Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

We have a full quorum and Steve is going to lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Okay, are there any conflicts of interest?

No. From me.

All right, approval of the minutes for July 15th.

I'll make a motion to approve item 3.4.

I'll second it.

A motion by Heather, a second by Daryl. All in favor?

Aye.

Okay, 4.1, review and consider approval of a conditional use permit for a home occupation daycare.

This is for a lot of daycare. And right there is the subject property. And then just showing the vicinity of the map, that is the high school just to the south of the property there. And that is Watchman Way, just to the north, that north side road. Okay, and then so, for the Atlanta daycare, the proposed home daycare would provide children childcare service, supervision, educational activities, meals, snacks, and age-appropriate play opportunities for up to 12 children. The rooms in the house that will be used are the living room, kitchen, and the one upstairs bedroom proposed for the use. Operating hours are going to be from Monday through Friday at 6 a.m. to 5.30 p.m., and this is an R2-10 zone. This is showing the actual floor plan. You can see in the living room, kitchen, and then bedroom two is going to be the actual room that is used for the daycare for the rest area upstairs. And then so for the drop off and pick up plan, this is a rear load house so it has no direct rear entry door to it. So there is a proposal for a drop off and pick up plan for the front of the home since that is the only entry doorway other than the garage on the rear. So they're proposing to do drop pick up on Watchman Way. It would be on the south side of the street or adjacent to the house there just for safety reasons so kids are not crossing the road. so they're gonna be coming out directly onto that sidewalk there. And there'd be staggered drop-off and pick-up times. There was concern brought up about the parking situation on Washington Way as during the year of its high school, there is parking that bleeds over into that roadway, and there has been parking concerns with the intersections, but this is well away from the intersection, so we just have to be worried about the high school parking bleeding over into there. And then for the recommendations, you can see number two. Number four is to bring up, because in the original plan, there was a front yard play area, which is not permitted per our code. So just to bring that up. And then let's see. And then number seven would go over the drop of pickup operations. And the other one to point out is 14 that got added. There is an HOA, so there would need to be HOA approval obtained for this. And do you have any questions?

Okay, discussion or a motion? Yes, thank you. Does the applicant have anything they'd like to add? No, okay, thank you. Okay, discussion or a motion?

I think this makes sense. I really do appreciate staff working with them on the access. So I'll make a motion to approve item 4.1 with staff's 14 recommendations. I'll second.

Motion by Adam, a second by Preston. Forrest?

Yes.

Darrell? Yes. Adam?

Yes.

Heather? Yes. Preston? Yes. And Brody?

Yes.

OK. So that passes. I have a quick question for you, Amanda. So on that last item, 5.3, where it's going to be continued, do we just need to notice that now, or can we wait until? Yeah.

for 5.3, it's being continued.

You can acknowledge that now if you would like. That way if there's any members of the public here for that, they can decide whether to stay or go as it is our last item.

Okay, thank you. All right, so for our last item, 5.3, it will be continued to a future Planning Commission meeting, but we will still be holding a public hearing today. Okay, so procedure for a public hearing. The purpose of the public comment policy is to allow citizens to address items on the agenda. Citizens requesting to address the commission will be asked to complete a written comment form and present it to the deputy city recorder. In general, the chair will allow an individual three minutes and a group five minutes. This policy applies to all public hearings. So 4.2, review and consider approval of a preliminary plat for a five lot subdivision.

Alrighty, so we'll be discussing Bowles number five subdivision. This is slightly northwest of the U Road that we're currently on. This is a little bit better of a map so you can see what we're working with. You can see that there are two lots currently highlighted together. They do equal that about two and a half acres, and they are looking to do five lots, and the lot sizes are fairly similar to the project that is to the west. Perfect, okay, so it looks like we're slightly over 2.5 at 2.74, so they're looking to go down to A110. There are only five lots, so it is a 1.8 dwelling unit. Perfect, yeah, so this continues to work with our objectives to keep low density residential areas in the surrounding neighborhoods. So as I said, that area to the west does match with this level of density. So we just checked it against the A110 standards. It does meet them development-wise for engineering as water limitations are in effect right now. When this can actually start construction will be dependent on the water tanks that are being built in South Hills and Olympia. And those are moving towards completion currently. They're not largely in the future. We're looking in like within the next year or so. And then we are also looking for a long-term stormwater agreement that links to parcel A. That is the bottom corner on the right of this image. It's the smallest lot that's on there. And then this kind of T-road allows for potential Development on the north side to create a connection to have kind of a u-shape between those two areas Instead of just a cul-de-sac on each one and that also provides fire turnaround for a temporary use These are our recommendations of approval the same as in the staff report they have not changed If you have any questions for me, I can help and the applicant is also here Any questions

Does the applicant have anything they'd like to come up and add?

Thank you.

All right. We'll go ahead and open the public hearing. I'm seeing none. A motion to close?

Motion to close the public hearing.

I'll second that.

Okay, so motion by Heather, second by Adam. Forrest? You just do all in favor. All in favor, thank you. All right, and then discussion or motion?

I remember we had a discussion, it was the well even on this property that we had talked about like a while ago.

Sounds like no, I'm seeing them shake their head no. No, okay. I mean, this one's pretty much cut and dry. Yeah, exactly. If there was a well on it, it would have been in the ALTA survey.

So I'll make a motion to approve item 4.2 with staff's eight recommendations.

I'll second. A motion by Brody, a second by Heather. Forrest? Yes. Darrell? Yes. Adam?

Yes.

Heather? Yes. Preston? Yes. And Brody?

Yes.

Okay. All right, item 4.3, review and consider approval of a 10 plat preliminary subdivision.

