Jun 17, 2025 Planning Commission

[GENERAL MEETING 6:00 p.m.]

[00:21:36]

OKAY, IT IS TIME. WELCOME, EVERYBODY, TO THE WEST JORDAN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE

[00:21:41]

[00:21:54]

[00:22:01]

[00:22:07]

[Consent Calendar]

[3. Beck Construction; 5434 West Leo Park Road; Conditional Use Permit for Outdoor Storage in the Drinking Water Source Protection Overlay; M-1 Zone; Beck Construction/Garen Beck (applicant) [Megan Jensen/Todd Johnson #34442; parcel 26-01-351-012]]

BEK, ARE YOU HERE? OKAY. PLEASE JUST STATE YOUR NAME AND COME ON UP. HI, I'M DARREN BECK WITH BECK CONSTRUCTION. I'M THE PRESIDENT OF THE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY. AND THIS IS ALL FAIRLY NEW TO ME, BUT I KNOW A FEW FACES HERE AND A LOT OF NEW FACES. SO WHATEVER I CAN DO.

MEGAN'S BEEN A GREAT HELP ON HELPING US GET THROUGH ALL THIS AND TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IT. BUT I'M REALLY NOT CLEAR ON WHAT I REALLY NEED TO DO. THEY GAVE ME A PRINTOUT OF EVERYTHING THAT WE NEED TO DO. WE'RE TRYING TO FOLLOW EVERYTHING THAT THE CITY WANTS US TO DO, AND WE'VE GOT THE ON THE SITE PLANS AND ALL THE EVERYTHING YOU NEED FOR THAT. AND GONE THROUGH THE PROCESS WITH MEGAN AND TRYING TO GET EVERYTHING PUSHED THROUGH. IF YOU WANT, JUST GIVE US KIND OF AN OVERVIEW OF THE PROJECT AND THEN, YEAH, BASICALLY IT'S OUR STAGING YARD FOR ALL OF OUR TRUCKS AND, AND MATERIALS. WE DO A LOT OF MUNICIPAL WORK. WE DO A LOT OF WORK FOR THE CITIES AND THE STATE. IT'S MOSTLY JUST A WHERE WE PARK OUR DUMP TRUCKS AND WE HAVE A VOLUMETRIC CEMENT TRUCK THAT WE PARK THERE AND A FEW MATERIALS FOR EMERGENCY PURPOSES FOR REPAIRS OR WHATEVER. BUT EVIDENTLY WE NEED TO BUILD A SHOP TO COME IN TO THE ORDINANCE AND ZONING FOR IT.

SO WE'RE GOING TO START THAT SHOP AT THAT 3000 SQUARE FOOT SHOP BUILDING IN THERE FOR REPAIRS AND REPAIRS ON OUR FLEET. AND IN DOING THAT, WE NEED TO DO ALL THE SITE DEVELOPMENT STUFF TO BRING IT UP TO CODE, I GUESS, FOR THAT AREA. SO WE WANT TO BUILD A 3000

[00:25:02]

BUT AS SOON AS WE GET THIS THROUGH THIS PART, THEN WE'LL START THE BUILDING PERMIT AND ALL THAT OTHER STUFF FOR THE SHOP. ALL RIGHT. ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? IT'LL BE A NICE SHOT. I GUESS I WILL CALL YOU UP IF WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU SIR. OKAY.

THANK YOU. THANKS, MEGAN. MEGAN. THANK YOU. SO I'LL JUST GO OVER A FEW MORE ITEMS. SO THIS IS THE SITE? IT'S IN AN M1 ZONE ON LEO PARK ROAD. SO THE REASON IT'S COMING TO PLANNING COMMISSION IS BECAUSE IT'S IN THE GROUNDWATER PROTECTION ZONE. I THINK WE'VE SEEN ONE OF THESE RECENTLY. SO IT'S HERE FOR THE SAME REASON. JUST TO GET APPROVED FOR OUTDOOR STORAGE. AND THE MAIN CONCERN IS PARKING VEHICLES ON A PAVED SURFACE. AND SO THEY HAVE SUBMITTED A SITE PLAN WHICH IS IN REVIEW. AND TO PUT IN THE BUILDING AND PARKING AND LANDSCAPING AND ALL OF THAT TO COME UP TO CITY CODE. THE GREEN AREA HERE IS WOULD BE A GRAVEL STORAGE YARD. AND THEN THE GRAY AREA AROUND THE BUILDING WOULD BE PAVED. SO WE WOULD REQUIRE ALL THE VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT TO BE PARKED ON THE PAVED SURFACE. AND THEN WE DO REQUIRE SOME SCREENING. SO THEY REQUIRE THE SOLID METAL FENCING AND THEN PRIVACY SLATS AROUND THE BACKYARD AND SIDE YARDS. AND SO THAT'S WHAT'S EXISTING. WE CITY CODE WOULD REQUIRE PRIVACY SLATS ON THESE EXISTING CHAIN LINK FENCES. AND THIS IS KIND OF WHAT I'VE GONE OVER ALREADY. THE NEXT STEPS WOULD BE GETTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL AND THEN OF COURSE A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE BUILDING. AND OUR RECOMMENDED CONDITION OF APPROVAL IS JUST TO MAKE SURE ALL VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT ARE PARKED ON PAVED SURFACES, EITHER ASPHALT OR CONCRETE. AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? COMMISSIONER ALAN. I'M A LITTLE CURIOUS. JUST ON THE ORDER OF EVENTS, WAS THIS SOMETHING THAT THE CITY INITIATED OR WAS THIS THE THAT CONSTRUCTION COMING IN SAYING, WE'D LIKE TO PUT IN THIS STRUCTURE. THEREFORE WE NEED TO BRING EVERYTHING UP TO CODE. I BELIEVE THERE WAS A CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE THAT CAME TO THEIR ATTENTION, AND THAT'S WHAT INITIATED THIS WHOLE PROCESS. SO WE HAD ONE OF THESE A COUPLE OF SESSIONS AGO, I THINK, KIND OF SIMILAR. YES, THAT MAKES SENSE. THANKS. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONER HATCH? JUST AS AS FAR AS I THINK ANYTIME WE HAVE GRAVEL AND STORAGE ON WITH VEHICLES OF THAT SIZE, UNDERSTANDING THAT THEY DO NEED TO MAINTAIN THOSE VEHICLES ON THE ASPHALT AND I MEAN THE STORAGE AREA, THE OR EXCUSE ME, THE GRAVEL AREA IS QUITE LARGE AND I KNOW IT'S JUST BARELY IT'S IN THE WATER PROTECTION OVERLAY, BUT THAT CONCERNS ME AS FAR AS ENFORCING WHERE THOSE VEHICLES ARE PARKED, BEING MAKING THE APPLICANT AWARE THAT THERE REALLY CAN'T BE ANYTHING PARKED ON THE GRAVEL AREA AND THEN LETTING THEIR EMPLOYEES KNOW. SO THAT'S JUST MY CONCERN, IS JUST ENFORCEMENT ONCE THIS IS ALL SAID AND DONE. YEAH. SO AFTER THIS, IT WOULD BE A CODE ENFORCEMENT ISSUE TO MAKE SURE THAT THE VEHICLES ARE MAINTAINED ON THE PAVED SURFACES. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? OKAY. THIS HAS BEEN NOTICED AS A PUBLIC HEARING. IF YOU'RE HERE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM, YOU'LL BE GIVEN THREE MINUTES TO APPROACH THE PODIUM AND STATE YOUR NAME. IF

