Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right. I'd like to welcome everybody to the June 25th, 2026 Planning Commission meeting. So we do not have our chair or our vice chair here tonight. So I'll need the three commissioners who are present to vote for an acting chair for the evening.

Do I say like I make a motion that Susan would be the chair for today? Yep.

I added some extra microphones up there just in case any died.

I second the motion.

Okay, we'll take a vote on that. Christine, how do you vote?

Yes. Laura? Yes.

And I guess I will vote also so that we can proceed on. Welcome, ladies and gentlemen, to the Draper City Planning Commission meeting for June 25th, 2026. I'm Susan Nixon. I guess I'm the acting chair for tonight. Laura Fidler is on my right and Christine Green is on my left. We are also here supported by our wonderful staff, highly efficient. Jennifer Jastrzemski is the director. Todd Draper is the planning manager. And then we have Todd Taylor and Nick Whitaker, who are city planners, and Paul Gallman, excuse me, Gallman. Got that. Brian Maxfield, city engineer, and then our legal department is represented by Tracy Gunderson and Lori Stout. Thank you. They'll keep us in line, hopefully. Thanks for your interest in coming. We do have a lot of public hearings tonight, and when we get to that portion, I will explain the process that we'll go through for that. The first two items on the agenda are basically administrative housekeeping items. They are review of the planning commission minutes for May 14th and May 28th of 2026. Commissioners, have you had a chance to review those minutes? And if so, comments, questions, or I'll take a motion.

Good to me. Yeah, same. I make a motion that we accept the minutes as written. I second that motion.

Okay, I have a motion by Laura and a second by Christine, and then we'll take a vote. How do you vote, Laura? Yes. And Christine?

Yes.

And I also vote yes, so the motion passes unanimously. It has been requested that we change the schedule a little bit to accommodate those who are here, so you don't have to sit through the meeting longer than you would like. So item 1D, which is a city-initiated text amendment, we are going to move to the end of the meeting if I can get a motion to do so.

I'll make that motion that we move item 1D to the end of the meeting after 1G.

I second that motion. Okay. And motion by Laura, second by Christine. And then to call for vote. Laura, how do you vote? Yes. Christine? Yes. And I also vote yes. So it passes unanimously. The next item on the agenda is a public hearing for Rivian Draper site plan and deviation requests. This is on the request of Logan Johnson representing Wright Development Group and Smith Payne Lone Peak LLC. A site plan and deviation request on approximately 6.16 acres at approximately 11601 South Lone Peak Parkway. The application is known as 2026-011SP and 2026-0151VAR. And I believe our staff contact is Paul. Is that right?

Yes, that's correct.

Okay, take it away, Paul.

Perfect. Okay, so we take a look at the vicinity maps. We are just south of Carl Malone Toyota, just south of 114th. There we have our aerial map. Taking a look at the land use, we are a commercial special district, and that is also our zoning CSD KMAC. Taking a look at our site plan, there's a view of what is proposed for the Rivian dealership. We also pulled out a view of the site information showing the parking information, that they do meet parking, so we wanted to make sure that was pointed out. Here is a view of what the architectural plan is for what the building will look like, as well as materials and colors off on the right there. For conditions of approval, there are 10 points that are listed in the staff report. summarized here so mainly meeting all engineering public work building planning fire requirements during development permitting complying with the geotechnical report consolidating the property recording a cross-access easement for the property to the north before permit issuance submit proof of access easements and power company sign off before permit issuance submit revised landscaping plans meeting tree diversity and street tree requirements include a floor plan meeting Draper City Municipal Code submittal standards with the building permit application, submitting a revised lighting plan compliant with Draper City Municipal Code Chapter 920, submit zoning-compliant fencing plans matching the existing decorative concrete wall by the Carl Malone property. Going into a little more detail about the cross-access deviation to the south of the property, There is an incompatible use. It's an electric substation, so providing access there would not be a compatible use. And then to the east, we'll show on some of our photos, there is a grade change between the property to the east and the Rivian property. So that meets two of our standards that would be required for approving a cross-access deviation. So there's one of our site photos looking east towards the mountains from the road. There's one towards the north side of the property showing the Carmelone buildings. And then there's a look south towards there. If there are any questions, myself or Todd Draper can answer. He has worked heavily on the project. We also have Logan here to answer any questions if you have any for him.

Okay, commissioners, any comments, questions? Okay, well, we'll invite the applicant up then. If you'd approach the microphone, state your name and where you're from, that would be great.

