Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay, we'll go ahead and get started. Um, and Damen Stuki will lead us in the pledge right here in the microphone. All right. 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, so we have a full quorum. Are there any conflicts of interest?

No. Okay. Um, and then approval of minutes for the September 17th planning commission meeting. So moved. I'll second. I'll go with Forest. So, a motion by Adam and a second by Forest. All in favor? [snorts] I.

Thank you. And Okay. And review and consider approval of a conditional use permit for a new 80 foot tall wireless cell tower and utility cabinet. And I I believe a member of the development team is here in our audience tonight in person. Uh the applicant of record on this is Mark Williams uh whom you have met in person and online before. So appreciate Mark joining online and he'll be um speaking to this item on behalf of the applicant. Um

good evening folks. Thank you for letting me appear. We appreciate it. Again, this is something that the commission is very familiar with. Um, initially we had uh discussions on a text amendment in the city code that the city council ultimately approved which is uh facilitating um this particular petition. Um again, this is the approximate location of where this new uh cellular infrastructure would be constructed. It's on commercial property. Haramman has had a long history of permitting uh cellular infrastructure wireless antennas uh using stealth technology. Primarily they have been located on uh public property like this one at Haramman High. And um this new code now allows the potential location of a wireless um communication facility on private property in a commercial zone. Uh but it does require an element of stealth uh as outlined in the staff report and as we've been discussing. So again, this is a conditional use at this particular location. Um as you know we have been looking at um images of a typical monopole. This is showing a singular array at the top of the monopole. We do require at least one collocation. This image that you have seen before was identifying potential additional locations even though this one is is shown at a total of four. I think it was a total of three if I remember right. I think this was a kind of a remnant from a previous uh illustration. As we discussed in our last meeting um in September, the commission had

strongly encouraged the applicant to study uh additional stealth techniques. You wanted to see proposals from this team on other stealth um solutions uh at this property. Uh so this is an an image that was an early concept that u the applicant had shared with me. Uh really it still is a monopole but as you can see the array is being screened by some type of a of a of a a a box or a a cylinder or something on top of this pole. They also had studied um using a a monopine which we do see in the valley periodically. Um they often where they're not surrounded by other uh trees of similar height or type they are they do tend to be pretty readily visible as a monopine or a false tree structure for a cellular service. Um and you can see I'm on I-15. I drive by one every every day. I come to work off of uh U 1111. Uh so they are um you know common uh solutions when a community is requiring a a stealth. Uh according to the applicant and and he could speak further further to this. This is actually one of the more expensive uh stealth solutions and may have some limitations when dealing with collocations. And again the applicant can speak further but they really did not prefer that solution. Um based on the city's observation, and we've talked about this uh previously, there's a very successful water tank installation uh off of um Bangador that many of us drive by uh in in Blackdale. And it's interesting because there's there's a

water tower uh solution that's a stealth tower. And then not too far away is another just typical monopole tower. you kind of see the difference and I think everybody does gravitate towards that looks nice, right? So, we we just staff just quickly modeled something uh rendered uh you know what would that 80 foot tower look like. This was based on a photograph that I found online. It didn't really have a kind of a you know kind of a roof type structure. Um, but we were also looking at what would be the base of this type of tower and would it potentially fit. Um, you know, this modeled out at 15 ft, which coincidentally when we measured um the existing tower in near our community, the the faux water tower, it also had a 15 foot wide base. Um, now I've seen this image before as well as I've been looking like what have other cities tried to do when looking at stealth solutions that are also creative or kind of contribute to that sense of place. And one of our commissioners, uh, Commissioner Oberg also saw this image uh, just for as a talking point like what what can be done. Of course, there's always costs with these and uh this is a more urbanized setting and and that does seem to be appropriate uh in this in this setting. I'm not really sure where this is located. I've just, you know, found this image online. Again, the applicant is really requesting approval of their preferred solution, which is which is this uh design. They're showing again that this is tiered. we can have collocations. They have proposed that they could have um you know they they'll be glad to paint it whatever color the commission

