Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Scaled it off. Yeah. I would assume these

I'm just referencing it because that was one of your concerns that that goes to five, which I would agree with. Because going with the four, we have a couple instances of that. We've got, Cole's parking lot has no trees in the diamonds, and that's just a bumper uninstaller or a tire deflator.

So they're not proposing tree diamonds?

Not diamonds, but the islands. The islands, yes. So something with there that alerts the driver that there's trouble ahead. Okay, thank you. Let's go ahead and bite the applicant up and then I'm sure we'll have plenty more questions. So is the applicant here?

Hi there.

Good evening. Steve Lovell, counsel for the applicant.

Hi there. Anything you want to add, Steve?

Just that we appreciate very much all the time that staff has worked with us on this development agreement and I'm confident we can address all their concerns. We're very close to a final agreeable development agreement with staff and agreements with the adjacent property owner.

Especially the cross access as mentioned?

Yes. I was just working on that as I was sitting over there.

Great. I'm just looking around for any questions. Okay. We'll go ahead and let you be seated, open up for public comment and then invite you back up. Thank Thank you. All So right. Just one thing I want to point out. So what we're looking at here tonight is we are looking at a development agreement that is looming. The zoning has already been decided by the city council on this property. So what we're looking at tonight is we're looking at saying, hey, we're not saying is this going in?

We're saying what are the problems that we can see and mitigate and let's see if we can do the best with those that we can. So some of those have been mentioned by staff. As you direct your comments tonight understand that that's where this is And if you've got anything that you'd like to add that will help us identify those pitfalls or anything either the staff has brought up that can make this site plan and the development agreement. And by the way, development agreement is different than your standard zoning. I always had this question.

I've sat up here for a long time and I used to ask myself, why do I live in a neighborhood that doesn't even exist? That zone doesn't exist. My lots were way too small in the neighborhood I live in. Draper didn't even at the time have that zone. What that is, is it allows the city and the applicant or the developer to come in and say, hey, we're going to do some things that aren't normally allowed in your zone in exchange.

So where I live, they got a park and some trails and the city got some cool stuff, some goodies to allow the builder that developed my neighborhood to put these, what were at the time super small lots, right, for Draper. So anyway, so that's what a development agreement is. It lets us do things and it actually like Mary already recommend or referenced, it gives us quite a level of control because there is not really a guideline because I guess you could say the sky is the limit or it's very limited either way. So that's what a development agreement is as we're talking this lingo and jive up here. And if you already knew that, I'm sorry for that long winded explanation.

All right, let's go ahead and open this up for public comments. So if anyone would like to address this agenda item and give us some things to look out for to make this a better project, please come on up. And again, standard protocol, we'll give you up to three minutes and just state your name. Hi there.

My name is Christina Kessler Day. I live at 448 Brown Farm Lane. My concern with this development is that it is adjacent to the Baker Crossroads development. And if you don't have the maximum amount of control that you need, for example, no development agreement, that is going to leave this wide open for any number of things to happen that we might not want to happen, especially regarding when the Bengator Crossing development goes through. One thing that is a concern is landscape deviations and no setbacks.

If they are allowed to pursue landscape deviations and no setbacks, that's an issue because it sets precedents that will also add fuel to any argument that Bingator Crossing brings in regarding their own landscape deviations as well as their deviations. And so another issue was that it needs to coordinate with the Bangor Crossroads. We feel that you need a development agreement or some kind of control stop gap so that this doesn't run away. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else? Yeah, come on down.

Hi, my name is Shauna Fuller. I've lived here for about thirty three, thirty four years. I am sad to say that I wasn't here when this agreement was passed. But, we are where we are today. I would like you to urge you to keep to the code for the landscaping, the 10 feet, and not deviate from that. I think that would go a long way for residents to feel better about something like this and have a little bit more green visible and a lot less parking. Thank

you. Thank you.

Hello. Casper Nordo. I live on 13806 South Shore Lane. I have more of a concern, a question about traffic on this area, what is going to happen. My question is right here on this right in and right out right here.

Traffic that comes from 300 East or even 138 South, they're going westbound. The the cars that come already on this lane here to go to Bangor on this direction, what's gonna happen here when they stop to turn? What what is traffic is gonna be backed up here or or what are consequences going to cause to the flow of traffic here, especially in the peak hours? This is a question I have for the developer and for the Planning Commission. If you can take that in consideration, let me know.

Thank you.

Good evening. My name is David York and I live at 438 Morning Ridge Circle. The first issue is that these two development agreements must work together even though they're being voted on separately and I urge you to wait and look at both together. This property cannot function without the 17 acre Bangor Crossroads property you'll vote on next. Section 5.4 says Open Shot's permanent access depends on the cross access easements through Bangater Crossroads.

But what if you approve OpenShaw tonight and deny Bangater? OpenShaw is landlocked. If you approve both but Bangater never develops, then OpenShaw's temporary access becomes permanent. Both develop but then they can't agree on cross access terms. Who enforces that? Section 4.5.2 says OpenShaw can't build a gas station unless Bangor or Crossroads doesn't submit plans for one within twelve months. But submit isn't defined. File an application, is that get approval actually built? If Bangater files plans but never constructs, can OpenShaw proceed? And who decides?

Each DA has its own traffic study. The combined impact on 138 South has never been analyzed together. You're approving cumulative impacts without cumulative data. These aren't independent projects. They're interdependent, but structured to create finger pointing when things go wrong.

Both development agreements share 138 South as critical infrastructure, but responsibilities are split with no coordination mechanism. The infrastructure section 2.7 says the city pays for all open Shaw frontage improvements on 138 South but with no cap. Bangor crossroads also uses 138 South for access. If utilities are undersized for the combined development, who pays for the upsize? OpenShaw's development agreement prohibits requiring them to pay for upsizing.

Does that mean the city pays twice? Who actually builds the shared access drive? When? What if one property develops years before the other? Neither development agreement addresses this. As mentioned earlier, every protective standard of Draper Commercial Code is eliminated. Parking lot requirements, technically it says 0% allows for 0%. It goes from 20% site landscaping to 10%. It takes perimeter landscaping from 10 feet to five feet. It changes the building entrance face streets to allow them to face internally.

These aren't one single waiver, but these are systematic eliminations. And this agreement is locked in for ten years, and the city cannot even if the city later realizes these waivers are a mistake, it can't fix it.

Thank you. Thanks. All right. Anyone else? Okay. We don't see anyone else, so we'll go ahead and close the public hearing portion for this agenda item tonight. All right, let's invite the applicant back up. And I can address the timing question that was just asked. Because remember, you guys are asking questions. I'm listening and we're taking notes.

We're going to make sure we address them all. But the timing, we don't approve anything tonight. So what we're doing is we're recommending and we can recommend in any order so we're just going to tackle this one first and then the chicken and the egg conundrum can be handled by the city council because they will have to vote on one before the other so we'll let them tackle that piece But as far as the traffic goes, we've got traffic advice here. Traffic, the science behind the traffic. Maybe we can address that.

And then as far as, I just wanted, I probably brought you up here a little bit prematurely. So if you wanna rest your knees you can but you can stand up there if you'd like to but let me ask traffic first. Can you address that concern? Obviously traffic is a concern everywhere. It's a concern on 3rd, it's a concern right here. What will happen with this and what's the traffic study and what improvements will happen to this intersection here with this inlet coming in on that right before people turn to get on Bangater?

Okay. So to begin with, the city has an existing city project ready to go. We do need additional right of way from both this application and the next in order to do the street improvements. The city is already funded and ready to go forward on those improvements. So the city's already improving the public frontages on both of these properties on 138th And Bangater and even up into 150th South.

So we are addressing deficiencies. We're trying to make the traffic flow better. There is the element of UDOT that does have some cause to our delays over at the interchange on a continuation of Bangater Highway. So this isn't going to fix all of the delays, but it will improve some of the flows. There was a question about what happens at those access points.

The more we can keep traffic flowing, the better the overall movement will be and the safer traffic will be. We do, as the interest of the city, want to limit access points in this development as well as the next. And this development agreement does do that. We feel like this is the best we can do for the situation that we're in. And on a continuing note, when both applications come in well, when each site comes in for a site plan approval, we do analyze their impact to the traffic as it pertains to that development.

We can't hold a single developer responsible for city deficiencies, which there are some pretty significant delays and other issues that we have. So that will be their project impacts will be addressed at the site plan approval process, including an engineering analysis of their traffic as they're proposing their different uses. At this point, we're not sure what uses may come. But when they come in for site plan, typically we have a great idea about what actual uses they'll have with actual traffic volumes. So we'll look at that at that time. So the city's project is ready to go. We are anxious to try and get the right of way. So we, as city, would like to get construction finished before school starts in the fall. We'd like to keep things moving while it's good weather. So that's So what we're doing it's

safe to

say right here, Brian, that what we're looking at, if everything goes the way you're planning, it will look just like this.

Correct.

This is the proposed frontage. So

that right hand lane just keeps moving. They've got this what do you call this? A pork chop, lamb chop? What do they call one of these deals right here, this yellow addition, right? That little divider there that keeps the straight through traffic separated from the right turn trailer?

It'll keep traffic on 138th moving northbound onto Bangater Highway. So that free flowing turn there does improve. So the delays on 138th are reduced. It does allow traffic to merge better onto Bangater and towards I-fifteen. Okay, thanks.

Can I ask another traffic question?

On the same road there on 138th going east, is

there part of that improvement? Would there be

a stoplight at 3rd And Bangater or 3rd And 1 Hundred And 38th? Sorry.

Yes. So currently we're funded just over $3,250,000 We're starting on the West Side and kind of moving east. Our plan is to include a signal at 30 East and 138th. But that may, depending on costs of materials and construction costs, that may be delayed a slight bit. But that is on the plan to put a signal at 138th And 30 East.

When you say delayed, does that mean it may not happen before the rest of the construction? Or it may not happen before all of this is built and open?

So we have the construction drawings in phases. Phase one does not include the signal at 3rd East, but it is in phase two, which would come. The timing of phase two is partially related to making sure we have enough money with what's been funded currently. Does that make sense?

I think Mike wants to speak.

Go ahead, Mike.

I can assure the Planning Commission and the residents here that installing a light at 3rd East and 138th is a high priority on the city council's list of things to get done. And so, whole, quite frankly, whole, from the traffic circle down south to 1 38th On 3rd East is currently being studied. Installing that traffic light is high priority for them.

So it sounds like phase one will most definitely happen before opening, maybe even before dirt's turn depending on how this goes. So phase two, what are the possibilities? Like worst case scenario, what are we looking at? No light there and

this project I've got a

feeling that the council's direction to staff will be to get that light in contemporaneously with the construction of the Smiths.

Including

putting the funding in place and getting the design and getting it done. There's absolutely zero desire on the part of the council to have the and I'm putting the cart before the horse limit but if this project is approved and that tenant is ready to open, it's the city council's intention that that light be ready to

go. Okay.

I have an additional question about the temporary access. And I think, Todd, you already mentioned there's a 120 foot minimum in the development agreement. Is that what our code says from an intersection? It has to be at least 120 feet?

Brian can answer.

So on our major collectors like 138, our minimum access is typically three fifty feet. This development doesn't have quite that. So our intention is to keep it as far to the east as we can to put it into the frontage that they have there. So I don't have an actual measurement on my fingertips to provide you, but it would be more than 120 feet from the Bangeter and 130 8th Intersection.

And can we go to the other slide that has the temporary access? So are we looking at this being an alternative concept if they have to build a temporary access, then they would build something completely different?

It would follow along the lines of where this axis would be represented.

Okay. Well, yeah. And I mean, have to have access. We can't say you don't get any access. And so I understand that.

But that's why we do label this temporary access.

Right. And hope that But

you're looking at the site well, isn't the site plan. You're looking at the design use for this is completely different. This a

Yeah, the way

it out. In, gas station Maverick style convenience store versus the other one could be three restaurants and a fast food.

