Live stream not working in Chrome or Edge? Click Here
Start Position
OPEN SESSION -
MINUTES REVIEW AND APPROVAL:1    September21
MOTION: COMMISSIONER JENKINS MOTIONED TO APPROVE THE SEPTEMBERT,21 MINUTES AS RECORDED. COMMISSIONER BLACKBURN SECONDED THE MOTION. ROLL WENT AS FOLLOWS: CHAIR BRADY, VICE-CHAIR KNIGHTON, COMMISSIONER JENKINS, COMMISSIONER GUDMUNDSON, AND COMMISSIONER BLACKBURN VOTED AYE. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.     BUSINESS ITEMS1
Public Hearing – POSTPONED – Site Plan and Conditional Use Permit Application for a place of assembly (Church). The place of assembly will be located at2 N0 W. Parcel Number:914:0058. This property is located in the Hampton Subdivision and zoned SFD-15000. ·                This item and public hearing is being postponed due to a conflict with the applicant.      2
Public Hearing – Conditional Use Permit Application for Sunlight Bilingual Preschool. This home-based preschool will be located at W0 N. Parcel Number::971:0076. This property is located within the Hampton subdivision.
MOTION: COMMISSIONER JENKINS MOTIONED TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONER GUDMUNDSON SECONDED THE MOTION. ROLL WENT AS FOLLOWS: CHAIR BRADY, VICE-CHAIR KNIGHTON, COMMISSIONER JENKINS, COMMISSIONER GUDMUNDSON, AND COMMISSIONER BLACKBURN VOTED AYE. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
MOTION: COMMISSIONER GUDMUNDSON MOTIONED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONER BLACKBURN SECONDED THE MOTION. ROLL WENT AS FOLLOWS: CHAIR BRADY, VICE-CHAIR KNIGHTON, COMMISSIONER JENKINS, COMMISSIONER GUDMUNDSON, AND COMMISSIONER BLACKBURN VOTED AYE. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.   Planning Technician Cache Hancey presented the conditional use permit for the Planning Commission to review.
MOTION: COMMISSIONER JENKINS MOTIONED TO APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. COMMISSIONER GUDMUNDSON SECONDED THE MOTION. ROLL WENT AS FOLLOWS: CHAIR BRADY, COMMISSIONER JENKINS, COMMISSIONER GUDMUNDSON, AND COMMISSIONER BLACKBURN VOTED AYE. VICE-CHAIR KNIGHTON RECUSED HIMSELF FROM THE VOTE. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.  3
Public Hearing – Zoning Text Amendment regarding Section.14.2.08 Development Standards in the Vineyard Special Purpose Zoning District; modifying the language to increase  the permitted number of residential units and density located within the regional mixed use zoning district. Ordinance Number21-14.
MOTION: COMMISSIONER JENKINS MOTIONED TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONER BLACKBURN SECONDED THE MOTION. ROLL WENT AS FOLLOWS: CHAIR BRADY, VICE-CHAIR KNIGHTON, COMMISSIONER JENKINS, COMMISSIONER GUDMUNDSON, AND COMMISSIONER BLACKBURN VOTED AYE. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.   Residents David Lauret, Mardi Sifuentes, Claudia Lauret, Julie Gray, and Kelby Daytowl made comments regarding the zoning text amendment.
MOTION: COMMISSIONER BLACKBURN MOTIONED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONER GUDMUNDSON SECONDED THE MOTION. ROLL WENT AS FOLLOWS: CHAIR BRADY, VICE-CHAIR KNIGHTON, COMMISSIONER JENKINS, COMMISSIONER GUDMUNDSON, AND COMMISSIONER BLACKBURN VOTED AYE. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.   Chair Brady asked for clarification regarding the density and scope of the potential development. Jason Boal with Snell & Wilmer, representing the developer, clarified that this text amendment would not necessarily allow for increased density, it would allow the property owners to discuss a development agreement with the city. Commissioner Knighton and Brady asked for an update as to the connection of0 north to Geneva Road.
MOTION: COMMISSIONER JENKINS MOTIONED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT WITH THE CONDITIONS THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY ANSWERS ALL LEGAL QUESTIONS REGARDING POTENTIAL LITIGATION, PRESCEDENT SET BY THIS APPROVAL, AND WHAT OPTIONS THE CITY HAS TO ONCE A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT HAS BEEN SIGNED. COMMISSIONER BLACKBURN SECONDED THE MOTION. ROLL WENT AS FOLLOWS: VICE-CHAIR KNIGHTON, COMMISSIONER JENKINS, COMMISSIONER GUDMUNDSON, AND COMMISSIONER BLACKBURN VOTED AYE. CHAIR BRADY VOTED NAH. THE MOTION PASSED.     WORK SESSION1    Utah State Ombudsman Training Jordan Cullimore with the Office of the Property Rights Ombudsman gave a training to the Planning Commission.     COMMISSION MEMBERS’ REPORTS AND EX PARTE DISCUSSION DISCLOSURE
Commissioner Welch reported that the childrens library will be closed for the winter. She also gave a report about the babysitting training that the city initiated with the Sheriff’s Department. Commissioner Rassmussen gave a report about the community garden wrapping up it’s season. Community Development Director Morgan Brim reported that a waterfront design meeting would be held in the coming weeks.   ADJOURNMENT   MINUTES CERTIFIED CORRECT ON:  November,21 CERTIFIED BY:   /s/ Cache Hancey                          Cache Hancye, Planning Technician
Welcome everybody. 00:00:01
Today is October 6th and this is the Vineyard Planning Commission meeting. We will start. Tim Blackburn will give us an 00:00:03
invocation. Thank you. 00:00:08
Our Father in heaven, we're very thankful this evening for this opportunity that we have to come in this capacity. 00:00:15
As a Planning Commission with citizens of the community, we're grateful for where we live. 00:00:21
For those who have provided it to us, and we're grateful to live in a nation with laws and orderly procedures that allow us to 00:00:28
conduct businesses, we would like to do it to better our community. 00:00:33
We pray for Thy blessings to be with us this evening and all that we do. We pray for the leaders of this community and of the 00:00:40
state and of the nation. 00:00:44
We are mindful, Father in heaven, of all of our first responders, wherever they are, and pray for them as well. And these things 00:00:49
we asked before. And thank thee for the name of Jesus Christ, Amen. Thank you, Tim. All right, it's good to see people here. 00:00:56
Usually people don't come to the Planning Commission meetings, but it's awesome to see you guys here. 00:01:03
So we're going to go into the open, open session. What this means is you guys can come up to the pulpit and if you have something 00:01:10
to bring before the Planning Commission and you have 3 minutes to make your comments. 00:01:16
If you are commenting on something, which I assume you guys are mostly here for the zoning text amendment, just wait until we get 00:01:24
into that part of the section. But if you have any other comments, something not regarding something on the agenda, then how's the 00:01:32
time to make your comments? And Bryce, just for the record, Amber Rasmussen is on. So she's in attendance via Zoom. Cool. 00:01:40
All right. 00:01:49
Nobody all right. 00:01:52
What? 00:01:56
No, you're not yet. 00:01:58
Cool. So if nobody has any comments, we're going to move right into the minutes for review and approval for September 1st and real 00:02:01
quick, I know that. 00:02:05
There was one change that needed to be made. Shannon, I think was on there, but it should have been Jessica. 00:02:11
Cool. So if that if that change is made, I'll make a motion that we approve. 00:02:21
The September 1st, 2021 minutes. I second the motion. All in favor. Aye, all right, passes. So moving on to business items. Public 00:02:28
hearing for item 4.1 was postponed then. 00:02:34
Yeah, it was so. 00:02:42
The LDS Church asked us to postpone that for their conditional use permit pipeline. OK, So do we need to make any kind of motion 00:02:44
to postpone it or? Yeah, it doesn't really need need need a motion. We're going to have to renotice anyway, and so you can just go 00:02:51
ahead and move on. Cool. All right, we'll move directly on to item 4.2, Public hearing of a conditional use permit application for 00:02:57
Sunlight Bilingual Preschool. 00:03:04
And with this, do I need to open it up for a public comment or should I do that just after we've explained it or it's completely 00:03:18
up to you? I mean, you can do presentations and then open public comment or public hearing. 00:03:23
All right, so I'll be presenting this. 00:03:31
So as you can see on the the board there, the second conditional use permit for the Sunlight Bilingual Preschool will be located 00:03:35
at 73 W, 160 N in the Hampton subdivisions. I don't know if the applicants are here. If you want to come up to the podium that 00:03:41
way. It's the Planning Commission does have a question for you, you can answer them. 00:03:47
So the applicants are Allison McGrath and Georgia Forest. 00:04:00
So Allison McGrath, this is going to be in her basement of her house. 00:04:05
It it fits the zoning and everything like that. And then Georgia Porsche will be the the instructor for the the program. 00:04:12
Scrolling down to the the narrative. 00:04:22
OK, so they are going to have children between the ages of three to six. They're going to provide Spanish yoga, academic services 00:04:27
and help prepare children for immersion programs in in elementary schools. They'll have two sessions, one from 9:00 AM to 11:30 AM 00:04:34
that should say AM. 00:04:40
Monday through Friday in the second session from 12:30 PM to 3:00 PM. 00:04:49
Scroll down. 00:04:55
OK, here's a site plan. You might want to zoom out on that. 00:04:59
So this is something that we might need to have a little bit more clarification on, but the site plan shows. 00:05:04
Oh yeah, there you go. 00:05:14
So everything highlighted in the bottom keep going down if you can. 00:05:16
OK there you go. Everything highlighted in the bottom there labeled driveway is improved surface for parking for the the 00:05:22
preschool. Their plan is to instruct the parents on a drop off and a pick up time. They will park in the driveway and then the 00:05:29
children will be escorted to the through the basement entrance on the the left side there down into the classroom there is a 00:05:36
playground area and the backyard is all fenced in. They did have. 00:05:44
Fire inspection by our fire Marshall and he provided them with an exit or an emergency exit protocol. 00:05:51
All right. 00:06:03
If you want to Scroll down South, this right here just shows the actual area of the preschool that falls within our code. They'd 00:06:04
be allowed to have up to 1008 and 87 square feet and they they said it 659. 00:06:11
And you can see the staircase there on the left side. 00:06:19
That's gonna serve the main entrance and exit. Do you, when you have that emergency plan created with the fire Marshall, did they 00:06:22
address like an emergency window or another means of egress if there is a stair rail outside of the window? 00:06:30
OK, OK. 00:06:39
So yeah, that's a brief summary of their their business. We do have a few conditions of approval. The first one is that the 00:06:45
applicant is subject to federal, state and local laws. The second is the applicant will finish any requirements to obtain a 00:06:51
business license. There's a little bit of a miscommunication and we thought it was already submitted and it wasn't, so that 00:06:57
they're working on getting that submitted. 00:07:02
OK. So it's under review now. 00:07:09
OK. 00:07:13
And then the third one is, is a question that we're going to have to work with the Planning Commission. What our code says is that 00:07:14
for an in home occupation, the owner of the property has to be involved in the business. It does not express how they have to be 00:07:20
involved. So as Alison McGrath is not the owner of the business, we need a determination of how involved she needs to be in the 00:07:27
business before the conditional use permit could be. 00:07:33
Given. 00:07:40
So. 00:07:43
All right. Thank you. Do you guys have any questions? 00:07:45
We can open up. Sure. Yeah, let's open it up to a public hearing. I'll make a motion to open the public hearing. Second, all in 00:07:50
favor. 00:07:54
All right, So if the public has any questions, feel free to raise your hand and then if we call on you, you can come up and make a 00:07:59
comment at the podium. 00:08:02
You guys have any? 00:08:07
Well, regarding that last, that last point about the involvement. 00:08:10
I would think that the owner of the home having her basement being utilized for that would be involvement enough in my mind. I 00:08:15
think she would be very on top of what's going on in her own home there, so. 00:08:21
That's yeah. So that is not a concern of mine in this particular instance, but thanks for bringing that up. I think that is 00:08:30
important. Yeah, that's just me. I don't know if anyone else has other comments there. Yeah, I agree. It's an interesting thing to 00:08:35
think about. 00:08:40
Would be, I guess, similar to renting out a space just to have somebody have an office in your house? I guess which? 00:08:46
I don't see that really being as long as it's not. 00:08:52
Something that affects the other people and I don't see it being an issue after going through the, I think we did a preschool two 00:08:57
weeks ago, 4 weeks ago, whatever it was. But I feel like we've got a pretty good process down within the city to ensure that there 00:09:02
is a parking, traffic plan, Firescape, all that. So as long as they've gone through those same steps that we did with the previous 00:09:08
ones, I feel comfortable with that as well. 00:09:14
So a couple of questions. How many you have two sessions, one in the morning, one afternoon, How many students per session and how 00:09:21
many vehicles per session would be coming and dropping off and picking up and so on? 00:09:28
We have 7 students per session and as far as vehicles. 00:09:35
As of right now for kids, learn gold. 00:09:47
I believe. 00:09:51
25 of the students. Five of the seven students who are enrolled are my current members. 00:09:54
So they're within walking distance? Yeah, next door and then three houses across the street. 00:09:59
I probably drive. I drive. 00:10:04
I have an approval space for seven. 00:10:09
Okay. 00:10:13
And then relative to the ownership of the business, the owner has other schools that she owns and where are they? 00:10:15
Yeah, I own this school in Oren and this is our third year. 00:10:25
It means everything's under, you know, small and lighting and everything, and these things are great. 00:10:32
And a second, OK. 00:10:38
Same name. 00:10:42
OK. 00:10:44
All right. Any other questions or motion to close public hearing? 00:10:48
Motion to close public hearing. I second it all in favor. 00:10:53
All right. Do I have a motion on this? 00:10:56
Yeah, I, I moved to approve the conditional use permit for the Sunlight Bilingual Preschool with the conditions that we addressed 00:11:01
before. 00:11:06
Right. And with those conditions, we need to get more specific about the involvement requirements set forth by Planning Commission 00:11:11
on that third condition there. 00:11:15
Should you just state that the requirement is that it's it's fine as long if it's in your home that's sufficient enough 00:11:22
involvement for for conditions permit? 00:11:27
Yeah, you want to really explain a little bit more the good condition 3 like what what are you trying to so I I can do that. So, 00:11:34
so the reason that that we looked into this more is because in the in home occupations in our code, we're we're concerned about 00:11:41
increased parking by staff. So, you know, we wouldn't want a a commercial use in somebody's basement where they had full cars 00:11:49
parking there for their employees. So in this case, if they they continue with their. 00:11:56
Students, they only need to have one employee on site at all times according to state law. And so they're they're within that 00:12:04
with, with Georgia being the instructor. However, if they were to go over that number, I think it's eight or more, they would have 00:12:09
to have a second instructor and at that point. 00:12:14
We they could be bringing in another employee, which then would be against our code. So that's the biggest thing we were concerned 00:12:21
about is that there would only be one off site employee visiting the property. OK, so I think it was as long as they're meeting 00:12:26
our code with just one. 00:12:31
Yeah, there. And then I don't think we have an issue with it. If they want to go up to 8 or more and have a second employee there, 00:12:37
I think maybe they would need to come back and then we need to kind of figure that out. Yeah, that that would be an amendment to 00:12:42
the conditional use permit. So they definitely would have to come back before that. So I don't think we need to make any 00:12:48
amendments right now, just as long as they're meeting our current code, so. 00:12:53
So with Anthony's motion, that's that's good as is, right? Cool. Do I have a second? 00:13:00
I'll second that. All in favor, aye. All right, Thank you. 00:13:07
We'd love to have you guys and just to just to clarify on that, Jeff Knight and recused himself from that because he has kids that 00:13:17
go to the preschool. So OK, on to 4.3. The reason I assume most of you guys are here, public hearing for zoning text amendment 00:13:25
regarding section 15.14 point 2.08 development standards. 00:13:33
In the Vineyard special purpose zoning district, modifying the language to increase the permitted number of residential units and 00:13:41
density located within the regional mixed-use zoning district. All right. 00:13:47
Hey, my name is Brian Perez. I'm one of the planners here at sea. We do have the applicant, Jason Bull, who is here. He's going to 00:13:56
have the opportunity to answer some of your questions and concerns after my brief presentation. What I'm going to do is this kind 00:14:04
of explain a little bit of background on the regional mixed-use zoning district, what it it's originally intended to accomplish. 00:14:12
And and how that relates to this project? 00:14:21
So the the regional mixed-use district is about 192 acres. It's South of what we call the Forge zoning district. It's to the east 00:14:25
of Mill Road and. 00:14:33
On the West side of of Geneva. So it's this light tan colored area that you see on that map. This area was intended to provide. 00:14:43
Horizontal and vertical mixed uses or development pattern that facilitates a mixing of uses. And so when we talk about mixing of 00:14:56
uses is it's not just commercial or not just residential, it's intend to combine those in a in a way that they work together 00:15:02
cohesively and that can be side by side uses or when they're on top of each other. So sometimes you can have ground floor retail 00:15:09
and then above you'll have office space or residential space. 00:15:16
The residential densities. 00:15:24
Was intended to promote day and nighttime activities such as entertainment, restaurants, employment and a variety of services. 00:15:26
This area was intended to limit stand alone residential uses. 00:15:35
And establish a traditional development pattern such as one that provides various housing types, mixed uses as we mentioned, 00:15:39
active centers, a walkable design and transit oriented. So easy for, for for multiple ways of getting around. 00:15:47
It was intended to increase pedestrian scale in a sense of vibrancy. 00:15:57
The general plan also talks about the regional mixed-use and and this map is the land use map within the general plan and it it 00:16:03
shows the red outline is the the RMU. So there are these these are all taken from pages within the general plan. The army is 00:16:10
planned for over 2000 housing units. 00:16:18
Intend to encourage compact dance, mixed-use and pedestrian oriented development. Encourage development that supports alternative 00:16:26
modes of transportation. 00:16:31
Provide opportunities for efficient parking solutions for existing and future developments. The applicant will speak to that 00:16:36
regard later on on on their parking and. 00:16:42
Again, just focus on that pedestrian oriented development. 00:16:49
So the applicants are snow and warmer. 00:16:57
And this is what they're actually in. As a part of the zoning text amendment through a development agreement, the applicant is 00:17:03
proposing to increase residential density from 26 units per acre to 85 units per acre only within the RMU district. So this is 00:17:11
never intended to be a citywide. It's not going to affect any other zoning districts outside of the RMU. So none of the other 00:17:18
single family developments. 00:17:25
Zoning areas are affected as a part of this proposal. 00:17:33
They also intend to increase the number of residential units to 2350. The currently existing residential units are 2009 and so 00:17:38
it'd be a it'd be a jump of a of 341 residential units. 00:17:47
So I'm going to a quick question for you clarifying this. Can you make a distinguishing? 00:17:56
Between a development agreement and changing a zone and why this would be pursued versus the zone change, I think that's probably 00:18:05
getting ahead of some of the questions for sure. I'm actually going to let answer that question has seen this before. 00:18:12
I could carry away there the development agreement is, it's just that it's agreement between the city and the. 00:18:23
The applicant for development. And So what it does, it allows the city to have a higher level of control and to be able to 00:18:30
negotiate certain things. And you'll see, I mean, there's development agreements for all sorts of things, but it's a way for the 00:18:37
City Council to also weigh in and to negotiate in terms of of a development. And so anyone wanting to exercise the 341 units above 00:18:45
the cap would need to go through that development agreement process. It just provides the Planning Commission kind of the 1st. 00:18:52
And then it goes to the City Council, who ultimately would either approve or deny and it would be within a written development 00:19:00
agreement that would get recorded with the county. OK, so that's and then the yeah. And so there's there's different ways with 00:19:08
land use, like anything, you could get kind of to the same goal and you know, from the developed developer standpoint by going 00:19:15
through different processes. The other method that that they potentially take is even just a reason or a rezone or a. 00:19:22
Of a zoning district to accommodate that use. That's what the Forge did. That's why it's purple, that color up there. The Forge is 00:19:30
part of the RMU. About six years ago they they came through for a special purpose zoning district. The applicant in this instance 00:19:36
has, instead of creating their other own zoning district, they're proposing amending the current RMU with the cap and the 00:19:42
requirements of the development agreement. 00:19:49
So that's, that's the route they decided to take. And Morgan, could you maybe review history for us a little bit when the RMU was 00:19:55
created and so that people understand this has been around for a while and things like that? Yeah. The Army has been at the exact 00:20:02
date. I mean, we have it, we we can pull that pretty easy from from UD code online. If you click on it, it gives you the history 00:20:08
of all the ordinances approximately. Yeah. I, I, well, I believe it was. 00:20:14
Like 2011, 2012. So this has been in existence for 9 or 10 years. 00:20:21
Right, right. It's been yeah, yeah, I mean, and as you can tell, it's, it's pretty much built out and there's, there's a couple 00:20:27
paths left. Yogi is probably the most significant. And then like the retail Geneva Rd. furnished stuff, but it's been around for a 00:20:33
while and all those other businesses that are there now were developed under the RMU. They were yeah. And we kind of the the 00:20:39
purpose that Brian covered and. 00:20:45
If you're going to cover this, I'm sorry Brian, but like the point of the of the RMU was to create up like a village. 00:20:51
In that that was very walkable. You had mixed uses, you had flats above, you know, retail, you know, with, you know, central open 00:20:57
space areas. But the code didn't provide provisions to actually require that. It allowed for mixing uses, but didn't didn't 00:21:05
require it. And so that's why you see basically a single use format, you know, a very POD style development where each apartment 00:21:12
is its own thing and then you have Edgewater and then the retail district. They're all kind of separate uses. 00:21:19
Brian kind of talked about the horizontal mixing of uses. They've done that a little bit. There's you could, you know, kind of 00:21:27
walk to to to work. But it's not a, it's not, it didn't perform as it was kind of envisioned in 2000 and 10/12. It was 2009, that 00:21:34
was 2009. So there are existing residences within the existing RMU. Yeah, yeah. So you have 2009 right now. There's I think 00:21:42
technically you could say 2010. 00:21:49
We do have one unit that is a model home that that that was allowed to stay as a model. 00:21:57
For people to walk through. I'm in one of the apartments, but yeah, 2009 occupy occupied or occupiable units. And do you have any 00:22:02
idea how many people live in those 2000 units we've done. So that's what's tough to you because college kids don't report census 00:22:10
data. They should, they don't. And and they typically if they do, they list their address, where their parents are at. So our 00:22:17
population, if you look at the census is, I mean, we're wet well above what is that it's saying 12,000. 00:22:25
Honored, we think we're closer in the range of you know, 17 to 20,000. So per unit it's, it really depends, it's hard to know the 00:22:32
exact number because we do have investors that come in and they'll, they'll try to lease out to students per bedroom. And so we've 00:22:40
done a lot of code enforcement. Cash has been great at trying to crack down on, on the, the occupancy issues that we've had. But 00:22:47
in some of the analysis we've done, we think it's anywhere from like a 3.5 to a four per unit single family goes up. 00:22:55
Slightly, but your town home and apartment product still and that's actually quite, quite a lot compared to if you're like New 00:23:02
York or somewhere like that where you might just have one person when the existing residences that are there now you can have 6 or 00:23:09
7000 people living there. Is that what the 2000, I bet 2000 units you're probably in six to seven. OK. Yeah, that's helpful. Thank 00:23:15
you. 00:23:21
Thanks. Are there any other questions? 00:23:30
OK. If they're right, we'll we'll have some time for the applicant to have the information that he would like to present, if any. 00:23:33
I do have a copy of PowerPoint. 00:23:45
There's a. There's enough for each. 00:23:51
I'll go through this as you indicate. Yeah. So we anything, we started the game. 00:24:07
Can you just figure out your name real quick? So my name is Jason Ball. I'm with Helen Wilmer. We have submitted this application 00:24:13
to one of our clients. We're excited about the opportunity to be here. I'm really excited for the opportunity to engage with the 00:24:20
public this evening and help understand what this proposal is and why it is we're here. 00:24:27
So if we can go to the first, I guess the first point of business, Brian kind of talked about this. So this evening we want to 00:24:34
talk about this code text amendment simply that's that's why we're here. We are proposing a modification to the land use code. 00:24:42
Vineyard code allows these types of amendments to be made, how the process works and it's presented in the Planning and Zoning 00:24:49
Commission. There's a public hearing and then the recommendation is made to the City Council. 00:24:56
As we all know or the land use code, it's a living breathing document that as we as cities grow and experience new and different 00:25:05
things that the code changes and and new things are added and implemented. And so that's why we're here is to present this 00:25:12
proposal for amendment to the land use code. 00:25:18
And to Brink, I talked about this about what is being proposed one of the we are proposing to just to add really Section 3. 00:25:27
In this regarding residential units, so we're not asking for any entitlements for any property. We're asking for the opportunity 00:25:39
to incorporate a tool for the Planning Commission and the City Council to review a project and then enter into an agreement if 00:25:48
that project meets the needs and the vision of the city. And I think one of the things important things to understand. 00:25:57
And Morgan mentioned this, so there is a there's a cap in the RMU district that's incorporated into the code. 00:26:06
You are at that cap. So the majority of the RMU property is already developed. However, there are some pieces that are not 00:26:13
developed yet. And so if any residential units are to happen in that in the Army district, a Co text amendment is needed. And so 00:26:21
this is one of the ways rather than putting an artificial cap in there, we're proposing to put in the requirement to negotiate a 00:26:28
development agreement so that again Planning Commission and City Council have the opportunity to. 00:26:36
View the project and then to enter into that agreement and ultimately approve the project. 00:26:43
Next one. So as was mentioned before the RMU district, it is that that tan color there on the east side, the southeast side of the 00:26:51
city. I think one of the important things to understand about the R&U district really is, and this is the purpose statement from 00:26:58
the code is that last sentence where it says this zoning designation recognizes that adherence to traditional pattern development 00:27:05
standards would preclude the application of a more flexible approach. 00:27:12
So in essence, the purpose of the RMU district is as Morgan mentioned, was to allow mix a mix of uses and a flexible approach. And 00:27:19
what we are proposing is adding a tool for the city to use in accomplishing that flexible approach. 00:27:27
The next one here, again, I just kind of zoomed in. As you can see, most of the area within the RMU is already developed. So we 00:27:37
are talking about a small portion. We're not talking about removing limits of density across the city. We're in essence talking 00:27:44
about 341 units in the RMU district is what we're talking about. 00:27:52
So what benefits come from this amendment in this approach, As was mentioned, we could have applied for a zone zoning map 00:28:03
amendment to change the zone. The cap that's in place would have been removed. You wouldn't have the cap if we were to go through 00:28:09
the zoning amendment to a different zone. 00:28:15
You didn't have the opportunity to review the application through the development agreement process. So not only is there to the 00:28:23
development agreement, but there's also site plan approval. 00:28:27
And so, in essence, what? 00:28:32
This proposal is doing is we are adding another layer of review to the process than some of the other approaches that we could 00:28:34
have taken. 00:28:39
It does provide a way to ensure the mix of uses because it will be reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council so we can 00:28:45
you can ensure that the type of project, the type of development that's going in there does fit the vision of the city. 00:28:53
So I think we've kind of talked about the other points. You know, the area is largely developed and I think that's important to 00:29:03
note that because the RMU has been largely developed, there's some lessons that have been learned. 00:29:09
Residential units, it's hit its cap and so it's worth taking a look at and making some modifications. And rather than rewriting a 00:29:17
whole new code, this is a simple way to incorporate those lessons learned and adjust so that a future project, as I said, can meet 00:29:23
the vision of the city. 00:29:29
So and that is in essence that's that's what I have. 00:29:37
That's what I presented. You know, we. 00:29:42
Are really, we're just proposing the text amendment site plan approval and the negotiation of that development agreement would 00:29:45
come at the time, you know, when and if this ordinance is passed, then you we would come back with that development agreement to 00:29:52
to hash out the details of what a specific development would look like. Right now we're just talking about the tool and asking for 00:29:58
the ability to utilize this tool. 00:30:05
So we can come back. 00:30:12
Right. Cool. Thank you. Cool. Thanks. So I think right now I want to open it up to public comments. With public comments, you can 00:30:14
ask questions. We're not going to answer your questions probably, but we'll probably ask your questions. So you have 3 minutes for 00:30:22
public comment. I'm going to write down any, any questions that you have so that we can ask those questions. 00:30:29
This is stuff that we're seeing. 00:30:38
Also, not for the first time, we've been seeing it probably since it's been put on the agenda, about a week and a half. So we have 00:30:43
a lot of questions as well, but we want to make sure that everybody's questions are answered. So if you have a public comment, 00:30:49
again, we're not going to answer your question directly right now. You have 3 minutes to make your comments, which I encourage you 00:30:55
to make comments. And again, I will write down your questions so that we can ask them. 00:31:00
And yeah, as you come to the podium, please state your name and which neighborhood you you live in. So I make a motion to open the 00:31:08
public hearing. Do I have a second? I second it all in taper. And also I can track your time if you want. 00:31:15
Hi, it's David, Lorraine. 00:31:29
Resident of Holy Rd. 00:31:32
So I would I have a couple of questions. 00:31:34
As I understand it, using this development agreement process will essentially bypass public hearings, the only more flexible for 00:31:39
the city because they don't have to worry about what the citizens think. 00:31:45
They used to what they want. 00:31:51
But it seems to me that but when you bypass those kinds of public hearings, it, it, it violates the trust the city has with the 00:31:53
people, among other things. So that was that's one thing. So I want to make sure that indeed that's what's happening. It was 00:31:59
explained to me earlier that that was the case. So I need to confirm that that's really happening. The development agreement 00:32:05
process will bypass the. 00:32:11
Public hearings beyond the public hearing that we're in right now. Beyond the one, yeah. 00:32:18
I mean when you, when you go to, when you go to. 00:32:24
Create the agreement with the developer. 00:32:26
You wouldn't need to approve that development agreement with the public and with that development agreement will not go through a 00:32:29
public hearing process. 00:32:33
So just to clarify, and I guess we'll ask this right now just to so that we're all on the same page, say we approve this this 00:32:37
development agreement and the developer comes in with a plan. It doesn't that specific plan doesn't need to have a public hearing 00:32:44
correct for yeah, they do for development agreement part of the public hearing before the Planning Commission and the City 00:32:52
Council. So it's a it's a much more elevated form of of process because the site plan doesn't and so. 00:32:59
To answer this question, they would go through Planning Commission, City Council with a public hearing. If there was a site plan, 00:33:07
they people could provide comment, but it's not a legal requirement. OK, so if a plan was that clarifies that. Thank you. That's 00:33:14
question one. Raising the limit 85 units per acre. 00:33:21
Umm, what's that eight stories and what's gonna take to do that? That's a pretty, pretty densely populated area. So that that's 00:33:29
that's an issue that we would worry about. I, I, if you. 00:33:36
If you weren't going for the whole RMU, it's looking for one, one particular project that would that might be a little easier. But 00:33:44
what this process will do is it'll, it'll open up that limit to the entire area. There's still, there's still more area to develop 00:33:49
over there besides what will be developed for this project. 00:33:54
And so it seems to me that if we can limit that to that one project that you think is appropriate, that might be more wise than 00:34:00
than saying, let's change the the ceiling on the whole RMU. 00:34:06
So that that's that's one thing, another thing. 00:34:13
It's it's kind of slippery slope. Also, when you, when you start approving, you know, a higher density for one project, when you 00:34:17
another person comes in, like in the city center area comes in, say, well, I'd like to change the, the mix here. So I have more, 00:34:25
you know, more housing and less business than than you know, the required. Why can't I do that? You did it over here. Why can't we 00:34:32
do it over there? That's another issue. I, I, I would think that maybe it it. 00:34:39
Precedent for us that we don't really mean what we say in our code. 00:34:46
The I know developers probably don't look at this way, but I think citizens do to a large degree that the zoning codes provide a 00:34:53
contract the city makes with the residents. When we come and move in here, we expect things to happen according to that code. 00:35:00
We all, we view it as our protection against over development. 00:35:08
And so whenever that that code is changed, you kind of violate that trust with the citizenry to some degree. Hey, your, your time 00:35:14
is up. I'm sorry, like not to do that. Thank you so much. 00:35:20
Have any other comments? 00:35:30
Yeah. And Chair, if you want, instead of addressing everyone that speaks, I can make some notes of questions that come up and then 00:35:34
we can staff and respond at the end. Yeah, that's what I was hoping to do. Mine is just a quick question from the Maples 00:35:40
community. 00:35:46
I'm wondering. 00:35:53
The RMU is also categorized for Vineyard downtown, right? 00:35:56
It's not Vineyard downtown. The zoning isn't RU. What is it categorized? 00:36:01
Downtown special purpose, District special purpose? I think that was my own question. Cool. 00:36:10
Claudia Loray, Holdaway Rd. 00:36:19
I do agree. 00:36:24
With data that the precedents that we set are really important. 00:36:26
And. 00:36:35
Since I've moved here, I have had word of mouth from, you know, the older generation of the Planning Commission and the City 00:36:38
Council that have have said, well, they promised this or they promised that or they promised another thing and. 00:36:49
For those reasons, I think it's really, really important that we are specific and that we. 00:37:02
Ensure that we are not increasing. 00:37:12
Occupancy residency without a really good reason. I came from work and had to wait for two signals to get through on Mill Rd. to 00:37:18
turn left onto center to come over here and that was like at 6:00 which to me is the tail end of of rush hour. 00:37:30
So adding. 00:37:43
Anymore. 00:37:46
Rooftops. 00:37:49
I just don't understand why we would entertain that. 00:37:51
Are is this? I don't see where is this the Golf Club? 00:37:56
People or are they, are you the Golf Club people? OK. And I think I've heard a lot of positive feedback from residents about Golf 00:38:04
Club, but we need to make sure we're not selling. 00:38:11
That your citizens out by you know, you yourselves, you the big entity have talked about. 00:38:20
Contractors who have come in and and not built the playground because they ran out of money or whatever it is. So you've made 00:38:30
adjustments so that those contractors were held accountable and this. 00:38:37
This seems like it may need a little bit more attention to make sure that we're not just taking care of the whole of the western 00:38:44
United States by building homes for them or occupancies. I I just think this needs more work. 00:38:57
Than what I read. 00:39:11
So the big question would be why? 00:39:14
Why? Thank you. 00:39:18
That's actually the first thing I've written on my paper, so here's why. 00:39:21
All right. Any other any other public comments, go ahead. 00:39:26
Julie Gray at the Villas in Water's Edge, the 55 plus community and so hoping that I can represent them well. Randy Gray, my 00:39:29
husband. 00:39:36
Was not able to be here tonight but we sat down together and talked to other people in the villas and we have these following 00:39:45
questions and I have a copy that I will give to whomever you would like. 00:39:52
OK, All right. We moved into this master planned community because we believed in their vision. 00:40:00
And it did not entail for us such high density. So we are against this increase and we feel like our community is changing from 00:40:09
what that original community was created for. 00:40:18
Now some of these people that live here. 00:40:29
Are going to be gone in a year, but trust me, us in the village will probably stay here until we're six feet under. So we care 00:40:32
about this community and we are invested. 00:40:39
Will the city benefit from the property taxes and sales taxes? 00:40:49
Does the plan design? How much of this complex constitutes Ramples or ownership? 00:40:57
If it is ownership, will they be allowed to do air and bees and rent that out on a daily basis? 00:41:07
As it relates to parking, which is the biggest problem in our city, I would hope you would put so much pressure on these 00:41:15
developers that we don't have to live with the excessive feeling of parking spots and we live over by the high density and we 00:41:24
know. 00:41:32
That this is a problem and I think as a Planning Commission you should address this. 00:41:41
And the existing parking for the businesses over there and the megaplex. 00:41:49
Are these renters or owners going to steal that parking area to go to the businesses? Are they going to be limited in parking 00:41:55
there? It's already somewhat chaotic, especially at lunchtime. You can't get in and out of that exit by Swig. My favorite. And 00:42:03
then also. 00:42:11
We have believed in the plan of being able to have a wonderful walking city. 00:42:21