would recommend or prefer. They even talked about treating it as an art installation, potentially painting uh maybe um a national a state and a city flag or um putting the Heramman logo on one side and you know whatever it is uh that would be uh acceptable uh to the community based on your review as the planning commission they were comfortable with doing. So these are just different angles of of that same solution. Again, that is their preferred solution in response to your direction from last week. Um we still have just kind of this generic condition. Uh just making sure that the final building permit as we move from this decision to actual construction, we want to make sure we're maintaining all of those standards. Last time I had shared with you some concern about whether or not this was going to impact parking. um and where we're still kind of figuring out which stealth solution uh is appropriate. Uh I'm not sure if this condition would be needed or not, but you could, you know, just restate that as a as an optional or an an additional condition if you based on whatever direction you give tonight or any other conditions, of course. Now, we've we've talked about making sure that whatever condition the si planning commission may approve or require that it be um consistent with the standards. Um all of those standards are included in your packet. Also, where this is a conditional use um there's all those elements that we are trying to ensure that we are mitigating if there are any concerns or impacts that the planning commission identifies. So, we want to make sure we're tying those those conditions back to the city code. So, with that, do you have any questions for me before you hear from the applicant at

this time? Okay. Now, uh Mark, do you wish to have your own presentation or you just want me to keep one of these images up for your discussion? If if it, you know, if it's okay. I I listen folks have have seen my presentations. if we could um I might ask you to toggle back and forth between this image and the the tree and the water tower at some point. U but other than that I think we we've seen it. It's already in the record. I think I just really would prefer to make a few comments and then have a discussion um if that's okay. Is that again? Great. Okay.

Go ahead. Thank you. Um okay, Mark, you can go ahead.

Thank you so much. I I appreciate it. First of all, I just I want to thank all of you and the staff. We've had a lot of um collaboration between us and the staff for almost two years on this looking at a site looking at working on the code together. um and a lot of collaboration to try to get a site in this place because uh and we've gone through this before uh it's needed um and I think the commission understands that it's needed and and we just appreciate the collaboration um and we've had over almost two years and we've also tried to uh find a spot that that meets the coverage needs. this is the only spot that meets the the coverage needs in the area that we could lease and have and that would meet the the coverage needs for your constituents and um so and then you've asked us to work with you and with the staff on a number of designs um and we think that the the collaboration has been a very worthwhile collaboration. um you've challenged us to go back and look at a number of different uh proposals and I'll tell you why we think this is the best in in a couple of minutes. Um but you know as a result of your of your challenge which we which we took and and appreciated we think this is the the best design and we ask you to approve this. Um it is a stealth facility. Uh it appears uh it's a it's a nice looking it's clean. Um it's not doesn't have mass. Um it's modern looking. Um and uh we feel that it's going to be become much more ubiquitous in the area than than something else. and it will hold

three carriers and we are actively in discussions with um Verizon and AT&T to come onto the site and the best news about that is that it will reduce the number of facilities in the area. I I believe it was the first presentation that I had with before you uh folks. Uh it was what we went through some other places in Harman where facilities have been put up as particularly stealth ones and it was commented on by a couple of of of you commissioners that boy we wish we'd have had a stealth that could have had more carriers. That's something that we listen to. That's something that we took as part of the challenge that you gave us and that's why we came up with this which will hold a total of three carriers and uh it is shrouds uh and it's it is square and that's because uh what it does is it will allow the carriers to orient their antennas as they need to which means the azimuth uh and to get the best coverage for what they might need. yet it they're covered and uh that provides uh a a clean look, a stealth look that provide that complies with your uh your ordinance uh in the new ordinance that we were fortunate enough to to be to participate in and uh as a result this is satisfies all the criteria in your code. It also satisfies a requirement um in in under Utah law on the code of making sure that we mitigate any um particular issues that may be raised with respect to a uh

