[a. Bowles Packaging; 5455 West Leo Park Road; Conditional Use Permit for Outdoor Storage; M-1 Zone/Drinking Water Source Protection Overlay Zone; Bowles Packaging/Sherry Osborne (applicant) [Megan Jensen #34422; parcel 26-01-352-003]]

NEXT IS PUBLIC HEARINGS WITH FINAL ACTION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. AND IT LOOKS LIKE BOWLS PACKAGING, 5455 WEST LEO PARK ROAD. AND IT'S CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. AND IT'S BEEN ASKED SOMEBODY WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE IT TILL NEXT MEETING. COMMISSIONER ALLEN. SO MOTION OKAY WE HAVE A MOTION TO TABLE IT TILL MARCH 17TH. COMMISSIONER AKER I'LL SECOND THAT. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. ANY OPPOSED? OKAY. THAT CARRIES SIX.

NOTHING. YES. NO, IT'S BEEN TABLED. IT'LL BE FOR NEXT WEEK. SAY YOU ARE THE RESIDENTS THAT ARE AROUND THERE. I HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING. WE HAVE. IF IF SOMEBODY WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION, WE CAN GO AHEAD AND GO THROUGH THAT AND ACTUALLY HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING, I UNDERSTAND.

BUSINESSES AROUND. WE'RE NOT GOING, YOU KNOW, I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. I'M HAPPY TO MOVE. I'M HAPPY TO MOVE. DO WE HOLD I MOVE THAT WE HOLD THE PUBLIC HEARING RIGHT NOW. NO, WE CAN'T DO THAT NOW. MOTION. NO, ACTUALLY WE CAN'T. WE CAN DO WHATEVER WE WANT. BUT IF THE GUY DOESN'T WANT TO DO IT, THEN LET'S JUST MOVE ON. I THINK THEY THEY'RE SAYING THAT IF WITH THE PUBLIC HEARING, YOU COULD ACTUALLY STATE WHAT YOU WANTED TO STATE. I DON'T HAVE ANY CONTENTIONS WITH. MY CONCERN IS, OKAY, THERE'S A PUBLIC HEARING RIGHT NOW. SO.

RIGHT. YOU EITHER HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING MOTION, YOU HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND I'LL SECOND.

OKAY. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. ANY OPPOSED? OKAY. WE'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN UP THIS FOR PUBLIC HEARING. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME. MY NAME IS CHRIS. I'M WITH CLAMAN PIPING. OKAY. WHAT IS YOUR LAST NAME? WAYMAN. OKAY. I'M TWO DOORS TO THE WEST OF BOWLES. I RUN A PLUMBING MECHANICAL CONTRACTING BUSINESS. WE WENT THROUGH OUR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 11 YEARS AGO ACROSS

[00:20:09]

THE STREET FROM ME, TWO DOORS DOWN, ALMOST ACROSS THE STREET FROM BOWLES. THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE DOING SOME ADDITIONS TO THEIR PROPERTY, AND THEY'RE GOING AFTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. I UNDERSTAND THEY'VE ALREADY HAD THE HEARING. WE DID NOT GET NOTIFIED. THE SALT DEPOT BEHIND ME, WHICH IS CAUSING ALL SORTS OF HAVOC, ALSO HAS NOT NOTIFIED US THAT THEY WENT AFTER A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. WE APPRECIATE THAT WE GET NOTIFIED, BUT WE'RE NOT GETTING NOTIFIED. IT SHOULD BE WITHIN 300 FOOT RADIUS OF THEIR PROPERTY OR LITERALLY RIGHT BEHIND THE RIGHT, BEHIND OR RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET. AND WE'RE NOT GETTING NOTIFIED OF THIS. I THINK THE PLANNING COMMISSION NEEDS TO KIND OF DO A BETTER JOB NOTIFYING THE NEIGHBORS. WE'RE HAVING SOME HUGE, HUGE PROBLEMS WITH THE SALT DEPOT RIGHT NOW. WE'RE LOOKING AT THEIR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, AND THEY'RE IN VIOLATION OF ALMOST EVERY ITEM ON THEIR AND IT NEEDS TO IT. THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME CHANGES WITH THAT. AND SO I HAVE NO ISSUES WITH BOWLES. I KNOW I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THEY'RE DOING. I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR, BUT I CAN PUSH THAT OFF TILL THE 17TH TO HEAR WHAT THEY'RE ACTUALLY PLANNING ON DOING. SO IT'S JUST WE'RE IMPACTED WITH OUR BUSINESS, WITH WHAT OTHER BUSINESSES ARE DOING. AND IF THAT INFRINGES ON MY MY PERSONAL PROPERTY, THAT'S A PROBLEM. SO THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE HERE TO SPEAK ON THAT ITEM? OKAY. WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND CONTINUE

[b. Rolfe Subdivision; 2659 W 7000 S & 2660 West Beverly Glen Avenue; Rezone; Kim Rolfe (applicant){Tayler Jensen/Nate Nelson/Greg Davenport #34809 Parcels # 21-28-201-053-0000 & 21-28-201-024-0000]]

ON WITH THE MEETING OKAY. NEXT IS THE RALPH SORRY RALPH SUBDIVISION, 2659 WEST, 7000 SOUTH AND 2660 WEST BEVERLY GLEN AVENUE. REZONE. KIM RALPH IS THE APPLICANT. KIM, IF YOU'D LIKE TO COME UP. AT THE SAME THING IS A COUPLE WEEKS AGO. JUST TRYING TO GET A THE PLAT RECORDED NOW. SORRY. JUST BEEN THROUGH THE CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING THERE. BEEN HERE A COUPLE WEEKS AGO. AND AGAIN, I THINK THIS IS ABOUT AS EASY AS IT IS. I'M NOT CHANGING ANY USE.

I JUST WANT TO SELL MY OLDER HOME THERE, THE ONE I STARTED OUT IN 50 YEARS AGO. IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS, I'D BE GLAD TO ANSWER THEM. OTHER THAN THAT, I. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? OKAY. IF WE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, WE'LL CALL YOU BACK UP. THANK YOU. OKAY. IT LOOKS LIKE TAYLOR. THANK YOU. CHAIR AND COMMISSION. I THINK KIM PRETTY MUCH COVERED IT. THIS IS ALMOST IDENTICAL TO WHAT WE SAW HERE IN FEBRUARY. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS AT THAT TIME, WE HAD TO SEEK A REZONE, CHANGING THE DESIGNATION THAT WAS APPROVED. SO NOW WE HAVE THIS CURRENT ZONING MAP, AND HE'S APPLYING FOR A MAJOR SUBDIVISION TO CREATE TWO LOTS, BOTH OF WHICH ARE OVER 10,000FT■!S. AND THEY COMPLY WIH ALL OUR LAW AND STANDARDS. SO WE ARE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL WITH THE FOLLOWING MOTION, AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? OKAY. THANK YOU. THIS HAS BEEN NOTED AS A PUBLIC HEARING. IF YOU'RE HERE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM, YOU'LL BE GIVEN THREE MINUTES.

PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND COME UP TO THE PODIUM. IF YOU'RE ONLINE, RAISE YOUR HAND OR STAR NINE. OKAY, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT BACK UP TO THE COMMISSION FOR COMMENTS AND OR MOTIONS. COMMISSIONER AKER, IF THERE'S NO COMMENTS, I MOVE THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVE A TWO LOT PRELIMINARY MAJOR SUBDIVISION FOR THE SUBDIVISION LOCATED AT TWO 2659 WEST 700 SOUTH, 72 SOUTH, SUBJECT TO ALL REQUIREMENTS OF THE APPROVAL. COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ. OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. ANY OPPOSED? OKAY. THAT CARRIES SIX. NOTHING. THANK YOU. OKAY. NEXT IS UTAH

[c. Utah Outdoors Unlimited; Continued; 7880 South 1300 West; Conditional Use Permit for Outdoor Storage and Operations; C-M Zone; Utah Outdoors Unlimited/Brandon Oquendo (applicant) [Megan Jensen #35036; parcel 21-34-227-015]]

OUTDOORS UNLIMITED. AND THIS HAS BEEN CONTINUED FROM LAST MONTH 7880 SOUTH 1300 WEST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OUTDOOR STORAGE AND OPERATIONS. IT'S AN A C M ZONE. UTAH UNLIMITED AND BRANDEN OQUENDO. AND KATE BRANDON. OH, SORRY. I DIDN'T EVEN SEE YOU THERE. COME

[00:25:12]

ON UP. GOOD TO SEE YOU AGAIN. YEAH. SO I'M JUST BACK TO KIND OF REVISIT THE PREVIOUS MEETING WHICH WAS TO LOOK OVER I BELIEVE THE DIAGRAM THAT YOU GUYS WANTED ME TO PROVIDE SORT OF THE PARKING SCENARIO AND POTENTIALLY LOOK AT A COUPLE FENCING OPTIONS, MAYBE SORT OF DEFINE WHAT SOLID METAL LOOKS LIKE AND GO FROM THERE. OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? OKAY. IF WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS WE'LL CALL YOU BACK UP OKAY. SORRY I DID HAVE A QUICK SORRY.

YEAH. SORRY. SO WITH RESPECT TO THE FENCING, HAVE THEY HAVE THEY GONE THROUGH WITH YOU THE, WITH THE SOLID METAL AND THE OPAQUE REQUIREMENT THAT IT CAN'T BE SEE THROUGH? I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING IN THE IN THE GUIDELINES THAT SAID ANYTHING. I WAS LOOKING FOR THAT ACTUALLY I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S THERE OR NOT. WHATEVER MEGAN SENT ME I TOOK A PICTURE OF IT. I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING ABOUT THE OPAQUENESS NECESSARILY. SO I WAS HOPING TO GET SOME CLARITY ON THAT. OKAY, I CAN MAYBE REVISIT WITH YOU WHEN I COME BACK UP HERE. I CAN DISCUSS THAT WITH YOU NOW, WHATEVER YOU'D LIKE TO DO. WELL, I THINK WHILE YOU'RE HERE AND WE CAN JUST ALSO LOOP MEGAN IN. SO THE OPAQUE REQUIREMENT IS IN THE CODE LANGUAGE. IS THAT RIGHT? YEAH. THAT'S RIGHT. OKAY. CAN WE CAN WE SEE THAT CODE LANGUAGE. DO WE KNOW WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE? IS IT A REPORT. IS IT A STAFF REPORT? I DON'T KNOW IF THAT EXACT WORDING IS IN THE STAFF REPORT. I DON'T HAVE THE CODE WORDING, YOU KNOW, ON THE POWERPOINT, BUT I CAN FIND THAT OKAY. EVENTUALLY. OKAY. I KNOW THE ONE THAT MEGAN SENT ME SAID OUTDOOR. IT BASICALLY GAVE OUTDOOR STORAGE SHALL BE LOCATED BEHIND THE BUILDING AND SOLID SCREEN FROM THE STREET AND NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. A MASONRY WALL OR SOLID METAL FENCING SHOULD SHALL BE REQUIRED TO SCREEN OUTSIDE STORAGE AND OPERATION AREAS FOR PUBLIC STREETS, BUT BEYOND THAT, IT DIDN'T REALLY GIVE ME ANYTHING. SO I DON'T KNOW ABOUT IF THERE'S FURTHER DESCRIPTION OF OPAQUENESS. I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN SEEING THAT FOR SURE. COMMISSIONER AKBAR. SO IN THE DESCRIPTION THAT SHE GAVE YOU, WOULD YOU READ THAT AGAIN? DOES IT SAY SOLID? IT SAYS A MASONRY WALL OR SOLID METAL FENCING SHALL BE REQUIRED TO SCREEN OUTSIDE STORAGE AND OPERATION AREAS FROM PUBLIC STREETS. AND THIS FENCING, CAN YOU MAKE IT SOLID WITH THE PICTURES YOU SHOWED US? KIND OF WANTED TO IN MY OPINION, THAT IS A SOLID METAL FENCE. THE OPAQUENESS I THINK IS THE QUESTION, BUT THE ENTIRE FENCE IS METAL, SO IT IS A SOLID METAL FENCE. THE QUESTION OF MAYBE, I GUESS I WOULD QUESTION IF THE CITY WANTED IT TO BE SOLID. MAYBE PRIVACY WOULD BE A BETTER DESCRIPTOR FOR THAT WORD, BUT THERE'S NO THERE'S NO DESCRIPTION THAT GIVES IT ANY SORT OF PRIVACY. IT JUST SAYS SOLID METAL FENCE. IN WHICH CASE THIS IS SO FOR ME. IF I'M GOING TO BE FORCED TO SORT OF PUT THIS UP ESTHETICALLY, I WOULD LIKE IT TO LOOK STILL PLEASING AND NOT HAVE TO, LIKE, MAKE MY PROPERTY LOOK LIKE A JUNKYARD AND IN LIKE A SOLID METAL FENCE. I THINK MAYBE WHAT YOU GUYS ARE ENVISIONING TO ME KIND OF LOOKS LIKE A JUNKYARD, AND I REALLY DON'T WANT TO. I'M ON A CORNER, LIKE IT'S VISUALLY APPEALING. SO TO ME THAT'S A SOLID METAL FENCE THAT'S VISUALLY APPEALING, AND IT SORT OF PROTECTS THE PUBLIC FROM SEEING THESE SCARY RV VEHICLES. AND AND THAT'S KIND OF WHAT I WANT TO GET SOME CLARITY ON. MEGAN, IS THERE A WAY TO IS CAN YOU JUST IS IT A QUICK FIND OR DO WE NEED TO TABLE IT. YEAH. SO I'VE JUST PULLED IT UP. SO IT SAYS A MASONRY WALL OR SOLID METAL FENCING SHALL BE REQUIRED TO SCREEN OUTSIDE STORAGE AREAS AND OPERATION AREAS FROM PUBLIC STREETS. AND THEN A CHAIN LINK FENCE WITH SLATS OR OTHER OPAQUE FENCE OR WALL SHALL BE REQUIRED ALONG THE PROPERTY LINES. SO THE OPAQUE FENCE ISN'T FOR THE PUBLIC STREETS, BUT IT'S SOLID METAL FENCING, WHICH WE'VE ALWAYS INTERPRETED AS, YOU KNOW, NOT SEE THROUGH FOR EVERY PROPERTY. SO LET'S SEE MY WORD, BECAUSE I COME FROM REAL ESTATE, SO SOLID METAL TO ME, I THINK WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT IS LIKE PRIVACY, LIKE A PRIVACY WALL, A PRIVACY FENCE OF SOME SORT. AND SO FROM A CONSTRUCTION PERSPECTIVE, THIS IS SOLID METAL. THE OPAQUENESS, I THINK, IS THE QUESTION. AND OBVIOUSLY FROM THE BUILDING OWNER, I'M NOT JUST A TENANT. AND MAYBE SOMETHING SOMEBODY'S MOVING IN THERE IN THE FUTURE. JUST HAVING SOMETHING THAT LOOKS LIKE A JUNKYARD TO ME IS NOT REALLY APPEALING. I DON'T KNOW IF IT'D BE APPEALING TO THE NEIGHBORS EITHER. AND SO I'M NOT SURE WHAT THEIR OPINION IS ON THIS. THEY'RE HERE. CLEARLY, IT COMES DOWN TO WHAT THE CITY DETERMINES A SOLID METAL FENCE TO LOOK LIKE. BUT BUT I GUESS IF YOU WERE TO INTERPRET IT FROM MY POSITION AS THE BUILDING OWNER, TRYING TO KEEP IT LOOKING LIKE SOMETHING NICER WOULD BE A BENEFIT TO, I THINK, EVERYBODY, INCLUDING THE CITY. SO. WE JUST ARE NOT ABLE TO CHANGE CODE. SURE. I THINK IT COMES DOWN TO WHAT THE INTERPRETATION OF WHAT SOLID METAL FENCE IS. AGAIN, IT DOESN'T GIVE A DESCRIPTOR OF WHAT THE OPAQUENESS OF THAT LOOKS LIKE. IT REALLY JUST SAYS SOLID METAL. AND THESE ARE SOLID METAL FENCES. SO IF THE CITY DOES HAVE A DESCRIPTION OF