[00:30:05]

SO THE CEMENT WE MAKE IS WITH OUR PORTABLE VOLUMETRIC TRUCK, AND IT'S RIGHT NOW WE'VE GOT A STAGE ON CONCRETE. WE SEPARATE THE SAND AND THE GRAVEL AND THE CEMENT. THE CEMENT IS IN A SILO.

AND WE. FILL OFF OF ANYTHING. BUT IT'S NOT A BIG, BIG AREA. IT'S JUST A SMALL AREA TO DO THE EMERGENCY WORK WITH. I THINK THE CONCERN WAS JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT YOUR STAFF IS AWARE THAT THEY NEED TO MAKE SURE THEY PARK ON THE CONCRETE, OR WHY WE DO THAT IS SO WE DON'T CONTAMINATE THE MATERIAL. YOU KNOW, WE'VE GOT IT SITTING ON THE CONCRETE. SO THE LOADERS ARE NOTHING'S EVEN CLOSE TO IT. AND THEY SCOOP IN, THEY DON'T CONTAMINATE, THEY DON'T PUNCTURE THE SURFACE.

EVERYTHING'S STAGED ON THAT. AND THEN ONCE WE GET THE SITE PLAN AND ALL THAT GETS STARTED WITH THE STORM RETENTION, THEN EVERYTHING WILL BE ISOLATED IN. BUT FOR RIGHT NOW IT IS ON CONCRETE. COMMISSIONER ALAN HOLLINGSWORTH SORRY. YOU FIRST. JUST FOR A LITTLE CLARIFICATION, ARE THERE GOING TO BE ANY LIQUIDS STORED ON YOUR SITE? NO. OKAY. THANK YOU. WELL, I TAKE THAT BACK. WE HAVE FIVE GALLON CONTAINERS FOR ADDITIVES FOR OUR VOLUMETRIC TRUCK, BUT THEY'RE STORED IN CONTAINERS. THEY'RE LIKE PORCELAIN AND LIQUID FLYASH AND THINGS LIKE THAT THAT WE PUT IN. BUT IT'S NOT LIKE THEY'RE 200 GALLON CONTAINERS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. THERE'S THEY'RE VERY MINIMAL. WOULD THOSE BE STORED INDOORS OR INDOORS? OKAY. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER ALAN, I'LL JUST POINT OUT I KNOW WE WORK ON MANY, MANY PROJECTS IN THE PAST.

THEY'VE DONE A FANTASTIC JOB. BUT WHAT I WANT TO POINT OUT IS, EVEN THOUGH I'VE HAD THAT EXPERIENCE AND I'VE RECOGNIZED THAT THEY'RE ONE OF THE CLEANEST CONSTRUCTION COMPANIES I'VE EVER WORKED WITH. AND SO FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE, I LOOK AT THIS AND THINKING, OF COURSE, THIS IS NOT A PROBLEM. HOWEVER, WHEN WE GO THROUGH THE CODE, IT'S NOT SPECIFIC TO AN INDIVIDUAL. AND IF THE SITE EVER CHANGES HANDS OR THINGS LIKE THAT. SO WE JUST LOOK AT IT AND MAKE SURE WE'RE MEETING THOSE ENDS. AND SO I IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'VE DONE THAT. AND WE DEFINITELY WANT TO MAKE SURE WE MEET THE CODES. YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, WE DO A LOT OF WORK FOR WEST JORDAN AND OTHER CITIES. SO IT'S JUST ALL NEW TO ME. I DIDN'T KNOW WE WERE REALLY BREAKING ANY RULES. SO BUT WE'RE TRYING TO FIX IT. WELL, THANK YOU FOR DOING BUSINESS IN OUR CITY. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER ALAN. IF THERE'S NO OTHER COMMENTS, I'LL MAKE A MOTION. GO AHEAD AND HAVE A SEAT. THANK YOU GUYS. SO BASED ON THE INFORMATION FINDINGS SET FORTH IN THE STAFF REPORT AND UPON THE EVIDENCE RECEIVED TODAY AND WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION, APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OUTDOOR STORAGE AND OPERATIONS LOCATED AT 5434 WEST LEO PARK ROAD AND M1 ZONE DRINKING WATER SOURCE PROTECTION OVERLAY ZONE. SUBJECT TO ALL THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ, I WILL SECOND THAT MOTION. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. ANY OPPOSED? OKAY. CARRIES SIX. NOTHING. THANK YOU SIR. OKAY. NEXT ON THE AGENDA IS PUBLIC HEARINGS WITH