Thank you. My name is Logan Johnson with Wright Development. Our office is in Centerville, Utah. We appreciate how great staff has been to work with on this project. We're excited to bring the first Rivian dealership here to the state of Utah. We are comfortable and we've spoken at length with staff about the conditions in the staff report. And we feel like none of them are major and we can work through those with them. And we appreciate staff's willingness to bring this to you guys with those conditions. Except for one condition that maybe we would need a little clarification on. And that was the parcel consolidation condition. Currently, the site is built on two parcels. One, when we applied for this, we didn't own. But we own it now, which is the back parcel that the building sits on. But the one in front is actually owned by Rocky Mountain Power. And so we will not be taking title to that. So we wouldn't be able to consolidate them. So staff, if you could clarify maybe the intent there. And just like the rest of the properties down the street that also abut that parcel, we have access rights over that and we'll provide that documentation to staff but unless i misunderstood it we would request that that condition be removed unless unless there was something else we were missing so we'd love a little input on on staff there and that we also have a representative from rivian as well if you'd like to come up briefly and then just introduce yourself and then we're all we're available to answer any questions as well thank you hi good evening commissioners my name is carolina kuchmarchik i'm the regional development manager for our facilities commercial team at rivian

So thank you for having us. I want to say thank you to all of you and to the staff and the City of Draper for just being collaborative in the partnership along with this process. We're very excited to be coming into Draper, expanding our footprint, and providing more local job opportunities, better serve the community for our growing customers. And more so than anything, being part of the community, and the long-term success of the city. So happy to answer any other questions you have for me as well. Thank you.

Okay, you're welcome to have a seat and then we'll call you back up if we need to. Staff, any clarification on the parcel consolidation?

Yes, I can clarify that there are indeed two parcels here. They are owned by them. I don't know exactly why we have two parcels, but you can kind of see the gap or sliver between. So those are the two we're talking about. It's not a consolidation with the power company property.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you. Appreciate that. Yeah, then we're totally fine with that condition. Thank you.

Okay, very good. That clarifies for me too. I was wondering the same thing. Okay, if commissioners don't have any questions at this point, we will open this meeting up for the public hearing portion of this. Anybody wanting to make a comment, please approach the microphone and state your name and where you're from. Everyone is entitled to three minutes. That keeps us on schedule here. And then once we're done with that, I will close the public hearing and take it from there. So the public hearing is open. Is there anybody wanting to make a comment on this? I see no takers, so I'll close the public hearing. Thank you. Commissioners, any questions, comments, or motions?

It seems like a pretty straightforward... Proposal and it seems like they've worked closely with staff and staff has addressed any concerns. I'm sure that we would ever think of With that I will make it a motion I make a motion that we I Guess we have two different motions here. Yes. Sorry. Yes, go for it. Sorry start with the Kid grief, sorry I just totally lost my place here. Christine, do you want to just punt that one? Okay. Sorry. Thank you. All right. We're here. I move that we approve the deviation from cross-access as requested by Logan Johnson representing Wright Development Group and Smith Payne Lone Peak application 2026-0151-VAR based on the following findings for approval listed in the staff report dated June 17th of 2026.

Okay, I have a motion from Laura. Will you second the motion? Yes, I second. Okay, motion from Laura, seconded by Christine. And then we'll vote. How do you vote, Laura?

Yes.

And Christine?

Yes.

And I will vote yes also. So the motion passes. And then we need another motion for the other item.

I will also make that motion that we approve the site plan as requested by Logan Johnson representing Wright Development Group and Smith Payne Loan Peak Application 2026-0011-SP based on the findings for approval and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report of June 17, 2026.

Motion from Laura, and a second? A second. Thanks, Christine. And we'll vote. How do you vote, Laura? Yes. And Christine? Yes. And I vote yes also, so it passes unanimously. Thank you. And then we will move to item 1E, which is a public hearing. And if I pronounce this name wrong, I apologize. Yes. 1E? Well, 1D, we moved to the end. So now we're on 1E. Right. So public hearing for Adamo zoning map amendment on the request of Michael and Tori Adamo, a zoning map amendment for approximately 1.08 acres located at approximately 265 East, 13275 South, known as application 2026-0097-ME. And Nick Whitaker is the contact for this. Go ahead, Nick.

Thank you. This is the Adamo zoning map amendment. So a quick overview of the request is just a zoning map amendment changing the current zoning from RA1 to RA2. That's a 40,000 square foot minimum lot size to a 20,000 minimum square foot lot size. Here's the vicinity map of the property. And aerial map. The land use map, the land use designation is residential medium density. Here's a zoning map. The current zoning is RA1. And here's the applicant's proposed zoning map amendment. Again, that's to change the current zoning from RA1 which is residential agricultural 40,000 square foot minimum lot size to RA2, which is a 20,000 square foot minimum lot size. The land use compatibility, interestingly, the current zoning is not compatible with the current land use. However, what they're proposing is compatible with the land use, as RA2 is a compatible use with residential medium density. So here's an overview and definitions. Fun fact, the definitions are the same for RA1 and RA2. Here's a site photo of the property. Oops, I pressed the wrong button. I apologize. Here we go. Site photo. And any questions or comments?

