Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. Welcome to our Draper City Planning Commission meeting. Today's date is March 12. I'm Andrew Adams and we want to thank all the commissioners up here that volunteer their time, especially also want to thank the staff for meeting with the applicants throughout the week prepping up for this. And then also want to thank the attendees here tonight. We've got applicants and then also our good neighbors that are visiting and probably have some input for us. So welcome everyone.

So let's go ahead and

get things started. We have an agenda posted online and in the back of the room. That's going to stay as proposed. So we're going to start out with our first public hearing tonight. It's the Frado Farms development agreement.

It's a zoning map amendment and land use map amendment request. It's on the request of Troy Dana of Westland Development representing Frado Farms LLC. A development agreement, a land use map amendment from the residential medium density to residential high density land use designation and a zoning map amendment from RA2, which is residential agricultural 20,000 foot lot minimums to RM2 which is multifamily residential 12 dwellings unit per acre maximum zone for approximately 2.03 acres it's located at approximately seven ninety one east twelve thousand two hundred south This is known as application 2020 Five-thirteen MA, 2020 Five-fourteen MA, and twenty twenty five-two 99 DA. Our staff contact on this is Nick Whitaker. So Nick, I'll let you go ahead and present what you've got prepared.

Thank you. Yes. So this is the Fratto Farms development agreement, land use map amendment, and zoning map amendment. Since there's a few things going on in this application, here's a quick summary. There's a land use map amendment to allow for higher density development.

A zoning map amendment to allow Sorry. No problem, thank you. Let me repeat that. The summary of the requests that are happening in this application are, it's a land use map amendment to allow for higher density development, a zoning map amendment to allow for smaller lots, development and agreement to create a 15 lot residential development for detached single family homes. Here's a vicinity map, the property is there in red.

Here's an aerial map of the property. It's just right on the corner of 12200 South 800 East. Land use map, the current land use is residential medium density. And as you can see the surrounding land use is commercial and residential. The zoning map, the zone for the property is RA2.

So the proposed land use map amendment is to change the existing residential medium density to residential high density. Here's an overview of the two different types of land uses per our city's master plan.

Really, if

you look at the density, the difference in the density, that's really the reason why this is going through, or the reason why they applied for this, sorry. The proposed zoning map amendment is from RA2 to RM2. The RA2 currently allows for the development of 20,000 square foot minimum lots. And the RM2 would allow for up to 12 dwelling units per acre. This property is 2.03 acres in size, so that would be up to about 24 dwelling units.

The overview of the zoning map amendment request is here. Again, kind of what I've already stated with the lot size, the difference in lot size and amount of dwelling units you would be able to put on the property with the proposed zone, and then the purpose as listed in the Draper City Municipal Code. And then there's the proposed development agreement. The development agreement has some key components to it that address the density among other things, but density is kind of, is pretty key in what's being proposed in the agreement. And that is that the density is regulated.

So per the agreement, no more than 15 lots shall be permitted. The housing type is limited to detached single family homes. And each lot is limited to one detached single family home. So 15 lots and 15 detached single family homes. The building height is limited to 35 feet in height.

Each lot has front, rear and side yard areas and incorporates walkability and pedestrian design. The developer provides sidewalk, curb, gutter, park strip and street trees along 800 East And 12200 South. It includes design standards that will not close off the development from the community, which includes facing some of the lots toward 800 East. And the agreement also includes and incorporates a master plan, which I'll get to in a moment. There's a lot of specific changes to the RM2 setback requirements.

This is a list of them. Won't go over each one, but they are in the report. There's changes to driveway depth requirements for three of the lots. Basically, it would allow for a 20 foot long driveways, but five of the feet would be located in the public right of way. So really, on the property itself would be 15 feet.

So here is the master plan. It was provided by the applicant. As you can see along 800 East, some of the homes are faced toward the street. They incorporated a street to cut through to access the nine of the homes. As you can see, provide sidewalk, park strip, they complete the sidewalk that isn't there at this moment.

And then, again, on this, there's a list of the lot specific setbacks that are different from the RM2 standards. They also include yard areas so that the houses aren't right up against each other. So here's a site photo. It's right at the corner there, 12200 South and 800 East. That's from 800 East.

And that's a photo from 12200 South. And that's what it looked like a year ago. And that is my presentation. Thanks Nick.

Alright, commissioners, any questions for staff?

I have a question. On the height, the 35 feet, is that pretty standard in our residential is.

Thought so.

It's 37 feet actually in

37

Has

there been any discussion about limiting the size other than the height of the homes, maybe square footage, things like that? These are small lots and I guess I just have general concerns about ginormous structures being built on really small lots.

There is no real discussion on how the homes will look. They are purposely designed to be smaller. Mr. Dana is not here this evening to discuss about his architect is, so his architect may be able to answer some of those questions regarding the design and

so forth. Thanks.

On page 12 of the staff report there's no signature by the public works, Draper City Public Works Department.

We were able to, well, we were not able to get the signature at the time because they were not in the office, But the signer is here now next to me. It's Brian.

I happen to be on vacation that day. But yeah, have reviewed it and signed There's off on the staff

another staff report later tonight. Did you do both?

I typically sign any of them that come but I have reviewed all the staff reports for the meeting.

Okay, then we don't have to revisit that one. I would like to know also Nick, showing the zoning, I can't remember which zoning map or land use map. It showed some homes that were or some multifamily units that are I think they're the RM1. Are those townhome oh no, RM2, that little spot of RM2 just to the northeast slightly? Can you go to the yeah, like this. Those look like those are townhomes too, except they're attached to each other. Is that right?

Yes, that's correct.

Okay. And do I see all of them of that lot or are there more in that lot? Do you recall?

I believe there are more in that lot.

Okay.

Yeah, it's a pretty small development so that lot's kind of just right off the page there but kind of what you see is what you get there.

Lisa, think that's all of them. I actually drove through that yesterday.

Oh yeah?

And I think that is all of them.

Okay. Thank you. All right, thanks.

Any question I have for staff or Nick or Jen or whomever, is the station area plan radius, is this property inside that station area plan for Kimballs Lane?

It intersects or it goes through about half the property.

Okay. So how does that stationary plan affect this property then?

So the stationary plan didn't you know what, I'm going to I have for another item here, I've got some items for presentation. So this is that

Well prepared, well prepared.

Half mile radius for the stationary plan. So it does look at you've got existing neighborhood that maybe some infill development, some improvements to trails, things like that. But the stationary plan itself really didn't concentrate in this specific area of the grid and kind of concentrated closer to the actual station itself.

So what's this radius represent here? What are we looking at?

The overall radius, that's the half mile radius that we had to look at under state law, the stationary plan. This is kind of essentially this little paragraph right here is the only little blurb for this portion of that radius, knowing that there may be potential for changes in the future, but not really diving into exactly what that may look like.

So just to help understand, so does the state require different density and zoning to be allowed because of this stationary plan? Because of this radius? Because what I'm getting at is this property has come to us three times, maybe this is a fourth time. So what I'm getting at is this now I'm looking at this and saying, this is in that radius. So what does the radius mean? Does the radius mean we have to allow or we should allow or we should plan for that or it Because doesn't what I heard you just say as well, our stationary plan is around this little orange So area

the state law said we have to look at everything within a half mile radius but within that half mile we can determine what's right for redevelopment, what we think will stay the same. You know we do have existing residential neighborhood, existing commercial development within that radius that we don't see being redeveloped. We don't see changes happening. So when the city evaluated the areas around the Kimball Station, we really looked at the Lombari Farm and the actual UTA property. We didn't dive into other areas within that radius because most of it is established neighborhoods that we

don't change. Of these track stations have been plopped down in the middle of the desert. They've all got existing around them. So what's the radius for? Just one last clarification. What's that radius for? Is that radius why the radius? And then what's the difference between the radius that suggested versus what I'm hearing you say is you only looked at a lot or we, the city, looked at something a lot more concentrated around that track station. Does that radius and the state law apply and help or hurt this applicant as far as being able to say this development agreement is helped based on So

that radius is based on walking distance. The state basically said within half mile of that track station people can walk. So you need to evaluate density and redevelopment within that half mile. As a city we determined we're going to concentrate on those properties we know are going to be redeveloped versus speculating on what individual private property owners may want to do.

Great. That's a good explanation on that. Thanks for answering that.

Can I piggyback on that question which was the last time this applicant was here I believe that one of the things we talked about was doing an overall assessment of what we thought development was going to be in the area? So has a lot of that changed versus now? Do we have updated info that would maybe change our opinions about what should happen?

