Planning Commission

PROVO CITY CORPORATION DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2025 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION The Provo City Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on March 12, 2025 at 6:00 PM. Located at: Council Chambers 445 West Center Street. The items listed below will be discussed, and anyone interested is invited to participate and provide comment. Hearings can be viewed live and on-demand at: YouTube youtube.com/user/ProvoChannel17 and on Facebook facebook.com/provochannel17. NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING BEFORE PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL On Tuesday, April 8, 2025 at 5:30 PM. the Provo Municipal Council will consider the items noted below with a star (*). Items noted on the agendas with a star require legislative action by the Municipal Council. Council agendas can be viewed at the Provo City Council web site on the Thursday prior to the Council meeting at http://agendas.provo.gov. For more information, call (801) 852-6120. Unmarked items are administrative and require the approval only of the Planning Commission. Decisions on the unmarked items may be appealed to the Board of Adjustment by making application by 6:00 PM. within 14 days of the Planning Commission decision. Study Session 1. Title 14 rewrite update discussion – Aaron Ardmore Public Hearings Item 1 Spencer Hymas requests Project Plan approval for a new Walmart Supercenter and fuel center in the FC3 (Freeway Commercial Three) Zone, located at approximately 1957 South 500 West. Lakewood Neighborhood. Aaron Ardmore (801) 852-6404 aardmore@provo.gov PLPPA20250068 * Item 2 Eric Yergensen requests a Zone Map Amendment from the A1.10 (Agricultural) Zone to the AI (Airport Industrial) Zone, in order to move forward with plans for flex/industrial space, located approximately at 3420 West Center Street. Fort Utah Neighborhood. Aaron Ardmore (801) 852-6404 aardmore@provo.gov PLRZ20240374 Item 3 Eric Yergensen requests Concept Plan approval for a new flex/industrial campus in a proposed AI (Airport Industrial) Zone, locates approximately 3420 West Center Street. Fort Utah Neighborhood. Aaron Ardmore (801) 852-6404 aardmore@provo.gov PLCP20240375 Preceding the public hearing, there will be a Study Session at 5:00 PM. at the Provo Peak Conference Room, 445 W Center Street. The Study Session is open to the public; however, formal presentation of items, public comment and actions will be reserved for the public hearing at 6:00 PM. To send public comments to Planning Commission members, email them at dspublichearings@provo.gov. Additional information can be found at provo.gov/publiccomments. Copies of the agenda materials, public hearing procedure, and staff recommendations are available the week of the hearing at a reasonable cost at 445 W Center Street, Suite 200, Provo between the hours of 7:00 AM. and 6:00 PM., Monday through Thursday. Agendas and staff recommendations are also generally available on the Provo City Development Services website the week of the meeting at provo.gov/planningcommission. Published Agenda : [NOT AVAILABLE]  PROVO CITY CORPORATION DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning Commission Agenda March 12, 2025 Provo City will make reasonable accommodations for all citizens interested in participating in this meeting. If assistance is needed to allow participation at this meeting, please call the Development Services Department at (801) 852-6400 before 12:00 PM. the day before the meeting to make arrangements. By order of the Provo City Planning Commission Planning Secretary, (801) 852-6424 [QR CODE] Published Agenda : [NOT AVAILABLE]  Planning Commission Hearing Staff Report Hearing Date: March 12, 2025 ITEM 1 Spencer Hymas requests Project Plan approval for a new Walmart Supercenter and fuel center in the FC3 (Freeway Commercial Three) Zone, located at approximately 1957 South 500 West. Lakewood Neighborhood. Aaron Ardmore (801) 852-6404 aardmore@provo.gov PLPPA20250068 Applicant: Spencer Hymas Current Legal Use: This is a vacant property in the FC3 Zone (proposed uses are permitted Staff Coordinator: Aaron Ardmore uses in the FC3 Zone). Property Owner: SOUTH POINT Relevant History: The applicant has been DEVELOPMENT LLC working with staff on an initial review of the project plan for a supercenter and fuel station. Parcel ID: 21:051:0062 Review comments were sent to the applicant in March 2025 and the applicant will continue Acreage: 19.80 to work with staff to address corrections. Number of Lots: 1 Neighborhood Issues: This item has not been discussed at a Neighborhood District meeting and staff have not received any feedback at the time this report was written. Summary of Key Issues: • Retail, grocery, and fuel service stations are all permitted uses in the FC3 Zone. • The applicant has staff corrections to address with the Coordinator Review Committee (CRC) before any permits can be obtained. • The proposal would bring a 176,000 ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS square foot retail center and grocery store 1. Continue to a future date to obtain to the west side of I-15. additional information or to further • The proposal also includes a 12-pump fuel consider information presented. The station and 1,600 square foot fuel kiosk. next available meeting date is March 26, 2025, 6:00 P.M. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the 2. Deny the requested project plan. This proposed project plan, with the following action would not be consistent with the conditions: recommendations of the Staff Report. 1. That the remaining CRC comments are The Planning Commission should state addressed prior to permits; new findings. 2. That a final subdivision is recorded, and; 3. That the Planning Commission approves the parking reduction request. Planning Commission Staff Report Item 1 March 12, 2025 Page 2 OVERVIEW The proposal for a Walmart Supercenter and fuel center along Lakeview Parkway, west of I-15, is being brough forward by Spencer Hymas and South Point Development. This proposal includes a 176,000 square foot retail center, with a drive-thru pharmacy and grocery; and a fuel station fronting Lakeview Parkway. The applicant has been working with the Provo City administration for some time to develop these plans in helping to meet the city goal of providing a west-side grocery store. Official application for this project was submitted on February 11 th, 2025. Department staff have been communicating with the applicant team on specific studies, standards, and requirements for this to move forward since that time; and an official CRC review was sent in the first week of March. There are some additional traffic studies that need to be seen to completion to understand impacts on nearby roadways and any improvements that would be required due to this project. The portion of this property that will be used for the Walmart project is approximately twenty (20) acres of the total thirty-six (36) acre parcel. Subsequent to the Planning Commission decision and CRC approval, the applicant will need to submit a final subdivision to record with the County. The remaining sixteen (16) acres are anticipated to be developed under future applications, which will come before the Planning Commission and City Council. The Walmart will face Lakeview Parkway, setback from the road with landscaping, parking, and the fuel center placed between the supercenter and the parkway. The parking lot provides for 50% tree shade coverage (at tree maturity) and currently shows 791 parking spaces. The applicant has provided a parking justification study to support the reduction request from the code standard of 880 spaces to the proposed 791 (a reduction of 89 stalls). Staff are comfortable with the proposal for reduced parking, acknowledging the justification study and the experience of the Walmart Corporation in always providing sufficient parking for their stores. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The proposal is in the FC3 Zone (Chapter 14.20C, Provo City Code). 