This one even says gas pumps. The other one says Taco Bell. I might have some happy kids if that happens.

So that's why I asked that question about temporary access. It just doesn't look like they'd build both. So they're just saying, hey, just in case, we've to make a plan Yeah. That doesn't landlock All right. Okay. I think we're okay for right now. Thank you. All right. Applicant, let's bring you back up. Thank you for waiting. All right. You heard some of the public comment. Go ahead. Take it away. I'll leave Just it. I'll give you some a

few minor things. Lots of conversation about the setbacks and what we're asking for. And just the context that everyone understands, this property has already gone through one, maybe two reductions in size to help expand 138th in the past. And so now they're going to be taking even more property to shrink it. So it's just a trade.

We're giving up land, and so we don't have as much room for the landscaping, as much room for the parking as we would have had. And so we're just helping to solve a traffic issue by giving more right of way, which reduces the size of the land, which in turn we're just asking for a little bit of leeway on some of the requirements had this been not impacted by the right of way expansion. And you're exactly right on the access. It's temporary as a plan B. We're really close with our development agreement and with our cross access easement with the adjacent property owners.

So we shouldn't need any temporary access if those things go through, but I don't control what their development is. And if they decide to abandon it, walk away or delay it, we just want to make sure that we have our own, we can control our own destiny. And the code already provides for that, that we can have access. And then in the future if another development goes in next door, we've got to provide them for access and they've got to provide us with access. So we're just building that in as a contingency plan B.

It's a great point you bring up because that's what these development agreements are about. You're giving something to get something and vice versa. So you're giving the city some extra flow for traffic. In this diagram that we're looking at right now, is that the exact flow of traffic even with the temporary access if that were to have to go to plan B, is that correct? So we'd still have this right turn flow. Yes, it looks like it. Perfect. Thanks for flipping over to that. Good. That answers my question. Thank you. Anything else you want to add?

That's it.

Great. I appreciate that. All right. And again, thank you to the public. That was well done. I mean those were spot on and thanks for bringing some things to our attention that we can make sure to give to the City Council. Commissioners, what are your thoughts? What do you want to deliberate on this and pass forward? We'll do a positive or negative recommendation. And you can do a positive recommendation even though there are things to note and things to change and things that we recommend. It doesn't have to be one or the other. And it goes forward to the city council no matter what, but that's for you guys.

I do appreciate that the applicant and his client has granted or given so much land to the city for a new traffic pattern. I really think that's valuable. I drive through that intersection a lot and I really like that plan.

I know I'd love it to look. I mean, if you look at an aerial where Wendy's and Little Caesar's and even the I think it's a credit union there. If you look at just corner lots that kind of mirror this, they've got a ton of space between the sidewalk. I mean, it's almost it's embarrassing, right? There's so much xeriscaped and trees and all that stuff. It's just not the same property. It'd be nice if you had that. But again, that's an important point to bring up that we're getting some more asphalt for cars

So

the in lieu of trade

is fair, I think. Do any of you want to make any more other comments?

Well, I agree with your comments as far as the give and take. I would prefer to see the 10 foot perimeter landscaping than the five because it's on a corner, it's very visible. Five feet is not really water wise marked. You know, I think less than eight according to Jordan Valley Conservative District. That's kind of Eight. Eight is kind of the magic number. So I myself would prefer 10, but they're asking for five. Other than that, I think it's great.

Well, why don't if we do put a motion forward, just recommend that they look at that, maybe hash that out a little bit more. But again, the minute I hear that we're getting some help with traffic and giving up some of that, it's a tough trade off. But I think that'll be worth it. Okay. Well, we just need a motion. Well,

I'll make a I move that we forward a positive recommendation of the City Council for the OpenShaw Corner development agreement as requested by Charlie OpenShaw and Porter OpenShaw, representing CJO Holdings LLC and P and J Adventures LLC application 2020 05 DA based on the findings for approval listed in the staff report dated 03/16/2026 together with the following additional recommendations, that all noted concerns and changes identified by city staff as outlined in the staff report be addressed and included in the development agreement that is approved by the city council.

Great. Thank you, Lisa. Who will second that?

Do you want to include the 10 foot perimeter And

an additional recommendation is that the landscape buffer be kept to 10 feet. The perimeter landscape. The perimeter landscaping be kept to 10 feet. Increased to 10.

Well,

right now it says five, and we're asking that it be increased to a minimum of 10.

With that, I'll second the motion.

Great. See everybody gets a little bit of something there. Thanks, Susan. All right. So that's Lisa's motion with a second from Susan there for the recording. All right. Let's go ahead and put that to a vote then. This is moving on with a positive recommendation of the City Council. Lisa, how do you vote?

Yes.

Susan?

Yes.

Laura?

Yes.

Mary?

No.

And Kendra?

Yes.

Okay. Alright. That'll move forward with a positive recommendation. And again, to be continued, that'll be on a Tuesday night at the city council meeting, as will all of these positive or negative recommendations that move forward. And that's where they'll get approved.

Again, I'll pass that off to them to see how they want to juggle that because you're there was some wise commentary there from the public hearing. Let's move on now to our next public hearing. This is the Bangor crossroads development agreements on the request of Duane Rasmussen representing Tom Lloyd and Lloyd's TLC Limited. A development agreement request for approximately 17.88 acres and it's located at approximately 13782 South 300 East known as Application 2020 Five-three 04 DA. Todd Draper again is our staff contacts to go ahead Todd.

And we're progress progress the They're kind of between Bengator and 138th and then this property also extends over to 30 East and then has a little bit of frontage on 150 East as well. This is the aerial map of the property. And then the land use, you'll see that this currently still is partially in the low to medium residential density and medium residential density. And then a little piece of that office, commercial office and service land use. Again, City Council did pass ordinances that if they do get this development agreement approved to the City Council would then move this to the regional commercial land use designation.

This current zoning map, everything here is on RA1 at the moment, but under the same thing with the ordinances passed by the city council would move to the CR zone. This is the master site plan that is included in the agreement as one of the exhibits. You'll note, and I'll try and point some of this out, a anchor tenant, a junior anchor tenant and other outparcel buildings. They have included the adjacent development for purposes of just showing where that would potentially connect. You'll notice that that's similar to the previous layout that you saw.

One thing to note, this piece of property right here is owned by UDOT. They're in negotiations to acquire that. This is currently a large detention basin for UDOT and Bangater. They're working through some things to have that drainage moved into the detention pond that would wrap kind of around the North Northwest kind of corner, if you will, of the property. They've provided a little bit more detail with this development agreement than the last.

They do have some proposed concept elevations for the anchor tenant, including getting as detailed as colors and materials. That would be the west face of that anchor tenant. And this would be the south face of that anchor tenant going ir so, to a do government. Government. We

with

have lot And a and then again a junior anchor tenant these are the elevations that were presented they don't show up so well here on the powerpoint but there would still be 20 then we'll next you'll see the colors, materials, staff has reviewed these and found that they would comply with the current ordinance as well. This is the landscape plan concept that they have submitted with this. I'll probably get into a couple of little details. This is just kind of more of the overview of what that would look like. There would be some requests for reduction again to the overall amount of landscaping on the site to the width of some of the land use buffers and perimeter landscaping and then also to the amount of landscaping within the parking lot, reducing that down to 5%.

Reducing that from the typical 7% down to 5%. And then you'll also notice typically our ordinance would have landscaping between rows of head to head parking. In this case, this would not. So that's part of the proposed reduction. They've also included a request to approve an outdoor sales and display plan.

And with this outdoor sales and display are really those areas in blue. Some other areas that they've highlighted there, of course, some EVA charging stations. They have a orange color for customer pickup. I'm assuming that is the area we'll And 19. The second So this is a little bit more blown up or detailed kind of from the landscape plan I gather and then this is the land use buffer plan.

So kind of this first drawing here, this is starting at that entrance from 3rd East. Along this residentially zoned property, they are asking for a five foot landscape with a five foot sidewalk. And then they would install an eight foot concrete precast wall or fence. The next one here, you can kind of see where that well, if I can get the mouse to work here. Yes.

So you'll just see where it just kind of comes from that direction from the East with the 300 East connection where it connects to this detention pond. You'll see that it widens out significantly where that buffer area is there. Again, at its narrowest point, that pond is 43 feet wide, is dimension there. But as you move all the way down to the west side, I think you got as narrow as 27 feet right adjacent to the entrance onto 150 East. So all that complies with the minimum width for a buffer.

They are asking, as you'll notice, for some reductions in the number of trees that would typically be within that buffer. Staffs noted that in the report and then some of the things that staff would like to see. You'll see the junior acre tenant there has a loading dock on that side and that there is no screening proposed. And if we move to the third drawing there, this is the section that's just south of the anchor tenant next to the residential properties there. They are proposing for majority of that.

It would be 22 feet wide. You can see the trees there. And then there would be some additional landscaping. Obviously, it's not detailed at this level. And then as you move to that Far Eastern property and staff is not quite sure what the applicant is showing here, if there's a property overlap or a deed issue, but then they are showing that reducing to 11 feet next to that particular residential property.

Along that side, they would propose a six feet concrete fence, similar to the other fences. That does comply with the ordinance as far as land use buffer along the section that's 22 feet. It would be a little bit of a deviation for the section that would be 11 feet. We would typically require an eight foot fence in that situation. And then in the staff report, I think I mentioned that they did not provide a couple of exhibits.

That was a little bit between they provided different copies of the exhibits and the one that I saw did not contain them. So we did actually receive, I think it was Exhibit I and M. This is Exhibit M there. I think was the one with the outdoor cells that I'd previously shown. This was their exhibit for the maintenance plan.

They are pointing out that there is a portion of this detention pond intended to be given to the city and that the city would own that. Brian can probably explain more if you've got questions on that, but you can kind of see just in the differentiation here over the entire pond where kind of those two halves are. And the city's portion would be that most northern portion. So where the anchor tenant backs up to 300 East, they are asking for the same kind of deviation in the development agreement to not have the building face the street, but rather face the central parking. But they are proposing a screening plan.

This is just a cross section of that where you would have 300 East, your typical park strip, your typical sidewalk. They would provide then 10 feet with trees and a berm and then they would have a similar six foot tall solid screen wall with the other kind of side of the berm coming down the other way and a little bit of retain wall to help keep that up. And then that would then be the access behind the building where it kind of shows the other vehicle. That's just the on-site pavement. They did provide some renderings that will help kind of explain that as well.

I wish these were kind of reversed because you see the one on the bottom first where you can actually see what would be behind that wall. They still have another screen wall before the loading dock behind that, but they also have, if you kind of look at the very back corner on the far left, you kind of see some of the mechanical equipment, utility transformers, things like that, that may be located in that area. Next next slide, slide, slide. And then this is just another rendering then of that kind of shown at a distance how that would look from adjacent streets. And then they provided one at night.

I will note that there are a few lights in the parking lot that aren't being shown. This is just showing the lights on the building. Next thing they provide is a lighting plan staff to have some concerns with this. It doesn't necessarily follow our typical lighting plans. Although it does have some of the photometric data in it, it has the reading spaced out further apart.

They're 15 feet apart instead of the five feet that we would typically look at, which kind of makes it difficult to analyze where some of these things may or may not exceed our typical norms. Staff is concerned a little bit with well there it goes. Well, staff is a little bit concerned that some of the light readings next to the residential properties are higher than the 0.2 foot candles that we typically require at the boundary line. So there's a concern about potential light spillage over into neighboring residences. They are asking for little bit of a deviation to have light poles that are up to 30 feet tall.

It was not as clear in their proposal, but most although those are all centrally located anything that's around the perimeter would actually be a 20 foot light pole comply with our ordinance. And the we'll next asking to go to 60 foot candles as the illumination amount. Our ordinance would require 15 foot candles. So we feel that's a little bit excessive as staff. Industry standards, as far as I can tell from a number of lighting engineering firms, is somewhere between twenty and thirty.