Okay, good evening, so I'll be presenting item 4.3 for the Bow Meadow subdivision. So this is the vicinity map to acquaint you all with the subject property's general location within the city boundary. So this is just a zoomed in map for the current zoning conditions. This parcel is zoned as A110. So the proposed subdivision is approximately five acres. It is zoned A110. There are 10 lots proposed. They all exceed the 10,000 square foot minimum. It is also important to note that there will be a nine foot right-of-way dedication and the improvements along Rose Canyon Road with this subdivision application, as well as a six foot precast wall. Staff would like to make you all aware that that precast wall is also currently on the plans. So staff findings were that the application, the subdivision does meet all of the lot width and areas, the requirements for the A110 zone. So again, that 10,000 square foot minimum as well as the lot widths required, they are also providing that precast wall and those right-of-way dedication improvements. From our engineering department, other than the general restriction for the, and pending the provision of the additional culinary water supply, there were no other significant concerns from our engineering department. So our recommendation is to approve the subdivision application with the following four conditions. Are there any concerns or questions? The applicants are also here as well.

Okay, do we have any questions for Amanda? All right, does the applicant have anything they'd like to add? If you'll just state your name.

Yeah, Garrett Schmidt on the development team. Just want to say it's been great working with the city. We're excited for this project. We feel like it'll be a great addition to the city. Thank you.

Okay, let's go ahead and open the public hearing. Okay, seeing none, a motion to close.

I'll make a motion to close public hearing.

I'll second. Okay, a motion by Forrest, a second by Heather. All in favor?

Aye.

All right, discussion or a motion?

I think it's straightforward. I think they addressed the water issue issues, retaining, all those things.

I agree. So with that, I'll make a motion to approve item, sorry, 4.3 with staff's four recommendations.

I'll second.

Okay, a motion by Adam, a second by Daryl. Brody?

Yes.

Or Preston, sorry?

Yes.

Heather? Yes. Adam? Yes. Daryl? Yes.

And Forrest? Yes.

Okay. All right, item 4.4, review and consider a request to renew preliminary plot approval for Laguna Point subdivision.

Good evening, Commission. This is a project that I know the Commission is familiar with. as this is a request for approval of a project that had previously expired. I'll go through that timeline with you. Again, this is the approximate location of the area that is part of the subdivision. It is primarily zoned R1-15. There is some FR 2.5 zoning that clips three of the lots. That FR 2.5 zoning does have some site restrictions that will be reviewed as part of any building permit on those lots in the future if it were approved the property was rezoned by the city council in 2015 to r115 as stated in the report the planning commission had approved a preliminary plat in 2023 at that time the city's preliminary plat approvals had a two-year expiration term By the end of that two years, it is expected that the final plat would have been recorded. As with many of our development partners, these bigger projects, especially ones that have a dependency on other infrastructure, this development partner came to the city even before the expiration of that plat and had asked for a one year approval on May 7th, 2025. Now I apologize, there was just in producing the packet, it implied that that one year extension also expired in May of 2026, but technically that's a one year extension to the original deadline, which would have been in July of 2025. So it was July 2026 when that expired. And then the applicant had submitted a new preliminary application on July 30th, 2026. The applicant was aware of that expiration date. They had been working with their engineering department on the final review. And they were actually prepared or in the process of seeking signatures on that final plat when their preliminary plat had expired. And we do not have any other way of addressing that expiration other than having the applicant reapply for a preliminary plat. And as the commission knows, that does require a public hearing. And so we had to re-notice this item. The acreage is about 40 acres. All lots are over 0.35 acres. There is a zoning condition on the property. When it was rezoned, the council said that the density, the maximum density overall would be 1.7 dwelling units per acre. The proposed density of the subdivision that's before you is 1.67 dwelling units per acre, so it complies with that zoning condition. And again, the features of this project are the same as what was initially approved by the Planning Commission. Obviously, there's been a lot of civil engineering work that has happened since you had seen this for preliminary approval. And as was described in our work meeting by our community development director, there's been since then, because of all of the MDAs that have been approved by the city council around this site, there's also been those off-site improvements navigated as far as how water would be connected to the site through easements. And so that's been secured and resolved. Again, so as part of our findings, the development is complying with the zoning standards, which includes like minimum lot widths, lot area. It complies with that zoning condition. The engineering department has some standard kind of catch-all conditions of review on this. And there's also that requirement that anything that has more than 30 homes requires a second access. So again, staff has reviewed this and is recommending approval. Any questions at this time? The applicant is here. And as you know, again, this is a public hearing on this item.

What's the adjoining MDA to this property?

We've got the South Hills MDA in this area and then also the Panorama, which are right next to each other. The Wasatch Commercial is the developer that's been doing the South Hills project and they're the ones who have been building the water tanks. And there will be other infrastructure improvements as well, but the where the water lines would cross through a third party or other property owners, those easements have been identified and have been secured.

And the roadways, they tie into the extension of Juniper Crest.

Yeah, so on the map, this Juniper Crest, that section of Juniper Crest is there now. Bartlett Drive is also there currently.

Right, and going behind the R215 to the right, that's South Hills, correct?

Yeah, so that's future. Right, right. Yeah, future MDA.

Yeah, okay.

Yeah.

Thanks. Okay.

Okay, does the applicant have anything they'd like to add?

I expect.

Could you just state your name?

Yeah, Matt Christensen. Like Michael said, we've been working on the final plat process and working with staff to get the engineering and everything done. We've got a lot of grading. This will be a great subdivision and tying in the water to get zone four water for panorama and through that way connecting the water lines. So that's, any questions for me? I don't have any.

Thank you. Okay, we'll go ahead and open the public hearing. If you'll come forward and state your name.

Good evening, my name's David Gray and I live on Bartlett Drive. And a couple of questions. Have you ever performed a geotechnical study or report? How can we get a copy of that?

So if you'll just ask your questions and then we'll have the applicant come back at the end.

Okay, that'll be fine. And since there was a study done because of the new changes, has the geotechnical report been updated for the current plan and construction methods? Does the report analyze a temporary and permanent global slope stability and predicted deformation that will affect existing homes? Will the rock be ripped, hydraulically hammered, or blasted? And if so, what are the predicted horizontal and vertical ground movements that could affect the existing homeowners? Where will the temporary and permanent stormwater discharge to? And will the developer be funding independent pre-construction surveys and continuous vibration and movement monitoring? Will that monitoring data be provided directly to the affected homeowners? Will Bartlett Drive carry excavation equipment and hauling trucks? And how will the prior restriction limiting construction beyond 30 lots until two compliant public street access points affect phasing and emergency access?

Thanks. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, and seeing none, a motion to close the public hearing?