And the sustainability of this and I just see people walking and it worries me parked, walking through the parking lots and not 00:42:29
having a safe place to go to these businesses. And so it is really important to me that we are of walking community. 00:42:39
Thank you and I appreciate your time and your devotion. Thank you so much, Julie. 00:42:50
Do you have any other comments? 00:42:56
Hi, my name is Kelby Gatrell. We live in the Cottonwoods. Actually to throw a ball and hit my house from here. I just moved in not 00:43:11
too long ago, wife and kid. So couple questions and I think just kind of general concerns that I've heard from other members of 00:43:18
the community, mostly on like Facebook page and stuff. I don't understand exactly what the difference is going to be. I mean, I 00:43:25
try to conceptualize like an additional 300 units. I think one thing I would like to see is, OK, here's the plan currently. 00:43:33
Not just numbers, but like, hey, like let me visualize it because that helps me understand like some of the nuances. And then 00:43:40
here's what the plan will be. Because if it's like, oh, hey, you know, it's just like another level on an apartment complex or 00:43:46
it's an additional apartment building, maybe it's not that big of a deal. I think it was like an additional 300 units times, you 00:43:52
know, every person in there is going to have their own car. Traffic is a concern as the nice young lady here mentioned. 00:43:59
You know that Center Street or that that Geneva and Mill Rd. 00:44:06
A little bit tough. And then the other concern was Kay parking. I know that area I've heard for years parking is kind of a a 00:44:12
disaster in that area. So that's obviously also a concern that I had and then a concern, you know, bleeding over into that 00:44:18
commercial parking space as well. Seems like kind of a tight area. Not a ton of parking that I've seen. Of course, I didn't get a 00:44:25
chance to go over and look at it myself, but just kind of general concern. 00:44:31
Really excited about the top golf, but I can imagine, hey, we're going to be getting a lot of people coming from. 00:44:39
Surrounding cities and areas to the top Gulf guarantee that. But you know, yes, each unit might have their own designated parking 00:44:44
spot, but you know, visitors, what about visitor parking for these additional units? Will that be sufficient? You know, is there 00:44:50
going to be a parking structure with dedicated spots for each individual bedroom and each of those units? So I think for me and 00:44:56
maybe a lot of other people in the area, I'd, I'd love to like see some of those details because in all reality, like I understand 00:45:01
we're really short. 00:45:07
On housing units, I'm actually a huge fan of the basement apartments and in general, I think that where you can stack them up and 00:45:14
do the higher density, you know, unpopular opinion. I actually think that you probably should so that it alleviates pressure in 00:45:20
other areas where it's designated as lower density. So I'm, I'm not 100% opposed to it. I do understand the, the, the concern 00:45:27
about the precedence, especially because I'll be living here for a long, long time. 00:45:33
6 feet under is a long ways away. 00:45:41
Hopefully cross our fingers, but you know, so I do recognize the precedents and you know, I would hate for, you know, there to be 00:45:43
decisions made without public feedback. And and again, I'm not I'm not like 100% opposed because like higher density, I'm not 00:45:49
necessarily scared of that as long as it's limited specifically in a spot and all those other things to plan for. And then again, 00:45:55
the the parking. 00:46:02
Other question would be, do we have any plan for alleviating any of the traffic across? 00:46:08
Geneva got some ideas and talked about that offline, but your, your, your, your times. Thank you. Awesome. Thank you. 00:46:14
Anymore. Anymore comments from the public? 00:46:25
All right. Do I have a motion to close the public hearing? 00:46:31
I make a motion to close public hearing. Second, second. All in favor. Aye, aye. All right. OK, so we have a few questions here. 00:46:35
So as as a as a Planning Commission, we have to look at something and say is this going to benefit the city? Does this meet our 00:46:45
general plan? 00:46:49
And right now kind of based off of what we know, which isn't very much about this development. 00:46:55
The big question I think for everybody is why? 00:47:03
Why should we even think about having more density when we don't even? 00:47:06
We don't even know how that's going to benefit us. 00:47:11
That make you. Yeah. All right. So I think one of the important things to understand about this code amendment is we are asking, 00:47:15
yes, we are asking for an increase in the cap in density, but we're not asking that it just be applied to the property. We're 00:47:23
asking for the opportunity to come back for you to take a look at the plan and determine whether or not you like it. 00:47:31
The issue as to why, one, the cap is you've reached the cap so there's no more residential units available. But the other, the 00:47:41
other issue, the other important thing to understand is mixed-use commercial projects and residential projects. They're entitled 00:47:48
in the RMU zone. It just requires site plan review. And so in essence, we could go and apply for a site plan application and go 00:47:55
through the process without any public hearing, without any. 00:48:03
But what we're asking for is a development agreement option so that what we're proposing can go through a public hearing process 00:48:10
so it can be negotiated. So all of the concerns, which are great concerns had that have been brought up can be looked at in front 00:48:18
of the public and with public input by both the Planning Commission and City Council without this development. 00:48:27
Without the development agreement aspect of it. 00:48:37
Again, it's just entitled and we could submit the site plan public and submit comments, but there's no public meetings, there's no 00:48:41
public hearing, but you wouldn't be able to submit a site plan for any additional residential currently, correct under the yeah, 00:48:48
because yeah, the code because the cap is is hit. And so I think and I, I do understand that the 85 unit per acre is a very scary 00:48:56
number, but again, it's 341 units. We are we're not asking for exceptions in the. 00:49:03
We're not, we're not creating a new zone with unlimited height, with unlimited massing. We're not asking to alleviate parking 00:49:11
standards. You know, in essence, we're saying we're good with your standards. We just want the option to come back and talk 00:49:18
through the process of adding these 340 additional units. 00:49:25
So just to clarify for a couple of people that had questions concerning that about the rentals or the parking or will the city 00:49:34
benefit if we approve or if we deny this tonight? That's those aren't questions we have answers to tonight. 00:49:42
That would be something in the future, a public hearing if this got approved, that would be something that would be discussed in 00:49:51
the future. 00:49:54
I personally would very much like to know those things too. So I I feel your concern there, OK. 00:49:59
As far as a plan for alleviating traffic, if, and that's something that I think is probably the number one concern for most 00:50:08
residents here, if there's residential units and we don't notice any cars, who cares? 00:50:14
But right now we have 800 N, which has one lane that is backed up all the time. We have Center Street that is 2 lanes that go into 00:50:22
one lane that everybody's an idiot at and that's backed up all the time. We have 400 N that doesn't connect because of the rail 00:50:29
spur really adding 15% more traffic to that area. 00:50:37
It's a big turn off for me. So is are there any plans for the city? Does the city have any? 00:50:46
Close plans for alleviating traffic in those ways. 00:50:52
So that, that might be more of an essaying question, but what I'm think I was going to say, if there is that like they're 00:50:56
concerned about impacts for traffic doing a rezone, you, you have the ability to to request things. And so like typically they 00:51:01
would do a Tia traffic impact analysis during the site plan or prior site plan. But if that's something you wanted to see, if 00:51:05
there's information you want to see prior to you making a recommendation, you want to make it as informed as possible. And if 00:51:10
that's. 00:51:15
A really important piece to your analysis. Then I would I would make that that that request. 00:51:21
As far as far as like a Tia and understanding like the impact of that development onto the current infrastructure, sorry, in the 00:51:25
same. 00:51:28
OK. 00:51:32
Again, just rearing with, Morgan said. I mean in regards to Kath. 00:51:37
Transportation impact analysis, which could be a graphic impact analysis which would be required to help make a more informed 00:51:43
decision, which will kind of provide some analytical and some in depth look in regards to travel flow patterns and how how would 00:51:50
this affect the existing. 00:51:56
Framework in terms of and then also what type of improvements would be required and kind of start doing that down the line and 00:52:04
what types of improvements we require probably be the most appropriate for this particular for this particular. 00:52:10
Item and like a. 00:52:18
Focused in regards to the surrounding areas, again, I know regards to Geneva, there are some long term plans with UDOT in terms of 00:52:20
leaving certain chokeholds along Geneva Rd. at certain at certain areas and that comes along with the another state project being 00:52:29
the rail consolidation project which is traveling the trains traveling slowly down the station. 00:52:37
On regards to that. 00:52:47
A. 00:52:49
Down the road down the line in terms of kind of addressing certain things in the development agreement would be to have have a 00:52:51
developer take into consideration certain aspects that are going down the line which would be addressed as well as in Tia study. 00:53:00
To how those things would be incorporated into this type of development as well. 00:53:11
On that and again regards to parking the the site going down the line on a development agreement, parking items could be addressed 00:53:16
in regards parking requirements could be addressed in that as well to help focus it more across here on that side. 00:53:24
Is there something we could put in? 00:53:33
The current zone, like if we were to reword this and change this, there's something we could put in where we could say we won't 00:53:36
allow any residential until XYZ happens. 00:53:41
Or you know, if I can, in essence, that's what we're asking for. We're asking for the opportunity to come back with the 00:53:47
development agreement. We're not saying that we're entitled to a 341 units. We're saying give us the opportunity to come back to 00:53:53
show our plan. 00:53:58
And then if you're comfortable with it, if we mitigate these things and we can come to an agreement through the development 00:54:05
agreement, then we would have the opportunity to raise that cap. 00:54:10
Yeah. The only way to the only way to accomplish and obtain those 341 units is through a development agreement. Yeah. 00:54:16
Is what we're proposing. Jason's right. The development agreement is the tool that you could use. 00:54:24
For a reason. 00:54:30
Yeah, or or reason. The one thing that's nice about the development agreement is that you can like sometimes you don't necessarily 00:54:32
want to put in your zoning code like. 00:54:36
With it. And then you know what we agree to. 00:55:10
Yeah, I'm behind this thing, Morgan. I don't know if you can see me your laser vision, but I was going to ask as well kind of an 00:55:15
update on where we're at with some of the public transportation goals that we've had in that area. You know, we talked about with 00:55:20
UTA bus lines we've got. 00:55:26
Allegedly a train station coming in, you know, some of those types of things that I think some public transportation 00:55:32
infrastructure would help. 00:55:36
Alleviate, you know some of the traffic concerns as well and I don't, I haven't heard an update on that in a while. 00:55:41
So you can see me behind that screen as well. 00:55:52
For example, I'm not there on the public, some of the public transit for the example the front runner station, which is if you 00:55:56
drive out there, you can see work being done along the railroad station. You know, there's a UTA has a timeline of having 00:56:03
everything completed and for for running March, April time frame on that, on that frame, you'll probably see some, you know, 00:56:11
completion happen before that. And then obviously ETA would have to adjust their schedules. 00:56:18
Push forward on that and and then we're also having discussions with UTA in regards to the BTR, the bus system that would be 00:56:27
feeding in 2000 in regards to with anticipation of having initially having servicing about two buses and for that area and then 00:56:35
with the increase impacts for our season increased capacity for additional buses and then of course. 00:56:44
Parking specifically for you know, there's a Tanita travelers. 00:56:53
Who are using the front runner station to go across. And then of course, so we're also looking at how we can incorporate that 00:56:58
frontliner station into on the other side of the tracks to allow for pedestrians to be able to not have to drive their cars from 00:57:06
one one side to the tracks to the other side of tracks that they can utilize other means of. 00:57:14
Transportation predominantly feet to get to get to get about so. 00:57:23
And then of course with the real consolidation project, with the real consolidation that opens the door for are you thought to be 00:57:31
able to make a lot more improvement, some road to help address? 00:57:38
Transportation in terms of being able to get cars in and out safely and a reasonable time frame as well. 00:57:46
Does that answer your question? 00:57:54
Yeah. And and just to kind of address the, you know, transit improvements, I guess connected with this development. Yeah, you 00:57:55
know, I, it's. 00:58:00
Specific improvements they they they really can't help the the. 00:58:34
Overall transit experience. 00:58:39
Yeah. Thanks for that clarification, Morgan. And I was, did you want me to answer any of that? Sure. All right. So also just to 00:58:42
add to it, sorry, my name. 00:58:47
And they serve as the mayor right now. 00:58:54
Is going to be coming in our station will be completed by January, but the exchange date for us to get buses into the center 00:59:26
doesn't happen until April because they only have like 3 exchange dates through the whole year. So to stop doing that real quick, 00:59:33
Julie, sorry, you were saying that buses were moving from 400 N to 800 N or no, I was talking about the right rail corridor that 00:59:41
went through there Now they're changing that but. 00:59:48
The best, but just so you know how traffic is going to start falling also we did get $16 million from the Legislature. So Vineyard 01:00:26
Connector will start pulling traffic that way as well. So people who are a little bit concerned about the way streets are looking, 01:00:31
there's a lot of funding that just commanding the start seeing those expansions wagon over the next couple of years. Thanks, 01:00:36
Julie. Thank you. 01:00:41
I've got a few questions for staff 1 and I don't think a city attorney's here, but would would we be open to potential litigation 01:00:47
if we approve this but did not approve of future development agreement request in another zone? That was a great question. As I'm 01:00:54
not an attorney, I I don't answer. 01:01:02
If if this gets continued or whatever, we we could have them at another. Yeah. I mean, Speaking of the the precedent that's being 01:01:09
set, I think that's important to understand. Real quick, just to add on to that question with legal action, if we were to approve 01:01:15
this, does that leave U.S. Open if we decide we don't want any residential, if there's not a plan we see that we like, that's 01:01:21
going to be my other. That'll just be my add to. 01:01:27
And and then I get the sense that this development agreement and additional residential is needed for this project to happen. 01:01:36
Am I misguided in filling in the blanks there? It it sounds like the status quo would likely not see this development occur. Yeah, 01:01:48
this is Eric Towner with X Development WE. 01:01:54
We've we've enjoyed developing within the city and I think that this city does a fantastic job of attracting. 01:02:02
Fantastic businesses and fantastic residents. You guys are in a very unique situation. You're in an infill location that you have 01:02:10
an opportunity to build from scratch where your surrounding cities did not have that opportunity. And I totally agree that density 01:02:16
in the wrong locations makes no sense, especially residential density to remember, this is up against Geneva Rd. There is not much 01:02:22
land left in the RMU district. Actually, there's very little. 01:02:28
We've supplied, I think that the majority of the commercial that's coming into the city. 01:02:35
UMM worked very hard to try and attract good tenants. The market environment today has shifted, bringing hotels and office space 01:02:40
to locations like this apartments and studio apartments with extra bedrooms or mobile offices that are are are, you know, 01:02:47
collaborative office space on the main level is going to be the future for for the, for the foreseeable future. That is, is the 01:02:55
change is going out of the the downtown locations and you're not going to see many offices. 01:03:02
Downtown you'll see a lot of apartments still built downtown, they'll just be more friendly to at homework where we expect at 01:03:10
least 30 to 40% fewer traffic in office parks. And So what we're saying is there's an opportunity here for us to bring in more 01:03:17
retail, more entertainment, more sales taxes to the city. And yes, there is there is also a result of that is is some awkward land 01:03:25
and what is the future use of that land and when when does it become actually usable or. 01:03:32
Where there is a demand today to provide housing in an area that we believe is appropriate for density up against Geneva Rd. up 01:03:40
against where there will be a future full control signal signalized intersection that 400 N and Geneva Rd. We've already when we 01:03:49
recorded our platforms on 400 N dedicated a wide section of land that we would not build on. 01:03:57
There's strips of land that go for the widening of 400 N in the future. 01:04:06
We also dedicated at 650 N quite a bit of land so that 650 N could go up once that rail spur is removed. I think this city has 01:04:11
done a fantastic job with their traffic planning and their engineering. The issue is the rail spur. So once that's gone, you've 01:04:16
got several connection points, you've got multiple lanes going east and West and I and I think that solves most of those issues. 01:04:22
So with the status quo. 01:04:28
Would this project come in or is this additional residential needed? I think that's the. 01:04:35
As a board manager for this and, and this isn't just residential, that would be proposing, which is why I think Jason is so 01:04:41
eloquently said, a development agreement is merited for something like this. When you're going to do a text code amendment to your 01:04:47
zoning code, I don't know why that would set a precedence for anywhere else in your city. 01:04:54
I've failed at trying to make that argument in other cities. Precedence doesn't do anything but from my experience. But yeah, it 01:05:02
makes the project make sense, it makes the land make sense. It brings development. It brings. You guys have a fantastic 01:05:08
opportunity for RDA within the city as well. 01:05:13
And it it does make sense, I think to go up to your maximum heights in some of these zones where it it does not impact the 01:05:20
residents West of of the, the train tracks off of Mill Rd. This is up against Geneva Rd. If I were in the city, I would develop to 01:05:26
the maximum density of I'm not, I'm not fighting on the density because I mean, it isn't a location that it wouldn't make sense to 01:05:32
put half acre single family home. So I'm not fighting on that, I think. 01:05:37
The gentleman may have left left already, but he was kind of saying what what could happen today and. 01:05:44
What would happen with this, you know, with or without this? And I, I almost see this. 01:05:49
And recommended for a development agreement allows for more public input, more staff input, more input from commissioners and City 01:06:25
Council members as well. And then my last question for staff is. 01:06:31
You know, each additional unit that comes into the city that's there's a cost incurred by the city as far as like providing 01:06:38
utilities and services to them. Some of that's recouped through tax base as well, but. 01:06:45
With with units like this, is it increasing that deficit between or or like would tax revenue from these in a project like this 01:06:55
likely cover the additional units? I'm just trying to wrap my head around that because I know that some of the larger lots, 01:07:00
contrary to what some people may understand, those ones are actually quite costly versus what they bring in, you know, so if you 01:07:05
have a lot of frontage on 1/2 acre, a lot that can actually be a negative for the city from a tax standpoint. But what about units 01:07:10
like this? 01:07:16
Yeah. And and we're happy to do some actual analysis if you if you want like really refined numbers. But from just working with 01:07:21
Jake and and finance and looking at kind of land use and how land use performs single family detach, that's whatever everyone 01:07:30
wants to live on the big lot, big house. But from a just from like an overall cost perspective, like the, you know. 01:07:38
$3 are. 01:07:47
I've come up from what I've heard in services or given to a single family detached home, typically there's $1.00 back. And so 01:07:48
it's, it's actually a land use category that typically gets subsidized by commercial multi family. And it sounds like in meeting 01:07:56
with them that it's they're looking at more of a mixed-use project with multifamily that that sends to perform better. Because if 01:08:03
you just think, you know, logistically you have a road that stays fronted. 01:08:11
Happy illogical Oracle as well. You know what whatever the linear feet of infrastructure to serve that property is going to be a 01:08:19
lot more per unit than it will be in a multi family type type category. So we're happy to because there are studies that have done 01:08:25
that, but we can provide you some some information if you'd like us to dig into that. That's helpful. I mean certainly even if it 01:08:31
weren't tonight, but like. 01:08:37
This will eventually make its way to City Council for them to make decisions to and I'd want to require. 01:08:44
Whatever information we'd want the final decision makers to have, I think that would be beneficial. But those were most of my 01:08:51
questions. If others pop up, I'll speak up. I have a couple of questions as well, either for Snell and Wilmer or for the staff. 01:08:58
Now I saw you shake your head yes that you are associated with Top Golf. Did I see that correctly? Correct. So about a month ago 01:09:07
we approved some moving forward with Top Golf and and their particular building. 01:09:15
We talked about parking there because we were concerned about parking for those that would be using that and there was a plan 01:09:23
showing how parking would all be provided for right at Top Golf on the surface across the street. I think there were some things 01:09:29
like that, if I remember correctly. 01:09:35
So my question is why, why is this a separate if you're associated with Top Golf, why wasn't this brought up at the same time? If 01:09:42
it, if we envision that this is what's going to make the the project successful, it would seem like that would have been a better 01:09:48
time to bring this up rather than a month later because it feels separate to me and yet it's going to be associated with if I 01:09:55
understand it correctly. 01:10:02
So that's just one thought and you can address that in a moment, but. 01:10:09
Now is, and I know you're not prepared to talk about details this evening. That's what a development agreement would do. 01:10:13
But there is a parking garage associated in the vision of this. Is that correct? 01:10:20
And and if so, these apartments are going to be part of the of the parking garage. What what I envisioned is something like a 01:10:27
University Plaza. I mean, that's what I've seen here in Orem is parking garage and, and it looks like your apartments. 01:10:35
Glued to the parking garage, if you will. And they go up, I don't know, 5 or 6 stories or something. So how many stories will it 01:10:45
take to accommodate 341 units? Are we talking three stories? Four stories? And again, I understand these are all details that 01:10:51
would be worked out. But before I'm prepared to say this is something I really want to say, yes, let's go and work out details. 01:10:58
There's just some things I'd like to get comfortable with. 01:11:04
And I I totally understand the concerns and I think. 01:11:11
You know, we have the same concerns in that it doesn't really make sense to go through and do some detailed site planning and 01:11:15
figuring out where things are and how it all works if we can't even have that conversation. And so that's where, you know, really 01:11:22
what we're here tonight to talk about is the code amendment and so that we can come back with the development agreement. And I 01:11:28
know that sounds like a a non answer. We're taking it down the road, but the reality is. 01:11:34
We're not prepared to invest. 01:11:41
A lot of money into a site design if we can't even have the conversation. And so that's kind of where we're at right now. I think 01:11:44
this has been extremely, extremely helpful because it helps us understand what the concerns are and where it is we can spend time 01:11:52
in that site design to alleviate these concerns as we start that that negotiation process. So back to my original question, it 01:11:59
just seems like these should have been tied together when we first reviewed Top Golf. 01:12:07
For a business there. And I just wonder, why is it separate? Yeah. And I think, you know, the market changes, market trends change 01:12:14
and opportunities arise. It seemed like maybe that wasn't the opportune time, but now is the opportune time to approach the city 01:12:22
and see if we can have further conversations and work through that negotiation. So what has changed in a month? 01:12:30
I'm sorry, but I'm just trying to understand that too much sensitive information. We would all like talk off to come in And we're 01:12:40
the land owners and developers of the project. And you know, we we do have partners as well. Me and Steve are managers of the 01:12:47
board of of of our development group and of our investment group that we're you know manage these investments for. And there is a 01:12:54
process for approvals from our side as well. And so it. 01:13:01
Development works, a tenant doesn't just come in and say we'd like to be in your place, thank you very much, sign here. And so 01:13:09
there is a requirement and, and this is, you know, exploring every possible use of property and going through a process where. 01:13:16
We now have a final lot line for top golf at this at this time and just in the last couple of weeks that's been finalized exactly 01:13:25
where that where that lot line will go. And and it was very beneficial to for top goals to come and speak with you all and get 01:13:31
feedback from you and and it's you know. 01:13:38
We needed that to move forward with what was leftover, and what we're leftover with is a corner piece of property that needs to be 01:13:45
developed from our group's standpoint and needs to be developed in the near future, not. 01:13:52
Way down the road from now if we're going to continue to develop this site as we are proposing right now, for example with Top 01:14:00
Golf. 01:14:03
So it's kind of a domino effect in development, but. 01:14:08
Something for so I guess the question, the question would be what? What I hear you saying is. 01:14:41
What are what exactly are the vesting rights we walk away with if you guys positively recommend this and send it to City Council 01:14:49
and they approve it? From what I understand, it doesn't automatically guarantee that we're going to be able to build 300 units or 01:14:55
even 50 units. Or there would have to be a development agreement at that point in time at which we would be more than happy to go 01:15:01
through the 10 versions we've looked at up till now and probably 10 more versions we'll look out before we apply for development 01:15:06
agreement. 01:15:12
And then and, and in that development agreement, Morgan, I think we'll we'll obviously include the traffic impact analysis and 01:15:18
everything and you'll see. 01:15:22
Probably a comparison of what if we built this as commercial, what the traffic would be if we build it as a mixed-use, which this 01:15:27
this building that we are designing and have been in the process of designing and have just gotten to the spot where you know, 01:15:34
we're not going to expend more capital or invest into design unless we can even have the discussion of a development agreement. 01:15:41
I guess you're you're saying if we could pull up one of our prototypes that one of the 10 at this point for the for a text code 01:15:49
amendment. Yeah, this is this is a suggestion. I mean wherever you're you're the closest at, I mean it's all 10 or completely 01:15:54
different models. But if you understand kind of. 01:15:59
I think I think that would help them because like even kind of what I, when I saw one of the concepts, it was like it was one 01:16:06
building. It wasn't like a, it wasn't, you weren't doing like projects all over. I I think that might help. I mean, that's whether 01:16:11
or not you guys are comfortable with that. I know this doesn't fully entitle the project, but it definitely opens the door to 01:16:15
that. 01:16:20
And I think one of my sense of the Planning Commission correct if I'm wrong, is that they're concerned to even do that without 01:16:25
having a lot more information. Yeah, I think maybe it it would help you to see. 01:16:29
And I do agree still with Jason is to his approach in this was to come in with a development agreement instead of rezone a very 01:16:36
specific parcel that would have just entitled us to move straight to site plan without any more public input. As we've talked with 01:16:41
the neighbors around here, we we know that this is a very tight community and we appreciate it and we and we like, we like the 01:16:47
feedback. 01:16:52
Let's see if Steve can pull up. I was just going to add to the Morgan's .1 of the questions I was going to ask is how you arrived 01:16:59
at the numbers. 01:17:02
That obviously included some forethought, you know, like to change. One of my questions was going to be why the change in density, 01:17:07
not just the increase in the cap, you know, like understanding, OK, we built out the units, so you can't build any more units. If 01:17:13
we increase the cap, if it's still at the same density that other developments have been built at, why couldn't? So I, I figured 01:17:18
there's been, and I, I hear the, the concern that it is an investment there and it's at risk for you guys to invest in design and 01:17:24
exploring options. 01:17:30
And pay somebody that time, but it if you can share some information that would definitely help. Yeah, I'd say I don't even know 01:17:36
that we'll hit that exact number with the information we have today. There's a range of what we could do and still looking for the 01:17:43
mix. I mean we we're pretty careful and very do our due diligence and make sure that we bring in the right number of of bedroom 01:17:50
units. You know, you don't want to have a bunch of vacant units or if there are. 01:17:57
Opportunities for you know, you guys don't have a hotel within the city? 01:18:04
It there, there are people definitely who visit here then and we've heard from, from from some feedback from our consultants, 01:18:08
people would like to be able to rent for two or three nights a hotel room. Hotels are not expanding in suburban America today 01:18:14
since the pandemic. 01:18:19
But the opportunity for a mixed type of hotel slash multifamily apartment with some retail on the main floor or office on the main 01:18:25
floor that is actually growing and I I think it's actually a better use. It will become more pedestrian that way. 01:18:32
But yeah, we can show you so you can get a little bit of scale. I think we might have a. 01:18:41
Kind of a bird's eye view of one of the concepts. So as you're looking for that Morgan and and again, I'd like to know what the 01:18:47
benefits of the city is, but what is the bottom line to the city by moving in this direction? 01:18:54
How does it help the city? What does the city get from it? And and secondly, in the development agreement, I'd like to see some 01:19:02
options. You know, I know we've talked 341 minutes and you said that may not be. 01:19:09
The final unit, but I'd like to know what would it be if it's 170 or 85 or 240, you know, I mean some, some various levels of 01:19:16
occupancy, if you will, and maybe some different options in the development agreement to, to consider at least. Just thoughts. Did 01:19:23
you ask some questions? I just wanted to comment on my hesitancy lies and not knowing like what on earth you're even trying to 01:19:30
propose to us because. 01:19:37
It's a it's a lot of units to commit to right now. 01:19:46
When we don't understand what that's going to look and feel like and we don't have any traffic studies done at this moment. And 01:19:50
once once we like agree to that number, your Max number. 01:19:56
What if, you know, we may discover that's too many and then it's too bad for us? So that is my biggest no right now. So totally 01:20:03
understandable. And I, you know, I heard, you know, you don't want to be stuck with that number of 340 if you recommend approval 01:20:11
and City Council approves this. Do you know how many additional units we get? 01:20:18
None. Absolutely none. 01:20:26
Because we have to come back and show you a plan that's that appeases the public because it's going to have two more public 01:20:28
hearings. And so there's going to be a lot more input that appeases all of those concerns. All we're asking for tonight is to make 01:20:35
a modification to your code to allow us to have that conversation, to have to go through the process, to have the additional 01:20:42
public hearings, to go through those details. 01:20:48
For us to ask for those additional units. 01:20:56
All in essence this code text amendment, it's just we're asking for a tool, we're asking for the opportunity to have the 01:20:59
conversation. By no means are you entitled or required to adopt A development agreement. It just provides the option for the city 01:21:06
to approve additional up to. 01:21:12
Not approve that many, but approve additional units and approve additional density. 01:21:20
Through a development agreement, it provides an opportunity for us to have the conversation. You know, we could have proposed 01:21:26
without a cap and just say we can have unlimited density and unlimited number of units. That didn't feel like the right approach 01:21:31
to us. We have a rough idea of the number of units we're looking for and so we'll just include that in it so that it's not an 01:21:37
open-ended. We're going to come back and ask for, you know, 5000 units. We have a rough idea of the number of units and so we're 01:21:43
just asking for the opportunity to. 01:21:49
Come back to go through the details to identify the impacts that this development is going to create, to understand what 01:21:55
mitigation efforts you would like to see and then to incorporate those into agreement. It was mentioned earlier in the meeting 01:22:03
that there was times when promises were made, developers said they were going to do things and and never followed through. One of 01:22:10
the ways to make sure developers follow through is to enter into a developed degree. We are required to do these things. 01:22:18
And so it gives that that leverage and that opportunity for the city to require those, to require those things, which currently 01:22:26
you don't, you don't have that. 01:22:31
So yes, we are asking for the opportunity to negotiate additional units. We're not asking for additional units. We're just asking 01:22:36
for the opportunity to come back with detailed plans to address your concerns and go through that process. And if I could just 01:22:44
follow up on what you said. You said you've gone through a process to come up with 341 units just as a ballpark figure to start 01:22:51
with. 01:22:59
Could you share with us that process and how you arrived at that decision? 01:23:07
So imagine that that would mostly be a financial thing, like if we can have this many units that makes us well. And that's what 01:23:12
I'd like to hear. I mean, thank you. Thank you. But I mean, there's a process you went through and I just like to understand that. 01:23:20
So looking at the remaining land that we have left in that corner of that, of that property, looking at the, the myriad of uses 01:23:27
that fall within the RMU zone that we that we could use, looking at the code at what could be built. 01:23:35
There if you were to expand, for example, your maximum number of residential units. 01:23:42
That going through working with architects and working with consultants and engineers saying OK with these dimensions and these 01:23:49
setbacks and the code that requires these height restrictions or whatever in these parking requirements that you all have, what 01:23:55
your parking standards are, are very high now just you know, for multi family properties compared to other cities, which is fine. 01:24:01
That's how you can you come up with a ballpark number. 01:24:10
At that point, once you have the dimensions, the left what we're left with after the gulf comes in and the code that you have to 01:24:12
build if there were additional units added to the cell. 01:24:18
One one other follow up for this too in relation that conversation and maybe Morgan. 01:24:25
This goes over to you is as a Commission, you know, we're, we're, we're training, we're taught basically, you know, if 01:24:31
applications are brought to us that meet the code. 01:24:35
Legally, you know the Utah State law were obligated to approve those plans. There are a few items where we have discretion. 01:24:40
This sounds like what we would have is a lot of discretion all of a sudden on a project to approve or not approve. 01:24:50
And I think it would be helpful for us to have clarity. 01:24:58
Where our guidance, you know, on, on, on that discretion in reviewing what you would be bringing to us with the development 01:25:03
agreement, you know, if it's up to, but it could be 300 units, it could be 175. That leaves a lot of variance, you know, and which 01:25:09
is fine, but you know, that's typically, you know, something that I believe all of us trying to, you know, we, we just try to 01:25:15
stick to, you know what we're, what we're legally obligated to do with the Planning Commission body, not as a political body, not 01:25:21
as a City Council, but just. 01:25:27
You know, we're, we're following codes and so I think that would be helpful for us at least. 01:25:33
Since I've been on the Planning Commission, I've we have, I haven't been in that situation where it seems like we've had this much 01:25:39
discretion and say, well, we'll approve it if it's all green. 01:25:43
Because we can make it up, you know, it just feels like there's a lot of Gray area and all of a sudden to fill in that we would be 01:25:48
approving this to. And then if we require that, what exposure does that have or does it not have any exposure? I think there's 01:25:54
some Gray area that maybe for us would be helpful to understand if we were to go down that path. 01:26:00
We're not asking for an an open-ended. You just tell us what you want and then we get it in return. It's part of the RMU district. 01:26:09
There are district standards that are in there for parking, for height, for massing. You know, you have, we have this baseline. 01:26:18
And in essence, we're not asking to change anything else in those regulations. It's just a matter of we have this, this piece of 01:26:28
property that all of the units in the RMU have been utilized. We'd like to utilize some residential units and in meeting the RNU 01:26:35
standards and we can talk about the specific impacts. 01:26:42
And in how we how we are mitigating those impacts through the code. That's helpful. Maybe one clarification, I guess maybe the 01:26:50
only thing that you would be changing for the rest of the code is the density per acre. Yes, yeah. I mean that's the only thing 01:26:56
that that we're asking as far as the RMU. But all the other RMU codes, the high, everything else would be applicable. But you are 01:27:02
asking for a change in the density break, correct? 01:27:08
So. 01:27:17
Yeah, kind of going along that when we've seen a code and if somebody meets our code. 01:27:19
More often than not, we approve it. So some questions that I do, I have some legal questions for our attorney. Well, I think I 01:27:24
would want to put this off personally. So it's mostly just the backbone things. If I were to approve any kind of density period, 01:27:32
there are some things that I would want to see happen 1st. And so that's not even something I'd want to see in a development 01:27:39
agreement. It's something that there's one housing unit more I would want to see these. 01:27:46
Specific things and specifically the most important thing I think is Geneva Rd. actually being open. I think it's a great spot for 01:27:54
