Orem planning commission continues Ken Garff rezone request after neighbors raise safety, access and traffic concerns

The Orem City Planning Commission on Jan. 15 held a public hearing on a request to rezone two adjoining properties at 110 East 1200 South and 134 East 1200 South (currently R‑8 single‑family) to C‑2 commercial to allow expansion of Ken Garff dealership parking. After staff presentation, public testimony and commissioner questions, the commission continued the application to Feb. 19, 2025, to give the applicant time to decide whether to pursue a C‑2 rezoning (which would permit access on 1200 South) or a PD application that could expressly prohibit access from 1200 South.

What was proposed: Staff said the two lots abut existing dealership property and that a concept site plan (not part of the rezoning decision) would add about 79 parking spaces for the dealership. Gary and other staff emphasized that rezoning to C‑2 would not itself approve landscaping, lighting or access; site plan approval would be required separately if the zoning change is approved.

Applicant presentation: Carlos Iglesias, who said he works for Ken Garff Automotive in Orem, told commissioners the dealership needs space for inventory and employee parking. He said the proposed driveway shown in the concept is intended for internal use (employee/truck access) and not as public customer ingress/egress. He said truck deliveries are frequent enough to create loading pressure and that having land adjacent to the dealership would reduce unsafe unloading activity on University Parkway and nearby streets.

Public testimony and concerns: Neighbors voiced safety and traffic concerns. Lucy Ramirez, a resident across 1200 South, said she had measured traffic and cited her summary of "318 citations and 87 accidents" in the area over five years and said vehicles often exceed the posted 25 mph limit. Stuart Merrill, who lives near the site, said 1200 South functions like a high‑speed connector and worried that an additional access would make it harder to exit driveways; he disputed the applicant's characterization of how long trucks wait, saying trucks often take longer than the applicant's estimate. Property owner Susan Parkinson, who owns the parcel immediately east of the subject lots, said her mixed‑use building would be surrounded by parking if rezoned and asked that any plan protect her tenants and customers; she also pointed out a recorded ditch/right‑of‑way at the rear of her property.

Staff explanation of zoning options: Staff said a PD‑5 zoning (planned development) was discussed earlier in pre‑application conversations; PD‑5 wording could be written to prohibit any access from 1200 South. By contrast, C‑2 zoning would allow access on 1200 South (subject to site plan review and city engineering requirements). Staff said the applicant initially sought either PD‑5 or C‑2 but later asked to remove the PD‑5 option and pursue C‑2; at the meeting the applicant agreed to take more time to decide and to return with a clearer commitment.

Commission action: Commissioner Rod moved to continue the item to the Feb. 19, 2025 planning commission meeting to allow the applicant to clarify whether it will accept PD restrictions (no 1200 South access) or proceed with C‑2 and proposed access conditions. The motion was seconded and the commission continued the matter to Feb. 19.

Why it matters: Rezoning R‑8 lots next to a neighborhood to C‑2 could change what uses are permitted on the lots and whether vehicle access and heavy truck activity will occur next to houses and a school corridor; neighbors urged protections including a wall, gating and restricted access. Staff repeatedly noted that a zoning change would not itself approve site layout and that site plan review would be required if the zoning is changed.

Next steps: The applicant will use the time before Feb. 19 to determine whether to pursue C‑2 with site‑specific access restrictions or a PD district that explicitly prohibits access on 1200 South; staff will return the item to the commission on Feb. 19 for further consideration and a recommendation to council.

Ending: Commissioners said they preferred the certainty of a PD if the applicant's operation requires no access on 1200 South, and they asked the applicant to return with clearer commitments about access, truck unloading procedures and any proposed wall or screening between commercial and residential properties.