05:40] change this so that it could become part

[1:05:42] it would need to have a conditional use

[1:05:46] permit that it would this could be a

[1:05:48] conditional use instead of a subject to

[1:05:50] conditions.

[1:05:51] >> Wouldn't that be just not making the

[1:05:52] amendment?

[1:05:53] >> Yes.

[1:05:54] >> No, it wouldn't be that.

[1:05:55] >> And we can talk about that in a second.

[1:05:56] But you left lighting,

[1:05:57] >> huh?

[1:05:58] >> You lighting?

[1:05:59] >> Oh, yeah. Lighting. Go.

[1:06:01] >> I'm dying here.

[1:06:02] >> Thank you. Oh, and it's bite of the

[1:06:03] apple, I think. Not the pie.

[1:06:04] >> The apple.

[1:06:05] >> That's what we say.

[1:06:06] >> But I like pies better.

[1:06:07] >> Right. Maybe apple pie. [laughter]

[1:06:10] >> Could be both.

[1:06:11] >> Yeah. Call it an apple pie.

[1:06:12] >> Um, our requirements for lighting,

[1:06:15] frankly, I think, are are fairly light.

[1:06:19] It's I didn't mean that, [laughter] but

[1:06:21] uh they're they're uh they're not

[1:06:23] terribly explicit. We do require dark

[1:06:25] skylighting.

[1:06:27] So, for example, when somebody lights a

[1:06:29] parking lot, they have to use lighting

[1:06:31] fixtures. fixtures that direct light

[1:06:34] downward is the best way for me to

[1:06:37] describe it. I think part of that as

[1:06:39] well is that the the source of light,

[1:06:43] which I picture it just like a old

[1:06:46] incandescent light bulb, that has to be

[1:06:48] shielded so that even if I'm a great

[1:06:51] distance away from a parking lot light,

[1:06:55] I can't see that light source as if it

[1:06:58] were in, you know, maybe some kind of

[1:07:00] globular

[1:07:02] uh acornshaped

[1:07:05] light fixture where there's a glass bulb

[1:07:07] with the light in the middle of it and

[1:07:08] you can see that for miles if that makes

[1:07:10] sense. So, we do require things that um

[1:07:15] shield light and that screen light, that

[1:07:19] direct light downward. And we require

[1:07:22] with site plans developers to submit

[1:07:25] what's called a phototric plan,

[1:07:29] photo light metric measurable.

[1:07:32] And those plans identify how much light

[1:07:36] there will be

[1:07:38] throughout a site and onto adjacent

[1:07:41] properties based on the types of

[1:07:43] fixtures that are proposed to be used,

[1:07:46] where they're located, and how tall they

[1:07:48] are. And those plans are sheets that

[1:07:52] have numbers on a grid throughout a

[1:07:54] property that identify foot candles. And

[1:07:58] we as staff look at those. And when we

[1:08:00] look at those primarily, we're looking

[1:08:02] to make sure that there aren't really

[1:08:04] light spots on a site or bright maybe is

[1:08:07] a better way to say it and sites that

[1:08:09] are less bright. So we're looking for

[1:08:11] some kind of uniform level of lighting

[1:08:14] throughout a site. And we want to make

[1:08:15] sure that there's not light spill over

[1:08:19] onto adjacent properties, which is

[1:08:22] actually really easy to accomplish with

[1:08:25] the right kind of fixture and sometimes

[1:08:27] even some kind of an additional shield

[1:08:30] that is an offthe-shelf thing that

[1:08:32] lighting manufacturers have to use to do

[1:08:35] just exactly what I'm I'm suggesting

[1:08:37] there. Um, and in terms of, for example,

[1:08:42] the parking lot that would come into

[1:08:44] play with what we're talking about and

[1:08:48] anything like that. Could be a school,

[1:08:50] could be, again, like a retail use,

[1:08:52] anything like that. Um, I think we'd be

[1:08:55] careful to take the same kind of

[1:08:57] precautions regardless of what the use

[1:08:59] is. Um, at least that's how our

[1:09:02] ordinance is written. Uh, I know that

[1:09:05] with structures like what we're talking

[1:09:07] about here. Um, occasionally those get

[1:09:10] lit as well. Sometimes they're uplit.

[1:09:13] Um, and that sort of a thing. And we

[1:09:16] really don't have much in our code that

[1:09:18] would say you can or can't do that. This

[1:09:22] is how bright it can or can't be. This

[1:09:24] is how much of a day you can have it

[1:09:28] lit, you know, maybe, you know,

[1:09:31] throughout the evening hours or it could

[1:09:34] be like some type of a a shut off time

[1:09:37] for that sort of lighting. We don't have

[1:09:39] any provisions in place for that. So,

[1:09:42] >> so not dimmer overnight

[1:09:45] >> in terms of what we inherently would

[1:09:47] require. No, we don't have anything like

[1:09:48] that. And we don't have any buildings

[1:09:50] that might be illuminated similarly that

[1:09:53] are doing anything that we I'm assuming

[1:09:55] this is completely new.

[1:09:57] >> I'm pretty sure I know the answer to

[1:09:58] that. Yeah.

[1:09:59] >> Yep.

[1:10:02] >> Okay. So, back to a couple of different

[1:10:06] elements maybe of the same question.

[1:10:10] Could what we're talking about tonight

[1:10:11] or maybe something similar to it happen

[1:10:13] without some kind of change being made

[1:10:15] to title 15? Um, not according to title

[1:10:18] 15 is my answer to that. Some kind of

[1:10:22] change needs to be made. Now, I am

[1:10:26] probably fairly ignorant though. Warm

[1:10:30] up. I think Joshua probably is expecting

[1:10:32] it. Uh there are federal laws that come

[1:10:35] into play when you're dealing with any

[1:10:36] type of uh exercise of somebody's

[1:10:39] freedom of religion that uh work their

[1:10:42] way through uh courts enough that I

[1:10:45] think there's case law and that type of

[1:10:46] thing that that uh

[1:10:51] that's a good time for me to stop

[1:10:52] talking. Joshua, you want to take it

[1:10:54] from there?

[1:10:55] >> So, you may have heard of some of these

[1:10:57] federal laws. I think we've talked about

[1:10:58] them before, but the specific law is

[1:11:00] called the Religious Land Use and

[1:11:03] Institutional Persons Act. I believe

[1:11:06] it's abbreviated a lot, but essentially

[1:11:08] the law because um religion

[1:11:13] is protected under the First Amendment.

[1:11:15] Then there's federal protections that go

[1:11:17] in um civil rights that essentially

[1:11:20] cities and states can't violate if they

[1:11:22] want any kind of federal funding or any

[1:11:24] of those things. Otherwise, you'll be

[1:11:25] challenged by in the [clears throat]

[1:11:27] courts and lose, right? Essentially. So,

[1:11:29] this law um it's been in place for 20

[1:11:31] years. The significant thing here is

[1:11:34] that um any regulation that we put on a

[1:11:39] practice or exercise of religion um

[1:11:42] can't place a substantial burden on the

[1:11:45] exercise of the religion um without

[1:11:49] there being a compelling interest and us

[1:11:52] doing it in a narrowly tailored or

[1:11:54] what's called the least restrictive

[1:11:55] manner. So that's the law generally,

[1:11:58] right? So if we [clears throat] have,

[1:12:00] for example, if we were to try to do a

[1:12:02] conditional use permit and try to put

[1:12:04] any kind of restriction on even the

[1:12:07] building or the structure or anything in terms of height or lighting or any of

[1:12:11] those things and it creates a

[1:12:13] substantial burden on the religious the

[1:12:16] exercise of that religion and they can

[1:12:18] articulate basically anything um fairly

[1:12:21] easily to say that this is a substantial

[1:12:23] burden. Then it shift the burden of of

[1:12:26] the law shifts back to us and we have to

[1:12:29] articulate and prove in court that we

[1:12:31] have a compelling interest for why we

[1:12:34] need those um restrictions. And not only

[1:12:38] do we have to articulate a compelling

[1:12:39] interest, we have to show that we've um

[1:12:42] written our law in the way that is the

[1:12:45] least restrictive possible to further

[1:12:49] our compelling interest. Um least

[1:12:51] restrictive in terms of creating a

[1:12:53] burden on them. So, um, that's how this

[1:12:56] title 15 change sort of came about is

[1:12:59] that we were trying to So, the only

[1:13:01] thing in my understanding that these

[1:13:03] structures, um, potentially why they

[1:13:06] couldn't just go and already get a

[1:13:08] permit to a building permit [snorts] and and build in town is because of the

[1:13:13] height of of the structure, right? And

[1:13:15] so, that's all that we're looking at.

[1:13:16] That's all that we're talking about. if

[1:13:18] they came to a public hearing or

[1:13:21] anything, that's all we could really be

[1:13:24] addressing is the height of the

[1:13:26] structures. All of the other stuff they

[1:13:28] already can meet our uh current laws,

[1:13:31] right? And so I think if we got into all

[1:13:34] of that, we would have a lot of

[1:13:35] discussion on things that we can't even

[1:13:37] do anything about anyway, right? We

[1:13:39] can't talk about roads and lighting and all of that because we already have

[1:13:43] all of those laws in place and they

[1:13:45] already potentially are going to meet

[1:13:46] those. The only thing we could be

[1:13:47] talking about is the height. And so when

[1:13:50] it comes to the height of these kinds of

[1:13:52] structures, it would [snorts] if we have

[1:13:54] a restriction on it, which we have in

[1:13:56] the past, it would be a substantial

[1:13:58] burden for them to not be able to build

[1:14:01] the house of worship as high as they

[1:14:04] want to to build it. And so what is our

[1:14:07] compelling interest for why we would

[1:14:08] restrict that height? And our best in

[1:14:12] our view, our best compelling interest

[1:14:13] is fire safety. We want to make sure

[1:14:15] that if a structure comes on fire or

[1:14:18] something like this that we are able to

[1:14:19] fight that fire, right, in a way that's

[1:14:22] reasonable and appropriate. So that's

[1:14:24] why we put in some of this language

[1:14:25] there in DU that anything above a

[1:14:28] certain height, it's built of

[1:14:30] non-combustible materials so that we're

[1:14:32] not fighting fires 200 feet in the sky,

[1:14:35] but 80 feet, right? We can fight a fire

[1:14:37] 80t, we can't fight one 200, but

[1:14:39] anything above the 80 or above the 70 is

[1:14:41] non-combustible materials. So that is

[1:14:43] our approach as staff in

[1:14:47] writing a law that has that furthers our

[1:14:49] compelling interest of of fighting a

[1:14:52] fire um in the most narrowly tailored or

[1:14:55] at least in um least in least

[1:14:58] restrictive manner possible. So that's

[1:15:00] where this came about.

[1:15:01] >> But but don't we have a compelling

[1:15:02] interest also as far as height goes or

[1:15:04] building height in the the view

[1:15:09] corridors that this could or could not

[1:15:11] because again I don't know where this is

[1:15:12] located. Sure.

[1:15:13] >> Um could have on surrounding

[1:15:14] neighborhoods. Um could have on uh

[1:15:19] neighbors. I mean we have had people

[1:15:21] appear before us concerned about the

[1:15:22] height of an apartment building that was

[1:15:24] only 40 ft high on the effect of its

[1:15:27] crops on the on the field next door.

[1:15:29] >> Right.

[1:15:29] >> So I mean there

[1:15:31] >> that's it goes to the other part of it

[1:15:33] which is it's at least 8 acres. So, in

[1:15:35] terms of a view corridor, the compelling

[1:15:37] interest in a in a parcel that's more

[1:15:40] than, you know, far not right up next to

[1:15:43] the the the structure, but farther

[1:15:45] enough away. They don't

[1:15:46] >> they haven't found that to be located on

[1:15:48] that 8 acres. It could be right adjacent

[1:15:50] to a 100 home subdivision.

[1:15:53] >> It's true. You're right.

[1:15:54] >> Well, it could be on the further end and

[1:15:56] it doesn't have much of an impact.

[1:15:57] >> But that's the idea with a compelling

[1:15:58] interest, right? Is is that a compelling

[1:16:00] interest as a view or a compelling

[1:16:02] interest? And from what I've seen and

[1:16:03] what I've studied on this law, it's not

[1:16:05] a compelling enough interest to be able

[1:16:08] to create a a based off the substantial

[1:16:11] burden that it imposes upon the exercise

[1:16:13] of the religion.

[1:16:14] >> I know it's not exactly what we're

[1:16:15] talking about now, but has has lighting

[1:16:17] been discussed as a compelling interest.

[1:16:19] I know that's sometimes some concerns.

[1:16:21] >> Again,

[1:16:24] so I haven't looked at lighting because

[1:16:27] as far as I understood, lighting was not

[1:16:29] an issue under our current laws. Right.