for having density, except that whole exit is the area being a great spot isn't a great spot because it's blocked off by the rail 01:28:02
spur. I think something has to happen there before any kind of density goes in right there. 01:28:10
Legally, I want to know if we have standing, if we have a foot to stand on. 01:28:20
Unchanging other codes for other developers and if we do approve, having 300 extra units if we decide for some reason we don't 01:28:24
like. 01:28:29
What they're doing for who knows, some petty reason I. 01:28:34
If if legally we have a foot to stand on because I mean it wouldn't be some petty reason, but I want to know that we have a solid 01:28:39
foot to stand on if we have any reason. 01:28:44
The other thing is the RMU, it's regional mixed-use. None of those housing units are mixed-use currently, which that's, I don't 01:28:50
know how that got by. I don't know how the current development code happened that way, but none of it is mixed-use. And the city, 01:28:56
what the city wants and the benefit of this happening is the city gets more commercial because you guys are putting in commercial. 01:29:02
I understand that. 01:29:09
The problem is that we expected a lot more commercial. 01:29:16
With the way this Army district was originally done. So that's my other concern. Can we make it so that we're guaranteed a 01:29:20
specific percent of commercial if we allow residential? And I'd like to see that if we're going to do, if we're going to move 01:29:27
forward with this, I'd like to see a very specific percentage of commercial if that's possible. And then the last thing I don't, 01:29:35
I'm not particularly fond of how this overlays the entire Army district. I would like it if possible. 01:29:42
To be specific to this area, because pretty much everything's done, I'm not sure if it's completely built out, but that doesn't 01:29:50
stop another without there being a cap, it doesn't stop another building from tearing down their building in 20 years and building 01:29:57
up a lot more units. So I think a cap is important still and I if not, I think it's very, I think we need to have it very specific 01:30:04
to this spot that we're talking about. 01:30:11
So sorry, are you talking about like with the Top Golf couple years ago we did like the we actually put like you know, the golf, 01:30:19
the driving range can be bounded by Geneva. We put a very specific location and so making that more specific would be something. 01:30:26
So those are my, those are my four things, the legal issues, the 400 N connection issue or removing of the rail spur, making that 01:30:33
a specific section. 01:30:40
And it's possible specifying a percentage of commercial to residential. 01:30:48
And are those all things that could be addressed in detail during the actual development agreement rather than? 01:30:55
Well, so, yeah, so some, some, some of these could so #2 if you could clarify that, like you said, do they have a, do they have a 01:31:05
footing to stand on? 01:31:12
I want to get that one right, so I'm not sure how to word it exactly. Do we have a legal foot to stand on if we were to approve 01:31:19
300 units? 01:31:23
And then or whatever the amount of units and then for some reason we decide we don't like the plan for any reason. Do we have a 01:31:29
legal foot to stand on to deny it? Kind of back to my question, right? Like what's our, what's our safe harbor? What are we, Yeah, 01:31:36
what are we leaning on from a legal standpoint and approving or rejecting whatever they bring in their development agreement? 01:31:44
Sure. I, I, I would, I would say though, if, if you do approve. 01:31:51
Specific for things, I'm not ready to make an approval tonight. I could be ready to make an approval once we kind of figure those 01:32:29
things out. I don't know if we're capable of figuring those things out tonight. 01:32:35
Is this something that we can put off until the next Planning Commission? Yeah. So if you if you do that, I would continue this 01:32:43
item to the next to the next public hearing. What we'll do is it's been noticed for the City Council next week, we would have to 01:32:48
continue their public hearing to their next City Council. But yeah, we, we, we, we can. If it goes beyond probably one meeting, we 01:32:54
would need to renotice. OK. 01:32:59
And if I can't, just real quick one last, I know you identified those, those four points. Again, we are not asking for any units. 01:33:05
You are not obligated to provide any units, not one, not 300. We are asking for the opportunity to come back. And you're not 01:33:13
obligated as Morgan stated, you're not obligated to approve the development. You're obligated to accept the application. 01:33:21
And to work through that negotiation, but if it doesn't satisfy, you're not obligated to approve it. 01:33:31
And the city does utilize development agreements. We're not asking to add a whole new section, a whole new code, a whole new 01:33:36
provision for that that you don't have. The city does utilize development agreements already. We're just asking for it to be used 01:33:43
in this instance. And then you talked about the narrowing of the of the area there again, I mean that those are specific items to 01:33:50
be addressed within the development agreement. 01:33:56
That it only applies to this specific identified area and that the the traffic impacts and the parking for this area and for this 01:34:04
project need to be resolved. And then and I apologize, your 4th point was the the percent of commercial. Yeah, so the percent 01:34:11
there again, perfect. That is something that I mean most development agreements incorporate that into it that looking because you 01:34:19
have to look at the specific project and the specific parcel. 01:34:26
And what it would support. It doesn't make sense to put an arbitrary, in essence an arbitrary number in your code. 01:34:34
When the part you may not have parcels that can support that. And so that is something that definitely needs to be incorporated 01:34:41
and we anticipate incorporating that into the development agreement so that it satisfies. 01:34:48
You know your request, I do think it's interesting, you know in essence we are trying proposed in what the RMU district was 01:34:55
intended for a mixed-use, a vertically mixed-use, you know that has residential and it has commercial and you mentioned that that 01:35:02
hasn't been built, that hasn't been constructed. And so really what we're asking it, it mentioned this that you know, there are 01:35:08
some lessons that are learned. 01:35:14
And what's been done in the past and we're just asking for a new approach. 01:35:22
To allow more public input, to allow more public meetings, and to allow negotiation, to make sure you get a project that meets the 01:35:25
city's desire, that meets the general plan, that meets the land use code, that satisfies the concerns of the public. We're just 01:35:32
asking for that opportunity because we don't. In essence, we don't have that opportunity with that artificial cap that's in the 01:35:39
code right now. 01:35:45
And and I, I totally understand that and I want you guys to have that opportunity. 01:35:53
But I don't want that opportunity to even. 01:35:57
I don't even want negotiation to happen personally unless these things are like specifically addressed. And so I just want to know 01:36:01
specifically again, legal standing where we stand that that 400 N connection has to happen. And I think it it should be in this 01:36:09
now, I don't think that that should be a negotiating thing to even talk about. It should just be that's how it is. 01:36:17
The specific section of land, I think it just needs to be. I think these are just things that need to happen before negotiation 01:36:27
even needs to be considered. 01:36:30
This is for staff real quick. Do we have any kind of timeline for the realtor right there? 01:36:35
And regards the construction of rails for re anticipate the starting, they anticipate start construction depending on other 01:36:44
outside agencies on the city's control to be about about 3-4 years. So about three years is when they're looking at the 01:36:49
construction of the railspur. 01:36:54
So that developed that community. 01:36:59
That live, that's just South. 01:37:02
Of just right on 4 to north was that waters at Edgewater? 01:37:06
Edgewater. 01:37:11
There they'll be just kind of stuck turning left out of their community right there because they're going to have a whole nother 01:37:14
community. 01:37:19
Right up against them and they're all forced out the same way and we have a lot of students coming in and out very specific times 01:37:24
of day like this. Four years is a long time to be stuck right there like a really loud that's that's to remove the Railsborough 01:37:30
along Geneva nothing. 01:37:36
That so that would be the reconciliation project which would divert the rails for going going north and then at that time, then 01:37:44
this then the Railsborough will be able to remove actually be removed to be opened up at that time. Again, those are those are 01:37:50
estimate timelines. 01:37:56
Faster. 01:38:02
Hopefully yeah, as in regards to working with outside agencies in regards to get that moving forward on that. So I just need to 01:38:03
add on to today's question, if I can. So we that's the rails first. So is there any plan from U dot is it on the plan as a 01:38:11
budgeted to to fix that that that intersection? And I guess if if that were tacked on just because that's that's probably a that's 01:38:18
really big thing to the price as well. Like when when does that intersection? 01:38:25
Forget, yeah, that's that's work when talking to you. I know you dog has it and they're forecast not just for that one 01:38:33
intersection, but in multiple intersections along Geneva Road to address. I can't give you exact timeline on that. That would be 01:38:42
something that we come back to in regards to again the flow along 400 N, 400 N around Mill Mill Rd. 01:38:51
And development agreement with would be able to address like the traffic impact analysis in regards to what's going on based on 01:39:00
the development. 01:39:04
That's being incurred and of course the conditions on certain improvements to be done in a certain timeline prior to, you know, 01:39:10
being being able to turn on certain certain occupancies, for example. So you know, they would they would go out through a full 01:39:16
grown analysis here, you know, here's here's what's happening. Here's the improvements, improvements being agreed upon by between 01:39:23
developer and the city. 01:39:29
As well. And then of course the conditions of Windows improvements would have to be done. 01:39:37
And a timeline along with the with the developments and those conditions being set on top of that. 01:39:41
It's hard like so it's hard to speak for other agencies when they're not here. Do you know if you view has? 01:39:49
Any timeline for their plans for building that area out as well? 01:39:56
And they're updating their master plan right now. And so they've they've always kind of indicated it's anywhere from like they 01:40:02
break it up into five year increments, at least their current plan does that. And I we've seen like the bubble go up, but I but 01:40:09
really any of the buildings that were within the original master plan, we haven't seen any of those go up even within that five 01:40:17
year phase. So we just, we just don't know what a better idea wants this new master plank it's gets. 01:40:24
Or gets approved because it seems like they're taking that a lot more serious this this master plan compared to the first one. And 01:40:31
my reasoning kind of with this is because we don't know. We don't know when the rail spurs really going to be removed. We don't 01:40:39
know when there's going to be an intersection there. We don't know when you dot is going to expand Geneva Road to have that to 01:40:46
have it not jog. We don't know these things. And I would hate to be like, yeah, we can think about additional units. 01:40:53
But we can't until those things are done. In my mind, I don't think we can think about any additional units until. 01:41:02
That at the very least, like if we're just talking about the Geneva Rd. I don't think there can be additional units talked about 01:41:08
until we know that that's happened or that it has happened. So unless we can put something like that in the agreement where it's 01:41:13
like, yeah, you can have these units. 01:41:18
Once there's an actual connection, then yeah, but we don't know if you got's gonna come in 1520 years from now. We don't know if 01:41:23
that's gonna happen. And we'd like to think that yeah, it's gonna happen soon. Yeah, it's gonna happen in the next three or four 01:41:28
years. But you know, is notoriously bad at. 01:41:33
Doing those kinds of things. So that's that's where my biggest hesitation comes from is adding 300 units, which is 15% to this, to 01:41:39
that population there. 01:41:43
Is that much more traffic in those two areas that are already really, really bad, so it sounds like? 01:41:49
We really have two options right now, like 1 is what you're saying, to postpone or delay or continue. But based on what you just 01:41:57
said, you know, you're not going to have a definitive answer from U dot, even if you postpone this two weeks, two months, two 01:42:04
years. You know, so like kind of where I'm coming from is I'm actually inclined to recommend the City Council to look at this if 01:42:11
we had some of these other stipulations. 01:42:19
Primarily from our city attorney to look at, you know, opening ourselves up to potential litigation or whatever it might be. Also 01:42:27
the city cost per unit. Does this drive that up? But things like traffic studies, 400 NI think those are all details that are 01:42:32
probably most appropriately hammered out in the actual development agreement negotiations, which would also be in a public forum. 01:42:38
And I and I would be comfortable doing that and including I like your idea of limiting it to that space, but I I don't think it's 01:42:44
necessary. 01:42:50
Not comfortable to move forward. 01:43:26
Because we don't have this information. So even though there's an option for a development agreement, we are not entering into one 01:43:29
at this moment. And that, that gives me some, some comfort that way personally. 01:43:34
So I'm I'm. 01:43:40
Somewhat in agreement with Anthony, I actually I'm more inclined to prove and and push this along. 01:43:42
The the traffic concerns I understand, but if we were to entertain a commercial development there commercial developments tend to 01:43:50
produce more traffic than residential because depending on the type of commercial. But if it's a retail, I mean Swig right is the 01:43:58
is the extreme example that you have multiple customers coming in, in a car where the residential unit people leave. 01:44:06
Come home, maybe they'll come home and leave twice a day, but it's, it's more more likely to be once a day. It's not that it 01:44:14
residential developments don't, don't have the impact on traffic. And this is just from my experience working with traffic studies 01:44:20
and projects that the commercial developments are, are just as impactful on the traffic. So if if it's we can't allow any, you 01:44:27
know, if we can't increase traffic until some of those. 01:44:33
Road issues are alleviated then we're we've. 01:44:40
To be fair, it would be limiting both commercial and residential because they both increased traffic in the city. So I think 01:44:44
having a traffic study as part of what would be required for the development agreement to demonstrate what are the loads that are 01:44:51
currently on those streets, what would be the impacts of a, a largely residential development, a 5050 split, you know, whatever 01:44:59
they're going to propose, they would have to demonstrate quantifiably what the traffic. 01:45:06
Impact would be through a professional traffic engineer. 01:45:14
And that would all have to be considered and we would have to be comfortable with it before anything would be approved. And I 01:45:18
think that we would have. 01:45:23
Benefited massively the rest of that district if we had required development agreements. 01:45:29
You know, to the points have been brought up, it didn't get built out the way we thought. There have been many things in Vineyard 01:45:35
that didn't get built out the way that we thought and then developed. So I and I tried agreeing with them that a development 01:45:40
agreement actually is is beneficial for us to be able to. 01:45:44
To hold their feet to the fire for the the neighbors to David Ray's comment earlier, they will have to, you know, they'll have to 01:45:51
bring it here to the, to the public to see exactly what they're proposing and the public will get to make comments on it. 01:45:58
And provide feedback. And that will have to be. And then there's discretion, you know, on the city's standpoint on what they'll 01:46:06
accept. 01:46:09
I as I've mentioned earlier. 01:46:14
If we if we recommend approval. 01:46:16
I really want to have the same conversations. I think we've all brought up as far as you know, Council of what our legal basis is 01:46:19
on making decisions or or approving a proposed project through that development agreement process before we would review a 01:46:28
specific proposal and application. But I think we could approve that tonight and still have time to go through that process. 01:46:36
Before they would present an application to us. 01:46:44
So and I, I think that is the the best location for density in our city outside of what we've talked about with the Town Center I. 01:46:48
Where we are at the heart of the valley and. 01:47:01
That is the closest we can get to our transportation systems. 01:47:04
And to where the proposed public transportation systems are going to be. So I think that is the appropriate place to to have 01:47:10
housing. Housing that close to the the mixed commercial development will be really beneficial I think to both. I think it creates 01:47:18
walkability. People that live in those units can walk and enjoy the commercial. 01:47:26
You know, restaurants and businesses. 01:47:36
And eventually get to the, you know, the train station quick and get in and out. 01:47:39
So anyway I. 01:47:45
I told you your concern price. I personally I would be OK understanding the requirements that then come with the development 01:47:47
agreement process that we're not approving 300 units. We're just as he said we're, we're, we're now we would then be allowing to 01:47:53
have that negotiation conversation. 01:47:59
So just thinking real quick about some development that has happened in Orem. Orem, we did their whole center St. plan and allowed 01:48:10
for a certain density. 01:48:15
For units to be brought in and when these units were being brought in and density was coming in, it was approved by ARM 01:48:21
previously, but now they didn't want to have the density that was brought in. And so people were that now Orem is dealing with 01:48:28
legal situations and Orem of course is getting sued for that because they already approved a plan and density is coming in. How 01:48:35
I'm wondering how this would be different from that. 01:48:42
So you know that. 01:48:50
About that. 01:48:51
From playing maybe a little bit on the other side. Yeah, right. Working, working with a developer in Oren. 01:48:55
They where, where Orem has created exposure is they implemented a moratorium on development, which is a very difficult thing. The 01:49:02
legal basis for first they basically said we will approve, we will not review permit applications or of any kind. They, they 01:49:09
revised it later to be for residential use only, but they just put a stop. So we won't, we won't look at anything that's 01:49:15
submitted. 01:49:22
Because they wanted to give themselves time to go back in and revise their zoning code. 01:49:29
That did allow for mixed-use projects along the State St. corridor and. 01:49:36
The residents were uncomfortable with that, made enough noise with their City Council members that they they create, you know, 01:49:44
they called a special meeting and basically said we want to impose a moratorium. 01:49:49
They had counsel in that meeting from their city manager, from the mayor, from their attorney to not impose a moratorium that that 01:49:56
would create a legal exposure. They approved it anyway and now they have a lawsuit. So it's, it's different in that way that they, 01:50:03
they kind of just said we're not, we're not looking at anything anymore. So I'm just wondering if I before I feel really 01:50:10
comfortable approving this. I, that legal question is really my biggest concern. 01:50:18
I can't, I can't send something to the City Council be like, hey, we recommend this for approval if. 01:50:25
If legally like we don't have a foot to stand on in the future, I can understand the other things that hashing out the percentage 01:50:31
of commercial residential or hashing out the specific section or even the 400 N. But if we don't have a foot to stand on in the 01:50:39
future and if we approve something like this, that's where I that's where I'm concerned. So I'd hate to see something like that. 01:50:47
Is there a way you know in in sending this to the City Council? 01:50:57
Is there a way to? 01:51:03
This is a sincere question. Is there a way to attach a condition or something that you know? 01:51:06
That includes as part of that City Council review or when, when this is presented, the City Council that the city attorney. 01:51:12
You know, be be at that meeting and provide legal counsel to the city prior to the City Council making a final decision. 01:51:20
On the agenda item, I mean, I would think so that that's the only, that would definitely be a condition I would put before I would 01:51:29
be comfortable moving this forward is letting having the city attorney review this and present it to the City Council prior to 01:51:36
their review next week would be, you know, understanding. Does this open ourselves up to litigation? Does it set any legal 01:51:43
precedent? If there were changes that needed to be made to the developer agreement down the line, what would that entail? 01:51:49
Is it unilateral, bilateral, those types of questions? Is that a condition we could put in? 01:51:57
Yeah, yeah. I mean, you guys can you guys can place it in any condition like that. I with with with this type of thing. I mean, 01:52:02
it's going to go to the City Council most likely they're they're going to do that that anyway because we'll provide the staff 01:52:08
report that's going to provide an overall description of what happened in this meeting with the questions and stuff. And so a lot 01:52:14
of those same issues are going to come up. So it would seem to me that the decision we're facing as a Commission is, are two 01:52:20
things. 01:52:25
One is either to approve it as it's presented tonight and it would then go to the City Council with all of this other work 01:52:32
provided to them prior to them making the decision or for us to postpone our decision to the City Council until we have some of 01:52:39
this information from legal for us to be able to go forward. So to me, those are the two decisions we're facing here. Yeah. And I 01:52:47
I don't think we would want to postpone until we had some of the details that are more appropriately. 01:52:54
Negotiated in the developer agreement 'cause I don't think we're going to have a one week turn around on traffic study. And I 01:53:03
wasn't saying those, I was saying illegal. It's either do we want to see the legal review first before we recommend it or 01:53:08
recommend it with the conditions of legal reviews. 01:53:14
I think that's a good summary. And I think, I think that we do need, I think it's important that we do have a specific section 01:53:22
that we make it a specific section because in the future if another development in geographically contain it. 01:53:29
Yeah, and I'm OK with that. If someone tears down their apartment complex and wants to build again, then they can build without 01:53:36
any. 01:53:40
Well, they'd have to submit a development agreement. They would. But again, it comes back to the legal thing like and with the 01:53:45
Planning Commission, when we have a development agreement or when we approve something like this and we're like, well, does it 01:53:51
meet what was originally planned? Well then we're good with it. So it's kind of, I feel like this is kind of the same thing where 01:53:57
I don't want to be like, well, it meets the plan, so our heads are tied so. 01:54:04
Yeah, what? We're happy to do whatever you want, if you wanted. I wanted this too. We could have the if this was. 01:54:11
Council that that's a route as well. So that's up to you personally for me to feel comfortable recommending it. I'd like to those 01:54:47
two things, at least those two things legally if we have a foot to stand on and if we have and I want it to be a specific section. 01:54:55
Go ahead. If I can interject real quick. So one of the things I know you talked about the limit geographically, we are imposing a 01:55:06
cap on the number of units and so. 01:55:11
There is a cap, it's not open-ended that anybody can come in and submit a development agreement. In essence somebody was going to 01:55:17
have to go back to this process and amend the code to amend the cap in order to be able to initiate that. So even though it's not 01:55:24
that that boundaries and their geographically it's there based on the number of units. 01:55:31
In participate playing right, I had that backwards. No, you're good. And the other suggestion I might make. 01:55:38
Is, you know if you do recommend it to City Council for those legal issues to be resolved for them. That part of the motion is 01:55:44
requesting that you get the training before, as was mentioned before, any applications come before you for development agreement 01:55:50
that the city attorney comes and kind of walks through this process and and that you receive that specific training. I think it's 01:55:56
important for them to understand, but I think it's also it's going to be important for you to understand as as you see these 01:56:02
applications and. 01:56:07
So that might be something worth considering in your in a condition if you were to move it forward this evening. So just to we do 01:56:14
have our training right now and he's been waiting really patiently. So I don't want to push it, but I know we've been going for 01:56:20
about an hour and a half. Maybe we can wrap up the next 10 minutes. If you know, if you guys want to discuss kind of how to 01:56:27
proceed with a with a motion or. 01:56:34
What you want to do 1 of you can make a motion. Sounds like there's kind of maybe two thought patterns going on, but I would 01:56:42
recommend someone make a motion and we. 01:56:45
Do I have somebody would like to make a motion. I am willing to make a motion and you know just because I'm making a motion still 01:56:51
vote how you would like, but I I move to recommend approval of the proposed zoning text amendment, but with the additional 01:56:59
condition that our city attorney answer all legal questions that we've brought up tonight, including. 01:57:08
Are we opening ourselves up to future litigation? Are we setting precedent? Precedent. 01:57:18
You know what, what leeway do we have once the development agreement is reached to modify those? Is it unilateral or bilateral and 01:57:25
any other questions as we review this that that we've brought up? 01:57:32
Do I have a second? 01:57:41
I would second that. 01:57:43
All right, all in favor. Aye, I apologize. We we do need this roll call. All right, Tim, I me may Tay with these conditions, I 01:57:45
Anthony, aye, aye. Moving on to 4.3 Sony effects amendment regarding section 15.14 point. 01:57:57
2-08 dot 2.08 Development standards in the Vineyard Special purpose zoning district modifying the language to increase the 01:58:12
permitted No sorry, that was what we just did. 01:58:18
Plenty of time to like he was the naval. 01:58:26
Moving to 5.1 Utah State. 01:58:32
I'm sorry, that's right. 01:58:36
Ridiculous. Now you know the questions you're gonna get. 01:58:43
Guys gonna keep going. 01:58:50
Does anyone need a break price? Does anyone need like a? 01:58:53
Yeah. Can I be excused? You can be excused. Thank you. 01:58:58
So now you know what issue is like we need training on. Yeah, I have a feeling you have some feelings. 01:59:10
I think I have an idea of what you guys might want to talk about, yeah. 01:59:17
Awesome. Should we wait for anything here? Should I just jump in? 01:59:21
I'm going to type native. 01:59:28
I remember that one. Yeah, yeah. 01:59:37
Yeah. 01:59:45
All right. 01:59:49
Yeah, I'm not. I'm not like. 01:59:59
Really comfortable about it. 02:00:02
Couldn't issue this trust. I forgot so much. We don't trust the city. 02:00:06
Good things and to follow through on it and we just developed. 02:00:14
Yeah. 02:00:23
No, you're going to pass a few of these around. 02:00:29
The Office of Property Rights. 02:00:33
Opera. 02:00:44
Oh bro. 02:00:47
And I know how to clear a room, right? 02:00:50
Thank you. Appreciate it. 02:00:54
Oh, sure. 02:00:57
OK, let's look for it. 02:01:01
Are you going to Do you want me to move it or you? 02:01:10
Are we ready to roll? 02:01:20
Hey, well, thank you all for sticking with me tonight. I'm actually usually, usually it's like a work session or I'm the only one 02:01:29
speaking, right? But luckily this stuff is incredibly engaging and horribly entertaining, so no big deal, right? 02:01:36
I said so, yeah. My name is Jordan Colmore. There's my information up there. I'm the lead attorney in the Office of the Property 02:01:46
Rights Ombudsman. 02:01:49
You got an answer? Oh, hello, Amber. Very good. 02:01:54
What's Ambers role and she's a alternate plan. Perfect. Welcome, Amber. Thanks for being here. So the office of property right is 02:01:59
part of OK, so that that's what I typically usually explain at the very beginning, right. Who are we and what do we do? It's a 02:02:06
great question. So we are a neutral, nonpartisan state funded office and we were created by the Legislature primarily to help 02:02:13
local governments. 02:02:20
And, and really even the state and county. 02:02:28
See how local governments and state government, when they have disputes right with private property owners, primarily in the areas 02:02:31
of land use and eminent domain, we can get involved not as representing either side, but in the role of an ombudsman right or a 02:02:38
mediator, essentially right to try to help resolve the disputes. The idea being that if there's this alternative dispute 02:02:46
resolution forum for the parties to get together and try to resolve their disputes, then those issues don't go to court. 02:02:53
And the taxpayers don't have to pay money, right? Developers and property owners that have to pay money to litigate. And 02:03:01
ultimately it benefits everyone, right? The taxpayers specifically, right. So that's kind of our government function. That's why 02:03:07
our office exists, right? But we are, we are neutral. Like I say, we don't represent the government and we even actually have a 02:03:13
board of public and private stakeholders that that governs our office. Oh, cool, great. Thanks. 02:03:19
To ensure right that we are staying neutral, Fortunately we've been around for 20 some odd years. 02:03:26
And, and the office has developed a good reputation of, of being neutral. And we have no reason to not be right. We, we appreciate 02:03:33
the role that we play. And fortunately we've kind of become a, an institution in the industry, right? And people know that we are 02:03:39
neutral. But if ever were to go off the rails, right, our board would be there to, to kind of bring us in line. So there's, 02:03:45
there's three attorneys in the office. We cover the entire state. 02:03:51
And we have one assistant, so I. 02:03:58
By way of maybe explanation, part of the reason I want to explain this is so that you guys know that as planning commissioners, 02:04:02
here's my contact information, right? We have a website as well. We get a lot of calls from property owners, from City Council 02:04:08
members, from mayors, from planning commissioners saying, hey, we're dealing with these kinds of issues. What do you think, right? 02:04:14
And so in the land use and development context, the primary dispute resolution tool that we have available is called an advisory 02:04:19
opinion, right? So. 02:04:25
If, for instance, a developer brought in an application, an administrative application, right? And we'll get into that a little 02:04:32
bit, right? The difference between legislative and legislative and administrative, which you guys have been dealing with tonight, 02:04:36
right? 02:04:40
But if they bring in an administrative application and they feel like the city isn't reviewing the application according to the 02:04:47
applicable rules, then either the property owner or the city, we have both right? Can, can say, hey, ombudsman's office, would you 02:04:53
provide a neutral, independent opinion about what a court would say about our dispute? Right. And we provide that opinion and it, 02:05:00
and it, it, it acts as a dispute resolution tool to help resolve that dispute. So we've done. 02:05:07
North of 230 Some odd opinions in the existence of our office. 02:05:15
And they have a good reputation of trying to help resolve disputes on the eminent domain side. You know, eminent domain is when 02:05:20
the government needs someone's property for a public use, right? And the property owner doesn't necessarily want to sell it. It's 02:05:26
not available on the open market. And so every time the government needs someone's property for a use like that, they also have to 02:05:32
give that property owner a pamphlet about our office, right, saying, hey, here's a neutral third party. You can go to them. You 02:05:38
can ask questions. 02:05:44
You can request that they mediate the dispute if you feel like what the government is offering is not reflective of Fair market 02:05:50
value. If it's not just compensation, we can also give the parties additional evidence, right? So we can order an additional 02:05:56
appraisal that the government has to pay for and the property owner gets to choose who does the appraisal, right? And then that 02:06:02
becomes another tool for the parties to resolve the dispute if they want to, right? So we do a lot of mediation. We do advisory 02:06:08
opinions. And then the third kind of. 02:06:14
Of the, of the leg of the stool that is our office is, is this right? Tonight I'm, I'm here in Vineyard, tomorrow I'm in Mill 02:06:20
Creek, right? So we do a lot of these trainings. 02:06:26
And and then we just spend a lot of time on the phone with people frankly, right, calling in and answering, asking questions and 02:06:33
sending us emails and different things like that. So that's what we do and that's why we're here. Please use us. We're a resource. 02:06:40
And there's, there's no cost. There's $150.00 filing fee if you want an advisory opinion, otherwise no cost, right? 02:06:46
I will say I grew up in Linden City, right? 02:06:55
I think, I think it goes without saying that you guys have grown. 02:07:02
Since I've been around right when I was young, Vineyard was Geneva basically right, and then a few other folks and my how you've 02:07:06
grown right. So really cool stuff going on down here, but I was glad to drive back into Utah County. I live in Riverton now, right 02:07:14
and and and see the leaves changing on temp and baldy and and reminisce right so. 02:07:22
Great place, but with that any initial questions on Order Office does? 02:07:30
OK, let's just hop right into it. So hey Jordan, just really quick. When I was in common Heights, I'm over here. So I used to work 02:07:37
for Cotton Heights and we had a legal opinion from from your office. So it was really helpful. We had a dispute regarding short 02:07:42
term rentals and someone wanted to do something. We had a kind of a funky code, but it really did help to have that opinion. We're 02:07:48
always glad to hear it right. Anytime we issue an advisory opinion, half the people think we're incredibly brilliant, the other 02:07:53
half think we're. 02:07:59
Right. So Yep. 02:08:05
But at least, yeah, we're here and we do that, right? So I'm glad to hear it was useful in your case. So, yeah, with that, right, 02:08:08
Since we do these trainings all over the state, right? A couple weeks ago, I was in Torrey, Utah, right outside of, I think it's 02:08:14
Capitol Reef, right? Yeah. They have very different issues than what you guys are dealing with in Vineyard, right? And Mill Creek 02:08:20
has different issues. 02:08:26
Everyone, we're all dealing with land use issues, right? But everyone has their own issues they're dealing with. So what we've 02:08:32
traditionally done is put up this this common legal issues and land use boards. 02:08:38
Board, I guess if you will, and say, hey, what is it you guys like would like to talk about right now we have I'm not your 02:08:44
attorney, right? So I can't answer incredibly specific. Well, you can ask very specific questions and I'll let you know if I can 02:08:51
get specific answers or not right. But but typically we talk in in general terms about what your obligation is, right. So what we 02:08:57
say is we're here to try to help help you make. 02:09:04
Good land use decisions and part of making good land use decisions is making legal land use decisions, right? 02:09:12
So I mean, I have a few slides that kind of go along with each of these. There's inevitably the same topics that come up in one 02:09:19
fraction or another. But in looking at the board and you don't have to use anything on there, we can talk about other things. 02:09:27
I don't have development agreements on this one, do I? Well, you can still ask about them if you'd like. What's that? Yeah, there 02:09:40
there is. So you can, this is just to get the juices flowing. But if there's something not on there that you do want to talk about 02:09:45
it, let's talk about it. So should I jump into what I have prepared or do you want to answer a question now that we've kind of 02:09:51
primed the pump, I mean? 02:09:56
Yeah. I mean, if you can just quickly like give us what your thoughts on kind of the situation we were talking about tonight. 02:10:05
Of if we change it, if we change the development agreement to add more density and then we don't like what the developers come up 02:10:12
with, what do we have on foot to stand on? Yeah, So that's a great question. 02:10:18
All right, so we have, we have and maybe let me walk through this to give a kind of a framework and then maybe the answer will 02:10:26
become clear, right. So and and this deals with that legislative, administrative decisions, right? Interestingly, development 02:10:32
agreements can fall into one or the other category, right? Typically they fall into the category of legislative decisions, but 02:10:38
there are certain cases where they can be administrative decisions. And so you want to know what your code is saying and you want 02:10:44
to know. 02:10:50
Making right? 02:10:56
In making the distinction between legislative and administrative decisions, it's really important to know that because it's going 02:10:59
to really determine kind of the discretion you have, right? And you guys, you're, you're using the language, right? In certain 02:11:06
cases, you have all sorts of discretion to make a decision, right? In other situations, you don't, right? You can just look at the 02:11:14
code and you make sure it complies. The first one is when you're making legislative decisions, lots of discretion, right? 02:11:21
When you're making administrative decisions, the idea there is that now a property owner has some vested rights that we call them, 02:11:28
right? Some, some rights that are locked in, they, they get to have some more predictability, right? But when you're making the 02:11:34
rules, you have all sorts of discretion, right? So the Supreme Court of Utah, they've looked and they said, OK, we're talking 02:11:40
about legislative and administrative decisions. 02:11:46
Two key hallmarks of legislative decisions. They involve the promulgation of laws of general applicability. 02:11:53
And they're based on the weighing abroad competing policy considerations. 02:12:00
Let's see, do I have it on here? 02:12:06
No, OK. 02:12:10
So. 02:12:11
You see kind of typical legislative decisions, general plan and amendments, right? So whether or not you want to put into your 02:12:13
code right to to increase the density and allow for development agreements, whether or not to do that, it's a legislative 02:12:20
decision, right? Enactment of land use regulations, zone changes, annexations. 02:12:26
What are some of the considerations, right, primarily a legislative decision, you can't violate applicable state or federal law, 02:12:34
right? So state law or federal law says you can't do it. You can't make that legislative decision, right? Otherwise, if it's 02:12:40
reasonably debatable that the decision is consistent with the public interest, you're good, right? And that's a really low 02:12:47
standard to me. You just have to say, hey. 02:12:53
This is in the public interest that we're saying yes or no here. 02:13:01
Right. Can you clarify a reasonably debatable? 02:13:04
It sounds really soft. It does. It's, I mean, that's where lawyers make their money, frankly, right? 02:13:09
If if, if you can make a good faith argument that our decision benefits the public. 02:13:15
You're good, right? So we're looking at it, we're saying, hey. 02:13:22
This doesn't meet our character, our community character. 02:13:26
Courts have looked at and said that's a sufficient reason, right? If you're getting into the realm of, oh, this is going to, you 02:13:30
know, make. 02:13:34
The road that accesses this development fail, right from like a level of service standpoint. I mean, that's that's even a better 02:13:40