[4. Lumina Rezone; 8399 South Dunlop Drive; Rezone 2.70 acres from R-1-8C (Single-family residential, 8,000 square foot minimum lots) Zone to R-1-8C(IDO-1) (Infill Development Overlay) Zone; Garbett Homes/Damian Mora (applicant) [Tayler Jensen/Nathan Nelson #34532; parcel 21-33-378-011]]

[00:35:04]

SO WE TOOK THAT INTO ACCOUNT. AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE ALSO ASKING FOR THAT. VARIANCE IN THE, IN THE IN THE LOT SIZE AND BULK STANDARDS. ADDITIONALLY, LIKE I SAID, THE AMOUNT OF LOTS WERE WERE ALREADY PLANNED FOR IN THE, IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE MASTER PLANS. THE PROPERTY IS NOT SUBJECT TO ANY APPLICABLE APPLICABLE OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICTS. AND AS YOU CAN SEE UP THERE, THOSE ARE THE CURRENT R1 STANDARDS AND OUR PROPOSED STANDARDS. ADDITIONALLY, BACK TO THE ADEQUATE FACILITIES. AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT UTILITIES ASKED US TO DO IS TO CONNECT.

THE WATER LINE ON MCGREGOR TO DUNLOP DRIVE, AND WE WOULD DO THAT AS WELL. SO I THINK THAT WOULD BE A BENEFIT TO THE PUBLIC UTILITIES AS WELL. I THINK I CAN GO INTO MORE DETAIL IF YOU'D

[00:40:12]

THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY. I HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS OR ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT.

OKAY. GO AHEAD AND HAVE A SEAT. WE'LL CALL YOU BACK UP. IF WE HAVE ANYTHING FURTHER. TAYLOR.

YEAH. THANK YOU. CHAIR AND COMMISSION THE INFILL DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONE, WHICH WE'RE APPLYING FOR TONIGHT IS A ZONE WHICH YOU CAN SEE ALLOWS THEM TO PROPOSE SOME DIFFERENT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. ONE OF THE FEATURES OF THE ZONE, THOUGH, IS THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO INCREASE THE DENSITY. SO THIS IS REALLY USED WHERE YOU HAVE INFILL PIECES THAT ARE HARD TO DEVELOP. THE INFRASTRUCTURE FOR EXAMPLE, IS GOING TO TAKE UP A LARGE CHUNK OF THE BUILDABLE PROPERTY. SO THIS WOULD ALLOW THEM TO DO SMALLER LOT SIZES BUT STILL GET THAT UNDERLYING DENSITY. IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT IF THIS GOES TO CITY COUNCIL'S APPROVED, WE ARE NOT APPROVING THAT LAYOUT. THAT WOULD STILL HAVE TO COME BACK AND GO THROUGH A PROPER SUBDIVISION PROCESS, AND WE'D HAVE TO MEET WHATEVER THE PROPOSED OR THE ADOPTED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ARE FOR THAT. SO RIGHT NOW THEY'RE SHOWING 13 LOTS, BUT WHEN WE COME BACK, WE'D ACTUALLY MAKE SURE THAT THEY COULD GET 13 AND WE'D HAVE TO HAVE IT ALL ENGINEERED PROPERLY. SO THIS WOULD POTENTIALLY CHANGE SLIGHTLY AS IT COMES IN. BUT YEAH, THIS PIECE HAS BEEN UNDEVELOPED FOR PROBABLY FOREVER. BUT THE PROPERTIES AROUND THERE HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED FOR 20, 25 YEARS, AND THIS IS JUST ONE THAT HASN'T HAD A CHANCE TO DEVELOP. SO OUR INFILL OVERLAY ZONE DOES REQUIRE PROPERTIES TO HAVE A SIGNIFICANT PERIOD OF TIME WHEN EVERYTHING AROUND THEM HAS BEEN DEVELOPED AND THAT HASN'T. SO THIS DOES QUALIFY FOR THOSE STANDARDS. THEY'VE GOT SOME ELEVATIONS. THIS DID GO TO OUR DRC TWICE.

THE FIRST TIME THE DRC WAS CONCERNED THAT THERE WASN'T ADEQUATE PARKING. AND SO YOU WILL SEE THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS THEY CHANGED, SAYING THERE WOULD BE MINIMUM OF 22 FOOT DRIVEWAYS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF WHERE THE LOT WASN'T LONG ENOUGH FOR A 22 FOOT DRIVEWAY, THEY WOULD DO A NINE BY 22 FOOT CONCRETE PAD ADJACENT TO THE GARAGE TO STILL PROVIDE FOR SOME OF THAT OFF STREET PARKING, BECAUSE I KNOW THAT IT'S IMPORTANT FOR THE CITY TO HAVE ADEQUATE SPACE FOR VEHICLES TO BE PARKED OFF ROAD. YEAH. SO THE NEXT STEPS IS THERE'LL BE A PUBLIC HEARING AND A REZONING APPROVAL AT CITY COUNCIL. ASSUMING THAT'S ADOPTED. THIS WOULD GO BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT. AND THEN FINAL PLATS AND BUILDING PERMITS WOULD BE STAFF LEVEL APPROVALS. WE ARE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THE COMMISSION MAY HAVE. I'VE GOT ONE QUICK. THIS DOESN'T CHANGE ANY OF THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CORRECT. OR IT DOES BECAUSE OF THE CONFIGURATIONS. IT DOES CHANGE SETBACKS. THEY ARE PROPOSING SOME DIFFERENT SETBACKS. SO FOR EXAMPLE THEIR FRONT YARD, THEY'RE ASKING FOR TEN FOOT SETBACK INSTEAD OF 20 ON THE SIDE YARDS INSTEAD OF EIGHT FEET. THEY'RE ASKING FOR FIVE AND A REAR YARD OF TEN FEET.