[1:16:32] So I was only looking at this in terms

[1:16:34] of the one thing that was a violation of

[1:16:36] laws which is of title 15 which is the

[1:16:38] height.

[1:16:38] >> It could be an issue but it's not

[1:16:40] something we've addressed previously. So

[1:16:41] we can't make constraints in our title

[1:16:44] 15 to

[1:16:45] >> you would have to amend title you'd have

[1:16:47] to amend title 15 to restrict them if

[1:16:49] that's what you were trying to do.

[1:16:50] >> Yeah.

[1:16:52] >> Can I jump in with one thing? In my mind

[1:16:54] it's a detail you brought I think you

[1:16:57] made a good point Mr. Chairman a couple

[1:16:59] of times.

[1:17:00] >> Thank you. We're trying to come up here

[1:17:02] with reasonable, you know, going back to

[1:17:04] it,

[1:17:05] >> conditions

[1:17:06] >> that just help provide some insurance

[1:17:09] that what we're talking about makes

[1:17:11] sense.

[1:17:12] >> Um,

[1:17:14] we don't want to see something like this

[1:17:16] built 50t away from a house or something

[1:17:19] like that. So, you know, maybe coming up

[1:17:22] with another another [snorts] condition

[1:17:25] here that's a setback, you know, maybe

[1:17:28] to any residential property like in my

[1:17:32] mind then there's just one other

[1:17:34] criteria that would have to be met that

[1:17:36] I think makes great sense. Um, I don't

[1:17:40] know exactly what that number would be.

[1:17:42] I I'm thinking 50 feet as being being

[1:17:46] way less than what makes sense.

[1:17:48] >> It's an 80 foot building. Um, right. So,

[1:17:51] you could start to just kind of envision

[1:17:53] some scale that might might make sense

[1:17:55] there. But, um,

[1:17:59] uh, in as much as this might go forward,

[1:18:02] I think it makes sense to look at a

[1:18:03] setback requirement in addition to what

[1:18:05] we're talking about here.

[1:18:07] Um,

[1:18:08] >> how does the

[1:18:10] h legally the the points been brought up

[1:18:14] by a couple commissioners tonight about

[1:18:16] the public's having a chance to speak or

[1:18:19] address or be heard on an issue such as

[1:18:23] this?

[1:18:25] What are we allowed or not allowed to I

[1:18:27] mean that that seems like that's just

[1:18:30] part of our process we do on everything.

[1:18:32] Why would that be eliminated? Or is

[1:18:34] there a way to keep that criteria in

[1:18:37] there so the public is represented at

[1:18:39] least have their voices heard or is that

[1:18:42] not just not allowed if we adopt this?

[1:18:50] » If this were adopted, there would not be

[1:18:52] a public hearing.

[1:18:53] >> I understand. Is there a way to make it

[1:18:54] so it could be

[1:18:55] >> and not get us in a legal bind is what

[1:18:57] I'm asking.

[1:19:00] I don't see how we get in legal bind

[1:19:02] even if we don't pass this they can

[1:19:04] still present do follow the regular

[1:19:07] protocol

[1:19:09] present the building go through you know

[1:19:12] let the public comment odds are we know

[1:19:16] the neighborhood and that they're it's

[1:19:18] probably going to be favorable in their

[1:19:20] favor the comment there are people that

[1:19:24] are going to argue the opposite and I

[1:19:26] think their voices need to be heard I

[1:19:29] mean, we're surrounded by these same

[1:19:30] buildings

[1:19:33] and you know, they're there and I don't

[1:19:36] know that these other cities, I know He

[1:19:38] City did not make change their title 15

[1:19:41] for this and they're still getting one

[1:19:43] where it was not wanted by the local

[1:19:45] people close by, but it's still going

[1:19:46] there. It didn't get stopped. So, what

[1:19:49] I'm saying is I the I I [clears throat]

[1:19:52] personally don't like this idea because

[1:19:54] I want the public to be able to voice

[1:19:56] their opinion.

[1:19:57] >> I understand that. So the I guess the

[1:19:59] point is

[1:20:00] >> and I don't think we're crossing the

[1:20:01] line because you know it's the way it's

[1:20:04] been for all the other cities,

[1:20:06] >> right? So I guess the in my view the

[1:20:08] point is um attorneys for you know these

[1:20:12] kinds of structures would challenge our

[1:20:16] law our title 15 restrictions as a as a

[1:20:19] violation of federal law. Right? If we

[1:20:21] didn't change the law, we'd most likely

[1:20:23] be in a lawsuit with they would come

[1:20:25] make an application. The [snorts] public

[1:20:27] could be heard. If we denied it because

[1:20:29] Title 15 doesn't allow it, then they

[1:20:31] would sue us under this federal law.

[1:20:33] >> Could they sue us if we didn't have like

[1:20:35] they couldn't sue us if we just left

[1:20:37] this out, right? And

[1:20:38] >> no, that's my under federal law. Your

[1:20:39] point is they could

[1:20:40] >> they absolutely won't.

[1:20:41] >> So, this drives So, that actually drives

[1:20:42] our requirement to to have this

[1:20:45] >> that's my point is we're trying to avoid

[1:20:47] with this a potential lawsuit under

[1:20:49] federal law.

[1:20:51] Correct. So, but can we stay within the

[1:20:54] law and change it to so that it would

[1:20:56] had to have a conditional use permit?

[1:20:58] >> We stay within the law if we don't do

[1:21:00] anything with this. It's still there.

[1:21:02] They're still can follow the same.

[1:21:06] >> But if but if we don't do this

[1:21:07] >> rights as anybody else,

[1:21:09] >> they still have that same right, but

[1:21:10] they have the right to challenge our

[1:21:12] restriction, right? Which they most

[1:21:14] likely would do in court and we would,

[1:21:17] in my opinion, we would lose,

[1:21:19] >> right?

[1:21:20] go back to my question. Could we have

[1:21:22] this be a conditional use permit and it

[1:21:25] would

[1:21:25] >> So again, you you could it would be a

[1:21:28] different process and you could

[1:21:29] >> put conditions on

[1:21:32] the application, but if you put any

[1:21:35] conditions on the application that

[1:21:36] create a substantial burden in violation

[1:21:38] of federal law, I mean, in my advice,

[1:21:40] the only conditions you could put on

[1:21:43] would be with respect to the steeple,

[1:21:45] the height of the steeple or the height

[1:21:46] of the church. We could put these very

[1:21:48] conditions on these conditions into a

[1:21:51] different into a different column that

[1:21:53] would allow the public to come and

[1:21:54] comment.

[1:21:55] >> I believe that's the case

[1:21:57] >> or we don't we

[1:21:59] >> that's kind of what's happening right

[1:22:00] now.

[1:22:00] >> Let them present their plans.

[1:22:02] >> Understood.

[1:22:03] >> And it goes through the normal process,

[1:22:06] >> right? So if they presented their plans

[1:22:08] as it is and we denied them because our

[1:22:10] code didn't allow it, then we would get

[1:22:12] sued under federal law.

[1:22:13] >> Right? But we can also

[1:22:16] >> and we would plan at the time when we

[1:22:18] hear when we know what's getting built.

[1:22:19] Do we even know for sure?

[1:22:20] >> Approve a plan,

[1:22:21] >> right? We can still approve the plan. It

[1:22:23] can still be

[1:22:23] >> not without a title 15 change

[1:22:25] >> not without a title 15

[1:22:26] >> or a conditional use well and a

[1:22:28] conditional

[1:22:28] >> at that point

[1:22:29] >> either a conditional use permit or uh

[1:22:32] these under conditions subject to sorry

[1:22:35] use under subject subject to conditions.

[1:22:38] conditional use would be sufficient, but

[1:22:40] this is just

[1:22:41] >> but we've had we've had meetings where

[1:22:43] we've had a title 15 amendment just

[1:22:45] prior or actually in one case

[1:22:48] >> current in the same meeting.

[1:22:50] >> Yeah,

[1:22:50] >> we've had those title 15 adjustments

[1:22:53] >> in that meeting where they presented

[1:22:54] their plan.

[1:22:55] >> Yeah.

[1:22:57] >> Can we do that?

[1:22:59] >> Please, I

[1:23:03] >> That's all I was gonna say. [laughter]

[1:23:05] >> I didn't hear you.

[1:23:07] Um,

[1:23:09] what I'm hearing is that you'd like us

[1:23:12] to prepare an option that would have

[1:23:13] what we're talking about be a

[1:23:14] conditional use.

[1:23:16] >> Yes, certainly do that. So, um, it

[1:23:19] wouldn't be hard to put that into a

[1:23:21] recommendation tonight.

[1:23:23] >> You understand though that the

[1:23:25] conditional use that we would want to

[1:23:28] have a plan in front of us.

[1:23:31] >> That's how it would work.

[1:23:32] >> Okay.

[1:23:33] >> Yep. Somebody would come with a specific

[1:23:35] plan to you. there would be a public

[1:23:37] hearing

[1:23:38] >> and that

[1:23:38] >> and you'd hear it in the public hearing.

[1:23:45] » Um, so I

[1:23:47] >> Yeah,

[1:23:48] >> feel free.

[1:23:49] >> Did we just

[1:23:50] >> I want to make one one comment here.

[1:23:51] >> Well, I may I

[1:23:53] >> Yes.

[1:23:55] >> And I've thought about whether I should

[1:23:58] say this or not because I I'm afraid

[1:24:00] this is going to come across as being

[1:24:02] like a lecture.

[1:24:04] >> It's okay. You can. But I've had

[1:24:06] >> just look at me. They're expecting from

[1:24:07] >> your shoes.

[1:24:08] >> We're all friends and understand

[1:24:09] >> in another community and did it for a

[1:24:11] lot of years. I chaired a body for a lot

[1:24:15] of years. And I hated seeing a room fill

[1:24:18] up and it happened with regularity

[1:24:21] when that community's regulations and

[1:24:25] development review processes were set up

[1:24:27] such that applicants had to come before

[1:24:30] us and have a public hearing. Even

[1:24:34] though our hands were tied, and if the

[1:24:37] applicants had done certain things, they

[1:24:39] were going to get approved, people came

[1:24:41] to the hearings, they spoke their minds,

[1:24:45] and sometimes they waited for hours to

[1:24:47] get their opportunity to speak only for

[1:24:50] somebody like me to say, "Thank you very

[1:24:53] much." And then 10 minutes later to make

[1:24:55] a motion because we had good legal

[1:24:57] counsel said, "That's all you can do."

[1:25:00] and our motion contradicted the majority

[1:25:02] of what we heard that night. So, take

[1:25:06] that for what it's worth. That sucked

[1:25:08] most of the time. And we've tried to set

[1:25:10] up our processes here. So, for example,

[1:25:13] if we went back a number of years now,

[1:25:17] subdivision plats went to the planning

[1:25:19] commission and city council

[1:25:22] um well before the state code said they

[1:25:25] shouldn't do that anymore. We can't do

[1:25:26] that any longer. at least not to the

[1:25:28] city council. And the situation then was

[1:25:33] such that if an applicant met the

[1:25:35] requirements for subdivision approval,

[1:25:37] they got approved. And yet we held

[1:25:39] public hearings on those and invited

[1:25:41] people out, heard them. And a lot of

[1:25:44] times alienated residents that felt like

[1:25:48] we weren't listening, didn't care or

[1:25:50] anything like that when

[1:25:52] you know you care, but you also know

[1:25:55] that you follow rules. And so we've

[1:25:57] tried to set up um our processes here

[1:26:02] only to involve the public when that

[1:26:03] input, you know, really can be put into

[1:26:05] play. And this for me feels like that's

[1:26:07] kind of there's maybe a little bit of a

[1:26:09] gray area there compared with some

[1:26:11] things. But anyway, I apologize if that

[1:26:14] comes across the wrong way, but I hated

[1:26:16] that. So

[1:26:18] >> I have a question for Josh. So are you

[1:26:22] saying that the federal law is that any

[1:26:24] church can go and buy property in any

[1:26:28] city

[1:26:30] and the city has to accommodate

[1:26:34] the church

[1:26:36] >> I'm saying

[1:26:36] >> any church

[1:26:37] >> if the city has a law that places a

[1:26:39] substantial burden on the exercise of

[1:26:42] that religion for any church worship any

[1:26:44] of those things and that's a pretty

[1:26:46] simple um thing for the rel religious

[1:26:50] institution to articulate, right? If

[1:26:52] they can say any reason why this is this

[1:26:55] restriction or that regulation is a

[1:26:57] substantial burden on them, then the

[1:26:59] burden shifts back under federal law to

[1:27:01] the city to articulate why we have a

[1:27:05] compelling interest for that regulation

[1:27:08] and why that regulation is the least

[1:27:11] restrictive manner of imposing that

[1:27:13] regulation. Right? So, I'm not saying

[1:27:15] that the church can move in anywhere and

[1:27:17] just say you have to let me in. Right.