[00:30:01]

WHAT, I GUESS THE PRIVACY FACTOR OF THE OPAQUENESS COMES DOWN TO, MAYBE THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL. BUT THERE'S NOTHING IN THE CODE THAT DESCRIBES THAT. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? OKAY. WE'LL CALL YOU UP IF WE. THANK YOU. MEGAN. YEAH. THANK YOU CHAIR.

SO HERE IS THE UPDATED SITE PLAN. THEY'VE THEY'RE SHOWING THE LOCATION OF THE FENCES AND THE GATES WHICH MEET CODE. AND I THINK THE THE INTENDED PURPOSE OF WHY WE'RE COMING BACK TO PLANNING COMMISSION AGAIN. AGAIN, A REQUIREMENT OF APPROVAL IS TO ADD THE PRIVACY SLATS ALONG THAT WEST PROPERTY LINE. THIS LEAVES SOME PARKING AREA ON THAT SOUTH SIDE IN FRONT OF THE FENCE FOR EMPLOYEES AND A FEW CUSTOMERS. THERE IS A THEY'RE SHOWING A GRAVEL AREA UNDERNEATH THE BUILDING, AND WE'VE ADDED A CONDITION OF APPROVAL THAT NO VEHICLES BE PARKED THERE, AS THEY SHOULD ONLY BE PARKED ON THE ASPHALT. THESE ARE, AS SHOWN, THE THE FENCES THAT THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING AND SIMILAR GATES. AND THESE ARE JUST PHOTOS OF THE PROPERTY AGAIN, AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. THANK YOU. GO AHEAD. OKAY. SO CAN WE GO BACK TO THE PICTURE OF THE FENCE EXAMPLES. THERE YOU GO. NOW I'VE HAD AND I'M JUST GOING TO PLAY THE DEVIL'S ADVOCATE HERE. I'VE HAD A CHAIN LINK FENCE IN A PREVIOUS HOMES THAT HAS SLATS IN IT, AND THOSE ARE ANYTHING BUT OPAQUE. TO ME. IT WOULD LOOK SIMILAR TO THE ONE ON THE LOWER RIGHT. SO I THINK IT COMES DOWN TO A DEFINITION OF WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACHIEVE HERE. ARE WE TRYING TO COMPLETELY OBSCURE WHAT'S BEHIND IT, OR ARE WE JUST TRYING TO MAKE IT LOOK PLEASING? WHAT'S THE DEFINITION GOING TO BE HERE. YES. SO IN THE CODE THEY USE THE WORD OPAQUE FOR THE PROPERTY LINES, WHICH IS THAT CHAIN LINK WITH THE PRIVACY SLATS, WHICH IS I WOULD SAY EVEN LESS SOLID THAN THE SOLID FENCING REQUIRED FOR PUBLIC ROADS. AND LARRY CAN CORRECT ME IF HE DISAGREES. BUT THE WAY WE'VE ALWAYS INTERPRETED IT SINCE I'VE BEEN HERE IS SOLID METAL IS, YOU KNOW, NOT SEE THROUGH. SO WE'VE REQUIRED THE METAL FENCING OR MASONRY WALL. SO THAT'S WHAT YOU KNOW, I BELIEVE THE CODE INTENDS FOR SCREENING FOR FROM THE PUBLIC ROADS. OKAY. I THINK WE NEED TO KIND OF REDEFINE THAT A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE TO ME THIS IS A GREAT AREA WHERE A CHAIN LINK FENCE WITH SLATS IS NOT OPAQUE. SO IF WE'RE GOING TO SAY OPAQUE, WE NEED TO SAY OPAQUE. THAT'S WHAT THE CODE SAYS. THOSE OPAQUE. CORRECT.