YOU'LL ALSO NOTICE THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH IS BEING REDUCED FROM 75FT TO 42. THE MINIMUM LOT SIZES ARE PROPOSED TO 3000FT■!S RATHER THAN THE 8000. IN THE STANDARD R-1 EIGHT. OKAY, THAT'S

[00:45:05]

THANK YOU. I MEAN, THIS IS A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE AS FAR AS LOT SIZES, ETCETERA. I REALIZE THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT. BUT IT IT JUST FEELS LIKE IT'S FAR FROM IT. I'LL END IT THERE. WE'RE NOT WE'RE ASKING A LOT, SO I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT. COMMISSIONER ALLEN, THANKS FOR THE TIME. I CAN REMEMBER WHAT IT WAS I WAS GOING TO ASK. SO WITH THE IDO AND WE'RE SEEING THE DIFFERENT REQUESTS OR PROPOSALS, IS THAT PART OF THE IDO OR IS THAT A FUTURE LIKE, MASTER PLANNING STYLE DOCUMENT? NO. SO THE IDO ALLOWS THEM TO PROPOSE NEW STANDARDS THAT WILL ALLOW THEM TO DEVELOP IT. AND THAT WILL BE IF APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, CITY COUNCIL. THAT WOULD BE WHAT THEY'RE HELD TO FOR THAT SPECIFIC PROPERTY. SO IF YOU FEEL LIKE THEY'RE APPROPRIATE, YOU CAN RECOMMEND APPROVAL. IF YOU WANT TO RECOMMEND CHANGES, THAT'S ALSO APPROPRIATE AT THIS TIME. SO I READ THE PACKET. IT'S BEEN 12 HOURS. I'VE FORGOTTEN SINCE THEN. REMIND ME WHAT WE'RE APPROVING. TONIGHT'S THE IDO WITH THOSE PROPOSALS. YES OKAY.

AND IT'S A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL. THEY'LL HAVE THE ULTIMATE SAY. PERFECT. THANKS.

OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? OKAY. THIS HAS BEEN NOTICED AS A PUBLIC HEARING. IF YOU'RE HERE TO SPEAK ON IT, PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM AND STATE YOUR NAME. IF YOU'RE ONLINE, RAISE YOUR HAND IF YOU'RE ON THE PHONE. STAR NINE. OKAY. THERE IS A MANDY DAY MANDY SNYDER. HELLO, THIS IS MANDY SNYDER. CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES. OKAY. ARE YOU A RESIDENT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD? MY BACKYARD. FACING THIS FIELD. THE TRIANGULAR SHAPE AND SOME OF THE CONCERNS WE HAVE. AND JUST I GUESS IT'S TWOFOLD QUESTIONS. ALSO WITH THE ACCESS ROAD THAT WILL BE IN THERE, LIKE HOW FAR AWAY IS THAT? 50 FOOT AWAY FROM OUR BACK FENCE? AND THEN JUST CONCERNS ABOUT CONGESTION WITH 13 HOMES, THERE WILL NOW BE AT LEAST 13 RESIDENTS WITH CARS COMING THROUGH THERE AND ANY NOISE BEING A SIGNIFICANT PART. AND EVEN THOUGH THERE IS ZERO EMISSIONS AT THE HOMES, THE VEHICLES AREN'T NECESSARILY GOING TO BE ZERO EMISSIONS. AND THEN WITH THE WATER THAT IS COMING THROUGH THAT PROPERTY, HOW WILL THAT BE PROTECTED? ALSO IN THE BUILDING PROCESS AND. YEAH, SO IT'S LIKE HOW FAR AWAY WILL THAT ROAD BE FROM MY BACK FENCE. THAT'S MY MAIN THING. AND THEN ALSO WITH REZONING, DOES THAT CHANGE TAXES LEVIED ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD. IS THERE ANY OTHER CONSIDERATIONS WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT FOR THE WHOLE COMMUNITY? ARE YOU DONE? I AM OKAY, SORRY, I DIDN'T WANT TO CUT YOU OFF IF YOU WEREN'T. THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE ONLINE? NOT WITH THEIR HANDS RAISED. OKAY, THEN WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION FOR COMMENTS AND OR MOTIONS. COMMISSIONER ALAN TAYLOR WAS SCROLLING SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT WERE JUST ASKED. I THINK IT'D BE APPROPRIATE TO RESPOND TO THEM. YEAH, YEAH, FOR SURE. ON THE LAST QUESTION ON WILL THIS CHANGE TAXES AT ALL? IT WON'T. QUESTION ABOUT THE ROADWAY. WHERE WILL THAT BE? IDEALLY, IS CLOSE TO THE EXISTING PROPERTY LINES AS POSSIBLE, BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT A WEIRD NO MANS ZONE THERE. WE HAVE TALKED TO THE APPLICANT ABOUT, YOU KNOW, POSSIBLY HAVING THEM REACH OUT TO PROPERTY OWNERS AND GIVING THEM SOME OF THAT EXTRA SPACE. SO THERE'S NOT THAT NEW LAND THERE. THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING WE'D TALK THROUGH AT THE AT THE PLANNING STAGE. THE TRAFFIC ENGINEER HAS LOOKED

[00:50:01]

COMMISSIONER ROBERTS. SO I JUST WANTED TO GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF FEEDBACK IN COLOR, I GUESS, TO THIS, SINCE I WAS ON THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AND WE SENT IT BACK TO THEM ONCE. AND SO THIS IS MY THIRD TIME SEEING THIS NOW, AND OUR CONCERN WITH THE DRC WAS PRIMARILY TRAFFIC RELATED. SO IT WAS, YOU KNOW, INITIALLY IT WAS THEY HAD SHORT DRIVEWAYS THAT WEREN'T LONG ENOUGH TO ENSURE OFF STREET PARKING. SO WE MADE THAT REQUEST THAT THEY EXTEND IT TO 22 FOOT DRIVEWAYS. AND WE REALLY APPRECIATE THAT THEY DID THAT. AND THEN, YOU KNOW, OUTSIDE OF THAT, I APPRECIATE TAYLOR FOR MENTIONING THAT WE'RE NOT APPROVING A PLAT OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, BECAUSE THAT WAS OUR OTHER BIG CONSIDERATION WAS THERE'S AT LEAST ONE LOT THAT'S JUST REALLY TIGHT ON THE PROSPECT PLAN. BUT THAT'S A QUESTION FOR A DIFFERENT DAY.