[1:27:19] The church, the city just has to be able

[1:27:21] to articulate why we have this rule and

[1:27:25] that it's done in the least restrictive

[1:27:26] manner and that gives religious

[1:27:29] institutions a lot of power which we

[1:27:31] want under our first amendment rights

[1:27:33] generally. Right? The cities and

[1:27:36] government are not going to impose um

[1:27:38] restrictions on the free exercise of

[1:27:40] religion. Right. Generally,

[1:27:42] >> right? It's not the exercise of religion

[1:27:44] though, but it's about the building and

[1:27:46] the impact on the neighborhood. But

[1:27:48] buildings are part of the exercise of

[1:27:50] religion. Most buildings, religious

[1:27:53] institutions will believe their

[1:27:54] buildings are sacred and part of their

[1:27:56] exercise. They're designed in such a way

[1:27:58] to be symbolic and all of those things.

[1:28:00] >> I understand that. But would lowering

[1:28:02] the height [clears throat] restrictions,

[1:28:04] would that be considered being too

[1:28:07] restrictive?

[1:28:08] >> Typically, it has been. Yes.

[1:28:10] >> There's many without steeples.

[1:28:12] >> I don't disagree

[1:28:13] >> in the country.

[1:28:14] >> I'm just saying that federal law and

[1:28:15] federal cases, they've won. They've make

[1:28:17] they'll you know I think that's

[1:28:20] something we should give the the church

[1:28:23] more credit for that they're willing to

[1:28:25] work with people.

[1:28:26] >> Sure.

[1:28:26] >> And like the way I'm hearing is they're

[1:28:28] not they're just going to railroad

[1:28:29] everybody. And I you know I think they I

[1:28:33] would think they would appreciate have

[1:28:35] public comment and understand what

[1:28:36] people want to see and would understand.

[1:28:40] >> I they're not just a big bully that's

[1:28:42] gonna come in and do what they want.

[1:28:44] >> Yeah. I I can't speak against that. I I

[1:28:47] all I'm saying is if the religious

[1:28:49] institution wants

[1:28:52] um a certain steeple height and they say

[1:28:55] what your restriction on that is

[1:28:57] creating a substantial burden on the

[1:28:59] exercise of our religion without a

[1:29:01] compelling interest and without doing

[1:29:03] the least restrictive manner. I know I'm

[1:29:04] repeating myself. We're going to lose

[1:29:06] that lawsuit. And in my mind, this is a

[1:29:08] way of not just punting and saying do

[1:29:10] whatever you want. We're actually still

[1:29:12] putting in here's some conditions. We're

[1:29:14] talking about setbacks. We're talking

[1:29:15] about height. We're talking about

[1:29:16] non-combustible materials. We're talking

[1:29:18] about a compelling interest with fire

[1:29:19] and some of those things. So, we're not

[1:29:21] just rolling over. We're creating trying

[1:29:25] to articulate and this has been our best

[1:29:27] effort from legal and from um community

[1:29:29] development as well, working together at

[1:29:31] creating law that we feel like still

[1:29:34] articulates or still um provides for our

[1:29:37] compelling interest of of fighting fires

[1:29:38] in these kinds of buildings with the

[1:29:41] least in the least restrictive manner.

[1:29:43] And I don't think anybody here is trying

[1:29:44] to say we want to restrict anything

[1:29:46] along those lines. We just want to we

[1:29:48] want to make sure it doesn't have a

[1:29:49] negative impact on the city

[1:29:51] >> or help give some guidance on what we'd

[1:29:52] like to see in our city.

[1:29:54] >> Right.

[1:29:54] >> There have been Spanish Fork is not

[1:29:56] every other town in Utah wherever

[1:29:58] somebody wants to build this. It's

[1:29:59] special to us.

[1:30:00] >> Sure.

[1:30:00] >> And we'd like to have uh

[1:30:03] >> the elected officials or appointed be

[1:30:05] able to have a chance to say that. I I I

[1:30:07] mean I know there there have been cases

[1:30:09] recently in the last couple years where

[1:30:11] a steeple height

[1:30:12] >> was challenged and

[1:30:15] >> the city lost.

[1:30:16] >> Yeah. [laughter] Yeah. So

[1:30:18] >> So I don't disagree with you that there could be public input in these

[1:30:22] things, but in this case our our only

[1:30:24] city regulation that is even up to

[1:30:27] debate or discussion is the height of

[1:30:30] the church.

[1:30:30] >> Yeah.

[1:30:31] >> Right. And so having a public forum and

[1:30:33] a public opinion about all of this,

[1:30:35] there's going to be a lot of discussion

[1:30:36] potentially not related to that one

[1:30:39] issue.

[1:30:41] >> Dave, what's the tallest building in

[1:30:44] Spanish Fork

[1:30:45] >> hospital?

[1:30:46] >> How many feet high is that?

[1:30:49] >> Anybody want to do some quick research

[1:30:51] for us? Let's let's not we could guess.

[1:30:54] Let's not wing it. Uh it's less than 100

[1:30:56] feet tall.

[1:30:57] >> Okay.

[1:30:59] >> The other thing I'd say just with

[1:31:00] respect to it gets close.

[1:31:02] >> This item on the agenda, right, is it's

[1:31:04] a title 15 change.

[1:31:06] >> We can we can look at that.

[1:31:07] >> Okay.

[1:31:08] >> So, sorry, while they're looking that

[1:31:09] up, but um because it's title 15 change,

[1:31:12] you'd either make a recommendation to

[1:31:14] the city council to approve this change

[1:31:16] or make a negative recommendation to the

[1:31:19] city council, right, as part of this

[1:31:21] instead of and then based off what the

[1:31:23] city council does, we could change our

[1:31:26] positions. They would certainly hear all

[1:31:27] of the information, input that you've um

[1:31:31] or review, maybe not listen to the whole

[1:31:33] thing, but review all the input you're

[1:31:34] giving tonight. Depends on how much

[1:31:36] longer

[1:31:37] >> they're going to watch it twice. A good

[1:31:38] choice of words.

[1:31:39] >> This meeting will have a public hearing,

[1:31:40] though. Correct.

[1:31:41] >> We have public hearing tonight. Yes. So,

[1:31:43] people have opportunity tonight, right?

[1:31:46] >> Correct.

[1:31:46] >> There's just not a plan like there's

[1:31:50] just not a presentation and a plan like

[1:31:53] >> citizens of our city. Yeah. Right.

[1:31:56] Correct.

[1:31:56] >> Um I have one just

[1:32:01] I I appreciate what our chair has said

[1:32:04] about setbacks. I think setbacks would

[1:32:07] be a good thing to add to add to this. I

[1:32:11] also

[1:32:13] ha I I also wonder I I really appreciate

[1:32:16] what you said about having a phototric

[1:32:18] plan like and what you said about

[1:32:20] limiting limiting light spillover. I

[1:32:23] think that's awesome. Um I really

[1:32:25] appreciate those uh I really appreciate

[1:32:29] that in the code. So thank you very

[1:32:31] much. Um one thing I wonder is are there

[1:32:35] other

[1:32:40] temples throughout Utah that they have

[1:32:43] to have their lights dimmer like between

[1:32:46] like 11 and 4 a.m. or something like

[1:32:49] that. Like not off but dimmer. I don't

[1:32:52] know if that's a thing or not, but I

[1:32:56] >> I don't

[1:32:57] >> you ask the owner and they would

[1:33:00] >> anyways. Yeah,

[1:33:01] >> that's I and I think I mean I'm I'm not

[1:33:05] a direct neighbor, but I I think it

[1:33:08] would could be something that would be a

[1:33:11] little bit but if you're looking at that

[1:33:13] limiting your light spillover, I guess,

[1:33:16] and if setbacks.

[1:33:19] So, I don't know. That's just some

[1:33:21] Anyway,

[1:33:22] >> and I just want to be clear, unless I'm

[1:33:24] told otherwise, I would only be told

[1:33:26] otherwise if it is for the benefit of

[1:33:28] the city, I'm more than happy to put

[1:33:30] together like an alternate proposal that

[1:33:32] involves a conditional use kind of a

[1:33:34] route for the for the council to

[1:33:36] consider. Certainly happy to do that if

[1:33:38] that

[1:33:40] is of interest. So,

[1:33:48] » so we need to Oh, we have to have public

[1:33:50] comment.

[1:33:51] >> I'd be I'd be curious.

[1:33:51] >> We're scheduled for that and we

[1:33:52] advertised for that. So, yes.

[1:33:54] >> Yes.

[1:33:55] >> Just waiting for us to be done

[1:33:56] interrogating you before

[1:33:57] >> you told me when you were on. [laughter]

[1:33:59] >> Did you know you were going to be

[1:34:00] interrogated by

[1:34:03] >> and have any other questions for staff?

[1:34:05] >> The hospital is 83 feet tall.

[1:34:08] >> 83 feet tall. Thank you. In what what

[1:34:11] area? Industrial or commercial?

[1:34:13] >> It's

[1:34:15] business park, I believe.

[1:34:16] >> The zone. Yeah,

[1:34:17] >> business park.

[1:34:18] >> Park.

[1:34:20] >> Okay. Well, thanks Dave. We may be

[1:34:22] calling you back up depending on what we

[1:34:24] hear. Um, this is a public hearing uh on

[1:34:28] this title 15 amendment. If any of you

[1:34:31] are here to speak on this matter, please

[1:34:33] come up and address us now.

[1:34:36] Please state your name as you come up

[1:34:37] and then your questions or concerns.

[1:34:44] » Hello, my name is Amber Edson. Um,

[1:34:49] listening at the beginning, I think I

[1:34:51] was confused why we were talking about

[1:34:53] it, so it makes sense. It's a legal

[1:34:54] thing. Um,

[1:34:57] but I was I think if the public is going

[1:35:01] to be

[1:35:03] denied all in doing to due to have to

[1:35:06] having to approve it to avoid a lawsuit.

[1:35:10] Um, my question would be, can you let

[1:35:13] them know that you have to approve it,

[1:35:15] but you're holding the hearing so that

[1:35:17] you can collect input? I don't know. All

[1:35:19] of that was just really confusing to me.

[1:35:21] But I was like,

[1:35:24] that seems really, really bad to have

[1:35:26] the city also in a position where

[1:35:28] they're like, yes, come and share your

[1:35:29] opinions and we're going to do exactly

[1:35:31] the opposite if his experiences in the

[1:35:35] past play into it. So, we'll see. I was

[1:35:38] just trying to think through it with

[1:35:39] everyone. But yeah, that's all.

[1:35:41] >> Thank you.

[1:35:50] Okay. Anybody else? Seeing none, I'll

[1:35:53] close the public hearing,

[1:35:56] commissioners,

[1:35:59] opinions, comments.

[1:36:02] >> This is an interesting one. I I mean I I

[1:36:05] don't think it's worth our while to get

[1:36:06] into lawsuits over um religious

[1:36:10] buildings, quite honestly. I though feel

[1:36:14] very strongly that public input is

[1:36:16] necessary. I I think back a couple uh

[1:36:19] meetings we had uh not related to a

[1:36:21] religious building. We discussed uh the

[1:36:24] construction of a power line in the

[1:36:25] river bottoms and to align with what uh

[1:36:28] put us in alignment with state policy.

[1:36:31] We had to make a title 15 change to

[1:36:33] where we couldn't uh you know have any

[1:36:35] hearing on that because our hands were

[1:36:37] bound. I actually voted no on that one.

[1:36:39] And I think I was we're not talking

[1:36:41] about fighting the federal government

[1:36:42] here, but I think my frustration there

[1:36:45] was that I don't think that uh the other

[1:36:48] um public entities had done a good job

[1:36:50] of having a public hearing for that

[1:36:51] particular thing. So that that was part

[1:36:53] of why I voted no on that. In a strange

[1:36:55] way, I'm almost feeling the opposite

[1:36:57] here um for voting yes on this because

[1:37:00] with only one exception, I really feel

[1:37:04] like the public, to your point, Dave,

[1:37:06] when you talked about some of those

[1:37:08] meetings suck, I think sometimes we have

[1:37:10] to kind of take input,

[1:37:13] get that input, and even if we can't do

[1:37:16] anything about it, I think it's good,

[1:37:17] worthwhile to have a forum where people

[1:37:19] can come say things. And I and I'll tell

[1:37:22] you what, you know, I think here in city

[1:37:24] government, we have a really good form,

[1:37:26] which is so weird because I feel on the

[1:37:28] other side here, though, when it comes

[1:37:29] to these religious institutions, we're

[1:37:32] not we're not going to have an effect

[1:37:34] here. So, I feel a little conflicted,

[1:37:36] but I'm I'm putting pros and cons in

[1:37:38] terms of supporting this. I've got more

[1:37:40] pros written down here from the

[1:37:41] presentation you gave, but it still

[1:37:43] feels strange to me. So, that's the

[1:37:47] place I sit, which is feels really

[1:37:49] weird. If I might comment though, uh,

[1:37:52] Paul, that that the utility company,

[1:37:56] I agree, they didn't do a great job with

[1:37:58] their public presentation, but they did

[1:38:01] do public presentations. They

[1:38:03] >> they weren't advertised well. They may

[1:38:05] not had good attendance at them.