2. The proposed uses are permitted in the FC3 Zone (Section 14.20C.020). 3. The required parking for the combined uses is 880 parking spaces. 4. The proposed parking for the site is 791 parking spaces (justification study provided). CONCLUSIONS It is a major goal of both the General Plan and of the current Administration, to get commercial uses, and specifically a grocery store, to the west side of Provo. Getting this project at this location is why the FC3 Zone was created and adopted for this site. Careful attention has been paid to the design, colors, and layout of this proposal as the Planning Commission Staff Report Item 1 March 12, 2025 Page 3 applicant has met with city representatives. Staff will continue to work with the applicants to resolve CRC comments for standard code requirements, and on subsequent applications to ensure that this is a project the city can be proud of. Staff are confident that these standards will be met and are asking the Planning Commission to approve this proposal with the stated conditions. ATTACHMENTS 1. Aerial Map 2. Property Photos 3. Site Plan 4. Landscape Plan 5. Elevations 6. Parking Justification Planning Commission Staff Report Item 1 March 12, 2025 Page 4 ATTACHMENT 1 – AERIAL MAP Planning Commission Staff Report Item 1 March 12, 2025 Page 5 ATTACHMENT 2 – PROPERTY PHOTOS Current View from I-15 Rendering of building on site Planning Commission Staff Report Item 1 March 12, 2025 Page 6 ATTACHMENT 3 – SITE PLAN Planning Commission Staff Report Item 1 March 12, 2025 Page 7 ATTACHMENT 4 – LANDSCAPE PLAN Planning Commission Staff Report Item 1 March 12, 2025 Page 8 ATTACHMENT 5 – ELEVATIONS Planning Commission Staff Report Item 1 March 12, 2025 Page 9 Planning Commission Staff Report Item 1 March 12, 2025 Page 10 ATTACHMENT 6 – PARKING JUSTIFICATION Planning Commission Staff Report Item 1 March 12, 2025 Page 11 Planning Commission Staff Report Item 1 March 12, 2025 Page 12  Planning Commission Hearing Staff Report Hearing Date: March 12, 2025 *ITEM 2 Eric Yergensen requests a Zone Map Amendment from the A1.10 (Agricultural) Zone to the AI (Airport Industrial) Zone, in order to move forward with plans for flex/industrial space, located approximately at 3420 West Center Street. Fort Utah Neighborhood. Aaron Ardmore (801) 852-6404 aardmore@provo.gov PLRZ20240374 Applicant: Eric Yergensen Current Legal Use: There are three properties in this request; one has a single-family home, one is an Staff Coordinator: Aaron Ardmore empty agricultural lot, and the third is a vacant city- owned parcel. Property Owners: PROVO CITY Relevant History: These properties were included in CORPORATION; KIRKLAND FAMILY the previous actions: INVESTMENT LLC (ET AL); • General Plan amendment in December HALLADAY APARTMENTS LLC 2022 to move from residential use to the airport related designation. Parcel IDs#: 21:029:0015; 21:029:0077; • An identical rezone request in 2023 21:029:0100 (PLRZ20220089 - different applicant) was approved by the City Council, pending the recording of a development agreement. This Acreage: 13 request expired in 2024 after no development agreement was brought forward. Number of Properties: 3 Neighborhood Issues: This item was presented at the February 19th District 3 meeting, with the following concerns: • Concerns of proximity to the Provo River • Moving from agricultural use to industrial use • More public input needed on these requests Summary of Key Issues: • Request follows the General Plan • Plan combines with property to the west to ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS provide over 580,000 square feet of new 1. Continue to a future date to obtain flex/industrial/warehouse space near the additional information or to further airport. consider information presented. The • Will allow public access to river amenities. next available meeting date is March 26th, 2025 at 6:00 P.M. Staff Recommendation: Recommend approval of the zone map amendment, with the following 2. Recommend Denial of the requested conditions: 1. That a Development Agreement is recorded to zone map amendment. This action guarantee proffers made by the developer would not be consistent with the regarding amenities against the river with recommendations of the Staff Report. public access easements, The Planning Commission should state 2. That the City Council approves a surplus and new findings. sale of parcel 21:029:007, and 3. That the developer completes purchase of a portion of the above surplus property. Planning Commission Staff Report *Item 2 March 12, 2025 Page 2 OVERVIEW Eric Yergensen is requesting a zone map amendment for approximately thirteen acres of land near 3410 West Center Street, to go from the A1.10 zone to the AI zone. This request is being made to match the zone to the west to be able to create a flex/industrial campus over a total of thirty-eight acres. A nearly identical rezone request was approved in 2023, but for that applicant not recording the development agreement, this would already be zoned AI. Staff have attached that report of action for reference. The concept for this area shows three large warehouses, one to two-stories in height, totaling approximately 581,000 square feet of new flex space. These buildings and associated parking lots will be buffered on all sides with a public trail and increased public amenities against the river. The land is bordered by the river to the north (with unincorporated Utah County on the other side), Lakeview Parkway to the east (with single-family residential zoning on the other side), and Center Street to the south (with agricultural zoned land on the other side). The General Plan calls for airport related activities on the subject properties and for those across Center Street, to the south. STAFF ANALYSIS The General Plan map for this property was changed from residential to the airport related designation in 2022, with a zone change and project similar to this request expected to follow. Justifications from that amendment would hold true for this proposed zone change, with its proximity to the airport, major roadways, and access to I-15. Section 14.02.020, Provo City Code, provides specific criteria for staff to show how this request aligns with the General Plan, as follows: (staff responses in bold) Before recommending an amendment to this Title, the Planning Commission shall determine whether such amendment is in the interest of the public, and is consistent with the goals and policies of the Provo City General Plan. The following guidelines shall be used to determine consistency with the General Plan: (a) Public purpose for the amendment in question. Staff Response: The applicant states “This rezone request is intended to support the continued economic development and job creation in the area, specifically surrounding the Provo Airport. The transformation of these parcels into industrial and warehouse spaces will bring significant benefits to Utah County while also supporting the growth of Provo and the Provo Airport.” Staff agree with the above purposes and in aligning the zone with the General Plan due to surrounding uses and the airport. Staff also believe Planning Commission Staff Report *Item 2 March 12, 2025 Page 3 that there are strong economic development purposes for the amendment in question. (b) Confirmation that the public purpose is best served by the amendment in question. Staff Response: Staff believe that the proposed AI Zone is the best way to achieve the above purposes, and that new warehouse and office spaces near the airport will help fulfill these purposes. (c) Compatibility of the proposed amendment with General Plan policies, goals, and objectives. Staff Response: The proposed amendment is compatible with goals in Chapter 5 of the General Plan to “encourage growth around the Provo Municipal Airport and facilitate development where appropriate.” Additionally, the amenities offered in the concept plan with this rezone help to “increase opportunities for recreation through development of passive spaces…” as stated in Chapter 8. (d) Consistency of the proposed amendment with the General Plan’s “timing and sequencing” provisions