Well, mean, as we just discussed, it does fall into that half mile radius of the I just blanked on the name, but the transit oriented development. It is within that walking distance of transit, so I mean it falls into transit oriented development. In terms of how that should look, again that's, I mean from what Jen said, that's kind of how that lands. So for this property in particular, I think it would be appropriate to say that having more density at this property would be appropriate to meet those goals of transit oriented development strictly in terms of walkability.

I'll add on to that. So we did have two previous hearings with two different proposals on this property last year. The city council did meet with neighbors and ask for information about that area in that neighborhood from the city council or to the city council. So staff did present to city council some information about the neighborhood and kind of dive in a little bit on what the densities are that are existing, the land uses, that kind of thing so that they can have kind of more basis of what's actually there in the neighborhood. But the city did not do any like master planning specifically for this area.

And this did not go to the city council. The two applications prior did not go to the city council, Correct.

All

right. Thank you, staff. We appreciate that. All right. Is the applicant here?

Yep, the architect, perfect. And will you just state your

I'm Tyler Kirk with Think Architecture. So I'm not the applicant, I am just his architect. So if you answer any questions you may have, feel free. Someone asked about the size. I can maybe respond to that if you want.

Yeah, mean whatever information you could give would be great.

None of the homes are permanently designed right now. They're just conceptual, but most of them will probably be under two two thousand five hundred square feet. Some will probably be under 2,000 square feet. Just depending on whether we finish basements, not finish basements, that kind of thing.

And I think my issue is more that it's not in the development agreement, which you really don't have anything to do with. So there's Yeah.

The

setbacks? It would be limited by the setbacks?

The size of a home. The size of

the home.

Determined by our required setbacks anyway. To some degree, yeah.

But you can go up to 35 feet, which is True. Which is pretty tall. I mean, you could have a basement and two stories at 35 feet. Which I mean I look at this and we had a member of our planning commission several years ago when we had development agreements would say, what's this city getting out of this? And that's kind of how I feel when I look at this.

I feel like the city's giving a lot of leeway with all the reductions and the zone change and all that. And we're getting some curb and gutter, sure, but that's part of our code that has to be done. And I look at that and I see so many homes in Draper, or so many lots where it's just the hugest home that can be crammed onto that lot with the minimum setbacks. And here we don't even have minimum setbacks. And I just find that really problematic in a situation like this where this builder is being given a lot in the development agreement. That's where

I One the things I think I noticed there, what is the with this zone change moving from the residential agricultural right down to the what is RA2 to RM2, what would be allowed without the restriction of only 15 lots? Is the development agreement limiting that to 15 and could there be a higher density without that development agreement?

So without the development agreement in place, you could essentially get 24 units.

That Mary would be the answer to what's the city getting is it's getting a limitation on the units from 24 down to 15.

It's also limiting the type of housing as well. So it's detached single family homes

instead of twin or multi or towns or whatever. The last time I think it came through, wasn't it townhomes? It was townhomes. Again, so a development agreement Improvements, but Yeah. And sometimes so to me, that's what yeah, we're not getting a park or a trail system or anything out of it. But it would be a restriction on that. And I think the last time, the big concern was the amount of cars that would come through with whatever it was, 38 homes or what have you or whatever the amount of 24. Sorry, 24. So I see this kind of evolving better. It's getting a little bit better every time, right, as far as density goes.

We'll it's talk 90 about that. Yeah. Level And again, I know where talking about is my favorite example of what we don't want right there behind what there was going to be a dental office on 3rd and was the thirty eight day dental office. Well, what they were trying to push it through as dental office, say, oh no, we don't want the dental office, right? But now we've got literally a three foot, six foot gap between two homes in there and it is really super high density. And right up to the street, I think we had one homeowner saying that they are welcoming a

stoplight there

or something because they just get people raise anyway whatever. I digress but that's what happens. So that's why we're worried about the high density and as well as the homes being barely single family just with a piece of air between the two and two separate walls. Anything you'd like to add as the architect that you think that we need to know because we'll open this up for public hearing and then we'll discuss it.

Yeah, I mean I guess regarding the setbacks between homes, we're not really modifying those from the standard city ordinance. Some of those setbacks that were modified are more as they're relating to the public street and whatnot. And especially that, I guess you consider it a flag lot. There was a lot of really restrictions on that. So there are some modifications from that. But for the most part, the distance between homes would be per standard city ordinance, if not better.

I have a question. I don't know if you can answer. I'm just curious if the applicant engaged with the neighborhood at all in coming up with this development plan.

I'm not 100% sure. If he had like a neighborhood meeting or

something like that, is that

the Yeah, go house to house or do you know?

I don't

know that. They've come before us before and so we've heard public comment over and over.

So

maybe from that they've gleaned things. But Nick, do you know?

For this particular time coming back, I am unaware if he did or not.

Okay. Thanks. Okay.

I have a couple of comments or questions. The last meeting, really a year ago, a lot of our concerns was does this the general character of that neighborhood? And a lot of us had kind of the opinion of going more with the R 4, I think it was. Zoning more along that lines. But I have to agree with Mary's comment about what is the city getting out of this proposal.

If you can go to that concept plan. It does show the park on Lot 15 which is pointless because the development agreement spells out that that could eventually go to a single family. So to me that's kind of deceptive. You know, it's like, okay, let's call it what it's gonna be. So what would the city be getting out of it?

The criteria, I was reading the criteria for a development agreement and one of the item number four, so it's page seven of the staff, of this staff report. Let's see. It says the development agreement, so it needs to meet this criteria and list all the criteria. Then it says that the city has to include, agreement the development agreement with the city to have as a whole, including but not limited to, assurances of design standards, dedication of improvement, open space, parks, trails, amenities, or infrastructure such as rights of ways or utilities. So if the park is not gonna be there, it doesn't meet that criteria.

It doesn't meet open space. And not only that, but the public rights of ways this proposal is requesting to encroach in the public right of way with the driveways for lots, ten, eleven, and I would assume 15 also.

Yep.

And that just to me seems kind of contrary to what the goal should be. So that's just kind of a comment that I'm kind of concerned about.

Okay. That's a good point, Susan. So what we're looking at right here is this the only way that if the I mean, so just to prep the public tonight what this is all about. So this is our dry run tonight. If you've been to one of these meetings before, we give a positive or negative recommendation to the city council and then they ultimately decide. So the question I have then is what we're looking at right here is this the this is not the final say so on how this can be laid out. This is strictly just giving guidelines as far as lot sizes and quantity.

I mean going off of the agreement, it would seem that this would be

That this would be it?

Yeah.

Okay. So, know what I'm getting at here, that's why I'm asking. So, for us to just say, hey, conditions of this that would give a recommendation one way or the other, we can give requests or changes because I mean, what you just said right there, Susan, is you could flip Lot 10 and Lot 15. Well you couldn't even flip Lot 15 without coming out of the public access but you definitely flip Lot 10 into to driveway into the neighborhood right instead of out into the

Or something because to me to come to a city with a new project, to me, a new project should meet all the code, period. But development agreement does allow some flexibility for that. Something that I have a hard time with is giving private property development the right to encroach on the city right of way that they should meet that. I mean, especially when one of the the criteria in, to approve a development agreement says that it will provide infrastructure and public rights for utilities. Well, it is, but then they're asking us to encroach on it.

I just have a hard time with that. Five feet to me, it's like, no. Shift the whole shift everything five feet to the west or whatever. Reduce the rear yard setbacks for lots one through five so that ten, eleven, and 15 can have at least an 18 foot driveway on their property.

It looks like it's a 20 foot driveway.

It is, but five of that is in the city right of way.

No, I thought it looks like it's measuring from the house to the sidewalk, not across the rest of the driveway?

No. It's and it's even in the

development It's 15 feet.

And it's 15 feet.

Those are

And 15 unless everybody drives a Mini Cooper, that just does not work.

Susan is correct. On those like specifically on Lot 10 And 11, the driveway is 20 feet measured to the sidewalk, but five feet of that is technically in the right of way. Part of the reason for that is we're trying to get enough lot size so that we can have the potential for more Rambler plans. So anytime you we could reduce the setback somewhere else if you were open to that. Otherwise, we'd reduce the setback or maintain the same setbacks for those lots, it would force a smaller footprint of a home which would mean taller. Yeah.

