Planning Commission

PROVO CITY CORPORATION DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning Commission Agenda April 23, 2025 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION The Provo City Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on April 23, 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, May 20, 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. Discussion on in-fill housing and single-family lot splits. Bill Peperone Public Hearings *Item 1 Tyson Reynolds requests a Zone Map Amendment from the R1.8 Zone to the R1.6 Zone in order to subdivide 3.8 acres of land into 6,000 square-foot lots, located at 2000 N Canyon Road. Pleasant View Neighborhood. Nancy Robison (801) 852-6417 nrobison@provo.gov PLRZ20250097 *Item 2 Joel Pilling requests approval of a Zone Map Amendment from the A1.5 (Agricultural) Zone to the AI (Airport Industrial) Zone in order to expand his warehouse project onto the property at 3185 W 550 S. Provo Bay Neighborhood. Aaron Ardmore (801) 852-6404 aardmore@provo.gov PLRZ20250011 Item 3 Joel Pilling requests Concept Plan approval for flex warehouse space in a proposed AI (Airport Industrial) Zone, located at 3185 W 550 S. Provo Bay Neighborhood. Aaron Ardmore (801) 852-6404 aardmore@provo.gov PLCP20250012 *Item 4 Development Services proposes adoption of city policy and potential amendments to the Provo City Code to remove or limit Data Processing Services, Electricity Regulating Substations and Electric Small Generation as Permitted Principal or Conditional Uses. Citywide Application. Aaron Ardmore (801) 852-6404 aardmore@provo.gov PLOTA20250182 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. Please submit public comment emails before 3:00 PM the day of the hearing. Additional information can be found at provo.gov/publiccomments.  PROVO CITY CORPORATION DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning Commission Agenda April 23, 2025 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 web site the week of the meeting at provo.gov/planningcommission. 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  Planning Commission Hearing Staff Report Hearing Date: April 23, 2025 *ITEM Tyson Reynolds requests a Zone Map Amendment from the R1.8 Zone to the R1.6 Zone in 1 order to subdivide 3.8 acres of land into 6,000 square-foot lots, located at 2000 N Canyon Road. Pleasant View Neighborhood. Nancy Robison (801) 852-6417 nrobison@provo.gov PLRZ20250097 Applicant: Tyson Reynolds Current Legal Use: Single-family homes in R1.8 zone Staff Coordinator: Nancy Robison Property Owner: REYNOLDS ASSET Relevant History: MANAGEMENT LLC • There are two lots each with a single-family home. One was built in 1927, the second lot Parcel ID#: 20:068:0021 20:068:0062 built in 1948. 20:068:0072 20:068:0074 • The Planning Commission approved grading on slopes over 30% in a meeting on March Acreage: 3.80 27th, 2024. Number of Properties: 4 Neighborhood Issues: • A neighborhood meeting will be held on April 16th, 2025, after this report has been Number of Lots:19 written. Summary of Key Issues: • The current permitted use is single-family homes on lots containing 8,000 square feet. • The request is to allow single-family homes on lots containing 6,000 square feet. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS • The developer is proposing to create 19 lots. 1. Continue to a future date to obtain • Because of the topography on the existing additional information or to further properties the buildable area is less than one consider information presented. The acre. next available meeting date is May 14, • Bringing the hill down would allow better 2025, 6:00 P.M. access for utilities and emergency services. 2. Deny the requested zone change. This action would not be consistent with the Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that recommendations of the Staff Report. the Planning Commission recommend approval of The Planning Commission should state the zone map amendment to the City Council. new findings. Planning Commission Staff Report *Item 1 April 23, 2025 Page 2 OVERVIEW The applicant is requesting permission from the Planning Commission to rezone the area from R1.8 to R1.6 to be able to create 19 additional building lots at basically the same elevation as Canyon Road. Staff believe this is a reasonable option for the development of this land. As the property exists now, for any additional lots to be created on the hilltop, utilities would have to extend from the east. The properties to the east are platted lots with homes that make new utility easements for additional homes difficult. By reducing the elevation of the hillside and creating these new lots, utilities can be extended from the parcels to the west, and across Canyon Road, which is the preferrable option of the Public Works Department. The fire department has noted that emergency vehicle access up the existing driveway, which is steep and narrow, is problematic and that grading the hillside would allow better access for their equipment. Provo needs more single-family lots. Staff believe that these new lots in this neighborhood would be a benefit to the area. The proposed subdivision would have direct access onto Canyon Road, a city collector road so new trips generated by this subdivision would not directly impact an existing neighborhood. The zones surrounding the property are R2PD zone to the north, Campus Residential (CR) to the south, R1.6 to the west and R1.8 to the east. The additional single-family lots would add to the neighborhood feel that is a desire of the area. There are