on changes of use, insofar as they are articulated. Staff Response: The timing of this request comes somewhat ahead of available infrastructure connections for the site. However, those elements are addressed by Public Works in an existing agreement on the property and should be in any future agreements. (e) Potential of the proposed amendment to hinder or obstruct attainment of the General Plan’s articulated policies. Staff Response: Staff believe that finding the best use for this land is important to meeting the policies and goals of the General Plan. Since there could be negative impacts with residential development here, and there is growth in the market for flex warehouse space; there should be no obstruction of reaching the General Plan’s articulated policies with this request. (f) Adverse impacts on adjacent landowners. Staff Response: The amount of traffic associated with the proposed zone is much lower than it would be if it remained residential, so there should not be an adverse impact regarding daily vehicle trips in the area. Additionally, Planning Commission Staff Report *Item 2 March 12, 2025 Page 4 the landscape buffers required by code should prevent any other adverse impacts. (g) Verification of correctness in the original zoning or General Plan for the area in question. Staff Response: Staff have verified the zoning and General Plan designations are correct. (h) In cases where a conflict arises between the General Plan Map and General Plan Policies, precedence shall be given to the Plan Policies. Staff Response: No conflict exists. CONCLUSIONS Staff are in support of this zone map amendment request. The property is very isolated from any conflicting future land uses and the plan provides appropriate buffers from the street and river. This property is appropriate for the AI Zone, as indicated by the General Plan designation of AR (Airport Related). The associated concept plan does well to keep access to the Provo River open and improved through this site, and the project should bring additional economic value to the city. ATTACHMENTS 1. Aerial Map 2. Zone Map 3. General Plan Map 4. Concept Site Plan 5. PLRZ20220089 Report of Action Planning Commission Staff Report *Item 2 March 12, 2025 Page 5 ATTACHMENT 1 – AERIAL MAP Planning Commission Staff Report *Item 2 March 12, 2025 Page 6 ATTACHMENT 2 – ZONE MAP AI Planning Commission Staff Report *Item 2 March 12, 2025 Page 7 ATTACHMENT 3 – GENERAL PLAN MAP Agricultural Residential Airport Related Planning Commission Staff Report *Item 2 March 12, 2025 Page 8 ATTACHMENT 4 – CONCEPT SITE PLAN Planning Commission Staff Report *Item 2 March 12, 2025 Page 9 ATTACHMENT 5 – PLRZ20220089 REPORT OF ACTION Planning Commission Staff Report *Item 2 March 12, 2025 Page 10 Planning Commission Staff Report *Item 2 March 12, 2025 Page 11  Planning Commission Hearing Staff Report Hearing Date: March 12, 2025 ITEM 3 Eric Yergensen requests Concept Plan approval for a new flex/industrial campus in a proposed AI (Airport Industrial) Zone, locates approximately 3420 West Center Street. Fort Utah Neighborhood. Aaron Ardmore (801) 852-6404 aardmore@provo.gov PLCP20240375 Applicant: Eric Yergensen Current Legal Use: There are three properties in this request; one has a single-family home, Staff Coordinator: Aaron Ardmore one is an empty agricultural lot, and the third is a vacant city-owned parcel. Property Owners: PROVO CITY Relevant History: These properties were CORPORATION; KIRKLAND FAMILY included in the previous actions: INVESTMENT LLC (ET AL); HALLADAY • General Plan amendment in APARTMENTS LLC December 2022 to move from residential use to the airport related Parcel IDs#: 21:029:0015; 21:029:0077; designation. 21:029:0100 • A similar concept plan (PLCP20220337) was approved with a rezone request in Acreage: 13 2023 (PLRZ20220089 - different applicant). This request expired in 2024 Number of Properties: 3 after no development agreement was brought forward. Neighborhood Issues: This item was presented at the February 19th District 3 meeting, with the following concerns: • Concerns of proximity to the Provo River • Moving from agricultural use to industrial use • More public input needed on these ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS requests 1. Continue to a future date to obtain Summary of Key Issues: additional information or to further consider • Request follows the General Plan information presented. The next available • Plan combines with property to the west meeting date is March 26th, 2025 at 6:00 to provide over 580,000 square feet of P.M. new flex/industrial/warehouse space near the airport. 2. Deny the proposed concept plan. This • Will allow public access to river action would not be consistent with the amenities. recommendations of the Staff Report. The Planning Commission should state new Staff Recommendation: Recommend approval findings. of the concept plan. Planning Commission Staff Report Item 3 March 12, 2025 Page 2 OVERVIEW Eric Yergensen is requesting concept plan approval related to a zone map amendment for approximately thirteen acres of land near 3410 West Center Street. This request is being made to match the zone to the west to be able to create a flex/industrial campus over a total of thirty-eight acres. A similar concept plan and rezone request was approved in 2023, but that applicant never recorded the development agreement, so the approvals expired. Staff have attached that report of action for reference. The concept plan for this area shows three large warehouses, one to two-stories in height, totaling approximately 581,000 square feet of new flex space. These buildings and associated parking lots will be buffered on all sides with a public trail and increased public amenities against the river. Parking will need to be determined at a later date based on uses that come in with the project plans and may be accompanied by parking reduction requests to the Planning Commission at that time. Though this is only a concept plan, a parking study on expected uses has been provided and is attached to this report. In addition to future project plan applications, the owners will need to go through a final subdivision process as well; if the zone change is approved by the City Council. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The properties are currently zoned A1.10 (Chapter 14.08, Provo City Code). 2. The proposed zone is AI (Chapter 14.17D). 3. Warehouses and offices are permitted uses in the AI Zone (Section 14.17D.020). 4. Required parking for the proposed buildings could be between 967 to 1,216 spaces based on eventual uses within the buildings (Section 14.37.060), but actual numbers will be verified at project plan approval and may require a parking reduction request. 5. The concept plan shows 695 parking spaces, approximately one stall per 834 gross square feet of building. CONCLUSIONS Conceptually, this plan demonstrates what could come forward if the zone change is approved. Staff are comfortable with the uses, site, and elevations that have been provided to this point. Future subdivision and project plan applications will allow staff to verify that all AI Zone standards are met. ATTACHMENTS 1. Aerial Map 2. Concept Site Plan 3. Concept Elevations 4. Preliminary Parking Study 5. PLCP20220337 Report of Action Planning Commission Staff Report Item 3 March 12, 2025 Page 3 ATTACHMENT 1 – AERIAL MAP Planning Commission Staff Report Item 3 March 12, 2025 Page 4 ATTACHMENT 2 – CONCEPT SITE PLAN Planning Commission Staff Report Item 3 March 12, 2025 Page 5 ATTACHMENT 3 – CONCEPT ELEVATIONS Planning Commission Staff Report Item 3 March 12, 2025 Page 6 Planning Commission Staff Report Item 3 March 12, 2025 Page 7 ATTACHMENT 4 – PRELIMINARY PARKING STUDY Planning Commission Staff Report Item 3 March 12, 2025 Page 8 Planning Commission Staff Report Item 3 March 12, 2025 Page 9 Planning Commission Staff Report Item 3 March 12, 2025 Page 10 Planning Commission Staff Report Item 3 March 12, 2025 Page 11 Planning Commission Staff Report Item 3 March 12, 2025 Page 12 ATTACHMENT 6 – PLCP20220337 REPORT OF ACTION Planning