[1:38:07] >> Perhaps that was my

[1:38:08] >> They still did it.

[1:38:08] >> Yeah.

[1:38:09] >> And in some ways though, it's like like

[1:38:11] right now, I think I think if the p

[1:38:13] Well, perhaps they're not advertised

[1:38:14] well. We always have these meetings all

[1:38:16] the time, but I think the public would

[1:38:17] have quite an interest if they knew what

[1:38:18] we were talking about right now. And I

[1:38:20] just don't feel like they really do.

[1:38:22] >> So again, I'm conflicted, but I I'm I'm

[1:38:25] inclined to support this, which again

[1:38:27] feels conflicted. So

[1:38:30] >> I think I feel bad for the optics

[1:38:32] because it looks like it's to me I'm

[1:38:34] talking about myself that we're just

[1:38:35] we'll do this and then it just goes

[1:38:37] around everybody. Nobody's going to have

[1:38:38] a comment. But I also don't want to sit

[1:38:40] here till 11 o'clock at night for

[1:38:42] nothing. I mean, I like you guys. Don't

[1:38:44] get me wrong, but like bottom line is no

[1:38:47] matter what we say what happens, it's

[1:38:49] going to happen.

[1:38:50] >> I don't I don't think you'd be sitting

[1:38:52] here for nothing. Um myself

[1:38:54] [clears throat] because um I mean we

[1:38:57] know the buildings they're planning.

[1:39:00] It's a temple

[1:39:02] and it's coming to the neighborhood.

[1:39:04] It's going to be built. Um you know, we

[1:39:07] know what they look like because we got

[1:39:08] one in PAC. There's one in Orm right of

[1:39:10] three-way everybody can see.

[1:39:13] But I think the people in those

[1:39:15] neighborhoods and throughout town

[1:39:16] deserve

[1:39:18] to have their voices heard.

[1:39:21] And you know, and when people do voice

[1:39:23] their opinions, sometimes there's some

[1:39:25] really good things that come out of it.

[1:39:27] >> Oh, I I think we'll have positive and

[1:39:29] negative issues. So

[1:39:30] >> in the end,

[1:39:30] >> you know, and I think we know in which

[1:39:32] direction the the majority of the people

[1:39:34] in this community are going to go,

[1:39:38] >> you know, because there's excitement for

[1:39:40] this building to come in and, you know,

[1:39:42] but at the same time, I think, you know,

[1:39:45] the city shouldn't just roll over and

[1:39:47] say, you know, we're going to do

[1:39:48] whatever you want, let you do do

[1:39:51] whatever you want here. Um,

[1:39:55] but I I do believe that we need to, you

[1:39:57] know, I wouldn't I would I'm not in

[1:39:59] favor of the this change on the

[1:40:01] amendment at this time because I I want

[1:40:04] to hear from the people in those

[1:40:06] neighborhoods and the people, you know,

[1:40:09] that are going to be their lives are

[1:40:11] going to be impacted by this

[1:40:12] >> 100%.

[1:40:14] >> Which I I agree with everything you

[1:40:16] said. It's just in the end it won't

[1:40:18] matter.

[1:40:20] >> I think it will to a point. you they'll

[1:40:22] feel better. We may feel better. We may

[1:40:23] feel worse.

[1:40:24] >> We might get there might be something

[1:40:25] because we don't know, you know, like

[1:40:27] we've talked about, we have no idea what

[1:40:29] the plan is for the building. Might be a

[1:40:31] new style. Might, you know, whatever.

[1:40:33] Um, but there could be, you know, some

[1:40:36] concessions made lighting, so it's not,

[1:40:38] you know, I know they made some

[1:40:39] concessions in Heber on the lighting,

[1:40:42] you know, for those people and, you

[1:40:45] know, things like that. So, I think it's

[1:40:47] valuable. You had hope that the entity

[1:40:48] [clears throat]

[1:40:49] would would take into consideration and

[1:40:52] where they could make changes to make

[1:40:54] any negative comments

[1:40:57] >> be a better name.

[1:40:58] >> Yeah. Be a better neighbor.

[1:40:59] >> Just like we' we talked about tree

[1:41:01] trimming tonight. We've talked about a

[1:41:03] sixoot fence. Just like we'd help from

[1:41:05] any other resident or applicant comes

[1:41:07] before us.

[1:41:08] >> And those are much smaller things. What

[1:41:10] if we did something? What What if like I said, I said I'm apply to approve

[1:41:14] this or that's kind of where I'm

[1:41:16] feeling.

[1:41:17] Does the change have to be made now? I

[1:41:20] mean, could this be made the exact same

[1:41:22] change made later?

[1:41:23] >> It could be made when they present it.

[1:41:25] >> Like I said before, we have done this

[1:41:26] literally in concurrent

[1:41:29] kind of a little bit out of order in

[1:41:31] past meetings, but it didn't matter

[1:41:32] because it was in the same meeting.

[1:41:33] >> That would feel better to me quite

[1:41:35] honestly

[1:41:37] if we had more of a sense of what we

[1:41:38] were looking at or or by we I mean the

[1:41:40] community had more of a sense. My

[1:41:42] concern my concern about that is if we

[1:41:45] are holding up timetables

[1:41:48] uh and further progress and

[1:41:50] announcements on something like that.

[1:41:54] >> I I I mean we've we've held up a lot of

[1:41:56] projects to get more information. Why

[1:41:59] make an exception for when there's a lot

[1:42:01] of concern about

[1:42:02] >> you know and what if this was a different entity

[1:42:07] presenting on this

[1:42:10] the community would feel different and

[1:42:13] many of the

[1:42:16] city everybody would feel different

[1:42:18] about it I feel

[1:42:19] >> I think with the other entities

[1:42:23] if I'm holding up a developer that

[1:42:24] doesn't really make me feel too bad

[1:42:26] about things when I'm doing somebody's

[1:42:28] religion and and their their ability to

[1:42:30] practice that in their own community

[1:42:32] that I can be sensitive to that.

[1:42:34] >> And there's a reason why there's I think

[1:42:36] this one of the few times we've had to

[1:42:37] talk federal law here, right? There's

[1:42:39] reasons why that's in place.

[1:42:41] >> We actually talked about it quite a bit,

[1:42:43] at least state law, because we're often

[1:42:45] pushing back against what the state

[1:42:46] wants us to.

[1:42:47] >> They're more of the the friction point,

[1:42:49] aren't they?

[1:42:50] So, we have this conversation at the

[1:42:52] school district about

[1:42:55] the timing of when people can come and

[1:42:57] comment on budgets when we pass the

[1:43:01] budget. And maybe you have this in the

[1:43:03] city as well, like you have to build

[1:43:05] your budget and pass your budget by

[1:43:07] something like June, but you don't have

[1:43:11] um the truth and taxation hearing until

[1:43:15] August. And by then all the decisions

[1:43:17] are made, but you hear everybody and you

[1:43:20] hear them out and there it just seems

[1:43:22] like there's something very wrong with

[1:43:23] that. And this the state has been

[1:43:25] working on changing that and they did

[1:43:28] change it a little bit this year. So

[1:43:30] that there has to be some more some

[1:43:32] noticing ahead of time. But

[1:43:37] anyway, so that's that's one part

[1:43:39] because they're like, I'm coming and

[1:43:40] complaining because you got but you guys

[1:43:42] have already made your decision and why

[1:43:44] am I even here? Well, they're here

[1:43:46] because they they need to speak up and

[1:43:49] have say what they have to say. And

[1:43:52] honestly, part of it of of hearing

[1:43:55] voices, whether you're going to make

[1:43:56] that decision or not, is the public buy

[1:43:58] in and that you really care about what

[1:44:01] people have to say. And so there's kind

[1:44:04] of I I also am on on both sides of that

[1:44:08] fence. I know that it's horrible

[1:44:11] >> uh to have to be there so late and And

[1:44:15] often people that are angry and unhappy

[1:44:19] with it are the ones that come and speak

[1:44:20] the loudest about it. And then you make

[1:44:23] a decision based on how you feel like

[1:44:25] everybody altogether would feel about

[1:44:28] it.

[1:44:30] So

[1:44:32] I don't know. That's a lot of different

[1:44:33] opinions.

[1:44:34] >> Yeah. I'm not sure where you're going

[1:44:35] with that.

[1:44:36] >> I don't know where I'm going with that

[1:44:37] either. I really am I'm really torn on

[1:44:40] that because uh I

[1:44:44] I'm really torn. I think public I think

[1:44:47] public comment is good

[1:44:50] in general,

[1:44:52] but if we're going to just make the

[1:44:55] decision, do we just make the decision

[1:44:57] and let it move forward? And how many

[1:45:00] people care about coming and having

[1:45:02] public comment about it? I don't know

[1:45:04] how many people care, but I think it is

[1:45:06] a right that in my mind it is a right

[1:45:08] that we have and we should protect that.

[1:45:11] I uh

[1:45:13] I've had many actually I don't know some

[1:45:15] of you haven't had any. I not happy

[1:45:18] about that [laughter]

[1:45:20] but we've had several meet in the

[1:45:22] morning time on topics that were I don't

[1:45:25] think as consequential as this. And I I

[1:45:29] think we should let them have their say.

[1:45:32] I've I've been through it. It was not

[1:45:34] fun. It was not pretty. Um, there's

[1:45:37] people probably still mad at me to this

[1:45:38] day on some of the stances I took then.

[1:45:40] >> That's okay. It's it's it's just what I

[1:45:44] you you vote how you feel is the best

[1:45:46] representation of what our city wants or

[1:45:48] needs and you go from there.

[1:45:51] >> Um, if it's for the applicant or for the voice of the people, we they need to

[1:45:56] be heard. And I think that uh I think

[1:46:00] we'd be doing a disservice if we're

[1:46:02] treating this I mean we have to be

[1:46:04] sensitive because it is a religious

[1:46:05] there is a religious aspect to it and

[1:46:07] how uh Josh has explained the church churches are looked at in federal

[1:46:11] law but I think in my mind I I I like

[1:46:16] the idea that we've talked about of

[1:46:18] somehow putting it in there that either

[1:46:20] we're adjusting this title 15 at the

[1:46:22] time that the applicant makes a an

[1:46:24] application or that we have this so it

[1:46:26] is a conditional use so that we have a

[1:46:29] public hearing on it at that time.

[1:46:33] >> I like the idea when the applicant has

[1:46:35] an application or at least there's

[1:46:37] general public understanding of what

[1:46:39] we're dealing with.

[1:46:40] >> Yeah.

[1:46:40] >> Be aware also that all this debate we're

[1:46:43] having is then going to go to the

[1:46:44] council and it'll probably take them

[1:46:45] about 15 seconds to say something.

[1:46:47] [laughter]

[1:46:49] >> Say thank you planning commission.

[1:46:51] >> They're going to say we watched that and

[1:46:52] listen we love your points. then we can

[1:46:54] always say, hey, we push for public

[1:46:57] impe. I do I do agree. I think every one

[1:46:59] of us here thinks that we would love to

[1:47:01] hear what the public had to say to a

[1:47:03] point.

[1:47:04] >> And I think it's it's it's concerning to

[1:47:06] me and I know there's there may or may

[1:47:08] not be anything we can do about it, but

[1:47:09] the the complaints we hear the most

[1:47:10] about from when we do have public

[1:47:13] hearings is traffic

[1:47:17] and um the impact that's going to have

[1:47:21] on the neighborhood. And I mean I don't

[1:47:23] think the other one is crime coming in

[1:47:25] the neighborhood. I don't think this is

[1:47:26] going to bring any crime in the

[1:47:27] neighbor.

[1:47:27] >> Crime driver

[1:47:28] >> hope to drive it away. But uh

[1:47:30] >> two of the things we hear the most about

[1:47:33] um

[1:47:35] you know people don't have a chance to

[1:47:37] address that and there will be a big

[1:47:39] traffic impact in this area.

[1:47:40] >> So I don't know how we can deal with

[1:47:43] that legally. I I not my cup of tea.

[1:47:46] Will depend on you guys to guide us

[1:47:47] through that. But that's my

[1:47:49] recommendation.

[1:47:52] With all that being said, does anyone

[1:47:54] want us to take a stab at a motion?

[1:47:56] >> Did you close public hearing? Did

[1:47:57] >> Oh, I think I did. I did. I closed

[1:47:59] public hearing.

[1:48:00] >> Public hearing.