I think, is there any more comments?

Oh, come up.

I'm gonna speak quickly so I don't go over time here. Please, sorry, go ahead and state your name first. Yes, my name is Lindsay Maxfield. I live on Burkdale Drive directly across from Laguna Point. First, I want to thank the planning department and everyone involved. I gave them a list of punishing questions and Amanda was excellent in answering those. It's good to know we're in good hands. After reviewing those responses, I still continue to oppose the approval of Laguna Point. At minimum, I'm asking you not to approve it tonight. Your own staff report identifies postponement as appropriate when additional issues warrant further research and review. I believe that several of them do. First is emergency evacuation. I understand Laguna Point satisfies the requirement for access through Juniper Crest Road and Bartlett Drive. My concern is not whether the subdivision has two access points. My concern is that every neighborhood along this section of South Juniper, from the bridge on down, we rely on Juniper Crest Road to leave the area. Bartlett feeds into it, and Panorama will add hundreds more homes while those homes whose traffic will also feed into Juniper Crest. Two access points into a subdivision does not necessarily create two evacuation routes out of a community. During a wildfire, we could have hundreds of households attempting to evacuate through the same corridor while emergency vehicles are trying to enter. Before adding Lugan a point, on top of the surrounding development, have we modeled the cumulative evacuation capacity of the corridor under anticipated build-out conditions, not whether each subdivision independently satisfies its access requirements. The question is whether all of us can actually get out. The second is culinary water, which was a point on your agenda there. The staff report states that development will be restricted pending adequate culinary water supply And we've already been over that. So conditions as of this point have materially changed since this development was originally proposed in 2023. Utah is now under a statewide drought emergency following the lowest snowpack ever recorded in the state. These are not the water conditions under which the original proposal was evaluated. And again, this issue is cumulative. Laguna Point is proposed at 68 homes, but Panorama just to the east of it is hundreds more. And all of them create permanent additional water demand in the same finite water system. These are dramatically different conditions, and they give us reason to pause and establish the basis for adequate water supply. Third is the general plan and as I'm running out of time here, I understand that this land is privately owned and that does come up with several, we'll say it quickly, your hands may be tied. However, we do have a governing gap because our own cities Our own city's general plan says our open spaces should be reserved, but these values have not been fully translated into enforceable ordinance. So basically, by the time a plan gets to you, no one has ever stopped and said, are we considering this, even though it's publicly owned, privately owned, are we considering this as part of and satisfying what we have set forward as a city in our governing plan? Thank you.

Thank you. Are you?

Public comment?

Public comment, yeah, or the applicant. Okay, state your name, thank you.

Reid Dixon, I'm with Infinity Consultants, and I'm here speaking on behalf of the actual buyers of the project, and just wanted to emphasize that The application complies with every standard for a conventional subdivision according to the ordinance and the zoning. So there aren't any exceptions or negotiated points. It's basically a conventional subdivision that's compliant with the code in every way. And I think all of these questions will be easily answered.

Thank you.

Steve Roguskas, if they're easily answered, when are they going to be answered? We deserve answers now. You stopped the gentleman here from continuing to try to get answers because you said we'd get answers. When are we going to get the answers?

So we'll let the applicant.

Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. Is there any more public comment?

Hi, my name's Dan Rivers. I live on the Juniper Bend Circle right below the proposed development. My main question was touched on by the first gentleman that spoke concerning storm drain. It's a very steep slope. I don't know the slopes of the streets they're proposing to put in there, but I'm concerned from a drainage point of view of most of that water is most likely coming to the intersection right there And just curious, yeah, what's the storm drain plan? What's being detained? What's being retained? Yeah, and where does it discharge? Where does it go from there? And are the pipes leading downhill from there? Are those appropriate capacities to add that much new drainage that will be moving at really fast rates on a steep slope? So that's just a question I'd like the answer to. Thank you. Thank you.

If you want to come back real quick, you didn't take your whole two minutes.

Again, I live on Bartlett. And so I've been a long time fuddy-duddy about the curb that is on Juniper Crest. If you look at that, what do they call it, park strip, that's an absolute eyesore to the city. Well, when it's not full of wildflowers like it is right now with tons of mounds of dirt, if you had seen it before all of this was going in, you would see the rivers of water that goes through and creates channels through that dirt. It has washed out the people who live on this Juniper Crest side. Their backyards have gone to shit. Excuse my language. And that's before any of this is going in there. So these questions are very legitimate. It affects the city's park strip there. So you need to be aware of it, what it's going to do. Because as I'm told from the mayor, we're going to be spending over a million dollars in this fall or spring next year to make that pretty. Well, it's not going to be too pretty if water just washes it all away.

Thank you. Thank you. Okay. If you come forward and state your name.

Aaron Maxfield, I live at 466, or 4663 West Brookdale. I understand that the overall subdivision has met the requirements, but how does that tie into everything else in that area? Because as they're talking about this as a standalone subdivision, how does that tie into everything else? And then as part of that, What type of dust mitigation is there? Because our homes are now covered in dirt, dust, everything else. They blasted on the backside over there on the other subdivision that's going in and shook everything similar to what you would see like at Hill or Camp Williams, sorry. So we're just wondering, you know, how does that all tie into everything? Because I know they're looking at this as an individual subdivision, but how does that tie into the existing subdivisions that are there too? So thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. I think we're going to go ahead and close the public hearing. Motion?

I move to close the public hearing.

And a second?

Second.

Adam and Brody, all in favor?

Aye.

OK, so if the applicant would like to go ahead and come back and address some of those items.

Sure, I'm Matt Christensen. So for the geotechnical report, we do have a geotechnical report and we'll follow all of the findings in that as far as blasting and any technical recommendations provided by the geotech that will be on site to monitor those things. and to keep the existing homes safe. As for storm drain, we do have a retention pond that is in the top right corner. that catches water for about a third of the subdivision and discharges it into Juniper Crest Road, slows down the water from our subdivision, and releases at the city's allowable rate. And then for the other half, we catch water and take it out to the east to the existing panorama pond that is currently being upsized and has capacity through easements and agreements that we have for that water. The homes that are going in here and the grading that will take place will actually improve the stormwater that is currently just running off of the hill into the road right now. We have a drainage plan that staff has approved and You know, any other further design questions will continue to be approved and gone through with the final plat. Tonight we're just asking for the preliminary plat approval.