reason, frankly, right. But but all those reasons are reasonably debatable to be in the public interest, right? We don't think 02:13:46
high density fits over there. That's horses. So that's enough, right? 02:13:53
What is Sorry, No, you please, I didn't say the meaning. I intend this to be a conversation. So yeah, turn my mic on a follow up 02:14:00
and maybe you'll get to this. But what we talked about a lot was precedent, right? And you hear those of us that are not lawyers, 02:14:06
we hear the precedent, you know, and what you expose yourself once there's precedent. So like reasonably debatable. I think 02:14:13
getting back to this whole development agreement concept is. 02:14:20
We can determine that in this zone. 02:14:27
This seems reasonable to allow for additional density or additional units above a cap. Yeah. Does that set a precedent for that? A 02:14:30
property owner in a different zone that has different characteristics to say, yeah, well, you, you allowed these guys to do it, so 02:14:37
we should have the right to as well. Yeah. So it's a great question. And the short answer is no, in making zoning decisions, you 02:14:45
don't set a legal precedent that binds you in the future. 02:14:52
Right. 02:14:59
What I will say is, you know, it would be naive to say that developers don't look around and see what communities look like, 02:15:01
right? So if you're approving a lot of high density, you're probably gonna get more requests for high density. But that doesn't 02:15:07
set a legal precedent that would require you to approve more high density, right? 02:15:13
No, to this point it never has, right? 02:15:21
You know you may. Yeah. No, it doesn't. So because again. 02:15:27
Like you said, right, if you can look at it and say over here it made sense, but over here it doesn't. And This is why, right, 02:15:32
then it's reasonably debatable that your decision is in the public interest. And of course, look at that and say, okay, the 02:15:38
overarching all of this is the idea that. 02:15:43
Whether or not to rezone a property, legislative decisions, right, whether or not to change our code. Those are policy questions 02:15:51
and you know in your civics course or. 02:15:55
Whatever, now I'm forgetting the name of it. The shows when we were kids. 02:16:02
Schoolhouse Rock, thank you. 02:16:08
Conjunction junction, What's your function, right? But there is also the one how a bill becomes a law, right? And the idea there 02:16:11
is that who makes policy decisions? The legislative branch, who's the legislative branch and the local government, the City 02:16:18
Council, right? So the courts stay out of or should stay out of, right? That's another discussion. Policy questions. 02:16:25
Right. They only answer legal questions, right? And so if, if you've made a policy decision, then the courts are going to stay out 02:16:33
of that decision, right? And, and these kinds of things are policy decisions, right? General plan amendments, land use 02:16:41
regulations, zone changes, annexations, and in most cases, development agreements, right? 02:16:49
If you have basically in order to says, hey, you can develop according to XY and Z, you can you can develop according to the 02:16:58
zoning. 02:17:02
Right. Or you can come negotiate with us and do a development agreement that puts in place new policies, right? New 02:17:07
considerations, new laws, new rules. 02:17:12
Then state law says that development agreement has to go through the same process that a land use regulation would, that an 02:17:19
ordinance would, right? And the same legal standard applies as well, right? If it's reasonably debatable to be in the public 02:17:25
interest, your decision whether or not to approve or deny, right? 02:17:31
Then then the courts won't disturb it, right. So like under our code, our development agreements require a public area through 02:17:38
Planning Commission and City Council same as the general plan amendment or like a zone change. So because of it's being treated at 02:17:44
kind of a like a legislative type application, would a development agreement in this instance where there, you know, we basically 02:17:50
say you get more density through development agreement. 02:17:57
So I, I guess the question is because they're going through kind of that heightened level of scrutiny like a, like a zone change. 02:18:04
Would do they have kind of that same level of discretion where it's reasonably debatable? Yeah. If you're changing the rules 02:18:10
through a development agreement, then it's going to be a legislative decision and you're going to have that same description, 02:18:18
right. Some codes will put in there and say, hey, you got to develop according to all these standards. Oh, and, you know, if you 02:18:25
want to kind of work out who's going to build what, where, when and how according to the rules in the zone, then you can do. 02:18:33
My advice, for what it's worth. 02:19:10
Is that you're gonna do a development agreement, put it through your legislative process, right? Because local communities have 02:19:12
been burned by saying, oh, we think this development agreement's administrative, right? So we're not gonna hold public hearings, 02:19:17
we're not gonna get input. And then they get sued and the court says, yeah, sorry, that was that was actually a legislative 02:19:22
decision, right? 02:19:27
Or vice versa so. 02:19:35
But yeah, they say, yeah, it was a legislative decision. Then they have to start over, right and hold the right hearings and have. 02:19:38
Have the right influence. 02:19:43
Does that answer the question to an extent? Yeah, Yeah, a little bit. Yeah, I think. 02:19:47
I mostly. 02:19:53
Just clarify then I guess so when we. 02:19:58
Who's talking? 02:20:04
So, and maybe you said this and I missed it, Just trying to get this into my brain. 02:20:08
What we then it seems to me like we've embarked on a legislative process with what we're doing with this development agreement 02:20:13
process. Yeah. So we would be reviewing this under that legislative umbrella and discretion. Yep. And I'll provide the caveat, 02:20:19
right, that I haven't seen all the rules. I haven't seen all the submittals, right. And I think you're, you're smart to involve 02:20:25
your city attorney, right. But it sounds like you you're you've just recommended a legislative decision. And then when they come 02:20:31
back and say, OK, here's our plan and. 02:20:37
Our proposed development agreement, it's probably going to be another legislative agreement or a decision, right? But once you 02:20:43
execute that, that development agreement and the City Council adopts it, now you got the rules in place and their next 02:20:48
application. 02:20:53
Now your discretion narrows significantly, right, right. And you're going to administrative decisions and that's where we live 02:20:58
primarily like the site plans, we like that. 02:21:03
Because they don't have to come back to the future changes. 02:21:10
Well, they. 02:21:15
They wouldn't be able to make changes. If they did, then we could administratively not pass the project. 02:21:17
They'd have to go through a whole nother legislative process. So they'll change the rules, right? Anytime you change a rule, you 02:21:27
have to, you have to have a public hearing somewhere, right? So good questions. 02:21:32
That's probably open state law. 02:21:40
Um, yeah. 02:21:44
Yeah. So with administrative decisions, right, they generally involve applying the law to a particular individual or group based 02:21:47
on individual facts and circumstances. So like you say, that's where you guys typically live, right? One way you can know if 02:21:54
you're making a legislative decision or administrative decision is are you approving or are you recommending something, right. If 02:22:01
you're recommending to the city. Now granted the City Council, I don't know if you're not right, some city councils do retain. 02:22:08
Authority to make administrative decisions, right, like subdivision approvals and stuff like that. 02:22:17
Right. So sometimes you're still just making a recommendation, right? But they can delegate that kind of stuff to you to make the 02:22:22
final decision. They can't delegate to you authority to make the final decision on a legislative matter, right? 02:22:29
They have to make that because there's a legislative body. 02:22:37
Are you guys as the Planning Commission, right? You're, you're, you're essentially a technical advisory committee, is the idea 02:22:41
right? So you're supposed to specialize in land use and planning. You're supposed to know what your zoning code says, supposed to 02:22:46
know what your zoning map looks like and your general plan. And then you, you make those decisions or you make recommendations to 02:22:52
your City Council, right, about those types of things. 02:22:57
Yeah. Sorry, I have another question that's kind of different, but also I feel like it's kind of the same. 02:23:06
So with our general plan, there's a developer that wants to come in on a specific area with a fairly high development, like high 02:23:14
density development. And I just say fairly and our general plan, it says low density on the map, but in the general plan it 02:23:21
doesn't specifically say. 02:23:28
What square footage that is, right. So on our map we have two zones that are zoned. We have two areas that are zoned low density 02:23:36
and on the map they're colored the same way. 02:23:40
Would that mean that if they're colored the same way that you would have to look at them legally in the same way or color the same 02:23:46
way? Are we talking about your general plan or your zone in the general? 02:23:51
They both say low density. They both say low density. They're both covered the same. They're yellow, yeah. And that's not medium 02:23:58
density here. Yeah, they're both yellow and so. 02:24:03
Yellow slash orange is medium density. 02:24:10
Burnt Umber it's striped so in that situation. 02:24:12
It would be loads at low dense or low density, right? They wouldn't be able to say well you haven't specified it or. 02:24:21
Well, let me ask, does your code, does it say that any zoning decision has to comply with the general plan? OK, Yeah. So again, 02:24:28
the general plan, it's an advisory document, right? And they come in and if your code says that it has to comply, then if they're 02:24:37
proposing high density and your general plan says low density, right, then it's not going to be code requirements, right? 02:24:46
They can request that you change your general plan, right? Look at doing that. 02:24:56
But your question specifically was was because it seems like every single applicant for this area is high density and so it just 02:25:01
seems. 02:25:06
Yeah, it doesn't. For it to be what I'm, I guess what my real question was, it doesn't need to be specified like the exact acreage 02:25:14
of it, right? No, no, it doesn't. I just had this conversation the other day regarding sitting down in in Southern Utah. 02:25:22
Some, some, some cities, you look at their general plan map and it's almost indistinguishable from their zone map, right? 02:25:30
Honestly, that's not the idea. The idea is that as a community, you take your general plan map, which is forward thinking and you 02:25:36
say, hey, generally speaking, you know, these types of categories fit in these types of areas, right? So I would say a good 02:25:42
general plan doesn't get too specific, right? It just kind of gives a signal to the developer and says, hey, you know, we got a 02:25:48
corridor over here. 02:25:54
So we want to see high density in commercial and industrial thing maybe, right, This is kind of more offset. So it makes more 02:26:00
sense for single family residential maybe and then you have transition areas in between or something, right. That's a good general 02:26:06
plan. OK, OK, good question. Cool. Thanks. Yeah. 02:26:12
Didn't. Were there any of those other things you guys wanted to? 02:26:23
We get a lot of questions about and if a commissioner has something you can override this one, but conditional use permits and and 02:26:28
also site plans and can a condition be added to a site plan. We typically have done a more of informative like like you, you know 02:26:34
must have landscaping in prior to the certificate of occupancy. Those are things that are required anyway, but we can just put 02:26:41
them in as boilerplate. 02:26:48
But outside of that, can a site plan, which is, I'm assuming, just kind of a straight administrative type application? 02:26:56
Can you add conditions kind of beyond like boilerplate? We've kind of had that, if you. Yeah, a good example of that is a 02:27:03
restaurant came in and said, hey, can we do this? And they had a really sloped roof. And I mean, that's, there was nothing in the 02:27:09
code that prohibited that, but we recommended that they flatten it out or something like that. So they had a thing in the code 02:27:15
that said it needs to look the same thing. 02:27:21
But my my sense and my understanding is if it, if they really wanted to, they could say. 02:27:29
Thanks for the feedback. Now, like, yeah, where does that fit in with what you're thinking about it? Totally the right way, right? 02:27:35
So when you're talking about administrative decision, a site plan, a conditional use permit, right. Conditional use permits are 02:27:41
interesting because you can't add conditions according to the standards, right? But if it's a permitted use and all they need to 02:27:47
do is a site plan and yeah, you're right, I mean. 02:27:53
If you have to tie it to something in the code, and the code has to be clear and specific. So if you have something that says hey, 02:28:00
it needs to meet the character right or it needs to be compatible. 02:28:05
And and it doesn't propose a specific pitch or anything like that. If they come in and they want to do a steep pitch, by all means 02:28:11
say, hey, we think that doesn't look quite right or, or would you consider doing this and, and negotiate with them, Right. But 02:28:17
you're right, if they if they. 02:28:22
Decided, hey, you know, this is our, this is our style and this is what we're going to do. Again, if there wasn't anything 02:28:29
specific in the code saying they have to do what you're asking them to do, they don't have to do it. 02:28:35
And they're entitled to approval, right? So that goes with here. Here's the here's the lawyer Lee talk, right? 02:28:42
It goes through considerations when making administrative decision, right? You have to apply the plain language of the land use 02:28:51
regulation and where regulation quote UN quote does not plainly restrict the land use application or could reasonably be read to 02:28:58
support different interpretations, land use authority, you guys must interpret and apply the regulation to favor the proposal. 02:29:05
In the land use application, right? So the reason I put that in there is to say, hey, part of what you guys do is you recommend 02:29:13
the code changes, right? If you have an ambiguous code. 02:29:20
That that doesn't really favor you, right? Because if it's ambiguous and can be interpreted multiple ways, that gives the 02:29:28
developer a lot of discretion basically to bring in something and say, hey, this arguably complies, right? This meets the language 02:29:36
of the code. So if you want something in there, if you want flat roofs, say flat roofs, right? If you want a 412 pitch, say 02:29:43
everything has to be a 412 pitch around here, right? The architect probably doesn't like that. 02:29:50
So, yeah, if you want, if you want your code to say something, say it. Some, some communities in the past, right, historically and 02:30:02
even today will say, hey, we'll make that ambiguous so that when someone comes in, we can have some wiggle room and whether or not 02:30:09
we say yes or no, right, it doesn't favor you, it favors them from a legal standpoint, so. 02:30:15
Questions. 02:30:24
How about the short term rentals, the things that we face on our community? 02:30:26
Our investors, yeah, buying homes and then Airbnb or those types of things and short term rentals. 02:30:32
Construction. And to add to that, technically they're not legal in the city right now with our code, OK. 02:30:40
But we're allowing. 02:30:48
Well, when we get code enforcement, we'll, we'll go out, but on that one, it's only a complaint basis. So we're not like 02:30:51
proactively going on Saturday and knocking on doors. And yeah. And I mean, you've kind of hit the nail on the head, right? I mean, 02:30:57
it's, it's pretty easy to determine whether or not you want to approve or not allow, allow or not allow short term rentals within 02:31:03
your community. You just say, hey, it has to be, you know, occupied for more. The next number of 30 days, 30 days is the typical 02:31:09
right? That's. 02:31:15
Dividing line between short term and long term rentals. 02:31:21
It the issue that that comes up with short term rentals is, is enforcement and most of the violations happen on the weekend, right 02:31:26
so. 02:31:30
I mean, if you want to look at a good example in my mind of a community that has a really robust enforcement regime, Provo City, 02:31:37
right, nearby community, this is something they've been dealing with for a really long time, right? And they have an entire 02:31:44
administrative enforcement code, right? This, that, and I think. 02:31:50
They even involved their police officers, right, So that you can check violations on the weekend sometimes, right? To the point 02:31:57
that, yeah, I mean, they have a much more robust system. The extent to which you want to do that as a community, right, is up to 02:32:04
you guys, right? There's pros and cons, you know, and, and really it's up to the City Council in a lot of ways to decide what type 02:32:10
of enforcement regime you're going to have. 02:32:16
And and. 02:32:24
Yeah, I'll just leave it at that. That makes sense. Is that? 02:32:28
In the realm of answering your question, am I missing the mark? 02:32:31
I should have stopped a long time ago. 02:32:40
Story of my life, no worries. 02:32:50
It's not me, it's not you, it's me. 02:32:53
Yeah, OK. 02:32:57
Yeah. 02:33:01
That has a lot of feelings about not wanting short term rental but having a lot of activity in that area because of the kinds of 02:33:07
people that are buying homes and so on. So. 02:33:14
And if you can't give me anywhere upon that, that's fine. Well, no, I see what you're saying. And really that's. 02:33:22
That's the work of the policy makers to an extent, right? And there's definitely different philosophies on that, right? Do you 02:33:30
want to be a community where you have certain values and you're going to sit to those values regardless of any other inputs or 02:33:36
which is there's nothing good, bad or otherwise about that, right? That's just one approach. Or do you want to be a community that 02:33:42
looks at the market and tries to respond to market trends? 02:33:48
Right. That's, that's another philosophy and another approach, if I understand what you're saying, right? And I do see communities 02:33:55
say, hey, we understand that this is this is the market trend in our community. We don't like that trend, right? Recognize though, 02:34:02
at the same time you deal with the consequences as well, right? You might have areas of town that don't develop and then you have 02:34:09
potentially finance issues, right? But you also see it on the flip side, right? If you approve development, that is. 02:34:16
Expensive for a city to keep up, right? 02:34:24
Maybe you have similar problems, right? So the reality there is. 02:34:27
That's why I'm a lawyer, not a politician, right? And, and, and there is unfortunately no right answers. They're just, there's 02:34:33
just pros and cons, you know what I mean? 02:34:38
We're trying to open up an environment, attract people that maybe don't want to live here long term, certainly come in for a 02:34:45
weekend or a week of recreation. It seems like that's the direction we're going with the state. Yeah. And I'll be honest, I mean. 02:34:54
There are pockets, right, If you look at like the mouth of a bigger little Cottonwood Canyon or if you look at a Moab City or a 02:35:04
Saint George, right? Those are communities where it makes a lot more sense, right to to really consider the benefits of short term 02:35:12
rentals where if you're a more of a bedroom community, right and you don't have a lot of. 02:35:19
You know, recreational destinations, yeah, those communities, it's really up to them, frankly, right? I mean, there's, there's, 02:35:27
there's no right answer in those communities, right? And so it's just kind of what do you want things to look like? And can you 02:35:33
put in place rules that are actually going to be able to be enforced, right, so that you don't set up expectations and and just 02:35:39
make residents mad all the time, frankly. 02:35:45
We have code in town that that makes it illegal, yeah. 02:35:54
But. 02:35:59
We've kind of taken the approach to not really trying to enforce a lot of yeah. 02:36:00
Yeah, we run lots of stuff complaint based, which is nice. Yeah. And that's, that's the way most communities do it, frankly, 02:36:06
right. I mean, if you went out and if if Cash was driving the streets looking for violations, he probably sees them when he's 02:36:11
driving to the complaint, right? 02:36:16
He rides his bike. 02:36:23
Community based enforcement. I like it. 02:36:26
It's, it's large. It, it is. It's a question of resources and where do you want to put those resources and how many resources do 02:36:30
you want to put toward it? 02:36:33
Call any of these other things you guys. 02:36:38
No. What is exactions? OK, so an exact yeah, exaction. That's when you require the developer to construct some sort of a public 02:36:44
improvement. Roads, sewers. 02:36:51
Schools, Yep, if you trails, Yep, If you say, hey, if you're gonna own it. So if the developer is building it and you're gonna own 02:36:58
it, that's an exaction. And the long of the short of it is you can only, frankly, regardless of what your code says, honestly, 02:37:05
right. Constitutionally speaking, if you require them to build more than what's offsetting their impact on your ability to provide 02:37:12
services, then you're violating the constitutional takings clause, right? 02:37:19
So, you know, internal roads, everyone agrees those are appropriate exactions, right, 'cause that's serving the development. 02:37:27
You know an arterial Rd. that. 02:37:34
Serves them, but also everyone around them. If you were to make them build the entire width of that road, that would probably be 02:37:39
excessive, right? Because now you're requiring them to build more than their. 02:37:43
Impact, right? 02:37:48
Impact fees are a form of an exaction as well, right. So Jordan, that's a great question. We are dealing with that at that very 02:37:50
theme right now. So an arterial Rd. going through a development, the development is sort of their own purposes would only need a 2 02:37:56
lane Rd. Can we require that to be put in place, But then like to increase above that we use impact fees or something to offset 02:38:03
the cost. That's perfect. 02:38:09
Yeah. So the idea is, yeah, you have them. You have, you can have them build and pay for what will offset their impact. 02:38:16
Any upsizing you need to reimburse them for, right? Right. Yeah, if, if they, they need a 2 lane, but your general plan calls for 02:38:21
A4 or A6 lane, you can require them to do it, right. But you just got to work out maybe a development agreement, right, of who 02:38:28
builds what and who's responsible for what. And that's exactly it, right? You use impact fees for those what we call system 02:38:34
improvements, right? 02:38:40
Yeah. 02:38:47
Is that? Yeah. So I mean exaction, right? A dedication that's requiring a developer to offset their their project needs, right. 02:38:49
But each project contributes to system improvements, right? 02:38:55
Yep, Yep, Yep. 02:39:02
So you know, and so yeah, you have to kind of try to account for that. So that's what an impact fee does is it says OK, individual 02:39:07
applicant, right, this is your proportionate share of impact on. 02:39:13
Our system improvements, right? And your impact fee plan probably says, hey, these are our, these are our system facilities, 02:39:20
right, that we need right now to serve our entire community. And then you charge individual impact fees on each user and you use 02:39:26
those impact fees to build these system improvements as opposed to having anyone developer try to build a whole water tank or you 02:39:33
know, trunk line for a sewer or arterial road or something like that, right? 02:39:40
That's a good question. 02:39:47
I have a question about public clamor. OK. 02:39:51
Umm, there's a lot of that happening. 02:39:55
I'm not, I'm not saying specifically the Vineyard. I think just generally speaking, yeah, social media, right. I. 02:40:01
The example was brought up of Quorum earlier tonight. I think there's been some of that there can. 02:40:10
I want to hear you. 02:40:15
What you have to say about public clamor and what it, what it is and what to watch for, you know, on our side. So that's a term, 02:40:17
right, that the courts have used public clamor. And you see, I put up their public input versus public clamor, right? When the 02:40:24
courts, when the courts say it's not appropriate to consider what the public is saying, it's called clamor, right? When they look 02:40:32
at it and say, yes, it is appropriate here, it's just public input, right? So I have, I have two slides. 02:40:39
On the public and their involvement, Right. Legislative decisions. Oh, where'd it go there? It's OK. Good. So when you're making a 02:40:48
legislative decision, here's the standard, right? A legislative body, you should take into consideration input from the public, 02:40:55
property owners and other interested parties, including their preferences and opinions, right? 02:41:02
It's up to you guys though, and you're making your recommendation and the City Council and making their decision what type of 02:41:10
weight you give to any opinion or preference. 02:41:15
Right. So if someone says, hey, I don't think this is the right place for that. If if you're making a zoning decision, you should 02:41:21
consider that, right? And you should listen to that input, But you should decide whether or not it should, how much weight it 02:41:27
should have, right? And whether you should go along with it or if there's other considerations that you think are more pressing 02:41:33
and important, right? But you do need to consider it the legislative stage, right? 02:41:39
And then you can also receive input for the purpose of gathering facts and evidence to support your your conclusions and 02:41:47
decisions. 02:41:50
At the administrative stage most of the time. 02:41:55
Public input is going to be viewed as clamor opinion and preferences, right? Someone brings in an application. 02:42:00
For a conditional use permit for a daycare. 02:42:07
And the neighbor comes in and says I don't want a daycare next to me right if the daycare complies with all the rules. 02:42:10
You have to prove it right. So you can't consider that public input right, that that clamor right. 02:42:20
But but what you can listen to the public for if you want to Now, administrative decisions, state law says you do not have to hold 02:42:27
public hearings for administrative decisions. You don't have to, right? But if your local code says you do, then you do. But you 02:42:33
can change your local code to say that it doesn't, right? It's up to you guys, you know. But, but sometimes public input is useful 02:42:40
in the administrative context for gathering information. 02:42:46
And evidence, right? Hey, did you know that there's a ditch right here, right? That hasn't been abandoned and Farmer Joe still 02:42:53
uses it on Tuesdays and Thursdays, right? That might be useful. And Farmer Joe stepping up to let you know that might be good 02:42:58
information, right? 02:43:03
I should have probably stopped a long time ago, I said. Am I going in the right direction? Yes. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. You know, 02:43:10
you're hitting it. 02:43:13
I'm learning lessons. 02:43:17
One of the things that's popularly used, and so is our petition, they're not legally binding even if they have signatures. 02:43:21
Or input or if it's, if it's, well, let's say that they're getting petitions for a zone change, right? We don't want this zone 02:43:34
change and you have 1000 signatures and 1200 residents. 02:43:42
You probably want to put some weight toward that opinion, right? 02:43:51
If it's a policy decision right now still. 02:43:55
Again, this is kind of a philosophy approach, right? Some elected officials say. 02:44:00
I'm not going to get into harken back to my political science degree, right? But some say I've been, I've been elected by the 02:44:06
public to be wise and to make good decisions, right? And sometimes those wise and good decisions will not be what the public 02:44:10
wants. 02:44:15
Those public officials don't last very long, right? They're usually voted out the next cycle. But that's one approach, right? Some 02:44:20
say I'm just, I'm just a conduit, right? Like I do what the people want. And so if they're making that sort of a decision and you 02:44:27
have a petition that that supports that approach, then maybe you give it some weight, right? But no, there's there's no legally 02:44:34
binding. There's there's nothing, right? No, there's not. So a question then maybe is. 02:44:41
In considering. 02:44:50
You're done, huh? 02:44:53
I get it. 02:44:56
Good morning. Anthony, could we get a copy of this as well as on your website or Yeah, because I don't think Amber can't see the 02:44:58
slide, so we want to. 02:45:03
Oh, great. OK. Thank you. Yeah, yeah, Cash, can you get that to Amber and just to the Commission? Thanks. 02:45:09
Yeah. Just to follow up on that, not to go too long tonight, but. 02:45:17
Yeah, and and. 02:45:24
Anyway. 02:45:26
How much weight goes into then? So there's a legislative decision being weighed out, right? Yeah. 02:45:27
Where we're, we're typically looking at our general plan. Does this fit the general plan? And you have a group of citizens who 02:45:36
come and say we don't want to, we don't want this, but our general plan says this is what should happen. You know, how much weight 02:45:44
do you give to the general plan? How much weight do you give to? 02:45:52
Citizens that are coming and voicing their. 02:46:01
Their concern, Yeah. OK. So from a best planning practices standpoint, you should give a lot of weight to your general plan, 02:46:05
especially if your general plan was was well thought out, frankly right now because yeah, I'll give you the caveat right of if if 02:46:11
you went through a lot of public input and a lot of effort and you did a lot of studies and market research to get your general 02:46:18
plan. 02:46:24
You should probably give it some weight, right? 02:46:31
But if your general plan was. 02:46:34
Created with just kind of, you know, people looking at a map and saying, oh, we like this here, we like that there. Maybe you 02:46:36
don't give it as much weight, right? So, but again, these are all discretionary things for you guys, right? 02:46:42
So again, I'll say it from a best planning practices standpoint, the general plan should have meaning, right? And so it should be 02:46:49
a document where you're looking at it and you're saying, yeah, this is what we want our community to look like. And if if the 02:46:55
request doesn't comply with that. 02:47:00
Then we should. 02:47:06
We should. 02:47:09
Give that a lot of weight in whatever decision we make. 02:47:10
Thanks. 02:47:16
Do you guys have anything else to? 02:47:18
All right. 02:47:21
Thank you so much. That was, oh, sorry, David, I guess, yeah. 02:47:23
Yeah, you can do the mic, just can't. We can't pick it up if you don't. 02:47:27
So the question goes back to development agreements and you and I want to just ask, we have a very short section about about 02:47:32
amending our counseling a development agreement once it's already passed. It says in addition to provisions and those provisions 02:47:38
are about final noticing a development agreement may be amended or cancelled whole or in part by mutual consent of the parties to 02:47:45
the agreement or the successors. 02:47:51
That is that in keeping with state laws, my question? 02:47:58
Yes, yeah. So what that business contemplating once you enter into a development agreement? 02:48:01
And keep in mind, once you've done that, you have a contract, right? Right. And so if one, one party or the other doesn't live up 02:48:07
to the terms of the contract that parties in breach, right? Because that's why they can only change it by mutual consent. So if 02:48:13
the City Council then agrees with the developer and then it could change, which the city doesn't feel very appropriate and we're 02:48:18
stuck. 02:48:24
Because because there's no public hearing process anymore. 02:48:31
That might be me. 02:49:04
Because I think it was getting this earlier, if we have a development agreement that goes through the public process before the 02:49:08
agreement is a contract and that's a legislative process to determine what are the criteria. Once we say this is the criteria, 02:49:15
we've approved this development agreement. 02:49:22
The developer can't change. 02:49:31
Can't say OK, now I'm going to change this part of the development agreement. 02:49:34
Even with consent of the City Council, without going back through a public process, correct. 02:49:39
That's what I would say, yeah. Again, if you're, if you're changing the rules, then yes. And if that doesn't say it, then it needs 02:49:48
to be updated to be honest with you. 02:49:52
And, and, and to be, to be frank, right, that was something that was clarified in state law just this year, right? 02:49:59
About, You know, when a development agreement is a legislative decision as opposed to an administrator, but. 02:50:08
Anyway, OK, because then, then, then that application, then we'd have to comply with that development agreement. It would be an 02:50:15
administrative decision. We hold the developer to the criteria that was agreed upon in the development agreement. And if they come 02:50:22
back and say actually we change our mind, we, we, we don't want to do the the park. 02:50:30
We can't approve it. 02:50:39
Because the park was part of the development agreement. 02:50:40
Yeah, Yeah. I mean there are some nuances there, right. But in in principle, yes, what you said is is completely accurate because 02:50:44
I've since that's the concern from the citizens is that well the development agreement, but then the the city. 02:50:51
You know, staff or officials or whatever behind closed doors can work out whatever deal they want with the developer without 02:50:58
neighbors or, or, or citizens having, having that input and having and, and having the follow through, having the promises 02:51:04
fulfilled that the developer made in the public meetings. Yeah. And the the only, well, the only thing I have floating around in 02:51:10
my mind, right. It depends on how your agreement is written to some extent, right. So let's say that the agreement says this is 02:51:16
what's required and this is what's. 02:51:22
Loud, right? But it says somewhere in there that staff can approve minor changes administratively, right? And minor changes. 02:51:28
There was a Utah appellate court case just along those lines, right about whether or not. 02:51:41
A certain change was major or minor, right? So if you give discretion to staff and the development agreement to make changes, then 02:51:49
yeah, maybe they could, right With with the developer, right. 02:51:55
But if you don't give that discretion and you just spell everything out very clearly, then everyone's going to need to comply with 02:52:02
that and it can't change unless they go through that legislative process again. So a lot of what you heard tonight, this is my 02:52:07
interpretation. 02:52:11
Is there has been a lack of trust developed over many years because different planning commission's, different city councils have 02:52:17
taken different actions with different developers. And it appears that a lot of the the changes were made kind of behind closed 02:52:24
doors. The developer would come to a certain staff member and they would agree that these changes could be made. I'm sensing that 02:52:31
this community wants to see a lot more open. 02:52:38
Mess from their elected and appointed officials. And so maybe it would be good to build into a development agreement. And I'm just 02:52:46
throwing this out that if there are mutually agreed upon changes made to a development agreement, which they have the authority to 02:52:53
do, that those must go back to some kind of public hearing perhaps. 02:53:01
Because I I just sense that there's a lot, there's a real lack of trust in this community to hold appointed and elected officials 02:53:10
responsible for things that everyone thought was agreed upon. Spelling out procedures in my mind, is, is never a bad idea. It 02:53:17
always is helpful for sure. Right? Yeah. Yeah. And sometimes that trust, I mean, it comes from all places. Sometimes it just comes 02:53:25
from a lack of education. Other times there are scenarios, right. 02:53:32
Maybe mistakes were made. So yeah, anyway. 02:53:40
Well, anything else, this has been super helpful. Super, super helpful. Yeah, Thank you so much. Happy to come back anytime and 02:53:45
you know, we'll, we'll put you first on the agenda next. Yes. 02:53:51
Our meeting, I worked as a city planner in the past, right? And I was sitting back in the corner thinking, trying to debating with 02:54:00
myself whether I I missed or don't miss these meetings. It was actually really fun to see there. There were no pitchforks no, 02:54:06
lately our meetings have been really short, so like 30 minutes so. 02:54:12
No, no, this is really good. Yeah, we're not in shape for this. 02:54:19
Where's the water bottles we have? 02:54:25
What it's worth, I enjoy sitting through it and listening to what was going on. So thanks for thank you so much, Jordan. Take 02:54:29
care, guys. All right. Are there any Commission member reports or expert day discussion? 02:54:34
I guess I have one, sorry. And I'll try to talk fast. I know it's been so long. Yeah. So first of all, the library will be closing 02:54:40
for the winter due to the broken bathroom within that building. And because the park is closing, park bathroom is closing, the 02:54:48
library will be closing but then opening again in May. But we will we have a one activity that's been ongoing with the library. 02:54:55
It's a monthly science Saturday and that's run by local UVU pre meds and also some from the youth council and. 02:55:02
We've started out with like 8 kids and last time we have like 21 kids show up for that Science Center. Oh, did they awesome. And 02:55:10
and then we also had a Vineyard youth council sponsored babysitter training night and that was really successful. We had like 2010 02:55:18
and 11 and 12 year olds youth come and we had John Earnest from City Council. We had someone from the Sheriff's Department and 02:55:25
someone from like poison control and they just kind of became. 02:55:32
Training and that was a really, really fun event. We did. I think we'll repeat that one. My daughter went and she loved it. That's 02:55:40
so great. That's great too. 02:55:45
Cool. Thank you, Jessica. 02:55:50
Let me get a microphone. 02:55:55
All right. I think you should be good. Thank you. 02:56:05
The community garden is putting on a food drive next week and the flyer will be put out tomorrow, so if you see it. 02:56:10
They do. Lorraine has offered to do pickups for neighborhoods if they have a place they want to congregate, everything. So we hope 02:56:21
you guys will donate and help us get more people to donate so that it's excellent. 02:56:29
Thanks. Thanks, Amber. 02:56:38
Morgan, did you have anything or? 02:56:42
Did you have anything from Planning Morgan that you want to do? 02:56:47
Tomorrow's a big waterfront day. 02:56:57
So those who are part of the, the steering committees, you know, I think you were invited. I think we have like four or five 02:57:00
separate meetings for different groups. The big one though, that you please everyone be there if you can, especially be on the 02:57:06
Planning Commission, it'd be really helpful to have you there is the meeting at the Megaplex Theater. It's going to be from 6:00 02:57:12
to 8:00. There's two groups. The first group comes at six. The other group comes at 7:00. 02:57:18
I want to just personally thank all the staff members in Vineyard. We had help from all the departments. 02:57:26
We went door to door, spent several hours putting a fire in every single door. We just thought, what's that? Oh, yeah, Verizon. 02:57:31
And I think Anthony did it. So thanks, everyone. Everyone at all. I think we Yeah, we have. Tim, didn't you help out, too? 02:57:38
You're serving in other ways, But no, just thank you so much for everyone who's helped out. I'm a little worried because I think 02:57:48
the capacity of the theater is like 280. We try to get the 500 C 1, so that's why we broke it into grooves. 02:57:54
You know, I guess having over occupancy might be a good problem, but so anyway, please come provide your comments and you know, 02:58:02
you might be able to help us out kind of. 02:58:07
Manage the flow, people. I'm hoping that a ton of people come out, but we'll suppose it happens, so please come to that. You 02:58:13
should have a flyer for your neighborhood. The posting that went out on Facebook shows which neighborhood you're in. Your flyer 02:58:20
should say if you're six or seven. If you don't know, just come, come, come to one regardless. So thanks. Thanks, Morgan. 02:58:27
All right. 02:58:35
Nothing else. OK, if that's it, meeting is adjourned. 02:58:37
Link
Start video at
Social
Embed
* you need to log in to manage your favorites
My Favorites List
You haven't added any favorites yet. Click the "Add Favorite" button on any media page, and they'll show up here.