Okay, commissioners, any questions? I think I asked this question earlier. I sent an email, but I got an answer back. But I'm going to voice my question anyway. Should the properties, there's two parcels on there, and I, like the previous application, I was wondering if the two parcels should be combined in order to proceed with this zone map amendment. And it appears that there is a structure that crosses the boundary line. Is that, I guess, out of compliance, I would assume. Can you explain that maybe? Okay.

Yes, so if the applicant is there to subdivide the property, then they would have to bring that into compliance. The lot or that extra parcel was done in a way that Draper does not recognize, so they will have to correct that. at the time of application when they, you know, if they decide to subdivide the property. And that's the same with the structures too.

if they're not going to subdivide if they just leave it as is they don't need to combine them or try to bring them in i'll add to that um the city's well the zoning administrator so that's me is currently working on a administrative interpretation on this property to determine if the the two parcels are are legal and what the steps are that need to be taken to uh make the to correct the issue. I think there's a couple different options for them, depending on how the properties were created and when they were created. That house is historic. It's very old. So just doing research to see when the properties were created, that kind of thing, because state law may have been different at that time. But they'll either be able to do... a parcel boundary adjustment and move the property line so they have two parcels that are conforming to lot size or they'll have to do a subdivision okay so but that's being analyzed right now great thank you appreciate that okay if there's no other questions we'll invite the applicant up state your name and uh where you're from i guess if you would please and add any information you'd like

Hi, thank you. And first of all, I'd like to appreciate the staff for all their work on this. I know it's kind of a historic, the house is older and it's a little more complicated than the average bear, so I know it caused them extra work. But I really appreciate the time you guys are putting in. I think it's pretty straightforward. Most of this area was RA1, like the next door property was RA1 and has been moved to RA2. And so it seems like that's the direction of the area. So I just open it up and see if you guys have any questions.

Okay. Can you just confirm your name for me?

Oh, sorry. Mike Adamo. And I live on the subject property. Sorry. Super excited.

Thanks. You can have a seat. And if we need, we'll invite you back up. Thank you. Okay, if there's no questions from the commissioners, I will open this up to public comment. This is a legislative item, so we do not take action on this, meaning we don't approve or deny this. We are the recommending body for the city council, so we will make a recommendation, which is forwarded to the city council at a later hearing date. But, again, I'll open this up for public comment. If anybody wants to make a comment, please approach the microphone. We've got a lot of eager people to talk tonight. Okay, I feel like I'm talking to myself. All right, well, I'll close the public hearing then, and then the commissioners bring it back to us. Do you have any discussion, comments, or a motion?

I don't have anything extra to add to it. If you guys would like I could make a motion for the positive recommendation. I move that we move. I move that we forward a positive recommendation to the City Council for approval of the zoning map amendment as requested by Michael and Tori Adamo, application 2026-0097-MA, based on the following findings for approval listed in the staff report dated June 12, 2026. In the findings for the approval, there's four of them.

Okay, I have a motion from Christine. I'll second that motion. A second from Laura. And vote. How do you vote, Christine? Yes. And Laura? Yes. And I will vote yes also. So it passes unanimously and will be forwarded to the City Council. All right. The next item. There's also a public hearing, and this is for solid construction land use map and zoning map amendment requests. It's on behalf of Morgan Lovato representing JLF Ventures LLC, a land use map amendment and a zoning map amendment. for approximately 0.31 acres located at 273 east 13800 south known as applications 2026-0016 ma and 2026-0044 ma and our staff contact is todd draper all right thank you this is the solid construction land use map and zoning map amendment applications uh this is the vicinity

there on 138th, not too far from the intersection with Bangor there. This is the property from the aerial view. There are residential properties on either side of it, and as you'll recall, the recent zone change and development agreement for the property to the north. It is currently in the office commercial service land use and in the RA1 zone. They are looking to move that to the regional commercial designation, same as what is behind it there, and to the CR zone. Just by zoning comparison, we're really moving from that residential agricultural, 40,000 square foot minimum lot size, which this parcel doesn't, quite meet either. And uses such as kind of I've listed a few there to the proposed zone, regional commercial, does not have a minimum lot size, and all the uses that are listed in that zone. So I've got a few of them there. And there are a few site photos here. And if there's any other questions, I'm here to answer.

Thanks, Todd. You know, it's funny. When we had the previous hearings for the properties to the north and west of here, I kind of thought to myself, hmm, I wonder if we're going to see some more coming down the pipeline for surrounding properties. So I'm not surprised this was on the agenda. But have we received any public comment for this?

I did not.

Okay. Thank you.

Yeah.

I had a question on the business that's currently on the property for the past five-ish years. Is that, and the fact that there's not a home on there, can you maybe explain that a little?

Yeah, so looking back, we weren't really able to locate a permit for the construction of the garage. It does show up quite a few years ago on aerial footage. Far enough back that if there was a permit, it has a great likelihood of not being located. At the same time, the operations that have been occurring on the property have not been in compliance with the zone. The intent here is to rezone so that they can indeed put a construction sales and service yard here on this location. So the proposed use that they would like to do would conform to that CR zone.