So I know they had mentioned blasting and gas mitigation. Is that how you...

There is bedrock on the site. The exact method that the builders decide to use, I'm not sure. But... There will be dust mitigation. That's part of the city's pre-construction checklist that we have to have that. And at Final Plat, and same with blasting, we will follow the city's ordinances for that.

And I would like to add that the project will require a SWIP and fugitive dust control as part of the construction permitting.

Can you explain what SWIP means so everybody understands?

stormwater pollution prevention plan? Yeah. Pollution prevention plan.

I just want to make sure the residents understand that.

So there will be protection for the stormwater for the downstream areas during the construction process.

Those are just not part of this stage of review. That part does come later with the construction permitting.

Okay. Okay.

Do you think it'd be helpful to have engineering tell them a little bit more about that process? I don't know if you feel comfortable. Like stormwater prevention, like what mitigation is done? As far as like filtering dirt and stuff down the storm drains.

That and I think an explanation a little bit of the difference between preliminary plat and final plat and construction. They're all different.

I can cover both of those things. Thank you. Stormwater pollution prevention plan goes through all the means and methods the contractor will be required to use to keep stormwater flows on the site, keep silt and things like that from leaving the site. Amanda mentioned the dust mitigation plan as well, similar thing to keep dust on the site. to answer your other question, preliminary.

Preliminary versus final and then construction, so people kind of understand.

Yeah, yeah, so preliminary is kind of what we're looking at now, lot layout, road layout, these basics. Final includes all the details of engineering, waterline sizing, detention pond sizing, which has already been done. from their previous approval. Now, construction at that point, they'll hold a pre-construction meeting, and that's when they come in and get their stormwater pollution prevention plan approved and get going with the project.

So construction of roadways and stuff does not happen until after the final plan.

Yes, that's correct. So they'll have 100% reviewed and approved drawings by the engineering and other departments. Unified Fire reviews those. The Fire Department reviews those. Water Department, Public Works, the Sewer District as well. So all those things are checked at that point. So they're 100% good to go. And then they're allowed to hold a pre-construction meeting only after that time. And once all their stormwater protection methods are put into place, can they begin construction?

And maybe this is for the city, I honestly can't remember. Why did we miss the deadline of the original approval? Can someone just share that just so everybody understands?

Yeah, so really the holdup was getting the Zone 4 tank built and connecting to that.

For the physical construction of the tank?

physical construction of the tank providing water for this area took longer than initially thought and a lot of effort and private money to help get that done. Thank you.

So to clarify, you are providing a culinary water tank for this development?

We are, I don't know if we're participating, but we are providing, we're not building a tank, no. We are providing a route for the culinary water lines to connect. Yeah.

So yeah, this project's been held up because of the water infrastructure. Panorama, DAI, they took out a PID and bonded for that tank. So the city's not building it, the developer's building it. It's a zone three and zone four water tank. They're both constructed. There's a pump station under construction right now just off of Mountain View Corridor and Academy Parkway. That pump station will be complete mid-August, or mid-September, sorry. And then the line will be commissioned. And then it's just getting the water lines to this project, which the Laguna Point developer and Panorama developer has all worked together to secure the easements so they're in control of their own destiny now to get water to their project. That's what's been holding it up.

And Blake, to clarify, so it's been determined there's sufficient water from Jordan Valley to supply this development and the other developments of the area?

Yeah, this development was contemplated in the master plan before Panorama was. When Panorama was brought in, we updated the master plan to verify we had the water shares and water storage. That's where we identified the need for the Zone 4 and Zone 3 tanks and the upsized pump station for actually Wasatch, which was already approved, but Panorama increased above what Rosecrest already had.

And if I remember right, that's been quite a bit of time, right?

Sorry, what was that?

That's been quite a bit of time since that approval and discussion, correct?

Yeah. I think they were all approved in 2023. So it was all in about that time, 2024. So yeah, it's been a couple of years. The water master plan was updated earlier this year. Thank you.

So really this was more just a delay because of the tank is what I'm hearing.

Because of the water infrastructure. And then the Juniper Crest Road was something that was concerning. And so Panorama had the requirement to complete that road. And the landscaping that was discussed earlier, Panorama is going to complete that as an offsite improvement for their project. And just as an update, Juniper Crest Road was paved today. When will it open? It's supposed to open probably within the next three to four weeks. We're trying to get the signal up and running on Mountain View. And so we want to have it all at the same time. So we're timing it all together. So that signal project is a city project and Juniper Crest is the panorama project So trying to get two different contractors and two different projects time together can be a little challenging, but it'll be open Before November, I believe. Okay. Thank you.

Yep, Blake. Will you touch on so? when they talked about access and emergencies Can you just kind of touch on so if the fire department has to review this and approve that there is adequate and

Fire Marshall sits in all of our development review committees. They review the plans. They stamp them approved. And their requirement is two access points if you go above 30 lots. And then you'll tie into Bartlett Drive, which would go down, but there's also additional connections, as you can see, as Panorama builds out. and then the one connection onto Juniper Trail Drive. So, yeah, those are the requirements set forth in code, and that's how the fire marshal reviews it.

Just typically from final plat, since where this is preliminary, to actual construction of about how long are we talking? Since the Juniper Crest is done in November, just want to make sure, manage expectations here. Well, historically, not specifically.

Historically, so typically plans take a few months to approve from preliminary plat to final plat where the plans have already been reviewed and approved by engineering. They could begin construction. I wouldn't see pavement going down on this until next spring or summer just because Pavement plants shut down between October and April. And so, yeah, you'll see infrastructure, the sewer and the water and everything going in over the winter in the best case scenario. And then pavement as early as April, May next year. Thank you.

And one more question. I seem to recall last time this was... up for discussion, there was some concern from fire department that the two access points of Bartlett Drive and the Juniper Trail Drive were basically one access point because they're right there next to each other. And that it was discussed as to whether or not a separate access point would be available before the full development was completed. Can you touch on that? Remind me what the final discussion was on that.