* use Ctrl+F (Cmd+F on Mac) to search in document
Unable to preview the file.
Unable to preview the file.
Welcome everybody. 00:00:01
Today is October 6th and this is the Vineyard Planning Commission meeting. We will start. Tim Blackburn will give us an 00:00:03
invocation. Thank you. 00:00:08
Our Father in heaven, we're very thankful this evening for this opportunity that we have to come in this capacity. 00:00:15
As a Planning Commission with citizens of the community, we're grateful for where we live. 00:00:21
For those who have provided it to us, and we're grateful to live in a nation with laws and orderly procedures that allow us to 00:00:28
conduct businesses, we would like to do it to better our community. 00:00:33
We pray for Thy blessings to be with us this evening and all that we do. We pray for the leaders of this community and of the 00:00:40
state and of the nation. 00:00:44
We are mindful, Father in heaven, of all of our first responders, wherever they are, and pray for them as well. And these things 00:00:49
we asked before. And thank thee for the name of Jesus Christ, Amen. Thank you, Tim. All right, it's good to see people here. 00:00:56
Usually people don't come to the Planning Commission meetings, but it's awesome to see you guys here. 00:01:03
So we're going to go into the open, open session. What this means is you guys can come up to the pulpit and if you have something 00:01:10
to bring before the Planning Commission and you have 3 minutes to make your comments. 00:01:16
If you are commenting on something, which I assume you guys are mostly here for the zoning text amendment, just wait until we get 00:01:24
into that part of the section. But if you have any other comments, something not regarding something on the agenda, then how's the 00:01:32
time to make your comments? And Bryce, just for the record, Amber Rasmussen is on. So she's in attendance via Zoom. Cool. 00:01:40
All right. 00:01:49
Nobody all right. 00:01:52
What? 00:01:56
No, you're not yet. 00:01:58
Cool. So if nobody has any comments, we're going to move right into the minutes for review and approval for September 1st and real 00:02:01
quick, I know that. 00:02:05
There was one change that needed to be made. Shannon, I think was on there, but it should have been Jessica. 00:02:11
Cool. So if that if that change is made, I'll make a motion that we approve. 00:02:21
The September 1st, 2021 minutes. I second the motion. All in favor. Aye, all right, passes. So moving on to business items. Public 00:02:28
hearing for item 4.1 was postponed then. 00:02:34
Yeah, it was so. 00:02:42
The LDS Church asked us to postpone that for their conditional use permit pipeline. OK, So do we need to make any kind of motion 00:02:44
to postpone it or? Yeah, it doesn't really need need need a motion. We're going to have to renotice anyway, and so you can just go 00:02:51
ahead and move on. Cool. All right, we'll move directly on to item 4.2, Public hearing of a conditional use permit application for 00:02:57
Sunlight Bilingual Preschool. 00:03:04
And with this, do I need to open it up for a public comment or should I do that just after we've explained it or it's completely 00:03:18
up to you? I mean, you can do presentations and then open public comment or public hearing. 00:03:23
All right, so I'll be presenting this. 00:03:31
So as you can see on the the board there, the second conditional use permit for the Sunlight Bilingual Preschool will be located 00:03:35
at 73 W, 160 N in the Hampton subdivisions. I don't know if the applicants are here. If you want to come up to the podium that 00:03:41
way. It's the Planning Commission does have a question for you, you can answer them. 00:03:47
So the applicants are Allison McGrath and Georgia Forest. 00:04:00
So Allison McGrath, this is going to be in her basement of her house. 00:04:05
It it fits the zoning and everything like that. And then Georgia Porsche will be the the instructor for the the program. 00:04:12
Scrolling down to the the narrative. 00:04:22
OK, so they are going to have children between the ages of three to six. They're going to provide Spanish yoga, academic services 00:04:27
and help prepare children for immersion programs in in elementary schools. They'll have two sessions, one from 9:00 AM to 11:30 AM 00:04:34
that should say AM. 00:04:40
Monday through Friday in the second session from 12:30 PM to 3:00 PM. 00:04:49
Scroll down. 00:04:55
OK, here's a site plan. You might want to zoom out on that. 00:04:59
So this is something that we might need to have a little bit more clarification on, but the site plan shows. 00:05:04
Oh yeah, there you go. 00:05:14
So everything highlighted in the bottom keep going down if you can. 00:05:16
OK there you go. Everything highlighted in the bottom there labeled driveway is improved surface for parking for the the 00:05:22
preschool. Their plan is to instruct the parents on a drop off and a pick up time. They will park in the driveway and then the 00:05:29
children will be escorted to the through the basement entrance on the the left side there down into the classroom there is a 00:05:36
playground area and the backyard is all fenced in. They did have. 00:05:44
Fire inspection by our fire Marshall and he provided them with an exit or an emergency exit protocol. 00:05:51
All right. 00:06:03
If you want to Scroll down South, this right here just shows the actual area of the preschool that falls within our code. They'd 00:06:04
be allowed to have up to 1008 and 87 square feet and they they said it 659. 00:06:11
And you can see the staircase there on the left side. 00:06:19
That's gonna serve the main entrance and exit. Do you, when you have that emergency plan created with the fire Marshall, did they 00:06:22
address like an emergency window or another means of egress if there is a stair rail outside of the window? 00:06:30
OK, OK. 00:06:39
So yeah, that's a brief summary of their their business. We do have a few conditions of approval. The first one is that the 00:06:45
applicant is subject to federal, state and local laws. The second is the applicant will finish any requirements to obtain a 00:06:51
business license. There's a little bit of a miscommunication and we thought it was already submitted and it wasn't, so that 00:06:57
they're working on getting that submitted. 00:07:02
OK. So it's under review now. 00:07:09
OK. 00:07:13
And then the third one is, is a question that we're going to have to work with the Planning Commission. What our code says is that 00:07:14
for an in home occupation, the owner of the property has to be involved in the business. It does not express how they have to be 00:07:20
involved. So as Alison McGrath is not the owner of the business, we need a determination of how involved she needs to be in the 00:07:27
business before the conditional use permit could be. 00:07:33
Given. 00:07:40
So. 00:07:43
All right. Thank you. Do you guys have any questions? 00:07:45
We can open up. Sure. Yeah, let's open it up to a public hearing. I'll make a motion to open the public hearing. Second, all in 00:07:50
favor. 00:07:54
All right, So if the public has any questions, feel free to raise your hand and then if we call on you, you can come up and make a 00:07:59
comment at the podium. 00:08:02
You guys have any? 00:08:07
Well, regarding that last, that last point about the involvement. 00:08:10
I would think that the owner of the home having her basement being utilized for that would be involvement enough in my mind. I 00:08:15
think she would be very on top of what's going on in her own home there, so. 00:08:21
That's yeah. So that is not a concern of mine in this particular instance, but thanks for bringing that up. I think that is 00:08:30
important. Yeah, that's just me. I don't know if anyone else has other comments there. Yeah, I agree. It's an interesting thing to 00:08:35
think about. 00:08:40
Would be, I guess, similar to renting out a space just to have somebody have an office in your house? I guess which? 00:08:46
I don't see that really being as long as it's not. 00:08:52
Something that affects the other people and I don't see it being an issue after going through the, I think we did a preschool two 00:08:57
weeks ago, 4 weeks ago, whatever it was. But I feel like we've got a pretty good process down within the city to ensure that there 00:09:02
is a parking, traffic plan, Firescape, all that. So as long as they've gone through those same steps that we did with the previous 00:09:08
ones, I feel comfortable with that as well. 00:09:14
So a couple of questions. How many you have two sessions, one in the morning, one afternoon, How many students per session and how 00:09:21
many vehicles per session would be coming and dropping off and picking up and so on? 00:09:28
We have 7 students per session and as far as vehicles. 00:09:35
As of right now for kids, learn gold. 00:09:47
I believe. 00:09:51
25 of the students. Five of the seven students who are enrolled are my current members. 00:09:54
So they're within walking distance? Yeah, next door and then three houses across the street. 00:09:59
I probably drive. I drive. 00:10:04
I have an approval space for seven. 00:10:09
Okay. 00:10:13
And then relative to the ownership of the business, the owner has other schools that she owns and where are they? 00:10:15
Yeah, I own this school in Oren and this is our third year. 00:10:25
It means everything's under, you know, small and lighting and everything, and these things are great. 00:10:32
And a second, OK. 00:10:38
Same name. 00:10:42
OK. 00:10:44
All right. Any other questions or motion to close public hearing? 00:10:48
Motion to close public hearing. I second it all in favor. 00:10:53
All right. Do I have a motion on this? 00:10:56
Yeah, I, I moved to approve the conditional use permit for the Sunlight Bilingual Preschool with the conditions that we addressed 00:11:01
before. 00:11:06
Right. And with those conditions, we need to get more specific about the involvement requirements set forth by Planning Commission 00:11:11
on that third condition there. 00:11:15
Should you just state that the requirement is that it's it's fine as long if it's in your home that's sufficient enough 00:11:22
involvement for for conditions permit? 00:11:27
Yeah, you want to really explain a little bit more the good condition 3 like what what are you trying to so I I can do that. So, 00:11:34
so the reason that that we looked into this more is because in the in home occupations in our code, we're we're concerned about 00:11:41
increased parking by staff. So, you know, we wouldn't want a a commercial use in somebody's basement where they had full cars 00:11:49
parking there for their employees. So in this case, if they they continue with their. 00:11:56
Students, they only need to have one employee on site at all times according to state law. And so they're they're within that 00:12:04
with, with Georgia being the instructor. However, if they were to go over that number, I think it's eight or more, they would have 00:12:09
to have a second instructor and at that point. 00:12:14
We they could be bringing in another employee, which then would be against our code. So that's the biggest thing we were concerned 00:12:21
about is that there would only be one off site employee visiting the property. OK, so I think it was as long as they're meeting 00:12:26
our code with just one. 00:12:31
Yeah, there. And then I don't think we have an issue with it. If they want to go up to 8 or more and have a second employee there, 00:12:37
I think maybe they would need to come back and then we need to kind of figure that out. Yeah, that that would be an amendment to 00:12:42
the conditional use permit. So they definitely would have to come back before that. So I don't think we need to make any 00:12:48
amendments right now, just as long as they're meeting our current code, so. 00:12:53
So with Anthony's motion, that's that's good as is, right? Cool. Do I have a second? 00:13:00
I'll second that. All in favor, aye. All right, Thank you. 00:13:07
We'd love to have you guys and just to just to clarify on that, Jeff Knight and recused himself from that because he has kids that 00:13:17
go to the preschool. So OK, on to 4.3. The reason I assume most of you guys are here, public hearing for zoning text amendment 00:13:25
regarding section 15.14 point 2.08 development standards. 00:13:33
In the Vineyard special purpose zoning district, modifying the language to increase the permitted number of residential units and 00:13:41
density located within the regional mixed-use zoning district. All right. 00:13:47
Hey, my name is Brian Perez. I'm one of the planners here at sea. We do have the applicant, Jason Bull, who is here. He's going to 00:13:56
have the opportunity to answer some of your questions and concerns after my brief presentation. What I'm going to do is this kind 00:14:04
of explain a little bit of background on the regional mixed-use zoning district, what it it's originally intended to accomplish. 00:14:12
And and how that relates to this project? 00:14:21
So the the regional mixed-use district is about 192 acres. It's South of what we call the Forge zoning district. It's to the east 00:14:25
of Mill Road and. 00:14:33
On the West side of of Geneva. So it's this light tan colored area that you see on that map. This area was intended to provide. 00:14:43
Horizontal and vertical mixed uses or development pattern that facilitates a mixing of uses. And so when we talk about mixing of 00:14:56
uses is it's not just commercial or not just residential, it's intend to combine those in a in a way that they work together 00:15:02
cohesively and that can be side by side uses or when they're on top of each other. So sometimes you can have ground floor retail 00:15:09
and then above you'll have office space or residential space. 00:15:16
The residential densities. 00:15:24
Was intended to promote day and nighttime activities such as entertainment, restaurants, employment and a variety of services. 00:15:26
This area was intended to limit stand alone residential uses. 00:15:35
And establish a traditional development pattern such as one that provides various housing types, mixed uses as we mentioned, 00:15:39
active centers, a walkable design and transit oriented. So easy for, for for multiple ways of getting around. 00:15:47
It was intended to increase pedestrian scale in a sense of vibrancy. 00:15:57
The general plan also talks about the regional mixed-use and and this map is the land use map within the general plan and it it 00:16:03
shows the red outline is the the RMU. So there are these these are all taken from pages within the general plan. The army is 00:16:10
planned for over 2000 housing units. 00:16:18
Intend to encourage compact dance, mixed-use and pedestrian oriented development. Encourage development that supports alternative 00:16:26
modes of transportation. 00:16:31
Provide opportunities for efficient parking solutions for existing and future developments. The applicant will speak to that 00:16:36
regard later on on on their parking and. 00:16:42
Again, just focus on that pedestrian oriented development. 00:16:49
So the applicants are snow and warmer. 00:16:57
And this is what they're actually in. As a part of the zoning text amendment through a development agreement, the applicant is 00:17:03
proposing to increase residential density from 26 units per acre to 85 units per acre only within the RMU district. So this is 00:17:11
never intended to be a citywide. It's not going to affect any other zoning districts outside of the RMU. So none of the other 00:17:18
single family developments. 00:17:25
Zoning areas are affected as a part of this proposal. 00:17:33
They also intend to increase the number of residential units to 2350. The currently existing residential units are 2009 and so 00:17:38
it'd be a it'd be a jump of a of 341 residential units. 00:17:47
So I'm going to a quick question for you clarifying this. Can you make a distinguishing? 00:17:56
Between a development agreement and changing a zone and why this would be pursued versus the zone change, I think that's probably 00:18:05
getting ahead of some of the questions for sure. I'm actually going to let answer that question has seen this before. 00:18:12
I could carry away there the development agreement is, it's just that it's agreement between the city and the. 00:18:23
The applicant for development. And So what it does, it allows the city to have a higher level of control and to be able to 00:18:30
negotiate certain things. And you'll see, I mean, there's development agreements for all sorts of things, but it's a way for the 00:18:37
City Council to also weigh in and to negotiate in terms of of a development. And so anyone wanting to exercise the 341 units above 00:18:45
the cap would need to go through that development agreement process. It just provides the Planning Commission kind of the 1st. 00:18:52
And then it goes to the City Council, who ultimately would either approve or deny and it would be within a written development 00:19:00
agreement that would get recorded with the county. OK, so that's and then the yeah. And so there's there's different ways with 00:19:08
land use, like anything, you could get kind of to the same goal and you know, from the developed developer standpoint by going 00:19:15
through different processes. The other method that that they potentially take is even just a reason or a rezone or a. 00:19:22
Of a zoning district to accommodate that use. That's what the Forge did. That's why it's purple, that color up there. The Forge is 00:19:30
part of the RMU. About six years ago they they came through for a special purpose zoning district. The applicant in this instance 00:19:36
has, instead of creating their other own zoning district, they're proposing amending the current RMU with the cap and the 00:19:42
requirements of the development agreement. 00:19:49
So that's, that's the route they decided to take. And Morgan, could you maybe review history for us a little bit when the RMU was 00:19:55
created and so that people understand this has been around for a while and things like that? Yeah. The Army has been at the exact 00:20:02
date. I mean, we have it, we we can pull that pretty easy from from UD code online. If you click on it, it gives you the history 00:20:08
of all the ordinances approximately. Yeah. I, I, well, I believe it was. 00:20:14
Like 2011, 2012. So this has been in existence for 9 or 10 years. 00:20:21
Right, right. It's been yeah, yeah, I mean, and as you can tell, it's, it's pretty much built out and there's, there's a couple 00:20:27
paths left. Yogi is probably the most significant. And then like the retail Geneva Rd. furnished stuff, but it's been around for a 00:20:33
while and all those other businesses that are there now were developed under the RMU. They were yeah. And we kind of the the 00:20:39
purpose that Brian covered and. 00:20:45
If you're going to cover this, I'm sorry Brian, but like the point of the of the RMU was to create up like a village. 00:20:51
In that that was very walkable. You had mixed uses, you had flats above, you know, retail, you know, with, you know, central open 00:20:57
space areas. But the code didn't provide provisions to actually require that. It allowed for mixing uses, but didn't didn't 00:21:05
require it. And so that's why you see basically a single use format, you know, a very POD style development where each apartment 00:21:12
is its own thing and then you have Edgewater and then the retail district. They're all kind of separate uses. 00:21:19
Brian kind of talked about the horizontal mixing of uses. They've done that a little bit. There's you could, you know, kind of 00:21:27
walk to to to work. But it's not a, it's not, it didn't perform as it was kind of envisioned in 2000 and 10/12. It was 2009, that 00:21:34
was 2009. So there are existing residences within the existing RMU. Yeah, yeah. So you have 2009 right now. There's I think 00:21:42
technically you could say 2010. 00:21:49
We do have one unit that is a model home that that that was allowed to stay as a model. 00:21:57
For people to walk through. I'm in one of the apartments, but yeah, 2009 occupy occupied or occupiable units. And do you have any 00:22:02
idea how many people live in those 2000 units we've done. So that's what's tough to you because college kids don't report census 00:22:10
data. They should, they don't. And and they typically if they do, they list their address, where their parents are at. So our 00:22:17
population, if you look at the census is, I mean, we're wet well above what is that it's saying 12,000. 00:22:25
Honored, we think we're closer in the range of you know, 17 to 20,000. So per unit it's, it really depends, it's hard to know the 00:22:32
exact number because we do have investors that come in and they'll, they'll try to lease out to students per bedroom. And so we've 00:22:40
done a lot of code enforcement. Cash has been great at trying to crack down on, on the, the occupancy issues that we've had. But 00:22:47
in some of the analysis we've done, we think it's anywhere from like a 3.5 to a four per unit single family goes up. 00:22:55
Slightly, but your town home and apartment product still and that's actually quite, quite a lot compared to if you're like New 00:23:02
York or somewhere like that where you might just have one person when the existing residences that are there now you can have 6 or 00:23:09
7000 people living there. Is that what the 2000, I bet 2000 units you're probably in six to seven. OK. Yeah, that's helpful. Thank 00:23:15
you. 00:23:21
Thanks. Are there any other questions? 00:23:30
OK. If they're right, we'll we'll have some time for the applicant to have the information that he would like to present, if any. 00:23:33
I do have a copy of PowerPoint. 00:23:45
There's a. There's enough for each. 00:23:51
I'll go through this as you indicate. Yeah. So we anything, we started the game. 00:24:07
Can you just figure out your name real quick? So my name is Jason Ball. I'm with Helen Wilmer. We have submitted this application 00:24:13
to one of our clients. We're excited about the opportunity to be here. I'm really excited for the opportunity to engage with the 00:24:20
public this evening and help understand what this proposal is and why it is we're here. 00:24:27
So if we can go to the first, I guess the first point of business, Brian kind of talked about this. So this evening we want to 00:24:34
talk about this code text amendment simply that's that's why we're here. We are proposing a modification to the land use code. 00:24:42
Vineyard code allows these types of amendments to be made, how the process works and it's presented in the Planning and Zoning 00:24:49
Commission. There's a public hearing and then the recommendation is made to the City Council. 00:24:56
As we all know or the land use code, it's a living breathing document that as we as cities grow and experience new and different 00:25:05
things that the code changes and and new things are added and implemented. And so that's why we're here is to present this 00:25:12
proposal for amendment to the land use code. 00:25:18
And to Brink, I talked about this about what is being proposed one of the we are proposing to just to add really Section 3. 00:25:27
In this regarding residential units, so we're not asking for any entitlements for any property. We're asking for the opportunity 00:25:39
to incorporate a tool for the Planning Commission and the City Council to review a project and then enter into an agreement if 00:25:48
that project meets the needs and the vision of the city. And I think one of the things important things to understand. 00:25:57
And Morgan mentioned this, so there is a there's a cap in the RMU district that's incorporated into the code. 00:26:06
You are at that cap. So the majority of the RMU property is already developed. However, there are some pieces that are not 00:26:13
developed yet. And so if any residential units are to happen in that in the Army district, a Co text amendment is needed. And so 00:26:21
this is one of the ways rather than putting an artificial cap in there, we're proposing to put in the requirement to negotiate a 00:26:28
development agreement so that again Planning Commission and City Council have the opportunity to. 00:26:36
View the project and then to enter into that agreement and ultimately approve the project. 00:26:43
Next one. So as was mentioned before the RMU district, it is that that tan color there on the east side, the southeast side of the 00:26:51
city. I think one of the important things to understand about the R&U district really is, and this is the purpose statement from 00:26:58
the code is that last sentence where it says this zoning designation recognizes that adherence to traditional pattern development 00:27:05
standards would preclude the application of a more flexible approach. 00:27:12
So in essence, the purpose of the RMU district is as Morgan mentioned, was to allow mix a mix of uses and a flexible approach. And 00:27:19
what we are proposing is adding a tool for the city to use in accomplishing that flexible approach. 00:27:27
The next one here, again, I just kind of zoomed in. As you can see, most of the area within the RMU is already developed. So we 00:27:37
are talking about a small portion. We're not talking about removing limits of density across the city. We're in essence talking 00:27:44
about 341 units in the RMU district is what we're talking about. 00:27:52
So what benefits come from this amendment in this approach, As was mentioned, we could have applied for a zone zoning map 00:28:03
amendment to change the zone. The cap that's in place would have been removed. You wouldn't have the cap if we were to go through 00:28:09
the zoning amendment to a different zone. 00:28:15
You didn't have the opportunity to review the application through the development agreement process. So not only is there to the 00:28:23
development agreement, but there's also site plan approval. 00:28:27
And so, in essence, what? 00:28:32
This proposal is doing is we are adding another layer of review to the process than some of the other approaches that we could 00:28:34
have taken. 00:28:39
It does provide a way to ensure the mix of uses because it will be reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council so we can 00:28:45
you can ensure that the type of project, the type of development that's going in there does fit the vision of the city. 00:28:53
So I think we've kind of talked about the other points. You know, the area is largely developed and I think that's important to 00:29:03
note that because the RMU has been largely developed, there's some lessons that have been learned. 00:29:09
Residential units, it's hit its cap and so it's worth taking a look at and making some modifications. And rather than rewriting a 00:29:17
whole new code, this is a simple way to incorporate those lessons learned and adjust so that a future project, as I said, can meet 00:29:23
the vision of the city. 00:29:29
So and that is in essence that's that's what I have. 00:29:37
That's what I presented. You know, we. 00:29:42
Are really, we're just proposing the text amendment site plan approval and the negotiation of that development agreement would 00:29:45
come at the time, you know, when and if this ordinance is passed, then you we would come back with that development agreement to 00:29:52
to hash out the details of what a specific development would look like. Right now we're just talking about the tool and asking for 00:29:58
the ability to utilize this tool. 00:30:05
So we can come back. 00:30:12
Right. Cool. Thank you. Cool. Thanks. So I think right now I want to open it up to public comments. With public comments, you can 00:30:14
ask questions. We're not going to answer your questions probably, but we'll probably ask your questions. So you have 3 minutes for 00:30:22
public comment. I'm going to write down any, any questions that you have so that we can ask those questions. 00:30:29
This is stuff that we're seeing. 00:30:38
Also, not for the first time, we've been seeing it probably since it's been put on the agenda, about a week and a half. So we have 00:30:43
a lot of questions as well, but we want to make sure that everybody's questions are answered. So if you have a public comment, 00:30:49
again, we're not going to answer your question directly right now. You have 3 minutes to make your comments, which I encourage you 00:30:55
to make comments. And again, I will write down your questions so that we can ask them. 00:31:00
And yeah, as you come to the podium, please state your name and which neighborhood you you live in. So I make a motion to open the 00:31:08
public hearing. Do I have a second? I second it all in taper. And also I can track your time if you want. 00:31:15
Hi, it's David, Lorraine. 00:31:29
Resident of Holy Rd. 00:31:32
So I would I have a couple of questions. 00:31:34
As I understand it, using this development agreement process will essentially bypass public hearings, the only more flexible for 00:31:39
the city because they don't have to worry about what the citizens think. 00:31:45
They used to what they want. 00:31:51
But it seems to me that but when you bypass those kinds of public hearings, it, it, it violates the trust the city has with the 00:31:53
people, among other things. So that was that's one thing. So I want to make sure that indeed that's what's happening. It was 00:31:59
explained to me earlier that that was the case. So I need to confirm that that's really happening. The development agreement 00:32:05
process will bypass the. 00:32:11
Public hearings beyond the public hearing that we're in right now. Beyond the one, yeah. 00:32:18
I mean when you, when you go to, when you go to. 00:32:24
Create the agreement with the developer. 00:32:26
You wouldn't need to approve that development agreement with the public and with that development agreement will not go through a 00:32:29
public hearing process. 00:32:33
So just to clarify, and I guess we'll ask this right now just to so that we're all on the same page, say we approve this this 00:32:37
development agreement and the developer comes in with a plan. It doesn't that specific plan doesn't need to have a public hearing 00:32:44
correct for yeah, they do for development agreement part of the public hearing before the Planning Commission and the City 00:32:52
Council. So it's a it's a much more elevated form of of process because the site plan doesn't and so. 00:32:59
To answer this question, they would go through Planning Commission, City Council with a public hearing. If there was a site plan, 00:33:07
they people could provide comment, but it's not a legal requirement. OK, so if a plan was that clarifies that. Thank you. That's 00:33:14
question one. Raising the limit 85 units per acre. 00:33:21
Umm, what's that eight stories and what's gonna take to do that? That's a pretty, pretty densely populated area. So that that's 00:33:29
that's an issue that we would worry about. I, I, if you. 00:33:36
If you weren't going for the whole RMU, it's looking for one, one particular project that would that might be a little easier. But 00:33:44
what this process will do is it'll, it'll open up that limit to the entire area. There's still, there's still more area to develop 00:33:49
over there besides what will be developed for this project. 00:33:54
And so it seems to me that if we can limit that to that one project that you think is appropriate, that might be more wise than 00:34:00
than saying, let's change the the ceiling on the whole RMU. 00:34:06
So that that's that's one thing, another thing. 00:34:13
It's it's kind of slippery slope. Also, when you, when you start approving, you know, a higher density for one project, when you 00:34:17
another person comes in, like in the city center area comes in, say, well, I'd like to change the, the mix here. So I have more, 00:34:25
you know, more housing and less business than than you know, the required. Why can't I do that? You did it over here. Why can't we 00:34:32
do it over there? That's another issue. I, I, I would think that maybe it it. 00:34:39
Precedent for us that we don't really mean what we say in our code. 00:34:46
The I know developers probably don't look at this way, but I think citizens do to a large degree that the zoning codes provide a 00:34:53
contract the city makes with the residents. When we come and move in here, we expect things to happen according to that code. 00:35:00
We all, we view it as our protection against over development. 00:35:08
And so whenever that that code is changed, you kind of violate that trust with the citizenry to some degree. Hey, your, your time 00:35:14
is up. I'm sorry, like not to do that. Thank you so much. 00:35:20
Have any other comments? 00:35:30
Yeah. And Chair, if you want, instead of addressing everyone that speaks, I can make some notes of questions that come up and then 00:35:34
we can staff and respond at the end. Yeah, that's what I was hoping to do. Mine is just a quick question from the Maples 00:35:40
community. 00:35:46
I'm wondering. 00:35:53
The RMU is also categorized for Vineyard downtown, right? 00:35:56
It's not Vineyard downtown. The zoning isn't RU. What is it categorized? 00:36:01
Downtown special purpose, District special purpose? I think that was my own question. Cool. 00:36:10
Claudia Loray, Holdaway Rd. 00:36:19
I do agree. 00:36:24
With data that the precedents that we set are really important. 00:36:26
And. 00:36:35
Since I've moved here, I have had word of mouth from, you know, the older generation of the Planning Commission and the City 00:36:38
Council that have have said, well, they promised this or they promised that or they promised another thing and. 00:36:49
For those reasons, I think it's really, really important that we are specific and that we. 00:37:02
Ensure that we are not increasing. 00:37:12
Occupancy residency without a really good reason. I came from work and had to wait for two signals to get through on Mill Rd. to 00:37:18
turn left onto center to come over here and that was like at 6:00 which to me is the tail end of of rush hour. 00:37:30
So adding. 00:37:43
Anymore. 00:37:46
Rooftops. 00:37:49
I just don't understand why we would entertain that. 00:37:51
Are is this? I don't see where is this the Golf Club? 00:37:56
People or are they, are you the Golf Club people? OK. And I think I've heard a lot of positive feedback from residents about Golf 00:38:04
Club, but we need to make sure we're not selling. 00:38:11
That your citizens out by you know, you yourselves, you the big entity have talked about. 00:38:20
Contractors who have come in and and not built the playground because they ran out of money or whatever it is. So you've made 00:38:30
adjustments so that those contractors were held accountable and this. 00:38:37
This seems like it may need a little bit more attention to make sure that we're not just taking care of the whole of the western 00:38:44
United States by building homes for them or occupancies. I I just think this needs more work. 00:38:57
Than what I read. 00:39:11
So the big question would be why? 00:39:14
Why? Thank you. 00:39:18
That's actually the first thing I've written on my paper, so here's why. 00:39:21
All right. Any other any other public comments, go ahead. 00:39:26
Julie Gray at the Villas in Water's Edge, the 55 plus community and so hoping that I can represent them well. Randy Gray, my 00:39:29
husband. 00:39:36
Was not able to be here tonight but we sat down together and talked to other people in the villas and we have these following 00:39:45
questions and I have a copy that I will give to whomever you would like. 00:39:52
OK, All right. We moved into this master planned community because we believed in their vision. 00:40:00
And it did not entail for us such high density. So we are against this increase and we feel like our community is changing from 00:40:09
what that original community was created for. 00:40:18
Now some of these people that live here. 00:40:29
Are going to be gone in a year, but trust me, us in the village will probably stay here until we're six feet under. So we care 00:40:32
about this community and we are invested. 00:40:39
Will the city benefit from the property taxes and sales taxes? 00:40:49
Does the plan design? How much of this complex constitutes Ramples or ownership? 00:40:57
If it is ownership, will they be allowed to do air and bees and rent that out on a daily basis? 00:41:07
As it relates to parking, which is the biggest problem in our city, I would hope you would put so much pressure on these 00:41:15
developers that we don't have to live with the excessive feeling of parking spots and we live over by the high density and we 00:41:24
know. 00:41:32
That this is a problem and I think as a Planning Commission you should address this. 00:41:41
And the existing parking for the businesses over there and the megaplex. 00:41:49
Are these renters or owners going to steal that parking area to go to the businesses? Are they going to be limited in parking 00:41:55
there? It's already somewhat chaotic, especially at lunchtime. You can't get in and out of that exit by Swig. My favorite. And 00:42:03
then also. 00:42:11
We have believed in the plan of being able to have a wonderful walking city. 00:42:21
And the sustainability of this and I just see people walking and it worries me parked, walking through the parking lots and not 00:42:29
having a safe place to go to these businesses. And so it is really important to me that we are of walking community. 00:42:39
Thank you and I appreciate your time and your devotion. Thank you so much, Julie. 00:42:50
Do you have any other comments? 00:42:56
Hi, my name is Kelby Gatrell. We live in the Cottonwoods. Actually to throw a ball and hit my house from here. I just moved in not 00:43:11
too long ago, wife and kid. So couple questions and I think just kind of general concerns that I've heard from other members of 00:43:18
the community, mostly on like Facebook page and stuff. I don't understand exactly what the difference is going to be. I mean, I 00:43:25
try to conceptualize like an additional 300 units. I think one thing I would like to see is, OK, here's the plan currently. 00:43:33
Not just numbers, but like, hey, like let me visualize it because that helps me understand like some of the nuances. And then 00:43:40
here's what the plan will be. Because if it's like, oh, hey, you know, it's just like another level on an apartment complex or 00:43:46
it's an additional apartment building, maybe it's not that big of a deal. I think it was like an additional 300 units times, you 00:43:52
know, every person in there is going to have their own car. Traffic is a concern as the nice young lady here mentioned. 00:43:59
You know that Center Street or that that Geneva and Mill Rd. 00:44:06
A little bit tough. And then the other concern was Kay parking. I know that area I've heard for years parking is kind of a a 00:44:12
disaster in that area. So that's obviously also a concern that I had and then a concern, you know, bleeding over into that 00:44:18
commercial parking space as well. Seems like kind of a tight area. Not a ton of parking that I've seen. Of course, I didn't get a 00:44:25
chance to go over and look at it myself, but just kind of general concern. 00:44:31
Really excited about the top golf, but I can imagine, hey, we're going to be getting a lot of people coming from. 00:44:39
Surrounding cities and areas to the top Gulf guarantee that. But you know, yes, each unit might have their own designated parking 00:44:44
spot, but you know, visitors, what about visitor parking for these additional units? Will that be sufficient? You know, is there 00:44:50
going to be a parking structure with dedicated spots for each individual bedroom and each of those units? So I think for me and 00:44:56
maybe a lot of other people in the area, I'd, I'd love to like see some of those details because in all reality, like I understand 00:45:01
we're really short. 00:45:07
On housing units, I'm actually a huge fan of the basement apartments and in general, I think that where you can stack them up and 00:45:14
do the higher density, you know, unpopular opinion. I actually think that you probably should so that it alleviates pressure in 00:45:20
other areas where it's designated as lower density. So I'm, I'm not 100% opposed to it. I do understand the, the, the concern 00:45:27
about the precedence, especially because I'll be living here for a long, long time. 00:45:33
6 feet under is a long ways away. 00:45:41
Hopefully cross our fingers, but you know, so I do recognize the precedents and you know, I would hate for, you know, there to be 00:45:43
decisions made without public feedback. And and again, I'm not I'm not like 100% opposed because like higher density, I'm not 00:45:49
necessarily scared of that as long as it's limited specifically in a spot and all those other things to plan for. And then again, 00:45:55
the the parking. 00:46:02