additional conditions that Staff would recommend as required before permits are issued. These include: • Address all CRC comments. • Obtain a geotechnical report. • Record the final plat map. • Supply required bonding. • Revegetate the area as required. STAFF ANALYSIS In analyzing any rezone request for housing, staff is encouraged to reference the questions asked in on page 45 of the General Plan (Chapter 4 – Housing). Those questions are as follows: (staff response in bold) • Would the rezone promote one of the top 3 housing strategies (promote a mix of home types, sizes, and price points; support zoning to promote ADUs and infill development; recognize the value of single-family neighborhoods)? Single-family homes in this neighborhood can be a mix of types. Because of the size of the lots, the homes may be smaller but could still accommodate ADU’s if the Council were to approve this area for ADUs at a later date. The plan does address infill development since Planning Commission Staff Report *Item 1 April 23, 2025 Page 3 the current lots only contain 2 homes. The third strategy is met by the proposal as the plan exists with only single-family homes. • Are utilities and streets currently within 300 feet of the property proposed for rezone? Yes, access and utilities would come from Canyon Rd. • Would the rezone exclude land that is currently being used for agricultural use? The property is currently zoned R1.8 and is not being used for agriculture. There is no agricultural use in the vicinity. • Does the rezone facilitate housing that has reasonable proximity (1/2 mile) to public transit stops or stations There is a bus stop just over 1/3 mile away. • Does the rezone encourage development of environmentally or geologically sensitive, or fire or flood prone, lands? No, the land does not contain any hazards. The subject property includes 30% slopes but the Planning Commission approved regrading of these slopes when the R1.8 zone was approved. • Would the proposed rezone facilitate the increase of on-street parking within 500 feet of the subject property? No, the proposal has sufficient off-street parking for the number of proposed units to meet code and keep vehicles off the streets. • Would the rezone facilitate a housing development where most of the housing units are owner-occupied? Is that applicant willing to guarantee such? Yes, the proposed development would be single-family homes for sale. • Would the proposed rezone facilitate a housing development where at least 10% of the housing units are attainable to those making 50-79% AMI? The primary structures are not likely to provide attainable housing in the 50-79% AMI and the developer has not proposed any type of affordable units. Section 14.020.020(2) establishes criteria for the amendments to the zoning title as follows: (Staff response in bold type) 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 public purpose for the request is to provide additional residential lots on the east side of Provo just north of BYU campus. (b) Confirmation that the public purpose is best served by the amendment in question. Staff response: Staff believe that the proposed zone change does help to meet the stated Planning Commission Staff Report *Item 1 April 23, 2025 Page 4 purposes above. (c) Compatibility of the proposed amendment with General Plan policies, goals, and objectives. Staff response: Chapter Four identifies goals for housing related to the proposal, including “allow for different types of housing in neighborhoods and allow for a mix of home sizes at different price points.” Although there may not be a great mix of home sizes, the fact that the lots are smaller would allow a lower price point for single-family homes in the Provo area. (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: There are no timing and sequencing provisions articulated for this property. (e) Potential of the proposed amendment to hinder or obstruct attainment of the General Plan’s articulated policies. Staff response: The proposed zone change will not hinder or obstruct attainment of the General Plan policies. (f) Adverse impacts on adjacent landowners. Staff response: The only impact associated with this request to the surrounding properties would be an increase in traffic in the area, however, 19 lots would not produce a measurable difference to Canyon Road in terms of traffic impact. (g) Verification of correctness in the original zoning or General Plan for the area in question. Staff response: Staff have verified the correctness of the General Plan and zoning for this area. (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: Staff have found no such conflict. CONCLUSIONS The proposal for these properties has been revised by the developer where they now provide additional housing and value for the land and the city can acquire more owner- occupied units. While there may be concerns about growth, staff believe the applicant has provided a thoughtful plan to will add to the stability of the neighborhood. ATTACHMENTS 1. Location Map 2. Site Plan 3. Property Photos Planning Commission Staff Report *Item 1 April 23, 2025 Page 5 ATTACHMENT 1 – LOCATION MAP Planning Commission Staff Report *Item 1 April 23, 2025 Page 6 ATTACHMENT 2 – SITE MAP Planning Commission Staff Report *Item 1 April 23, 2025 Page 7 ATTACHMENT 3 – PROPERTY PHOTOS Planning Commission Staff Report *Item 1 April 23, 2025 Page 8  Planning Commission Hearing Staff Report Hearing Date: April 23, 2025 *ITEM 2 Joel Pilling requests approval of a Zone Map Amendment from the A1.5 (Agricultural) Zone to the AI (Airport