RIGHT. ON THE PROPERTY LINES ON THE PROPERTY LINE. BUT IT SPECIFIES, YOU KNOW, THE CHAIN LINK WITH THE PRIVACY SLATS IS ALLOWED THERE. SEE. AND THAT'S NOT OPAQUE. I CAN SEE THROUGH A CHAIN LINK WITH THE PRIVACY SLATS. I CAN SEE WHAT'S GOING ON BEHIND THERE. I'M JUST PLAYING THE DEVIL'S ADVOCATE BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND WHERE HE'S COMING FROM. BUT FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, WHEN I SEE OPAQUE, I CAN'T SEE THROUGH IT, BUT I CAN STILL SEE THROUGH IT.

A CHAIN LINK FENCE WITH SLATS, RIGHT? RIGHT. YEAH. WE NEED TO DEFINE THAT A LITTLE BIT BETTER.

YEAH, YEAH. AND I GET THAT, THAT WORDING AND I THINK THE QUESTION IS FOR FROM THE PUBLIC ROADS IF IT SHOULD BE, YOU KNOW, NOT BE ABLE TO SEE THROUGH ANYTHING TO THEIR STORAGE YARD.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON. YEAH. IS THERE IS THERE ANOTHER PROCESS THAT THEY WOULD NEED TO GO THROUGH, MAYBE A BUILDING PERMIT OR SOMETHING WHERE YOU COULD ACTUALLY LOOK AT THE FENCING MATERIALS, BECAUSE THE APPLICANT MADE AN INTERESTING POINT THAT SOLID METAL CAN BE VERY UGLY IF IT'S JUNKYARD METAL. AND THERE'S VARIOUS TYPES OF SOLID METAL. SO IS THERE A WAY THAT THE CITY HAS OVERSIGHT ON YOU'RE GOING TO USE THIS KIND OF A FENCE AND NOT THIS JUNKYARD STYLE. IT DOESN'T DEFINE THE THE TYPE OF METAL, JUST THAT IT'S SOLID METAL. AND IF IT'S UNDER IF IT'S A SIX FOOT OR SHORTER

[00:35:06]

FENCE, WE DON'T REQUIRE A BUILDING PERMIT. SO THIS THIS IS KIND OF THE ONLY THE ONLY SHOT TO SEE WHAT KIND OF MATERIALS THAT THEY'RE ACTUALLY GOING TO PUT UP. SO ONE OF MY ROLES IS ZONING ADMINISTRATOR. I COULD MAKE A DETERMINATION ON THIS. I'M NOT GOING TO DO IT TONIGHT. AND SO YOU'D EITHER HAVE TO APPROVE IT BASED UPON MY DETERMINATION OR TABLE IT AGAIN. HE'S ALREADY BEEN TABLED TWICE. AND SO IT'S REALLY UP TO THE COMMISSION. BUT THE WAY IF I MAKE A DETERMINATION ON THE FLY FENCE YOU CAN SEE THROUGH IS NOT SOLID. AND SO THAT'S MY OPINION TONIGHT. BUT I CAN DO AN DETERMINATION BUT YOU KNOW, HAVE TO BE WRITTEN. IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT'S GENERALLY SPOKEN AND READ INTO MINUTES. SO. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.

OKAY. THIS HAS BEEN NOTICED AS A PUBLIC HEARING. SO WE'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN IT UP FOR PUBLIC HEARING. IF YOU'RE HERE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM, PLEASE COME UP TO THE PODIUM. STATE YOUR NAME. YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES. HI. MY NAME IS JOSH TOLBERT, OWNER OF CCT HARDWOODS NEXT DOOR. I APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT'S BEEN DONE HERE BY BRANDON TO MAKE IT PLEASING.

ONE THING THAT I THINK WOULD MAYBE BE SOMETHING TO CONSIDER BY THE COMMISSION IS A COMPLETELY NON SEE THROUGH FENCE ALSO ALLOWS YOU TO NOT SEE WHAT'S GOING ON BEHIND THE FENCE. AND WE HAVE A LOT OF. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE RIGHT WORD IS. WE HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT VISIT AT NIGHT IN OUR AREA. AND SO ONE ADVANTAGE OF WHAT HE'S PROPOSED IS THAT YOU CAN SEE IF THERE'S ACTIVITY THERE DURING TIMES OF THE EVENING OR NIGHT OR THINGS GETTING STOLEN OR WHATEVER IT MIGHT BE. SO THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING THAT YOU ALL WOULD WANT TO CONSIDER.

CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE MAP OF THE WHERE THE GATES WILL BE? IS THAT POSSIBLE? MAYBE AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING. OKAY, I THINK I CAN SEE IT THERE. THERE'S A WHITE LINE AND THAT'S FROM THE BACK OF THE CORNER OF THEIR BUILDING, STRAIGHT ACROSS. IF THAT'S HOW THE GATE'S GOING TO BE FINISHED, WHICH WE ASKED IF IT COULD BE ON AN ANGLE CORNER TO CORNER. BUT IF THAT IS HOW THE GATE'S GOING TO BE FINISHED, THEN IT LEAVES AND IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE I CAN'T SEE THE DIMENSIONS. IT'S TOO SMALL. BUT PROPORTIONATELY IT LOOKS LIKE THERE WILL BE A SECTION, MAYBE 8 OR 10FT FROM WHERE THE GATE IS BACK TO THE CORNER OF OUR BUILDING, OR TO THE WEST TO THE CORNER OF OUR BUILDING THAT IS VISIBLE FROM THE STREET. SO I WOULD ASK THAT THE COMMISSION NOT ALLOW THAT TO BE THE CHAIN LINK WITH THE SLATS, IF THAT'S THE DIRECTION YOU GO, THAT THE SAME MATERIAL THAT'S USED ON THE GATES, BECAUSE IT IS VISIBLE FROM THE STREET, BE CONTINUED BACK TO THE CORNER OF OUR BUILDING. BUT OVERALL, I APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT BRANDON'S DONE. ON TRYING TO COME UP WITH A GOOD PLAN. I PERSONALLY THINK THAT THE LOOK THAT HE'S PROPOSED LOOKS SHARP AND LOOKS NICE AND MORE KIND OF UP TO DATE. SO I'M THAT'S KIND OF MY $0.02. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE UP TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM. OKAY. WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THIS PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION FOR COMMENTS AND OR MOTIONS. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON. YEAH, I'LL JUST I'LL START US OFF. AND IT IS AN INTERESTING ISSUE WHERE THE OPAQUENESS IN THE DEFINITION IS TALKED ABOUT FOR THE PROPERTY LINES, BUT OBVIOUSLY MASONRY OR SOLID METAL SUGGESTS THAT IT WOULDN'T BE SEE THROUGH ON THE PUBLIC STREET LEVEL. BUT IT'S NOT NECESSARILY WRONG, THOUGH, TO SAY THAT THAT IS A SOLID METAL FENCE. THE PROBLEM, THAT PROBLEM THAT I HAVE WITH THE PICTURES IS ONE OF THOSE FENCES.