So staff would like to see that reduced. But again, that would be something as a recommendation to the council and they can make a final decision there. This is the Master Signage Plan that was included with that. They are asking for a little bit of deviations related to the signage. You can kind of see they would have a pylon sign right there out on Bangater, kind of the entry there from Bangater.

They're looking for two monument size signs for their fuel then they're calling a five foot directional sign, but that is a monument sign at the back by 300 East. That would be a non illuminated sign. And then they also have just the kind of your typical to the going able we're do that. That. Next able to elevation drawings, if you will, concepts of how those signs might look.

The main tower sign there on the left and then I would one of those monument signs being at about 12 feet there on the right. And then another one of those monuments there. You see it 12 on the left. And then this would be that it called it as a five foot sign, here it shows it at six for the sign out on 3rd West or not 3rd West 30 East, excuse me. And then they have one other that would be at 10 feet.

With this, they also were proposing some half 20.

Do

to to And I did kind of talk a little bit about the fencing with the buffer plan. Predominantly, they're going to have the six foot throughout the site, but they will have that eight foot tall precast concrete fence along the eastern property line of that detention basin and along the property line north of the anchor tenant. We did receive some of the resident comments, and I know that those have been provided to you as well. Advance and media does appear that they've indicated that the fence that exists is already eight feet, but there are some sections that are not. Staff would recommend that in those locations that they do install the eight foot fencing where it doesn't currently exist.

Back to the, what's the benefit to the city and the developer here? Really, we're going to get some additional dedication of And continue COVID-nineteen the COVID-nineteen limitations here to the potentially undesirable uses. We'll have some more certainty with what would be developed. We will get with this project more of those pedestrian vehicular connections throughout the commercial center. And so that kind of ties back into that cross access.

Developer will benefit by, again, kind of that validation of the CR zone and regional commercial land use designation. They will have approved locations for the vehicular and pedestrian access points. They will get some reductions to the landscape amounts along the perimeter to the parking area and the overall site. They would have that increased type for light poles in the parking areas. Ir we're some more to there would be the allowance to use additional wall pack lading on the anchor tenant building more than would typically be allowed.

But staff doesn't have a concern with that. It's just it would make it safer walkway adjacent to the building. They would have they're also asking for deviation to allow more parking for this center than would otherwise be required by ordinance. They're asking to not have to strictly comply with all the screening as they would be adopting this as a conceptual plan, and there's no screening obviously shown adjacent linear anchor. Okay.

Sorry there. Apparently,

from

just again, that last one, they're going to deviate from having that building entrance face the street. We're able a sense to

a

Staff did have some concerns with the development agreement is written. Similar to last one, these are things that we would like to see addressed in a new draft that would be presented to the City Council. Our concerns, obviously, we need the reciprocal cross access to match what we have in city code and follow that. We are concerned about the excessive illumination of the residential boundaries as well as under the fuel canopy. What And to to do There's a lot of inconsistent terminology currently in the agreement that we just need updated.

It's more of kind of making sure that we're calling the outparcel buildings or the outparcel pads or whatever they have, just call them the same thing throughout. There are a few other terms that we do need to have updated in that. We do need the exhibit drawings to be consistent with one another. You'll notice that there's kind of different layouts for the property shown on each one or on multiple exhibits. So we need those just to be uniform.

We noted that in this draft, there is not a height limit like in the other one. Who of able acquire the UDOT property. And then they've also added some language in there about how applications will be processed and subdivisions and future things that might run contrary to the state regulations. So we're still looking at that a little bit. There may be something that can be included, but for the most part, we would probably recommend that we just stick to the ordinances we have that follow the state law for how we process applications.

And then there's a lot of instances where they're asking the city to make findings absent the studies reports or evidence we would typically require. We think that some of those should probably come out there. They're not really needed And some of those might be factually inaccurate, so we would want to impose in obviously. The site photos here that I've got, this is looking into the site. You can kind of see the existing detention Pond.

Well, I shouldn't say existing proposed that is already existing there along the North boundary. And then this is just looking South from one hundred fifty East approximately the location where that entry would come in kind of towards Bengator there and Harmans and the other development across the Street. And then this is just over on 3rd East, side

the

staff is also recommending the Planning Commission in your motion make recommendations of the City Council that would include the staff recommendations in the report that they be corrected, updated as necessary of of

Directors

it's not directing you to go one way or the other, of positive or negative. And then I do have some renderings if you're interested in them that

they

did put in here. We don't actually usually approve renderings as part of things, but they would be in the development agreement. So I probably want to at least let you know what they are. I think they are also in your staff report, but this would be more for the benefit of the public. Back to next next then we'll

next

And then the one on the bottom just kind of showing what that would look like at night. I do want to point out, you'll see those wall pack lights along that south side there. We'll quarter then usually would only allow wallpacks over an entrance with quarter in the code, but this is how they would intend to use them. They did not provide the other two elevations. We'd like to see those as well in the agreement.

They've provided some earlier renderings but not with submittal here. And with that, are there any other questions you might have for me?

I have a question, Todd. In all of the concerns that you've listed on page 16 I appreciate you writing that list. However, the list it does say we need to address this, but it doesn't say the lighting should only be this much or the height of the building should only be this much. I mean, it's hard for me to even say, yes, let's move this forward when I don't know that they're going to be limited to 30 feet or they're going to be limited to this type of lighting on the back that faces 300 East. Those are concerns, big concerns for me for the neighborhood, for the impact on the neighborhood.

So my recommendation would be these were left open ended for a little bit of a reason here. Planning Commission makes recommendations to the city council. If there is an amount or a limit or figure you would like to recommend, I would suggest including that in any motion. And Mike has something to say too. Must have covered it.

Okay. It's a long list.

Great. And that's again, just like before, we'll go make some recommendations. So I do have a couple of quick questions. On the lighting, this 60 foot candle, there's other gas stations in Draper. What does but the most similar to this would be Harman's. What does Harman's have now? Harman's has a gas station as well. What is their foot candle?

We don't know at this point. We'd have to look it up. So what we'll do between now and the City Council meeting is pull some of those older staff reports for

the different gas stations and

see what

we've approved in the past.

Because right now we can tell you what our code allows. Right now. What the code allowed at the time other gas stations in the city were approved, I don't know.

So just to clarify for myself and then everyone sitting here, the plan that you're looking at right there, that is the development agreement plan. That fuel station cannot be moved over towards the residences on 3rd or to the north or to the south, correct? That can't be moved within some feet, but that's proposed that's proposed to be right there up against Bangerter.

Yeah. So this is the concept plan. So there will be allowed to be small minor changes that are going through full civil drawings and design for the project. But if they have any major changes or anything like that, that would require an amendment to the development agreement and coming back to Planning Commission and City Council.

Correct. So that just can't all of sudden be just moved on the slide. I'm asking that specifically on this fuel station because that sounds like it's very you said it was excessive. You're concerned with it. We don't know what would be adequate. You're saying 15, but you're then telling me a standard checking in with standard, I don't know who you're using for as the expert there, is 20 to 30. So as we put a motion forward, that's got to be a very hard, you need to get the number. So that is frustrating because we're like, well, what do we even recommend? So again, it was like with the lumens and the signs. I love the electric signs and the lumens.

And you have to have a lumen meter to check and make sure everybody's signs aren't causing seizures, that they're not too bright. But this one to me on the fuel station, so I was pleased to see it away, as far away from residential as you can get. It's up against the street, but yet I feel like it should be right in order, right in line with all the other lumens that we have. I bet you pro stop is less because that's backing up almost against residential. But this being the only neighbors this would be blinding, you know, driving by there all the time would be the backs of the restaurants that are that are open there across Bangater and then obviously lighting up, spilling into the parking lot.

So that's one that would need a firm number, so you need to be prepared with that.

Yeah. And one one thing planning commission may want to consider with any motion on that lighting is staff do some research on what existing approvals for existing gas stations have been and council look at what may be appropriate based on what city already has.

And council would never approve a development agreement without a fixed number on that. That's the way that recommendation would have to come from us, saying that needs to be a researched fixed number and it needs to be lower than the 60 foot candles. Second one I have is on the monuments. Susan, do you wanna talk about that real quick? I know you've you've gotta did you notice the monuments? You you

got something to notice about that. Signs?

Yeah. Why did you bring that?

My mind or what? No. We Wow.

Had had Wow. So yeah. So so do you wanna talk about that real quick? And then I'll bring that up as well because I have a couple quick questions on what else has been approved in the city and some other locations, but go ahead.

Yeah. Like you were saying, I do have some concerns over their proposed signage. Specifically, tenant signs, monument signs, their directional signs, and even the tower signs are almost double what standard is and what the code requires or limits. So that to me, we ought to be more consistent with what the code is and what that general area is. You drive up along Banger, for instance, the Banger Crossing just across the street, all their monument signs are six feet.

Their tower sign is, I don't know how high, but it's definitely less than 20 feet. And then their spacing of them is much larger. So I have concerns with what they're proposing with ten and twelve feet monument directional signs where I feel they should be six feet, which is more consistent with code and what's in the general area.

Yeah.

And then the tower sign, I think should be maybe 20 feet is 25 feet. 20 foot sign is huge if you've ever stood up to one of those.

So you're saying, yeah, and I know because I know you do this, you'll drive the on the on the Harman signage, this signage is taller than what's what's across

the street. Considerably. The one across I don't know how high it is, but it is I'm gonna guess probably 16, maybe maybe 18 feet, but nowhere near 25. And all the monuments are six feet.

And I won't put you on the spot, but that's one that I would also recommend. Like, are we calling it day dairy? Like, cut papas and mint? Yeah. It's over off of yeah, the Thai place. Yeah. So there's a monument there that's real similar to these as you drive right in, as you come in off 120. There's a monument right there. It's the main monument as you come in there as well. And I would love to see that the signage here matches the code, basically code as Susan brought up.

So signage just to but again, I want to be mindful too and that's why I'm glad that Susan brought that up that she gave the signage Heights in Harmans because that was also a development agreement, correct? That entire development?

I'm not sure on Harman's.

Is in the CR zone that could be a development agreement. It's just that sometimes if we do have a sign, again, just like I brought up with my neighborhood where I live, I'm scratching my head going, wait, the code doesn't allow that. And code, may have signage higher than allowed, Maverick, based on something where we have had a come in here we've either allowed it or it's a development agreement or it's been allowed.

And I'm just looking up Daydari's commercial special district zoning so their monument signs are allowed to be seven feet tall.

And what's code?

Six feet.

Okay. So within reason but that it's what we're seeing here is double. So again, that would be also something that would

go full. Yes.

And I'm only bringing these two up or the signage up because that was not in the staff report as one of the items, was it?

I didn't see it. I know It that

was more of an inconsistency Right.

It's the inconsistency, but I think that needs to be spelled out.

Yeah. You mean it wasn't a concern of staffs? Is that what you're

saying? Did they did not list. So just be sure that we need signage to match because that was not in the staff report, list of

of concerns. Didn't call out I guess I must be the dumpster trash person for the night. Sure. They didn't show any dumpster locations on the property. But I'm not having heartburn over that because I know they have an excess in parking stalls. So, you know, you're gonna lose some parking stalls to gain a dumpster here or there. I don't have any little heartburn over that. I just was surprised that it wasn't on there.

So and that's what that's why this is here now so it's not that that it's it needs to be happen it doesn't have to have a bow on it like it does when it goes to the city council so what we're looking at right here is making recommendations and I'm just pointing those out while they're fresh as the presentation Let's make sure that we be sure to hit the lighting, the monument, the signage, consistency too because I know in the report some of those are showing this but stating

something Yes. They're not all shown on the all the signs themselves are not depicted on the site plan itself,

which, So you we get it. And then the fencing, eight foot all around, is or is that not the case? We saw what they proposed on the back of the anchor tenant, which is the one that backs 30 So

fencing would be six feet along the far northern property line and on the southern property line adjacent to the residential in that northeast or not north, southeast corner. But it would be it's called out at eight feet along the eastern side of the detention pond and along that connecting property line up to 300 East.