Josh might have better information on that. And I do believe that the next one up from Bartlett, that's on Panorama's plan coming up within the next year. So I think by the time you see 30 homes in there, that road will be connected.

Yeah, this road that ties in east just above Bartlett Drive is called Helen's Drive. That is in the next plat that Panorama's working on and will be built together. I mean, not together, but pretty close to simultaneously. We'll have the connection before we

with a separate outlet essentially from that area is what you're saying.

I will say also the last time this was approved, a condition of approval was they can have those 30 lots.

With just those two points.

Yeah. And then they simply cannot have, they can't build any more homes until they have a second access available. And that has carried over to this as well.

And we're not counting that as two access points, if I recall, correct? Bartlett and Juniper Trail, that's only considered one access point from the fire department's perspective. So it really would have to be that eastern road you're describing.

Yep.

So they can have the 30 CFOs, basically, certificate of occupancy, so people can live in there. And if they would like to go above that, that second access point, Helen's Drive, needs to be available, and it sounds like they're on track for that to happen, but there is that condition of approval that they can't exceed that until there's availability for evacuation.

They just sit there until that happens.

That Helen's Drive was part of the water line easement, so there's an easement for that. So they're in control of their own destiny with water and roadway for that location.

So I have a question as far as, I know some people brought up like blasting or like chiseling at the bedrock that's there. Are you guys doing the construction or just the horizontal improvements development?

I'm just the engineer, so I know that there is a home builder that will be doing the horizontal and home building together, but I don't have an answer for that.

I also recall, and it's a very minor detail, but the mini half circle at the southwest of the cul-de-sac that is basically a dead end for right now. I remember that that is a half circle just for fire department's purposes of turning around, but then once the full development comes out, I know I can't tell you how to use your land, but I would recommend that you eliminate the half circle so we don't have extra road we have to take care of unnecessarily, but just a reminder for that.

Yeah, there will be a second phase to this that continues, so we would like that too. Give more to that lot, so yeah.

Madam Chair, just for the record, the general plan does identify locations of open space. That open space is property that the city already controls or has negotiated with. If we were to put open space designations on property that we don't own, that could be considered a potential taking. And this particular area in the general plan is, the general plan says it's neighborhood residential one. So this Laguna Point project is not in our master plan as open space. It's identified for development. The open space is further up the hill, hillside.

Thank you.

any more questions for the developer okay um discussion or emotion my question wasn't answered is there a procedure for me to be able to elaborate so that we can get the answer about juniper crest i'm sorry i don't know what your procedure is were you lindsay yes so did you provide emails to the staff i did but this issue about evacuation was not in the email can i

Well, I think they addressed evacuation. The fire department has to approve it.

So what I heard discussed is the two access, which goes to Bartlett and Juniper Crest. So this area, which we have a zoomed out map, if you go to Rose Crest, then Juniper goes all the way up. By the time you get to the bridge, every single home along here, the only way we can leave our homes and neighborhoods is by Juniper Crest. So adding a second, one lane in each way, So adding a second access just puts them into Bartlett. Bartlett still, everyone has to access onto Juniper to get out. And again, okay, so we've connected it to Mountain View. I don't know how many hundreds of homes are for the bridge on up in addition to the high density that's at the end of Juniper Crest. There's a wildfire up there. How are we all going to get out if we have to go on Juniper Crest? So I understand we're saying the fire marshal approved the two access points, but I'm asking to zoom out and look at the area holistically. How do we all get out if these requirements for the plans Don't take into account the units that already exist and what else is being built in there, panoramic specifically. That's my big question about Juniper Crest.

Hi, Lindsay. Would it be all right if I provided some context for that as well? So the two points that you're referring to, going to Juniper Crest and Bartlett Drive, are not being viewed as two points by Unified Fire. So what we're seeing is that won't be acceptable to exceed more than 30 homes, specifically to address your concern. So the only way that they can exceed those 30 certificates of occupancy, so essentially having 30 homes with occupants, will be to make the connections that you're gonna see kinda in orange here. so you kind of see where that r-2 and then you can kind of see where 15 cuts off and those kind of lines that are over in that orange that road south of bartlett is going to have to connect over and then be able to connect to wharton and move and be able to move all the way through the rest of panorama who also has other outlets to the corridor as well on top of that there will be another future if you look kind of way, way, way south, and it's kind of going off into what's also showing as the R115, that also will soon have applications in, again, also part of Panorama, but will also be another one of those access points. So essentially, the Unified Fire Authority has said they do not accept Juniper Crest and Bartlett as two separate. They only accept it as the one. So they will only be able to do 30 homes until one of these other two points of access are fully open and fully operational.

So Amanda, what I'm hearing you say is they'll have it platted, but literally they can't sell the land or build any more than 30 homes until that extension heads over to the Orange.

Correct. Yes.

Does that...

And there is a traffic study that takes our 68 lots plus all of the other traffic that is in the surrounding neighborhoods that's provided as part of the final Platts middle and the construction drawings that is approved by engineering. It's accommodating it all. Yeah. They take the traffic counts and see how much traffic this would apply to those roads to determine if they need to be widened. Thanks.

Sure. Can we stop the talking back and forth?

Sorry, we can't have back and forth. The public hearing is closed. So if you do have questions, you can ask staff or the developer after. All right, so discussion with the Planning Commission or a motion.

So honestly, I totally hear the passion, totally understand it. This has been part of the plan the entire time. Honestly, we've been waiting for the tank in order for it to continue. So I would like to make a motion if somebody can open up the thing. Hold on.

Yeah.

I'm ready.

There's no reason.

There's no reason.

Mike, my comment. First of all, I appreciate the public's involvement. It's rare that we get this big of a group in here. And I'm sympathetic towards a lot of the comments. I believe that the city should do what we can to develop new open space to even preserve wild areas. Fire protection's a big thing in our city, as is water. But it sounds to me that our staff has already addressed that through various engineering studies, through their technical skills in assessing those reports. With that said, this development does meet our codes. So I'm ready to second Adam's motion.

So with staffs, I can't remember if it's for, I don't know where the slide is, but recommendations.

Okay. So motion by Adam, a second by Daryl.