Okay, and then they would still have to go through some kind of business licensing approval, I would assume?

Yeah, licensing, any permitting, anything else would be separate from this, yes.

Yeah, right. Okay, thank you. All right, any questions, commissioners? Okay, well, let's invite the applicant up. Again, state your name and where you're from and any other additional information.

Thank you. Gavin Wenzel on behalf of the applicant, JLF. Do you have any questions in particular?

I do not. I was kind of just curious, like are you planning on building something there?

So initially, bringing the property into compliance and and using it as a construction sales and services yard for storage of equipment indoors and so forth. But ultimately, JLF is in discussions with the developer of the rezoned property. looking into potentially acquiring some of those other three remnant parcels of RA1 and incorporating that into the commercial development behind out there in the future. Ideally, this is fundamentally a commercial spot. Geographically, it's not a residential in nature location anymore, right at that major intersection with this commercial that's going behind it. So ultimately, we'd love to get it incorporated into a harmonious development with the project that's going on behind. Anticipate that will take a little time, but in the interim, to use it as an approved construction sales and services yard.

Okay, thank you. All right, you can have a seat, and if necessary, we'll call you back up. Thank you. Okay, this is also a public hearing, so I will open this up for any public comment for anyone wishing to do so. And it doesn't look like we have any response, so I'll close the public hearing for this item. Commissioners, any questions, comments, or motion?

I'm like you. I'm surprised that I wasn't surprised to see this spot come before us just because of the development behind it. So it's interesting to see what that lends in the future with such a big development behind it. I would think those other two parcels would be probably inevitable.

Yeah.

Yeah. So I mean, this one seems logical. They've been using it that way. I drive by that every day and I've seen it. So.

Okay. We do have two, there's two motions or two requests. So, anybody, no further questions? I'm open for a motion. Again, these are recommendations that our recommendation would go to city council ultimately for yay, nay, or whatever, so.

Okay, great. I'm willing to make a motion on that. I'll start with the land use map amendment. I move that we forward a positive recommendation to the city council for the land use map amendment as requested by Morgan Lovato representing JLF Ventures LLC application 2026-0044-MA based on the following findings and criteria approved approval listed in the staff report. There are six conditions to that that they previously discussed.

Okay, I have a motion from Laura, and do I have a second?

I will second that.

Okay, and a second from Christine. We'll vote on it. Laura, how do you vote? Yes. And Christine? Yes. And I vote yes also, so it does pass. And again, this recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council at a later date. All right, moving right along, the next item on the agenda is also a public hearing.

We have a second motion. There's a second item on that one. The zoning map amendment.

Zoning map.

Yep, you're right. Second motion, excuse me.

I'll also make a motion to that positive recommendation to forward to the city council the zoning map amendment as requested by Morgan Lovato representing JLF Ventures LLC. It is application 2026-0016-MA. based on the following findings for the criteria for approval as listed in the staff report dated June 16th of 2026.

Thank you, Laura. And do I have a second? I'll second. Thank you, Christine. We'll vote on that. How do you vote, Laura? Yes. And Christine? Yes. And I also vote yes, so positive. It does pass. Thank you. Boy, when you can't make motions, you kind of lose track of how many motions we need to make. So thanks for keeping me straight and out on that. Okay, next item on the agenda. There's also a public hearing. This is Kawara Nursery Land Use Map Amendment, Zoning Map Amendment, and Development Agreement requests on behalf of Cameron Smith representing Alpine Homes, LLC, and Kawara Produce, LLC, a Land Use Map Amendment, Zoning Map Amendment, and Development Agreement to allow for the construction of 21 detached single-family dwellings on approximately 1.95 acres at 762 West, 123rd South, known as Applications 2026-019-MA and 2026-020-MA and 2026-021-DA. And Todd Draper is our contact. Go ahead, Todd.