So maybe that's, so again, if it doesn't work out, maybe there's too many lots. I mean, I don't know. Maybe back to the drawing board. I mean, you could reduce the rear setbacks for lots one through five from 20 feet to 15. But does that actually does that actually shift five feet to the west? I don't know. I just I just have an issue with that encroaching into the public right away with a new project.

See, and I like to hear the insight from the architect because the last thing somebody wants to do with their land is ruin it. And the last thing a developer wants to do is build stuff that nobody wants. True. They really just are not here. Believe it or not, the city is not here to keep developers from ruining their land.

And so what I'm looking at here is, yes, they put their head to this three, four times now. The density is getting lighter and lighter. And I'm looking at this saying, yes, that explanation right there makes sense to me because yes, you could satisfy that requirement at the expense of the other lot sizes or the whole develop size or get rid of some other lots. And again, they put their time into this and effort into this, but I'm serious. Like sometimes I really think that some of that stuff, the development agreement is the way to say, hey, how can we satiate what the city would normally want?

How can we make it pencil? Because they've got to make it pencil so that it's profitable. And how do we make sure that it fits in with everything else? Because there's really not a fit for these 15 lots here with a zone, right? The only way it's either going to be this or four houses, right? I mean it's well eight.

10 or eight or

12.

So see the big cut off there. So that's a huge difference between fifteen and eight, right? It's almost So anyway, that's I appreciate that input that we're just trying to say, hey, well, yes, you could slide it all over that way and

I mean, it sounds

I know these lots would be smaller.

I don't know. I just know that a 15 foot front step, your driveway, unless you all drive Mini Coopers, that does not work. They'll be hanging out into the right of way, which

Yeah, it's a point. I mean, you're not supposed to park a car with it hanging on the sidewalk, period. I found out the hard way with some kids one time that was a sideable offense.

Well, even that the project that

Yeah.

Just to the north and east that Lisa asked about, when I drove over there, not a point fingers, but there what their driveways, I think, are about 15 feet and that was exactly the scenario. There was a van parked in front of the garage angled and still hanging into the driveway

Or the sidewalk.

The sidewalk a couple of feet. And it was on a 45 degree angle because it can't fit in the driveway.

Which is why we have minimum.

Which is why we have minimums.

And it pushes people out onto the street. I mean there are all sorts of problems.

Right. I mean, I That's totally a little detailed whatever but that is something that I personally am kind of concerned about. Enough of that. It's a good dead horse. Yeah.

Perfect. Good catch there, Susan. All right. Anything else for us?

Not unless you have anything for me.

Okay. We'll invite you back up after public comment if we need Okay. Thank you so much. All right. This is a public hearing. Some of you may have been to one of these but I'll give you the rules and the guidelines. So we'll give anybody the chance to come up and speak for three minutes. We don't you don't need to fill the full three minutes but we just ask you don't go over. If there's multiple topics that are being repeated, you're welcome to abstain but it's your call. And then just to put in there, there's no clapping. It's not a pep rally even though we're a pretty peppy bunch. But just no clapping or cheering even though there might be some great comments. So anyway, I just add that. So with that, we'll go ahead and open up the public comment portion of this agenda item. Who would like to address this agenda item?

It's kind of like The Price is Right. You just come on down and get your three minutes. And one other guideline, just state your name. Thanks.

Hello, Dave Hansen. Yes, we've been here a couple of times. This is getting better. But honestly, from my perspective, and I believe from the neighborhood's perspective, we would like to see no change in the zoning, if possible. We know that Troy has, you know, when he acquired the property, he knew the zoning. We understand that this is a developer who wants to make his development build. I don't, I'm not against him developing. I just don't want to see a zone change just for his profit. He's not planning on acquiring and living on the property. It's where we live.

And we've had a lot of output and we are vocal. We're not wanting to see the change to the zoning to allow higher density, more properties. And Troy did not reach out to me when he made this plan, just until that question came up. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, who's next? Hi there.

I'm Kimberly Henry, resident of this neighborhood. I was listening online as we were driving in here, so the question came up, did Troy talk to the neighbors about this plan? No, he has not talked to us about this plan. It's similar to one that he had presented before but with more, including the park on the corner. My biggest concern is if you guys want to approve a development, don't change the zoning Because you start to change the zoning and that has a waterfall effect for the rest of the properties.

And that just every property that's going to come up for sale is going come back here and ask for a zoning change and a zoning change. And with our home we built twelve years ago, and we were told that this is the zone. It's not going to change. This is what the plan is. And so this is a change of philosophy. And we understand that with the projects around the train station, we do need to have more high density housing. And EDGE came in last time and said that they were going to cover a lot of that. There's 300 plus homes that are going to go right down the street from us, not even half a mile. So this is a lot better than it has been. It's better than the commercial plan and it's better than the full high density.

If you choose to move forward with something like this, if it can be done strictly on a developer agreement and not change the zone so it doesn't impact the rest of the properties going forward, would be something that I would ask for. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else?

Jim Duncan. I'm in the corner lot right there back. So a couple of things that I just wanted to point out. I took a drone and put a drone in the closest corner of tracks there on the street and came to that back corner, and it is 4.935. So I don't know where they're saying that it encompasses half of that because it doesn't.

And I don't know if that's as the crow flies because if I step it, it's over the half mile. Second thing is that the telephone poles, they're going down eight there. They're 32 and a half feet tall. Have you ever stood underneath the telephone pole and looked up? I don't know where they're coming up with 35 feet, but the telephone poles there, we marked a line at 31 and a half feet.

Excuse me. It was 31 foot, and there was only a foot and a half left. So we're 32 and a half feet. Troy originally mentioned that we would be 32 foot possibly. So single family dwelling home that's not a two story, how do we get 35 feet because the businesses across 8th East or across the hundred and twenty second tier, the businesses on that other side, they're not even close to 30 feet.

So I'm not sure how we can have housing. So, I mean, I know I've had to accept the fact that I'm gonna lose my sight of the mountains, But to be looking up in my backyard, 35 feet up, that's a little bit ridiculous. Just just me. Another thing is is that Troy has been in contact with me, so I have to speak up for Troy. He has talked to me many times.

He has asked me some questions. I've explained to him my concerns, So he has tried to work with me. And it's my fault because I have talked with most of the neighbors close around and explained the height, the number of houses that he was going to do, and the fact that he was going to keep it a single level with the basement is what he said he would do. But he wanted to have the opportunity to have a small loft up above the garage. That still does not require 35 feet.

So those are my concerns. Thank you. So thanks.

Thank you. Alright. I'm taking some notes here because there's always some questions. So anyone else?

Yeah. My name is Jerry Thomas. I live in the house directly east. And the 35 foot thing, my house is two stories, and it's not 35 feet. It's 20 maybe 22 feet. And I'm wondering if that 35 feet is the peak of the roof or is that the top of the dwelling ceiling? Do you know that?

Like it says, it's not a back and forth, but I'll note your question and we'll answer it later.

Okay. Also, like she pointed out, his driveway is encroaching on your right of way. Is that correct? Because my lot ends 30 feet, I think, from the center line of eight east, maybe 20 feet. But that's a lot of property you guys have to widen the road.

Certainly at some time it will be widened because it always happens. So my concern is the height. I appreciate that Troy has backed off of the 24 unit thing, but still he could put eight homes in there on the two acre lots and make a lot of money. And we would only have 10 vehicles to deal with instead of 25 coming in and out of that subdivision. Thank

you. Thanks.

Sorry about that. I'm Cindy Romero. I live west of I have well, my house should be showing up there. The traffic, if you guys have ever tried to get out on 122 And 7th, the just two cars per unit where they can put them. I lived I had owned a property at Parkstone, a gated community.

There wasn't parking there. You know? If you had kids, teenagers or what, where are they going to park at it? Know, that's just not acceptable. And the traffic and the spot zoning too. I've lived in that house for fifty some odd years. Yes, I am commercial if and when I want to be, but I'm not going to be. I'm going to stay there until I die. And I've got six little kids 10 living in my house. And I just don't wanna deal with it's so crowded.

And no no offense to Troy, but I don't quite trust him. But those are small houses and they need to be detached and they do not need to be that tall. I have a one story up to a two story, mine's only like 24 feet. So all I'm saying is and I don't think it should be that many homes. I think it should be down more in the 12 to 14 range.

When Troy bought it, he knew he was buying into half acre lots. He was under the assumption he could zone it however he's a developer, you know, that's what they do. But as far as I'm concerned, it doesn't need to be rezoned. And it needs to be kept, I'd say, about 12 lots, 12 houses. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi. Hi. My name is Ralph Broderick. I live at 626 East 12100 South. I don't live here, but I have property a half a block from where Troy is is building this development.