Can you go to the elevation where they had the sidewalk and the happy people walking in the cars? They did look really happy. Look at that. No, the other one.

The next one?

No, the one where it's just the cut. There So we here's something interesting to point out. It looks like the site, this site is actually lower, right, than street grade. So I'm bringing this up now because when you have a six foot wall and it's on a berm and the property is sunk down, do we need to lose our marbles over six versus eight with that drop? It looks like there's almost a one and a what is that a car length, a car height?

What's the height of the where the height varies right there where it says? I know it varies throughout the property but I also want to point out that as we give a recommendation on I think it should be eight foot the equivalent of eight foot across around the entire perimeter period. For the fencing. Just period. So I'm only bringing these up right now before all of this just because I don't want to miss it, don't want to forget it.

So these are the three lighting, signs and fencing that I just wanted to bring up real quickly as recommendations because some were addressed and some were not. But I want to point this elevation out here that you see what I mean by six foot might suffice. If you notice this elevation model, I've got this pulled up here. If you look at say, Smiths right now, what is that? Draper Crossing, is that what they call that? Draper Peaks is across to the north and Draper Crossing is the one where Smiths is now. If you look behind there, as I've driven by, they're kind of taking note of this, there is no berm. It is dropped a little bit. There's a little bit of an elevation drop, but there is no wall. There's no fence at all. There's a screen for delivery trucks, but there's no decorative or right here of what you see right there. I

Smith's was there before the Holmes though.

I actually do. I think the pioneers used that Smith's.

I believe

you're right.

That's what I've been told. So anyway, all right. Well, let's go ahead. Those are three items that I want to make sure that we don't forget.

How about the perimeter buffer, along just along Bangerter to be consistent with the other property be 10 feet instead of five? Buffer. The buffer along. Again,

think in trade off if they can still do the extra parking which is a big plus.

I mean

that's always nice.

I don't think they're asking for any deviations for landscape with a long banger. Correct.

So that's as it stands. So at least we can agree on those three, make sure not those and then whatever else comes because that's what we're here for tonight again the zoning has been passed we're just here to make this this property you know look out for the pitfalls and and try to mitigate those all right let's go ahead where were we at have we invited the applicant up any other questions for staff

I have some questions.

Oh, sorry. Go ahead, Mary.

So the detention pond moving to the back of the Junior Anchor Building, we've had a storm that has filled up detention ponds and flooded people's homes. And I'm wondering what the risk is there moving it right next to homes. I think the idea, you know, I think it's the right idea creating a buffer, but just trying to figure out how wise of a choice that is.

So the city has a portion of the basin that we've oversized kind of as a regional basin. So there is some extra capacity I designed into that basin. The portion behind the junior anchor tenant, that's a slightly different color, that's what the development would need for basin. And that would meet city codes on drainage. They're not asking for any kind of deviation there.

So we kind of have two areas that have some conservative numbers to address our unusually large storms that we seem to be getting more of each year. And then I will note that the low point in this development is actually near the basin. So it actually fled out on the 150 East. The developments that are just eastward of the developer's portion of

the

basin, They did choose to bring in some fill because they liked basements. So that area is now being built up as they're building homes there. So that elevation is similar to 3rd East, where it is above or higher than the general site grading. We don't know what the site grading will be, but the existing contours has the overall commercial area lower than the residential areas.

And then the buffering, have we talked about the buffering? I don't think we have on the North Side. There are residential homes there. As far as trees, I know we noted that there aren't any trees there. And then along the South end, that's a really small break between those property residential properties and the parking lot.

You're talking about like the 20 foot gap there to the Northeast, where they've got 20 foot two foot that goes down to Down 11

to the

homes that are on 138 South.

Yeah, so that goes from 22 feet. It's 22 feet here at the bottom and then it goes to 11. And he mentioned he didn't know why but we can ask the applicant about that. Is it 22 too small for you?

Well, I'd love to hear

from the people who

live there. But also the fence height there is six feet, right?

Yes. Okay. But that would be consistent with ordinance. Our land use buffer would be a 20 foot buffer with a six foot fence.

Right. That

would be consistent for that area with current code.

That are outside of our code. And some people might not want a huge wall right behind their home. I don't know. Like I said, I'd be interested in hearing from the people who live there. But my concerns have always been really focused on the people who have homes that abut this property and that we structure this to the every extent we can to mitigate the impact on them. And this lighting, I'm really having a hard time with the lighting, but I know we'll get to that later, among other things. Those are the only questions I have.

Anybody else down there? Kendra?

I just had a quick question. We've covered a lot that there's a reduction in some of the landscaping and number of trees. I haven't necessarily heard the reason why that number is being reduced. Do you have reason?

That might be a question for the applicant. This is their request. And they might be able to indicate why. Staff would like to see some more trees, but we don't have a specific number or other than to say follow ordinance.

And is that in the recommendations that are here in the report for additional trees?

Yes, for additional trees.

Okay.

So to follow-up with that Kendra, are the amount of trees less than the ordinance would require?

Yes. So typically, we're looking for one tree for every 400 square feet of buffer area. And there's some other provisions to have them placed between at least one tree between your building and that adjacent residential property. So this is a little outside of that. I haven't been able to exactly figure out where that sits because some areas do have a little bit more And government.

The we've kind of building has significantly less than we typically see.

I'll add to that with this being a detention pond area that we're kind of looking at that does pose challenges to meet that set number in the code because you don't want to impact the capacity of the pond or the actual infrastructure within the pond itself with roots and things like that. So you do have to be a bit more careful on where those trees are going.

Got it. So when it looks very sparse here on the North End, well, Northwest, whatever that is, North End, that's we're not looking to plant trees up along there is what you're saying anywhere.

So some trees may be a benefit as far as the buffer to the neighbors. I think it's staff would need to look at where they are so we're not impacting the city's detention pond.

And one other thing I might add here, and I think this might get lost a little bit in here, you'll see the dimension there on the middle, it's 79 feet wide. This is fairly wide. So you'll see the lighter color along the edges, of And we'll say, interior of that the rather than right on the property line. So the staff is definitely looking at this as there's probably a blend here

that would be So Kendra, maybe we would just add that as a just a maybe a sub note there too to my prior list, know, that kind of stuff. All right. Thank you. Any other questions then before we invite the applicant up?

One more quick.

On the south end, the trees that they proposed, does that meet our code?

You mean the species or the They

provided a long list of species. Quantity. Yeah. Yeah. And so this is more like, yeah, the quantity of tree. Yeah. But yeah, the actual species would come at the site plan level. They've kind of provided a general list.

Thanks. Andrew said species.

I said the word species. I'm sorry. Mary doesn't care.

She's a She's

not a speciesist.

I'm not. No. To articulate my concern, it's that 30 East looks great with all this screening, and that'll help with noise reduction. And that's great on a road, but then when we move around to these property lines up against residential properties, the buffer, it's minimal. And those are the people who will suffer the most from the noise, from the lights, all of those things.

And it looks like they are the least protected. So I'm not begrudging what's going on on 3rd East. I think it's fantastic. I'm curious why that wasn't

continued.

Yeah, so I would say roughly looking at this, this probably complies with basic calculations, I'm kind of looking at it. Yes, that probably is about one tree for every 400 square feet, which would be in compliance. Yeah, could it be one or two more or under? I don't know.

I don't know. The east side, it's double, it looks like. What can it be that?

On the east side, is double. So I did check the east side. The other sides I don't have a specific calculation for.

Okay. Thanks.

Awesome. Thank you. All right. Looks like we're good there. Thanks. All right. Is the applicant here? Come on down, state your name, add anything you like, and then we'll get some public comment.

Evening, counsel. My name is Duane Rasmussen. Address, 1224 West Samuel Holt Drive in South Jordan. I represent Tom Lloyd and his ventures in this project. I appreciate listening to you do your job.

I think you are taking the concerns of the public and the city into account and we would welcome you forwarding those recommendations to the city council. This has been a very laborious job in getting this development agreement back to you in the timeframes that were set by the city council, and that's what we're attempting to get to. And we hope that you can find it in your purview to pass a recommendation on with these considerations as part of that motion. I think Todd and you have thoroughly explained what your concerns are. Nothing that you have said to me nor that Todd has said caused us any real heartburn.

I think we can get there with those recommendations between now and the city council. The lighting clearly needs to be worked on. We had that conversation with the planning department today. We're sending it back to the photometric people in the Southeast who do that and having that redone so that those will meet city standards, particularly around the neighbors. Those will all be reduced and shaded so that we don't cast any light on them.

The fuel center we'll work with Jen and the staff to get there on that as well. You are right. There is an eight foot fence along the Eastern property line behind the Junior Anchor from the corner there all the way to the parking lot coming off of 3rd East and from the corner down to 150 East that's currently sluttered at six foot fence. I think there's a little bit of a great difference there and we've had a couple of neighbors along that eastern property line say it's eight feet for a portion and then it drops to six and so we're willing to make that eight feet all the way across there. I think we've thoroughly explored the buffer off of 3rd East.

If you have any questions on that, I'm happy to answer it. This site plan is intended to be part of the development agreement, the one that you referred to earlier. So those buildings will not be moved other than to make slight adjustments in building elevations or whatever. So I don't know that I can add a lot to it. I don't think I can belabor it.

I will say a word about the traffic. I've communicated pretty clearly with Matt Smith and his neighbors. He has made comments on the traffic study. We had our traffic engineer go back and kind of reconcile all of that today and pass it on to Brian. I think Brian is comfortable with where that traffic study stands today, given the new improvements that are going to happen as a result of this impending contract to redo the infrastructure around the site. I'm happy to answer any questions you might have at this point and maybe could come back up after my friends in the neighborhood have made comments and see if I can help.

Yeah, we'll always invite you back up, any questions right now?

Yeah. The questions I posed just before you came up about

the

landscape screening on the South Side and the North Side. And I understand there are some possible complications with the detention pond on the North Side, but I don't think that can totally negate any obligation that the developer has to screen from those residential homes. So what can you tell me about that?

On the North Side?

Well, both.

Well, start with the North Side.

Specifically. I

think Jen has addressed it partially and that is they want to keep roots and things out of that pond and we will try to find places that we can plant trees in there that do work with the neighbors and with the eventual operation of that detention pond. It is operating today. It was moved from the corner out there at 150 East to there. And you see we've done that on east side. The south side is a little bit more problematic because we're so limited in room there, but we will work with the staff to see if we can widen that a little bit in there, and you see we've got planting up there that Todd says complies in terms of the number of trees per square foot, And we will do what we can given the constraints of the site.

I mean, I look at this and lighting wise, and I'm not commenting on the brightness of the lighting necessarily, more the intrusion in the screening or lack of screening. I have a church that's probably two blocks away from me as the crow flies from the back of my house. And it's empty land in between my house and that church. And that is not bright lighting. But in the dark of night, my bedroom is not dark.

So I have a lot of feelings about the amount of light that everyone right adjacent especially, but even some distance away are going to have to deal with. And the screening of the trees can be helpful. The height of the poles is another issue. That's a big problem. But the lights that are right there, right outside their windows, that's really problematic without any meaningful screening, and especially in the winter.

I notice on 3rd East, there are evergreen But trees again, whoever helped negotiate that did a really good job. And I think it would be best for the remaining neighbors to have those same considerations, not just 30s.

We will make every effort to do that. Your concerns aren't lost on us and we'll talk with the staff about that further as we were doing today. Let me introduce Troy Wolverton, who is our engineer on this site, and can add some more comment about the South property.