Yes.

Daryl.

Yes.

Adam.

Yes.

Heather. Yes. Preston. Yes. And Brody.

Yes.

Okay. All right. Item 5.1, review and consider approval of a request to amend the Harriman City's zoning map.

Okay, I will be presenting item 5.1. It's a rezone at 13727 South 7300 West. Calm down a second.

Go for it. You're good.

Okay, so this is just the vicinity map again to acquaint you all with the approximate location of the subject property within the city boundary. So this is the zoomed in zoning map of the parcel and the property that has the application in. So it is currently zoned as A143. It does have A143 adjacent and then A121 kind of across the road from there. And then as you can see, there are other areas that are zoned A110 within approximately 300 or so feet from this subject property. So some existing conditions to note is that this is a single family home and it does have a detached structure that serves as a shop with the current property owner. It does contain about .75 acres and again it is an A143. The rezone request is to rezone to the A110 agricultural single family zone. Just to refresh that is a 10,000 square foot minimum. So just again to kind of walk through the purpose statements between the two zones, the A143's purpose is to provide areas in the city for low density residential development and agricultural uses. And the A110, its purpose is to provide areas in the city again for low density residential development together with limited agricultural uses. So this is our future land use map. This subject property is zoned as neighborhood residential one. So A110 does comply with that future land use map.

Questions on that? There is nothing, go back to that slide real quick.

Yeah.

There's nothing more dense than that, correct though?

As the A110?

Well, I'm saying, as larger, I should have said. Residential 1 is also the same as residential A143 and A110, correct?

I believe so, yes.

There's not an extinguish is my point. No. Between residential 1, it's all of the residential zones.

So really, okay. I just want to make sure.

I believe so, yes. And then as I'm sure you know, we then in the future land use map do start to designate out those two and three to your point. Okay, so. We did, in the Planning and Zoning Department, find that the proposal's compatible with land uses associated with the future land use map designation in the general plan. And we did find that the proposal complies with the standards of review. So again, they can meet that 10,000 square foot requirement for an A110 lot. Kind of as we also previously discussed, the parcel doesn't meet sizing requirements to go to an A121. So the only way for the applicant to pursue a second single family dwelling on that property would be to drop to the A110. So our engineering department found no significant concerns. Our city engineer did also review this in addition to Josh, primarily because of its proximity to the Gina Road infrastructure project. But again, I did want to note that it is subject to the water availability restrictions. We did discuss that with the applicant, the city engineer and myself, and that doesn't pose any problems or issues with him moving forward with an eventual plat in the future should you choose to approve or provide the recommendation to approve this. So considering these findings, staff recommends the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to amend the Harriman City official zoning map for the .75 acres of property located approximately at the 13727 South 7300 West from A143 to A110. Are there any other questions that I can answer for you all?

No, but could you go back to the little graphic? Oh, yes.

And I think Lauren also confirmed your question.

I have the answer. So the A143 and R143 are agricultural. The neighborhood residential one applies to A121 and A110 are both in there, as well as several residential zonings as well.

Cool. Can you just go back to the overall zone map for me?

Oh, yes.

That's the one, thank you. That one? Okay. Just for later, it's okay. Gotcha. I'll ask you questions in a minute.

Does anybody else have any other questions?

No.

Okay, discussion? I did want to ask about the comment to possibly restrict this to two lots.

This is a public hearing.

We need a public hearing. Does the applicant have anything they want to add?

Let's see your name. I'm Jordan Ehrman, and we currently live there. Just looking to build a house for a family member. So not trying to ruin anyone's life. This kind of freaked me out, this meeting.

It's a lot.

I guess hopefully it was extreme. I don't know. But be glad you're in here and sit down in that hallway. Yeah, I was like, oh, my. I hope no one stands up when it comes to us. But, yeah, I appreciate you guys' consideration. Are there any questions at all I could answer? I don't have any. Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay, we'll go ahead and open the public hearing at this time. And seeing none, motion to close.

I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. I'll second it.

Forrest and Adam, all in favor?

Aye.

Like for me, I think seeing what's around it, probably just putting a restriction to have two building lots, even though three are possible with the zoning.

I agree.

I agree with you, but honestly, I'm struggling. I've been here a long time for Planning Commission, and I remember when all of these weren't a 110 and it was all going to be 143. And we made... people have to go like the scenic view, scenic Hills, scenic Meadows, scenic view. Like they had to go and work with 20 other land property owners to try and make those become the density we're trying to say. And so I, I totally agree at least two is what I'm going to say, but I do struggle with the idea of us continually just letting it get smaller and smaller and smaller and smaller. Now I know, So to me, I kind of like the idea of, I like A110 if they combine a bunch of properties and fix it and make it a better product. So that's just.

I mean, for me, one thing that I think is a plus is you have two access points on Gene Road and 7300 West.

Yeah, but what do you do on the one right next to it when they try to develop?

What's that?

What do you do with the one right next to it when they try to develop? I guess they're doing a flag lot, which I don't really like. Yeah. Again, I actually personally have no problem with this, and I get the idea and the intention. I just, to me, whenever we did 110, any of the blue you see, to be honest, including the A110 in Blue Sage or down in... Fieldstone those were all because they were working as a master development to improve all of those lots that so I actually hear what you're saying Brody completely but I'm still struggling with the idea of this just we might as well say everything should be 110 here. And we made developers do things to get to that level. So that's where I personally am just struggling with that. So the zoning condition at least makes sense to me. And we need to specify why so that every lot along there, I mean look at all these crazy flag lots up above by Desert Brumby Drive and everything. I just worry we're just gonna keep getting it. And we already know, I mean, you know better than anyone, Bernie, 7300 West is not the most traversable road as it stands. So it's just something to think about as we say. So I just wanted to throw that out there. Because I remember seriously when we were fighting for those A121 lots out of the 143s and those meetings taking four hours to talk about those two lots right across the street.

I do also want to step in and remind that in our general plan, this is neighborhood one, which is a smaller zone than the A143 you're seeing. That is in line with the city's current plan for the future for this area.