Thank you. This, of course, is the Kuhar Nursery. Land use map amendment, zoning map amendment, and development agreement request. So all of them kind of in concert with one another here. This is the vicinity map. This is 123rd South, kind of this year. Leaving Draper and going towards Riverton there. This is the property. It's currently the site of the Kuhara Nursery. That's not their other main operation, which is a little further up here on 123rd. This is the aerial map. You'll see the existing greenhouses and other buildings on the property. It is also on a commercial office service land use, which they would be looking to move to a high-density residential land use. And it is currently a CO1 professional office zone, which they would be looking to have in an RM2 residential or multifamily residential, similar to what you see here to the east. This is from the development agreement, the conceptual site plan, single access drive with two shorter private drives coming off of it. A total of 21 homes. They're looking to put this into a... building pad lot style of subdivision. So the actual ownership would just be the underlying footprint of each home and then the rest of the area would be owned in common. It does have 11 parking stalls here for guests. As part of this, they are also asking, through the development agreement, for a couple of additional asks to reduce the interior width of the garages from the typical code of 20 feet, I believe, down to... I want to say 18 feet, but it could have been 19 and a half. I can't remember off the top of my head. But it is in the staff report. So they're looking for a reduction on the interior width and to have that still count as two spaces for each individual unit plus the two that would be on the driveway. Each driveway is a minimum of 20 feet from the adjacent curb and private road. As mentioned in the staff report, these are a little different. They are calling out The fronts is those garages that face the street, and then the rear is the other side where the entry door is located. And that's kind of shown here on the elevations. So this would be considered the front, where this would be considered the rear. Just as far as the zoning goes, just again, that comparison. They're the professional office right now. It doesn't really have a minimum lot size. They're looking to go to the RM2. It has a minimum lot size of 4,000 square feet per single-family home. And they're the different uses that would be allowed now versus if the zone change were to occur. And of course, there's more in the ordinance, but these are just a few that I kind of picked out to kind of show the difference between the two zones. Of note, one thing they're asking for is kind of to reduce because they're using that building pad lot style development, they're looking to reduce kind of the overall per unit size so they wouldn't just have the pad and then the balance is in the common area. The common area would not quite equal up to the $4,000, and that's in the report as well. So as far as the development agreement is concerned, Benefits to the city, right-of-way dedication and owner occupancy requirement for 70% of the units, and that would be for their private CC&Rs. Some of the benefits to the developer from the agreement, the land use and zone changes, which are the separate applications, the gross density of 10.7 dwelling units per acre, that building plan, lot style of layout. Technically, this is a reduced lot size from 4,000 to 800 because it's just looking at the footprint, but then that net reduction in area comes down to about 2,950 per individual unit as the ratio. They would be getting some reduced setbacks, and that's really kind of between those that are kind of facing each other at the rear. But they would still meet kind of the same regular setbacks from a street and from sides of the building. They are asking for some modifications to the private road cross section to follow with the plan that they proposed. And they, like I mentioned, reduced parking stall width in the garages. And then just a small addition of one additional unit above the 20 that would otherwise be allowed on a private right-of-way. um there were some concerns still with city staff on this the dedication of property for the right-of-way along the 123rd is the standard condition for development and that would happen with or without a development agreement and the fact that the number of single family units proposed does exceed what would be allowed in the rm2 zone for single family units without the development agreement And that the agreement may not have adequate consideration, which could render the agreement void. That was a concern from legal counsel. There are a couple of site photos here. This is just kind of on the westernmost corner looking north into the property. A couple more where you can see the buildings and the greenhouses. And then photos looking east and west, up and down 123rd there. And then another photo looking into the property from that southeast corner. And you can kind of see some of the hillside before you get to the development that's up there on top. And if there are any other questions I can help answer, I'd be happy to. I also did not receive any public comment on this one either.

We'll take public comment in just a minute. Questions, Commissioner? I'll look at it. I have. I had a couple. It's funny. I actually went to Kawar because I was looking for some plants. I went there on Saturday and noticed the sign of the public hearing before we had gotten the agenda. So I was a little like, oh, wow, okay, cool. Yes, that's coming up on the agenda. So anyways, my couple questions on the staff report, page 224, it talks about This is in the restrictions and conditions of approval. The applicant has indicated that the minimum lot size of 2,000 square feet with a minimum lot width of 32 feet. But it didn't see that 32 anywhere, but it is spelled out in their verbiage they submitted. So does that need to be addressed or? Is that, I don't see it anywhere on any of the site plans or anything. It's on page 224 of the staff report, sorry. And then let me see if there was something else here. Oh, and then I had a question. In comparison, this property, they're asking for 10.7 dwelling units per acre. Do we have any idea what the adjacent development to the east is? It kind of looks similar. I know they're attached, but do we by chance know comparison-wise?

Give me just a second, and I can open up that plot and see. Okay.

I think they had 31 units that are attached, and it is a little bit bigger property, but I'm kind of thinking maybe the densities are similar.

Draper Mill has 31 units. Let me just double check. Yeah, let me do the math real quick.

Okay, yeah, 31 units. I think it was a little bit, the property's a little bigger, but I don't know, you know, take the streets out, et cetera, what the density is. I'm just, I think they're probably fairly similar.

Yeah, Draper Mill is at 11.7.

Oh, okay, so just a little bit more than what they're asking for.

Yeah, it's 2.64 acres in size and 31 units.

Okay. So similar. Thank you. And then any idea on that 32 lot width that they've put in there in their verbiage? I'm wondering if that needs to be removed or is that applicable or what? I was just a little confused when it said the lot width would be 32 feet. I'm thinking, okay, I don't see that anywhere.

Okay.

I don't.

Give me just, give us just a second to look at the staff report. It may, my thought is it might be referring to the street width, not the lot width, but let us pull it up.

Okay, yeah, again, it's on page 224 of the packet, I should say, the packet. But, okay, any other questions, commissioners? Okay. Okay. All right. Well, while we're waiting on that, why don't we invite the applicant up then? Again, state your name and where you're from and add any information that would enlighten us.