[1:48:01] >> I only forgot once tonight.

[1:48:04] >> He's on his stuff.

[1:48:06] >> Are we supposed to make a motion or is

[1:48:09] nobody going to make Okay, I'm going to

[1:48:11] make a motion

[1:48:14] because then that'll move things

[1:48:15] forward, right?

[1:48:17] I re I move to recommend the approval of

[1:48:20] the proposed title 15 amendment based on

[1:48:22] the findings.

[1:48:28] » I have a motion. Do I have a second?

[1:48:31] >> I'm going to second that.

[1:48:34] >> Okay. Have a motion to second. And we're

[1:48:37] going to do this roll call on a yay or a

[1:48:40] nay. Just so everybody has a chance to

[1:48:42] have their votes.

[1:48:44] >> The mayor has you say yes. Oh, really?

[1:48:47] Does he?

[1:48:47] >> He does.

[1:48:48] >> Great. Well, I'm sticking with yay or

[1:48:49] nay.

[1:48:49] >> Yes or no?

[1:48:52] >> You're gonna get a text now.

[1:48:53] >> That's okay.

[1:48:55] >> Um,

[1:48:58] uh, if you don't mind, we'll go through

[1:48:59] roll call on that and you can I don't

[1:49:02] care if you say yes or no. I don't care.

[1:49:04] Um, if you can state your, uh, opinion

[1:49:08] on there, your vote on it, and then

[1:49:09] we'll tally it up at the end.

[1:49:11] Commissioner Carol,

[1:49:12] >> nay.

[1:49:13] >> Commissioner Clayson,

[1:49:14] >> nay.

[1:49:15] I will be a nay also. Commissioner Carol

[1:49:18] I mean sorry

[1:49:19] >> Warick.

[1:49:20] >> Yes.

[1:49:21] >> Commissioner Dayton.

[1:49:22] >> Yes.

[1:49:23] >> Commissioner Woodhouse.

[1:49:24] >> Nay.

[1:49:25] >> Okay. So I have that as four to two.

[1:49:27] >> So that motion would fail at that point.

[1:49:30] Do we

[1:49:31] >> disclose that or do we does that just go

[1:49:33] to the council that way or do we make a

[1:49:35] >> or can we make a motion

[1:49:36] >> another motion?

[1:49:37] >> Can we make another motion to change

[1:49:39] this to a conditional use? I make the

[1:49:42] motion to change this to a conditional

[1:49:43] use. Let's let's talk about it a little

[1:49:44] bit. Maybe we talk about why we're

[1:49:46] voting

[1:49:46] >> cuz I don't know does that

[1:49:49] >> present any other

[1:49:51] >> does that appeal to any of the other

[1:49:53] dissenting votes or any other

[1:49:55] commissioners or would you what would or

[1:49:58] do we just want that to be a a nay on

[1:50:00] there?

[1:50:01] >> So I so I voted yes. Again the conflict

[1:50:04] here I think I still won out on yes

[1:50:06] because I think we're not going to

[1:50:08] change anything here. So, I don't know

[1:50:09] if we can somehow say this, but if we if

[1:50:12] we bring this up again, I'd like to

[1:50:14] bring it up concurrent to us having a

[1:50:17] sense of what this plan looks like. And

[1:50:19] to be perfectly frank, my my inclination

[1:50:21] is to vote yes at that time, too. But I

[1:50:23] am more than willing to hear everyone

[1:50:25] out. And I think that would be a

[1:50:27] wonderful experience even if it goes for

[1:50:29] a very long

[1:50:30] >> wonderful time.

[1:50:31] >> So, I think I would not use

[1:50:32] >> what meant wonderful. I think it's a I

[1:50:34] think it's a worthwhile experience.

[1:50:35] >> Yeah, worthwhile. Yes, I will go with

[1:50:36] that.

[1:50:37] >> I do too. I think you can make that

[1:50:39] recommendation generally, but with

[1:50:41] respect to this item on the agenda, it's

[1:50:44] to a title 15 amendment. So you made a

[1:50:47] recommend a motion to approve the title

[1:50:49] 15 amendment that got denied. So maybe

[1:50:51] your actual motion is to deny the title

[1:50:54] change title 15 amendment and then have

[1:50:57] the extra explanation that what we

[1:50:59] really want is this.

[1:51:00] >> Right. That's what I was going to say.

[1:51:01] So Dave, could we have maybe as this

[1:51:03] goes before the council as as a it was a

[1:51:06] denied recommendation, could you express

[1:51:08] to them our concerns on these points?

[1:51:11] Um, Commissioner Dayton and myself kind

[1:51:13] of like the idea of this being a title

[1:51:16] 15 adjustment would be brought up when

[1:51:18] the applicant presents to the

[1:51:21] commissioning council.

[1:51:22] >> I would think all of us agree with what

[1:51:23] you just said.

[1:51:24] >> Yes.

[1:51:24] >> Yeah. as either a con as either bringing

[1:51:27] it up to us again or as a conditional

[1:51:29] use

[1:51:32] how whichever is the most legal way on

[1:51:34] this.

[1:51:35] >> Right. So, could you make the motion to

[1:51:36] deny the title 15 change amendment

[1:51:39] >> with the ex added explanation that this

[1:51:41] is how we'd like to see it done? Or I

[1:51:43] mean I'm also open to if this if the

[1:51:46] staff thinks that having this be a

[1:51:48] conditional use permit might give might

[1:51:52] not get us in legal a legal bind. if

[1:51:55] there's a way to word smith that so that

[1:51:57] it could be legally correct but also um

[1:52:03] and not substantially impact the the

[1:52:05] applicant but give us the option to uh

[1:52:11] see things make changes or recommend

[1:52:14] changes and have the community have a

[1:52:16] chance to speak their mind I I I think

[1:52:19] would be open to that too just as long

[1:52:20] as some of the the the concerns we

[1:52:23] address tonight are are

[1:52:26] somehow working to that adjustment.

[1:52:28] >> Yeah, we're not against this and I still

[1:52:30] right

[1:52:30] >> I still really would support an E with

[1:52:33] some kind of setback requirement. I

[1:52:36] don't know do I mean but I forgot what I

[1:52:39] was going to say.

[1:52:41] I think it's going to pass. I mean we

[1:52:44] want to go with the law. We respect the

[1:52:46] word houses of worship and if we're

[1:52:48] being technical here, this is the chance

[1:52:51] for the for the community to comment,

[1:52:55] but we're looking for a presentation.

[1:52:59] >> I like Commissioner Woodhouse's

[1:53:00] comments. I think his comments have been

[1:53:02] that he and I don't want Dave can speak

[1:53:05] for himself, but he honestly feels that

[1:53:07] the applicant would want to hear those

[1:53:09] concerns themselves and have a chance to

[1:53:12] work through those. I that'd be I think

[1:53:14] that's key for them too.

[1:53:17] >> That is another really good thing for

[1:53:19] having public comment is then you can

[1:53:22] then you have a chance as staff to talk

[1:53:25] about because people are going to talk

[1:53:26] about the other things whether it's the

[1:53:28] tower or not, right? They're going to

[1:53:30] want to know about the phototric plan

[1:53:32] and limit limiting light spillover.

[1:53:34] They're going to want to know about

[1:53:36] roads and traffic too. those and so

[1:53:39] that's a great public uh public

[1:53:43] opportunity to speak to people who are

[1:53:46] concerned about it.

[1:53:47] >> Yeah, I'll I'll echo and again what was

[1:53:50] said vicariously about you I having them

[1:53:52] in the same forum.

[1:53:54] this could be sorted out and it doesn't

[1:53:56] have to be us as the decider right there

[1:53:58] and quite honestly we may not be able to

[1:53:59] be

[1:54:00] >> and I think it'd be really good for us

[1:54:01] for city you know

[1:54:03] >> I mean

[1:54:05] >> yeah with I just this just kind of felt

[1:54:08] icky to me

[1:54:09] >> that we're trying to put something ahead

[1:54:10] of the putting the cart in front of the

[1:54:12] horse here that's how I felt so

[1:54:15] we're cutting out you know our

[1:54:19] constituents

[1:54:23] » I don't know if we have constitu

[1:54:25] I don't know that's the right word

[1:54:26] because I'm not voted in but

[1:54:30] >> our neighbors

[1:54:31] >> but our neighbors our community members.

[1:54:35] >> Do we need anything more on this topic

[1:54:36] or are we good?

[1:54:37] >> Yeah. So if you can make a motion

[1:54:38] >> we need to make another motion.

[1:54:39] >> Do we need to make a motion or just

[1:54:41] late?

[1:54:42] >> We just shut down

[1:54:42] >> my opinion.

[1:54:44] >> I think they made a motion to approve

[1:54:45] that was not

[1:54:47] >> denied. So instead, you'd make a motion

[1:54:48] to deny the title F 15

[1:54:52] >> changes that are proposed at this time.

[1:54:54] You're going to deny the recommend that

[1:54:56] they be denied and then that we come

[1:54:58] back with these other in this other

[1:55:00] manner that we've discussed.

[1:55:01] >> Oh,

[1:55:01] >> does that make sense?

[1:55:02] >> It didn't just automatically do it.

[1:55:04] >> Correct.

[1:55:07] >> Do you want me to go for that?

[1:55:08] >> Yes. Thank you. Um, I'll make a I I move

[1:55:13] that we deny

[1:55:15] >> recommend

[1:55:16] >> uh recommend denial of the proposed

[1:55:18] Title 15 amendments. Um,

[1:55:23] with

[1:55:26] adding that we'd like to have the

[1:55:29] concerns brought up tonight addressed by

[1:55:30] staff.

[1:55:33] And so this would be if you're voting

[1:55:35] yes for this one, you'd be voting for

[1:55:37] denial. If you're voting no for this

[1:55:39] one, you'd be

[1:55:42] voting for approval, basically. So

[1:55:45] again, roll call vote.

[1:55:46] >> Yay.

[1:55:52] » I'm not sure what to say.

[1:55:54] >> Um, yay.

[1:55:57] >> Yeah. I mean, given that discussion that

[1:55:59] we just had, yes, I Yeah.

[1:56:00] >> Yes.

[1:56:03] >> I have Mr. Chairman and three yeses. So

[1:56:06] >> on the heels of that, can I just quickly

[1:56:08] make sure I got the right things down,

[1:56:11] >> please,

[1:56:12] >> to communicate with the city council. So

[1:56:14] I heard that uh a preference would be to

[1:56:16] have some type of proposal to address

[1:56:19] what we're talking about here run

[1:56:20] concurrently with the site plan approval

[1:56:22] somehow.

[1:56:22] >> Yes.

[1:56:24] >> And uh also to um potentially

[1:56:27] >> for for the reason of the public

[1:56:29] hearings that would be those other

[1:56:31] things would be a public hearings at

[1:56:32] that time.

[1:56:33] >> Correct.

[1:56:35] Uh, it certainly could be set up that

[1:56:38] way.

[1:56:38] >> That's the purpose for that. If it could

[1:56:40] be, then we need to rephrase it.

[1:56:42] >> Yeah. No, and I I didn't mean to

[1:56:45] wishy-washy. That's exactly what I

[1:56:46] understood.

[1:56:46] >> Yeah, that's our intent.

[1:56:47] >> Yep.

[1:56:48] >> Totally.

[1:56:49] >> And then also uh to explore

[1:56:53] the prospect of this being a conditional

[1:56:55] use versus a use subject to conditions,

[1:56:58] which would be another avenue to do what

[1:57:00] you mentioned, Mr. chairman to come up

[1:57:03] with a process to let residents provide

[1:57:05] input somehow. So, that's kind of that's

[1:57:08] the one very common thread that I've

[1:57:10] heard to the different ideas that have

[1:57:13] been thrown out and that type of thing.

[1:57:15] >> Sure. All the council members will have

[1:57:17] watched this, appreciate the banter that

[1:57:19] went back and forth, and they'll know

[1:57:21] exactly what you're talking about when

[1:57:22] you go through this.

[1:57:23] >> And I'm sure they'll study it.

[1:57:25] >> They'll have something to say about it

[1:57:26] for sure.

[1:57:28] >> I'm going to watch them. [laughter]

[1:57:31] >> I still won't.

[1:57:33] I also heard that considering a setback

[1:57:38] in connection with the proposal that

[1:57:40] failed to receive a positive

[1:57:41] recommendation tonight is maybe an

[1:57:45] enhancement.

[1:57:46] >> The the idea you brought up the idea of

[1:57:49] a setback during the conversation uh due

[1:57:51] to the concern I had of just placement

[1:57:53] of how that might

[1:57:55] >> impact existing residents.

[1:57:57] >> Yeah.

[1:57:57] >> So I think somehow if we could work that

[1:57:59] out that'd be great. That's a good way

[1:58:01] to start.