LOOKS LOOKS PRETTY GOOD. THE BOTTOM RIGHT ONE, BUT THEN THE TOP ONE, I MEAN, THAT'S NOT AT ALL WHAT WE WOULD BE GOING FOR, YOU KNOW, SO THERE'S VARYING DEGREES OF EVEN IN THE PROPOSED FENCE OPTIONS. THERE'S VARYING DEGREES OF WHAT SEE THROUGH AND WHAT'S NOT AND HOW SEE THROUGH THEY ARE. SO THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WHY I ASKED THE QUESTION OF IS THERE ANOTHER, IS THERE ANOTHER TIME THAT THEY COULD ACTUALLY SAY, OKAY, YES, YOU CAN DO THIS SPECIFIC ONE, BUT NOT THESE OTHER ONES, BUT UNFORTUNATELY IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S NOT. SO THIS IS KIND OF

[00:40:03]

OUR ONE SHOT WHICH WHICH IS UNFORTUNATE. AND BASED ON THAT I'D PROBABLY SAY THAT UNFORTUNATELY, WE NEED TO STICK WITH THE IDEA THAT IT'S NOT SEE THROUGH AT ALL, SINCE THIS IS OUR ONLY SHOT, BECAUSE THIS BOTTOM ONE HERE THAT'S MOSTLY NOT SEE THROUGH, I LIKE IT, AND I WOULD ACTUALLY BE IN FAVOR OF THAT. BUT WHAT IF THEY WENT WITH A DIFFERENT ONE THAT'S GOT BIGGER SLATS? I WOULDN'T WANT THAT, YOU KNOW. SO THAT'S THE TROUBLE I'M HAVING. YEAH. KIND OF STUCK BETWEEN A ROCK AND A HARD PLACE. TO ME, OPAQUE MEANS YOU CAN'T SEE THROUGH IT. BUT JUST LIKE COMMISSIONER HOLLINGWORTH SAID, IF YOU'RE USING SLACKS AND A CHAIN LINK FENCE. YEAH, YOU'D HAVE TO GET RIGHT UP CLOSE TO SEE THROUGH IT. BUT I SEE THE INHERENT PROBLEM WITH THAT. SO I, I PERSONALLY. I MEAN, IF WE'RE GOING TO RULE ON THIS, I THINK WE HAVE WE CAN'T CHANGE THE, THE LAWS. SO I GUESS HOWEVER WE INTERPRET IT WOULD BE WHAT IT IS. BUT MY ONLY FEAR IS THAT NOW WE'RE GOING TO BE OPEN TO PANDORA'S BOX TO FOR THE FUTURE.

AND SO. THAT'S THAT'S MY POINT. COMMISSIONER ALAN. SO I THINK ONE THING WE PROBABLY ALL AGREE ON IS THE CODE NEEDS TO BE LOOKED AT. I'M I'M READING THE CODE RIGHT HERE. SO I THINK THERE'S TWO THINGS THAT I'M HEARING THAT ARE INCONSISTENT. THE FIRST ONE IS B1A MASONRY WALL OR SOLID METAL FENCING SHALL BE REQUIRED TO SCREEN OUTSIDE STORAGE AND OPERATION AREAS FROM PUBLIC STREETS. SO WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT THE EAST AND THE SOUTH ON THIS PARTICULAR LOT. SO LOOKING AT JUST THOSE TWO WE HAVE MASONRY WALL AND SOLID METAL FENCING.

NOW IF I GO TO MY FRIEND GOOGLE AND I LOOK UP SOLID METAL FENCING, I'M GETTING ANYTHING FROM CHAIN LINK AND WROUGHT IRON UP TO SOLID PRIVACY. THESE ARE PROBABLY PRIVACY UP HERE TOO, BUT SOLID, NO SEE THROUGH OPTIONS. SO I THINK SOLID METAL FENCING ON ITS OWN DOESN'T DO VERY WELL. PAIRING IT WITH MASONRY WALL I THINK SHOWS THE PURPOSE OR THE INTENT, BUT WE DO NEED TO ADDRESS THE LANGUAGE THERE. THE SECOND ONE IS AND THE COMMISSIONER HOLLINGSWORTH POINT B2 SAYS A CHAIN LINK FENCE WITH SLATS OR OTHER OPAQUE FENCE OR WALL SHALL BE REQUIRED ALONG SIDE AND REAR PROPERTY LINES TO SCREEN AREAS OF OUTDOOR OUTSIDE STORAGE AND OPERATIONS UP TO AND INCLUDING THE GATE. SO NOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE NORTH AND THE WEST SIDES OF THE LOT. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CHAIN LINK FENCE WITH SLATS, WHICH SOME WOULD INTERPRET AS NOT OPAQUE OR OTHER OPAQUE FENCE. SO THE THE CODE IS SAYING THE CHAIN LINK FENCE WITH SLATS IS OPAQUE. SO AGAIN WE'VE GOT KIND OF A DUELING WHICH IS WHICH. SO I THINK WE NEED TO LOOK AT THE LANGUAGE ON BOTH OF THOSE. NEVERTHELESS WE HAVE TO CONSIDER THIS WITH THE LANGUAGE BASED ON THE TIME THAT THE APPLICATION WAS SUBMITTED. AND I THINK I'M LEANING TOWARD JUST THE FACT THAT THE MASONRY WALL IS LUMPED IN WITH SOLID METAL FENCING. THE INTENTION IS FOR IT TO BE COMPLETELY SOLID. IF WE DO WANT TO LOOK AT OPTIONS THAT ALLOW SLATS OR NOT SLATS, BUT BREAKS SUCH AS ANY OF THESE, I THINK WE NEED TO GO INTO DETAIL AND SAY HOW BIG THAT BREAK CAN BE IN BETWEEN EACH TO WHERE IT'S STILL CONSIDERED SOLID. AND WITH COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, THAT I THINK I THINK EITHER OF THE OPTIONS WHEN SOMEBODY IS DRIVING BY, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO SEE ENOUGH BACK THERE FOR IT TO REALLY MATTER.

AND BOTH OF THOSE WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE TO ME IF I WERE LIVING IN THE COMMUNITY. I JUST DON'T THINK THEY MEET WITH THE CURRENT INTENTION OF THE CODE. COULD I CHIME IN THERE? I THINK YOUR DISCUSSION HAS BEEN GREAT. AND AND THAT IS PART OF THE DUAL NATURE THAT YOU HAVE AS A LAND USE AUTHORITY AND A PLANNING COMMISSION AS YOU NUMBER ONE IS THE LAND USE AUTHORITY REACT TO APPLICATIONS BASED ON THE REGULATIONS, AS YOU MENTIONED, IN EFFECT ON THE DATE OF THE APPLICATION. BUT THEN YOU ALSO CAN LOOK TO THE FUTURE AND SAY, BUT SHOULD THE RULES BE DIFFERENT IN THE FUTURE AND THEN RECOMMEND THOSE CHANGES TO THE COUNCIL? OUR.