I have more property than he does, and I don't want a disaster like this on my property. When I develop my property, I want to put half acres in to keep the the neighborhood as it is. These people that live here have lived here a long time. They lived here for Draper for a particular reason and this is this is going every everything against what they were told when they when they first moved here here to Draper. You city council members are not gonna get in trouble with governor Cox if you downsize this project.

I guarantee you. My property is within is closer to this track station than Troy's is, and so I'm hoping that I don't have a problem with the city council telling me that I have to develop my property into the high density. 35 feet is is pretty tall, like is mentioned before. Most of these houses you see around here are pretty low. They're single story.

And if they're two story, they're pretty low. They're not 35 feet tall. So this is gonna look like a big tower in a two square block on the corner that's gonna be a disaster. Look at the neighborhood. Anyway, consider that. I appreciate it. Thank you. Thanks.

All right. Anyone else before we close-up public comment? We'll do last call on there. Okay. All right. Seeing none. Oh, go ahead. You're a polite bunch, so.

Sorry. Still thinking. I'm Lois Duncan, and I just live where those red trees are right there. So my two bedrooms will be looking up to this development. And so that to me kind of is an invasion of privacy there a little bit.

I'm not opposed to that if it's one story and not looking down into my home. I feel that's just an invasion. And the other thing is I was trying to leave to go to a meeting and they had the accident on the freeway. And so the traffic, it all scattered like ants. Everybody was trying to get home.

And there was backed up here, backed up there, backed up here, backed up there. And to me, I thought, I'll wait and wait and wait. And finally, I was able to get out. But not because anybody let me out, but they were going really fast on 800 East, really fast. And this is a place where people walk their dogs.

This is a place where people have animals outside that aren't in the street, occasionally maybe, but not to be careless or anything. And if there's high density, it's just going to cause more traffic. And where are people going to walk for peace? Where are they going to walk for their sanity? I guess I'm just not ready for a change of this nature.

I'm still trying to get used to what's going in west of the tracks on Kimballs Lane or back in on 119. I'm still trying to focus on how are we going to deal with that and then this came along and it's just overwhelming to me. That's all I can tell you. But thanks for listening to me.

Thank you. All right. That looks to be it. All right, we'll go ahead and close the public hearing portion of this agenda item. All right, a couple quick questions were brought up so I'm just going to pose these to staff real quickly and then actually before I go through my questions, we'll invite the applicant back up or the architect. Is there anything that you want to talk to about that? Well, let me ask my question about the height first and then we'll maybe have you up. So who do you want me to ask this to? Nick? Okay, Nick, so if this stays as it is right now, RA2, what's allowed? With two acres, it would be four homes, correct?

Yes, that would be correct. With two acres or eight? It would be two acres, yes, would be four It be. It's half acre homes or half acre lots.

But with infrastructure, you've got about 25% out of that. So in reality, maybe it wouldn't be four, would it be more three?

And if we're just going strictly off of the size of the property, it could get four lots on it. And once you get the road in there and everything else that could change. But in terms of size it

could But if there he could just do four lots with every driveway shooting out onto the municipal streets and that's it. That's what they would do, just four backyards. Okay. What's the height allowed in RA2?

Actually it's higher than what's being proposed. Wait, wait, no, I'm sorry.

It's 35 feet in all of our residential zones?

Correct. So my ivory neighborhood that I live in, those are all 35 Correct. Foot And it's up to the pitch. It's not to the top of my highest two story Yes.

So is the average finished grade to the midpoint in the peak?

Yes. It's just that 35 is what we've always heard. Now what we're when I want a red balloon up is when we want a 99 foot sign for a gas station, right? That's when I want to see a red balloon flowing up there. But 35 feet. So right now, you could build four homes with 35 foot height on every one of those four homes, correct? Because the height has been brought up this time and the other three times I didn't hear really peep about it. So I just think because that was a red in, that caught everybody's attention. These could be 35 feet high since day one and without a zone change.

And I'll point out too that in the way that our code is written, it's to the midpoint, 35 feet to the midpoint, so technically it can actually go higher than 35

Yes. If the pitch is kind of the average of the pitch, if it's one of these hipped roofs, it could be higher than 35, technically.

And as he spelled out in his agreement, it terminates at 35.

35. So these will be and I've also heard too and you always hear this, trust me, said the developer. I'm not saying that's what's being said here. They're trying to put ramblers on some of these and if the lot's too small, you just have to go vertical like in my favorite example over on 138th And 3rd. Okay. So that's if it stays the way it does now, okay? So let me ask this. It's commercial right next to it right here. There's another one. Can you go to Exhibit D real quickly on the staff report? It's the aerial map of the land use. Okay, up there where it's 12085 South, what's that where it says residential high density?

What's that

in terms of

the development?

Those are the townhomes up there. So those can also go up to 35 feet. Those would all be 35 feet. So I think the last proposal with townhomes would have mimicked that more than what we're looking at here. So what I'm seeing right here is a hybrid of what's already been put into place and I didn't go to a planning zoning class. I'm just a regular citizen up here volunteering my time. But I've always heard, hey, you want to kind of feather. You want to go from heavy commercial to light commercial, which is what neighborhood commercial is. Then you want to go to high density, medium density, low density. Well, we have no feathering right here.

So if you're going ask me to pay $2,000,000 for one of these four houses that are sitting on a half an acre but my backyard neighbor is neighborhood commercial, that's not cool to me. So again, I'm not defending the developer, but they don't want to ruin their land. And in my opinion, in my experience, to put a $2,000,000 house there because that's what you'd have to charge with your lot with your price of dirt and draper right now, You'd have a $1,600,000 $1,800,000 home right next to slammed right in next to neighborhood commercial. I'm not buying that. So again, this product that we're seeing right here, I'm not really interested in that radius anymore.

That's why I brought it up. It's not that that's just a free shoe in, right, Jennifer? I mean, that was the point. It's not just because the state said that we all have to say the city doesn't need to take a knee and say, you're right, that's what we need to do here. So that's why I brought that up. So the next point is that for this piece, it's going to get developed. If it stays right now, you're going have four homes in there that are 35 feet high and $2,000,000 each. And I haven't penciled it out but you probably made the same amount of money. So just in my experience I've seen how I mean we've seen these neighborhoods go in. I've been up here since 2012.

I'm not going to pontificate on what I've seen but it has given some insight. And what I do see is I see these getting a little bit there's always no, no, no, and then what goes in is actually worse because it meets what the public clamor is or it meets what the there's not any flexibility to say can we do a development agreement because none of these zones really fit the highest and best use of this. So I don't like to see developments that are ruined. And in my experience, some of these have been just and by ruined I mean you don't realize that your truck won't fit in the driveway till you've closed and you've lived there for a week. And you're like what the heck?

This is horrible, right? And then they say well why didn't the city catch it? Well, they should have caught it but nevertheless.

Or they let it happen.

Great. I've gotten now signed the mortgage and I get to park my truck slanted on my driveway for all time. So anyway, so that those I just want to point out that if we don't change anything, that's what you can do here. And as far as what we've already got, we've got townhomes up there. And if you look at those townhomes, no offense if you live in there, but this development to me is a better development than that townhome development up there to live in. And I don't get a vote, but in my experience, that's just going be a better place to live with people that have are these two car well, let's invite the architect back up just real quick so we can get you. And then you can maybe ask, are these one car garages, two car garages? Because these homes have garages. Is that what the intent They

would all have two car garages.

And you're doing that not because the city is forcing you because that's what the customer wants. So a two car garage. So two car garage homes, know, some of these townhomes, have a two car garage hole but nothing fits in there. Know, mean, that's the opening. The opening is two car garage. So again, you know, looking at what we've been through with three of these, this is now the fourth as I recall. It's it's I keep hearing it's getting better and I'd hate to see it turn for the worse. I mean, not that he's going to do this, but sometimes when people get frustrated with their land, they just kick their heels in and throw a rehab center in, right? Because you can't stop them. That's it.

Just throw a rehab center in, know, extended care center. So anyway, so I don't get a vote. But what I'm seeing right here, I do have a little bit issue with Lot 1011 And 15. I agree going to be 15 is going be a house because there's nothing in this that says it won't be. And then it almost looks like if you wanted to keep everything inside the community, Lots 10 And 11 would need to turn into one lot with the driveway pointing out. Because Or Susan, your issue isn't that the driveway is exiting out onto 122, right? That's not against any of our code.