HOWEVER, I WAS JUST NOTICING AS WE WERE LISTENING TO THE TO THE LADY ONLINE TALKING ABOUT TRAFFIC. I WAS COUNTING THE HOUSES THAT ARE SERVICED BY THE EXISTING STREETS, AND THERE'S 18 HOUSES ON THESE TWO STREETS BEFORE YOU REACH ANY STUB. SO THE STREETS THAT ARE EXCLUSIVELY SERVICED HERE, THERE'S 18 HOUSES ON AND WE'RE PROPOSING ADDING 13 MORE. SO. SO EVEN THOUGH WE'RE NOT APPROACHING THE THRESHOLD WHERE WE NEED TO, YOU KNOW, REALLY CONSIDER TRAFFIC, I THINK IT MERITS MENTIONED THAT WE ARE DOUBLING THE TRAFFIC LOAD FOR THESE PEOPLE WHO ARE EXISTING WILL SEE. AND SO THAT KIND OF BRINGS ME BACK AROUND TO, YOU KNOW, WHERE OUR CONCERN WITH THE DRC WAS ABOUT WAS ABOUT ENSURING OFF STREET PARKING IS COVERED AND THINGS LIKE THAT. SO I JUST WANTED TO PUT THAT INTO YOUR HEADS AS WE DISCUSS THIS AND THINK ABOUT IT MOVING FORWARD.

COMMISSIONER ALLEN, I'M THINKING BACK TO WHAT COMMISSIONER HAD SAID EARLIER. AND SHE PROBABLY THEY'RE THINKING THE SAME THING. IT'S HARD. I AGREE 100%. THIS NEEDS TO BE AN IOC IF IT'S GOING TO BE DEVELOPED. THE PROBLEM I HAVE IS I HAVE A HARD TIME SAYING, YEAH, LET'S GO AHEAD AND DO IT WITH THIS. THESE CHANGES TO THE REQUIREMENTS WITHOUT ALSO APPROVING THE PLAT AT THE SAME TIME. IT'S A LITTLE CHICKEN AND EGG. I WANT BOTH SIMULTANEOUSLY. SO THAT'S MY $0.02. I'M STILL TRYING TO PROCESS WHAT ELSE TO DO ABOUT IT. COMMISSIONER ROBERTS. SO COMMISSIONER ELLEN JUST TOUCHED ON, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, THE SAME THING THAT WE WERE HUNG UP ON, ON IN THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE. AND SO I GUESS THAT BEGS THE QUESTION THAT I DON'T REMEMBER IF IT'S BEEN ASKED, AND I FORGOT THE ANSWER OR NOT. BUT IF WE DO APPROVE THE IF WE DO APPROVE THE ZONE CHANGE RIGHT NOW AND THEN DON'T LIKE WHAT THEY DO WITH THIS, WITH THE PLAT MAP, WE'RE PRETTY LIMITED ON WHAT OUR RECOURSE IS, RIGHT? IF WE APPROVE 4000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS AND SO ON. SO YEAH, THAT DOES BEG THE QUESTION OF, YOU KNOW, WANTING TO SEE SOMETHING MORE SOLID BEFORE WE APPROVE IT, BECAUSE I WOULDN'T VOTE TO APPROVE IT BASED ON THE LOT 12.

I THINK IT IS IF THAT WAS A PLAT. SO, YOU KNOW, IF WE'RE GIVING UP SOME CONTROL TO PUSH THAT. SO I GUESS THE QUESTION IS, ARE WE GIVING UP THAT CONTROL TO HAVE SOME POWER THERE? WELL, WE'RE JUST MAKING A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL. HOWEVER, OUR RECOMMENDATIONS, I THINK THEY WILL WANT TO TAKE INTO EFFECT. SO I KIND OF AGREE WITH YOU ALSO THAT WHEN I WAS LOOKING AT THAT, I WAS A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT SOME OF THE SETBACKS AND STUFF ALSO. SO TO ANSWER THE QUESTION, ARE YOU GIVING UP CONTROL? NO. AS A PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL, YOU SET THE RULES FOR DEVELOPMENT AND THEN THE APPLICANT HAS THE DUTY TO COMPLY WITH THOSE RULES. SO YOU'RE SETTING UP THE RULES. THEY HAVE TO PROVE THAT THEY CAN GET THE 13 LOTS IN LINE WITH THAT, OR THEY MIGHT LOSE A LOT. THAT'S UP TO THEM TO ENGINEER IT AND SHOW IT. IF THEY WERE DOING A PLAT TONIGHT, THANKS TO THE WISDOM OF THE STATE OF UTAH, IT PROBABLY WOULDN'T BE AN ENGINEERED PLAN THAT WE WOULD BE LOOKING AT, BECAUSE WE CAN ONLY REQUIRE ENGINEERING DRAWINGS WITH A FINAL PLAT ANYWAYS, SO HOLDING THIS UP FOR A PLAT LIKELY WOULDN'T CHANGE MUCH ABOUT WHAT WE'RE SEEING AT THIS POINT. IT MIGHT BE A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAILED, BUT NOT SIGNIFICANTLY SO. SO ULTIMATELY IT COMES DOWN TO IF YOU FEEL LIKE THE PROPOSAL

[00:55:03]

COMMISSIONER ALAN, I'M NOT PREPARED TO MAKE CHANGES TO THE PROPOSAL, BUT I DON'T LIKE IT.

SO I'M I'M THINKING FROM A UTILITY ASPECT, NOT NOT PUBLIC UTILITY, BUT JUST USE OF THE PROPERTY. THESE ARE VERY DEEP, VERY NARROW LOTS. IF THAT IS WHAT IS APPROVED. AND THAT'S KIND OF WHAT THE PROPOSAL IS, RIGHT. WITH THE FIVE FOOT SETBACKS FROM THE LINE. THAT'S 3000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS. ASSUMING THAT THEY PUT A FENCE IN BETWEEN THOSE TWO AND THE FIVE FEET, NOBODY'S GETTING ANYTHING IN THEIR BACKYARD. IT'S ACTUALLY DO ANY WORK NOW OR IN THE FUTURE.