THE OTHER THOUGHT I HAD WAS IN SECTION ONE, DASH THREE, DASH ONE, NEAR THE BEGINNING OF OUR CITY CODE, IN PARTICULAR SUBSECTION D, REGARDING UNDEFINED TERMS, SAYS THAT YOU GO TO THE MERRIAM-WEBSTER'S DICTIONARY TO DEFINE THE TERMS THAT DON'T HAVE SPECIFIC DEFINITIONS IN THE CODE ITSELF. AND THE DICTIONARY DOES DEFINE OPAQUE AS NOT ABLE TO BE SEEN THROUGH NOT TRANSPARENT, WHICH IS PRETTY MUCH THE DISCUSSION YOU'VE HAD. THAT'S THE CODE

[00:45:01]

THAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW, AND THAT'S HOW WE'RE SUPPOSED TO. THOSE ARE THE DEFINITIONS WE HAVE. AND A LOT OF TIMES WITH APPLICATIONS IT IS UNFORTUNATE. AND MAYBE THERE IS SOME THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT MAYBE DON'T SEEM TO MAKE SENSE, BUT THEY ARE WHAT THEY ARE UNTIL THEY'RE AMENDED AND CHANGED. RIGHT. SO. DID COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, JUST BRIEFLY ON ON THE ISSUE OF THE FENCE, I NOTICED THAT IN THE MOTION, WE'RE NOT ACTUALLY BEING ASKED TO DISCUSS THE FENCE IN THE MOTION AT ALL. IT'S NOT ONE OF THE FOUR ITEMS FOR THE CONDITIONAL CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS OF APPROVAL. IT'S NOT ONE OF THEM. AND SO. MAYBE A QUESTION TO STAFF, MAYBE A QUESTION TO DUNCAN. WHY ARE WE TALKING ABOUT THIS FENCE RIGHT NOW, SINCE IT'S NOT GOING TO BE ONE OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL? WELL, I THINK IT IS HELPFUL TO GO THROUGH THOSE ISSUES SO THAT ONCE YOU KNOW, ASSUMING THIS IS APPROVED, THEN AT LEAST THERE'S AN UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THE CODE SAYS AND WHAT THE APPLICANT CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH. RIGHT. AND EVEN THOUGH, AS LARRY MENTIONED, THAT HE'S THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR AND HAS THE AUTHORITY IF AND WHEN ASKED AND IF AND WHEN HE DECIDES TO TO MAKE A A ZONING DETERMINATION, I STILL THINK IT'S HELPFUL FOR HIM AND OTHER STAFF TO HEAR FROM YOU AS THE PLANNING COMMISSION, HOW IT IS THAT YOU DEFINE AND THINK ABOUT THOSE ISSUES. THAT GIVES STAFF BETTER PERSPECTIVE ON HOW TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE APPLICATION.

SO I STILL THINK IT'S GERMANE AND HELPFUL TO DO THAT, EVEN THOUGH, AS YOU MENTIONED, IT MAY NOT NECESSARILY CHANGE HOW YOU MAKE THE MOTION AND WHAT THE CONDITIONS ARE. YEAH, I AGREE THAT THAT IT'S USEFUL TO HAVE THESE CONVERSATIONS, BUT YOU'RE CORRECT THAT WITH THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS, WE'RE LOOKING AT CONDITIONS THAT CAN MITIGATE ANY DETRIMENTAL EFFECTS THAT THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT. AND THAT'S BEYOND WHAT'S IN THE CODE. SO THAT'S WHY IT'S NOT INCLUDED IN IN ANY OF THE PROPOSED CONDITIONS. COMMISSIONER ALLEN, DID YOU WANT TO. JUST I WITH WHAT DUNCAN SAID, I ABSOLUTELY AGREE. WE. IT WILL DETRACT FROM THE REST OF THE DISCUSSION. BUT I DO THINK THAT WE PROBABLY OUGHT TO HAVE IN ONE OF OUR OPENING OR WORK SESSIONS, FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS, THAT WE CAN THEN GET SOME RED LINES ON THIS PARTICULAR PART OF THE CODE, AND THEN MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE THE CITY COUNCIL TO MAKE SOME CHANGES. BUT THE IN PARTICULAR, YOU BROUGHT UP THE DEFINITION OF OPAQUE AND OPAQUE IS ONLY USED IN THIS CASE WOULD BE FOR THE NORTH FENCE AND THE WEST FENCE, NOT FOR THE ONES OFF OF THE ROAD. WHAT THEY'RE USING OR THOSE ONES ARE ARE THE MASONRY OR THE SOLID METAL. AND I THINK IF ALL IT SAID WAS SOLID METAL, I WOULD 100% APPROVE THESE OPTIONS. BUT THE FACT THAT IT SAYS MASONRY ALSO SUGGESTS TO ME THAT IT IS INTENDED TO BE COMPLETELY NOT SEE THROUGH IF WE WANT TO OPEN IT UP. SO IT DOES PERMIT THESE KINDS OF OPTIONS, AND WE ALLOW A CERTAIN DISTANCE BETWEEN. SO IF YOU HAVE A SLAB THAT'S THREE INCHES, YOU CAN HAVE A QUARTER INCH GAP IN BETWEEN. GREAT. BUT WE NEED TO PUT THAT INTO THE CODE SOMEHOW. AS IT STANDS RIGHT NOW, I THINK THE ANSWER IS WE DO NEED TO PUT IN A SOLID. I WOULD CONCUR WITH THAT TOO, BECAUSE THAT'S OPAQUE MEANS NOT SEE THROUGH. SO IF WE WERE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT, IT'S NOT NECESSARILY A CONDITION OF APPROVAL BECAUSE IT'S PART OF THE CODE THAT'S REQUIREMENT.

THIS CONVERSATION WOULD DOCUMENT. THAT IS THE INTERPRETATION. BUT I THINK IF WE START MOVING THROUGH THAT PROCESS AND WE GET IT THROUGH, AND THE CITY COUNCIL TAKES A LOOK AT IT, THAT COULD OPEN UP THINGS IN 2 OR 3 MONTHS FOR. NO, NOT AT ALL. HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL WOULD SEE SOMETHING LIKE THAT? WELL, WE DON'T SET THE COUNCIL'S AGENDA, BUT WE WE IF THE COMMISSIONERS FORWARDED A MOTION TO LOOK AT THIS AND AGAIN, WE WOULD NEED TO WORDSMITH IT AND BRING IT BACK AND HEY, DOES THIS FEEL OKAY? IT MIGHT GET TO THEM FOR FIRST READING OR FIRST CONSIDERATION IN 2 OR 3 MONTHS. NOT THAT THE CODE WOULD BE CHANGED IT. YEAH. SO HOW WOULD THAT APPLY TO THE APPLICANT IN THIS SITUATION? CODE ENFORCEMENT CAME BY. NOW WE'RE COMING IN FOR THIS THIS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. WHAT

[00:50:05]

I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IS IS THERE ENOUGH TIMING WHERE HE COULD MOVE FORWARD WITH MAYBE MOST OF THIS, BUT MAYBE HE'S NOT PUTTING IN THE GATES JUST YET UNTIL AFTER IT'S GONE THROUGH AND HAD THAT CONVERSATION. CODE ENFORCEMENT WOULD ENFORCE WHAT IS ON THE BOOKS. THAT'S KIND OF WHAT I THOUGHT IS NOT, WELL, MAYBE IF WE CAN'T ANTICIPATE WHAT THE COUNCIL IS GOING TO DO, RIGHT. SO THEY ENFORCE THE LAW AS IT SITS TODAY. CAN I THROW OUT MY I DON'T LIKE CHANGING CODE FOR ONE PERSON. WE'VE BEEN DOING THIS FOR 20 SOME YEARS.

HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE HAVE FOLLOWED THIS RULE. I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED. SO THAT'S YOU KNOW, I COULD GO BACK AND RESEARCH PROBABLY THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S THAT RECOMMENDED WHAT THE CITY COUNCIL PASSED 25 YEARS AGO, AND I CAN TELL YOU WHAT THEIR INTENT WAS. SO THINGS AREN'T SEEN FROM THE STREET. SO BUT I GET A LITTLE CONCERNED THAT WE CHANGE IT, YOU KNOW, THIS LATE IN THE GAME WHEN WE'VE WE'RE STILL REQUIRING PEOPLE TO DO IT. SO AND I DON'T THINK I GUESS I'M NOT LOOKING AT NECESSARILY AS A CHANGE SO MUCH AS A CLARIFICATION IN INTENTION. AND I IF YOU LOOK AT SOME OF THESE, ESPECIALLY THE ONES WITH THE THE SLATS GOING HORIZONTALLY, SOMEBODY DRIVING BY ISN'T GOING TO BE ABLE TO SEE SUBSTANTIALLY INTO THE PROPERTY. I THINK IT'S STILL PERSONALLY, I THINK IT'S STILL SCREENS. SO I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT WE TELL THE CITY COUNCIL OR SUGGEST THE CITY COUNCIL TO SUDDENLY START ALLOWING SOMETHING WE WOULDN'T. BUT I DO THINK WE NEED TO GO IN AND TALK ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SOLID AND OPAQUE WITHIN EACH OF THOSE TWO DEFINITIONS.

COMMISSIONER HOLLINGSWORTH. OKAY, SO I KNOW I OPENED UP THE CAN OF WORMS HERE, AND I'M SORRY. I THINK WHEN WE ARE THINKING ABOUT THIS SITUATION. A LAW THAT WAS WRITTEN, ORDINANCE THAT WAS WRITTEN 25 YEARS AGO WAS BASED UPON THE TECHNOLOGY AVAILABLE AT THE TIME, AND THEY WROTE IT SPECIFICALLY FOR THAT TYPE OF TECHNOLOGY. WELL, TECHNOLOGY HAS CHANGED AND TASTES HAVE CHANGED. AND, YOU KNOW, OFFERINGS THAT ARE COMING FROM COMPANIES VERY DIFFERENTLY FROM CHAIN LINK FENCE WITH SLATS TO METAL FENCE THAT'S SUBSTANTIAL, MADE OUT OF SLATS. ACHIEVES THE SAME EFFECT. BUT THE LAW OR THE ORDINANCE IS WRITTEN IN SUCH A WAY THAT WE CAN'T EVEN CONSIDER THIS. THEN I THINK WE NEED TO CONSIDER MAYBE WE NEED TO REVISIT THIS A LITTLE BIT AND UPDATE IT TO THE CURRENT METHODS TECHNOLOGIES THAT WE HAVE AVAILABLE TODAY. SO I THINK. THERE'S KIND OF TWO THINGS THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT EITHER STAFF TO LOOK AT A POTENTIAL CODE AMENDMENT OR HAVING LARRY DO A DETERMINATION, BOTH OF WHICH WOULDN'T HAPPEN TONIGHT. SO I THINK THEY COULD MAKE A MOTION TO HAVE EITHER OF THOSE THINGS HAPPEN. AND THEN, OF COURSE, MAKE A DECISION ON THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION WITH THE CODE THAT WE HAVE. YEAH, THOSE PROCEDURAL MOTIONS WOULD DEFINITELY BE IN ORDER.

IN ADDITION TO YOUR REGULAR MOTION ACTING ON THIS APPLICATION. COMMISSIONER AKER, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR THE APPLICANT AND THE PUBLIC AS WELL. I AGREE WITH EVERYBODY ON THAT LOWER RIGHT, EVEN IF IT WAS A LITTLE LESS GAP IN THERE, I IT IS MORE PLEASING THAN A CHAIN LINK FENCE WITH SLATS. BUT I DO THINK WE OWE THE APPLICANT AND THE CITY TIME TO MAKE IT RIGHT. HOWEVER THAT WILL LOOK. COMMISSIONER ALLEN. SO THE CRAZY THING IS, THINKING THROUGH THE PROCESS, WE'RE HERE FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, WHICH WE'RE ADDING CONDITIONS.

THERE ARE FOUR OF THEM. I ABSOLUTELY AGREE WITH WHAT MEGAN'S PUT TOGETHER ON THAT.

REQUIRING A SOLID METAL FENCE OR ALLOWING SLAT. THAT'S NOT PART OF THE CONDITIONS. THAT'S JUST PART OF THE CODE. AND SO THE MORE I'M THINKING ABOUT THIS, IT'S MORE OF JUST MOVE FORWARD. IF WE AGREE WITH THE CONDITIONS, WE GRANT THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, BUT THEN IT DOES GO BACK TO THE CITY TO IDENTIFY AND AND STRUCTURE THIS. AND THEN SEPARATELY, I THINK WE DO NEED TO HAVE STAFF LOOK AT THE CODE ITSELF AND CONFIRM WHAT WHAT

[00:55:05]