[1:58:01] >> I make one comment. It's It's kind of

[1:58:03] hard to know what we'd even want just

[1:58:06] given that we're a little blind right

[1:58:07] now.

[1:58:09] >> I don't know where this is at.

[1:58:11] >> Seems to know where this is at. I have

[1:58:12] no clue.

[1:58:13] >> That's a very good point. It's very

[1:58:14] valid. V valid. And it's a concern I've

[1:58:16] got, too.

[1:58:17] >> Yeah. [clears throat]

[1:58:19] >> Okay. Can we close this item,

[1:58:22] >> please?

[1:58:23] >> Okay. It is closed.

[1:58:24] >> We'll now move on. I guess that is No,

[1:58:27] we have one more. We have a title an a

[1:58:30] concept review for the seventh north

[1:58:34] building. This is 7th north in Maine,

[1:58:36] correct?

[1:58:37] >> Yes,

[1:58:39] >> Mr. Hall.

[1:58:41] >> Um,

[1:58:43] >> you before that topic, don't you?

[1:58:46] >> You have been came up before that topic.

[1:58:50] >> I bet [laughter] you are.

[1:58:53] Um, so I have spoke with Chad a few

[1:58:57] times since uh a previous proposal was

[1:59:00] made for the subject property. I have

[1:59:03] not given you what I feel like is any

[1:59:05] helpful input or advice and that is

[1:59:09] reflective of how you I feel like I

[1:59:13] I'm at in terms of what to suggest for

[1:59:16] the subject property including you know

[1:59:18] how to tweak um what was presented

[1:59:21] before. I say tweak, I could describe it

[1:59:24] better. How to modify, you know, maybe

[1:59:27] what was presented before

[1:59:30] um in order to um align with what the

[1:59:33] planning commission might be comfortable

[1:59:34] considering down the road. Um the

[1:59:38] planning commission, I think, was very

[1:59:40] clear about a couple of things relative

[1:59:43] to the last proposal. Uh even though

[1:59:45] also I certainly want to acknowledge

[1:59:47] that I feel like there were very

[1:59:48] distinct viewpoints expressed the last

[1:59:50] time this was presented to the

[1:59:51] commission which is partly again why I'm

[1:59:55] not sure what to suggest that the

[1:59:58] property owner really do to make

[2:00:00] progress with this particular concept.

[2:00:04] One of the things however I thought that

[2:00:05] did come through fairly clearly was the

[2:00:07] idea of trying to make the building in

[2:00:09] terms of orientation where it sits on

[2:00:12] the site line up better with even

[2:00:15] contemporary structures that have been

[2:00:17] built in the last decade or so. uh one

[2:00:20] for example just to the south an office

[2:00:22] building where they do have to make to

[2:00:25] make this building align better with

[2:00:26] those where for example you know there's

[2:00:30] a setback for main street that's lawn

[2:00:32] space and there's that kind of

[2:00:35] characteristic that that exists and I'll

[2:00:38] let you speak to the changes that you

[2:00:39] made including I think that that's at

[2:00:41] least part of what we're talking about

[2:00:43] here um so I I describe it that way as

[2:00:49] kind of an introduction because we're really really interested as staff

[2:00:55] and I believe the applicant as well and

[2:00:56] I'm definitely gonna let him speak for

[2:00:57] himself to get your thoughts about

[2:01:00] whether this idea has any merit at all.

[2:01:03] This is his second bite at the apple

[2:01:05] where we're coming to you as the

[2:01:07] commission. Um we had this queued up to

[2:01:10] discuss with the development review

[2:01:12] committee this morning and frankly at my

[2:01:14] insistence probably as much as anything

[2:01:16] we didn't even talk about it. So I

[2:01:18] really feel like whether this moves

[2:01:20] forward, it's not necessarily technical

[2:01:23] and

[2:01:24] you know design types of issues as much

[2:01:26] as it is community character

[2:01:29] um policy types of things then I think

[2:01:32] we look to you for direction and

[2:01:35] guidance on that. Um and maybe Chad if

[2:01:39] you want to you want to get warmed up

[2:01:42] here to take over. I as I understand it,

[2:01:44] we're talking still about uh mixed use

[2:01:47] building, non-residential uses on the

[2:01:49] main floor, residential uses on the

[2:01:53] upper floors.

[2:01:55] Um, and I'll let you clarify that. Um, a

[2:01:57] total of four dwelling units proposed

[2:02:00] with the subject property. Um, and and

[2:02:04] I'll let and not only that, but please

[2:02:07] tell me where else I'm wrong.

[2:02:10] >> Eight dwelling units. Okay, that thank

[2:02:12] you. that helps. Um,

[2:02:16] the things that would have to change in

[2:02:20] order for this to be allowed. So, this

[2:02:22] is getting into, you know, again, I

[2:02:24] would say policy or like zoning text

[2:02:26] changes as proposed. You particularly

[2:02:28] with the on street parking, you don't

[2:02:30] quite meet the parking count. Um,

[2:02:34] and uh, today we require garages for um,

[2:02:39] residential uses. I think the proposal

[2:02:41] here involves a carport.

[2:02:43] Um,

[2:02:45] and there might be some other things,

[2:02:46] but I think those are kind of the more

[2:02:48] significant things that would come into

[2:02:50] play uh in terms of being able to allow

[2:02:53] this this use here. Uh, Brandon, I'm

[2:02:57] going to look to you. Density, is that

[2:03:00] an issue by way of eight units on a

[2:03:02] property of this size?

[2:03:07] And that might be something to look at,

[2:03:08] too. I

[2:03:14] It's the residential office zone which

[2:03:16] allows for buildings with combined

[2:03:19] >> uses. Um I don't know that I can revisit

[2:03:24] the code, but I don't know that it's

[2:03:25] necessarily a density thing. More of a

[2:03:27] if you have this many units, how many

[2:03:30] parking spaces are available?

[2:03:31] >> So density might not be an issue. Yeah.

[2:03:33] Then okay, got it. Anyway, that's more

[2:03:35] than I intended to say. I really for me

[2:03:38] this is your time with them and love for

[2:03:40] you guys just to be as completely candid

[2:03:42] and open and direct. I don't necessarily

[2:03:44] think you want to go through this again

[2:03:46] you know at this level. So we're hoping

[2:03:48] to just get them to the point where they

[2:03:50] know what you're comfortable with and

[2:03:53] we're the same way as staff.

[2:03:57] You have any questions for me before I

[2:04:06] um yeah, so Dave kind of explained

[2:04:08] everything pretty well. Um obviously we

[2:04:10] brought this here maybe six months ago.

[2:04:13] Um originally we had the building more

[2:04:16] pulled towards the street kind of more

[2:04:18] of a you know modern look. We've kind of

[2:04:22] on the updated submitt, we've just taken

[2:04:23] the elevations off completely. I think

[2:04:25] last time we were here, we kind of had

[2:04:27] mixed reviews on aesthetics and things

[2:04:29] like that, which um right now all we're

[2:04:32] looking for is more concept level

[2:04:34] approval. Like we can work with

[2:04:36] aesthetics, we can look work with the

[2:04:38] looks of the building. Um what we're

[2:04:41] really trying to do is just get

[2:04:42] direction on if something like this

[2:04:44] would be feasible um from the city

[2:04:46] standpoint as far as putting a mixeduse

[2:04:48] building like this in this location.

[2:04:51] Um Dave kind of talked about the main

[2:04:53] constraints being

[2:04:55] um parking um with our which I think we

[2:04:59] talked about last time. Our idea was

[2:05:01] with the mixed use, you know, your

[2:05:02] commercial uses during the day, limiting

[2:05:05] those uh tenants to professional

[2:05:08] services that are, you know, 8 to 5 kind

[2:05:10] of thing. And then the [clears throat]

[2:05:11] residential use at night, which offsets

[2:05:14] the hours so you can kind of um

[2:05:17] [clears throat] use the parking both

[2:05:18] ways. Um, and then we've added the

[2:05:21] carport just to kind of help

[2:05:22] accommodate, you know, the the

[2:05:24] requirement of garages and things like

[2:05:25] that, but doesn't really fit with with

[2:05:28] this area. So, we're just kind of

[2:05:29] looking for feedback of whether or not

[2:05:32] this is feasible to move forward um or

[2:05:34] if it's something that, you know, we

[2:05:37] should probably just kind of go a

[2:05:38] different direction on. So, we'd love to

[2:05:40] hear your feedback on that.

[2:05:43] One question and this may be for you or

[2:05:45] it may be for staff, I don't know, but

[2:05:47] the crossover between

[2:05:50] the um retail space and the the staff or

[2:05:55] their customers would be coming to visit

[2:05:56] them if they're 9 to5 and

[2:06:00] apartments where we have eight units

[2:06:02] above where it's just assuming those

[2:06:04] people would mostly be at work during

[2:06:05] those times. That crossover, how does

[2:06:08] that work in in reality? I mean, because

[2:06:10] there's a lot of people work from home

[2:06:11] nowadays. Um there might be people that

[2:06:14] work a swing shift or an off shift that

[2:06:16] come back to it. I'm just wondering it seems to make sense to me

[2:06:22] >> um when you just look at on paper maybe

[2:06:25] if you per se

[2:06:26] >> but I know we have uh I'm in

[2:06:28] construction we built a lot of projects

[2:06:30] we have cross parking easements similar

[2:06:32] situations where we're we're we have

[2:06:34] we're building a multif family building

[2:06:36] and we have a business next door they

[2:06:38] have cross parking ements they can use

[2:06:40] it and it does there does seem to be

[2:06:42] some congestion

[2:06:43] >> in the late afternoon a bit so I'm I'm

[2:06:46] just wondering how that works out if if

[2:06:48] you or staff has any feedback on that.

[2:06:51] >> I mean, it's it's hard to say 100%, you

[2:06:53] know, this is what's going to happen,

[2:06:55] right? Because we never know

[2:06:56] >> how it will happen. Um, we've been

[2:06:58] involved. So, I we do excavation site

[2:07:02] work. We've done two other projects

[2:07:04] similar to this in neighboring cities um

[2:07:07] for clients we do a lot of work for.

[2:07:09] They've done the same concept. Haven't

[2:07:11] had any issues. They've had really good

[2:07:14] success with it. But like I said, you

[2:07:16] never you try to put parameters in

[2:07:18] place, CCNRs in place to kind of limit

[2:07:21] the interference like you're talking

[2:07:22] about, but

[2:07:23] >> to say 100%, you know, it won't happen.

[2:07:26] We can't do that. We've tried to

[2:07:28] include, you know, some buffer stalls

[2:07:31] basically like I think by code for the

[2:07:34] office space, I'm going off memory here,

[2:07:36] >> 15.

[2:07:37] >> I think it's 15. And then the the

[2:07:40] apartments above are just single bedroom

[2:07:42] apartments. So, you know, we're looking

[2:07:44] at, you know, single tenants or young

[2:07:47] married tenants. You know, two stalls

[2:07:48] per apartment should be feasible. That

[2:07:51] puts it at 16. I think we've proposed

[2:07:54] 21. I know there's some issues with the

[2:07:56] on-site parking that we need to work

[2:07:57] through, but we've tried to include some

[2:07:59] buffer stalls to kind of help account

[2:08:00] for that if there is some overlap. But,

[2:08:04] like I said, that's kind of what we've

[2:08:05] tried to do. I don't know if the staff

[2:08:07] has any other comments on it, but

[2:08:10] >> what are the on on-site parking issues?

[2:08:13] Just

[2:08:15] Dave didn't mention that in his

[2:08:17] presentation. Do you know anybody know

[2:08:18] what those are?

[2:08:21] >> So, when we look at the parking, we

[2:08:23] obviously do the calculation like the

[2:08:25] applicant said. Um, we also look at the

[2:08:28] locations. Um,

[2:08:31] and so for instance, in this case, I

[2:08:33] think it's a 5-ft buffer instead of the

[2:08:35] standard 10. Uh, he's got three off

[2:08:39] offsite on the street that is counted

[2:08:41] towards uh their calculation. But the

[2:08:44] summary, I think, is also missing guest parking if I remember

[2:08:48] correctly. And so, um, we can definitely

[2:08:52] do a deeper dive and and give a list of

[2:08:55] those where it's a concept review. Um

[2:08:58] sometimes that in deep dive isn't

[2:09:00] >> we would normally not count street

[2:09:02] parking. I mean we'd count the parking

[2:09:05] stalls not we always count the street

[2:09:07] parking is kind of an oh yes there is

[2:09:09] street parking so there is more than

[2:09:10] what's been shown but

[2:09:12] >> it usually doesn't get counted

[2:09:13] >> but in in this location I think

[2:09:15] engineering stated a number of times

[2:09:16] that we wouldn't necessarily want stalls

[2:09:19] marked on the street. Yes in that

[2:09:21] location.