Industrial) Zone in order to expand his warehouse project onto the property at 3185 W 550 S. Provo Bay Neighborhood. Aaron Ardmore (801) 852-6404 aardmore@provo.gov PLRZ20250011 Applicant: Joel Pilling Current Legal Use: There is currently a single- family home on the property. Staff Coordinator: Aaron Ardmore Property Owner: Lakeview Airport Relevant History: The applicant purchased the Properties LLC land in October 2024 with the intent of expanding his flex/warehouse space from the Parcel ID#: 21:034:0097 east. Acreage: 0.85 Neighborhood Issues: This item was Number of Lots: 1 discussed at the February 19th District 3 meeting. Feedback was supportive, noting the request is consistent with surrounding uses. Summary of Key Issues: • The General Plan is Airport Related, which is supportive of the proposed zone and land use. • The applicant has provided an example of ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS what to expect with his flex spaces abutting 1. Continue to a future date to obtain this property. additional information or to further • Staff are supportive of this proposal. consider information presented. The next available meeting date is May 14th, 2025, at 6pm Staff Recommendation: That the Planning Commission recommend approval of the 2. Recommend Denial of the requested proposed zone map amendment to the City zone map amendment. This action Council. would not be consistent with the recommendations of the Staff Report. The Planning Commission should state new findings. Planning Commission Staff Report *Item 2 April 23, 2025 Page 2 OVERVIEW Joel Pilling is requesting a zone map amendment from the Agricultural (A1.5) Zone to the Airport Industrial (AI) Zone for the property at 3185 West 550 South. This rezone request is to enable Mr. Pilling to move forward with plans to create additional flex/warehouse space, tying into the property to the south and east. The related concept plan for the property shows one new 31,753 square-foot building, divided into five leasable/sellable spaces, with associated parking and landscaping around the building. Access would be shared with the existing flex spaces to the east, developed by Mr. Pilling. The concepts provided show the ability to meet the relevant code requirements and design standards for the zone. Surrounding the site is a mix of AI, A1, and PF (Public Facilities) Zones. Property to the west contains some vacant land, some rental homes owned by Provo City, and agricultural uses. The land to the north is active agricultural land, and the property to the east is the existing flex spaces mentioned above. STAFF ANALYSIS Staff feel that this request is reasonable, meets the General Plan for the property, and will fit well with the surrounding uses. Further analysis is provided below, referencing Provo City Code 14.02.020: (a) Public purpose for the amendment in question. Staff Response: The public purpose of the amendment is to support the airport and provide economic development for the city. (b) Confirmation that the public purpose is best served by the amendment in question. Staff Response: Staff believe that the proposed zone change and use for the property is in line with the goals of the city and land near the airport and that the high demand for this type of use will provide strong economic development for Provo. (c) Compatibility of the proposed amendment with General Plan policies, goals, and objectives. Staff Response: This proposal helps to meet the General Plan goals in Chapter Seven to “accommodate an appropriate amount of industrial growth in the city” and to “maximize our airport for business”. (d) Consistency of the proposed amendment with the General Plan’s “timing and sequencing” provisions on changes of use, insofar as they are articulated. Planning Commission Staff Report *Item 2 April 23, 2025 Page 3 Staff Response: There are no timing and sequencing provisions related to this request. (e) Potential of the proposed amendment to hinder or obstruct attainment of the General Plan’s articulated policies. Staff Response: The proposed zone change should not hinder or obstruct the attainment of any General Plan policy. (f) Adverse impacts on adjacent landowners. Staff Response: Staff do not anticipate any adverse impacts as a result of this proposal. (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 have worked with the applicant on the initial phase of this development and are happy with the results. This new extension of flex space into the subject property will help this area to grow in ways that the city and General Plan anticipated. Staff recommend that the zone map amendment be approved. ATTACHMENTS 1. Aerial Map 2. Property Photo 3. Zone Map 4. General Plan Map 5. Concept Site Plan Planning Commission Staff Report *Item 2 April 23, 2025 Page 4 ATTACHMENT 1 – AERIAL MAP Planning Commission Staff Report *Item 2 April 23, 2025 Page 5 ATTACHMENT 2 – PROPERTY PHOTO Planning Commission Staff Report *Item 2 April 23, 2025 Page 6 ATTACHMENT 3 – ZONE MAP Planning Commission Staff Report *Item 2 April 23, 2025 Page 7 ATTACHMENT 4 – GENERAL PLAN MAP Planning Commission Staff Report *Item 2 April 23, 2025 Page 8 ATTACHMENT 5 – CONCEPT SITE PLAN  Planning Commission Hearing Staff Report Hearing Date: April 23, 2025 ITEM 3 Joel Pilling requests Concept Plan approval for flex warehouse space in a proposed AI (Airport Industrial) Zone, located at 3185 W 550 S. Provo Bay Neighborhood. Aaron Ardmore (801) 852-6404 aardmore@provo.gov PLCP20250012 Applicant: Joel Pilling Current Legal Use: There is currently a single- family home on the