Troy Wolverton, 2010 North Redwood Road. The property there, maybe if you could just flip back to that other one that showed the buffer on the south. Just to clarify, there is a gap or an overlap on those parcels, and we're currently working to coordinate with those owners. So the 11 feet that's shown is what's currently shown to the deed line. That, if you add in the 10 foot gap there, then there is actually 20 feet associated with that little piece.

It's just a little bit confusing there. And that's a typo on the six foot concrete wall. If that is, in fact, less than the 20 feet, then that wall should be or would be an eight foot wall. It was never our intent to have a six foot wall and 10 foot landscape buffering. So that's just an issue that if it's not resolved and it stays to the 10 or the 11 that's shown, it would be proposed as an eight foot wall to comply with the code.

So just to clarify that piece, the trees have not yet been identified as species. We did receive a great deal of direction from city staff related to the screening of 3rd East. And so that's what's been proposed. A lot of trees, it was already mentioned, that's double the plantings. The understanding at that particular time is we would be able to move trees up to that location to get that doubling and it would be the same as the number of trees that were proposed.

So again, just to clarify that issue, the darker green with the spiky pieces coming off, those are evergreen trees. So the idea would be that they will not lose their needles in the wintertime and provide screening there. That's why they're proposed. The other trees are just showing deciduous trees. They would lose their leaves in the fall. So there's a little bit of an issue there with screening. The purpose of this meeting is to continue to gain more information. What's the issues with the lighting? What are the concerns of the neighbors and so forth? And I've taken a page of notes and suspect by the time the public hearings over, I'll have another page.

And that's the information that we're looking to be able to receive, the direction, so that we can cover that. Another item, when we spoke to public works about the detention basin and they're saying, well, that's a city pond. We really don't want trees there. But it has now been clarified that the staff from the Public Works Department is not necessarily the city, and we're trying to get to where we can get the direction from the city, which is the City Council. And so our interest is to be able to take all the consideration that's been provided here and be able to correct a lot of the things that the staff has presented and then be able to come back to the city council based on your recommendations to be able to make those final presentations and meet those criteria.

The last thing I wanted to cover is just to explain. It has already been stated that this fuel center that's proposed is very similar to the one at Harman's. It is similar in that it has a kiosk like the one at Harmon's. The difference with this one is there'll be a person in it, and there's not one at the one at Harmon's.

Yeah, there is.

Okay. So, okay, we got that. Other part that I want to point out is if you go around to the other convenience stores that happen to sell gas, the products that they sell in addition to the gas are inside the convenience store. And in this particular fuel center, there will be products for distribution outside. They will be in refrigerated cabinets that are outside underneath the canopy and so forth.

The security associated with that kiosk is significant for the tenant who will occupy that space in that security is the reason why the lighting is that high. I don't know that the code is entirely addressing the needs of what we now have with technology, but facial recognition, cameras, the other things that will be associated with the security of that fuel center is very different from what you would see over at Harman's where it's just the dispensing of fuel. There's no attendant. You can only dispense 25 gallons there at a time because that's the requirement of the state code for dispensing fuel. This is just a very different kind of fuel center.

And if you could compare it to maybe the drive thru at America First Credit Union, the reason why they now at America First, if you go to a new America First, you're not talking to the teller in the window. You're talking to a television screen and you're communicating with tellers in Riverdale, Utah. And that security associated with that fuel center, which, by the way, the America First on January, the lighting there is 50 lumens, which is just slightly less than what we're trying to accomplish here. The highest foot candle sorry, I said lumens. I meant to say foot candle.

The highest foot candle underneath that canopy is 57. Rather than asking for 57, we just ask for 60. If we can work on that, we can. Again, that is some overlap in the lighting underneath the canopy. It's a standard canopy size. And the idea there is just to try to get that lighting in. Again, it's for the security system and also for the patrons there. It's not about we wanna be able to be seen from the moon. The cutoff optics and all the other items associated with the code will be complied with there. Just wanted to add in those couple of Why is it so bright? It's for the cameras.

And to roll back to what you said prior to the lighting discussion, taking notes, making improvements, I think my biggest issue tonight is that these are all issues that were brought up when this came before us in November. We talked extensively about the need for a development agreement because of these residential properties, at least the things that I feel like I'm concerned about mostly. But then we've got signs, double city code. We've got push, push, push the limits everywhere they can be pushed. And that's really that's just frustrating.

And now we're talking about, oh, we'll send a recommendation to city council. I mean, the way the conversation is going, it sounds like a positive one. But with a list of 50 changes, which is something I'm not willing to do. I want to look at something and have it be at least mostly ready, not bring me your most egregious design and then make us pare it down for you. I'm just not on board with that.

So reading this got me a little exercised at first because I felt like it was just to the limit almost everywhere. I'll give you a third East. I will give you that. I think that looks great. But other than that, I'm not super impressed. Anyway.

We appreciate the input. Thank you.

Do you guys have any issue or ideas of building elevations?

You mean height?

Height.

Height, 35 feet, would be the limit. And we think we'll be substantially under that.

And that's not in the development agreement?

The elevations do show that, too.

Okay.

But that wasn't included in the development agreement, correct?

It included in elevations that we gave to the staff, yes ma'am.

Right, well in the elevations, but it wasn't included in the text as a maximum height. It was actually specifically noted that there was a maximum height previously and it was removed. So it's just another one of those things.

You're having a good night, I can see. I appreciate that.

I'm having a great night. I got my candy up here.

I your concerns are legitimate, but we want you to know that we're willing to get those things done in conjunction with the staff. We've been meeting with the staff on and off for four weeks now to get to this point, and there are so many fine points in this development agreement that yes, by the time we get here tonight, we may have missed a few, but we think by the time we get to the city council with your recommendations, we can get there.

Anybody else up here? Okay, great. All right, we'll excuse you guys. We'll bring you back up as always, okay?

Thank you.

All right, now we'll go ahead and get to our public hearing portion. Thanks for sticking with us here late, everyone. As before, three minutes, we ask that you don't go over. And then as before, give us what you've got as far as recommendations and any pitfalls that we may not have noticed. And then just like before, you guys did a great job on staying on point on that. So let's go ahead and please remember to state your name. Ready?

Sheriff, may I ask one Can more we ask the commenters to not repeat each other?

Sure, we can ask.

We'll be here forever.

Can ask. We appreciate you guys. Honestly, appreciate you guys staying late. So We we're here late to rolling it live here too. So all right, go ahead. We'll go ahead and open this up. State your name, please.

Chris Mace, 13584 Meadow Heights Lane. So if you go to that elevation where you can see the north Side, I'm I mean, I'm my property backs up right to that orange detention pond section.

Oh, I can

use a mouse. There we go. Alright. So I'm right here. So, right now that's a six foot wall. I would like that to be higher. But one of the things that, you know, what's upsetting about this, and I follow Mary here, is we were essentially told, hey. This is what's best for the city. The residents, sorry. I get it. Okay. So let's do some accommodations for the residents. And it felt like I saw 17 recommendations that you guys came up with, and then everything was getting doubled. I felt like they were supposed to be more compromised. And you've talked about give and take. It felt like, okay. Let's give. And they just took. And I didn't see a lot of that back and forth. So I was I'm hoping that that could be an eight foot wall that stays around that whole thing, and I'm hoping for some trees right here to just keep going around here.

I don't think the detention pond root thing, I've looked into that. As long as there's no pipes around here and I live and I look at this all day every day, it's just dirt. So if we can just continue the trees, which they were proposed right here. So there's definitely not a problem here, so I don't think there would be a problem here. That's all I'm going say.

Great, thank you. Come on down.

David York, 438 Morning Ridge Circle. When you look at a piece like this proposed DA, you have to ask yourself two questions. Does this piece belong in Draper? To do that, you have to look at the zoning and the ordinances. And then second, even if it belongs in Draper, does it belong in this place? The answer to both of those questions is no. I want to look at three reasons why. First, the property is still zoned RA1. Yes, the city council passed an ordinance last year, but those ordinances are subject to a DA that adequately addresses traffic mitigation, roadway improvements, infrastructure funding, and other public benefits. This DA does not do that.

Instead of addressing those concerns, it overrides them. It exempts itself from city standards, it defers critical issues, and it leaves traffic access and circulation completely undefined. This is a rush job to meet an artificial deadline. Second, it grossly violates the city lighting ordinances. Draper City requires 0.2 foot candle maximums. This proposes 1.9 candles, nine and a half times the limit. Draper City Code requires 0.2 foot candles along property lines. This violates it and asks for a waiver. Draper Code, it's 15 foot candles for canopy lighting. This asks for 60.

The Draper City Code poll is a density of one per 100,000 square feet. This proposes 91 light poles. That's one every 8,600 square feet. City code requires illumination readings every five feet. They've only done it every 15 feet. These aren't minor deviations. These are protections that the code puts in place to prevent light trespass onto residential neighborhoods. The light needed for this project alone tells you this proposal doesn't fit on the land surrounded on three sides by residences. Second, you don't reshape the surrounding piece to make one piece fit. The new piece has to fit in an area that already exists.

300 East is the test. It's a neighborhood street serving homes, a school, and parks. This project places its operational functions, 20 fourseven deliveries, loading, and trash collections. That's why you don't see trash is because it moves it to 300 East facing residential homes. Your own code requires service areas to be oriented away from residences.

This points them towards residences. If this project cannot fit without turning 300 East into part of its commercial circulation system, handling both commercial traffic and service traffic, then it doesn't fit. And when your city attorney pointed out that this project will likely require another pedestrian

Thank you. All right. Who's next?

Hi. Rosemary Thomas, 13703 Brown Farm Lane. I'd like to reiterate what he said that the compatibility of this project makes no sense when you're depending on 3rd East to function as a commercial corridor. The reality is with no left turn access onto Bangadar, and that hasn't even been discussed yet, This project shifts even more burden onto 3rd East. The traffic is not going to disappear.

It's just going to get redirected. That means more cars, delivery vehicles, and more pressure on the street that was never designed to handle this kind of volume or intensity. I'd like to ask the city to clearly show how residents are expected to exit our neighborhood from Brown Farm Lane to travel south. We were told there'd be a pork chop, right in, right out. I don't see that on any of this tonight.

We're being asked to absorb impacts that do not align with existing infrastructure. Increased traffic and commercial flow will affect safety, noise, and the overall quality of life in a very real and lasting way. If this project moves forward, there must be meaningful and forcible protections, not just ideas, but physical solutions. Instead of it saying no truck traffic, it needs to be an actual thing that the trucks cannot go underneath. The signage is not going to to work.

It needs to be something that's impossible for a truck to drive through. Buffering must be done correctly. Landscaping cannot be an afterthought. We need mature substantial trees 20 feet tall at installation, not small saplings that will take decades to grow. The buffer needs to function immediately, not twenty and thirty years from now. Right now, the proposal falls short of established standards. A five foot landscape buffer with an eight foot fence is proposed where a 10 foot buffer is standard. On the south side, the required 22 feet is reduced to just 11 feet. These are not minor deviations. They materially affect screening, compatibility, and ultimately property values for those surrounding residents.

These standards exist for a reason and they should be followed. Your previous negative recommendation was not followed by the city council. Given the concerns already identified and raised tonight, we strongly urge you to once again recommend denial. You have the responsibility to ensure that development fits the neighbor not neighborhood, not the other way around. Please do not approve a project that relies on turning a residential street into a commercial access point. And if you do move forward, require real, enforceable protections that preserve safety, livability, and the character of this community.

Thank you.

Hi. My name is Robbie Stagg. I live at 13598 Shear Lane, the corner house right there. So I'll just I mean, it's all been discussed already better, you know, what's going on here, cover this up better, and especially for, like, an eight foot wall that runs the whole length of here and then all here. Because just right here actually has the eight foot wall right now.

And then an eight foot for these homes right here. So I know it's all been reiterated. Sorry. You didn't want us to repeat. But, and then the other thing is in the planning or in the, DA agreement, there was talk about a Hawkeye system, and I know that it was mentioned that that it's community driven, which I feel is totally appropriate because if we are making 300 an access point, it's gonna severely ramp up what's going on there.