Other question would be, do we have any plan for alleviating any of the traffic across? 00:46:08
Geneva got some ideas and talked about that offline, but your, your, your, your times. Thank you. Awesome. Thank you. 00:46:14
Anymore. Anymore comments from the public? 00:46:25
All right. Do I have a motion to close the public hearing? 00:46:31
I make a motion to close public hearing. Second, second. All in favor. Aye, aye. All right. OK, so we have a few questions here. 00:46:35
So as as a as a Planning Commission, we have to look at something and say is this going to benefit the city? Does this meet our 00:46:45
general plan? 00:46:49
And right now kind of based off of what we know, which isn't very much about this development. 00:46:55
The big question I think for everybody is why? 00:47:03
Why should we even think about having more density when we don't even? 00:47:06
We don't even know how that's going to benefit us. 00:47:11
That make you. Yeah. All right. So I think one of the important things to understand about this code amendment is we are asking, 00:47:15
yes, we are asking for an increase in the cap in density, but we're not asking that it just be applied to the property. We're 00:47:23
asking for the opportunity to come back for you to take a look at the plan and determine whether or not you like it. 00:47:31
The issue as to why, one, the cap is you've reached the cap so there's no more residential units available. But the other, the 00:47:41
other issue, the other important thing to understand is mixed-use commercial projects and residential projects. They're entitled 00:47:48
in the RMU zone. It just requires site plan review. And so in essence, we could go and apply for a site plan application and go 00:47:55
through the process without any public hearing, without any. 00:48:03
But what we're asking for is a development agreement option so that what we're proposing can go through a public hearing process 00:48:10
so it can be negotiated. So all of the concerns, which are great concerns had that have been brought up can be looked at in front 00:48:18
of the public and with public input by both the Planning Commission and City Council without this development. 00:48:27
Without the development agreement aspect of it. 00:48:37
Again, it's just entitled and we could submit the site plan public and submit comments, but there's no public meetings, there's no 00:48:41
public hearing, but you wouldn't be able to submit a site plan for any additional residential currently, correct under the yeah, 00:48:48
because yeah, the code because the cap is is hit. And so I think and I, I do understand that the 85 unit per acre is a very scary 00:48:56
number, but again, it's 341 units. We are we're not asking for exceptions in the. 00:49:03
We're not, we're not creating a new zone with unlimited height, with unlimited massing. We're not asking to alleviate parking 00:49:11
standards. You know, in essence, we're saying we're good with your standards. We just want the option to come back and talk 00:49:18
through the process of adding these 340 additional units. 00:49:25
So just to clarify for a couple of people that had questions concerning that about the rentals or the parking or will the city 00:49:34
benefit if we approve or if we deny this tonight? That's those aren't questions we have answers to tonight. 00:49:42
That would be something in the future, a public hearing if this got approved, that would be something that would be discussed in 00:49:51
the future. 00:49:54
I personally would very much like to know those things too. So I I feel your concern there, OK. 00:49:59
As far as a plan for alleviating traffic, if, and that's something that I think is probably the number one concern for most 00:50:08
residents here, if there's residential units and we don't notice any cars, who cares? 00:50:14
But right now we have 800 N, which has one lane that is backed up all the time. We have Center Street that is 2 lanes that go into 00:50:22
one lane that everybody's an idiot at and that's backed up all the time. We have 400 N that doesn't connect because of the rail 00:50:29
spur really adding 15% more traffic to that area. 00:50:37
It's a big turn off for me. So is are there any plans for the city? Does the city have any? 00:50:46
Close plans for alleviating traffic in those ways. 00:50:52
So that, that might be more of an essaying question, but what I'm think I was going to say, if there is that like they're 00:50:56
concerned about impacts for traffic doing a rezone, you, you have the ability to to request things. And so like typically they 00:51:01
would do a Tia traffic impact analysis during the site plan or prior site plan. But if that's something you wanted to see, if 00:51:05
there's information you want to see prior to you making a recommendation, you want to make it as informed as possible. And if 00:51:10
that's. 00:51:15
A really important piece to your analysis. Then I would I would make that that that request. 00:51:21
As far as far as like a Tia and understanding like the impact of that development onto the current infrastructure, sorry, in the 00:51:25
same. 00:51:28
OK. 00:51:32
Again, just rearing with, Morgan said. I mean in regards to Kath. 00:51:37
Transportation impact analysis, which could be a graphic impact analysis which would be required to help make a more informed 00:51:43
decision, which will kind of provide some analytical and some in depth look in regards to travel flow patterns and how how would 00:51:50
this affect the existing. 00:51:56
Framework in terms of and then also what type of improvements would be required and kind of start doing that down the line and 00:52:04
what types of improvements we require probably be the most appropriate for this particular for this particular. 00:52:10
Item and like a. 00:52:18
Focused in regards to the surrounding areas, again, I know regards to Geneva, there are some long term plans with UDOT in terms of 00:52:20
leaving certain chokeholds along Geneva Rd. at certain at certain areas and that comes along with the another state project being 00:52:29
the rail consolidation project which is traveling the trains traveling slowly down the station. 00:52:37
On regards to that. 00:52:47
A. 00:52:49
Down the road down the line in terms of kind of addressing certain things in the development agreement would be to have have a 00:52:51
developer take into consideration certain aspects that are going down the line which would be addressed as well as in Tia study. 00:53:00
To how those things would be incorporated into this type of development as well. 00:53:11
On that and again regards to parking the the site going down the line on a development agreement, parking items could be addressed 00:53:16
in regards parking requirements could be addressed in that as well to help focus it more across here on that side. 00:53:24
Is there something we could put in? 00:53:33
The current zone, like if we were to reword this and change this, there's something we could put in where we could say we won't 00:53:36
allow any residential until XYZ happens. 00:53:41
Or you know, if I can, in essence, that's what we're asking for. We're asking for the opportunity to come back with the 00:53:47
development agreement. We're not saying that we're entitled to a 341 units. We're saying give us the opportunity to come back to 00:53:53
show our plan. 00:53:58
And then if you're comfortable with it, if we mitigate these things and we can come to an agreement through the development 00:54:05
agreement, then we would have the opportunity to raise that cap. 00:54:10
Yeah. The only way to the only way to accomplish and obtain those 341 units is through a development agreement. Yeah. 00:54:16
Is what we're proposing. Jason's right. The development agreement is the tool that you could use. 00:54:24
For a reason. 00:54:30
Yeah, or or reason. The one thing that's nice about the development agreement is that you can like sometimes you don't necessarily 00:54:32
want to put in your zoning code like. 00:54:36
With it. And then you know what we agree to. 00:55:10
Yeah, I'm behind this thing, Morgan. I don't know if you can see me your laser vision, but I was going to ask as well kind of an 00:55:15
update on where we're at with some of the public transportation goals that we've had in that area. You know, we talked about with 00:55:20
UTA bus lines we've got. 00:55:26
Allegedly a train station coming in, you know, some of those types of things that I think some public transportation 00:55:32
infrastructure would help. 00:55:36
Alleviate, you know some of the traffic concerns as well and I don't, I haven't heard an update on that in a while. 00:55:41
So you can see me behind that screen as well. 00:55:52
For example, I'm not there on the public, some of the public transit for the example the front runner station, which is if you 00:55:56
drive out there, you can see work being done along the railroad station. You know, there's a UTA has a timeline of having 00:56:03
everything completed and for for running March, April time frame on that, on that frame, you'll probably see some, you know, 00:56:11
completion happen before that. And then obviously ETA would have to adjust their schedules. 00:56:18
Push forward on that and and then we're also having discussions with UTA in regards to the BTR, the bus system that would be 00:56:27
feeding in 2000 in regards to with anticipation of having initially having servicing about two buses and for that area and then 00:56:35
with the increase impacts for our season increased capacity for additional buses and then of course. 00:56:44
Parking specifically for you know, there's a Tanita travelers. 00:56:53
Who are using the front runner station to go across. And then of course, so we're also looking at how we can incorporate that 00:56:58
frontliner station into on the other side of the tracks to allow for pedestrians to be able to not have to drive their cars from 00:57:06
one one side to the tracks to the other side of tracks that they can utilize other means of. 00:57:14
Transportation predominantly feet to get to get to get about so. 00:57:23
And then of course with the real consolidation project, with the real consolidation that opens the door for are you thought to be 00:57:31
able to make a lot more improvement, some road to help address? 00:57:38
Transportation in terms of being able to get cars in and out safely and a reasonable time frame as well. 00:57:46
Does that answer your question? 00:57:54
Yeah. And and just to kind of address the, you know, transit improvements, I guess connected with this development. Yeah, you 00:57:55
know, I, it's. 00:58:00
Specific improvements they they they really can't help the the. 00:58:34
Overall transit experience. 00:58:39
Yeah. Thanks for that clarification, Morgan. And I was, did you want me to answer any of that? Sure. All right. So also just to 00:58:42
add to it, sorry, my name. 00:58:47
And they serve as the mayor right now. 00:58:54
Is going to be coming in our station will be completed by January, but the exchange date for us to get buses into the center 00:59:26
doesn't happen until April because they only have like 3 exchange dates through the whole year. So to stop doing that real quick, 00:59:33
Julie, sorry, you were saying that buses were moving from 400 N to 800 N or no, I was talking about the right rail corridor that 00:59:41
went through there Now they're changing that but. 00:59:48
The best, but just so you know how traffic is going to start falling also we did get $16 million from the Legislature. So Vineyard 01:00:26
Connector will start pulling traffic that way as well. So people who are a little bit concerned about the way streets are looking, 01:00:31
there's a lot of funding that just commanding the start seeing those expansions wagon over the next couple of years. Thanks, 01:00:36
Julie. Thank you. 01:00:41
I've got a few questions for staff 1 and I don't think a city attorney's here, but would would we be open to potential litigation 01:00:47
if we approve this but did not approve of future development agreement request in another zone? That was a great question. As I'm 01:00:54
not an attorney, I I don't answer. 01:01:02
If if this gets continued or whatever, we we could have them at another. Yeah. I mean, Speaking of the the precedent that's being 01:01:09
set, I think that's important to understand. Real quick, just to add on to that question with legal action, if we were to approve 01:01:15
this, does that leave U.S. Open if we decide we don't want any residential, if there's not a plan we see that we like, that's 01:01:21
going to be my other. That'll just be my add to. 01:01:27
And and then I get the sense that this development agreement and additional residential is needed for this project to happen. 01:01:36
Am I misguided in filling in the blanks there? It it sounds like the status quo would likely not see this development occur. Yeah, 01:01:48
this is Eric Towner with X Development WE. 01:01:54
We've we've enjoyed developing within the city and I think that this city does a fantastic job of attracting. 01:02:02
Fantastic businesses and fantastic residents. You guys are in a very unique situation. You're in an infill location that you have 01:02:10
an opportunity to build from scratch where your surrounding cities did not have that opportunity. And I totally agree that density 01:02:16
in the wrong locations makes no sense, especially residential density to remember, this is up against Geneva Rd. There is not much 01:02:22
land left in the RMU district. Actually, there's very little. 01:02:28
We've supplied, I think that the majority of the commercial that's coming into the city. 01:02:35
UMM worked very hard to try and attract good tenants. The market environment today has shifted, bringing hotels and office space 01:02:40
to locations like this apartments and studio apartments with extra bedrooms or mobile offices that are are are, you know, 01:02:47
collaborative office space on the main level is going to be the future for for the, for the foreseeable future. That is, is the 01:02:55
change is going out of the the downtown locations and you're not going to see many offices. 01:03:02
Downtown you'll see a lot of apartments still built downtown, they'll just be more friendly to at homework where we expect at 01:03:10
least 30 to 40% fewer traffic in office parks. And So what we're saying is there's an opportunity here for us to bring in more 01:03:17
retail, more entertainment, more sales taxes to the city. And yes, there is there is also a result of that is is some awkward land 01:03:25
and what is the future use of that land and when when does it become actually usable or. 01:03:32
Where there is a demand today to provide housing in an area that we believe is appropriate for density up against Geneva Rd. up 01:03:40
against where there will be a future full control signal signalized intersection that 400 N and Geneva Rd. We've already when we 01:03:49
recorded our platforms on 400 N dedicated a wide section of land that we would not build on. 01:03:57
There's strips of land that go for the widening of 400 N in the future. 01:04:06
We also dedicated at 650 N quite a bit of land so that 650 N could go up once that rail spur is removed. I think this city has 01:04:11
done a fantastic job with their traffic planning and their engineering. The issue is the rail spur. So once that's gone, you've 01:04:16
got several connection points, you've got multiple lanes going east and West and I and I think that solves most of those issues. 01:04:22
So with the status quo. 01:04:28
Would this project come in or is this additional residential needed? I think that's the. 01:04:35
As a board manager for this and, and this isn't just residential, that would be proposing, which is why I think Jason is so 01:04:41
eloquently said, a development agreement is merited for something like this. When you're going to do a text code amendment to your 01:04:47
zoning code, I don't know why that would set a precedence for anywhere else in your city. 01:04:54
I've failed at trying to make that argument in other cities. Precedence doesn't do anything but from my experience. But yeah, it 01:05:02
makes the project make sense, it makes the land make sense. It brings development. It brings. You guys have a fantastic 01:05:08
opportunity for RDA within the city as well. 01:05:13
And it it does make sense, I think to go up to your maximum heights in some of these zones where it it does not impact the 01:05:20
residents West of of the, the train tracks off of Mill Rd. This is up against Geneva Rd. If I were in the city, I would develop to 01:05:26
the maximum density of I'm not, I'm not fighting on the density because I mean, it isn't a location that it wouldn't make sense to 01:05:32
put half acre single family home. So I'm not fighting on that, I think. 01:05:37
The gentleman may have left left already, but he was kind of saying what what could happen today and. 01:05:44
What would happen with this, you know, with or without this? And I, I almost see this. 01:05:49
And recommended for a development agreement allows for more public input, more staff input, more input from commissioners and City 01:06:25
Council members as well. And then my last question for staff is. 01:06:31
You know, each additional unit that comes into the city that's there's a cost incurred by the city as far as like providing 01:06:38
utilities and services to them. Some of that's recouped through tax base as well, but. 01:06:45
With with units like this, is it increasing that deficit between or or like would tax revenue from these in a project like this 01:06:55
likely cover the additional units? I'm just trying to wrap my head around that because I know that some of the larger lots, 01:07:00
contrary to what some people may understand, those ones are actually quite costly versus what they bring in, you know, so if you 01:07:05
have a lot of frontage on 1/2 acre, a lot that can actually be a negative for the city from a tax standpoint. But what about units 01:07:10
like this? 01:07:16
Yeah. And and we're happy to do some actual analysis if you if you want like really refined numbers. But from just working with 01:07:21
Jake and and finance and looking at kind of land use and how land use performs single family detach, that's whatever everyone 01:07:30
wants to live on the big lot, big house. But from a just from like an overall cost perspective, like the, you know. 01:07:38
$3 are. 01:07:47
I've come up from what I've heard in services or given to a single family detached home, typically there's $1.00 back. And so 01:07:48
it's, it's actually a land use category that typically gets subsidized by commercial multi family. And it sounds like in meeting 01:07:56
with them that it's they're looking at more of a mixed-use project with multifamily that that sends to perform better. Because if 01:08:03
you just think, you know, logistically you have a road that stays fronted. 01:08:11
Happy illogical Oracle as well. You know what whatever the linear feet of infrastructure to serve that property is going to be a 01:08:19
lot more per unit than it will be in a multi family type type category. So we're happy to because there are studies that have done 01:08:25
that, but we can provide you some some information if you'd like us to dig into that. That's helpful. I mean certainly even if it 01:08:31
weren't tonight, but like. 01:08:37
This will eventually make its way to City Council for them to make decisions to and I'd want to require. 01:08:44
Whatever information we'd want the final decision makers to have, I think that would be beneficial. But those were most of my 01:08:51
questions. If others pop up, I'll speak up. I have a couple of questions as well, either for Snell and Wilmer or for the staff. 01:08:58
Now I saw you shake your head yes that you are associated with Top Golf. Did I see that correctly? Correct. So about a month ago 01:09:07
we approved some moving forward with Top Golf and and their particular building. 01:09:15
We talked about parking there because we were concerned about parking for those that would be using that and there was a plan 01:09:23
showing how parking would all be provided for right at Top Golf on the surface across the street. I think there were some things 01:09:29
like that, if I remember correctly. 01:09:35
So my question is why, why is this a separate if you're associated with Top Golf, why wasn't this brought up at the same time? If 01:09:42
it, if we envision that this is what's going to make the the project successful, it would seem like that would have been a better 01:09:48
time to bring this up rather than a month later because it feels separate to me and yet it's going to be associated with if I 01:09:55
understand it correctly. 01:10:02
So that's just one thought and you can address that in a moment, but. 01:10:09
Now is, and I know you're not prepared to talk about details this evening. That's what a development agreement would do. 01:10:13
But there is a parking garage associated in the vision of this. Is that correct? 01:10:20
And and if so, these apartments are going to be part of the of the parking garage. What what I envisioned is something like a 01:10:27
University Plaza. I mean, that's what I've seen here in Orem is parking garage and, and it looks like your apartments. 01:10:35
Glued to the parking garage, if you will. And they go up, I don't know, 5 or 6 stories or something. So how many stories will it 01:10:45
take to accommodate 341 units? Are we talking three stories? Four stories? And again, I understand these are all details that 01:10:51
would be worked out. But before I'm prepared to say this is something I really want to say, yes, let's go and work out details. 01:10:58
There's just some things I'd like to get comfortable with. 01:11:04
And I I totally understand the concerns and I think. 01:11:11
You know, we have the same concerns in that it doesn't really make sense to go through and do some detailed site planning and 01:11:15
figuring out where things are and how it all works if we can't even have that conversation. And so that's where, you know, really 01:11:22
what we're here tonight to talk about is the code amendment and so that we can come back with the development agreement. And I 01:11:28
know that sounds like a a non answer. We're taking it down the road, but the reality is. 01:11:34
We're not prepared to invest. 01:11:41
A lot of money into a site design if we can't even have the conversation. And so that's kind of where we're at right now. I think 01:11:44
this has been extremely, extremely helpful because it helps us understand what the concerns are and where it is we can spend time 01:11:52
in that site design to alleviate these concerns as we start that that negotiation process. So back to my original question, it 01:11:59
just seems like these should have been tied together when we first reviewed Top Golf. 01:12:07
For a business there. And I just wonder, why is it separate? Yeah. And I think, you know, the market changes, market trends change 01:12:14
and opportunities arise. It seemed like maybe that wasn't the opportune time, but now is the opportune time to approach the city 01:12:22
and see if we can have further conversations and work through that negotiation. So what has changed in a month? 01:12:30
I'm sorry, but I'm just trying to understand that too much sensitive information. We would all like talk off to come in And we're 01:12:40
the land owners and developers of the project. And you know, we we do have partners as well. Me and Steve are managers of the 01:12:47
board of of of our development group and of our investment group that we're you know manage these investments for. And there is a 01:12:54
process for approvals from our side as well. And so it. 01:13:01
Development works, a tenant doesn't just come in and say we'd like to be in your place, thank you very much, sign here. And so 01:13:09
there is a requirement and, and this is, you know, exploring every possible use of property and going through a process where. 01:13:16
We now have a final lot line for top golf at this at this time and just in the last couple of weeks that's been finalized exactly 01:13:25
where that where that lot line will go. And and it was very beneficial to for top goals to come and speak with you all and get 01:13:31
feedback from you and and it's you know. 01:13:38
We needed that to move forward with what was leftover, and what we're leftover with is a corner piece of property that needs to be 01:13:45
developed from our group's standpoint and needs to be developed in the near future, not. 01:13:52
Way down the road from now if we're going to continue to develop this site as we are proposing right now, for example with Top 01:14:00
Golf. 01:14:03
So it's kind of a domino effect in development, but. 01:14:08
Something for so I guess the question, the question would be what? What I hear you saying is. 01:14:41
What are what exactly are the vesting rights we walk away with if you guys positively recommend this and send it to City Council 01:14:49
and they approve it? From what I understand, it doesn't automatically guarantee that we're going to be able to build 300 units or 01:14:55
even 50 units. Or there would have to be a development agreement at that point in time at which we would be more than happy to go 01:15:01
through the 10 versions we've looked at up till now and probably 10 more versions we'll look out before we apply for development 01:15:06
agreement. 01:15:12
And then and, and in that development agreement, Morgan, I think we'll we'll obviously include the traffic impact analysis and 01:15:18
everything and you'll see. 01:15:22
Probably a comparison of what if we built this as commercial, what the traffic would be if we build it as a mixed-use, which this 01:15:27
this building that we are designing and have been in the process of designing and have just gotten to the spot where you know, 01:15:34
we're not going to expend more capital or invest into design unless we can even have the discussion of a development agreement. 01:15:41
I guess you're you're saying if we could pull up one of our prototypes that one of the 10 at this point for the for a text code 01:15:49
amendment. Yeah, this is this is a suggestion. I mean wherever you're you're the closest at, I mean it's all 10 or completely 01:15:54
different models. But if you understand kind of. 01:15:59
I think I think that would help them because like even kind of what I, when I saw one of the concepts, it was like it was one 01:16:06
building. It wasn't like a, it wasn't, you weren't doing like projects all over. I I think that might help. I mean, that's whether 01:16:11
or not you guys are comfortable with that. I know this doesn't fully entitle the project, but it definitely opens the door to 01:16:15
that. 01:16:20
And I think one of my sense of the Planning Commission correct if I'm wrong, is that they're concerned to even do that without 01:16:25
having a lot more information. Yeah, I think maybe it it would help you to see. 01:16:29
And I do agree still with Jason is to his approach in this was to come in with a development agreement instead of rezone a very 01:16:36
specific parcel that would have just entitled us to move straight to site plan without any more public input. As we've talked with 01:16:41
the neighbors around here, we we know that this is a very tight community and we appreciate it and we and we like, we like the 01:16:47
feedback. 01:16:52
Let's see if Steve can pull up. I was just going to add to the Morgan's .1 of the questions I was going to ask is how you arrived 01:16:59
at the numbers. 01:17:02
That obviously included some forethought, you know, like to change. One of my questions was going to be why the change in density, 01:17:07
not just the increase in the cap, you know, like understanding, OK, we built out the units, so you can't build any more units. If 01:17:13
we increase the cap, if it's still at the same density that other developments have been built at, why couldn't? So I, I figured 01:17:18
there's been, and I, I hear the, the concern that it is an investment there and it's at risk for you guys to invest in design and 01:17:24
exploring options. 01:17:30
And pay somebody that time, but it if you can share some information that would definitely help. Yeah, I'd say I don't even know 01:17:36
that we'll hit that exact number with the information we have today. There's a range of what we could do and still looking for the 01:17:43
mix. I mean we we're pretty careful and very do our due diligence and make sure that we bring in the right number of of bedroom 01:17:50
units. You know, you don't want to have a bunch of vacant units or if there are. 01:17:57
Opportunities for you know, you guys don't have a hotel within the city? 01:18:04
It there, there are people definitely who visit here then and we've heard from, from from some feedback from our consultants, 01:18:08
people would like to be able to rent for two or three nights a hotel room. Hotels are not expanding in suburban America today 01:18:14
since the pandemic. 01:18:19
But the opportunity for a mixed type of hotel slash multifamily apartment with some retail on the main floor or office on the main 01:18:25
floor that is actually growing and I I think it's actually a better use. It will become more pedestrian that way. 01:18:32
But yeah, we can show you so you can get a little bit of scale. I think we might have a. 01:18:41
Kind of a bird's eye view of one of the concepts. So as you're looking for that Morgan and and again, I'd like to know what the 01:18:47
benefits of the city is, but what is the bottom line to the city by moving in this direction? 01:18:54
How does it help the city? What does the city get from it? And and secondly, in the development agreement, I'd like to see some 01:19:02
options. You know, I know we've talked 341 minutes and you said that may not be. 01:19:09
The final unit, but I'd like to know what would it be if it's 170 or 85 or 240, you know, I mean some, some various levels of 01:19:16
occupancy, if you will, and maybe some different options in the development agreement to, to consider at least. Just thoughts. Did 01:19:23
you ask some questions? I just wanted to comment on my hesitancy lies and not knowing like what on earth you're even trying to 01:19:30
propose to us because. 01:19:37
It's a it's a lot of units to commit to right now. 01:19:46
When we don't understand what that's going to look and feel like and we don't have any traffic studies done at this moment. And 01:19:50
once once we like agree to that number, your Max number. 01:19:56
What if, you know, we may discover that's too many and then it's too bad for us? So that is my biggest no right now. So totally 01:20:03
understandable. And I, you know, I heard, you know, you don't want to be stuck with that number of 340 if you recommend approval 01:20:11
and City Council approves this. Do you know how many additional units we get? 01:20:18
None. Absolutely none. 01:20:26
Because we have to come back and show you a plan that's that appeases the public because it's going to have two more public 01:20:28
hearings. And so there's going to be a lot more input that appeases all of those concerns. All we're asking for tonight is to make 01:20:35
a modification to your code to allow us to have that conversation, to have to go through the process, to have the additional 01:20:42
public hearings, to go through those details. 01:20:48
For us to ask for those additional units. 01:20:56
All in essence this code text amendment, it's just we're asking for a tool, we're asking for the opportunity to have the 01:20:59
conversation. By no means are you entitled or required to adopt A development agreement. It just provides the option for the city 01:21:06
to approve additional up to. 01:21:12
Not approve that many, but approve additional units and approve additional density. 01:21:20
Through a development agreement, it provides an opportunity for us to have the conversation. You know, we could have proposed 01:21:26
without a cap and just say we can have unlimited density and unlimited number of units. That didn't feel like the right approach 01:21:31
to us. We have a rough idea of the number of units we're looking for and so we'll just include that in it so that it's not an 01:21:37
open-ended. We're going to come back and ask for, you know, 5000 units. We have a rough idea of the number of units and so we're 01:21:43
just asking for the opportunity to. 01:21:49
Come back to go through the details to identify the impacts that this development is going to create, to understand what 01:21:55
mitigation efforts you would like to see and then to incorporate those into agreement. It was mentioned earlier in the meeting 01:22:03
that there was times when promises were made, developers said they were going to do things and and never followed through. One of 01:22:10
the ways to make sure developers follow through is to enter into a developed degree. We are required to do these things. 01:22:18
And so it gives that that leverage and that opportunity for the city to require those, to require those things, which currently 01:22:26
you don't, you don't have that. 01:22:31
So yes, we are asking for the opportunity to negotiate additional units. We're not asking for additional units. We're just asking 01:22:36
for the opportunity to come back with detailed plans to address your concerns and go through that process. And if I could just 01:22:44
follow up on what you said. You said you've gone through a process to come up with 341 units just as a ballpark figure to start 01:22:51
with. 01:22:59
Could you share with us that process and how you arrived at that decision? 01:23:07
So imagine that that would mostly be a financial thing, like if we can have this many units that makes us well. And that's what 01:23:12
I'd like to hear. I mean, thank you. Thank you. But I mean, there's a process you went through and I just like to understand that. 01:23:20
So looking at the remaining land that we have left in that corner of that, of that property, looking at the, the myriad of uses 01:23:27
that fall within the RMU zone that we that we could use, looking at the code at what could be built. 01:23:35
There if you were to expand, for example, your maximum number of residential units. 01:23:42
That going through working with architects and working with consultants and engineers saying OK with these dimensions and these 01:23:49
setbacks and the code that requires these height restrictions or whatever in these parking requirements that you all have, what 01:23:55
your parking standards are, are very high now just you know, for multi family properties compared to other cities, which is fine. 01:24:01
That's how you can you come up with a ballpark number. 01:24:10
At that point, once you have the dimensions, the left what we're left with after the gulf comes in and the code that you have to 01:24:12
build if there were additional units added to the cell. 01:24:18
One one other follow up for this too in relation that conversation and maybe Morgan. 01:24:25
This goes over to you is as a Commission, you know, we're, we're, we're training, we're taught basically, you know, if 01:24:31
applications are brought to us that meet the code. 01:24:35
Legally, you know the Utah State law were obligated to approve those plans. There are a few items where we have discretion. 01:24:40
This sounds like what we would have is a lot of discretion all of a sudden on a project to approve or not approve. 01:24:50
And I think it would be helpful for us to have clarity. 01:24:58
Where our guidance, you know, on, on, on that discretion in reviewing what you would be bringing to us with the development 01:25:03
agreement, you know, if it's up to, but it could be 300 units, it could be 175. That leaves a lot of variance, you know, and which 01:25:09
is fine, but you know, that's typically, you know, something that I believe all of us trying to, you know, we, we just try to 01:25:15
stick to, you know what we're, what we're legally obligated to do with the Planning Commission body, not as a political body, not 01:25:21
as a City Council, but just. 01:25:27
You know, we're, we're following codes and so I think that would be helpful for us at least. 01:25:33
Since I've been on the Planning Commission, I've we have, I haven't been in that situation where it seems like we've had this much 01:25:39
discretion and say, well, we'll approve it if it's all green. 01:25:43
Because we can make it up, you know, it just feels like there's a lot of Gray area and all of a sudden to fill in that we would be 01:25:48
approving this to. And then if we require that, what exposure does that have or does it not have any exposure? I think there's 01:25:54
some Gray area that maybe for us would be helpful to understand if we were to go down that path. 01:26:00
We're not asking for an an open-ended. You just tell us what you want and then we get it in return. It's part of the RMU district. 01:26:09
There are district standards that are in there for parking, for height, for massing. You know, you have, we have this baseline. 01:26:18
And in essence, we're not asking to change anything else in those regulations. It's just a matter of we have this, this piece of 01:26:28
property that all of the units in the RMU have been utilized. We'd like to utilize some residential units and in meeting the RNU 01:26:35
standards and we can talk about the specific impacts. 01:26:42
And in how we how we are mitigating those impacts through the code. That's helpful. Maybe one clarification, I guess maybe the 01:26:50
only thing that you would be changing for the rest of the code is the density per acre. Yes, yeah. I mean that's the only thing 01:26:56
that that we're asking as far as the RMU. But all the other RMU codes, the high, everything else would be applicable. But you are 01:27:02
asking for a change in the density break, correct? 01:27:08
So. 01:27:17
Yeah, kind of going along that when we've seen a code and if somebody meets our code. 01:27:19
More often than not, we approve it. So some questions that I do, I have some legal questions for our attorney. Well, I think I 01:27:24
would want to put this off personally. So it's mostly just the backbone things. If I were to approve any kind of density period, 01:27:32
there are some things that I would want to see happen 1st. And so that's not even something I'd want to see in a development 01:27:39
agreement. It's something that there's one housing unit more I would want to see these. 01:27:46
Specific things and specifically the most important thing I think is Geneva Rd. actually being open. I think it's a great spot for 01:27:54
for having density, except that whole exit is the area being a great spot isn't a great spot because it's blocked off by the rail 01:28:02
spur. I think something has to happen there before any kind of density goes in right there. 01:28:10
Legally, I want to know if we have standing, if we have a foot to stand on. 01:28:20
Unchanging other codes for other developers and if we do approve, having 300 extra units if we decide for some reason we don't 01:28:24
like. 01:28:29
What they're doing for who knows, some petty reason I. 01:28:34
If if legally we have a foot to stand on because I mean it wouldn't be some petty reason, but I want to know that we have a solid 01:28:39
foot to stand on if we have any reason. 01:28:44
The other thing is the RMU, it's regional mixed-use. None of those housing units are mixed-use currently, which that's, I don't 01:28:50
know how that got by. I don't know how the current development code happened that way, but none of it is mixed-use. And the city, 01:28:56
what the city wants and the benefit of this happening is the city gets more commercial because you guys are putting in commercial. 01:29:02
I understand that. 01:29:09
The problem is that we expected a lot more commercial. 01:29:16
With the way this Army district was originally done. So that's my other concern. Can we make it so that we're guaranteed a 01:29:20
specific percent of commercial if we allow residential? And I'd like to see that if we're going to do, if we're going to move 01:29:27
forward with this, I'd like to see a very specific percentage of commercial if that's possible. And then the last thing I don't, 01:29:35
I'm not particularly fond of how this overlays the entire Army district. I would like it if possible. 01:29:42
To be specific to this area, because pretty much everything's done, I'm not sure if it's completely built out, but that doesn't 01:29:50
stop another without there being a cap, it doesn't stop another building from tearing down their building in 20 years and building 01:29:57
up a lot more units. So I think a cap is important still and I if not, I think it's very, I think we need to have it very specific 01:30:04
to this spot that we're talking about. 01:30:11
So sorry, are you talking about like with the Top Golf couple years ago we did like the we actually put like you know, the golf, 01:30:19