property. Staff Coordinator: Aaron Ardmore Property Owner: Lakeview Airport Relevant History: The applicant purchased the Properties LLC land in October 2024 with the intent of expanding his flex/warehouse space from the Parcel ID#: 21:034:0097 east. Acreage: 0.85 Neighborhood Issues: This item was Number of Lots: 1 discussed at the February 19th District 3 meeting. Feedback was supportive, noting the request is consistent with surrounding uses. Summary of Key Issues: • The General Plan is Airport Related, which is supportive of the proposed zone and land use. • The applicant has provided an example of ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS what to expect with his flex spaces abutting 1. Continue to a future date to obtain this property. additional information or to further • Staff are supportive of this proposal. consider information presented. The • The applicant will need to complete a Final next available meeting date is May Subdivision and Project Plan application 14th, 2025, at 6pm prior to building permits if the City Council approves the zone change. 2. Deny the proposed concept plan. This action would not be consistent with the recommendations of the Staff Report. Staff Recommendation: That the Planning The Planning Commission should state Commission approve the proposed concept new findings. plan. Planning Commission Staff Report Item 3 April 23, 2025 Page 2 OVERVIEW Joel Pilling is requesting concept plan approval for new flex/warehouse space, subject to approval of a zone map amendment from the Agricultural (A1.5) Zone to the Airport Industrial (AI) Zone for the property at 3185 West 550 South. This proposal would link a new warehouse (phase two) to the existing warehouses (phase one) at 652 S Lakeview Parkway. The concept plan for the property shows one new 31,753 square-foot building, divided into five leasable/sellable spaces, with associated parking and landscaping around the building. Access would be shared with the existing flex spaces (phase one) to the east, developed by Mr. Pilling. New parking for this building would be built on the south, east, and north edges of the proposed building, totaling 34 new stalls. While the new building would require a total of 53 stalls based on the use and square footage, the entire site (both phases) shares parking and is currently overparked by 59 spaces (requirement of 179 with 238 provided), so they have the 19 to spare that would be required for this new building. The architecture, materials, and colors will be identical to the existing buildings at 652 S Lakeview Parkway and meet all relevant design standards. There are no transition standards to apply as there are no residential zones adjacent to the subject property, and setbacks have been met with the provided concept layout. Additional details will be reviewed in future Project Plan and Final Subdivision applications that staff will review and approve administratively, subject to the zone map amendment to the AI Zone being approved by the City Council. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is in the A1.5 Zone (Provo City Code 14.08). 2. The proposed zone is AI (Provo City Code 14.17D). 3. The overall proposed parking for the concept combined with the existing phase is 272 stalls. 4. The overall parking required for both phases is 213 stalls (Provo City Code 14.37.060). 5. The new phase will require 13 additional trees (Provo City Code 15.20.080). CONCLUSIONS Staff have worked with the applicant on the initial phase of this development and are happy with the results. This new extension of flex space into the subject property will help this area to grow in ways that the city and General Plan anticipated. Staff recommend that the concept plan is approved. Planning Commission Staff Report Item 3 April 23, 2025 Page 3 ATTACHMENTS 1. Aerial Map 2. Site Plan 3. Floor Plan 4. Elevations Planning Commission Staff Report Item 3 April 23, 2025 Page 4 ATTACHMENT 1 – AERIAL MAP Planning Commission Staff Report Item 3 April 23, 2025 Page 5 ATTACHMENT 2 – SITE PLAN Planning Commission Staff Report Item 3 April 23, 2025 Page 6 ATTACHMENT 3 – FLOOR PLAN Planning Commission Staff Report Item 3 April 23, 2025 Page 7 ATTACHMENT 4 – ELEVATIONS  DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TEL 801 852 6400 445 W Center Street, Suite 200 PROVO, UT, 84601 MEMORANDUM TO: Provo City Planning Commission FROM: Bill Peperone, Development Services SUBJECT: Item 4 – Development Services Ordinance Text Amendment (PLOTA20250182) DATE: April 14, 2025 Last month, the Planning Commission considered an Ordinance Text Amendment to allow data centers and power generation in the Airport Industrial Zone. Since that time, staff have continued to discuss and analyze data centers within the city. During this analysis, it was realized that data centers are currently allowed in 17 zones. Those zones comprise 2,896 acres. Additionally, many of the zones have better access to infrastructure than the Airport Industrial Zone. Based on these factors, it was the consensus of Power, Public Works, and Development Services not to support a code amendment to allow data centers in the AI Zone when this request went before the Municipal Council. The Council denied the request to amend the AI zone and directed staff to bring back to the Council a policy for evaluating data center requests and possible ordinance text amendments. This agenda item is intended to initiate pending legislation to allow staff time to fulfill the Council's request. A Planning Commission motion to continue indefinitely would be appropriate. It is the