And we are gonna have kids needing to cross either this section here or the preferable because it does fit with the schools and churches down on Stokes Avenue. So that's the reason why I have been pushing for that is because doing this will increase the amount of traffic here and the safety of the children who live here and eventually here. So, and then my last point since everything else has been pretty much hit is this entrance here. I know it's a temporary access of a 120 feet here, and it's at 350 feet to, I guess, a collector. But does that actually work when you're coming off of the collector of the Bangerter Parkway Slash Highway?

Is there a way to move this over a little bit, this entrance here, so that right hand turning cars don't shine into said homes at all times, because there's obviously not gonna be wall here for visual purposes. And then I mentioned in my letter that I live less than a thousand feet away from this entrance. It will take me a mile to get back to my house with all these write in, out onlys. So that's all I have.

Thank you.

My name is Fernando Lejuez. I'm the owner of 13720 South from the Northeast. Can we go to exhibit L, please? A couple of things already mentioned, but it seems that the project is being fitted to a set size of the building for the primary tenant. And I think in this case in particular, it should be a little bit different that we, you know, first we put all the conditions for the envelope and then we feed whatever building, you know, is is feasible.

So, in particular, that is the longest residential, like, individually speaking, is the residential, the longest boundary of of the entire project and is facing directly in front of the, of the of the loading bay. So the noise projection is gonna be significant. One of the requests that I did to the applicant and that I would like to expose here is the elimination of all that row of parking lots and the increase of the width and density of trees, doubling down on evergreens, mature trees that help us to project or to protect the entire lot and the entire residences behind my lot. And if you compare that part of the boundaries with any of the others, it's significantly narrower. So the response that I got from my request is that given the size of the building and the tenant, those parking lots are required.

But I think it should be, opposite to that. So that will be my my request. And then if we can go to exhibit k, please. So on the retaining wall expanding the width of the green belt or the buffer, I think that is critical. And obviously, the retention wall needs to be as far as possible from the bordering wall in order to avoid the projection from the top of a home to the venue. Thanks.

Thank you.

Hi. My name is Greg Wall. I work for Landex Development. Our ad we're based here in Draper. Our address is 120, 134 West, 131st South. So we are the developer that did the Concorde Farm Lane subdivision, which is the eight new homes, just north of where the the anchor tenant would be, Smith's. And, we have the property to the south of Concord Farm Lane under contract. It's the property that Fernando owns who just spoke, and we're in our due diligence period. And the developer has been good to communicate with us, so we appreciate that. They brought the issue to our attention about the 10 foot gap.

If you go back to the landscape plan, yeah, right here, you can see the dotted line right here. When when you plot the deed for this parcel, there's a 10 foot overlap. And our surveyors, we had a Zoom call today, and I forwarded it on to our title company to resolve. I think it would be wise to add as a condition of approval that that gets resolved before any site plan is finalized. But our main concern is in order for us to develop this residential property the way that we want to and build new homes, the buffer is inadequate to the east.

I'm gonna read from chapter 23 landscape and screening, section nine dash 23 dash one ten on land use buffers. It says a landscape buffer of 20 feet shall be provided between all commercial and office uses when located adjacent to a residential zone. So 20 feet is the standard. Trees within the buffer area shall be planted one tree per 400 square feet of buffer area. The rest of the buffer area shall consist of ground cover, shrubs, and planting beds wherein a maximum of 75% of the buffer may be planted with ground covers.

So, because the area to the south of this, property is a detention basin, the developers said that they are not allowed to plant the the coverage, and that's concerning to us. We would like to see the the the same density and types of trees that's on the south side of the basin on the north side of the basin that is adjacent to Concord Farm Lane and the property we have under construct or under contract. The other points I wanted to make, it says the fence shall be eight feet if the, there is any reduction to the buffer width. The zoning administrator can do that, but the minimum is 10 feet. And if you look at where the sidewalk is, it's drawn adjacent to the parking stalls, and they need to flip the sidewalk west so that the overhang of the cars will let a stroller go by, which means that there can't be any landscape at all because when a hot car engine is above the plants, it would kill it.

So we're happy to work with them and come up with a different design, but the buffer the landscape buffer does not work in that sense.

Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Matt Smith, I live at 329 East Brown Farm Lane. I want to thank the Planning Commission for your service and for the many hours you dedicate to reviewing projects like this. A fundamental and not discussed issue with this development is that the traffic study performed for this development does not accurately reflect the proposed master site plan. The proposed development will drown the area in traffic.

Let me explain. The traffic study does not reflect the master site plan because the traffic study assumed that all properties are general retail except for the gas station. However, when you look at the sketch, it is clear that the pad properties will actually be drive throughs such as banks or fast food restaurants. Importantly, retail and drive through pads have very different land uses. The moment one pad becomes a drive through, the traffic study is rendered inaccurate.

Getting to the specifics, according to the Institute of Transportation Engineers trip generation manual, a retail store generates 68 trips per day per thousand square feet. In contrast, a drive thru establishment generates four sixty eight daily trips per 1,000 square feet. As you can see in that handout that I gave you, that's nearly seven times the traffic. Again, the reason for this difference is the land use designation, which is an important input in any traffic study. The traffic study for this development assumes that all properties are retail and projects 9,000 trips per day.

However, when the correct land uses are applied to the submitted master site plan, the projected traffic increases to almost 16,000 trips per day. Therefore, if the land use assumptions in the traffic study are incorrect as they are in the related study, the traffic projections will simply be incorrect. So let's talk about the impact to the surrounding intersections. Even at the original projection of 9,000 trips per day, the nearby intersections were already projected to reach the level of service d, which is barely acceptable. It's difficult to believe that those same intersections can maintain a d when the traffic increases to 16,000 trips per day.

You may hear that the project has been downsized. You may hear that the city is going to do improvements. Those have already been factored into my numbers. Once again, approving this development and the master plan as is to drowns Draper in traffic. For these reasons, I respectfully ask the planning commission recommend denying this proposal until first, we require that the types of tenants and establishments being proposed in the development agreement are clearly specified.

Second, please require a new traffic to impact study that accurately reflects the land use of the proposed master site. Third, this is the most important, don't take my word for it, require a city funded independent peer review of the traffic study by another engineering firm, one not funded by the developer, and make the results transparent to Draper residents. I believe that we all share the same goal, responsible development that supports economic growth while protecting the quality of life and mobility for Draper citizens. Thanks.

Thank you. Where is next? You guys are so polite. Feel free to just start queuing up here. Right, that'll help.

Hi there.

Hi, my name is Lee Holiday and I live, I'm actually not on your map, I am right here, 266 East Concord Farm. Mary, I think I share some of your concerns. I think the lighting is too bright. I'm not necessarily opposed to the project at all, but I think there's things to make it better. And I think like you said, no matter what you do, you're going to have lights coming in.

So I think we can turn that down. As for people stealing their Cokes, they can move them inside. I don't really care. They don't need to have 60 foot candles of light underneath the gas station, which I could probably see from my house right about there. The other concerns I have are the what are the other restricted businesses in some of these anchor tenants? Those are just some concerns that I may have. I know we saw a couple of things. It was like car repair and some other things. But are there some other things to maybe consider keeping that out? Two more things.

The detention basin that is up here, I know it's been talked about. It's ironic that Draper City doesn't want any planting in there. So it's kind of what's good for thee is not necessarily good for me. So with that being said, think you guys should require yourselves to put your own trees in and make sure it's to the same standards that we actually see back over here. Lastly, when my neighborhood was developed, I know that we had to put in some pretty hefty landscaping like three inch caliper trees along 300.

I think that some of the stuff that's been proposed is actually a little bit smaller in size and I think we've talked about that. And I also think it'd probably be best to probably have some of that actually put in maybe prior to construction or in the very beginning. So those are some of my concerns. Thank you.

Thank you.

Right. Yeah. My name's Jordan. I live on 328 Brown Farm Lane, so just like, yeah, like next house in from right here. I've got a few questions here.

So in the staff report, it mentions evaluating, like, a traffic signal to cross 3rd East. And I'm wondering if the commission will condition its approval on the actual funding and installation of the signal or if it's just like a hopeful wish. Next question I had was about the lights in particular, the lights around this part here because we'll be driving on Brown Farm Lane here every day. I want yeah. Why what's the reasoning for increasing the the lights in that corner?

And and even in the picture, you can see like the light there. I also saw that there was a reduction in the size of the plants from two gallon to one gallon, and I was curious why that was. Regarding trucks turning at this intersection here, will there be an enforcement for that? And then if the trucks aren't allowed to go in here, what will be their entry and exit points to any of the loading docks? Exactly where will the dumpsters be located and what's the routing plan for the garbage trucks to get there?

I noticed that there's a slash in the required outdoor amenities. And if our neighborhood's going to eat and spend time there, then why are we allowing them to reduce the number of places to gather and eat there. That's everything. Thanks.

Thank you.

All right. I live Trent Jarman. Oh, can you go back? Back to the original one. Trent Jarman, 304 East Brown Farm Lane. The original picture, can you go back?

Yes. There we go. Oh, that one.

There we go.

I'm right here And guess what I get? I get all the trucks that come in backing up. I was told that they're gonna be coming through here. They have to come around. Unless you're Mario Andretti, you're gonna be coming into this area backing up. So we get to listen to that all day. Also Smiths will be the tenant. If you go behind the existing Smiths, they have minimal trees because trees die, they don't replace them. So are they going to be replaced if they die? As Rosemary said, we did ask the developer to do all evergreens instead of a mix because in the winter you're not going to have that block from the lights and the sound.

If you go to the existing Smiths, you won't be able to get a semi through here if you put garbage smashed cardboard. You're going be putting all of that probably right here. You're also going to be putting your broken shopping carts, all of that type of stuff. So that's what we get to look at when we pull out of 3rd East. Also on 3rd East, if you have your traffic light, you're going to have cars backed up to into this area, which they do now. They're going to cut up through our neighborhood, which they do. If you're going east coming through here and you realize I'm

not going to go up

138, I'm not going to go back, I'll go through the neighborhood. So that's one thing that we're going to be dealing with is a ton of traffic that way. So I hope we can hope we didn't even do the thing, but I guess we're stuck with it.

Okay. Thanks. Thank you.

My name is Talon Wardle, owner of 289 East Hundred 38 South right there on the corner. Get a front row seat to a lot of road rage incidents. My front yard's become a staging area for a lot of car accidents. A lot of people have probably noticed that. The property is important to me.

I've it's been in my family for about thirty years. I purchased it from my grandparents after a stint of having some renters there that made it uninhabitable. And after I purchased it with the cup help of a couple friends, I put a lot of money and labor into improving it, making it habitable. Might not look like it. Part of the reason, pumped the brakes because we noticed that we might be investing in a residential property that's doomed to become a gas station or even vacant lot in the future.

Because as looking at this plan, the word uninhabitable once again comes to mind because ingress and egress is already a big issue. So my question is how we're gonna handle that biggest limiting factor of that intersection for this development. I think it's very convenient that discussion about the signal or the installation or the budgeting of the signal that goes in that intersection has been postponed to a ambiguous phase two. So I'd like to see that intersection, at least an idea how to fix it and how to help my ingress and egress situation before any of this is is approved. And I'm a general contractor myself.

I I support development. I benefit from it, but there needs to be some reason and some logic behind it and considerations given to existing residents. Thank you. Thanks.

Hi. Hello.

My name is Kayla Kilsmeyer. I live at 259 East 13800 South with my dad. He's actually the owner. So it's this house right here where we already get all this lights and even the traffic light right here, it shines into my backyard all the time. We get the car wash, pull through your car, like, all night.