the driving range can be bounded by Geneva. We put a very specific location and so making that more specific would be something. 01:30:26
So those are my, those are my four things, the legal issues, the 400 N connection issue or removing of the rail spur, making that 01:30:33
a specific section. 01:30:40
And it's possible specifying a percentage of commercial to residential. 01:30:48
And are those all things that could be addressed in detail during the actual development agreement rather than? 01:30:55
Well, so, yeah, so some, some, some of these could so #2 if you could clarify that, like you said, do they have a, do they have a 01:31:05
footing to stand on? 01:31:12
I want to get that one right, so I'm not sure how to word it exactly. Do we have a legal foot to stand on if we were to approve 01:31:19
300 units? 01:31:23
And then or whatever the amount of units and then for some reason we decide we don't like the plan for any reason. Do we have a 01:31:29
legal foot to stand on to deny it? Kind of back to my question, right? Like what's our, what's our safe harbor? What are we, Yeah, 01:31:36
what are we leaning on from a legal standpoint and approving or rejecting whatever they bring in their development agreement? 01:31:44
Sure. I, I, I would, I would say though, if, if you do approve. 01:31:51
Specific for things, I'm not ready to make an approval tonight. I could be ready to make an approval once we kind of figure those 01:32:29
things out. I don't know if we're capable of figuring those things out tonight. 01:32:35
Is this something that we can put off until the next Planning Commission? Yeah. So if you if you do that, I would continue this 01:32:43
item to the next to the next public hearing. What we'll do is it's been noticed for the City Council next week, we would have to 01:32:48
continue their public hearing to their next City Council. But yeah, we, we, we, we can. If it goes beyond probably one meeting, we 01:32:54
would need to renotice. OK. 01:32:59
And if I can't, just real quick one last, I know you identified those, those four points. Again, we are not asking for any units. 01:33:05
You are not obligated to provide any units, not one, not 300. We are asking for the opportunity to come back. And you're not 01:33:13
obligated as Morgan stated, you're not obligated to approve the development. You're obligated to accept the application. 01:33:21
And to work through that negotiation, but if it doesn't satisfy, you're not obligated to approve it. 01:33:31
And the city does utilize development agreements. We're not asking to add a whole new section, a whole new code, a whole new 01:33:36
provision for that that you don't have. The city does utilize development agreements already. We're just asking for it to be used 01:33:43
in this instance. And then you talked about the narrowing of the of the area there again, I mean that those are specific items to 01:33:50
be addressed within the development agreement. 01:33:56
That it only applies to this specific identified area and that the the traffic impacts and the parking for this area and for this 01:34:04
project need to be resolved. And then and I apologize, your 4th point was the the percent of commercial. Yeah, so the percent 01:34:11
there again, perfect. That is something that I mean most development agreements incorporate that into it that looking because you 01:34:19
have to look at the specific project and the specific parcel. 01:34:26
And what it would support. It doesn't make sense to put an arbitrary, in essence an arbitrary number in your code. 01:34:34
When the part you may not have parcels that can support that. And so that is something that definitely needs to be incorporated 01:34:41
and we anticipate incorporating that into the development agreement so that it satisfies. 01:34:48
You know your request, I do think it's interesting, you know in essence we are trying proposed in what the RMU district was 01:34:55
intended for a mixed-use, a vertically mixed-use, you know that has residential and it has commercial and you mentioned that that 01:35:02
hasn't been built, that hasn't been constructed. And so really what we're asking it, it mentioned this that you know, there are 01:35:08
some lessons that are learned. 01:35:14
And what's been done in the past and we're just asking for a new approach. 01:35:22
To allow more public input, to allow more public meetings, and to allow negotiation, to make sure you get a project that meets the 01:35:25
city's desire, that meets the general plan, that meets the land use code, that satisfies the concerns of the public. We're just 01:35:32
asking for that opportunity because we don't. In essence, we don't have that opportunity with that artificial cap that's in the 01:35:39
code right now. 01:35:45
And and I, I totally understand that and I want you guys to have that opportunity. 01:35:53
But I don't want that opportunity to even. 01:35:57
I don't even want negotiation to happen personally unless these things are like specifically addressed. And so I just want to know 01:36:01
specifically again, legal standing where we stand that that 400 N connection has to happen. And I think it it should be in this 01:36:09
now, I don't think that that should be a negotiating thing to even talk about. It should just be that's how it is. 01:36:17
The specific section of land, I think it just needs to be. I think these are just things that need to happen before negotiation 01:36:27
even needs to be considered. 01:36:30
This is for staff real quick. Do we have any kind of timeline for the realtor right there? 01:36:35
And regards the construction of rails for re anticipate the starting, they anticipate start construction depending on other 01:36:44
outside agencies on the city's control to be about about 3-4 years. So about three years is when they're looking at the 01:36:49
construction of the railspur. 01:36:54
So that developed that community. 01:36:59
That live, that's just South. 01:37:02
Of just right on 4 to north was that waters at Edgewater? 01:37:06
Edgewater. 01:37:11
There they'll be just kind of stuck turning left out of their community right there because they're going to have a whole nother 01:37:14
community. 01:37:19
Right up against them and they're all forced out the same way and we have a lot of students coming in and out very specific times 01:37:24
of day like this. Four years is a long time to be stuck right there like a really loud that's that's to remove the Railsborough 01:37:30
along Geneva nothing. 01:37:36
That so that would be the reconciliation project which would divert the rails for going going north and then at that time, then 01:37:44
this then the Railsborough will be able to remove actually be removed to be opened up at that time. Again, those are those are 01:37:50
estimate timelines. 01:37:56
Faster. 01:38:02
Hopefully yeah, as in regards to working with outside agencies in regards to get that moving forward on that. So I just need to 01:38:03
add on to today's question, if I can. So we that's the rails first. So is there any plan from U dot is it on the plan as a 01:38:11
budgeted to to fix that that that intersection? And I guess if if that were tacked on just because that's that's probably a that's 01:38:18
really big thing to the price as well. Like when when does that intersection? 01:38:25
Forget, yeah, that's that's work when talking to you. I know you dog has it and they're forecast not just for that one 01:38:33
intersection, but in multiple intersections along Geneva Road to address. I can't give you exact timeline on that. That would be 01:38:42
something that we come back to in regards to again the flow along 400 N, 400 N around Mill Mill Rd. 01:38:51
And development agreement with would be able to address like the traffic impact analysis in regards to what's going on based on 01:39:00
the development. 01:39:04
That's being incurred and of course the conditions on certain improvements to be done in a certain timeline prior to, you know, 01:39:10
being being able to turn on certain certain occupancies, for example. So you know, they would they would go out through a full 01:39:16
grown analysis here, you know, here's here's what's happening. Here's the improvements, improvements being agreed upon by between 01:39:23
developer and the city. 01:39:29
As well. And then of course the conditions of Windows improvements would have to be done. 01:39:37
And a timeline along with the with the developments and those conditions being set on top of that. 01:39:41
It's hard like so it's hard to speak for other agencies when they're not here. Do you know if you view has? 01:39:49
Any timeline for their plans for building that area out as well? 01:39:56
And they're updating their master plan right now. And so they've they've always kind of indicated it's anywhere from like they 01:40:02
break it up into five year increments, at least their current plan does that. And I we've seen like the bubble go up, but I but 01:40:09
really any of the buildings that were within the original master plan, we haven't seen any of those go up even within that five 01:40:17
year phase. So we just, we just don't know what a better idea wants this new master plank it's gets. 01:40:24
Or gets approved because it seems like they're taking that a lot more serious this this master plan compared to the first one. And 01:40:31
my reasoning kind of with this is because we don't know. We don't know when the rail spurs really going to be removed. We don't 01:40:39
know when there's going to be an intersection there. We don't know when you dot is going to expand Geneva Road to have that to 01:40:46
have it not jog. We don't know these things. And I would hate to be like, yeah, we can think about additional units. 01:40:53
But we can't until those things are done. In my mind, I don't think we can think about any additional units until. 01:41:02
That at the very least, like if we're just talking about the Geneva Rd. I don't think there can be additional units talked about 01:41:08
until we know that that's happened or that it has happened. So unless we can put something like that in the agreement where it's 01:41:13
like, yeah, you can have these units. 01:41:18
Once there's an actual connection, then yeah, but we don't know if you got's gonna come in 1520 years from now. We don't know if 01:41:23
that's gonna happen. And we'd like to think that yeah, it's gonna happen soon. Yeah, it's gonna happen in the next three or four 01:41:28
years. But you know, is notoriously bad at. 01:41:33
Doing those kinds of things. So that's that's where my biggest hesitation comes from is adding 300 units, which is 15% to this, to 01:41:39
that population there. 01:41:43
Is that much more traffic in those two areas that are already really, really bad, so it sounds like? 01:41:49
We really have two options right now, like 1 is what you're saying, to postpone or delay or continue. But based on what you just 01:41:57
said, you know, you're not going to have a definitive answer from U dot, even if you postpone this two weeks, two months, two 01:42:04
years. You know, so like kind of where I'm coming from is I'm actually inclined to recommend the City Council to look at this if 01:42:11
we had some of these other stipulations. 01:42:19
Primarily from our city attorney to look at, you know, opening ourselves up to potential litigation or whatever it might be. Also 01:42:27
the city cost per unit. Does this drive that up? But things like traffic studies, 400 NI think those are all details that are 01:42:32
probably most appropriately hammered out in the actual development agreement negotiations, which would also be in a public forum. 01:42:38
And I and I would be comfortable doing that and including I like your idea of limiting it to that space, but I I don't think it's 01:42:44
necessary. 01:42:50
Not comfortable to move forward. 01:43:26
Because we don't have this information. So even though there's an option for a development agreement, we are not entering into one 01:43:29
at this moment. And that, that gives me some, some comfort that way personally. 01:43:34
So I'm I'm. 01:43:40
Somewhat in agreement with Anthony, I actually I'm more inclined to prove and and push this along. 01:43:42
The the traffic concerns I understand, but if we were to entertain a commercial development there commercial developments tend to 01:43:50
produce more traffic than residential because depending on the type of commercial. But if it's a retail, I mean Swig right is the 01:43:58
is the extreme example that you have multiple customers coming in, in a car where the residential unit people leave. 01:44:06
Come home, maybe they'll come home and leave twice a day, but it's, it's more more likely to be once a day. It's not that it 01:44:14
residential developments don't, don't have the impact on traffic. And this is just from my experience working with traffic studies 01:44:20
and projects that the commercial developments are, are just as impactful on the traffic. So if if it's we can't allow any, you 01:44:27
know, if we can't increase traffic until some of those. 01:44:33
Road issues are alleviated then we're we've. 01:44:40
To be fair, it would be limiting both commercial and residential because they both increased traffic in the city. So I think 01:44:44
having a traffic study as part of what would be required for the development agreement to demonstrate what are the loads that are 01:44:51
currently on those streets, what would be the impacts of a, a largely residential development, a 5050 split, you know, whatever 01:44:59
they're going to propose, they would have to demonstrate quantifiably what the traffic. 01:45:06
Impact would be through a professional traffic engineer. 01:45:14
And that would all have to be considered and we would have to be comfortable with it before anything would be approved. And I 01:45:18
think that we would have. 01:45:23
Benefited massively the rest of that district if we had required development agreements. 01:45:29
You know, to the points have been brought up, it didn't get built out the way we thought. There have been many things in Vineyard 01:45:35
that didn't get built out the way that we thought and then developed. So I and I tried agreeing with them that a development 01:45:40
agreement actually is is beneficial for us to be able to. 01:45:44
To hold their feet to the fire for the the neighbors to David Ray's comment earlier, they will have to, you know, they'll have to 01:45:51
bring it here to the, to the public to see exactly what they're proposing and the public will get to make comments on it. 01:45:58
And provide feedback. And that will have to be. And then there's discretion, you know, on the city's standpoint on what they'll 01:46:06
accept. 01:46:09
I as I've mentioned earlier. 01:46:14
If we if we recommend approval. 01:46:16
I really want to have the same conversations. I think we've all brought up as far as you know, Council of what our legal basis is 01:46:19
on making decisions or or approving a proposed project through that development agreement process before we would review a 01:46:28
specific proposal and application. But I think we could approve that tonight and still have time to go through that process. 01:46:36
Before they would present an application to us. 01:46:44
So and I, I think that is the the best location for density in our city outside of what we've talked about with the Town Center I. 01:46:48
Where we are at the heart of the valley and. 01:47:01
That is the closest we can get to our transportation systems. 01:47:04
And to where the proposed public transportation systems are going to be. So I think that is the appropriate place to to have 01:47:10
housing. Housing that close to the the mixed commercial development will be really beneficial I think to both. I think it creates 01:47:18
walkability. People that live in those units can walk and enjoy the commercial. 01:47:26
You know, restaurants and businesses. 01:47:36
And eventually get to the, you know, the train station quick and get in and out. 01:47:39
So anyway I. 01:47:45
I told you your concern price. I personally I would be OK understanding the requirements that then come with the development 01:47:47
agreement process that we're not approving 300 units. We're just as he said we're, we're, we're now we would then be allowing to 01:47:53
have that negotiation conversation. 01:47:59
So just thinking real quick about some development that has happened in Orem. Orem, we did their whole center St. plan and allowed 01:48:10
for a certain density. 01:48:15
For units to be brought in and when these units were being brought in and density was coming in, it was approved by ARM 01:48:21
previously, but now they didn't want to have the density that was brought in. And so people were that now Orem is dealing with 01:48:28
legal situations and Orem of course is getting sued for that because they already approved a plan and density is coming in. How 01:48:35
I'm wondering how this would be different from that. 01:48:42
So you know that. 01:48:50
About that. 01:48:51
From playing maybe a little bit on the other side. Yeah, right. Working, working with a developer in Oren. 01:48:55
They where, where Orem has created exposure is they implemented a moratorium on development, which is a very difficult thing. The 01:49:02
legal basis for first they basically said we will approve, we will not review permit applications or of any kind. They, they 01:49:09
revised it later to be for residential use only, but they just put a stop. So we won't, we won't look at anything that's 01:49:15
submitted. 01:49:22
Because they wanted to give themselves time to go back in and revise their zoning code. 01:49:29
That did allow for mixed-use projects along the State St. corridor and. 01:49:36
The residents were uncomfortable with that, made enough noise with their City Council members that they they create, you know, 01:49:44
they called a special meeting and basically said we want to impose a moratorium. 01:49:49
They had counsel in that meeting from their city manager, from the mayor, from their attorney to not impose a moratorium that that 01:49:56
would create a legal exposure. They approved it anyway and now they have a lawsuit. So it's, it's different in that way that they, 01:50:03
they kind of just said we're not, we're not looking at anything anymore. So I'm just wondering if I before I feel really 01:50:10
comfortable approving this. I, that legal question is really my biggest concern. 01:50:18
I can't, I can't send something to the City Council be like, hey, we recommend this for approval if. 01:50:25
If legally like we don't have a foot to stand on in the future, I can understand the other things that hashing out the percentage 01:50:31
of commercial residential or hashing out the specific section or even the 400 N. But if we don't have a foot to stand on in the 01:50:39
future and if we approve something like this, that's where I that's where I'm concerned. So I'd hate to see something like that. 01:50:47
Is there a way you know in in sending this to the City Council? 01:50:57
Is there a way to? 01:51:03
This is a sincere question. Is there a way to attach a condition or something that you know? 01:51:06
That includes as part of that City Council review or when, when this is presented, the City Council that the city attorney. 01:51:12
You know, be be at that meeting and provide legal counsel to the city prior to the City Council making a final decision. 01:51:20
On the agenda item, I mean, I would think so that that's the only, that would definitely be a condition I would put before I would 01:51:29
be comfortable moving this forward is letting having the city attorney review this and present it to the City Council prior to 01:51:36
their review next week would be, you know, understanding. Does this open ourselves up to litigation? Does it set any legal 01:51:43
precedent? If there were changes that needed to be made to the developer agreement down the line, what would that entail? 01:51:49
Is it unilateral, bilateral, those types of questions? Is that a condition we could put in? 01:51:57
Yeah, yeah. I mean, you guys can you guys can place it in any condition like that. I with with with this type of thing. I mean, 01:52:02
it's going to go to the City Council most likely they're they're going to do that that anyway because we'll provide the staff 01:52:08
report that's going to provide an overall description of what happened in this meeting with the questions and stuff. And so a lot 01:52:14
of those same issues are going to come up. So it would seem to me that the decision we're facing as a Commission is, are two 01:52:20
things. 01:52:25
One is either to approve it as it's presented tonight and it would then go to the City Council with all of this other work 01:52:32
provided to them prior to them making the decision or for us to postpone our decision to the City Council until we have some of 01:52:39
this information from legal for us to be able to go forward. So to me, those are the two decisions we're facing here. Yeah. And I 01:52:47
I don't think we would want to postpone until we had some of the details that are more appropriately. 01:52:54
Negotiated in the developer agreement 'cause I don't think we're going to have a one week turn around on traffic study. And I 01:53:03
wasn't saying those, I was saying illegal. It's either do we want to see the legal review first before we recommend it or 01:53:08
recommend it with the conditions of legal reviews. 01:53:14
I think that's a good summary. And I think, I think that we do need, I think it's important that we do have a specific section 01:53:22
that we make it a specific section because in the future if another development in geographically contain it. 01:53:29
Yeah, and I'm OK with that. If someone tears down their apartment complex and wants to build again, then they can build without 01:53:36
any. 01:53:40
Well, they'd have to submit a development agreement. They would. But again, it comes back to the legal thing like and with the 01:53:45
Planning Commission, when we have a development agreement or when we approve something like this and we're like, well, does it 01:53:51
meet what was originally planned? Well then we're good with it. So it's kind of, I feel like this is kind of the same thing where 01:53:57
I don't want to be like, well, it meets the plan, so our heads are tied so. 01:54:04
Yeah, what? We're happy to do whatever you want, if you wanted. I wanted this too. We could have the if this was. 01:54:11
Council that that's a route as well. So that's up to you personally for me to feel comfortable recommending it. I'd like to those 01:54:47
two things, at least those two things legally if we have a foot to stand on and if we have and I want it to be a specific section. 01:54:55
Go ahead. If I can interject real quick. So one of the things I know you talked about the limit geographically, we are imposing a 01:55:06
cap on the number of units and so. 01:55:11
There is a cap, it's not open-ended that anybody can come in and submit a development agreement. In essence somebody was going to 01:55:17
have to go back to this process and amend the code to amend the cap in order to be able to initiate that. So even though it's not 01:55:24
that that boundaries and their geographically it's there based on the number of units. 01:55:31
In participate playing right, I had that backwards. No, you're good. And the other suggestion I might make. 01:55:38
Is, you know if you do recommend it to City Council for those legal issues to be resolved for them. That part of the motion is 01:55:44
requesting that you get the training before, as was mentioned before, any applications come before you for development agreement 01:55:50
that the city attorney comes and kind of walks through this process and and that you receive that specific training. I think it's 01:55:56
important for them to understand, but I think it's also it's going to be important for you to understand as as you see these 01:56:02
applications and. 01:56:07
So that might be something worth considering in your in a condition if you were to move it forward this evening. So just to we do 01:56:14
have our training right now and he's been waiting really patiently. So I don't want to push it, but I know we've been going for 01:56:20
about an hour and a half. Maybe we can wrap up the next 10 minutes. If you know, if you guys want to discuss kind of how to 01:56:27
proceed with a with a motion or. 01:56:34
What you want to do 1 of you can make a motion. Sounds like there's kind of maybe two thought patterns going on, but I would 01:56:42
recommend someone make a motion and we. 01:56:45
Do I have somebody would like to make a motion. I am willing to make a motion and you know just because I'm making a motion still 01:56:51
vote how you would like, but I I move to recommend approval of the proposed zoning text amendment, but with the additional 01:56:59
condition that our city attorney answer all legal questions that we've brought up tonight, including. 01:57:08
Are we opening ourselves up to future litigation? Are we setting precedent? Precedent. 01:57:18
You know what, what leeway do we have once the development agreement is reached to modify those? Is it unilateral or bilateral and 01:57:25
any other questions as we review this that that we've brought up? 01:57:32
Do I have a second? 01:57:41
I would second that. 01:57:43
All right, all in favor. Aye, I apologize. We we do need this roll call. All right, Tim, I me may Tay with these conditions, I 01:57:45
Anthony, aye, aye. Moving on to 4.3 Sony effects amendment regarding section 15.14 point. 01:57:57
2-08 dot 2.08 Development standards in the Vineyard Special purpose zoning district modifying the language to increase the 01:58:12
permitted No sorry, that was what we just did. 01:58:18
Plenty of time to like he was the naval. 01:58:26
Moving to 5.1 Utah State. 01:58:32
I'm sorry, that's right. 01:58:36
Ridiculous. Now you know the questions you're gonna get. 01:58:43
Guys gonna keep going. 01:58:50
Does anyone need a break price? Does anyone need like a? 01:58:53
Yeah. Can I be excused? You can be excused. Thank you. 01:58:58
So now you know what issue is like we need training on. Yeah, I have a feeling you have some feelings. 01:59:10
I think I have an idea of what you guys might want to talk about, yeah. 01:59:17
Awesome. Should we wait for anything here? Should I just jump in? 01:59:21
I'm going to type native. 01:59:28
I remember that one. Yeah, yeah. 01:59:37
Yeah. 01:59:45
All right. 01:59:49
Yeah, I'm not. I'm not like. 01:59:59
Really comfortable about it. 02:00:02
Couldn't issue this trust. I forgot so much. We don't trust the city. 02:00:06
Good things and to follow through on it and we just developed. 02:00:14
Yeah. 02:00:23
No, you're going to pass a few of these around. 02:00:29
The Office of Property Rights. 02:00:33
Opera. 02:00:44
Oh bro. 02:00:47
And I know how to clear a room, right? 02:00:50
Thank you. Appreciate it. 02:00:54
Oh, sure. 02:00:57
OK, let's look for it. 02:01:01
Are you going to Do you want me to move it or you? 02:01:10
Are we ready to roll? 02:01:20
Hey, well, thank you all for sticking with me tonight. I'm actually usually, usually it's like a work session or I'm the only one 02:01:29
speaking, right? But luckily this stuff is incredibly engaging and horribly entertaining, so no big deal, right? 02:01:36
I said so, yeah. My name is Jordan Colmore. There's my information up there. I'm the lead attorney in the Office of the Property 02:01:46
Rights Ombudsman. 02:01:49
You got an answer? Oh, hello, Amber. Very good. 02:01:54
What's Ambers role and she's a alternate plan. Perfect. Welcome, Amber. Thanks for being here. So the office of property right is 02:01:59
part of OK, so that that's what I typically usually explain at the very beginning, right. Who are we and what do we do? It's a 02:02:06
great question. So we are a neutral, nonpartisan state funded office and we were created by the Legislature primarily to help 02:02:13
local governments. 02:02:20
And, and really even the state and county. 02:02:28
See how local governments and state government, when they have disputes right with private property owners, primarily in the areas 02:02:31
of land use and eminent domain, we can get involved not as representing either side, but in the role of an ombudsman right or a 02:02:38
mediator, essentially right to try to help resolve the disputes. The idea being that if there's this alternative dispute 02:02:46
resolution forum for the parties to get together and try to resolve their disputes, then those issues don't go to court. 02:02:53
And the taxpayers don't have to pay money, right? Developers and property owners that have to pay money to litigate. And 02:03:01
ultimately it benefits everyone, right? The taxpayers specifically, right. So that's kind of our government function. That's why 02:03:07
our office exists, right? But we are, we are neutral. Like I say, we don't represent the government and we even actually have a 02:03:13
board of public and private stakeholders that that governs our office. Oh, cool, great. Thanks. 02:03:19
To ensure right that we are staying neutral, Fortunately we've been around for 20 some odd years. 02:03:26
And, and the office has developed a good reputation of, of being neutral. And we have no reason to not be right. We, we appreciate 02:03:33
the role that we play. And fortunately we've kind of become a, an institution in the industry, right? And people know that we are 02:03:39
neutral. But if ever were to go off the rails, right, our board would be there to, to kind of bring us in line. So there's, 02:03:45
there's three attorneys in the office. We cover the entire state. 02:03:51
And we have one assistant, so I. 02:03:58
By way of maybe explanation, part of the reason I want to explain this is so that you guys know that as planning commissioners, 02:04:02
here's my contact information, right? We have a website as well. We get a lot of calls from property owners, from City Council 02:04:08
members, from mayors, from planning commissioners saying, hey, we're dealing with these kinds of issues. What do you think, right? 02:04:14
And so in the land use and development context, the primary dispute resolution tool that we have available is called an advisory 02:04:19
opinion, right? So. 02:04:25
If, for instance, a developer brought in an application, an administrative application, right? And we'll get into that a little 02:04:32
bit, right? The difference between legislative and legislative and administrative, which you guys have been dealing with tonight, 02:04:36
right? 02:04:40
But if they bring in an administrative application and they feel like the city isn't reviewing the application according to the 02:04:47
applicable rules, then either the property owner or the city, we have both right? Can, can say, hey, ombudsman's office, would you 02:04:53
provide a neutral, independent opinion about what a court would say about our dispute? Right. And we provide that opinion and it, 02:05:00
and it, it, it acts as a dispute resolution tool to help resolve that dispute. So we've done. 02:05:07
North of 230 Some odd opinions in the existence of our office. 02:05:15
And they have a good reputation of trying to help resolve disputes on the eminent domain side. You know, eminent domain is when 02:05:20
the government needs someone's property for a public use, right? And the property owner doesn't necessarily want to sell it. It's 02:05:26
not available on the open market. And so every time the government needs someone's property for a use like that, they also have to 02:05:32
give that property owner a pamphlet about our office, right, saying, hey, here's a neutral third party. You can go to them. You 02:05:38
can ask questions. 02:05:44
You can request that they mediate the dispute if you feel like what the government is offering is not reflective of Fair market 02:05:50
value. If it's not just compensation, we can also give the parties additional evidence, right? So we can order an additional 02:05:56
appraisal that the government has to pay for and the property owner gets to choose who does the appraisal, right? And then that 02:06:02
becomes another tool for the parties to resolve the dispute if they want to, right? So we do a lot of mediation. We do advisory 02:06:08
opinions. And then the third kind of. 02:06:14
Of the, of the leg of the stool that is our office is, is this right? Tonight I'm, I'm here in Vineyard, tomorrow I'm in Mill 02:06:20
Creek, right? So we do a lot of these trainings. 02:06:26
And and then we just spend a lot of time on the phone with people frankly, right, calling in and answering, asking questions and 02:06:33
sending us emails and different things like that. So that's what we do and that's why we're here. Please use us. We're a resource. 02:06:40
And there's, there's no cost. There's $150.00 filing fee if you want an advisory opinion, otherwise no cost, right? 02:06:46
I will say I grew up in Linden City, right? 02:06:55
I think, I think it goes without saying that you guys have grown. 02:07:02
Since I've been around right when I was young, Vineyard was Geneva basically right, and then a few other folks and my how you've 02:07:06
grown right. So really cool stuff going on down here, but I was glad to drive back into Utah County. I live in Riverton now, right 02:07:14
and and and see the leaves changing on temp and baldy and and reminisce right so. 02:07:22
Great place, but with that any initial questions on Order Office does? 02:07:30
OK, let's just hop right into it. So hey Jordan, just really quick. When I was in common Heights, I'm over here. So I used to work 02:07:37
for Cotton Heights and we had a legal opinion from from your office. So it was really helpful. We had a dispute regarding short 02:07:42
term rentals and someone wanted to do something. We had a kind of a funky code, but it really did help to have that opinion. We're 02:07:48
always glad to hear it right. Anytime we issue an advisory opinion, half the people think we're incredibly brilliant, the other 02:07:53
half think we're. 02:07:59
Right. So Yep. 02:08:05
But at least, yeah, we're here and we do that, right? So I'm glad to hear it was useful in your case. So, yeah, with that, right, 02:08:08
Since we do these trainings all over the state, right? A couple weeks ago, I was in Torrey, Utah, right outside of, I think it's 02:08:14
Capitol Reef, right? Yeah. They have very different issues than what you guys are dealing with in Vineyard, right? And Mill Creek 02:08:20
has different issues. 02:08:26
Everyone, we're all dealing with land use issues, right? But everyone has their own issues they're dealing with. So what we've 02:08:32
traditionally done is put up this this common legal issues and land use boards. 02:08:38
Board, I guess if you will, and say, hey, what is it you guys like would like to talk about right now we have I'm not your 02:08:44
attorney, right? So I can't answer incredibly specific. Well, you can ask very specific questions and I'll let you know if I can 02:08:51
get specific answers or not right. But but typically we talk in in general terms about what your obligation is, right. So what we 02:08:57
say is we're here to try to help help you make. 02:09:04
Good land use decisions and part of making good land use decisions is making legal land use decisions, right? 02:09:12
So I mean, I have a few slides that kind of go along with each of these. There's inevitably the same topics that come up in one 02:09:19
fraction or another. But in looking at the board and you don't have to use anything on there, we can talk about other things. 02:09:27
I don't have development agreements on this one, do I? Well, you can still ask about them if you'd like. What's that? Yeah, there 02:09:40
there is. So you can, this is just to get the juices flowing. But if there's something not on there that you do want to talk about 02:09:45
it, let's talk about it. So should I jump into what I have prepared or do you want to answer a question now that we've kind of 02:09:51
primed the pump, I mean? 02:09:56
Yeah. I mean, if you can just quickly like give us what your thoughts on kind of the situation we were talking about tonight. 02:10:05
Of if we change it, if we change the development agreement to add more density and then we don't like what the developers come up 02:10:12
with, what do we have on foot to stand on? Yeah, So that's a great question. 02:10:18
All right, so we have, we have and maybe let me walk through this to give a kind of a framework and then maybe the answer will 02:10:26
become clear, right. So and and this deals with that legislative, administrative decisions, right? Interestingly, development 02:10:32
agreements can fall into one or the other category, right? Typically they fall into the category of legislative decisions, but 02:10:38
there are certain cases where they can be administrative decisions. And so you want to know what your code is saying and you want 02:10:44
to know. 02:10:50
Making right? 02:10:56
In making the distinction between legislative and administrative decisions, it's really important to know that because it's going 02:10:59
to really determine kind of the discretion you have, right? And you guys, you're, you're using the language, right? In certain 02:11:06
cases, you have all sorts of discretion to make a decision, right? In other situations, you don't, right? You can just look at the 02:11:14
code and you make sure it complies. The first one is when you're making legislative decisions, lots of discretion, right? 02:11:21
When you're making administrative decisions, the idea there is that now a property owner has some vested rights that we call them, 02:11:28
right? Some, some rights that are locked in, they, they get to have some more predictability, right? But when you're making the 02:11:34
rules, you have all sorts of discretion, right? So the Supreme Court of Utah, they've looked and they said, OK, we're talking 02:11:40
about legislative and administrative decisions. 02:11:46
Two key hallmarks of legislative decisions. They involve the promulgation of laws of general applicability. 02:11:53
And they're based on the weighing abroad competing policy considerations. 02:12:00
Let's see, do I have it on here? 02:12:06
No, OK. 02:12:10
So. 02:12:11
You see kind of typical legislative decisions, general plan and amendments, right? So whether or not you want to put into your 02:12:13
code right to to increase the density and allow for development agreements, whether or not to do that, it's a legislative 02:12:20
decision, right? Enactment of land use regulations, zone changes, annexations. 02:12:26
What are some of the considerations, right, primarily a legislative decision, you can't violate applicable state or federal law, 02:12:34
right? So state law or federal law says you can't do it. You can't make that legislative decision, right? Otherwise, if it's 02:12:40
reasonably debatable that the decision is consistent with the public interest, you're good, right? And that's a really low 02:12:47
standard to me. You just have to say, hey. 02:12:53
This is in the public interest that we're saying yes or no here. 02:13:01
Right. Can you clarify a reasonably debatable? 02:13:04
It sounds really soft. It does. It's, I mean, that's where lawyers make their money, frankly, right? 02:13:09
If if, if you can make a good faith argument that our decision benefits the public. 02:13:15
You're good, right? So we're looking at it, we're saying, hey. 02:13:22
This doesn't meet our character, our community character. 02:13:26
Courts have looked at and said that's a sufficient reason, right? If you're getting into the realm of, oh, this is going to, you 02:13:30
know, make. 02:13:34
The road that accesses this development fail, right from like a level of service standpoint. I mean, that's that's even a better 02:13:40
reason, frankly, right. But but all those reasons are reasonably debatable to be in the public interest, right? We don't think 02:13:46
high density fits over there. That's horses. So that's enough, right? 02:13:53
What is Sorry, No, you please, I didn't say the meaning. I intend this to be a conversation. So yeah, turn my mic on a follow up 02:14:00
and maybe you'll get to this. But what we talked about a lot was precedent, right? And you hear those of us that are not lawyers, 02:14:06
we hear the precedent, you know, and what you expose yourself once there's precedent. So like reasonably debatable. I think 02:14:13
getting back to this whole development agreement concept is. 02:14:20
We can determine that in this zone. 02:14:27
This seems reasonable to allow for additional density or additional units above a cap. Yeah. Does that set a precedent for that? A 02:14:30
property owner in a different zone that has different characteristics to say, yeah, well, you, you allowed these guys to do it, so 02:14:37
we should have the right to as well. Yeah. So it's a great question. And the short answer is no, in making zoning decisions, you 02:14:45