intention of staff to bring forward suggested policy and text amendments within 90 days. Page 1 of 1 Keith Kearl | April 18, 2025 2000 N canyon rd. zone change We attended the most recent district 1 neighborhood meeting hoping to better understand the intent of the developer (Tyson Reynolds) regarding the removal of the hillside behind our property. The presenter for the city said they have no details regarding topography, grade/slope or slope retention. At a minimum the developer should provide a site plan with topographical contour lines and sections cut at multiple locations along their own east property line. These profiles would provide clarity to owners on the east side of Reynolds property where the most significant disruption is planned and inform the city planners of the actual design intent. How can you commissioners make an informed recommendation when this critical information hasn't been provided by the developer? To be clear, we oppose the removal of the hillside. However if removal is an inevitability, the following must be considered. Below are two pictures from the county web site illustrating property line issues related to the proposed re-zoning of 2000 N Canyon Rd. by Reynolds et al. The first photograph shows the overlapping boundaries that exist and which require a boundary line agreement (BLA) like those the previous owner (Durrant) entered into with the Garden Villa condominiums and with Stadium Terrace apartments (see attached). The second photo shows the location of the white fence, installed on the Reynolds side of the west boundary of Mikkelsen and Kearl parcels. Without a fence agreement, a property owner may build a fence on their own property, but may not build it straddling the line or over the line on the neighbors land. The explanation for our (Kearl’s) wall not being immediately on our west and north lines is the topography; the wall would have had to be 20' or 30' high AND able to hold those huge geo loads. Our request of the Planning Commission is that a BLA be required, agreed upon and recorded before any recommendation is forwarded to the Council. Our request of the Council is that a BLA be required before approval of the zone change. Respectfully, Keith Kearl Ted Kearl 265 E 2020 N, Provo Rachel Breen | April 17, 2025 Neighborhood District 1 Meeting Feedback Planning Commission, Planning Secretary, and City Planners, Neighborhood District 1 held their meeting last night where they discussed two planning items: • Rezone at 2000 N Canyon Rd in the Pleasant View Neighborhood • Rezone and Ordinance Text Amendment at 3433 N 100 E in the Riverside Neighborhood PLRZ20250097 - Proposed Zone change from R1.8 to R1.6 to subdivide 3.8 acres into 6,000 sq ft lots at 2000 N Canyon Road in the Pleasant View Neighborhood City Planner Nancy Robison presented the proposed zone change from R1.8 to R1.6 for a 3.8-acre property at 2000 N Canyon Road. The change would allow for 6,000 sq ft lots instead of 8,000 sq ft lots. Residents expressed concerns about hillside stability and retaining walls. Nancy clarified that detailed engineering studies would be required before any development could proceed. Residents were frustrated that they could only see a flat plat map, not a drawing of the elevations before and after taking away the hillside and how that affects neighboring properties. The item will go to the Planning Commission on April 23rd and City Council on May 20th. Residents were encouraged to attend those meetings or email comments to the provided addresses. PLRZ20250082 & PLOTA20250083 - Proposed Zone change from PO to LDR and SSC to develop a 2.35-acre mixed-use development with six townhomes, a retail center, and an indoor self- storage facility at 3433 N 100 E in the Riverside Neighborhood City Planner Mary Barnes presented the proposed zone change and ordinance text amendment for a 2.35-acre mixed-use development at 3433 N 100 E. The project would include retail units, an indoor storage facility, and six townhomes. The developer, Douglas Nielsen, was present to answer questions. Residents asked about traffic impacts, design requirements, and potential changes to the concept plan. Residents who live near the property were concerned about additional traffic and wanted right-turns-only out of the property. Board members were concerned about the property being sold and the new owner would not follow the design standards. Mary and Douglas clarified that detailed traffic studies would be conducted if the rezone was approved. They emphasized that the current applications going before the City Council were only on the zone change and text amendment, not the final project design. The District 1 Board conducted an opinion poll of District 1 residents present: • In favor of the zone change from PO to LDR and SSC: 25 • Against the zone change from PO to LDR and SSC: 1 • In favor of the text amendment allowing storage units, drive-throughs, and 34% lot coverage in the SSC zone: 19 • Against the text amendment allowing storage units, drive-throughs, and 34% lot coverage in the SSC zone: 0 Lynn Sorenson | April 22, 2025 Reynolds proposal for rezoning in Pleasant View neighborhood | Item 1 PC April 23, 2025 Hello. I am Lynn Sorenson, PV representative to District 1. Regarding the request for the Reynolds zoning change, most of the neighbors I have heard from are either indifferent or mildly positive. I am probably in that category myself. However, every one of the neighbors— including myself—who has spoken about this in the many months of the many Reynolds proposals is **concerned about the taking