Good evening. My name is Austin Richards. I work with Alpine Homes. Cameron helped submit the application. He's back there as well. So maybe just a little bit more context on this project. So we were working with the Kewaharas on the sale of their property and figured out how to make something work here. And a couple of things, obviously looking at this property surrounded by residential properties on three sides, you know, front on the north, west, and east. And then across the street, I believe, when we met with UDOT, mentioned that there was some commercial stuff pending on the other side. And also that one should have a median. So Anyway, this property being used as a residential property, we felt like fit. And then finding the right product type for it. We're a primarily single-family home builder and find it really important to try to do homes for sale, not for rent. So something unique that we felt like we could offer on this project is an entry-level home. which is a little uncommon to find in Draper. That is new construction. But it's something that could be really attainable and maybe a longer term solution for people. Anyway, we felt like this would be a great product type for that. And so this is what we came up with. And again, we did go to building pads versus lots. We felt like we could get a little bit more flexibility and in the end create a better product open space that where the landscaping could be privately could be maintained by the hoa and things like that to make sure that we're keeping it up and uh keeping it in uh in a good repair so um anyway we're happy to answer any other questions um i don't know if i've got the answer off the top of my head for your question either there's a few iterations of this development agreement So I don't know if I know it off the top of my head either without looking at it in front of me. So anyway, happy to answer any questions you guys have.

My question was, and I could have heard the numbers wrong. It was talking about an adjustment to the length of the driveways or the garage size.

Oh, sure. So the driveways, so the home widths are 20 feet. So it's going to be outside to outside. I believe the code is 20 feet inside to inside. We're going deeper in these garages. I don't think we've provided the floor plan. I kind of wish we did. But the floor plan actually is a 24-foot deep garage. So it's actually bigger and more spacious than most homes that would have a normal two-car garage. Also, as a comparison, we recently built Rasmus and Farms kind of next to the post office behind the Chick-fil-A over there. And this would be equal to or greater than a number of those garages that are built in that community. So just a point of reference on recent construction in the city.

Yeah, that's great. I have recent experience with a garage that was right at the 20 feet minimum for a two-car garage, but then the stairs made it inside so you couldn't park cars in it, so... I don't want to see that happen again.

I think they're asking for 18 and a half feet wide garage. Is that right?

It's the depth that was concerning to me. So I, yeah, the width is less important. Gotcha. Okay. Thank you. Thanks.

Sure.

Any other questions for our applicant?

Okay. You're welcome to sit down and we'll call you back up if we need to. All right.

No further questions? Yeah, so I think we have answers to the previous questions. Okay. So looking at the staff report, the section you're referring to on the 32-foot wide for the lots, that was in the applicant questionnaire where they're just kind of, Explaining what they're requesting. So not sure if that was an earlier reiteration and then the ultimate plan that they submitted had the 20.

So that will have to be removed or corrected or whatever.

So that's not applicable? It's not part of the development agreement. Okay. so um but it isn't it's a discrepancy between the applicants the application and the actual development agreement document okay but i guess we don't need to be concerned about that yeah

Thank you.

And the other one there, as far as public comment is concerned, I do have one that I overlooked simply because they did not address it to the Planning Commission. They addressed it to the City Council and the Mayor late last night. And if they're here, they're welcome to present to you today.

Okay. Thank you. All right. If no questions from commissioners, I will open this up for public comment. Again, please approach the microphone, state your name and where you're from. And you are limited to three minutes. And please address your comments to the commission. We will take notes of that. And then after the public hearing is closed, we will respond to those.

So go ahead. Thank you.

I have a concern a little bit about safety. Chris Hughes. It's Chris Hughes. I'm a next-door neighbor. The 123rd, I'm just concerned a little bit about how people exit. on to 123rd. It's increasing traffic every year. Right about that point is where in the wintertime, not this winter, traffic stops and then people slide off. It's at the bottom of the hill. We had two fatalities within three days. There's quite a few fatalities at the bottom. People usually go freeway speeds along that road. So anyway, it's just direct access. The development next door comes out on 700 West. Very slow traffic.

It kind of buffers that kind of problem.

I have a concern about drainage. It might not be a concern. I suppose the detention pond is for drainage. So that might not be a concern. I have a concern about the privacy. The Kuhaj property is about 6 to 14 feet higher than the neighbors. And I don't know how high these houses are, but they'd be directly kind of like looking into yards. I don't know if this is the purpose of this. Maybe this is just a zoning issue today that we're discussing. But if there's going to be something there, I would think that a really good, solid, high masonry fence would at least be something that should be considered for the sake of the current neighbors. who are about three lots per acre versus 21 or versus 11 lots or houses per acre. So it's kind of an abrupt zoning change. And frankly, last of all, I could use office space without having to go to Riverton and South Jordan. And it seems like there's a lot of good housing coming in, high density housing. But it would be nice to have some office space locally. And that's where we're zoned now. So those are just some of my thoughts.