AND I'M LOOKING HERE AND IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S SOME DROP BETWEEN THE UTA AND INTO THE PROPERTY. ARE THEY GOING TO WANT RETAINING WALLS AND THINGS LIKE THAT? THE DIFFICULTY OF CONSTRUCTING ANYTHING IN THERE IS GOING TO BE VERY, VERY DIFFICULT ONCE THE HOME IS PUT UP. I'M CONCERNED FOR EMERGENCY SERVICES ACCESS, WHICH KIND OF MY DEAL. BUT IF YOU HAD TO FIGHT A FIRE IN THOSE NARROW THINGS, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE THE NEXT HOUSE. CAPTURE FIRE BEFORE YOU EVEN GET THE FIRST TRUCK IN. AND I'D SEEN THAT, SO I SO COMMISSIONER ROBERTS, SO ONE MORE QUESTION FOR YOU, TAYLOR. LOOKING AT THE LOT AND BULKING STANDARDS THAT THEY'RE SUGGESTING. I'M JUST CURIOUS, DO WE HAVE BASED OFF THEIR I'M GOING TO CALL IT A PLAT EVEN THOUGH IT'S JUST A PROSPECT DRAWING. BUT DO WE HAVE ANY IDEA OF WHAT THE SMALLER LOT SIZES ARE? ANY GUESSTIMATION THERE, AND I'M JUST WONDERING IF, YOU KNOW, MUCH LIKE MUCH LIKE MR. ALLEN, I AM HESITANT TO SUGGEST CHANGES, BUT I'M ALSO HESITANT TO APPROVE IT AS WRITTEN. SO I'M WONDERING IF A SLIGHT INCREASE TO BULK BULKING STANDARDS MIGHT CHANGE. YOU KNOW, COVER WHAT SOME OF OUR CONCERNS ARE. YEAH. SO WHEN THIS WAS FIRST BROUGHT TO THE DRC, THERE WAS NO MINIMUM LOT SIZE, AND THE DRC ASKED THEM TO COME BACK WITH WHAT THEIR MINIMUM LOT SIZE WOULD BE. SO THEN PICKING 3000FT■!S MAKES ME THINK THAT THE SMALLEST LOTS, PROBABLY ABOUT 3000FT■!S. WHICHS PRETTY SMALL LOT. I MEAN, IT'S LESS THAN HALF WHAT THE ZONING CALLS FOR. SO THAT'S THAT'S A HESITATION FOR ME. I THINK THAT WITH THE DRC, WE WERE HOPING TO SEE MORE LIKE 4500 TO 5000, BUT I DON'T THINK WE PUT ANY NUMBER ATTACHED TO OURS. WE JUST ASKED THEM TO GIVE US A MINIMUM LOT SIZE RATHER THAN ASKING FOR NO MINIMUM. SO, COMMISSIONER HATCH, THE QUESTION IS WHAT ELSE WOULD BE PUT ON THIS LAND? I MEAN, IS IT IT'S INFILL. SO IT'S GOING TO I MEAN, IT'S JUST BY ITS NATURE HARD TO DEVELOP. THAT'S WHY IT'S STILL HERE. IS IT BEST TO LEAVE IT AS A VACANT LAND? I THINK IT'S BETTER TO HAVE DEVELOPMENT ON IT THAN NOTHING. I'M CURIOUS TO SEE HOW THIS, YOU KNOW, WHAT THE PLAT WILL LOOK LIKE AND HOW THAT ALL GOES. SO I'M WILLING TO GIVE THE APPLICANT A GREEN LIGHT TO DO THAT, BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THERE'S REALLY MUCH ELSE THAT CAN THIS LAND CAN BE USED FOR OTHER THAN FOR HOMES, MAYBE NOT 12 OR 13, BUT IT'LL BE INTERESTING TO SEE WHAT THEY CAN DO WITH IT. SO I'M IN THAT REGARD. I'M CURIOUS, AND I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE THAT WE COULD PUT ON THIS LAND OTHER THAN HOMES. AND I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER HATCH, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF I AM STILL CONCERNED ABOUT THE LOT SIZES. AND I AGREE, WE'RE JUST AT THIS POINT DOING THE REZONE, BUT I WOULD KIND OF LIKE A BETTER FEEL. AND I REALIZE THAT'S GOING TO BE IN THE FUTURE. AND THAT'S KIND OF NOT WHAT WE'RE HERE FOR TONIGHT. BUT ANYWAY, THE REASON IS COMING WITH THESE PROPOSED STANDARDS THAT ARE ON THE SCREEN NOW. AND SO IN MY MIND, AND YOU ALL KNOW WHERE I'M AT, BUT WE'RE EITHER GOING TO PASS THIS FORWARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH RECOMMENDATIONS ON CHANGES ON THE PROPOSED STANDARDS. OR WE'RE GOING TO PASS A NEGATIVE RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL AND LET THEM DEBATE WHAT THE STANDARDS OUGHT TO BE. OR I GUESS THERE'S A THIRD OPTION, AND THAT IS TABLE THIS. COME BACK TO IT IN A COUPLE OF WEEKS, BUT I DON'T THINK I'M GOING TO BE PREPARED TO MAKE ANY RECOMMENDATIONS ON HERE. I DO LIKE THIS NOTION OF THAT MINIMUM LOT SIZE. IF THAT CAME UP OR WE LIMITED TO A SINGLE LOT AT THAT SIZE, OR WE DID SOMETHING TO MAKE IT SO THAT, YEAH, THE MAJORITY OF THESE ARE 8000 PLUS SQUARE FOOT LOTS, THAT WOULD BE ENOUGH, I THINK, TO AT LEAST SUGGEST TO THE CITY COUNCIL,

[01:00:03]

REMEMBER THE CRITERIA FOR A ZONE CHANGE, RIGHT. IF YOU WANT TO MAKE A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION, YOU SAY THAT YOU'VE POSITIVELY FOUND AS TO ALL THE CRITERIA, IF YOU WANT TO MAKE A NEGATIVE RECOMMENDATION, YOU'VE GOT TO FIND THAT AT LEAST ONE OF THE CRITERIA HAS NOT BEEN MET.