Commission Staff Report Item 3 March 12, 2025 Page 13 Item 1 Community Letters Lisa Baker | March 6, 2025 Super walmart concern & Request for platt layout Hello, We just barely closed on a townhome in Osprey Townhomes and were devastated to receive the notice of a Super Walmart being dropped in our lap. This on the same week that we received a notice that our property is now being reclassified as a flood zone. What the heck?! I feel like this is so unfair to the homeowners who bought without knowing. What plans does the city have to alleviate what will amount to a drastic change of traffic, light pollution at night, homeless population, noise, crime etc. I basically just had my investment wiped out before I’ve even moved in. A Walmart brings convenience but ALWAYS lowers property values and negatively effects quality of life for adjacent subdivisions. Can you please send me the platt layout for the walmart? Thank you, Lisa Baker Abbey Bird | March 6, 2025 Walmart Super Center Provo I am absolutely devastated at this news. I know there is pretty much no fighting it. But my community on Lakewood will be greatly affected by this plan. My kids will no longer be able to go outside due to all of the traffic this will bring on that little tiny road. Absolutely devastated so I had to leave work early today crying. I hope that you seriously consider the impact this will bring to all of those new townhomes being built and the community that has been built there. My family and I will be leaving that community if this gets approved and we have nowhere to go. I know there is a hearing but seeing they already cleared the trees, I think its safe to say there is no fixing this. Absolutely absurd Brooke Barnes | March 10, 2025 New Walmart concerns from the Lakewood neighborhood Dear Planning Commission, Here is the feedback I received from my neighborhood about the new Walmart. 1. My two concerns that I can think of right now is 500 W.. ppl fly down it now, been close to several accidents by drug rehab bldg as visibility looking south isn't the best, how can that road handle the increased traffic? Also will 1100 w & Lakeview parkway get a traffic light? 2. Part of my concern is the same. Heavy traffic right there at the end of 500 W and Lakeview Parkway. Plus there are multiple residential streets entering onto 500 W. If the traffic begins to back up due to poor light timing and increased traffic, it will start to create bottlenecks and difficulties for the residents to take anything but a right hand turn onto 500 W. Also, while driving right now from the freeway exit to 500 W may feel like a long stretch, adding an additional light in between the stretch to aid with the necessary entrance off Lakeview Parkway into to the Walmart parking lot could start to cause this area to look like the 400 S area in Springville next to their Walmart, since it is so close to the freeway exit and already a heavy traffic area. There are school bus stops along that southern section of 500 W too. With the increased traffic, that poses a safety concern for the children. Not everyone stops when those red lights are on. I’ve seen this happening all over Provo. It could potentially be even worse for the children with the increased traffic right there. And then finally, with how high the water table is in the area, even with building the ground levels up, have sufficient soil tests been completed to determine that a fuel station so close to the lake wouldn’t pose a risk to the lake’s ecosystem if somehow there were a spill or a break in one of their underground tanks. 3. Just hoping the city will require aesthetics that are more pleasing than the Springville, Spanish Fork, etc locations. Look to Heber and Cedar Hills as examples of more pleasing styles. 4. This will increase the amount of traffic on Lakeview Parkway. Access to this will be very limited if the only places to pull in are on 500 West. 5. I'm concerned about the proposed entrance into Walmart and the added traffic light. I can see that backing up into the intersection to the East during heavy traffic times and causing problems. These are my facebook responses. I, personally, am excited to get a store there. Many in my area feel the same way as well, as I talk to them. Thanks! Brooke Barnes Lakewood Neighborhood Rep Noah Hume | March 12, 2025 Walmart Supercenter at Lakewood My name is Noah, I am a resident in the nearby area around the planned Walmart supercenter. I am reaching out with some concerns. I am not a fan of this proposed Walmart for a number of reasons. I think that it is one of the worst options for how to develop that land. I think the idea of creating a commercial zone there with shops is not a bad idea, but I believe Walmart and an attached fuel center will be one of the most inefficient ways to use that land, and detrimental for the citizens of Provo. One of the biggest problems with the Walmart is the parking. I'd be curious to know what percentage of the development would be used exclusively for parking. I think this is wasteful, and an inefficient use of that land. I also believe that this doesn't serve the community around it well, and will actively make this area a much worse place to live. The first problem is the flow of traffic. People entering the Walmart from the freeway would have Lakeview Parkway, but for those trying to get to it who actually live in Provo would have to use 500 West. 500 West is currently a small 2 lane road with a turning lane. It is a relatively quiet neighborhood road currently, which makes sense because it is surrounded by houses. If this Walmart is built there will be a massive demand placed on this road, which will drastically increase the noise pollution in the area and make the road much less safe for all the families and their children who live in the area. It will also likely lead to an road expansion a couple of years down the road to deal with the higher demand, which will make this neighborhood feel much less like a neighborhood and separate the east and west parts of it. I believe there are many better ways to use this land. It could be developed commercially for small businesses, and create a small area akin to Provo center street. Or it could be developed into a park, or a south Provo recreation center. I'm just spitballing here, but I think the Walmart is the most extreme and bad option for this land. South University Avenue already exists as a large business area right next to this neighborhood. It already has a large road, and lots of businesses very near to this planned development, with a Target and other stores that I think serve a similar demand as this Walmart. As a citizen who will be directly impacted by this development, I wanted to let my concerns and dissatisfaction be known. Thank you for your time. Respectfully, Noah Hume Chrissy Sorden | March 12, 2025 Concern Regarding Walmart Development and Traffic Impact on 500 W Dear Planning Commission Members, I hope this letter finds you well. I am writing as a concerned resident of Lakewood Neighborhood regarding the proposed Walmart Superstore development near our community. While I understand the economic benefits that a new retail store can bring, I would like to respectfully express my concerns about the potential impact on traffic and neighborhood safety. 