I think it's also important to realize that I'd much prefer a single lot being subdivided for two other properties than than an entire block of lots that are all made into a subdivision that are tiny. This lot by lot, I'd much more prefer that than just the wholesale restructuring the entire neighborhood.

I agree if you would have called it I-121.

I guess just because the lot's too small that we can't call it.

That's the issue is because this lot happens to be too small. That's the only reason we're going to 110. That's my struggle.

I recognize what you're saying, and I can definitely understand where you're coming from. I mean, I guess on this situation, which is probably why you're also saying that this situation isn't per se why you have a problem, it's just the area in general, because this particular lot maybe isn't the problem. No, it's not. Right.

This is not my issue. It's the principle of establishing many of those. Go ahead.

SO I JUST WANT TO NOTE ON THIS PROPERTY, IT WAS SUBDIVIDED I THINK IN 2006-ISH. IT WAS A FULL, THE RIGHT SIZE, SO YOU COULD DO A HALF ACRE LOT, BUT THEY DEDICATED right-of-way for the roadways. And so when they did that, they lost the right-of-way.

They went from a county lot to a legal conforming lot so they could build this house?

Yes.

Then you just got me sold on the idea. But we need to make sure we specify that.

All the other lots wouldn't have had to do that because they weren't on the corner to give up right-of-way.

Because they had to give double right-of-way. But again... we need to tie that to this motion so that people understand why this is different than every other lot going down that. That's what I'm gonna say.

I guess also, though, for this area, I mean, what's stopping people from doing ADUs down the road instead of just subdividing the laws? That's true. I love your perspective. But that could happen anyway. Why don't we go do it in the 110s? That's a totally different subject, but I mean, if he's just like, let's say, I'm not saying that a no would be coming, but let's say a no, okay, I mean, it's just like, okay, I'll just do an ADU.

I mean, there's a lot of trailers that those could be ADUs. I'm just messing with you. I get you.

You're only allowed one ADU per... Right, that's all he's wanting though.

Now we're going from one to four, right? Right. All right, I'm good.

Does anybody else wanna talk before I make a motion?

Okay. I'll make a motion from item 5.1 to approve, recommend approval for this for the reasons that they donated land already. That is the only reason I would recommend it to be a 110 with a zoning condition of no more than two lots for this property. I'll second.

Okay, a motion by Adam, a second by Brody.

Can we get a clarification real quick? If you're making a motion, putting a stipulation because they've donated land

I want the committee, so this is a recommendation for approval to city council. I want them to hear why I said approval. Okay.

All right. Just wanted to clarify and make sure I understood the motion.

Thank you. Okay. Forrest?

Yes.

Darrell? Yes. Adam?

Yes.

Heather? Yes. Preston? Yes. Ambrody?

Yes. Okay.

All right, five point two, review and consider a proposed master development agreement for Black Clover.

I thought about asking Blake to present this, but whereas this is really the product of the hard work of our economic development team, which Blake manages. This is an item that we have previously discussed in our work meeting and we presented on a different piece of property in the city. So this is a potential development partner and business that we are anxious to see come to the city if possible. This is the property that they are currently looking at, different from what we saw before. It is zone C2. And the MDA, the purpose of the MDA is to look at opportunities to modify the underlying zone to achieve some type of good or service or objective that is consistent with the city's values. This potential development would bring jobs. It's a very visible, notable company that is currently operating within our region. It would require though some light manufacturing and it is a fulfillment center, so they will be shipping and selling at both retail and wholesale. The operating hours are stated within their proposal, but just by way of reminder, typically we do not have an hourly restriction on our commercial businesses. If a business in a commercial district wanted to operate 24 hours, they can. We don't typically have a restriction on operational hours. Where this one is adjacent to a residential neighborhood, I think we were looking at some things to communicate or explain what would that impact be, potentially, on this adjacent neighborhood. And again, the property is about seven, oh, we've got all wrong.

Yeah, I was going to ask you.

What is going on here?

What is the one bedroom living room kitchen and one upstairs bedroom for a fulfillment center?

I don't think that was for Black Clover.

Okay, I apologize. There was something that went wrong in that production. But the materials are in your packet. The applicant is represented here tonight. One of the features of this MDA, as was discussed, is this is a structure that we had previously negotiated in the MDA amendment on the Crescent parcel with the Auto Mall Group. So it's basically bringing that same negotiated design, embedding it into the MDA, and approving it as part of the overall MDA. Now this is a recommendation to the City Council because it is essentially acting like a modifier of the zoning code. So you would have a public hearing on this tonight and make recommendations to the city council and they make the final decision on this. Any questions for staff at this point in time?

Just for the record, there's no.

No, I apologize, I apologize. And engineering has worked with this group as far as access. And yeah, we've also been cognizant of looking at how we can mitigate sound through landscaping and other features, which I think probably Blake can better address if necessary, so.

I also want to clarify, you mentioned operating hours, but I suspect those operating hours that were noted were also.

Yeah, I apologize, I apologize. I had just assumed that that was an element of the MDA agreement.

Okay.

Yeah, so. Again, this was an economic development tool, so. Yeah. Thank you.

Thank you. Does the applicant have anything they'd like to add? You can come forward and state your name.

Thank you. My name's Shawn Stein and I represent Black Clover on this project. This is a project that we have been looking for many years for a good partner, a good relationship within community to be able to put a basically the the home spot for a homegrown business so this is going to just continue to inject just the economic development within the city there's going to be at max 80 employees out of this space but one of the main things is being able to take a large scale building with such a unique building tucked in the backside of a retail community, but then also activate the front of this building with a retail component where there's going to be retail components with Black Clover as well as other retailers that we're going to also lease out to as well. Overall, we're trying to integrate a big box that's going to allow for kind of a mixed-use feel to it and then just continue to support the community with additional jobs as well as just tax base.

Can you just say what kind of jobs those are for those that are not aware?

Yeah, so it will be a warehouse, more of like a distribution situation. Okay. Um, and right now, you know, they have out of this location, they're kind of segmented. Um, so they've got multiple locations right now and they're going to be isolating. This is more of their corporate headquarters here. So it's going to have all level jobs from warehouse to, of course, the CEO and president of the company is going to be officing out of here.

Cool. Thank you.

Thank you. Yeah.

