[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.