[2:09:23] Brandon, when you talked about guest

[2:09:25] parking, you're referring to guest

[2:09:26] parking for the residential tenants.

[2:09:29] >> So, it's like Yeah. And and that's often

[2:09:31] included there. So, that's yet another

[2:09:32] dimension, right? That would be

[2:09:35] >> where where are the examples? You said

[2:09:36] you've had a similar concepts developed

[2:09:38] some elsewhere in the valley. Is that

[2:09:40] right?

[2:09:40] >> So, we've been a part of two. So, one's

[2:09:42] in Mapleton. Um Harvest Park, if you

[2:09:44] know where that's at. Yeah. Um

[2:09:46] >> the Harvest Park development right there

[2:09:48] on the corner. Um PAC. Um it was called

[2:09:51] Keep 51. It's right off right on the

[2:09:53] bend in Pac I think 100

[2:09:57] >> south.

[2:09:57] >> It's got a barber shop on the first

[2:09:58] floor

[2:09:58] >> where the barber shop is. Yeah. Same

[2:10:00] concept.

[2:10:01] >> Um they've got commercial space on the

[2:10:03] main and then I think he has 12 units

[2:10:05] above

[2:10:06] >> 12 units above.

[2:10:08] >> Okay. Yeah.

[2:10:09] >> And have they been able to keep the

[2:10:10] commercial full? The commercial spaces

[2:10:13] full?

[2:10:14] >> Yeah. So it was a barber shop. Um it

[2:10:16] actually just swapped out in the last

[2:10:18] couple months to a coffee shop. Yeah.

[2:10:20] They've been able to keep it full. I I

[2:10:22] apologize if you already covered this.

[2:10:23] How many retail spaces on the first like

[2:10:26] how many business?

[2:10:27] >> Right now it's laid out for four

[2:10:28] business combined into bigger units, but

[2:10:31] right now it has four.

[2:10:32] >> Okay.

[2:10:40] » I liked it last time. I still like it.

[2:10:44] >> Actually like that pacing concept. So

[2:10:48] there you helpful.

[2:10:49] >> Yeah. to kind of visualize what that

[2:10:51] looks like. I think it was maybe hard to

[2:10:53] translate. I mean, I don't think I put

[2:10:55] up a lot of opposition last time, but I

[2:10:57] think it was kind of hard to translate

[2:10:58] what that looks like. And I know every

[2:10:59] community is different and everything

[2:11:00] like that. So,

[2:11:03] um,

[2:11:04] [snorts]

[2:11:05] though, as we talked through the parking

[2:11:07] thing, I think the parking thing just

[2:11:08] sounds kind of messy. I you know to to

[2:11:13] chairman Mitchell's point like uh you

[2:11:16] know just with people working from home

[2:11:19] and everything like that

[2:11:20] >> right

[2:11:21] >> that can that could consume quite a bit

[2:11:23] >> right

[2:11:24] >> yeah I I work from home multiple days a

[2:11:26] week and

[2:11:28] I just know that's really common so

[2:11:29] >> right

[2:11:29] >> and but what with onebedroom units you

[2:11:32] know

[2:11:33] >> I like I like the onebedroom concept I

[2:11:37] think it's I think there's a market for

[2:11:38] it I think it's needed Um,

[2:11:42] but

[2:11:44] you've got issues with your with the

[2:11:46] parking is going to be your biggest

[2:11:47] issues,

[2:11:48] >> right?

[2:11:51] » And and hopefully limiting to

[2:11:53] one-bedroom units. Hopefully, you know,

[2:11:55] like I said, hopefully we get single

[2:11:57] tenants that have one car and you got

[2:11:59] eight cars there rather than 16, right?

[2:12:01] And so, it's hard to say for sure, but

[2:12:03] yeah,

[2:12:04] >> parking obviously is is a big

[2:12:06] constraint.

[2:12:06] >> It's hard to say. I think like like in

[2:12:08] the community that I'm in like uh a lot

[2:12:11] of people, you know, 10 years ago

[2:12:13] parking wasn't an issue. It's become an

[2:12:15] issue because kids are moving out later,

[2:12:18] right? And everything like that and

[2:12:19] family dynamics are changing quite a

[2:12:20] bit. And I just think

[2:12:21] >> I think uh I think we run into that. But you know, appreciate that example

[2:12:26] that you from PAC. Would it be and I

[2:12:30] don't know if this is our

[2:12:33] if we can submit in your bylaws can you

[2:12:36] hold it to one tenant is that a

[2:12:39] >> I mean there's there's ways that we

[2:12:41] could you know put parameters in it as

[2:12:44] far as the CCNRs right like to to be a

[2:12:46] tenant here this is kind of what you

[2:12:47] have the standards or not standards the

[2:12:49] criteria that you have to meet right

[2:12:52] >> I think it if you have if they're single

[2:12:54] bedroom units it's either one or two

[2:12:57] people generally Right. I

[2:12:58] >> mean, really, so

[2:13:01] >> if you're two people in each unit, they

[2:13:05] each have their own vehicle, that's 16

[2:13:06] of their stalls are gone.

[2:13:10] >> Well, I think our code requires two

[2:13:12] >> two stalls anyway.

[2:13:15] >> Is it two or 2.5

[2:13:17] >> or is it based on square footage?

[2:13:19] >> It's two. One garage, one stall, and

[2:13:22] then

[2:13:22] >> which they have they have space one per

[2:13:25] >> per unit.

[2:13:26] >> Yes. two stalls. He doesn't carport. No

[2:13:29] garage.

[2:13:30] >> No garage.

[2:13:31] >> They have two per I'm sorry.

[2:13:35] >> You're a little bit You're a little bit

[2:13:36] slow on the uptake there. I know.

[2:13:38] Brandon answer.

[2:13:39] >> You guys are running fast. They have two

[2:13:40] per unit. But

[2:13:42] >> so looking at the parking table, it's

[2:13:45] one garage, one parking stall, so two

[2:13:48] per unit, and then one guest space per

[2:13:50] every three units,

[2:13:52] >> right?

[2:13:54] And they're for commercial units, right?

[2:13:57] So,

[2:13:57] >> which is one per 300 for

[2:13:59] >> somehow that factors somehow into the

[2:14:03] parking.

[2:14:04] >> And does that doesn't have a like how

[2:14:08] the applicant has those overlapping? Our

[2:14:11] code doesn't consider that, does it? It

[2:14:13] would say it would say 12 required in

[2:14:17] this case plus 16.

[2:14:20] So it' be a total of 28 plus guest

[2:14:23] parking would put us like 31.

[2:14:27] Do we make any consideration for that

[2:14:29] being during operation hours of the

[2:14:31] businesses?

[2:14:33] >> The do you mind if I

[2:14:34] >> Yeah, go ahead. the code as it ex is

[2:14:38] explicitly written does not. Okay.

[2:14:40] >> But we have things like the development

[2:14:42] enhancement overlay for example

[2:14:45] >> that's intended I think you know to give

[2:14:48] ultimately you and the city council

[2:14:50] >> an opportunity to look at that just more

[2:14:52] pragmatically you know assuming that

[2:14:55] residents are typically going to be

[2:14:56] there when you know the businesses

[2:14:58] aren't going to be operating and that

[2:14:59] kind of a thing. Um, so that would be a

[2:15:04] way to not have to follow that numerical

[2:15:08] chart.

[2:15:08] >> Yeah.

[2:15:09] >> Explicitly.

[2:15:10] >> While I think on this one parking is an

[2:15:12] issue, I would not want to see an

[2:15:15] asphalt plane of like, you know, 31 35

[2:15:19] parking stalls for something this size

[2:15:21] either. So, I'm glad that we have that

[2:15:24] uh leeway.

[2:15:25] >> Yeah.

[2:15:27] an asphalt plane does doesn't sound like

[2:15:29] it looks

[2:15:30] >> No, it doesn't look great.

[2:15:30] >> Great.

[2:15:32] >> And I think what happens logically

[2:15:33] parking I mean I know there's that that

[2:15:35] place across the street if the

[2:15:37] businesses are popular enough I could

[2:15:38] see people parking over there. I don't

[2:15:40] know like if that's would

[2:15:41] >> I think it's full across the street. I

[2:15:43] go to the dentist there and it's it can

[2:15:46] be tricky to park over there.

[2:15:47] >> Then it'll extend out onto the road and

[2:15:48] everything like that. People I mean if you're if you'll get there you'll

[2:15:52] walk a little bit, right? which is not

[2:15:54] always the most convenient, but

[2:15:55] >> and there's on street parking.

[2:15:57] >> Yeah.

[2:15:57] >> Which I've had issues with before

[2:16:00] because of the

[2:16:02] snow ordinance.

[2:16:04] >> That doesn't snow anymore, though.

[2:16:05] >> Oh, yeah. I forgot. [laughter]

[2:16:08] » Snow is so years ago.

[2:16:12] >> And I don't think it's too wildly off. I

[2:16:14] mean, I was [clears throat] mentioning

[2:16:15] this when we talked earlier, like I

[2:16:17] guess 700, I guess around 800 north is

[2:16:19] where we start seeing a lot of the the

[2:16:22] commercial, but actually I looked back

[2:16:23] at the map there. We've got Kitty

[2:16:24] Corner, a gas station.

[2:16:26] >> Well, straight across the street is

[2:16:28] >> insurance.

[2:16:29] >> Well, it's a whole It's that whole

[2:16:31] >> Oh, you're talking north.

[2:16:32] >> North.

[2:16:32] >> Yeah. North Oh, you're talking south.

[2:16:36] >> But I'm talking all corners on that.

[2:16:37] There is something commercial. Even

[2:16:38] directly across the street east, there's

[2:16:41] >> there's a house that's been converted to

[2:16:42] an insurance agency and then a gas

[2:16:44] station category. So, I don't think it's

[2:16:46] too far off of

[2:16:48] >> the uses that we see adjacent to it.

[2:16:53] >> Oh, and we don't have a public hearing

[2:16:54] on this.

[2:16:55] >> This is just

[2:17:00] the applicant.

[2:17:01] >> I just know that there's a that over in

[2:17:03] the audience there's somebody who go is

[2:17:05] in business across the street. If it was

[2:17:08] only two stories, one story of

[2:17:10] residential, is that just not the

[2:17:12] economics doesn't work at that point?

[2:17:14] >> Yeah. I mean, yeah, it just gets to be

[2:17:17] pretty expensive per door, obviously.

[2:17:19] >> Yeah.

[2:17:20] >> So, we just need to look at So, I say

[2:17:22] we're we're proposing this. This would

[2:17:23] be ideal for us obviously. Um, but we

[2:17:27] just want to see feedback and see if

[2:17:28] it's feasible. And

[2:17:30] >> for me, I think my comments would echo

[2:17:32] whatever else to say. feels like a lot

[2:17:34] of residents and and retail on that one.

[2:17:39] I mean, it's a good size lot, but it's a small for what we're putting on

[2:17:43] there is what it feels to me with the

[2:17:44] parking. I would like to see

[2:17:48] something that reduces that somehow or I just don't see how it's going to fit

[2:17:52] the other way. It just feels it feels uh

[2:17:54] big for that area.

[2:17:56] >> So, maybe a couple units reduced some

[2:17:58] >> I I don't know. I that's that's up to

[2:18:00] that's I'm just giving my feedback on

[2:18:02] >> proposing eight units right now.

[2:18:04] >> Yeah.

[2:18:04] >> So you could do like six units and three

[2:18:08] business.

[2:18:08] >> But the problem is then you're if you do

[2:18:10] if you if you keep the same footprint

[2:18:13] and we go up to let's he reduces it to

[2:18:15] six there's probably going to be maybe a

[2:18:16] two-bedroom unit or some way out in

[2:18:18] there and get more revenue off of it.

[2:18:20] Then you got more parking.

[2:18:21] >> Well, I'm talking about smaller

[2:18:22] footprint.

[2:18:24] >> You like the onebedroom?

[2:18:25] >> I do. I like that. I like the concept of

[2:18:27] it.

[2:18:28] >> Yeah. I do too because I feel like we

[2:18:29] need more variety here

[2:18:31] >> in a way,

[2:18:32] >> right? [clears throat]

[2:18:34] >> Are you getting any of the

[2:18:35] >> Yeah. [laughter] Well, yeah.

[2:18:36] >> Like the one bedroom.

[2:18:38] >> Like the one [clears throat] bedroom.

[2:18:39] Obviously, the biggest thing is parking.

[2:18:41] I mean, that's been the biggest thing.

[2:18:42] >> Parking stress no matter

[2:18:44] >> but like you said, no matter no matter

[2:18:45] what you do, I feel like there's always

[2:18:47] kind of parking stress.

[2:18:49] >> Before we had had the building was right

[2:18:51] up, we had a setback issue.