down of the hill** in order to develop it. The concerns range from the noise, dirt, and disturbance during the DE-construction; to the possible consequences of abandonment of the project during the deconstruction; to the aesthetics AND effectiveness of a 40 foot(?) retaining wall; to the subsequent consequences— of possibly many years later, a settling that would adversely disrupt neighbors’ property to the east, in particular. We hope the Planning Commission is well aware of these concerns, and perhaps owns them, too. I don’t think it is possible to be too careful in consideration of these proposals for this plot of land. Sincerely, D. Lynn Sorenson 2255 N. 390 E. Provo UT 84604  Provo City Planning Commission Report of Action April 23, 2025 *ITEM 1 Tyson Reynolds requests a Zone Map Amendment from the R1.8 Zone to the R1.6 Zone in order to subdivide 3.8 acres of land into 6,000 square-foot lots, located at 2000 N Canyon Road. Pleasant View Neighborhood. Nancy Robison (801) 852-6417 nrobison@provo.gov PLRZ20250097 The following action was taken by the Planning Commission on the above described item at its regular meeting of April 23, 2025: RECOMMENDED APPROVAL On a vote of 7:0, the Planning Commission recommended that the Municipal Council approve the above noted application. Motion By: Andrew South Second By: Melissa Kendall Votes in Favor of Motion: Anne Allen, Andrew South, Melissa Kendall, Jonathon Hill, Lisa Jensen, Daniel Gonzales, Barbara DeSoto Jonathon Hill 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 R1.6 Zone is described in the attached Exhibit A. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT • Does not apply at this stage of review or approval. 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 responded to Planning Commission questions regarding 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 04/16/2025. 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: • The Chair and staff recognized the letters that were sent by Mitch Sorensen and Keith Curle. • Matt Wheelwright (District Chair) gave an overview of the neighborhood meeting, representing that the neighbors were comfortable with the zone, but had some reservations about the grading plans. Page 1 of 4  • Pam Jones stated concerns about the roads and ability to turn around (the applicant later came up and addressed this, noting the turnarounds provided in the concept plan). • Eric Curle shared his concerns about property line overlapping with the subject property, and tail water that runs through the site (the applicant addressed the water line, noting that it is designed in his plans). APPLICANT RESPONSE Key points addressed in the applicant's presentation to the Planning Commission included the following: • Rob Reynolds represented the applicant and answered Planning Commission questions regarding the grading and lot yield for the property. • Mr. Reynolds also addressed neighborhood concerns and noted that he will be building the majority of the homes and selling the lots, and that there will be an HOA for the private streets. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION Key points discussed by the Planning Commission included the following: • Planning Commission discussed the future grading of the property and asked the applicant to give some detail on those plans, as well as the difference between the yield of an R1.8 versus the proposed R1.6. • The Commission discussed the proposal, appreciating the plans and noting that they had recommended approval of previous high-density development, so a shift from R1.8 to R1.6 shouldn’t be an issue. • The Commission noted that all the concerns will have to be taken care of through the subdivision and development processes. 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 4  EXHIBIT A Parcel 1: Commencing at a point located East 261.51 feet and North 4.79 feet from the Northwest corner of Section 31, Township 6 South, Range 3 East, Salt Lake Base and Meri diam; thence North 87°49'00" East 138.00 feet; thence South 83°29'00" East 64.50 feet; thence North 88°57'00" East 57.97 feet; thence South 05°06'00" East 240.15 feet; thence North 85°04'00” West 81.74 feet; thence North 72°28'00" West 65.90 feet; thence North 43°21'04" West 65.81 feet; thence North 33°21'02" West 72.65 feet; thence South 00° 19'00" West 20.62 feet; thence South 89°19'58" West 53.07 feet; thence North 00°35'00" East 126.00 feet to the place of beginning, LESS AND EXCEPTING the Boundary Line Agreement dated March 4, 2008, and recorded March 7, 2008, as Entry No. 27618:2008. Parcel 2: Commencing at a point located North 88°58'39" East along the Section line 320.79 feet and South 1 61.66 feet from the Northwest corner of Section 31, Township 6 South, Range 3 East, Salt Lake Base and Meridian; thence North 25°56' 17" West 17.28 feet; thence North 00° 19'00" East 40.44 feet; thence South 33°21'02" East 72.65 feet; thence South 43°21'04" East 65.81 feet; thence South 72°28'00" East 65.90 feet; thence South 85°04'00" East 81.74 feet; thence North 05°06'00" East 82.64 feet; thence along Chantilly Place Subdivision the following 7 courses: South 04°30'24" East 53.72 feet, thence South 04°56'24" East 84.54 feet; thence South 05°23'24" East 90.48 feet; thence South 00°00'24" East 31.95 feet; thence North 89°59'36" East 26.49 feet; thence South l9°2l'30” East 57.02 feet; thence South 06°09'24" East 183.31 feet; thence South 27°58'47" West along Dee Peterson Subdivision 17.81 feet; thence South 21°25'29" West 69.26 feet; thence South 89°30'0l " West 25.25 feet; thence North 00°29'59" West 61.73 feet; thence