500 W is currently a two-lane road with no room for expansion. This road is a key access point for our neighborhood, and with the increased traffic a Walmart would bring, I worry that it may become congested and hazardous. Additionally, many vehicles already exceed the 25 mph speed limit, making it dangerous for children, pedestrians, and cyclists in our community. Increased traffic from a high-volume store would likely worsen this issue. Further exacerbating the situation, there is also a residential development, Osprey Townhomes, just west of the proposed Walmart location. This development has only two points of entry, one of which is connected to the neighborhood heading north, but the main point of entry is 500 W. This further adds to the congestion on 500 W and at the intersection with Lakeview Parkway. The combined traffic from both the new Walmart and the Osprey Townhomes could create significant delays and safety hazards for residents, especially during peak traffic hours. Furthermore, I understand that the proposed Walmart design includes only two points of entry (technically three, with two points along 500 W). Given the expected volume of customers and delivery trucks, I do not believe this will be sufficient to prevent severe congestion in the surrounding area. A different location with better infrastructure and access points might be more suitable for this project. I humbly suggest that additional input from Provo residents and more thorough traffic research be gathered before a final decision is made regarding what should be developed on this lot. Ensuring the safety and well-being of our community should be a priority, and I believe that further analysis of the traffic impact could provide important insights. My hope is that city planners will take these concerns into consideration and explore alternative solutions that prioritize both development and the safety of our neighborhood. I appreciate your time and consideration of this matter, and I welcome any opportunity to discuss potential solutions further. Thank you for your service and for your commitment to our community. Sincerely, Chrissy Sorden Items 2-3 Community Letters Ethan Johnson | February 23, 2025 don't build warehouses!!! Provo River is the last naturally beautiful thing about this city. Please don’t ruin it by building warehouses, and if you must develop that land, please put something more beneficial. Lyssandra Harker | February 23, 2025 Regarding river front airport industrial rezoning Hello, I have been a Provo resident for roughly 12 of the last 16 years. I have been a homeowner in Provo's west side for just over 4 years. I would like to very specifically ask this planning committee to stop allowing rezoning of river front property on the west to be used for industrial and airport purposes. The city plan from 2023 had some very specific things to say about the natural resources of the only river in our city. Rezoning to allow building of industrial and warehouse spaces does not fit the city plan or the Provo River and Lakeshore plan. Those plans were painstakingly assembled, as I understand, with a lot of public feedback. I appreciate the hard work that went into it. But having a city plan that is outright ignored at the first opportunity begs the question: why do we have this plan if we don't, as a city, intend to take its advice? Why did we spend so many hours and tax dollars creating the city plan if it's not going to be honored? Forgive the poor picture quality but this comes from our city plan. A plan to "enhance the character and value of west center street; to maintain property values, to improve the image of the city, and generally promote the public's health, safety and general welfare." So my question is this: does putting airport industrial warehouse space along the river front and center street, at what will become a major intersection, achieve any of these goals? -Does it enhance the character and value of west center street? No. Absolutely not. -Does it maintain property values? It certainly doesn't boost values to have major warehouses visible from the main thoroughfare. -Does it improve the image of the city? Only if our main source of tourism draw is planning to be our beautiful warehouse space.... "welcome to Provo, you just have to see our warehouses!" -Does it promote public health, safety and general well-being? I don't know about you, but large spaces like warehouses go hand in hand with covert activity, graffiti, and loitering in all of my experiences from my life. Generally we don't think something healthy or safe is going on when people hang out around a warehouse. I would not feel safe walking alone behind one, even if there is a green space. In short, these plans to rezone prime riverfront property to airport industrial make zero sense with our city plan and should not be approved, period. I am extremely disappointed by the fact that some river front property has already been approved for such an affront to the desires of many of our citizens. I could quote several more items to support my statement, if you would like. Especially from the Provo River plan, which states that 80% of respondents frequent the Provo River trail just opposite where these giant warehouses will tear down decades old trees and ruin the natural beauty of the area for minimal benefit to the community. These plans do not make sense for our city. And worse, they are a permanent decision to steer our city in the wrong direction. Please do not approve more river warehouses. Instead, allow the property owners and developers to propose things in line with the city plan mentioned above to develop that land. Thank you for your time, Lyssandra Harker Leilani Kitz | March 11, 2025 Do Not Approve 3420 West Center Conversion to Airport Industrial Dear Planning Commission Members, I am very concerned about the request to convert 3420 West Center area from agriculture to airport industrial zoning. Do you have maps of the area that would be converted? Do you know what type of buildings would be built and what they would be used for? I’ve lived in the Lakeview community for seven years. The reason I moved here was because of the rural and agricultural feel of this area. It brings peace and serenity to an otherwise bustling Provo. I love walking the river trail everyday, and I think the agricultural aspects in conjunction with Utah Lake and Provo River make it unique! There is much land to the south of Center Street that is already zoned for airport industrial. I hope that we can have both zones without encroaching on the existing agricultural areas, and can preserve the rural and natural feel of the Lakeview community. Please do not approve this request, or the request to build warehouse-sized buildings, data centers, or power plants in this beloved agricultural area, which could negatively affect our recreation experience, the value of our homes, and potentially our health (if power plants)! Sincere regards, Leilani Kitz Melanie Consolo | March 12, 2025 Please do NOT build warehouses by the Provo River To those in charge of the warehouse development project, The Provo River is a time-honored treasure in our city that should be protected. The walkway by Lakeview Parkway and Center Street is an especially precious area that holds many memories for me and many other people in Provo. It is the location of a popular outdoor nature school for preschool children, which is specifically designed to get children away from the view of buildings and civilization and be in touch with nature. The trees along the river are designed to provide shade, prevent erosion, preserve wildlife, including our nation's symbol, the bald eagle, and keep the river healthy. The increased noise of trucks and the eyesore of warehouses along the river could also replace single-family homes and interfere with the property values of nearby residential areas. The plan to build warehouses by the Provo River is simply an all-around bad idea. I understand that the warehouses are intended to be used for the Provo airport, but can't the airport use warehouses that are built further away from the river? If that is not possible or practical, I would much rather have the Provo River be preserved than the airport be expanded. How this decision plays out will affect who I vote for in the next election as well as whether our family chooses to continue to live in and contribute to the city of Provo in the coming years. Thank you for listening. I would be interested to hear about any upcoming decisions surrounding this project. Sincerely, Melanie Consolo Paul Davis | March 12, 2025 Protect provo river Please preserve provo river delta. Do not develop into a warehouse or commercial area. This area should be preserved for future generations. It more valuable as a space to preserve nature than warehouse space that can be created anywhere  Provo City Planning Commission Report of Action March 12, 