don't set a legal precedent that binds you in the future. 02:14:52
Right. 02:14:59
What I will say is, you know, it would be naive to say that developers don't look around and see what communities look like, 02:15:01
right? So if you're approving a lot of high density, you're probably gonna get more requests for high density. But that doesn't 02:15:07
set a legal precedent that would require you to approve more high density, right? 02:15:13
No, to this point it never has, right? 02:15:21
You know you may. Yeah. No, it doesn't. So because again. 02:15:27
Like you said, right, if you can look at it and say over here it made sense, but over here it doesn't. And This is why, right, 02:15:32
then it's reasonably debatable that your decision is in the public interest. And of course, look at that and say, okay, the 02:15:38
overarching all of this is the idea that. 02:15:43
Whether or not to rezone a property, legislative decisions, right, whether or not to change our code. Those are policy questions 02:15:51
and you know in your civics course or. 02:15:55
Whatever, now I'm forgetting the name of it. The shows when we were kids. 02:16:02
Schoolhouse Rock, thank you. 02:16:08
Conjunction junction, What's your function, right? But there is also the one how a bill becomes a law, right? And the idea there 02:16:11
is that who makes policy decisions? The legislative branch, who's the legislative branch and the local government, the City 02:16:18
Council, right? So the courts stay out of or should stay out of, right? That's another discussion. Policy questions. 02:16:25
Right. They only answer legal questions, right? And so if, if you've made a policy decision, then the courts are going to stay out 02:16:33
of that decision, right? And, and these kinds of things are policy decisions, right? General plan amendments, land use 02:16:41
regulations, zone changes, annexations, and in most cases, development agreements, right? 02:16:49
If you have basically in order to says, hey, you can develop according to XY and Z, you can you can develop according to the 02:16:58
zoning. 02:17:02
Right. Or you can come negotiate with us and do a development agreement that puts in place new policies, right? New 02:17:07
considerations, new laws, new rules. 02:17:12
Then state law says that development agreement has to go through the same process that a land use regulation would, that an 02:17:19
ordinance would, right? And the same legal standard applies as well, right? If it's reasonably debatable to be in the public 02:17:25
interest, your decision whether or not to approve or deny, right? 02:17:31
Then then the courts won't disturb it, right. So like under our code, our development agreements require a public area through 02:17:38
Planning Commission and City Council same as the general plan amendment or like a zone change. So because of it's being treated at 02:17:44
kind of a like a legislative type application, would a development agreement in this instance where there, you know, we basically 02:17:50
say you get more density through development agreement. 02:17:57
So I, I guess the question is because they're going through kind of that heightened level of scrutiny like a, like a zone change. 02:18:04
Would do they have kind of that same level of discretion where it's reasonably debatable? Yeah. If you're changing the rules 02:18:10
through a development agreement, then it's going to be a legislative decision and you're going to have that same description, 02:18:18
right. Some codes will put in there and say, hey, you got to develop according to all these standards. Oh, and, you know, if you 02:18:25
want to kind of work out who's going to build what, where, when and how according to the rules in the zone, then you can do. 02:18:33
My advice, for what it's worth. 02:19:10
Is that you're gonna do a development agreement, put it through your legislative process, right? Because local communities have 02:19:12
been burned by saying, oh, we think this development agreement's administrative, right? So we're not gonna hold public hearings, 02:19:17
we're not gonna get input. And then they get sued and the court says, yeah, sorry, that was that was actually a legislative 02:19:22
decision, right? 02:19:27
Or vice versa so. 02:19:35
But yeah, they say, yeah, it was a legislative decision. Then they have to start over, right and hold the right hearings and have. 02:19:38
Have the right influence. 02:19:43
Does that answer the question to an extent? Yeah, Yeah, a little bit. Yeah, I think. 02:19:47
I mostly. 02:19:53
Just clarify then I guess so when we. 02:19:58
Who's talking? 02:20:04
So, and maybe you said this and I missed it, Just trying to get this into my brain. 02:20:08
What we then it seems to me like we've embarked on a legislative process with what we're doing with this development agreement 02:20:13
process. Yeah. So we would be reviewing this under that legislative umbrella and discretion. Yep. And I'll provide the caveat, 02:20:19
right, that I haven't seen all the rules. I haven't seen all the submittals, right. And I think you're, you're smart to involve 02:20:25
your city attorney, right. But it sounds like you you're you've just recommended a legislative decision. And then when they come 02:20:31
back and say, OK, here's our plan and. 02:20:37
Our proposed development agreement, it's probably going to be another legislative agreement or a decision, right? But once you 02:20:43
execute that, that development agreement and the City Council adopts it, now you got the rules in place and their next 02:20:48
application. 02:20:53
Now your discretion narrows significantly, right, right. And you're going to administrative decisions and that's where we live 02:20:58
primarily like the site plans, we like that. 02:21:03
Because they don't have to come back to the future changes. 02:21:10
Well, they. 02:21:15
They wouldn't be able to make changes. If they did, then we could administratively not pass the project. 02:21:17
They'd have to go through a whole nother legislative process. So they'll change the rules, right? Anytime you change a rule, you 02:21:27
have to, you have to have a public hearing somewhere, right? So good questions. 02:21:32
That's probably open state law. 02:21:40
Um, yeah. 02:21:44
Yeah. So with administrative decisions, right, they generally involve applying the law to a particular individual or group based 02:21:47
on individual facts and circumstances. So like you say, that's where you guys typically live, right? One way you can know if 02:21:54
you're making a legislative decision or administrative decision is are you approving or are you recommending something, right. If 02:22:01
you're recommending to the city. Now granted the City Council, I don't know if you're not right, some city councils do retain. 02:22:08
Authority to make administrative decisions, right, like subdivision approvals and stuff like that. 02:22:17
Right. So sometimes you're still just making a recommendation, right? But they can delegate that kind of stuff to you to make the 02:22:22
final decision. They can't delegate to you authority to make the final decision on a legislative matter, right? 02:22:29
They have to make that because there's a legislative body. 02:22:37
Are you guys as the Planning Commission, right? You're, you're, you're essentially a technical advisory committee, is the idea 02:22:41
right? So you're supposed to specialize in land use and planning. You're supposed to know what your zoning code says, supposed to 02:22:46
know what your zoning map looks like and your general plan. And then you, you make those decisions or you make recommendations to 02:22:52
your City Council, right, about those types of things. 02:22:57
Yeah. Sorry, I have another question that's kind of different, but also I feel like it's kind of the same. 02:23:06
So with our general plan, there's a developer that wants to come in on a specific area with a fairly high development, like high 02:23:14
density development. And I just say fairly and our general plan, it says low density on the map, but in the general plan it 02:23:21
doesn't specifically say. 02:23:28
What square footage that is, right. So on our map we have two zones that are zoned. We have two areas that are zoned low density 02:23:36
and on the map they're colored the same way. 02:23:40
Would that mean that if they're colored the same way that you would have to look at them legally in the same way or color the same 02:23:46
way? Are we talking about your general plan or your zone in the general? 02:23:51
They both say low density. They both say low density. They're both covered the same. They're yellow, yeah. And that's not medium 02:23:58
density here. Yeah, they're both yellow and so. 02:24:03
Yellow slash orange is medium density. 02:24:10
Burnt Umber it's striped so in that situation. 02:24:12
It would be loads at low dense or low density, right? They wouldn't be able to say well you haven't specified it or. 02:24:21
Well, let me ask, does your code, does it say that any zoning decision has to comply with the general plan? OK, Yeah. So again, 02:24:28
the general plan, it's an advisory document, right? And they come in and if your code says that it has to comply, then if they're 02:24:37
proposing high density and your general plan says low density, right, then it's not going to be code requirements, right? 02:24:46
They can request that you change your general plan, right? Look at doing that. 02:24:56
But your question specifically was was because it seems like every single applicant for this area is high density and so it just 02:25:01
seems. 02:25:06
Yeah, it doesn't. For it to be what I'm, I guess what my real question was, it doesn't need to be specified like the exact acreage 02:25:14
of it, right? No, no, it doesn't. I just had this conversation the other day regarding sitting down in in Southern Utah. 02:25:22
Some, some, some cities, you look at their general plan map and it's almost indistinguishable from their zone map, right? 02:25:30
Honestly, that's not the idea. The idea is that as a community, you take your general plan map, which is forward thinking and you 02:25:36
say, hey, generally speaking, you know, these types of categories fit in these types of areas, right? So I would say a good 02:25:42
general plan doesn't get too specific, right? It just kind of gives a signal to the developer and says, hey, you know, we got a 02:25:48
corridor over here. 02:25:54
So we want to see high density in commercial and industrial thing maybe, right, This is kind of more offset. So it makes more 02:26:00
sense for single family residential maybe and then you have transition areas in between or something, right. That's a good general 02:26:06
plan. OK, OK, good question. Cool. Thanks. Yeah. 02:26:12
Didn't. Were there any of those other things you guys wanted to? 02:26:23
We get a lot of questions about and if a commissioner has something you can override this one, but conditional use permits and and 02:26:28
also site plans and can a condition be added to a site plan. We typically have done a more of informative like like you, you know 02:26:34
must have landscaping in prior to the certificate of occupancy. Those are things that are required anyway, but we can just put 02:26:41
them in as boilerplate. 02:26:48
But outside of that, can a site plan, which is, I'm assuming, just kind of a straight administrative type application? 02:26:56
Can you add conditions kind of beyond like boilerplate? We've kind of had that, if you. Yeah, a good example of that is a 02:27:03
restaurant came in and said, hey, can we do this? And they had a really sloped roof. And I mean, that's, there was nothing in the 02:27:09
code that prohibited that, but we recommended that they flatten it out or something like that. So they had a thing in the code 02:27:15
that said it needs to look the same thing. 02:27:21
But my my sense and my understanding is if it, if they really wanted to, they could say. 02:27:29
Thanks for the feedback. Now, like, yeah, where does that fit in with what you're thinking about it? Totally the right way, right? 02:27:35
So when you're talking about administrative decision, a site plan, a conditional use permit, right. Conditional use permits are 02:27:41
interesting because you can't add conditions according to the standards, right? But if it's a permitted use and all they need to 02:27:47
do is a site plan and yeah, you're right, I mean. 02:27:53
If you have to tie it to something in the code, and the code has to be clear and specific. So if you have something that says hey, 02:28:00
it needs to meet the character right or it needs to be compatible. 02:28:05
And and it doesn't propose a specific pitch or anything like that. If they come in and they want to do a steep pitch, by all means 02:28:11
say, hey, we think that doesn't look quite right or, or would you consider doing this and, and negotiate with them, Right. But 02:28:17
you're right, if they if they. 02:28:22
Decided, hey, you know, this is our, this is our style and this is what we're going to do. Again, if there wasn't anything 02:28:29
specific in the code saying they have to do what you're asking them to do, they don't have to do it. 02:28:35
And they're entitled to approval, right? So that goes with here. Here's the here's the lawyer Lee talk, right? 02:28:42
It goes through considerations when making administrative decision, right? You have to apply the plain language of the land use 02:28:51
regulation and where regulation quote UN quote does not plainly restrict the land use application or could reasonably be read to 02:28:58
support different interpretations, land use authority, you guys must interpret and apply the regulation to favor the proposal. 02:29:05
In the land use application, right? So the reason I put that in there is to say, hey, part of what you guys do is you recommend 02:29:13
the code changes, right? If you have an ambiguous code. 02:29:20
That that doesn't really favor you, right? Because if it's ambiguous and can be interpreted multiple ways, that gives the 02:29:28
developer a lot of discretion basically to bring in something and say, hey, this arguably complies, right? This meets the language 02:29:36
of the code. So if you want something in there, if you want flat roofs, say flat roofs, right? If you want a 412 pitch, say 02:29:43
everything has to be a 412 pitch around here, right? The architect probably doesn't like that. 02:29:50
So, yeah, if you want, if you want your code to say something, say it. Some, some communities in the past, right, historically and 02:30:02
even today will say, hey, we'll make that ambiguous so that when someone comes in, we can have some wiggle room and whether or not 02:30:09
we say yes or no, right, it doesn't favor you, it favors them from a legal standpoint, so. 02:30:15
Questions. 02:30:24
How about the short term rentals, the things that we face on our community? 02:30:26
Our investors, yeah, buying homes and then Airbnb or those types of things and short term rentals. 02:30:32
Construction. And to add to that, technically they're not legal in the city right now with our code, OK. 02:30:40
But we're allowing. 02:30:48
Well, when we get code enforcement, we'll, we'll go out, but on that one, it's only a complaint basis. So we're not like 02:30:51
proactively going on Saturday and knocking on doors. And yeah. And I mean, you've kind of hit the nail on the head, right? I mean, 02:30:57
it's, it's pretty easy to determine whether or not you want to approve or not allow, allow or not allow short term rentals within 02:31:03
your community. You just say, hey, it has to be, you know, occupied for more. The next number of 30 days, 30 days is the typical 02:31:09
right? That's. 02:31:15
Dividing line between short term and long term rentals. 02:31:21
It the issue that that comes up with short term rentals is, is enforcement and most of the violations happen on the weekend, right 02:31:26
so. 02:31:30
I mean, if you want to look at a good example in my mind of a community that has a really robust enforcement regime, Provo City, 02:31:37
right, nearby community, this is something they've been dealing with for a really long time, right? And they have an entire 02:31:44
administrative enforcement code, right? This, that, and I think. 02:31:50
They even involved their police officers, right, So that you can check violations on the weekend sometimes, right? To the point 02:31:57
that, yeah, I mean, they have a much more robust system. The extent to which you want to do that as a community, right, is up to 02:32:04
you guys, right? There's pros and cons, you know, and, and really it's up to the City Council in a lot of ways to decide what type 02:32:10
of enforcement regime you're going to have. 02:32:16
And and. 02:32:24
Yeah, I'll just leave it at that. That makes sense. Is that? 02:32:28
In the realm of answering your question, am I missing the mark? 02:32:31
I should have stopped a long time ago. 02:32:40
Story of my life, no worries. 02:32:50
It's not me, it's not you, it's me. 02:32:53
Yeah, OK. 02:32:57
Yeah. 02:33:01
That has a lot of feelings about not wanting short term rental but having a lot of activity in that area because of the kinds of 02:33:07
people that are buying homes and so on. So. 02:33:14
And if you can't give me anywhere upon that, that's fine. Well, no, I see what you're saying. And really that's. 02:33:22
That's the work of the policy makers to an extent, right? And there's definitely different philosophies on that, right? Do you 02:33:30
want to be a community where you have certain values and you're going to sit to those values regardless of any other inputs or 02:33:36
which is there's nothing good, bad or otherwise about that, right? That's just one approach. Or do you want to be a community that 02:33:42
looks at the market and tries to respond to market trends? 02:33:48
Right. That's, that's another philosophy and another approach, if I understand what you're saying, right? And I do see communities 02:33:55
say, hey, we understand that this is this is the market trend in our community. We don't like that trend, right? Recognize though, 02:34:02
at the same time you deal with the consequences as well, right? You might have areas of town that don't develop and then you have 02:34:09
potentially finance issues, right? But you also see it on the flip side, right? If you approve development, that is. 02:34:16
Expensive for a city to keep up, right? 02:34:24
Maybe you have similar problems, right? So the reality there is. 02:34:27
That's why I'm a lawyer, not a politician, right? And, and, and there is unfortunately no right answers. They're just, there's 02:34:33
just pros and cons, you know what I mean? 02:34:38
We're trying to open up an environment, attract people that maybe don't want to live here long term, certainly come in for a 02:34:45
weekend or a week of recreation. It seems like that's the direction we're going with the state. Yeah. And I'll be honest, I mean. 02:34:54
There are pockets, right, If you look at like the mouth of a bigger little Cottonwood Canyon or if you look at a Moab City or a 02:35:04
Saint George, right? Those are communities where it makes a lot more sense, right to to really consider the benefits of short term 02:35:12
rentals where if you're a more of a bedroom community, right and you don't have a lot of. 02:35:19
You know, recreational destinations, yeah, those communities, it's really up to them, frankly, right? I mean, there's, there's, 02:35:27
there's no right answer in those communities, right? And so it's just kind of what do you want things to look like? And can you 02:35:33
put in place rules that are actually going to be able to be enforced, right, so that you don't set up expectations and and just 02:35:39
make residents mad all the time, frankly. 02:35:45
We have code in town that that makes it illegal, yeah. 02:35:54
But. 02:35:59
We've kind of taken the approach to not really trying to enforce a lot of yeah. 02:36:00
Yeah, we run lots of stuff complaint based, which is nice. Yeah. And that's, that's the way most communities do it, frankly, 02:36:06
right. I mean, if you went out and if if Cash was driving the streets looking for violations, he probably sees them when he's 02:36:11
driving to the complaint, right? 02:36:16
He rides his bike. 02:36:23
Community based enforcement. I like it. 02:36:26
It's, it's large. It, it is. It's a question of resources and where do you want to put those resources and how many resources do 02:36:30
you want to put toward it? 02:36:33
Call any of these other things you guys. 02:36:38
No. What is exactions? OK, so an exact yeah, exaction. That's when you require the developer to construct some sort of a public 02:36:44
improvement. Roads, sewers. 02:36:51
Schools, Yep, if you trails, Yep, If you say, hey, if you're gonna own it. So if the developer is building it and you're gonna own 02:36:58
it, that's an exaction. And the long of the short of it is you can only, frankly, regardless of what your code says, honestly, 02:37:05
right. Constitutionally speaking, if you require them to build more than what's offsetting their impact on your ability to provide 02:37:12
services, then you're violating the constitutional takings clause, right? 02:37:19
So, you know, internal roads, everyone agrees those are appropriate exactions, right, 'cause that's serving the development. 02:37:27
You know an arterial Rd. that. 02:37:34
Serves them, but also everyone around them. If you were to make them build the entire width of that road, that would probably be 02:37:39
excessive, right? Because now you're requiring them to build more than their. 02:37:43
Impact, right? 02:37:48
Impact fees are a form of an exaction as well, right. So Jordan, that's a great question. We are dealing with that at that very 02:37:50
theme right now. So an arterial Rd. going through a development, the development is sort of their own purposes would only need a 2 02:37:56
lane Rd. Can we require that to be put in place, But then like to increase above that we use impact fees or something to offset 02:38:03
the cost. That's perfect. 02:38:09
Yeah. So the idea is, yeah, you have them. You have, you can have them build and pay for what will offset their impact. 02:38:16
Any upsizing you need to reimburse them for, right? Right. Yeah, if, if they, they need a 2 lane, but your general plan calls for 02:38:21
A4 or A6 lane, you can require them to do it, right. But you just got to work out maybe a development agreement, right, of who 02:38:28
builds what and who's responsible for what. And that's exactly it, right? You use impact fees for those what we call system 02:38:34
improvements, right? 02:38:40
Yeah. 02:38:47
Is that? Yeah. So I mean exaction, right? A dedication that's requiring a developer to offset their their project needs, right. 02:38:49
But each project contributes to system improvements, right? 02:38:55
Yep, Yep, Yep. 02:39:02
So you know, and so yeah, you have to kind of try to account for that. So that's what an impact fee does is it says OK, individual 02:39:07
applicant, right, this is your proportionate share of impact on. 02:39:13
Our system improvements, right? And your impact fee plan probably says, hey, these are our, these are our system facilities, 02:39:20
right, that we need right now to serve our entire community. And then you charge individual impact fees on each user and you use 02:39:26
those impact fees to build these system improvements as opposed to having anyone developer try to build a whole water tank or you 02:39:33
know, trunk line for a sewer or arterial road or something like that, right? 02:39:40
That's a good question. 02:39:47
I have a question about public clamor. OK. 02:39:51
Umm, there's a lot of that happening. 02:39:55
I'm not, I'm not saying specifically the Vineyard. I think just generally speaking, yeah, social media, right. I. 02:40:01
The example was brought up of Quorum earlier tonight. I think there's been some of that there can. 02:40:10
I want to hear you. 02:40:15
What you have to say about public clamor and what it, what it is and what to watch for, you know, on our side. So that's a term, 02:40:17
right, that the courts have used public clamor. And you see, I put up their public input versus public clamor, right? When the 02:40:24
courts, when the courts say it's not appropriate to consider what the public is saying, it's called clamor, right? When they look 02:40:32
at it and say, yes, it is appropriate here, it's just public input, right? So I have, I have two slides. 02:40:39
On the public and their involvement, Right. Legislative decisions. Oh, where'd it go there? It's OK. Good. So when you're making a 02:40:48
legislative decision, here's the standard, right? A legislative body, you should take into consideration input from the public, 02:40:55
property owners and other interested parties, including their preferences and opinions, right? 02:41:02
It's up to you guys though, and you're making your recommendation and the City Council and making their decision what type of 02:41:10
weight you give to any opinion or preference. 02:41:15
Right. So if someone says, hey, I don't think this is the right place for that. If if you're making a zoning decision, you should 02:41:21
consider that, right? And you should listen to that input, But you should decide whether or not it should, how much weight it 02:41:27
should have, right? And whether you should go along with it or if there's other considerations that you think are more pressing 02:41:33
and important, right? But you do need to consider it the legislative stage, right? 02:41:39
And then you can also receive input for the purpose of gathering facts and evidence to support your your conclusions and 02:41:47
decisions. 02:41:50
At the administrative stage most of the time. 02:41:55
Public input is going to be viewed as clamor opinion and preferences, right? Someone brings in an application. 02:42:00
For a conditional use permit for a daycare. 02:42:07
And the neighbor comes in and says I don't want a daycare next to me right if the daycare complies with all the rules. 02:42:10
You have to prove it right. So you can't consider that public input right, that that clamor right. 02:42:20
But but what you can listen to the public for if you want to Now, administrative decisions, state law says you do not have to hold 02:42:27
public hearings for administrative decisions. You don't have to, right? But if your local code says you do, then you do. But you 02:42:33
can change your local code to say that it doesn't, right? It's up to you guys, you know. But, but sometimes public input is useful 02:42:40
in the administrative context for gathering information. 02:42:46
And evidence, right? Hey, did you know that there's a ditch right here, right? That hasn't been abandoned and Farmer Joe still 02:42:53
uses it on Tuesdays and Thursdays, right? That might be useful. And Farmer Joe stepping up to let you know that might be good 02:42:58
information, right? 02:43:03
I should have probably stopped a long time ago, I said. Am I going in the right direction? Yes. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. You know, 02:43:10
you're hitting it. 02:43:13
I'm learning lessons. 02:43:17
One of the things that's popularly used, and so is our petition, they're not legally binding even if they have signatures. 02:43:21
Or input or if it's, if it's, well, let's say that they're getting petitions for a zone change, right? We don't want this zone 02:43:34
change and you have 1000 signatures and 1200 residents. 02:43:42
You probably want to put some weight toward that opinion, right? 02:43:51
If it's a policy decision right now still. 02:43:55
Again, this is kind of a philosophy approach, right? Some elected officials say. 02:44:00
I'm not going to get into harken back to my political science degree, right? But some say I've been, I've been elected by the 02:44:06
public to be wise and to make good decisions, right? And sometimes those wise and good decisions will not be what the public 02:44:10
wants. 02:44:15
Those public officials don't last very long, right? They're usually voted out the next cycle. But that's one approach, right? Some 02:44:20
say I'm just, I'm just a conduit, right? Like I do what the people want. And so if they're making that sort of a decision and you 02:44:27
have a petition that that supports that approach, then maybe you give it some weight, right? But no, there's there's no legally 02:44:34
binding. There's there's nothing, right? No, there's not. So a question then maybe is. 02:44:41
In considering. 02:44:50
You're done, huh? 02:44:53
I get it. 02:44:56
Good morning. Anthony, could we get a copy of this as well as on your website or Yeah, because I don't think Amber can't see the 02:44:58
slide, so we want to. 02:45:03
Oh, great. OK. Thank you. Yeah, yeah, Cash, can you get that to Amber and just to the Commission? Thanks. 02:45:09
Yeah. Just to follow up on that, not to go too long tonight, but. 02:45:17
Yeah, and and. 02:45:24
Anyway. 02:45:26
How much weight goes into then? So there's a legislative decision being weighed out, right? Yeah. 02:45:27
Where we're, we're typically looking at our general plan. Does this fit the general plan? And you have a group of citizens who 02:45:36
come and say we don't want to, we don't want this, but our general plan says this is what should happen. You know, how much weight 02:45:44
do you give to the general plan? How much weight do you give to? 02:45:52
Citizens that are coming and voicing their. 02:46:01
Their concern, Yeah. OK. So from a best planning practices standpoint, you should give a lot of weight to your general plan, 02:46:05
especially if your general plan was was well thought out, frankly right now because yeah, I'll give you the caveat right of if if 02:46:11
you went through a lot of public input and a lot of effort and you did a lot of studies and market research to get your general 02:46:18
plan. 02:46:24
You should probably give it some weight, right? 02:46:31
But if your general plan was. 02:46:34
Created with just kind of, you know, people looking at a map and saying, oh, we like this here, we like that there. Maybe you 02:46:36
don't give it as much weight, right? So, but again, these are all discretionary things for you guys, right? 02:46:42
So again, I'll say it from a best planning practices standpoint, the general plan should have meaning, right? And so it should be 02:46:49
a document where you're looking at it and you're saying, yeah, this is what we want our community to look like. And if if the 02:46:55
request doesn't comply with that. 02:47:00
Then we should. 02:47:06
We should. 02:47:09
Give that a lot of weight in whatever decision we make. 02:47:10
Thanks. 02:47:16
Do you guys have anything else to? 02:47:18
All right. 02:47:21
Thank you so much. That was, oh, sorry, David, I guess, yeah. 02:47:23
Yeah, you can do the mic, just can't. We can't pick it up if you don't. 02:47:27
So the question goes back to development agreements and you and I want to just ask, we have a very short section about about 02:47:32
amending our counseling a development agreement once it's already passed. It says in addition to provisions and those provisions 02:47:38
are about final noticing a development agreement may be amended or cancelled whole or in part by mutual consent of the parties to 02:47:45
the agreement or the successors. 02:47:51
That is that in keeping with state laws, my question? 02:47:58
Yes, yeah. So what that business contemplating once you enter into a development agreement? 02:48:01
And keep in mind, once you've done that, you have a contract, right? Right. And so if one, one party or the other doesn't live up 02:48:07
to the terms of the contract that parties in breach, right? Because that's why they can only change it by mutual consent. So if 02:48:13
the City Council then agrees with the developer and then it could change, which the city doesn't feel very appropriate and we're 02:48:18
stuck. 02:48:24
Because because there's no public hearing process anymore. 02:48:31
That might be me. 02:49:04
Because I think it was getting this earlier, if we have a development agreement that goes through the public process before the 02:49:08
agreement is a contract and that's a legislative process to determine what are the criteria. Once we say this is the criteria, 02:49:15
we've approved this development agreement. 02:49:22
The developer can't change. 02:49:31
Can't say OK, now I'm going to change this part of the development agreement. 02:49:34
Even with consent of the City Council, without going back through a public process, correct. 02:49:39
That's what I would say, yeah. Again, if you're, if you're changing the rules, then yes. And if that doesn't say it, then it needs 02:49:48
to be updated to be honest with you. 02:49:52
And, and, and to be, to be frank, right, that was something that was clarified in state law just this year, right? 02:49:59
About, You know, when a development agreement is a legislative decision as opposed to an administrator, but. 02:50:08
Anyway, OK, because then, then, then that application, then we'd have to comply with that development agreement. It would be an 02:50:15
administrative decision. We hold the developer to the criteria that was agreed upon in the development agreement. And if they come 02:50:22
back and say actually we change our mind, we, we, we don't want to do the the park. 02:50:30
We can't approve it. 02:50:39
Because the park was part of the development agreement. 02:50:40
Yeah, Yeah. I mean there are some nuances there, right. But in in principle, yes, what you said is is completely accurate because 02:50:44
I've since that's the concern from the citizens is that well the development agreement, but then the the city. 02:50:51
You know, staff or officials or whatever behind closed doors can work out whatever deal they want with the developer without 02:50:58
neighbors or, or, or citizens having, having that input and having and, and having the follow through, having the promises 02:51:04
fulfilled that the developer made in the public meetings. Yeah. And the the only, well, the only thing I have floating around in 02:51:10
my mind, right. It depends on how your agreement is written to some extent, right. So let's say that the agreement says this is 02:51:16
what's required and this is what's. 02:51:22
Loud, right? But it says somewhere in there that staff can approve minor changes administratively, right? And minor changes. 02:51:28
There was a Utah appellate court case just along those lines, right about whether or not. 02:51:41
A certain change was major or minor, right? So if you give discretion to staff and the development agreement to make changes, then 02:51:49
yeah, maybe they could, right With with the developer, right. 02:51:55
But if you don't give that discretion and you just spell everything out very clearly, then everyone's going to need to comply with 02:52:02
that and it can't change unless they go through that legislative process again. So a lot of what you heard tonight, this is my 02:52:07
interpretation. 02:52:11
Is there has been a lack of trust developed over many years because different planning commission's, different city councils have 02:52:17
taken different actions with different developers. And it appears that a lot of the the changes were made kind of behind closed 02:52:24
doors. The developer would come to a certain staff member and they would agree that these changes could be made. I'm sensing that 02:52:31
this community wants to see a lot more open. 02:52:38
Mess from their elected and appointed officials. And so maybe it would be good to build into a development agreement. And I'm just 02:52:46
throwing this out that if there are mutually agreed upon changes made to a development agreement, which they have the authority to 02:52:53
do, that those must go back to some kind of public hearing perhaps. 02:53:01
Because I I just sense that there's a lot, there's a real lack of trust in this community to hold appointed and elected officials 02:53:10
responsible for things that everyone thought was agreed upon. Spelling out procedures in my mind, is, is never a bad idea. It 02:53:17
always is helpful for sure. Right? Yeah. Yeah. And sometimes that trust, I mean, it comes from all places. Sometimes it just comes 02:53:25
from a lack of education. Other times there are scenarios, right. 02:53:32
Maybe mistakes were made. So yeah, anyway. 02:53:40
Well, anything else, this has been super helpful. Super, super helpful. Yeah, Thank you so much. Happy to come back anytime and 02:53:45
you know, we'll, we'll put you first on the agenda next. Yes. 02:53:51
Our meeting, I worked as a city planner in the past, right? And I was sitting back in the corner thinking, trying to debating with 02:54:00
myself whether I I missed or don't miss these meetings. It was actually really fun to see there. There were no pitchforks no, 02:54:06
lately our meetings have been really short, so like 30 minutes so. 02:54:12
No, no, this is really good. Yeah, we're not in shape for this. 02:54:19
Where's the water bottles we have? 02:54:25
What it's worth, I enjoy sitting through it and listening to what was going on. So thanks for thank you so much, Jordan. Take 02:54:29
care, guys. All right. Are there any Commission member reports or expert day discussion? 02:54:34
I guess I have one, sorry. And I'll try to talk fast. I know it's been so long. Yeah. So first of all, the library will be closing 02:54:40
for the winter due to the broken bathroom within that building. And because the park is closing, park bathroom is closing, the 02:54:48
library will be closing but then opening again in May. But we will we have a one activity that's been ongoing with the library. 02:54:55
It's a monthly science Saturday and that's run by local UVU pre meds and also some from the youth council and. 02:55:02
We've started out with like 8 kids and last time we have like 21 kids show up for that Science Center. Oh, did they awesome. And 02:55:10
and then we also had a Vineyard youth council sponsored babysitter training night and that was really successful. We had like 2010 02:55:18
and 11 and 12 year olds youth come and we had John Earnest from City Council. We had someone from the Sheriff's Department and 02:55:25
someone from like poison control and they just kind of became. 02:55:32
Training and that was a really, really fun event. We did. I think we'll repeat that one. My daughter went and she loved it. That's 02:55:40
so great. That's great too. 02:55:45
Cool. Thank you, Jessica. 02:55:50
Let me get a microphone. 02:55:55
All right. I think you should be good. Thank you. 02:56:05
The community garden is putting on a food drive next week and the flyer will be put out tomorrow, so if you see it. 02:56:10
They do. Lorraine has offered to do pickups for neighborhoods if they have a place they want to congregate, everything. So we hope 02:56:21
you guys will donate and help us get more people to donate so that it's excellent. 02:56:29
Thanks. Thanks, Amber. 02:56:38
Morgan, did you have anything or? 02:56:42
Did you have anything from Planning Morgan that you want to do? 02:56:47
Tomorrow's a big waterfront day. 02:56:57
So those who are part of the, the steering committees, you know, I think you were invited. I think we have like four or five 02:57:00
separate meetings for different groups. The big one though, that you please everyone be there if you can, especially be on the 02:57:06
Planning Commission, it'd be really helpful to have you there is the meeting at the Megaplex Theater. It's going to be from 6:00 02:57:12
to 8:00. There's two groups. The first group comes at six. The other group comes at 7:00. 02:57:18
I want to just personally thank all the staff members in Vineyard. We had help from all the departments. 02:57:26
We went door to door, spent several hours putting a fire in every single door. We just thought, what's that? Oh, yeah, Verizon. 02:57:31
And I think Anthony did it. So thanks, everyone. Everyone at all. I think we Yeah, we have. Tim, didn't you help out, too? 02:57:38
You're serving in other ways, But no, just thank you so much for everyone who's helped out. I'm a little worried because I think 02:57:48
the capacity of the theater is like 280. We try to get the 500 C 1, so that's why we broke it into grooves. 02:57:54
You know, I guess having over occupancy might be a good problem, but so anyway, please come provide your comments and you know, 02:58:02
you might be able to help us out kind of. 02:58:07
Manage the flow, people. I'm hoping that a ton of people come out, but we'll suppose it happens, so please come to that. You 02:58:13
should have a flyer for your neighborhood. The posting that went out on Facebook shows which neighborhood you're in. Your flyer 02:58:20
should say if you're six or seven. If you don't know, just come, come, come to one regardless. So thanks. Thanks, Morgan. 02:58:27
All right. 02:58:35
Nothing else. OK, if that's it, meeting is adjourned. 02:58:37
scroll up