It makes our dogs bark half the time because it will go off. So it is concerning that right here where our backyard is when we let our dogs out to go to the bathroom is gonna be minimally protected from light and everything and possibly, obviously, a lot of sound. And then, like, right here, this is gonna be the worst going in and out. I can't even get out of my house to take my son to sports practices unless I plan to leave, like, almost thirty minutes before his practice, and he practices at Draper Park Middle. It's not that far.

It's definitely not a thirty minute drive. But the traffic is so ridiculous, and nobody nobody wants to be decent. I've almost been rear ended trying to turn right into my driveway. I've almost been hit on head on trying to turn left into my driveway coming home. And I don't I don't even know if a traffic light at 3rd East would even help, to be honest, because it's already so backed up.

And this is really concerning because, like, right now, my son catches the bus right here on this corner. He has friends that come from these neighborhoods and have to cross. And this having all that traffic, it's just we already know there's a bus stop right here, and I hear the bus honk its horn all the time because even though they don't have any kids crossing 13800 to get on the bus, you're still supposed to stop, and they don't. And I would hate to see a kid trying to get on a school bus get hit because people don't pay attention, and there's so much traffic going there, and you're just adding to it with this huge development. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello. I appreciate your time here, hearing all of us. I want to just Can

you please state your name for the record?

Oh, sure.

Gus Bernardo at 13608 South Shore Lane. Thanks. I just want to thank a board member, Mary Squire, to what you mentioned about this area right here. For the residents over here, it needs more consideration with trees and more protections, as you said, we have seen on 300 East. So, we need to protect the the residents that live in this area. They're gonna be affected. So, when you do your recommendation to the city council, please take that in consideration. I appreciate your time on that. Thank you. Thanks.

My name is Christina Kessler Day. I live at 448 Brown Farm Lane, and I I just want to communicate how hard the residents have worked on trying to make Draper City happy. And I want to express gratitude to Rosemary Thomas and Matt Smith and also David York for the hours of work and research that they have put into trying to help our community. And I want to point out that this is not America First Credit Union because there are three sides full of residents in this development. And we know each other, and we have walked through the neighborhoods and the streets alerting each other to what is going on.

We have contacted over and over again every member of the city council, including the city manager, and had multiple meetings with them in our houses and in their offices. We have met with Duane Rasmussen repeatedly to discuss things with him. We have made it very clear about our concerns with the traffic studies. We have made it very clear about our concerns with landscaping and buffers. We have made it very clear about our concerns with lighting.

And we have made it very clear about our concerns with the scale of this development. And David York was correct in saying that this development does not fit this site plan. And it is an embarrassment to Draper City and Draper City staff to try to fit it into this. And I want everybody in this room who doesn't live in this area that we're talking about right now to think about how you would feel if this was going next to your house. Because it's going next to ours.

It's not going next to the developers' houses or the landowner's house. It's going next to ours. And we have asked for help for months. Please help us to salvage our neighborhoods. We moved here thinking that this was Draper and it was a nice place to live. This is not nice. This is exploitation. This is the developers and the landowners pushing and pushing and pushing.

Thank you.

My name is Mindy York and I live at 438 East Morning Ridge Circle and I am reading the last paragraph of a very well written presentation that wasn't having enough time. The point is at some point instead of sending a conditional recommendation to approve to the city council with dozens of changes, like there's all these changes that you're going to ask for, I think it would be far easier to simply decline to approve this and decline to move it on. Thank you very much.

Thank you. All right, else? Hi. My

name is Kenzie. I live at 189 East 13560 South.

Kenzie Simons. Thanks.

Just kind of over in this area. And I will apologize, I'm not very articulate in this verbiage. But I also am concerned about the traffic on 300 East. I already have a difficult time turning left off of my lane, which I do nine out of 10 times for kids activities and school. And I worry about how long it will actually take to turn left with thousands of more cars.

Another issue I wanna mention, I know you said not to repeat, but there is something to add to it. The crosswalk by my house at Stokes Avenue and 300 East, I use that almost every day. My kids use it. It is so dangerous. I can sit there and ten, fifteen cars pass. No one stops, whether it's just me or our family of six on six bikes. So I just would like to request a developer to really consider that and not just do a sign with blinking lights like it needs to be something substantial. And I think that goes along the whole 3rd East. We've got parks, trails, tons of kids just on 3rd East. There's the skate park right there.

I think it's just a big issue, and I think all those crosswalks need to be considered. I think this road has a big issue with crosswalks. Channing Hall is right next to our house and if you've been there when they are dropping off and picking up their kids, that line can wrap all the way down 3rd East and you know back. And it's no dig on Channing Hall, but I just adding more traffic. I wonder what that's going look like. I have a difficult time turning left at that time of day. And let's see. I think that might be it, but I just worry about the safety in that area. Thanks for your time.

Thank you.

Hi. I'm Jeff Thomas, the other half of the Rosemary Thomas Committee. I live on Brown Farm Lane. I wanted to ask about or just bring up the point about the traffic study and encourage the traffic study to include some of the areas to the north of the property. I imagine going to this grocery store from my house, I'm gonna have to drive out of Brown Farm Lane, go down 138 South, and turn right in.

That's my only way in. To to get back home, like Robbie pointed out, to get back home, I can exit on any of these other exits, and then I've gotta go all the way to the park, the stop sign, go back up the thirties to the roundabout in the dog park, and then come back this way to get into my house. That's similar to everybody that lives east of me. Everybody that lives all the way up to the mountain, everybody that lives to the East and to the South can come in. Maybe they'll come in on A Hundred And 38th.

Maybe they'll come in on Bangater. But for them to get back, they all have to exit third east to the right and then go left or go right from there. There's no other way to get home. There's a lot of traffic that's going to be flowing out of 3rd East and there's a lot of traffic that's going to be working around that park. So I would encourage the traffic study to include some of that just because this is so constrained. If those in fact are right in right out exit entry points on 30 East and 138th which I know that was written but it's not indicated here to be enforced in any way. Thanks. Awesome. Thanks.

Shawna Fuller, 130 Eight-forty 3 Ranch Circle. Another thing about the traffic that hasn't been mentioned is it seems increasingly that 3rd East is being used as an artery for I-fifteen when there's crashes. And it seems like it's getting more and more frequent. And even without that happening, if you try to drive at 04:00 westbound, 138, to go to I-fifteen. I used to be able to get five, seven minutes, and now it's twenty minutes at least because of how many cars are already on the freeway or on those arteries at that time.

Thanks.

Thank you. All right. I don't see anyone else so I think we will go ahead and close the public hearing portion. Thank you everyone. We appreciate that input. I've taken plenty of notes up here. I do have a couple quick questions just for traffic. On this, with the development agreement, is there anything with the development agreement that pertains to traffic? Brian, you mentioned one critical statement. The city cannot put its inadequacies or its deficits or weaknesses onto a developer. Is that correct? Did I hear you say that correctly? That is correct. Okay. So I looked it up, for example, it's the second or third time.

Nobody wants kids getting hit moving across these streets. Absolutely no one. We all have kids. We all live here. I looked at it. A Hawkeye system is like $75, $150. I mean, it's cool. I don't know if the city has a budget for that, but these would all be improvements that the city would have to put in. Will you just remind us real quickly if that's and I don't know how we tie that in or if it's even relevant. Does that make sense?

It is relevant because traffic obviously will be impacted by this and this impacts traffic and vice versa. But what can we even mention to the city council that they don't already know? And what can we count on as far as write in, write out, pork chops, lamb chops, whatever has been promised or proposed to alleviate this? Listen, I live down the street from Channing Hall. And when Channing Hall was proposed, I mean, we were like, oh my word, this is going to be because what the dynamic there between a Channing Hall and a Willow Springs is that there's, at the time that that was being proposed, there's no bus, right every student is a mom or dad picking them up every student is either a pedestrian or a passenger same thing over by the post office right when a school not to go off on a side quest about about know Willow Springs versus charter schools But that was we knew what was coming with that.

And yes, now we also have this impact with I-fifteen refugees that are trying to outsmart their GPS system and come pay us a visit. Does any of this have anything to do with the development agreement? The traffic, we get it. I'm not discounting it. It's a I don't want to say crap sandwich, but how does this match up with the development agreement?

So the development agreement typically looks at uses and styles, basically on-site items. When we get to a site plan approval, that's typically when we analyze the engineering aspects of the site and its impacts to the surrounding utilities. That's when we know numbers to information, actual uses, actual car generations. That's typically where we look at the specific information is at the site plan. Now to take a step back, the city does have a traffic committee.

We do look at intersections. We do look at crosswalks. We look at school routes. We do analyze those elements. Each of those elements have what's called a warrant, whether or not it meets the justification for putting that kind of improvement in. People have mentioned the Hawkeye or the Hawk system. That is a light controlled system that allows pedestrians to cross. Well, can't put those in intersections because those are not visible in all directions. So those are mid block club crossings. Mid block crossings can impact traffic flow. There's a lot of issues that you need to analyze with that. So as it relates to pedestrians on 30 East, the city will be looking at that. We are looking at that. We have looked at that in the past. We are always concerned with unsafe crossings.

We don't like to see those. We like to make sure that those are adequately addressed with the traffic committee. That's something that I've made some notes to take to traffic committee. As it relates to the overall trip generation of the project, we have analyzed the connection points and the turning movements and what we could generally see here. And having the ride in, ride out is the best movement for traffic as it considers the traffic volumes that we already have.

Adding a left turn movement does slow down traffic and it also creates additional conflict points, potentials for accidents. So that's why this development has so many of those right in, outs is to try and limit the potential for traffic issues. We've had residents state they have a hard time making left turns now. So we do want to try and engineer this to address the existing problems that we have and then also accommodate the potential generation of traffic as it comes in. And that's part of the whole process.

And then I do want to make a statement that the city does have a consultant that's not related to the developer review the traffic studies. So the city does get an outside review of traffic studies as it relates to developments. And that would be followed in this case as well. So when a site plan comes in, we'll get an updated traffic report. We do send that out to a peer of a traffic engineer and he will review it independent of the city and of the developer to give us

their comments.

And when that review comes back and it's not good, then what's recourse? What happens at that point?

We often look at what recommendations for mitigations are there and then that's where we evaluate what improvements can be made to address safety concerns and whether it's a lane widening, additional turn pockets, signal timing, additional signals for that matter, there's quite a few elements that we have tools in our tool belt, so to speak, to address some of these issues.

Because I look at it, I mean, we've got a in that Draper Crossing area, we already have a dynamic that's a small version of this. We've got Stonebridge, that development, that's got residential in it and I know Smiths was there and then the housing came later, but you can cut across from Stonebridge and go right into the back access, either back access of that current Draper Crossing Smiths parking lot. And I'm just looking at this going, Okay, it does have a different dynamic because there's not a lot of traffic on Pioneer that backs that Smiths now. So anyway, just a thought. I'm not discounting that traffic's a non issue. I'm not saying that. I'm just illustrating the point on when it affects the development agreement.

May I make one more point?

Sure.

People have pointed out pork chops or curbing or something to prevent trucks from coming in. The city does have a concern because we do want to allow fire trucks to come in. And those are typically the same size as delivery trucks. And so we don't want to limit emergency access to developments. And so that's typically why we try to limit the use of pork chops. But we are going to have signage and striping. Enforcement is done through police and through other elements to make sure that traffic regulations are followed. We do try and provide an access where emergency vehicles can come in at any point. Great.

Are pork chops those signs that have the bar hanging from chain?

Pork chops are typically the curbing that you

have in the middle of

the drive approach to prevent a vehicle from crossing in a direction that you don't want it to go.

That's right. Okay, so what about those signs that you know they have the pipe, it swings on a chain, but it's

Unfortunately height our fire trucks do require 13 feet of clearance too and that's pretty close to the same as There's a delivery

no left turn into that same entrance though, correct?

I don't understand which entrance you're talking about.

That third east.

Correct. Right

It's now right only.

It would be

a right in, right out only at this point.