[2:18:53] >> Concern our feedback was there was a

[2:18:56] concern with that. How close it was. I

[2:18:57] think you moved it back to where

[2:19:00] >> I think it says 20 ft.

[2:19:01] >> Yeah. On the front.

[2:19:02] >> 20 feet from the main.

[2:19:03] >> How does that compare with uh

[2:19:06] >> the Italian place?

[2:19:07] >> Yeah, exactly.

[2:19:08] >> The Italian place is a lot closer.

[2:19:10] >> Closer.

[2:19:11] >> Yeah.

[2:19:12] >> You might be surprised.

[2:19:13] >> I think it's honestly I think it's the

[2:19:15] same.

[2:19:15] >> I think it's the same.

[2:19:16] >> I would.

[2:19:17] >> You know the office building to the

[2:19:18] south.

[2:19:19] >> Do you from the side?

[2:19:21] >> Yeah. The office setback from the

[2:19:22] sidewalk or from the

[2:19:23] >> That's from the sidewalk.

[2:19:24] >> Sidewalk. Yeah. 20 ft from the sidewalk.

[2:19:28] >> Um I think the building to the south is

[2:19:31] 25.

[2:19:32] >> I was going to say it's either 20 or 25.

[2:19:34] >> That's quite a bit back. How much how

[2:19:36] far back is uh the Italian place?

[2:19:39] >> I want to say the Italian place is 20,

[2:19:41] but I could be wrong.

[2:19:42] >> Okay.

[2:19:44] So that's reasonable. That's a

[2:19:46] reasonable setback.

[2:19:47] >> Well, that's what I'm saying. I said he

[2:19:48] moved it back and I just want to know

[2:19:51] how it would, you know, plane with the

[2:19:52] rest of that area.

[2:19:53] >> Yeah.

[2:19:57] going and going back to the the units. I

[2:20:00] mean, they're they are they're single

[2:20:01] bedroom. They're smaller units, right?

[2:20:03] They're only thousand square feet. So,

[2:20:05] it's not like they're big units that,

[2:20:07] you know, you're going to have a lot of

[2:20:08] people in. It's designed to kind of be

[2:20:11] single professionals or newly married

[2:20:13] couples for a reason, right? So, to try

[2:20:16] to limit how many people are there.

[2:20:23] » 15. So, a little

[2:20:25] >> a little closer.

[2:20:26] >> Yeah.

[2:20:27] >> I'll tell you what, if I compare it

[2:20:28] across the street to where the parking

[2:20:30] lot is out front,

[2:20:31] >> although that parking lot doesn't offend

[2:20:32] me, but this one having the building on

[2:20:34] Main Street, I think with the parking

[2:20:36] lot behind, that conceptually seems a

[2:20:38] little better than what we have across

[2:20:40] the street north.

[2:20:41] >> Yeah.

[2:20:43] >> And it's not terrible north, but this

[2:20:44] sounds better than that. So

[2:20:46] >> the question is, do would we like the

[2:20:50] concept enough to make the exceptions

[2:20:52] and changes that we need to make? Dave,

[2:20:54] remind us the the changes that we'd have

[2:20:56] to make to permitted.

[2:20:58] >> Honestly, I'm not sure of what all of

[2:21:00] them are. Parking would be one. How cars

[2:21:04] are parked, you know, garages would be

[2:21:06] another one. Um, I think landscape

[2:21:08] buffer to the west would be one. Just

[2:21:10] the width of that. There be a little bit

[2:21:12] of a landscaping thing there.

[2:21:15] Um,

[2:21:18] yeah, it's that type of thing.

[2:21:20] >> And we've been pretty stingy about

[2:21:23] parking in the past.

[2:21:25] >> So, is it

[2:21:26] >> depends on who you ask?

[2:21:28] >> Yeah.

[2:21:28] that's

[2:21:30] >> Have you tried to park in front of the

[2:21:32] Italian place at 12:30 in the afternoon

[2:21:35] lately

[2:21:35] >> on Main Street?

[2:21:36] >> That's [laughter]

[2:21:38] the parking lot.

[2:21:38] >> We do get complaints because people

[2:21:40] think

[2:21:40] >> Can you zoom in a little bit more on

[2:21:42] that? But um wonder and scroll down to

[2:21:47] the north other way.

[2:21:50] >> Yeah, I've come in that time day to go

[2:21:52] to the dentist before and go

[2:21:53] >> so the old subway building right there

[2:21:55] next to the gas station that's right

[2:21:59] to the sidewalks just out.

[2:22:01] >> Yep, you're right.

[2:22:02] >> Yeah, that's like

[2:22:03] >> there are a handful of buildings along

[2:22:05] there that are the same way.

[2:22:06] >> And I don't want to repeat that.

[2:22:07] >> No, it's a mess. It's okay. That's one

[2:22:09] just like

[2:22:11] >> but but we're quite a bit better at the

[2:22:12] Italian place even at 15. Yeah, it's

[2:22:15] much less offensive. But

[2:22:17] >> and I

[2:22:18] >> this would be even better than that.

[2:22:20] >> Assuming

[2:22:21] >> I don't know that it's better I that's

[2:22:22] what I'm saying. I don't know that it's

[2:22:24] better

[2:22:26] to have the bigger setback along Main

[2:22:28] Street.

[2:22:29] >> So you'd be Are you Would you be

[2:22:30] comfortable with uh

[2:22:31] >> I'd probably be comfortable with 10 feet

[2:22:33] from the sidewalk.

[2:22:34] >> Just still be much better than the old

[2:22:36] subway. I would not I would not be my

[2:22:38] vote would be no on that.

[2:22:39] >> Not on that.

[2:22:40] >> But it you know even the 15 like what's

[2:22:43] at that other building because that's a

[2:22:45] fairly recent building

[2:22:48] >> you know the subway is

[2:22:51] >> what would our standard

[2:22:52] >> it's almost as old as

[2:22:53] >> what would our standard buffer strip to

[2:22:55] the west be? It's right now it's 5T that

[2:22:57] >> it' be 10.

[2:22:58] >> Yeah.

[2:22:59] >> Do do we have any

[2:23:01] >> but it does have a masonry wall there.

[2:23:02] >> So our thought was it has to have a m a

[2:23:04] six foot masonry wall. So

[2:23:07] yeah, we're encroaching on the the

[2:23:10] buffer, but it would have a 6ft masonry

[2:23:11] wall as a

[2:23:12] >> but we always require a masonry wall

[2:23:14] between residential and a new business.

[2:23:17] So it's

[2:23:19] >> I think that the 10 feet it's not a

[2:23:22] magic number.

[2:23:24] >> But with five feet, it's hard to do

[2:23:26] trees. So that's the biggest reason for

[2:23:28] something more than five feet.

[2:23:31] Um

[2:23:31] >> trees along Main Street in the street.

[2:23:33] All right. Talking about the

[2:23:34] >> And the trees would be in the park

[2:23:35] strip.

[2:23:36] >> Uh in the strip that's between the

[2:23:39] parking spaces on the west and the house

[2:23:41] and

[2:23:41] >> on the back back of the parking lot.

[2:23:42] >> Oh, on the back of the parking lot.

[2:23:44] >> Some trees. I see

[2:23:45] >> those.

[2:23:46] >> Yeah,

[2:23:47] >> that's a little tight.

[2:23:49] >> Yeah.

[2:23:50] >> And does he do they need to is it part

[2:23:53] of in this zoning to have to part plant

[2:23:56] trees along Main Street?

[2:23:58] >> Uhhuh. Yeah. Now here I think we're

[2:24:01] probably going to be talking as much as

[2:24:02] anything about trying to just protect

[2:24:04] the ones that are there.

[2:24:05] >> Yeah, there's actually not any there

[2:24:07] right now.

[2:24:08] >> Oh yeah,

[2:24:08] >> on this property.

[2:24:09] >> Okay.

[2:24:10] >> So yeah,

[2:24:12] >> directly

[2:24:14] south. Yeah.

[2:24:18] » So that 20 foot setback from Main Street

[2:24:21] to 15 to match like the other building.

[2:24:24] Would that

[2:24:26] >> even give a stall? Would that give do

[2:24:28] anything for their parking?

[2:24:28] >> I think we actually had it laid out that

[2:24:30] way and it gave us a few extra stalls

[2:24:33] along the building just parallel parking

[2:24:35] stalls.

[2:24:39] » So that could be an option

[2:24:41] >> or it would allow you to make that 10

[2:24:43] >> or make that take the

[2:24:46] >> and put them back there. Right.

[2:24:50] And just to because I'm curious, this is

[2:24:53] an existing

[2:24:56] entrance to the building that's over

[2:24:58] it's just south of you. Correct.

[2:25:00] >> Correct.

[2:25:02] >> And there's no concerns with us with

[2:25:04] this proposal

[2:25:06] putting parking within I don't know what

[2:25:09] from the property line, but they're

[2:25:11] obviously backing into this

[2:25:15] » shared. So there there's already a

[2:25:17] shared access easement in place.

[2:25:19] >> There is already.

[2:25:20] >> Yeah.

[2:25:20] >> Okay.

[2:25:21] >> So

[2:25:29] » that's our feedback for what good it was

[2:25:31] worth.

[2:25:32] >> So is it something that would be

[2:25:34] >> I would say it's more hopeful than last

[2:25:35] time.

[2:25:35] >> Yeah, it was that is good feedback. Like

[2:25:38] I said, so if it's something, like I

[2:25:40] said, our biggest concern is we don't

[2:25:41] want to put more time and money into

[2:25:43] pursuing this if it's

[2:25:45] >> not feasible. But based on the feedback,

[2:25:47] it's feasible if we can work through

[2:25:49] some of the

[2:25:51] >> the issues, this concept is feasible.

[2:25:54] >> Yeah. Sometimes I mean that's a good

[2:25:56] point for everybody to be aware of if

[2:25:58] this is don't be nice because being nice

[2:26:00] when it's something you want is is money

[2:26:03] that the applicant's going to spend.

[2:26:04] >> It's actually really mean.

[2:26:06] >> Yeah, it is. you know, you're that's

[2:26:09] >> we try to avoid that.

[2:26:10] >> So, we're we're already about 10,000

[2:26:11] into plans on this. So, at this point,

[2:26:13] we'd just like to know, yes, keep

[2:26:15] pursuing it or

[2:26:17] >> go back to the drawing board. And

[2:26:19] >> I do like this a lot more. I'm with

[2:26:20] Todd, though. The setback on Main

[2:26:21] Street, I like it how it is in this. I

[2:26:24] >> even if I got it extra spots, I don't

[2:26:27] >> for me the the parking is I I feel like

[2:26:30] same feedback I think I gave you last

[2:26:32] time, maybe a little bit less feedback

[2:26:33] than I gave you last time, but it's I

[2:26:34] feel like it's a big project for the

[2:26:36] area. If we could get some accounts

[2:26:37] down, that would help me out and getting

[2:26:39] me to be on board with it. And then

[2:26:40] parking. So, I see those two issues that

[2:26:42] are a big concern to me.

[2:26:44] >> Okay.

[2:26:45] >> I think having carports I I I'm not hung

[2:26:48] up on having

[2:26:51] uh what are those called? Garages. I

[2:26:53] think the carports in that area of

[2:26:55] town's fine actually. Yeah.

[2:26:59] >> Uh yeah, that's just that parking thing.

[2:27:03] I think I think even with the parking I

[2:27:05] think parking is just going to be messy

[2:27:06] with what we're talking about down

[2:27:07] there. I don't think it

[2:27:10] when I say it's not a showstopper. I

[2:27:12] think I think we already maybe could

[2:27:14] just be wise wide open. This is going to

[2:27:15] be difficult. Other than that, I kind of

[2:27:17] like everything else you're doing here.

[2:27:18] I don't know that I would change down to

[2:27:20] 15, but I think you should probably

[2:27:22] leave 20 because I think if there's

[2:27:23] enough friction up here, that's probably

[2:27:25] a good place to go.

[2:27:27] >> Yeah. Okay.

[2:27:28] >> Yeah. Because then you you kind of cover

[2:27:31] us all tight.

[2:27:37] Okay.

[2:27:38] >> Appreciate it.

[2:27:38] >> Thank you.

[2:27:39] guys.

[2:27:42] » Staff, any other comments or are we okay

[2:27:46] to adjurnn?

[2:27:48] >> Uh, we don't have anything tonight, but

[2:27:49] we're happy to stick around as long as

[2:27:50] you want. Is there anything you guys

[2:27:51] want to chat about?

[2:27:52] >> Anything to go over? If not, I'll take a

[2:27:54] motion to adjurnn.

[2:27:55] >> I'll make a motion we adjourn.

[2:27:57] >> I'll second.

[2:27:57] >> Thank you. I have a motion, a second.

[2:27:59] All in favor? I

[2:28:02] We stand adjourned.

Spanish Fork Planning Commission | April 1, 2026

Transcript