800.

Sorry, 800 or It's 100

to know of the development agreement.

That they're being allowed to do that because No.

The thing is It's the encroachment.

Right. But my point is the development agreement is requiring those homes to be facing 800 East, not allowing them. It's requiring them.

And then do you feel that that's good or bad?

I don't have an opinion either way about that unless we're talking about issues with the driveway length. That's really my only issue. But my yeah. It's just I think the idea of having that in the development agreement and somebody can correct me if I'm wrong was to not make it a totally closed in community where all the homes are facing each other. There's some, that's how it read to me.

Which is good planning practice for a neighborhood. Mean, we live in neighborhoods that if the 800 had just more of these homes on the other side, that would be totally acceptable, right? You just pull out into the nice big street and be on your way. So just some things to point out. If it stays the way it is with four lots, the height, I just wanted to dip that because I haven't heard that with that veracity yet to this point and 35 feet being limited 35 feet at the peak peak is also another concession. What's the city getting? They're getting lower height.

Well, the whole point though, and you can probably sit down.

You don't have to stand up

here The if don't want

whole point though is they're getting this zone that would have allowed a higher height and then pulling it back to make it a residential height. So they're getting the zone so that they can have higher density, but the city is saying we don't want the height. My point is if you go back to that picture, instead of having maybe facing each direction two homes, you've now got five that are giant right up against the property line. Inevitably, if somebody is building on half an acre, there might be one side where it's on the property line. But here we've got multiple homes that are that high.

And I read that development agreement and I noticed it said once, cottage style homes. And I have a really clear picture picture in my head when I think about a cottage style home or a small variety. And 35 feet, I don't know if that fits into my idea of cottage. And when I think about cottage homes on this lot, I think that's a really great idea. I do because they're probably smaller in scale, but there is no guarantee.

And that's my issue. There's no guarantee in this development agreement that they will be smaller in scale aside from obviously the lot size and the setbacks. But I do think it's kind of an encroachment on the feel of the neighborhood. Like this one to the east, this one lot, it may be zoned neighborhood commercial, but there is a single family home there. And I believe we heard from the homeowner tonight.

And I'm all for the feathering and the, you know, being smart about planning. And I like this idea. I do. We've we've come a long way. But I also I would like to respond here. It's gonna get worse. I hate that. It only gets worse if city council approves worse. Like, that's on them. And and nobody is coming in here saying we have to approve anything.

Or Yeah. Mary, the only the only reason I bring that up is because you My microphone cut out right there. You cannot stop a rehab center. It's going in.

Well, in a single but it but it still is subject to the zoning

I agree.

Of a single

I won't argue that out with you, but that's that's and and it's not that it has to get worse. It's getting better and better.

It is. And and I'm Yeah.

And I think we were on there going

in the right direction, and I think this has potential. But I just I'm not convinced it's there yet, and that's just

Where where would it be? Like what

I I'm not.

So so the so the app there. Yeah. So the applicant can just be there because all we're hearing is we're saying, well, the developer wants to develop. They've spent they've applied three, four times. The this lot keeps coming back to us. And all we hear is, well, it's not quite there yet. But it is there because it sounds like what's acceptable and allowed is pretty much the only thing that's not going to get any public clamor until they build a 35 plus height.

Well, appreciate the development agreement, number one.

Yeah.

That's really a benefit to the neighborhood if there's a development agreement because it usually it will lock in the developer to things. So I appreciate that. But I think maybe eight homes is a better in this slot or in this plot instead of the 15.

I think he's got a good design. I kind of like it. But eight, I don't know, 12, easy. Get rid of ten, eleven, 15. You got 12. And then all of the lots be a little bigger in a sense. Mhmm. Don't have to encroach the public right away. It's not for us as a commission to design their project, but I think we can say this as far as what it's worth, what our opinions are. I mean, I see 12 easy.

Do you?

And I don't have a problem

with we've that. Got here in front of us is it's just a pass fail. Right? I mean, we're looking at, hey. The way what what what's been presented here that they've worked with the planners over and over again with has now been brought to us again for a pass fail. We don't even get the final say so. This goes on to the city council. And then they give it a yes or no. So I mean, as far as a passfail, we don't get to

Can I make a recommendation?

To this all up. Yeah.

You make your motion whether it's to forward a positive recommendation or whether it's to forward a negative recommendation, in that motion things that you you would recommend the council look at. If you're concerned about driveway width and home size or building height, put that in your motion.

Well, and I understand what you're saying. We've had

this

conversation before. My issue is I'm not going to say I give this a positive recommendation with a laundry list of changes. I I would rather just vote no.

It and and it could be a negative recommendation. And your motion is

Yeah.

You have a negative recommendation because the agreement doesn't discuss these items.

Okay, that's fair.

I want to make one other comment on the 35 foot height. That's as Jen said, that is standard residential height.

Totally standard.

And that's not just Draper. That's probably

You see it everywhere. Every neighborhood we're driving through is gonna have that 30 foot.

It doesn't mean that a two story house is gonna be 35 feet. And and in addition to that, there's no such thing as protecting someone's view. If if you wanna protect your view of the mountains or whatever, you need to buy the property next to you. It's the only way to do it. Right. Because development is going to happen eventually.

So let's talk about some of the things that we're disliking so we enumerate them. My first question or concern is that the park is not mentioned in the development agreement as a park. Right.

Well it is but it says it could be converted into a We want

to assure if they're going to have a park we want assurances if they're going to do a park we want assurances that it's a park.

So that it remains a park. Is that what you Yeah.

So that would limit the number of lots then to 14 instead of 15. Right.

But

we're saying that we think 14 is too many.

Well, that's my opinion.

I think 15 is too many. Think, in my opinion, get rid of ten, eleven, and 15. And then you've got bigger setbacks that meet the code. There's no So the driveway

length and encroachment is the next problem.

Well, that's one of them. Then So

let's are you writing this down?

Yeah. I've got

Write it down.

I've got the park. And then buses I just yeah. I'm just and I'm hoping you guys are putting like a why because as we're just going to hack up the architect's job here, help me understand why because I'm saying if you just feel better about having 12 lots instead of 15, help the applicant understand why. Does the driveway face a different way? Does Lot 10 start facing north? Lot 11 face south now? I mean, why?

That's not our job though. Ultimately these get really heavily negotiated with city council. And I think we all know that. And so honestly, in the end, I think we can give general feedback. But I think getting into the nitty gritty is not a good use of our time.

That's what we're with

suggestions. We're

talking about the length of the driveway. So the number of homes is a problem because the driveways have to be shortened and that's a really poor quality development or building for a resident.

Okay so driveway length. Driveway length. So it's not even the amount of lots, it's just driveway length?

Well I think that's part of it. I think driveway length needs to be minimum 18 feet, preferably 20, but minimum 18.

Are we seeing 20 feet though, Susan? Am I not seeing 20 feet?

Which

one is not 20? It's specifically

10 and The

development agreement specifically calls out that Lots 11 And 15 will have the 15 feet.

15 feet to the, well okay, not to the sidewalk but to the access to this setback.

Including 15 if they made a Yeah,

Okay. So driveway length on 1011 and Lot 15.

And that's with a 10 foot rear yard setback, which is better, smaller you

can get. And I think that's a fair statement than saying we just feel better about three less lots. So because there's that's a reason why because those three lots have problematic driveways.

Yes, right.

Fair?

Fair.

Okay. Well, Commissioners, that's all we got to do is a positive or negative recommendation. Just like I said, I'm only fishing for feedback so the applicant and the planners can hear what it is. I mean, that's what we're up here supposed to be doing is to say, hey, this is why we're not the problems are and so that they can just fix them. And whether they do that between now and next meeting or not, we'll see, but it's worth a shot. So just to give them some feedback. Anything else? Anyone want to make a motion?

I think also that doesn't meet the criteria for approving a development agreement. If you review the criteria which is 10, there's 10 separate listed. If we have all reviewed those and feel that this proposal meets that, well then that's one thing. But in my opinion, it doesn't. And specifically number four, and I've referred to that earlier.

Are you looking on the

It's

Oh, on the development agreement, page seven.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

So And then we also have findings for approval and findings for denial that kind of generally wrap into those?

Well, here's the challenge. Do we approve the land use and the zoning but not the I mean, can't do that because then it opens it up to whatever the developer wants.

Right.

So how do we refuse the zoning then on what basis?

Well, my opinion, in this particular request, they go hand in hand. We do all

Well, the zone is I would say it's definitely not appropriate without a development agreement. It's too dense without it, in my opinion.