2025 ITEM 1 Spencer Hymas requests Project Plan approval for a new Walmart Supercenter and fuel center in the FC3 (Freeway Commercial Three) Zone, located at approximately 1957 South 500 West. Lakewood Neighborhood. Aaron Ardmore (801) 852-6404 aardmore@provo.gov PLPPA20250068 The following action was taken by the Planning Commission on the above described item at its regular meeting of March 12, 2025: APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS On a vote of 7:0, the Planning Commission approved the above noted application, with the following conditions: Conditions of Approval: 1. That the remaining CRC comments are addressed prior to permits, including sidewalk connections; and, 2. That a final subdivision is recorded. Motion By: Jonathon Hill Second By: Andrew South Votes in Favor of Motion: Andrew South, Melissa Kendall, Jonathon Hill, Jeff Whitlock, Lisa Jensen, Barbara DeSoto, Adam Shin Jeff Whitlock was present as Chair. • Includes facts of the case, analysis, conclusions and recommendations outlined in the Staff Report, with any changes noted; Planning Commission determination is generally consistent with the Staff analysis and determination. APPROVED/RECOMMENDED PARKING • 880 Total parking stalls required • 791 Total parking stalls provided (Parking Reduction approved by Planning Commission, per Section 14.37.050) STAFF PRESENTATION The Staff Report to the Planning Commission provides details of the facts of the case and the Staff's analysis, conclusions, and recommendations. Staff also gave a summary of public comments received by email and answered questions from the Planning Commission regarding site access, parking, design, and traffic impacts. CITY DEPARTMENTAL ISSUES • There are remaining issues from the Coordinator Review Committee (CRC) review that need to be resolved. • Traffic study required and being reviewed at this stage of project review or approval. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING DATE • The Neighborhood District Chair determined that a neighborhood meeting would not be required. NEIGHBORHOOD AND PUBLIC COMMENT • The Neighborhood District Chair was present and addressed the Planning Commission during the public hearing. • Neighbors or other interested parties were present or addressed the Planning Commission. CONCERNS RAISED BY PUBLIC Any comments received prior to completion of the Staff Report are addressed in the Staff Report to the Planning Commission. Key issues raised in written comments received subsequent to the Staff Report or public comment during Page 1 of 2 the public hearing included the following: • Andrew Terry (District Chair) relayed feedback he received from the neighborhood, citing concerns with traffic backing up near the site and ensuring that there are pedestrian connections to the site. • Lisa Baker, Abbey Bird, and Noah Hume’s email concerns were acknowledged. • Staff read in an email from Brooke Barnes citing concerns on traffic, safety, aesthetics, and pollution. • Staff read in an email from Chrissy Sorden citing concerns on traffic and congestion. APPLICANT RESPONSE Key points addressed in the applicant's presentation to the Planning Commission included the following: • Spencer Hymas addressed questions regarding just the Walmart plan, acknowledging that the surrounding uses would be brought forward by the property owner at a later date. Mr. Hymas also confirmed that bike parking to meet code will be provided. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION Key points discussed by the Planning Commission included the following: • Planning Commission verified street access connections, intersection improvements, and sidewalk connections with staff for the proposal. • The Commission shared concerns about room for queuing of cars for the fuel station, the applicant addressed this. • Questions regarding the future phase of the development for the rest of the property were addressed by staff and the applicant. • The Commission discussed the parking count and design and acknowledged that there is confidence in the developer providing enough parking for their uses. • The Commission discussed the merits of the architectural design of the building, and some expressed a desire for the code to have more requirements in the future to have less of a warehouse look. • Planning Commission addressed concerns on traffic, pedestrian connections, and fuel tank safety with David Day (Provo City Engineer). • The Commission appreciated the amount of landscaping at the site and felt that there aren’t a lot of concerns that haven’t been addressed by staff. • The Planning Commission formally approved the parking reduction request. Planning Commission Chair Director of Development Services See Key Land Use Policies of the Provo City General Plan, applicable Titles of the Provo City Code, and the Staff Report to the Planning Commission for further detailed information. The Staff Report is a part of the record of the decision of this item. Where findings of the Planning Commission differ from findings of Staff, those will be noted in this Report of Action. Legislative items are noted with an asterisk (*) and require legislative action by the Municipal Council following a public hearing; the Planning Commission provides an advisory recommendation to the Municipal Council following a public hearing. Administrative decisions of the Planning Commission (items not marked with an asterisk) may be appealed by submitting an application/notice of appeal, with the required application and noticing fees to the Development Services Department, 445 W Center Street, Provo, Utah, within fourteen (14) calendar days of the Planning Commission's decision (Provo City office hours are Monday through Thursday, 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.). BUILDING PERMITS MUST BE OBTAINED BEFORE CONSTRUCTION BEGINS Page 2 of 2  Provo City Planning Commission Report of Action March 12, 2025 *ITEM 2 Eric Yergensen requests a Zone Map Amendment from the A1.10 (Agricultural) Zone to the AI (Airport Industrial) Zone, in order to move forward with plans for flex/industrial space, located approximately at 3420 West Center Street. Fort Utah Neighborhood. Aaron Ardmore (801) 852-6404 aardmore@provo.gov PLRZ20240374 The following action was taken by the Planning Commission on the above described item at its regular meeting of March 12, 2025: RECOMMENDED APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS On a vote of 7:0, the Planning Commission recommended that the Municipal Council approve the above noted application with the following conditions and recommendations: Conditions of Approval: 1. That a development agreement is recorded to guarantee proffers made by the developer regarding amenities against the river with public access easements; 2. That the City Council approves a surplus and sale of parcel 21:029:0077, and; 3. That the developer completes purchase of a portion of the above surplus property. Recommendations to the Council: 1. That the desire to plant trees along the river be addressed, and; 2. That enhanced building and parking setbacks along the river be addressed. Motion By: Lisa Jensen Second By: Andrew South Votes in Favor of Motion: Andrew South, Melissa Kendall, Jonathon Hill, Jeff Whitlock, Lisa Jensen, Barbara DeSoto, Adam Shin Jeff Whitlock was present as Chair. • Includes facts of the case, analysis, conclusions and recommendations outlined in the Staff Report, with any changes noted; Planning Commission determination is generally consistent with the Staff analysis and determination. LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR PROPERTY TO BE REZONED The property to be rezoned to the AI Zone is described in the attached Exhibit A. RELATED ACTIONS The Planning Commission approved the related Concept Plan (PLCP20240375, March 12th agenda item #3). DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT • Applies - referred applicant to Council Attorney. STAFF PRESENTATION The Staff Report to the Planning Commission provides details of the facts of the case and the Staff's analysis, conclusions, and recommendations. Staff responded to questions from the Planning Commission regarding surrounding uses, parking, and future steps for this project. Page 1 of 5 CITY DEPARTMENTAL ISSUES • The Coordinator Review Committee (CRC) has reviewed the application and given their approval. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING DATE • A neighborhood meeting was held on 02/19/2025. NEIGHBORHOOD AND PUBLIC COMMENT • The Neighborhood District Chair was present and addressed the Planning Commission during the public hearing. • Neighbors or other interested parties were present or addressed the Planning Commission. CONCERNS RAISED BY PUBLIC Any comments received prior to completion of the Staff Report are addressed in the Staff Report to the Planning Commission. Key issues raised in written comments received subsequent to the Staff Report or public comment during the public hearing included the following: • Andrew Terry (District Chair) relayed public input from the neighborhood, citing concerns about respecting the river corridor, the AI Zone being north of Center Street, how close the warehouses would be to the river, and the amount of landscaping against the river. He then gave his personal feedback that this development could enhance the river access and preserve the nature that people enjoy. • Lyssandra Harker stated concerns about the proximity of the warehouses to the river, the loss of trees and animal habitat, and potential criminal activity. • Leilani Kitz stated concerns about losing the trees, open spaces, and putting warehouses on the property. • Matt Hawk shared concerns about losing shade trees, wild and open spaces along the river, and the proximity of the warehouses to the river. • Chris Halladay (owns property on the subject site) detailed his experience with the trees that may be removed with development of the site. • Stacy Halladay (owns property on the subject site) noted that the only trees to be removed would be on the south side of the river, and that the trees giving shade to the Provo River Trail would remain. • Tom Halladay (owns property on the subject site) noted that the public currently does not have access to the south side of the river through this area, but that is improving as a result of this request. He also gave some history of city decisions to point out that the desired use aligns with this proposal. • Christine Halladay (owns property on the subject site) shared her feelings about no longer wanting to farm the land, hoping to exercise her property rights in the direction that the city has promoted, and the reality of the future of the area. • Emily Navarro expressed her desire to maintain an open area along the river and near the Provo River Trail. • Staff summarized additional public comments received by email from Ehan Johnson, Melanie Consolo, and Paul Davis all being in opposition to this request. APPLICANT RESPONSE Key points addressed in the applicant's presentation to the Planning Commission included the following: • Eric Yergensen responded to questions about existing trees (to be removed), landscaping to meet code standards, and future users for the proposed buildings. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION Key points discussed by the Planning Commission included the following: • There was a large amount of discussion surrounding the Provo River, The Provo River Trail (on the north side of the river), and the access along the river through the subject property. • The Planning Commission reiterated reasons that the city has moved away from residential uses towards airport related activities for the subject property. • The Commission discussed the importance of trees along the river through the development of the site, and possible connections to other trails in the area. • Planning Commissioners expressed a desire to move the buildings and parking further from the river. • The Commission and staff acknowledged that the river through this area is more of a “trickle” now that the River Delta project has taken the majority of the flow. Page 2 of 5  • Planning Commissioners felt that there is a good balance between the open nature of the area to the north that will remain that way, and the economic opportunities provided by this request. • The Commission was united in wanting to have more trees along the river and more space between the river and the parking and building. • The river flow and future plans for this section of the river was discussed with David Day (Provo City Engineer). Planning Commission Chair Director of Development Services See Key Land Use Policies of the Provo City General Plan, applicable Titles of the Provo City Code, and the Staff Report to the Planning Commission for further detailed information. The Staff Report is a part of the record of the decision of this item. Where findings of the Planning Commission differ from findings of Staff, those will be noted in this Report of Action. Legislative items are noted with an asterisk (*) and require legislative action by the Municipal Council following a public hearing; the Planning Commission provides an advisory recommendation to the Municipal Council following a public hearing. Administrative decisions of the Planning Commission (items not marked with an asterisk) may be appealed by submitting an application/notice of appeal, with the required application and noticing fees to the Development Services Department, 445 W Center Street, Provo, Utah, within fourteen (14) calendar days of the Planning Commission's decision (Provo City office hours are Monday through Thursday, 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.). BUILDING PERMITS MUST BE OBTAINED BEFORE CONSTRUCTION BEGINS Page 3 of 5  EXHIBIT A PARCEL 1 – 21:029:0015 Commencing 14.84 chains North and 19.504 chains West from the Southeast corner of Lot 4, Section 4, Township 7 South, Range 2 East, Salt Lake Base and Meridian; thence North 01°00'00" East 120.0 feet; thence South 88°00'00" East 100.0 feet; thence South 01°00'00"West 120.0 feet; thence North 88°00'00"West 100.0 feet to the place of beginning. LESS AND EXCEPTING therefrom any portion lying within the bounds of a public street and/or right of way. Parcel 7 – 21:029:0100 Beginning at a point which is N 00°13'18"W along the section line 1193.65 feet and West 665.29 feet from the Southeast Corner of Section 4, Township 7 South, Range 2 East, Salt Lake Base and Meridian; thence N 88°20'01" W116.19 feet to a point on a fence line; thence S 00°34'59"W along said fence 217.80 feet; thence N 88°13'13"W 383.78 feet; thence N 01°10'25" E along a fence line 116.72 feet to a corner of the fence line; thence N 88°29'10"W along the fence line 104.82 feet; thence N 01°00'00" E 763.18 feet; thence S 71°59'00" E 116.82 feet; thence S 63°26'00" E 49.50 feet: thence N 71°59'00" E 44.88 feet; thence N 27°15'00" E 96.36 feet; thence S 58°00'00" E 171.60 feet; thence S 90°00'00" E 172.94 feet; thence S 04°14'00" E 24.61 feet to a point of curvature; thence along an arc 42.25 feet to the left, having a radius of 40.00 feet, the chord bears S 34°29'3T E 40.31 feet; thence S 90°00'00" E 10.94 feet to a fence; thence S 00°31'07"Walong said fence 572.64 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. LESS AND EXCEPTING THEREFROM all those portions lying within the bed and banks of the Provo River, and any portions lying Northerly and Northwesterly of said Provo River. LESS AND EXCEPTING therefrom any portion lying within the bounds of a public street and/or right of way. PARCEL 5 – 29:029:0077 A Portion of Section 4, Township 7 South, Range 2 East, Salt Lake Base and Meridian, located in Provo, Utah, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point located South 00°13'53" East along the Section line 989.30 feet and West 468.91 feet from the East Quarter Corner of Section 4, Township 7 South, Range 2 East, Salt Lake Base and Meridian, thence North 74°10'29"West 17.13 feet; thence North 12°45'28"West 38.90 feet; thence North 16°32'59"West 58.30 feet; thence North 28°51'50"West 44.32 feet; thence North 43°31'55"West 44.11 feet; thence North 55°46'55"West 44.93 feet; thence North 