Thanks.

I'm Elaine Barras.

I live in the same neighborhood. I don't even know if this is an appropriate time to ask that, but I am concerned about the 123rd. Because it's divided highway there, people go through our neighborhood. You've got that ivory development down 700 West. All those homes, since they've come in, it's gotten so busy on our street. And we're just wondering if there's any way we can, I don't know, consider something on 123rd to maybe redirect traffic instead of through our neighborhood, maybe on to 700 West somehow. There's no light at 700 West. So people going east will drive through the neighborhood to get to all those homes that are off of 700 West now. So maybe this isn't the time to ask, but we're adding more homes, and so I'm like, oh, we're going to get even more drivers driving through our neighborhood. So anyways, that's all I wanted to say.

Okay, thank you. Anyone else? Okay, I'll close the public hearing for this agenda item and bring it back to the commission. We do have some questions that were raised, and I'm thinking probably... Staff could, maybe our engineer could address the traffic in grassy grass, possibly, and then in drainage, if anyone's here for that. And, oh, we did have a question. Fencing, buffering, and I could probably address, answer the question about the height. These are three stories, but 35 feet is... allowed for single-family residential homes, but these are not going to be 35. I don't believe. I think they were somewhere between 30 and 33-ish, but that's not uncommon. 35 typically is the maximum for a single-family home, so that meets the code. And then if staff could address those other couple of items, that would be great. Thanks.

Sure. So there's a couple of items that I can address. First of all, 123rd South is a UDOT street, so the city doesn't actually control that street that's controlled by the Utah Department of Transportation. We do regularly provide them input on what we'd like to see happen or maybe some modifications, but Aside from the fact that they have the ultimate decision, when we review a site plan such as this, we do make sure that the access has adequate visibility to see up and down the street to be able to turn out. try and proceed with traffic safely. Our traffic access management plan does require that if the lot or the parcel has access to a lower classification street, such as the one on the corner to the east of this, they have to use the lower classified street as the access point rather than the arterials, which 123rd is. So that's why the development on the east has all of its accesses out on 7th West, but this one only has that one frontage, so this is where the access will have to be. And then just to clarify on the drainage, all of the drainage will be collected in the detention basin, and that's where they'll attenuate the flow so that they can discharge it into the storm drainage that exists in 123. And then on the grading plan, the street does have slope requirements, so they'll have to make sure that they keep the roads within the natural slope of the lot, which means that there will be some grading, but we don't know how much until they actually get into the engineering of the site. And that'll affect where the homes are placed.

Okay, thank you. Then there was one question about fencing buffering. There was a comment about that. Would any kind of buffering fencing be required with the zone change?

There's nothing required with the change in the zoning as far as fencing. Now, when they come in to do an eventual site plan and subdivision, we can look at things at that point in time, but there really isn't a requirement for any just regular subdivision to do fencing.

Okay. Thank you. All right. I think we've got questions answered. Commissioners, do you have any further questions or comments?

I'm looking just for education for myself. Where this is located on 123rd, am I thinking correctly that it's divided there? You would have to go in or out? Like going out, you would have to turn west, turn right, or is it both directions in that section of 123rd?

I don't believe so. I believe that you can still turn into the center lane here in either direction. But that might change at the time of a site plan. Brian could probably talk to that better.

So as I stated before, UDOT will have to actually review this, and they'll actually meet the determination if they want that to be a right in, right out. The business that's being constructed to the southeast of this, currently it's under construction in this aerial visit photo, they are having to extend the island westward so that their west access would be a right in, right out because of the hillside. But at this time, we don't have a determination of what would happen with this access at this parcel.

Okay, thank you.

I just have a comment. I think that when you have a residential neighborhood to the north of this, and you've got a busy street as 123rd is, that medium to high density is really a good buffer and good buffer between the single-family residential to the north and the busy street. I think that serves as a good buffer, any kind of a medium to higher density, good place for it. So I actually like this proposal. Just a comment. Does anybody have any comments they want to make? If not, I'm open to any motions, discussions, etc., And there are three motions. Again, the motions would be forwarded to the city. Yeah, the motions, whatever they are, would be forwarded to the city council for final decision.

I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. I MOVE THAT WE FORWARD A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CUAHARA NURSERY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AS REQUESTED BY CAMERON SMITH REPRESENTING ALPINE HOMES LLC AND CUAHARA PRODUCE LLC APPLICATION 2026-002 1-DA, based on the findings for approval as listed in the staff report dated June 17, 2026. The approval of the proposed development agreement complies with DCMC section 9-5-200C and D. Okay, I think I have a motion from Kristen.

I'll second it.

And a second from Laura. We'll vote on that. Kristen, how do you vote? Yes. And Laura? Yes. And I vote yes also. So it does pass. And then we have another motion.