a wireless facility or a conditional use permit. Uh and we've done it by having it in a C2 area. This is a commercial area. Yes, you can see in in one of them that that it's there is there is residential there are residential units around it and that's why we like the mass of this thing. In other words, the less mass uh versus the others that we that have been put up that you've seen tonight. Uh we've limited it to the 80 ft. Uh we're going to paint it to whatever we all agree on is is best for the area. um which adds to the stealthiness and it allows for more collocators which is something that not only your code wants but you have indicated that that you want as well and it'll provide needed service in a hightra area and it will alleviate resident concerns about poor service especially those who have home businesses uh and meets all the code requirements and will and at least this part of of Harryman will help spur the the economics that that you all want in the area. So from that perspective, we've we have uh mitigated any reasonable uh reasonably anticipated detrimental effects of the use and and and ask that it that it be uh approved because of that. If we It's come to a point now, folks, where it it um there there is a real need for service here and it it without it it's we're being there's a material inhibition of of the ability to provide service under federal law. We we would really like to get this approved right now. And again, as a result of your challenge, we've been able to we've been able to get this facility as it as it is. If I could ask Mr. Moy, if you could um maybe go to the to the tree

on the tree, folks. You'll see one array up there. We might be able to get one below, but the mass of this when there are no other trees like it around, uh respectfully is too much. looking at it from different views from the homes there, from the businesses, it just u frankly sticks out like a sore thumb in our view and you can still see the arrays uh and it creates greater mass than than necessary for the area and it doesn't really mask the arrays. Um Mr. Muller, if you could please go to the to the water towel. uh you know, water towers. We've worked on water towers before. If you placed this facility in that area, which would be a very tight squeeze and likely would take up more parking spots, whereas what we propose, we don't believe will uh will uh take up any parking spots. But the mass of it looking at it from any angle is significant because you have a lattice tower, you have the pole with inside it and then you have the large water tank which is there. In order to place more carriers within that cylinder, the cylinder would have to be twice as big, which means the mass is just going to again stick out like a sore thumb. It's not that this is a bad idea. It it's but it's it's it's it's the location. Um and it it fits probably better in other locations but not here. Um in addition in those s the water tower thing

situations it's more difficult to be able to work with and and manage the azimuth of antennas. It can be done, but it's technically not as feasible as the one that we uh we we we propose. So, if you want three carriers in this, you're going to have to pro you're going to have to double the size of that canister. That's going to go down and it'll be much bigger. Um, and it only really looks good with one carrier. And that therefore doesn't meet a the the criteria in the in the code and the desire you have expressed in a number of these hearings of making sure that we have multiple carriers to be on it. And so um uh behind the concealment that we propose if and Mr. Moy if you could please put up the the three array. Um well let go back to the other one. I'm sorry. go back to the the more modern one you saw again. This one has greater mass that uh and it would be very very expensive. I I I haven't priced this out because I just saw it. The the tree is much more expensive. The tower the water um uh tower is even more expensive. And this would be prohibitive. I mean the the water tower is close to prohibitive just in terms of what we can get back. and we can't get more carriers on the on there to be able to make it pencil out as well. Um, this is a a nice site, but again, I think because of its mass and where it's located, uh, where homes can see it, it's not as appealing as the one we proposed. And if you could kindly go to the the one we proposed with the triple, if you look at it this from the various different angles, and if you could kindly scroll through the angles, Mr. Malloy, I'd appreciate it. Um it it it