76°44'43"West 59.86 feet; thence North 00°00'44"West 11.63 feet; thence North 88°41'48"West 210.69 feet; thence North 80°32'17"West 57.83 feet; thence North 53°16'50"West 53.02 feet; thence North 38°56'48" East 267.13 feet; thence Northeasterly along the arc of a 225.00 foot radius curve to the right 211.31 feet (chord bears North 65°51'05" East 203.63 feet); thence South 87°14'37" East 103.91 feet; thence South 03°44'26" East 34.66 feet; thence South 86°15'34"West 20.00 feet; thence South 03°44'26" East 16.54 feet; thence Southerly along the arc of a 6009.00 foot radius curve to the right 261.90 feet (chord bears South 00°29'31" East 261.88 feet; thence South 88°45'24"West 10.00 feet; thence Southerly along the arc of a 5999.00 foot radius Non-Tangent curve to the right 59.74 feet (chord bears South 00°57'29" East 59.74 feet); thence South 48°23'53' East 4.41 feet; thence South 28°10'21" East 84.85 feet; thence South 11°13'18" East 63.00 feet; thence South 00°13'18" East 38.48 feet to the point of beginning. LESS AND EXCEPTING therefrom any portion lying within the bounds of a public street and/or right of way. Page 4 of 5 Page 5 of 5  Provo City Planning Commission Report of Action March 12, 2025 ITEM 3 Eric Yergensen requests Concept Plan approval for a new flex/industrial campus in a proposed AI (Airport Industrial) Zone, locates approximately 3420 West Center Street. Fort Utah Neighborhood. Aaron Ardmore (801) 852-6404 aardmore@provo.gov PLCP20240375 The following action was taken by the Planning Commission on the above described item at its regular meeting of March 12, 2025: APPROVED On a vote of 7:0, the Planning Commission approved the above noted application. Motion By: Jonathon Hill Second By: Andrew South Votes in Favor of Motion: Andrew South, Melissa Kendall, Jonathon Hill, Jeff Whitlock, Lisa Jensen, Barbara DeSoto, Adam Shin Jeff Whitlock was present as Chair. • Includes facts of the case, analysis, conclusions and recommendations outlined in the Staff Report, with any changes noted; Planning Commission determination is generally consistent with the Staff analysis and determination. RELATED ACTIONS The Planning Commission recommended approval with conditions for the related Rezone (PLRZ20240374, March 12 th agenda item #2). STAFF PRESENTATION The Staff Report to the Planning Commission provides details of the facts of the case and the Staff's analysis, conclusions, and recommendations. Staff responded to questions from the Planning Commission regarding surrounding uses, parking, and future steps for this project. CITY DEPARTMENTAL ISSUES • The Coordinator Review Committee (CRC) has reviewed the application and given their approval. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING DATE • A neighborhood meeting was held on 02/19/2025. NEIGHBORHOOD AND PUBLIC COMMENT • The Neighborhood District Chair was present and addressed the Planning Commission during the public hearing. • Neighbors or other interested parties were present or addressed the Planning Commission. CONCERNS RAISED BY PUBLIC Any comments received prior to completion of the Staff Report are addressed in the Staff Report to the Planning Commission. Key issues raised in written comments received subsequent to the Staff Report or public comment during the public hearing included the following: • Andrew Terry (District Chair) relayed public input from the neighborhood, citing concerns about respecting the river corridor, the AI Zone being north of Center Street, how close the warehouses would be to the river, and the amount of landscaping against the river. He then gave his personal feedback that this development could enhance the river access and preserve the nature that people enjoy. Page 1 of 3  • Lyssandra Harker stated concerns about the proximity of the warehouses to the river, the loss of trees and animal habitat, and potential criminal activity. • Leilani Kitz stated concerns about losing the trees, open spaces, and putting warehouses on the property. • Matt Hawk shared concerns about losing shade trees, wild and open spaces along the river, and the proximity of the warehouses to the river. • Chris Halladay (owns property on the subject site) detailed his experience with the trees that may be removed with development of the site. • Stacy Halladay (owns property on the subject site) noted that the only trees to be removed would be on the south side of the river, and that the trees giving shade to the Provo River Trail would remain. • Tom Halladay (owns property on the subject site) noted that the public currently does not have access to the south side of the river through this area, but that is improving as a result of this request. He also gave some history of city decisions to point out that the desired use aligns with this proposal. • Christine Halladay (owns property on the subject site) shared her feelings about no longer wanting to farm the land, hoping to exercise her property rights in the direction that the city has promoted, and the reality of the future of the area. • Emily Navarro expressed her desire to maintain an open area along the river and near the Provo River Trail. • Staff summarized additional public comments received by email from Ehan Johnson, Melanie Consolo, and Paul Davis all being in opposition to this request. APPLICANT RESPONSE Key points addressed in the applicant's presentation to the Planning Commission included the following: • Eric Yergensen responded to questions about existing trees (to be removed), landscaping to meet code standards, and future users for the proposed buildings. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION Key points discussed by the Planning Commission included the following: • There was a large amount of discussion surrounding the Provo River, The Provo River Trail (on the north side of the river), and the access along the river through the subject property. • The Planning Commission reiterated reasons that the city has moved away from residential uses towards airport related activities for the subject property. • The Commission discussed the importance of trees along the river through the development of the site, and possible connections to other trails in the area. • Planning Commissioners expressed a desire to move the buildings and parking further from the river. • The Commission and staff acknowledged that the river through this area is more of a “trickle” now that the River Delta project has taken the majority of the flow. • Planning Commissioners felt that there is a good balance between the open nature of the area to the north that will remain that way, and the economic opportunities provided by this request. • The Commission was united in wanting to have more trees along the river and more space between the river and the parking and building. • The river flow and future plans for this section of the river was discussed with David Day (Provo City Engineer). Planning Commission Chair Director of Development Services See Key Land Use Policies of the Provo City General Plan, applicable Titles of the Provo City Code, and the Staff Report to the Planning Commission for further detailed information. The Staff Report is a part of the record of the decision of this item. Where findings of the Planning Commission differ from findings of Staff, those will be noted in this Report of Action. Page 2 of 3 Legislative items are noted with an asterisk (*) and require legislative action by the Municipal Council following a public hearing; the Planning Commission provides an advisory recommendation to the Municipal Council following a public hearing. Administrative decisions of the Planning Commission (items not marked with an asterisk) may be appealed by submitting an application/notice of appeal, with the required application and noticing fees to the Development Services Department, 445 W Center Street, Provo, Utah, within fourteen (14) calendar days of the Planning Commission's decision (Provo City office hours are Monday through Thursday, 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.). BUILDING PERMITS MUST BE OBTAINED BEFORE CONSTRUCTION BEGINS Page 3 of 3