Thank you.

Thanks guys.

Okay. We'll go ahead and open the public hearing. And seeing none, a motion to close. I'll make a motion to close.

I'll second.

Heather and Brody, all in favor?

Aye.

Okay, discussion or a motion?

So real quick, you have four recommendations, is that correct?

Yeah.

Well it says one, two, seven, and eight, so I don't know if there's eight or there's four. Okay, so just the four items of recommendation. Okay.

I'm excited to have a bigger company come to our city for economic development, personally. And just the different scope of jobs that'll be available.

And also recognizing that this is a tough, a very tough piece to develop there.

Better than church or school. Yeah. With that said.

Yeah, no, it looks good to me. I'll make a motion to approve item 5.2. Recommend approval. I'll recommend approval for item 5.2 with staff's four recommendations.

I'll second that.

Motion by Heather, second by Brody. Brody? Yes. Preston? Yes. Heather? Yes. Adam?

Yes.

Daryl?

Yes. And Forrest? Yes.

So just to note, this item and the last item will go to the city council for approval. All right. 5.3. Thank you.

Thank you.

This item will be continued to a future planning commission meeting, review, and consider a request to amend chapter 10.

But we do have to have the public hearing. Have the public hearing.

Does staff want to? Do we even want to talk or just say anything? Okay, so we'll go ahead and open the public hearing.

I move to close the public hearing.

We'll go ahead and close motion. Adam and, do we have a second?

Second.

Adam and Forrest, all in favor? Aye. Okay, discussion or motion?

It's been, it's continued. Oh, we are continuing.

Okay, thank you. Can I, have we closed already? think she's gonna say so today during the public hearing we had a member bring up some evacuation items and that's something that's I live hillside so it's very important to me I would love as a commission to see what the city has planned and I think at one time it was our operations with the head of operations here that was creating a plan for that. I would love to see what the city has prepared.

Great. You mean like an evacuation plan? That'd be a great idea.

What are we doing with some of that? And if there's anything that we can do as a commission to potentially plan better for natural disasters. I remember going to a class on natural disasters

I like what Heather brought up because there have been major fires here in Harriman, right?

We've been on the news many times and the community actually knowing like, hey, for your house, this is the best route to go. So people actually know what to do.

I know that there's a plan, right? Yeah. I agree with what you're saying, and I also think it would be really cool to think about how do we in the future make it so that we don't effectively make Juniper Crest a dead end? Things like that. When we approve a subdivision, they all keep adding on, and we know that the fire department says 30 and 30 and 30, but you could still get a heck of a lot of homes on a very large road that could. I know Juniper Crest is almost done. But we need to be more protective on, we probably shouldn't have got as far as we did with Juniper Crest. If you really think about it, it could have sat not advancing for a very long time. We may want to consider some standards to protect for effectively this road. I mean, think of Rose Canyon. If it didn't come out by Butterfield Park, it would have been one giant dead end for everybody along there. So it's something we probably need to think about as a city a little bit more.

I will say we follow the lead of the UFA very heavily. The 30 is not a bright line. It is a threshold that they can enforce or if they feel like there are mitigation, like alternative measures, they can do that. I know that we were talking about temporary roads as an exit and whether or not the UFA would accept that. But they really are the kind of the guardians of that threshold. But I don't know.

Based off that, what I would argue, I kind of agree with the residents. Once you cross the bridge, there shouldn't be more than 30 homes.

We have a heck of a lot. Artery connections where you 30, 30, 30, 30, chunk them together. And I get that too.

I personally think we may need to consider some type of standard to protect us so we don't get into that. Because if they did, UFA did sign off, I get it. But if people can't literally get out, that would go back to a lawsuit to the city.

If the UFA is saying this is unsafe, we're not willing to support it, we're not working to convince them otherwise. We're following their lead on what they are determining.

No, and I totally get that. I personally don't know that they're completely thinking about if all of that is evacuating and they're trying to respond to the fire.

Are they looking at macro or micro?

Because I would imagine they're thinking more house fire, wildfire for 30 lots, hose distance. But when we really talk about what we're talking, what the resident proposed. the whole hillside's on fire and everybody has to leave across that bridge and if the truck is blocking everybody from leaving.

Maybe we have even a representative from the UFA at that.

I was going to say I think that would be helpful as we are not the leading body on this. As staff, we can only do so much. If a resident called and asked me this question, I would direct them to Dave, our UFA representative. So I think it would be wise to have him come and look into that stuff The only other comment I would make is We do also have north and south roads If the hillside is on fire Not every single person needs to go east to Mountain View corridor if the goal is away from the fire There are other roads that can support leaving I agree behind the bridge becomes a different story. But there is not only a singular road to leave that entire neighborhood, which feels like we are kind of scaling to that kind of conversation.

To be honest, the reason I'm applying mine is literally when Mountain View started today and Providence started today, literally you can't get out of that area very quickly. So I'm just saying if you think about a fire, it'd be the same type of thing where, yes, eventually you could get out, but probably would block all

police and fire from getting in and that's where i think we need to think about that usually when we have discussions with dave mills about the volume all exactly to your point when you've got 30 and 30 and 30 all dumping onto the same road um dave does actually look at the widths of the road as well So he does take into consideration whether it's arterial, whether it's a collector, what size it is and what the capacity is as well. So that is also part of his review. And engineering does also take that into consideration in that collaborative discussion. It doesn't exactly, to your point, address a plan with specific direction to residents. But it is at least part of those conversations very regularly because Dave is also concerned about that capacity and that ability to move that much volume, and he does consider it.

Yeah, Juniper Crest is almost as wide as 134, if not wider.

Wide.

No, it totally is, but it dead ends into Rosecrest Road, which can't get you out. That's my point is it doesn't flow. Right. We've made it so... it actually blocks everything without the connection we're talking about. So in November, we're fine. It's just, it literally doesn't flow like everybody thought it would. If you really think about the way we all thought it would be developed, Rosecrest Road would have been built years ago, not the residences along that.

Okay, thank you. Future meetings next, city council meeting August 26th, next planning commission meeting September 2nd. Motion to adjourn.

So moved. Second.

Madam Heather, all in favor?

Aye.