Is that one of our criteria we can use to forward a negative recommendation? Oh, absolutely.

I mean, maybe not specifically to dance, but I think inconsistent with the goals or,

you know Well, and if you look at the minutes from a year ago, which was this same zone request, they didn't have the development agreement, but they did have it was the same request. Several times in the minutes, several of us expressed concern about it not being appropriate, a high a high density zoning not being appropriate for this particular property based on the surrounding area and the existing land use in general fund. This is much better. I'm actually like this pretty well except for a few things that I've

Yeah. I'm looking at this. So so we always have, you know, the state's trying to push everybody into something that's almost impossible, which is affordable housing. And I know smaller homes are going sell for less period. That's it. So if you want this more affordable and if you don't build more neighborhoods like this in Draper, if not here, then where? Because I think this is the type of development that Draper needs more of. We have plenty of the townhomes. We have plenty of the McMansions sitting on a full acre. And then we have our fair share of the flag lot, which is the state bird of Draper, right, where you've got an old house in the front and $3,000,000 house in the back and you access it through the pig farm of the front yard owner's driveway.

So in my opinion, this is what Draper needs more of and if not here, where? Because we don't need any more stack houses. We've got those on the other side by 15. We don't need any more of those townhome developments up there because the land is just too valuable. And it's too high density. Everybody complains about that, right? That's the problem of all our traffic are those townhome developments, I guess. So if not here, where? And this type of development I think is exactly the happy medium between, hey, need affordability and people want to live in Draper. I mean, my kids can't live in Draper. They can't. They don't. And so with something like this, you know, it's getting closer.

So I'm going agree 100% with what you just said, Kendra.

Like to make a negative motion then for the land use.

Yeah. It'll have to be it'll just be the same on all of them. Right?

Well, there's they're all separate. Don't we have to do them separately? Yes.

But yeah.

Okay. I I I move that we forward a negative recommendation to the city council for the land use map amendment as requested by Troy Dana, application 2020Five-fourteenMA based on the findings for denial listed in the staff report dated 02/24/2026, specifically that the land use amendment is not harmonious with the overall character of existing development in the vicinity of the subject property. And the amendment will adversely affect adjacent property.

Perfect. So that's our motion from Lisa. Who will second that?

I'll second it but also with all the concerns that we expressed previously. And I don't want to state that in the motion.

You could listen to the recording. Think

you're The concern being the length of the driveways particularly.

And and probably falls more under the development agreement. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah.

So we'll

just leave that should we just leave that motion the way Susan seconded it? So let's put this one to a vote. This is for land use. So Lisa, how do you vote?

Yes for the negative recommendation.

Negative recommendation. Yes. And now Susan?

Yes.

Christine?

Yes.

Mary?

Yes. And Laura? No.

Okay. Alright. Next. Zoning

map. I'll I'll take that one.

Perfect.

Sorry. I got it. Thought I was there. I move we forward a negative recommendation to the city council for denial of the zoning map amendment as requested by Troy Dana application 2025Dash0013DashMA Based on the following findings for denial is in the staff report dated 02/24/2026, and specifically number one, two, and three. Numbers one, two, and three.

Got it. That motion is from Mary. Who will second that?

I'll second it.

Second from Susan. Okay. So Mary, let's put this to a vote. Negative recommendation with your findings there?

Yes.

On zoning map.

Oh.

How do you vote?

Yes. Sorry.

Okay. And then Susan?

Yes.

Christine?

Yes.

Lisa?

Yes.

And Laura? No. Okay. Alright. Let's move on now to the development agreement.

I'll make a motion on that one.

Perfect. Go ahead.

I move that we forward a negative recommendation to the city council for the development agreement as requested by Troy Dana, application 2025Dash0299DA based on the following findings for denial listed in the staff report dated 02/24/2025, and the concerns that we expressed earlier.

Thank you, Susan. Who will second it?

I'll second. Oh, sorry.

I'll let Christine.

We'll let Christine do it down there. It's been quiet down there. So all right, Christine. Christine seconded that, so let's go ahead. Susan, how do you vote?

Yes.

Christine?

Yes.

Mary?

Yes.

Lisa?

Yes. And Laura? No.

Okay. Alright. So that's gonna move forward that way. And, the next time this will come up is at a city council meeting. Those are always on Tuesdays. So you can watch the calendar for that or the, the notice. I think they put that on the signs there too. But either way, you guys know the drill. So thanks for coming in. Let's move on to our next public hearing. It's the Juan Diego text amendment request. It's on the request of Joe Colosimo representing SKAS Catholic Center LLC, a request for approving of a zoning text amendment to table nine dash 10 dash zero nine zero Draper City Municipal Code. The purpose of the request is to allow private schools as a conditional use in all residential zones known as application twenty twenty six-six TA. And I don't see Mary Ann. So Jen, are you filling in?

It's me, yeah.

Okay.

See how

I caught that? It's pretty good.

Yes.

Even though it's late. Got it.

Yeah, so it's a so before you is a text amendment to change allowed uses with in residential zones. Your staff report is showing adding private school as a conditional use permit to all of the residential zones. And I've got the public schools charter schools listed as well so you can just see how we treat public schools. Now public schools are different under state law. We don't have a choice but to allow them.

I want to go over some potential changes since the staff report went out for you guys to look at potentially include in a recommendation to the city council. As we continued looking at this application, looking at potential changes that we can do, having it be conditional only in the R3 zone, but also allowing it only as a small scale ancillary use to existing schools, private schools. That allows an existing private school to expand, offer more options, that kind of thing without allowing for a full brand new large scale school to come in.

That's it. But it's conditional use anyway. So who is it approved It's us, isn't it? Or are we recommending to the city council

if it's So conditional the text amendment tonight you'll be recommending. And then if council approves the text amendment then any conditional use permits will come before you guys that allow you guys to look at lighting parking traffic hours of operation things like that

So I'm not clear on why you're just recommending R3. Can you further explain that to me again?

So the applicant, applicant is a private school. The property that they are hoping to expand into is in the R3

zone. So

when I first looked at this, it looked like well, it was a change for any private school in any residential zone.

Correct.

And so this is limiting it to allow for this particular project basically that is being anticipated right now. Yeah. Well, others won't be

specifically for this, but it would limit it to the R3 zone. And if you look at the footnote, limit it to a property that's one acre in size and it does have to be ancillary to an existing school. So there are other private schools that could expand under this if the property is R3 this would work for them. If it's not then maybe they would come in with another tax amendment.

Well and it addresses most of my concerns that were large scale and making this a change for anyone and everyone. So I like this change. Think that's really a positive development.

So now this wasn't in the staff report so you guys will when you make your recommendation, you'll need to say, recommending subject to these changes. Okay.

To just this one for the R3?

Yes.

And this limitation?

Number five, right? This number five limited. So when we put our motion forward, why don't you pop the screen back up for us again just as a reminder.

Doesn't that get into the guess I've hesitated even asking this. Doesn't that kinda get into that gray area for it's kinda arbitrary and incaprecious where it's getting down to where it's we're looking at one specific property or use or business or whatever you wanna call it. And I don't know that that's good practice. And maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'm so maybe we can get a clarification on that.

I'll I'll back that up too with with you, Susan. So help me understand. So if if an applicant for example just looking at piece of property and they haven't purchased it yet but it happens to be our three zone, why would they just not put that thing under contract and then come in here and try to entitle it into something that does allow private school, a zone that would allow private school just for that one particular case instead of a text amendment. Because I just heard you say this is what spawned that question as I heard you say now if another school, let's say, Prep Academy or somebody wants to just say, hey, this actually would fit us, but behind us is our four. And they could come in and then also do a text amendment, which pretty soon after four of those, right, or six of those were back, what Mary was worried about that everybody gets to put a private school on any zone.

Yeah. And I I think the key is that footnote where we're limiting the size and that it has to be ancillary to an existing school. So it allows an existing school to expand but not allow new schools to come in. So a private school currently is not permitted or conditional in any of our residential zones. So any private school we have today that's in a residential zone is legal nonconforming.

So ancillary meaning that it's adjacent or ancillary meaning that you can get in a bus Yeah. And drive down the street and it's

part of

It's a branch location. So it doesn't need to be in proximity, it just needs to be under my name, my LLC. That's an ancillary.

Don't know, is ancillary a defined term in our code? And if it's not, maybe I should be thinking

about It's right there. No,

that's a good point.