RIGHT. AND PUT THAT IN YOUR MOTION. I CAN GIVE THIS A TRY. LET'S OKAY. LET'S GIVE IT A SHOT I MOVE THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION. FOR A NEGATIVE NEGATIVE APPROVAL THAT DOESN'T RECOMMEND A NEGATIVE OF THE REZONE OF APPROXIMATELY TWO POINT NEGATIVE RECOMMENDATION.

NEGATIVE RECOMMENDATION. THANK YOU. THE REASON I'M APPROXIMATELY 2.7 ACRES ADDING THE INFILL DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONE ONE ALUMINUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 83 8399 SOUTH DUNLAP DRIVE TO THE WESTERN CITY COUNCIL. DUE TO THE INHERENT SAFETY CONCERNS THAT COME FROM THE PROPOSED SETBACKS AND REQUIREMENTS, I DON'T LIKE THE WORD INHERENT. THERE'S NOTHING INHERENT ABOUT THAT. LET'S MOVE. LET'S REMOVE THE WORD INHERENT. IS THERE A DIFFERENT WORD WE CAN USE? YOU COULD JUST SAY POTENTIAL. THE POTENTIAL. I DON'T WANT TO SAY THAT AGAIN.

DOES THAT SOUND OKAY? I THINK YOU'VE GOT EVERYTHING FOR A MOTION OTHER THAN THERE'S WHAT, FIVE CRITERIA THAT YOU HAVE TO PICK ONE OF THOSE FIVE THAT THAT FITS UNDER THE STAFF REPORTS, THE FINDING OF FACTS. THERE SHOULD BE FIVE CRITERIA. I DON'T HAVE IT UP IN FRONT OF ME. I KNOW ONE OF THEM WAS PUBLIC SAFETY. ALL RIGHT, I'LL PULL THIS UP. GIVE ME A MOMENT. OH.

THAT'S JUST THREE. ALL RIGHT, LET'S TRY THIS AGAIN. SO IT WOULD BE A NEGATIVE RECOMMENDATION BASED ON FINDING TWO, WHICH IS THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT WILL RESULT IN COMPATIBLE LAND USE RELATIONSHIPS AND DOES NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT ADJACENT PROPERTIES. I THINK WE HAVE DISCUSSED THAT IT MAY RESULT IN INCOMPATIBLE LAND USE RELATIONSHIPS, DUE TO THE SIZE OF THE LOTS AND THE COMPARISON OF THE NEIGHBORS. THE OTHER IS FINDING THREE. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT PROTECTS THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE CITIZENS OF THE CITY, AND THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS ARE A CONCERN FROM A PUBLIC SAFETY PERSPECTIVE. OKAY. I'LL GO AHEAD AND SECOND THAT MOTION. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR I ANY OPPOSED? NAY. SO IT PASSES 5 TO 1 WITH THE NEGATIVE RECOMMENDATION. I KNOW. OKAY. NEXT ON THE AGENDA TEXT AMENDMENT MESSAGE MASSAGE

[5. Text Amendment – Massage Therapy; Amend the West Jordan City Code Title 13 removing “Massage Therapy” as a permitted or conditional use from Sections 13-5C-4 Planned Community zone; 13-5E-4 C-G, C-M, SC-1, and SC-2 zones; 13-5F-2 M-P, M-1, M-2 zones and 13-5I-4 CC zone; City-wide applicability; City of West Jordan (applicant) [Larry Gardner]]

[01:05:04]

THEY'RE JUST REALLY NEIGHBORHOOD SHOPPING AREAS. IT WOULD ALSO REMOVE IT FROM ANY OF THE MANUFACTURING ZONE, WHICH ARE ANY OF THOSE WITH THE BEGIN WITH THE PREFIX M, THE PLANNED COMMUNITY ZONE. WELL, WE HAVEN'T HAD ANY ISSUE IN THERE. THEY'RE KIND OF THEY'RE MOSTLY IN THE SAME BOAT AS SC ONE. THEY REALLY ARE INTENDED TO BE A DAILY CONVENIENCE FOR NEIGHBORHOODS AND THE CITY CENTER AND CITY CENTER FRAME. THAT IS, THAT ORDINANCE WILL ACTUALLY BE MODIFIED LATER IN THE YEAR. BUT THE CITY REALLY WANTS TO SEE SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN IN OUR CITY CENTER ZONE. AND, AND MASSAGE THERAPY BUSINESSES WHERE THEY WILL REMAIN IS IN THE REGIONAL SHOPPING CENTER ZONE, WHICH WE HAVE TWO OF THOSE IN THE CITY. ONE IS COMPLETELY UNDEVELOPED. THE OTHER IS JORDAN LANDING. WHAT IS GENERALLY THE BEST PRACTICE OF THOSE LARGER REGIONAL SHOPPING CENTERS? THEY VET THEIR TENANTS VERY WELL. SO A LARGER MASSAGE THERAPY BUSINESS SUCH AS MASSAGE ENVY, OR SOME OF THOSE THAT ARE MORE OF A LARGER NATIONWIDE, THEY WOULD BE VETTED BY THE OWNERS OF THOSE SHOPPING CENTERS MORE THAN THE OTHER TYPES THAT I SPOKE OF PROFESSIONAL OFFICE. IT WOULD STILL BE ALLOWED BUSINESS RESEARCH PARK AND OF COURSE HIS HOME OCCUPATIONS THERE WILL BE ALLOWED AND I PUT THE DEFINITION DOWN THERE. I WOULD URGE THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO BRING BROCK HUDSON UP AND HAVE HIM TALK, AND MAYBE EVEN PATRICK OF WHY THIS LAND USE AMENDMENT IS PROPOSED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT THIS POINT. SO.