Yeah. It's gonna be a problem. I'll just tell you right now.

I watch people make U turns in front of Harman's all day long right in front of the no U-turn sign because they would rather. So I, yeah.

And there is a divider there as go back a little bit further. Is that what you're talking about?

They go to the end of the divider and just

make it. Yes. Well, again, noted and that's when that's going go. Do you want to get the applicant back up or do you want

to make I just talk to the commissioners want here about the different issues I've not identified and if we want to include them in a

perfect

an emotion so let's wait

Yeah, why don't we bring them up and then we can deliberate. Is that fair?

Can I ask staff a couple

more

questions? Why is the Hawkeye or whatever it's called, in the development agreement if it's not something that the developer is responsible for?

The developer provided that language as an avenue to try and address the concerns of residents. And that's one of the sections that the city does, has requested some additional clarification language to show that it is the city that is responsible to study and analyze and determine if and when that system would go in and where it would go in and how it would

be set up. The proposed location of this would be right at the end of the Brown Farm or other down?

I think it's ambiguous at

this It is interesting what Brian brought up. So you could have somebody try to cross there at 04:30 which is their right and then it puts complete screech to traffic, through traffic and then that could happen repeatedly as it is their right but then that system goes in. But I was looking at more of the fundamental of can that just like we do impact fees, is it unjust and then say, hey, as part of this, we're not how do I put this? We're not allowed to do it, but we're asking you in a development agreement where you're giving, taking, whatever, can we just ask the developer to put that in? Because they've kind of offered. Because that's an expensive system. And yes, the city would probably need help with that if they could afford to do it. We already have one in.

And if I recall at the first meeting, there was some agreement not official, but there was indication of agreement.

It's been brought up twice now and so I've looked into it.

It's a

cool system and Yeah. So And it is referenced by name in that, like you mentioned. So again, just some other things that the developer can consider as far as but that one is not going on my list. No. That's not a priority. I it is.

I do have another question about screening trees.

All right, go ahead.

There was a good point made about if scrawny little baby trees go in, maybe in twenty years they'll provide adequate screening. What do we do? What's the requirement for trees? And can we put a maturity requirement in the development agreement?

So I know it's really hard to see there but they are proposing two inch caliper which is consistent with our city ordinance. The issue, Kit, is when you go over two inch caliper, the survivability decreases. So even at three inches caliper, you're going to have less of those survive than a two inches.

Well, me, the instant screening is the berm, the height, the elevation difference and the screen, the wall, the actual wall. That's it. I mean, that's the instant screen. Yes, it's not 30 feet high. It's not a screen that's as high as the back of the property. But to me, that's the only way to get an instant screen.

Well, and just to point out that the renderings we're seeing certainly show mature trees. Oh yeah. So, I mean, that's part of the reason I asked and obviously we're gonna make it look as great as we want it to be in ten or fifteen years, but that's not really a realistic picture of what it's going to look like is what I'm hearing.

So just to stay on point, and Lisa's got her list, we'll invite the applicant up if there's no other questions for staff. But I would like to, once that's done, I'd like to go back through and see if there's anything from the public comment that we want to add to our list. Does that make sense? Is that kind of the goal? Okay, good. All right, is the applicant yep, you're still here. Great, come on down. And then you heard what was said. Is there anything you want to answer and add to that?

Well, probably a few things. Let's address the hawk signal since that's the thing we talked about There most was a lot of discussion about that with the staff, but Brian and your public works department, in addition to the traffic department, want to make sure that that is warranted and goes in the right place. And so we just hadn't figured out where that needs to go, and I'm not sure what the timing is to get that figured out. We would participate in it with the city, and we've told them that, but I don't think they're ready to say where it ought to go. It's been an interesting situation to sit back and listen to the neighbors whom I respect greatly and we have a differing opinion on how this property ought to be developed, but to listen to your debate up here as to what to do with this project tonight, I can suggest two things.

If you're comfortable sending this list of recommendations to the city council, please do that and pass forward a recommendation to them positively. If you are not positively affected to do that, give us time to work with the staff and put this on the table and let us come back to your next meeting so that we can address the issues that you think are standing out there. I think we can get there. I believe we've heard this. I think we can get there.

There are some things that we can do after Troy's made some comments up here tonight. I would leave that in your hands, but we hope that you will process a recommendation to the city council with your list that you've got here tonight, and we can work through that with the staff.

Great. Any questions for the applicant? All right, let us deliberate. Thank you. You very Appreciate your input. Right, so Lisa, let me just say this first. I know and if anyone else is thinking this, this is a little unique and I've noticed a different tone in the meeting because it's not you might think this isn't ready, right? Like it's not ready. This was early. This was premature.

I actually welcome this meeting because what we've seen here is a little bit different. It's a little bit like, hey, I'm genuinely listening to the neighbors saying what was talked about last time, what hasn't been addressed, what's been tried to what are they trying to squeak in, if you will, right? What are they trying to get away with? And that's why I would just in in just the experience of being up here and my preference would be to say, just if they're trying to push something in, this is exactly our job is to push back and just let let the staff and the city council work it out. I don't see much difference between meeting now and having another meeting just like this in two weeks.

I think we're gonna hear the same things. It's been the same. It's it's just consistent. And so I would love to just say, hey. If they're if if they're it's a it's a little bit of push and pull or tug of war, whatever you wanna call it, tennis match, ping pong, we've had some things right here.

And, I don't get to vote, but I would highly recommend that we get that lighting addressed, the signage consistent at a consistent height that's consistent with Draper so that there's not this overpowering deviation here on signage. And then the fencing has to be one of the biggest priorities, fencing and screening, just because of the size of this project. Lighting is a big issue. And on the other side, the more lit up it is, the more secure it is. It's just going to be a different property.

But at the same time, that comes at a huge cost of light pollution. So the screening and the amount of trees is something that I would actually heavily push back. And so when we started Lisa, I know you're it just bugs you right that we don't have the lumen recommendation or the light the is it the candle the

foot candle.

Foot candles thank you it's a foot candle ideal with lumens but not foot candles okay so we didn't have a foot candle recommendation I welcome that because now guess what the step. But we strongly, strongly recommend that you've got to go get that number right. And there's got to be this happy medium between I welcome the explanation on why did you go that bright because the cameras can pick up certain things that brightness. However, let's go make it consistent and pick a number and know that that is a that's the you know, I'm learning negotiations. If you ask for 10 things, you get zero. If we ask for three, we might get all three. So those are the three things that I would add into our negotiations with the city council but that's my list of three. What say you?

Yeah, definitely signage first. And so Susan, what were you saying that you wanted it consistent with Draper ordinances or with the harms plot?

I think with well, actually I think harms is pretty consistent with the code based on what I've seen. But I think it needs to be consistent with the code which I believe is consistent with the area, not just the Harmons, but you drive further up the road. You you got DAW construction and you've got America First and the other businesses that are consistent with the current code. Yeah. So okay.

So in the signage recommendation, would be the highest. I noticed that there's also that differentiator. It's unclear. Some reference just the anchor tenant and then others reference every single subtenant or junior tenant on the signage, which is what they have at Day Farm. That's what they have. They the monument saying, hey, this is what this place is called and here's everybody that's in here, Which I I don't have an issue with that because it's commercial property that's just a common commercial But it needs to be consistent through the development agreement. Yeah. On third, that's and what we're going to see at every entrance. This height, this branding

This height, it's with the location, the spacing, you know, which then attributes to how that many kind of stuff. This also didn't address attached signage to the building, but again, I think that's just gonna have to meet code in the future.

Correct.

It's not part of this, but I don't think that that is something we need to be concerned about right now. I just wanna make a comment. I think it's been a tough night and a lot of issues raised and we're this is a difficult situation. Personally, I feel that well, I have faith in the city council and staff and our legal department that they're gonna look out for the city's best interest. I think the more time city council has to look at this, the better rather than us who aren't the approving body anyway. So I think we come up with this list that we can can and fine tune this as best we can Mhmm. In the concerns. And let's move this forward.

So I have height signage and building signage consistent with the code.

Just meet the sign criteria, basically.

Sign criteria?

Yeah. The current sign code regulations.

And remember, Day Farm is one foot higher. So if we're going, maybe we'll give them one foot.

Or as, or I close to our

rescind that

close to you.

All right, fine. Okay.

Then just keep it

with code.

Current code.

And then I think is everybody up here in agreement about eight foot fencing around the site?

About what site?

Eight foot fencing. The the concrete fencing.

Even though there are some areas that would allow for six but just saying look eight foot all around just so it's a consistent screen and then we can at least get that instant extra couple feet of barrier for light pollution.

Okay. And then lighting, it's too bright on the perimeters.

Before we get out away from the fence. Can we talk about just the trees and more screening and keep that all together? Or do you have the trees? Oh, no, never mind. I just categorized it as screening.

We want at least to make sure that the trees follow the ordinances on the perimeters. I can see that they're decreased in the parking lot to allow for more parking spots, which I think is fine with me. That's fine with me. But I think the perimeter is key for the trees.

I think the more the buffering and screening around all of this fencing along the residences, that should be where the priority is. And it should all look as much as possible like the renderings we saw on 300 East.

So if we look at this picture, you can see on someone commented that they wanted trees on both sides of the retention pond, retention ponds.

I don't think we can

get overly specific because there's issues with drainage and we don't want to compromise anything there.

But I

think to the extent that we're making a recommendation, which is all we can do at this point, the recommendation should be, I think we've all agreed that what's being done on 300 East is ideal for this very difficult situation. Right. It shouldn't be just 300 East. Every single resident impacted by this, every home impacted deserves as much screening as possible from the impacts of noise, the trucks, the lights, all of it.

And I think that's just a hard position. That's a big one to us. It's just the screening, the fencing and

the That needs to be the absolute utmost priority. And I would agree with what you said Lisa that to the extent there's trees taken away from the parking lot, fine. Where the focus needs to be on is mitigating for these residents as much as we possibly can because we can't change the project happening, so we just have to mitigate where we can.

Right. What about the exit onto 300 East? Just before, if you were driving from the parking lot out, then the parking on the north line of that little road there, I don't know, it's on the north side of the building. There's parking on both sides of that exit. One of the public suggested removing the very north parking. Can you use your

cursor Well, to you notice, they've already tried to be considerate of that because there is a residence there and then that big long vacant lot. So they put in their evergreens here and you're just suggesting that parking may have to go and then you're just going to have that same row of screening there along with an eight foot fence.

Should we mention that if possible?

I think it's mentioned. I think right now we're hoping the city council is listening in and if you have to get that specific in the I

think you should whether we get that specific or it's just that emphasis, eight feet, as much screening, yes, if they have to lose a little parking in order to accomplish that

Because we're already over on parking.

The priority needs to be on protecting And the

it would be the same on the far right.

Definitely on the South Side.

And my understanding is like on where that vacant lot is, that's going to be developed and that's intended to be residents at this point. So I may have misunderstood that, but

It's I mean, whether that gets developed by that non applicant or not, that's residential. So it

should be treated the same and just because there's nothing there right now shouldn't be like a free pass for the developer in my opinion.

Do we want to get a specific to recommend evergreen trees mixed in so that there is wintertime The trees

only problem with that is evergreens take a lot more space. They're a lot wider. They end up so they don't usually fit in 10 foot landscape. You'll end up ripping them out. So usually they're twenty, twenty five feet. That's the only problem

with They grow out of their allotted space into the parking. And then

they They are just

a lot wider in wet Evergrades are than deciduous or whatever. So that's the only difficulty with requiring.

It's the reason we don't see them on plans. Just don't see unless our you have 25 feet. Evergreens all over.

You're going to end up ripping them out.

So I

don't know how you handle that.

That one, yeah, that one I think just needs to be left engineers and the science of arborists and figuring out because yes evergreens it does at first blush just make more sense because year round screen and of course. And that's what you like about third is that it's staggered, They're going with deciduous and evergreen.