I don't know. We'll invite the applicant up and they can explain this, I guess, little bit better to me. So those are the questions I have. It's like, look, typically if you want to do something with a piece of property that doesn't allow it, this is very different than what I've seen in the past. I'm just curious as to why you guys took that approach, consulting with the applicant instead of saying, hey, go lock it up and then come change the zone. We don't close on it, but

We can still use the footnote if we allow in all the zones a conditional use. Can't we? I mean isn't that

so I'm a little concerned why we're having it. Well I know that's the request having a conditional use but to me we've already allowed public schools, charter schools as permitted. To me, kind of to be fair, guess, maybe private schools should be a permitted use. I'm curious as to why the conditional why it's the request of specific application.

This law requires us to make them permitted. True. And we don't want schools anywhere if we can help it, I think, is the idea. Anyway, but the request is not to make it The request is conditional. Right.

I

I like the like the changes that have been made. But I think Andrew made a good point and maybe if ancillary is not a defined term that it becomes one for purposes of this footnote or whatever number five is and that that be clearly defined.

And is there a zone that is just built for schools? So for example, if I see this R3 and I want to change the zone, what zone would I need to change it to have a private school be conditional? Not even permitted, just a conditional use. Where are conditional uses permitted now for private schools? Where are they? A letter C instead of a letter P. I'm just testing your

savvy here. Jim. There we go. Private schools are So community So

in all the commercial zones except maybe whatever

So struggle would be, hey, we want to buy an R3 parcel and now we're going to ask the neighbors to change it to commercial just so we can put our school in and then it's open to whatever else that zone would allow for.

It's a school though. It's an ancillary use of an existing school. So it's never new. It's never a net new school. That's the whole point of the addition of that language. So so what you just said couldn't happen with this language.

Okay.

Isn't the request added to all of the zones? It's a conditional private school?

Yeah. That's the change she said.

Yeah. So this is the

That's how it was.

Yeah. And

now it's just being put Additional into

our and all the residential zones, staff is looking at or suggesting a recommended change that would limit the zones but also provide some limitations on it.

Got it. And Mary, you're against the all zones because why? You're against

Well, that the additional would have allowed

new private schools in any as a conditional use in any residential zone. That's a huge change to our zoning code.

Even with the footnote?

Will you just go back?

No, no, no. The original

Will you go back to

the I know but if we use if we keep it the footnote but conditional in all of these R zones.

That there you go Lisa. That's my point.

I just, that's not what the applicant needs. So

that's why not do the recommended change

that staff is giving us. I just don't see any reason to do that. And if staff is recommending R3 so that it works here, then

I'd like to ask Is our legal counsel a question then about it inappropriate for us to limit it just to one zone even with this footnote?

No. Somebody brought up a point about something being arbitrary and capricious. And arbitrary and capricious is a legal standard generally affiliated with punitive behavior by the governing body. This is a policy consideration. It's a legislative act.

You are free to recommend whichever way you want. If you find good policy reasons for limiting this as a conditional use for just the R3 zone, you could add in whatever zones you wanted. You could throw in commercial and industrial and agricultural zones in this if you wanted, as long as there's policy reasons to back up why you're why you're coming up with this recommendation. And, of course, city council is free to take your recommendation and say, nah. We like it the way it was first with conditional use in all of the zones because it's a legislative act.

So I think that we're probably getting a little bit too far into the weeds on this one because at the end of the day, if we think that there's good policy reasons to support allowing it as a conditional use in just the R3, or if we think that there's good policy reasons to allow it in all of the zones, we can say those things. And Mary, you brought up some pretty poignant points here that we don't really want to allow schools in all the zones, all the residential zones all over the city. So this limitation actually makes sense as a policy matter.

We've gotten really deep into this. Is it a public hearing?

No, not yet. All right. Thanks. Don't forget to invite the applicant. Hey, look, you're just hitting us with this number five change now here, so hold on. All right, is the applicant here? Come on down. And there was nothing punitive here, so just so you know. That's why I looked over at you guys. I'm like, there's no punitive anything. If you'll just state your name too.

Yeah, Joe Colosmo, 100 Seventeen-four Thousand 5 S. Taitlin Rose Lane, Draper, Utah. Let me just start with a little history. So we bought this property four years ago from Jeff Lamb and we tore it down and planted grass and now we want to try to fold it into the mission of the school and we feel like we want to do a greenhouse farm to table kind of a thing and educate the students on where food comes from. And then looking at the current zoning, private schools weren't allowed.

So I thought we'd come in with Jennifer and we'll change the text in the R3 zone. We like the R3 zone because never is a long time and if we need to sell it, R3 is probably a good zoning. Plus everything around it is complementary and I didn't think changing it to commercial would fly. So we're comfortable leaving it in the R3 and we're comfortable with the five foot note because it's specific Right. And to so the one site, we can live with all those conditions. Like the conditional use from your standpoint because parking and lights and all that stuff gives you a little more control versus a permitted use. And like I say, we're comfortable with the conditional use as well.

Maybe we should invite in just about twenty minutes ago, so thank Yes.

I have a question.

I do

have a request. We have five students who would like to get up and speak.

They can do it as public hearing. How about we do that?

Yeah. They swear they're under three minutes, so I don't think we need the five minute group. So I

appreciate Okay, yeah, we're happy to do that.

But can I

talk Eva Wagner, right? Come on up.

Joe, I have a question for

Joe, we'll get your question started, then why don't we have them do that as the public hearing. Would that be okay?

That's great.

Let's just do that because it'll fit right in line with what we've seen with everybody else. You guys okay with that? Okay. So let's get a couple more things from you and then we'll excuse you, open it up to public hearing and that's when you guys can shine, okay? Perfect.

I'm familiar with your campus and so where is the land that you've purchased or that you want to build this on

exactly? It's

North of 118th South and our west entrance dead ends into it.

So Oh, thank you.

There it is right there. So we bought it from Jeff. And his house was old and decrepit, we tore it down and planted grass. It's kind of turned into the dog park a little bit, so we're trying to plant some vegetables and trees on it. The other thing we're going to try to do is, as a project, try to grow trees for our main campus. We plant about 30 trees a year.

And so if we can get some seedlings and Starting on tree farm there.

That'll be awesome.

Little tree farm there. Perfect.

Okay. I'm just worried about traffic. Watch your students when they cross.

Yeah. Hold on.

So Joe, there would be an actual structure on that property? Just curious. Or is it gonna be a garden?

Well, it's gonna be a garden. We got a site plan. We're gonna and then we're gonna buy we're gonna start with an Amazon greenhouse, just a 20 by 20 greenhouse and and start have some starts in there. Then if something's bigger, we'll probably come back. I think that's a phase three kind of an idea, a greenhouse. But we got some lavender planted up front, some crops, and then some berries along the fence. So most of them are yearly fruits and vegetables, and then some are permanent like the lavender. And we're gonna we got some plant or beds, but most of it's just gonna go on the ground.

Interesting. Okay. Thanks.

Perfect. Well, thanks again for that explanation. So this is a public hearing, as I mentioned before. We'll give everybody that wants to speak up to three minutes. You've a nice big red timer over there. So why don't we go ahead and open this up right now to anyone that would like to address this agenda item? That's you girls. And if you just state your name to you please.

Thank you. Hi, I'm Ava Wagner. We are here today with our project manager, Mr. Colossimo, and our Food and You teacher, Ms. Johnson, and our principal, Ms. Jacobs.

Hi, my name is Riley Logan, and we are all in a class called Food and You, where we learn where our food comes from and substantial gardening practices. Miss Jacobs and Miss Johnson are have already passed out a graphic with more information about our project as well.

My name is Olive Kiger and we are all students at St. John the Baptist Middle School. St. John the Baptist Middle School has an enrollment of three fifty two students in grades six through eight and the Skaggs campus educates children from six weeks old to their senior year.

We purchased the lot on the north side of our campus off of A Hundred And 18th South four years ago. We now would like to use the land for a farm to table project that allows us to have a hands on learning program. SJBMS will lead this project, but our whole campus will take part and benefit from our farm to table program. Could you repeat your name? Elbree.

Thank you.

And

Jen, will you just reset that timer? We'll just let it go.

Hi, I'm back again. And our Farm to Table project has three phases. We have already secured a $7,500 grant through Captain Planet Foundations. During our class time, we have already started planting seeds including peppers and lettuce. We hope to begin the first phase this summer with a small vegetable garden for our food and new class and improving the soil with a cover crop. God asks us to be good stewards of his creation. We can do that by having this area to improve, make beautiful, and with the long term goal of producing food for our cafeteria.