South 89°16'23" West 62.26 feet; thence North 46°40'11" West 192.95 feet; thence North 63°51'33" West l7.23 feet; thence North 74°14'57" West 116,63 feet; thence North 55°28'50" West 40.00 feet; thence North 39°55'26" West 17.82 feet; thence North 27°41'45" West 6.93 feet; thence North l9°26'50" West 11.56 feet; thence North 31°00'17" West 38.26 feet thence North 00°51'56" West 46.42 feet to the point of beginning. TOGETHER WITH a Right of Way and Easement, recorded January 15, 2009 as Entry Number 4109:2009. TOGETHER WITH a Right of Way and Easement recorded October 22, 2015 as Entry Number 961 00:20 15. LESS AND EXCEPTING: Commencing at a point located North 88°58'39" East along the section line 723.05 feet and South 472.27 feet from the Northwest corner of Section 3l, Township 6 South, Range 3 East, Salt Lake Base and Meridian; thence North 89° l6'23" East 28.89 feet; thence South 00°44' 18" East 53.47 feet; thence South 21°25'29" West 9.03 feet; thence South 89°30'0 1" West 25.74; thence North 00°29'59" West 61.73 feet to the point of beginning. Parcel 4: Commencing 254.1 feet East and South 0l° West 126 feet and East 25 feet from the Northwest corner of Section 31, Township 6 South, Range 3 East, Salt Lake Base and Meridian; thence East 36 feet; thence South 30 feet; thence West 62 feet; thence North 5 feet; thence East 26 feet; thence North 25 feet to the beginning. Also, commencing at a point 254.1 feet East and South 01" West 151.0 feet front the Northwest corner of Section 31, Township 6 South, Range 3 east, Salt Lake Base and meridian, said point being 33 feet East of the Center Line of 150 East Street (Canyon Road) Provo, Utah; thence East 4.0 feet; thence South 5.0 feet; thence West 4.0 feet; thence North 5.0 feet to the point of beginning. Parcel 5: Commencing at a point on the East line of 150 East Street, Provo, Utah, said point being East 258.1 feet of the Southwest comer of Section 30, Township 6 South, Range 3 East, Salt Lake Base and Meridian; thence North 98.00 feet; thence East 1 I 6.00 feet; thence South 13.40 feet; thence South 42°34'50" East 108.737 feet; thence North 83°29'00" West 48.578 feet; thence South 87°49'00" West 138.00 feet; thence South 35°26'49" West 5.880 feet to the point of beginning. Page 3 of 4 Together with property acquired by Boundary Line Agreement dated May 1, 2008, and recorded May 13, 2008, as Entry No. 56257 :2008; and Boundary Line Agreement dated March 4, 2008, and recorded March 7, 2008, as Enti y No. 27618:2008 LESS AND EXCEPTING: Commencing at a point located Portia 88°59'03" East along the Section line 257.04 feet and North 20.59 feet from the Southwest corner of Section 30, Township 6 South, Range 3 East, Salt Lake Base and Meridian; thence North along canyon Road 77.43 feet; thence North 88°58'57" East along a Boundary Line Agreement Entry No. 56257:2008, 117. 12 feet; thence South 00°00' 18" West 20.06 feet; thence South 42°41'47" East 2.97 feet; thence South 04°14'47" East 1 .79 feet; thence South 45° I 0'38" East 82.34 feet; thence North 89°10'34" West 177.66 feet to the point of beginning. Page 4 of 4  Provo City Planning Commission Report of Action April 23, 2025 *ITEM 2 Joel Pilling requests approval of a Zone Map Amendment from the A1.5 (Agricultural) Zone to the AI (Airport Industrial) Zone in order to expand his warehouse project onto the property at 3185 W 550 S. Provo Bay Neighborhood. Aaron Ardmore (801) 852-6404 aardmore@provo.gov PLRZ20250011 The following action was taken by the Planning Commission on the above described item at its regular meeting of April 23, 2025: RECOMMENDED APPROVAL On a vote of 7:0, the Planning Commission recommended that the Municipal Council approve the above noted application. Motion By: Anne Allen Second By: Barbara DeSoto Votes in Favor of Motion: Anne Allen, Andrew South, Melissa Kendall, Jonathon Hill, Lisa Jensen, Daniel Gonzales, Barabara DeSoto Jonathon Hill 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 Planning Commission approved the related Concept Plan (PLCP20250012, Item #3, April 23rd agenda item). DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT • Does not apply at this stage of review or approval. 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 responded to Planning Commission questions, confirming that there would be sufficient parking on the overall site to meet code and that the AI Zone would protect from any unwanted uses. 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 not present or did not address the Planning Commission during the hearing. 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: None. Page 1 of 3 APPLICANT RESPONSE Key points addressed in the applicant's presentation to the Planning Commission included the following: • Joel Pilling responded to the Commission question on parking count, gave an overview of the proposal, and committed to providing the same retaining wall, fencing and lighting standards as he did in the first phase. He also spoke about the users that he lets into the buildings, that there wouldn’t be any nuisance users on the site. He will retain ownership of half of the new building, the existing buildings are leased or occupied 100%. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION Key points discussed by the Planning Commission included the following: • The Planning Commission appreciates the commitment to continue with the fencing and lighting accommodations for the neighbors, and that the existing buildings are nice and are happy to get more. • The proposed zone is adjacent to the same AI Zone and would be a smooth continuation of that. • The retail commercial uses of the AI Zone will come where they are appropriate and demanded by the market, and that this location is appropriate for the proposed use. 