I'll take this one. I move that we forward a positive recommendation to the City Council for the land use map amendment to residential high density as requested by Cameron Smith representing Alpine Homes LLC and Kuahara Produce LLC application 2026-0019-MA based on the findings for approval as listed in the staff report dated June 17th of 2026.

Thank you, Laura. And do I have a second? I second. Thank you, Christine. All right. We'll vote on that. Laura, how do you vote? Yes. Christine? Yes. And I vote yes also. So that motion does pass. And one more motion.

Okay, I move that we forward a positive recommendation to the City Council for the Land Use Map Amendment for the residential high density as requested by Cameron Smith, representing Alpine Homes LLC and Kuahara Produce LLC, which is application 2026-0019-MA, based on the findings for approval listed in the staff report June 17th of 2026, with the following additional or modified findings listed in the staff report.

Thank you, Laura. And do I have a second?

I second.

Thank you, Christine. We'll vote on that. Laura, how do you vote? Yes. Christine? Yes. And I vote yes also. So that does pass. Again, we'll be forwarded to the city council. Thank you. Thank you for those coming to attend. And now we will move back to item 1D, which is the public hearing, city-initiated corner locks text amendment request, request from the Draper City. Seeking approval for our text amendments to Titles 9 and 17 of the Draper City Municipal Code in order to clarify the definition of a corner lot and how it is applied to certain properties. An application known as 2026-0145-TA. And Todd Taylor is our contact.

Thank you.

So this is a proposed text amendment in response to some unclear text that we have in our code related to lots or parcels that are abutting a private road and have no access to that private road. So previously, before we realized that the text that we were using was unclear, these lots would typically be determined to be interior lots for setback purposes but since we realized that that text wasn't as clear as we had been using it for probably quite a few years they're currently being determined to be corner lots so this text amendment is to try to get back to the way that we were determining those lots for quite a bit of time previously So I have an example here just to show how this sort of plays out. And this is, you know, this sort of occurs throughout the city, and this is just one of many. And they're all slightly different, but this is one that's been coming to us recently. So you can see this subject property in red, this parcel back in 2012, back in, you know, rural Draper off of Fort Street. And then a subdivision came in to the south of it. This is 2025. Recently, that home has been removed. So this is 2026 Ariel. But you can see the subdivision that went into the south of it did not include this piece of property, and they put in a private road that is owned by the lots within that subdivision, and so this property has no access to that private lane. So again, previously we would determine that this parcel would be an interior lot and have the setbacks as such since they have no access to that roadway. Currently we're having to call them corner lots and we're just trying to put that back the way it was. So that goes into our text amendment. What we did was go into the definition of corner lot and add that corner lots are something, lots are parcels where there are two or more abutting streets. And so we added this clause here that says, If that lot or parcel is prohibited by plat or other recorded instrument from access to the abutting private street, it shall not be considered as abutting for the purpose of this definition, which would then allow it to be classified as an interior lot. We also... We brought in definitions for public right-of-way, private street, and public street from our Title 17, because they were a little bit more clear than our Title IX definition for street. I will note that Acting Chair Nixon has proposed that we change this definition for private street from lot owners to property owners, and staff does not have any concern with that, so we will be recommending that be changed. Thanks. We went through just as we were looking through all the sections that touch this we you know cleaned up various parts of the deaf are the standards And then again Acting chair Nixon pointed out that in here this blue text actually should not be crossed out. So we will be correcting that to Put it back And then this is the section that actually had the unclear language, so we were just crossing that out, referencing other sections where we talk about measuring setbacks. And then in Title 17, since we had moved those definitions of public right-of-way, private street, and public street, we are just referencing to Title IX so we don't have duplicates. And, you know, ultimately with our comprehensive code amendment, we're hoping to bring those all together into one definition section. That concludes my presentation, and I'm available if you have any questions.

Thanks, Todd. I appreciate that. Isn't it funny how you can look at a code for years and years and years, and you think you got it, and then all of a sudden some quirky thing comes along, and you're like, oh, whoa, wait a minute. We've got to tweak this a little. So thank you for going through the efforts of that. We appreciate it. Any questions for them? Yeah, a lot of work, a lot of red tape just to change a couple little things. Wow, thank you. Okay, well, this is a public hearing, so we will open this up for public comment, and I don't see anybody here to make a comment, so we'll close the public hearing, bring it back to the commissioners, and we need a recommendation that would be forwarded to the city council on this item.

I will go ahead and forward a positive recommendation to the city council for the city-initiated corner lot text amendment as requested by Draper City application number 2026-0145-TA based on the following findings and criteria for approval as listed in the staff report dated June 11, 2026.

Thank you, Laura. And do I have a second? I second. Thanks, Christine. We'll take a vote. Laura, how do you vote?

Yes. Christine? Yes.

And I vote yes also, so the motion passes. Thank you. And then the last item on the agenda, other business. Staff, do you have any business for us? No, we don't have anything. Cool. Okay, well, I guess we need a motion to adjourn.

I'll make a motion to re-adjourn. Adjourn.

Thank you.