I'm Eva Wagner, and I have been on the Skaggs Catholic Center campus since I was in pre k. I would love to see our campus grow our food for lunchroom so all students can take part in this learning experience, whether it's through eating what we grow or having a hands on experience through our Food plus You class or through our home based classes.

Hi. My name is Camilla Morales. And as we close our request, we're reminded of the scripture from Ecclesiastes that reminds us that there is a time or era for all things. We would love your support to help us have the time to plan. Thank you.

Well, if the parents want

to clap, I'll allow it. Okay. That was great. We're not heartless up here. We're not. Girls, well done. Thank you for that. We appreciate that. I love it. I think that's great. This is kind of how your city is run. So when you're older and there's nothing on Netflix, you can come down here and watch these in your town where you end up living long term, okay? So thank you. We appreciate that. It's still open for public hearing. Would anyone else like to address this agenda item? Okay. We'll let it stand then. Thank you. We'll close the public hearing. Alright, commissioners. My question was answered. Why not change the zone? And it's because one day I'm now seeing right where it is. Right. We'll just have to change it right back to R3 and put a nice house on it and I'm good.

Yeah. I would just say that was the most unfair public comment I've ever received and I'm not sure how anyone could say no to that.

Yeah, was very well done.

Is hard to remember.

That's why we turned the timer

off. I'll

make a motion for a positive recommendation. Anybody else using these alternative texts does anybody else appear have a comment or question or

well

done to the group that took so much time and what a cool thing yeah we all think that our food just magically appears in a grocery store so good job getting yourselves educated and doing such a positive thing in the community

I'm a gardener myself it's good okay I move that we forward a positive recommendation to the city council for the One Diego zoning text amendment alternate text alternative text as requested by Joe Colosimo representing Skaggs Catholic Center LLC application 2026006 wait 0006 TA based on the following findings and the criteria for approval listed in staff report dated 03/03/2026. The alternative text, however, is that a conditional use will be allowed in the R3 zone only. That will be the only change. But there will be a footnote. It'll be limited to sites and properties one acre in size or less than or less that are ancillary to an existing private school campus within the city.

Site coverage with buildings and structures limited to no more than 2,000 square feet, maximum height of buildings and structures limited to 25 feet.

Thank you, Lisa. And who will second that motion?

I'll second.

Thanks, Christine.

Could I propose an additional amendment that I think we all were on board with? And my brain just went totally blank. Oh, the ancillary. The word ancillary should probably be defined in our code for this purpose.

Are you wanting me to define ancillary? Or are you suggesting that the city were

Yeah.

Create a definition of ancillary?

That, yes.

Before this is passed or after it's passed?

As it is passed. Additional text.

We can get a definition for the term before it could between now and the time it goes to council. Thank you. If that's in your motion.

So I will include in my motion that the city define ancillary in the code and present that to the city council.

Great. And Christine, you're still seconding that?

Yes. I'll second.

Great. Thank you. Okay. Let's put this to a vote for positive recommendation. Lisa, how do you vote?

Yes.

Christine?

Yes.

Laura down there?

Yes.

Lisa? Oh, sorry. Mary and Susan. Mary?

Yes.

And then Susan?

Yes.

Thank you. See, I tried to mix it up and keep you included down there, Laura. Congratulations, guys. Thanks for the presentation. We appreciate you being, part of our community. Alright, let's go on to our next public hearing. This one is the High Point Office Building 2 site plan and deviations request. It's on the request of Riley Young of Mint Architecture representing High Point Partners LLC. The site plan a deviation request for the construction of a new office building on approximately 1.02 acres located approximately 193 East Highland Drive. This is known as application twenty twenty Four-three 50 SP and 20 twenty four-two seventeen VAR. So Jen, I'm assuming you're our staff contact on this Todd one as

is going to do this one.

Oh, perfect. I've got this one. Okay, great. Sorry, I should have looked for the eye contact there. There we go. Okay, Todd.

Divide and conquering.

Yes, Got it. Go ahead, Todd.

Alright. Thank you. So again, yes, this is Mary Anne's app application, but, I'm presenting in her stead. This is the vicinity map, And you can kinda see where that is in relation to the rest of the city, kind of in that southwest corner. You can see Highland Drive there in the aerial a little bit better.

And then Bangor, just my mouse work, kind of along the east side there. So this is the existing site. At the time this site was approved, this was a pad site. And so there is some parking that was already installed. The particular development that they're looking at with this application would be a new office building on the remainder that's left.

The land use here is the neighborhood commercial and then the zoning is CR. This is the site plan. It just kind of shows again where that building would sit in relation to the existing parking and curb. There will be two small changes to the existing site. Right now, this is a larger planter island.

They will able able able to that. And going do And to so we're with the addition of this building, they're kind of essentially going to be able moving that that. Stall to here. It will still comply with ADA parking. And when they get that all fixed, they'll be kind of one stall off, so they needed to add one more stall in.

So, in the end, it will all equal out the same as the parking that's available right now, three ten spaces, I believe, the total. And I better use this so it doesn't just keep rolling on me like last time. And then there's just a little bit of a blown up version of that if there were any details that were a little bit harder to see on the next

slide. Back

next

And

then going to be added, they'll be taking out the existing landscaping that's just in that area. And then just a closer version here. You'll notice this is kind of a walkout basement and there's an amenity and a seating area down here which is required. One of the conditions that is listed in the staff report, we didn't get any floor plans with this application so we don't know that it is ADA accessible at this time. Number that first And we architectural variation of horizontally and vertically, which does comply with ordinance.

So this is the North elevation, looking towards the existing building that's there. This is the South elevation up back towards the street. And then we've got the east and the west, they're kind of the same. This is a rendering that the applicant did submit. It's not 100% accurate, but

we're

a So the other part here is in adding this building. They are in need of a parking deviation. The square footage of the building with the available parking on-site, slightly they have a slight deficit depending on kind of how you look at it. So what I've got here is just what our ordinance requires, what the parking study looked at. I did have to kind of calculate.

There was not a lot of information in the parking study about exactly what numbers they used. These are the numbers I kind of reverse engineered from what they had. There is some discrepancy we're noting between some of the uses. They termed everything, I believe, as medical service. And I think we had some that we were actually looking at as personal care with some other as the medical service rates.

In the end, the parking study basically would indicate that if all uses were open at the same time and they had the same peak hour, they need three seventeen spaces. Of course, that's about seven shy of the three ten that are there. Ordinance requirements is calculated out. It's on the low end using that natural deviation would be somewhere between the 322,395. So that may be twelve twelve stalls short just on our usual natural deviation.

In the end, the parking study, when we look at those staff, look at are they valid, do they meet the requirements of ordinance? Yes, this one does meet those minimum requirements of ordinance to be considered. There is one other piece of that which this table won't really show, which is then they looked at time of day. And one of those uses, of course, is that reception center, the 34 spaces that they indicated fits within the range that we would have looked at even in a natural adjustment range. So that's another way we can kind of tell the study is valid.

And about

we

the If and then part of the reason there is that would be consistent with the study showing that no use by that reception center during the day. So there are a few things in the study where the engineer has talked about well, it would use a few spaces during the day, but then in the actual calculation you showed it having none. It could probably accommodate that the maximum usage that they calculated during the day would be I believe two eighty three stalls for all the other on-site uses that are proposed. So there may be a little bit that could fit in there. And just again, with those required findings for parking deviation, I pulled these from the ordinance, but they're not exactly per the ordinance here.

So what you're looking for is if you do approve the deviation from the strict compliance from the either the number of spaces or the required calculations, in this case, kind of both. You just need to be able to make these following findings that adequate parking will be provided. The total number of spaces that otherwise be required would be overly burdensome for the site. Estimated trade offs between businesses which are open and others get ir own.

To

The site or use specific conditions or factors do not provide for compliance with the parking calculation used or parking requirements outlined in ordinance. The transportation alternatives, including proximity of transit stations, provide adequate transportation to offset a to to And do And then just the other one I've highlighted there just the potential future expansions or additions to development will have or provide adequate parking for that expansion or addition. So Marianne has also included another condition in the list of conditions there,

going be get the property.

And And that. Be totally acceptable in this development. Staff has kind of looked at that and that's something else that we kind of look at is the appropriateness of the conclusion. We don't think that conclusion is appropriate here. We do think though that on a case by case basis with the businesses that are coming in, in the future, we would need to address the parking based on the parking that's there and available.

A