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 3  EXHIBIT A COM S 70.75 FT & E 69.73 FT & N 88 DEG 57' 24" W 259.24 FT & N 0 DEG 26' 47" E 667.02 FT FR E 1/4 COR. SEC. 9, T7S, R2E, SLB&M.; S 89 DEG 6' 26" W 139.42 FT; N 0 DEG 20' 22" E 206.49 FT; S 88 DEG 17' 33" E 71.58 FT; N 0 DEG 27' 6" W 126.1 FT; N 89 DEG 59' 48" E 70.19 FT; S 0 DEG 26' 47" W 328.29 FT TO BEG. AREA 0.853 AC. Page 3 of 3  Provo City Planning Commission Report of Action April 23, 2025 ITEM 3 Joel Pilling requests Concept Plan approval for flex warehouse space in a proposed AI (Airport Industrial) Zone, located at 3185 W 550 S. Provo Bay Neighborhood. Aaron Ardmore (801) 852-6404 aardmore@provo.gov PLCP20250012 The following action was taken by the Planning Commission on the above described item at its regular meeting of April 23, 2025: APPROVED On a vote of 7:0, the Planning Commission approved the above noted application. Motion By: Anne Allen Second By: Lisa Jensen Votes in Favor of Motion: Anne Allen, Andrew South, Melissa Kendall, Jonathon Hill, Lisa Jensen, Daniel Gonzales, Barabara DeSoto Jonathon Hill 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 Planning Commission recommended approval of the related Rezone request (PLRZ2025001, Item #2, April 23 rd agenda item). 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 responded to Planning Commission questions, confirming that there would be sufficient parking on the overall site to meet code and that the AI Zone would protect from any unwanted uses. 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 not present or did not address the Planning Commission during the hearing. 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: None. APPLICANT RESPONSE Key points addressed in the applicant's presentation to the Planning Commission included the following: • Joel Pilling responded to the Commission question on parking count, gave an overview of the proposal, and committed to providing the same retaining wall, fencing and lighting standards as he did in the first phase. He Page 1 of 2  also spoke about the users that he lets into the buildings, that there wouldn’t be any nuisance users on the site. He will retain ownership of half of the new building, the existing buildings are leased or occupied 100%. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION Key points discussed by the Planning Commission included the following: • The Planning Commission appreciates the commitment to continue with the fencing and lighting accommodations for the neighbors, and that the existing buildings are nice and are happy to get more. • The proposed zone is adjacent to the same AI Zone and would be a smooth continuation of that. • The retail commercial uses of the AI Zone will come where they are appropriate and demanded by the market, and that this location is appropriate for the proposed use. 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 April 23, 2025 *ITEM 4 Development Services proposes adoption of city policy and potential amendments to the Provo City Code to remove or limit Data Processing Services, Electricity Regulating Substations and Electric Small Generation as Permitted Principal or Conditional Uses. Citywide Application. Aaron Ardmore (801) 852- 6404 aardmore@provo.gov PLOTA20250182 The following action was taken by the Planning Commission on the above described item at its regular meeting of April 23, 2025: CONTINUED On a vote of 7:0, the Planning Commission approved the above noted application. Motion By: Lisa Jensen Second By: Anne Allen Votes in Favor of Motion: Anne Allen, Andrew South, Melissa Kendall, Jonathon Hill, Lisa Jensen, Daniel Gonzales, Barabara DeSoto Jonathon Hill was present as Chair. • Includes facts of the case, analysis, conclusions and recommendations outlined in the Staff Memo, with any changes noted; Planning Commission determination is generally consistent with the Staff analysis and determination. 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 presented the staff memo and gave an overview of the request to hold the item to start pending legislation on data center regulations and informed the Commission that a committee has been formed and should bring back recommendations to the Commission and asked the item to be continued. NEIGHBORHOOD AND PUBLIC COMMENT • The Neighborhood District Chair was not present or did not address the Planning Commission during the hearing. 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: • Matt Wheelwright shared his concerns about having data centers on the west side due to the high-water table and noted that he has heard data centers as being very important and desired, but the city should be strategic in where they are permitted. • Wayne Smith indicated he is working with others on a couple of projects that include data centers and would like the ability to continue getting those projects completed in the city. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION Key points discussed by the Planning Commission included the following: • Anne Allen asked for clarification on what the city staff will be reviewing related to this request. She is concerned with the pollution related to data center uses. • The Commission discussed the value of continuing the item so they can see what staff come back with before the proposal goes to the City Council. Page 1 of 2  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