COME ON UP, BROCK. THANK YOU. COMMISSION. WE'VE HAD A OVER THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS. WE'VE HAD SEVERAL OF THESE MASSAGE THERAPY BUSINESSES POP UP IN SOME OF OUR STRIP MALLS WITH CODE ENFORCEMENT. WE GET THE REFERRALS. THEY'RE SENT TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. IT WAS

[01:10:02]

I MEAN, THIS, THIS ONE THAT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT ATTENDED TO TWO WEEKS AGO WAS WITHIN 100FT OF A PIZZA HUT WHERE YOU'VE GOT FAMILIES AND KIDS COMING IN TO PICK UP PIZZAS AND THAT TYPE OF STUFF. SO BY CHANGING THE ZONE WILL HELP US KIND OF KEEP THEM REGULATED TO A NON-FAMILY ORIENTED LOCATION. I HAVE NO OBJECTIONS TO THESE BUSINESSES IF THEY'RE STAYING WITHIN THE LAW, BUT IF WE CAN LIMIT THEM TO A LOCATION TO WHERE IT'S NOT AS PREVALENT TO THE TO THE COMMUNITY AND YOUR FAMILY TYPE OF BUSINESS, THAT WOULD BE EXTREMELY BENEFICIAL FOR US. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I AM MORE THAN HAPPY TO ADDRESS THEM. ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY. THANK YOU.

SO THE LAST THING, LAST THING I WANT TO ADD IS THAT ANY OF THE BUSINESSES THAT ARE IN THESE ZONES CURRENTLY THAT ARE THEY WILL JUST BECOME A NONCONFORMING USE. SO IF THEY OPERATE WITHIN THE LAW, THEY CAN OPERATE FOREVER. IF THEY BREAK THE LAW AND IN A MANNER THAT GETS THEIR BUSINESS LICENSE REVOKED, THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO APPLY FOR ANOTHER BUSINESS LICENSE. BUT IF THEY'RE OPERATING WITHIN THE LAW, THEY CAN GO ON FOREVER. THERE'S NO THERE'S NO ISSUE. SO.

OKAY, ANY MORE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? OKAY. THIS HAS BEEN NOTICED AS A PUBLIC HEARING. OH, SORRY, COMMISSIONER ROBERTS. SO I'M JUST KIND OF CURIOUS, NOT WANTING TO DRIVE OUT LEGITIMATE BUSINESS. I UNDERSTAND, LIKE, I HAVE A SISTER IN LAW WHO'S A MASSAGE THERAPIST, AND I UNDERSTAND KIND OF THE WAY THEIR WORLD WORKS. AND BASICALLY, YOU EITHER HAVE THE OPTION OF WORKING FOR A BIG BOX PLACE OR YOU ARE ONE OF THESE LITTLE PLACES, YOU KNOW, ARE YOU AFFILIATED WITH A SPA? SO I DON'T REALLY WANT TO DRIVE THEM OUT COMPLETELY, BUT I UNDERSTAND THE OTHER SIDE OF THE COIN AS WELL. AND SO I GUESS I'M CURIOUS, IS THERE ANY WAY TO CARVE OUT AN EXCEPTION? IF YOU ARE, YOU KNOW WHAT I'M GETTING AT, I GUESS, IS IT ALSO WOULD POTENTIALLY KICK OUT LIKE A HEALTH AND BEAUTY SPA OUT OF ALL OF THESE OTHER ZONES TO KIND OF BY DEFAULT. BECAUSE HOW DO YOU HAVE A SPA IF YOU DON'T HAVE A MASSAGE THERAPIST ON SITE AND THINGS LIKE THAT? SO IS THERE ANY RESPONSE TO THAT OR ANY THOUGHTS? WELL, MY MASSAGE THERAPY WOULD BE A STANDALONE BUSINESS. SO IF THEY HAVE MASSAGE THERAPISTS IN A SPA TYPE THING, THAT'S NOT WHAT IT'S INTENDED. TO. IF MASSAGE IS THEIR CORE BUSINESS, AND I THINK THAT, WELL, I KNOW THAT THERE'S PLENTY OF ZONES WHERE THEY COULD OPEN A SMALL BUSINESS AND WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS GET THESE OTHER LOCATIONS ARE NOT AS DESIRABLE TO THESE. THE. THE TYPES OF USES WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. THEY LIKE TO BE IN THE STRIP MALLS. IT'S CHEAPER. YOU KNOW, THEY CAN THEY CAN REALLY HIDE IN PLAIN SIGHT. THERE IS WHAT THEY DO VERY WELL. AND SO I THINK THERE'S PLENTY OF OTHER ZONES WHERE THEY CAN OPEN OR THEY CAN DO A HOME OCCUPATION, YOU KNOW, THAT WAS WELL UNDERSTOOD AND APPRECIATED. I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH THAT. COMPLETELY AGREE WITH THE IDEA.

I'M JUST TRYING TO AVOID THE LAW OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES. SO. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY. THIS HAS BEEN NOTED AS A PUBLIC HEARING. IF YOU'RE HERE TO SPEAK ON THIS, YOU'LL BE GIVEN THREE MINUTES. PLEASE COME UP TO THE PODIUM, STATE YOUR NAME. IF YOU'RE ONLINE, RAISE YOUR HAND IF YOU'RE ON THE PHONE. STAR NINE. THERE ARE NO HANDS RAISED ONLINE. OKAY, THEN WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING THIS BACK UP TO THE COMMISSION FOR COMMENT AND OR MOTION. COMMISSIONER HATCH, I'LL GO AHEAD AND MAKE A MOTION BASED ON THE INFORMATION AND FINDINGS SET FORTH IN THIS STAFF REPORT, AND UPON THE EVIDENCE AND EXPLANATION RECEIVED TODAY, I MOVE THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION FORWARD A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION TO THE

[01:15:03]

I'LL SECOND THE MOTION. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. ANY OPPOSED? CARRIES SIX. NOTHING. COMMISSIONER GONZALES, I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.