THE MEANINGS ARE. MY FEAR THOUGH IS IF WE APPROVE IT TONIGHT, IT STILL LEAVES THINGS IN THE OPEN. AND SO WHATEVER HE CHOOSES TO DO COULD CHANGE LATER ON AND OR BE INTERPRETED BY THE CODE ENFORCEMENT. AND HE COULD SPEND A LOT OF MONEY AND STILL GET THE CITATION. AND SO I PERSONALLY WOULD LIKE TO AVOID THAT. ANY IDEAS WITH HIM? WELL, NO, I DON'T I, I KNOW WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. AND THIS BODY OBVIOUSLY IS NOT ABLE TO CHANGE CODE THAT IS NOT IN OUR PURVIEW. AND SO I THINK WE HAVE TO KIND OF GO WITH WHAT IS PRESENTED TODAY WITH AN UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS THIS RULE IS NOT PERFECT. AND, I MEAN, HE STILL HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAL AND GO TO THE LAND USE AUTHORITY OR GO TO THE CITY COUNCIL. AND, AND. ASK THEM FOR A CHANGE OR WHATEVER. I JUST THERE'S TWO THINGS IN I WORRY ABOUT. WE'RE KIND OF GOING DOWN A RABBIT HOLE AND, AND I DON'T WANT TO DO THAT, BUT YET I WANT TO DO WHAT'S ALSO FAIR. AND SO I WISH I DID HAVE A AN OUT. IF I DID, I'D BE THE FIRST ONE TO SAY, YEAH, LET'S DO IT, BUT I DON'T. AND SO I'M, I'M JUST SAYING MY $0.02 WORTH. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY ANY, ANY DISCUSSION THAT WE'VE HAD TONIGHT AMONGST OURSELVES REGARDING WHICH FENCE WE LIKE AND WHICH FENCE WE MIGHT APPROVE. THAT'S PURELY GUIDANCE ONLY. NONE OF THAT MAKES IT INTO A MOTION FOR APPROVAL TONIGHT. SO WE'RE NOT WE'RE NOT TELLING THE APPLICANT, NOR ARE WE TELLING STAFF THAT THIS PARTICULAR FENCE IS APPROVED. SO THAT'S NOT EVEN ON THE TABLE FOR TONIGHT. SO WE CAN APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND LET HIM GET GO FORWARD. AND THEN HE'S JUST WORKING IT OUT WITH CITY AND CODE ENFORCEMENT ON WHETHER HIS FENCE MAKES IT OR NOT. AND I THINK WHAT WE'RE TELLING IS, AS OF TONIGHT, YOU'RE PROBABLY STUCK WITH THE OPAQUE, EVEN THOUGH THAT WORD IS NOT IN FOR THAT PARTICULAR FENCE. YOU'RE STUCK WITH THE FACT THAT IT'S A NON SEE THROUGH FENCE. AND IF YOU WANT TO WAIT, YOU KNOW, SIX MONTHS, MAYBE THE CITY COUNCIL WILL CHANGE THAT. BUT IF YOU WANT TO GO FORWARD TONIGHT WITH YOUR BUSINESS PLAN, THEN YOU'RE STUCK WITH A NON SEE THROUGH FENCE. I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT. COMMISSIONER HOLLINGSWORTH. IF THERE'S NO OTHER COMMENTS DISCUSSION THEN I THINK WE NEED TO GO FORWARD WITH EMOTION AND NOT THINKING TO MAKE THE MOTION GO AHEAD. OKAY. BASED UPON THE INFORMATION AND FINDINGS SET FORTH IN THE STAFF REPORT AND UPON THE EVIDENCE AND EXPLANATIONS RECEIVED TODAY, I MOVE THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OUTDOOR STORAGE AND OPERATIONS, LOCATED AT 7880 SOUTH 3300 WEST, IN A C DASH M ZONE. SUBJECT TO ALL THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.

THAT'S 1300 WEST, NOT 33 1300. EXCUSE ME. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT'S THE CORRECT ADDRESS.

YEAH. SORRY, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, I SECOND THAT MOTION. OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. I WOULD JUST LIKE TO STATE ON THE RECORD BEFORE WE DO OUR VOTE THAT. I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE EVEN PUT A CAVEAT THAT WE APPROVE THE MOTION. HOWEVER, WE'RE NOT APPROVING THE FENCE JUST SO THAT WE'RE CLEAR. AGREED? AGREED. EVERYBODY OKAY, THEN LET'S GO AHEAD AND MAKE THAT MOTION WITH THAT CAVEAT. AND WE HAVE A MOTION AND WE HAVE A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED OKAY. THAT CARRIES SIX. NOTHING. THANK YOU. DO WE NEED TO DO A SEPARATE MOTION FOR HAVING FOLKS LOOK OR HAVE WE GIVEN ENOUGH DIRECTION. YEAH. YOU COULD DO A PROCEDURAL MOTION TO DIRECT STAFF TO BRING BACK A SOME POSSIBLE RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO THAT CODE SECTION. CAN I MOVE THAT? YEAH. OKAY. I JUST MOVED THAT. I'LL SECOND THAT. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR. AYE. ANY OPPOSED. SO WHAT EXACTLY AM I BRINGING BACK.

DO YOU WANT A BETTER DEFINE. DO YOU WANT TO CHANGE CLARIFICATION. SO TO GO BACK

[01:00:04]

AND ADDRESS SECTION B ONE AND TWO REGARDING THE DIFFERENCE ON THE THE SOLID ON ONE AND THE OPAQUE ON TWO. JUST TO BETTER DEFINE WHAT WAS INTENDED WHEN THAT OCCURRED OKAY. I WOULD ADD THAT AS LONG AS YOU'RE LOOKING AT IT, I WOULD NOT BE OPPOSED TO SEEING SOME SORT OF MODIFICATION. FOR EXAMPLE, IF WE WANTED TO ALLOW SOLID TO MEAN OF ONE CONSISTENT MATERIAL, BUT STILL HAS SOME SORT OF, YOU KNOW, SEE THROUGH NESS, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'D SAY IT'S 90% OPAQUE AND 10% SEE THROUGH MIGHT BE OKAY OR SOMETHING. BUT AS WE LOOKED AT THOSE FENCE OPTIONS THAT WERE ON THE SCREEN, WE WE ACTUALLY LIKED THEM. SO WE'RE NOT NECESSARILY OPPOSED TO HAVING SOME SORT OF, YOU KNOW, AIR GOING THROUGH THESE FENCES. MAYBE IT'S MAYBE IT'S EVEN BETTER FOR OUR CONDITIONS THAT THAT WIND DOESN'T KNOCK THEM DOWN AND THINGS. SO I'M NOT OPPOSED TO SEEING A CHANGE. COMMISSIONER AKER, I ALSO THINK TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION WHAT THE NEIGHBOR SAID AND THE APPLICANT SAID WITH THE NEW MATERIALS THAT ARE OUT THERE AND AROUND, THEY MAY BE ABLE TO BE INCORPORATED INTO SOMETHING THAT MIGHT BE GOOD. SORRY. ANY OTHER MOTIONS OR COMMENTS OR BEFORE WE MOVE ON. OKAY. NEXT IS PUBLIC HEARINGS WITH

[a. Text Amendment – Interchange Overlay Zone Map; Recommendation to the City Council to amend West Jordan City Code Title 13, Chapter 6, Article K, adding new Area D to the IOZ map and making associated technical revisions/clarifications; City-wide applicability; The City of West Jordan (applicant) [Mark Forsythe; #35132]]