it doesn't have the mass um at the bottom. Uh and it in my words it it almost it looks like it's more linear. It's clean. It has um it's more artlike. Um and we can paint it. Uh it it it it can be painted. That's a maintenance uh issue going forward. But something of this color or sky blue um would would also look very very nice. And um it's more artlike, if you will, than just having the arrays that you see on the pine tree. And it doesn't have the mass of the water tower that you would have if you had that there. It also allows for three carriers, which the water tower or the the the pine mono pine would not allow for three because we have space down below there behind the the the um the masonry wall to be able to have the equipment for that which obviously the masonry wall will paint to to the color. And so from that perspective um given that it in the most technically feasible is is this design that you've challenged us to to provide and get which we can do that meets the stealthy tech requirements of your code that meets your request that we have two to at least three carriers or three carriers and there really are only three carriers in the country. Um and we're actively marketing to them to be on here so that we can reduce the number of facilities in the area. Uh and uh it it this satisfies not only your code but the Utah requirements, the Utah law and and it would prevent the material inhibition of service and um and comply with with

federal law. And for all those reasons, folks, uh we appreciate the ability that we've worked with you over the last couple years. It's been really has been great, I think, for all concerned. um especially working together and uh and because of the challenge that you gave us, we we went back and have proposed different types of facilities and we asked that you approve the one that's before you right now because we think that's the best that is the best for all the reasons. uh and is technically feasible whereas the others um are either cost prohibitive or not technically feasible for for multiple carriers um and therefore isn't promoting the policies that are in the new code or that you wanted. Uh and I just really appreciate you letting me take some more time with you and we ask that you uh approve this application with this design. Um and I'm happy to answer any questions and also uh Mr. Quick is in the in the in the audience there. He's also prepared to answer any technical questions. Um there are a number quite a number of areas where he is uh more of an expert than I. Um but so uh we're we're here to answer any questions you may have and just thank you very much again.

Thank you Mark. Okay. So do we have questions or do we want to have a discussion? I have one question before the discussion and it's probably for you. How tall from the top of the Q-tip to the bottom of it? I don't know what else to call it. How how how those three arrays, how tall is that? Yeah. Uh Larsson Quick uh Skyway Towers. So each carrier needs approximately 15 feet vertically, right? So you could just say 15 per carrier essentially. the the shrouds will probably be a little shorter than that, but So that's about 45 ft if I'm understanding that right. If Yeah. If you get all three I mean it it could end up being a little smaller than that, but that's the whole is only 80 ft, right?

Yeah. So this is so this is just a single carrier that's being shown with the three panels. No, this is three. It's scale is way off. Yeah. Sorry. By that's not even close in scale then cuz Yeah. If it's 15 feet per carrier, that's that would be more than halfway down the pole. I'm saying 15 vertical feet. Sorry, not each one of those boxes is 15, right? They're probably closer to maybe 10 or it's about 30 ft. But yeah, something like that. I'm just trying to figure out the total mass. I understand. About 30 ft is what you're thinking. I would Yeah, that's a good estimate. So, this is showing just one carrier. No, no, no. Three. So then to show three. So your graphic is just off. So

must be then it's it's like not even close. It scales to one, but yeah, you're probably it's Yeah, because I was looking at your documents and it shows that each array is about 8t tall because the top of your steel pole is 80. Center of your tener rad is uh 76. That's four times two is eight. So eight feet for each one. So low ball we're 30t tall. High ball were 45 feet tall. The box. Sure. Okay. That was my That was my technical question. Yeah. Now I'm ready for a discussion. Okay. I had the same question. Thank you so much.

Okay. Yep. I mean based based on that discussion I think that that I think the [clears throat] mass argument is not very strong then because that's the mass of half near half or at least at the very least a third of the tower. Yeah. Yeah. Over half. So to me this doesn't really I mean it provides screening. Yeah. Which is closer but not stealth is what I would say this is. Mhm. So, well, go ahead. I would argue that yes, the scale is horrible on this. Because it makes it look like a Q-tip,

which it isn't. So, I think it would look it'll look different than what it's showing here. But I would argue that it is stealth. Well, you look at the uh you look at the light pole next to that. What's that light pole? 30T. I'd say it's probably a maybe 20 foot pole. Yeah. Okay. The pole's going to be taller. Yeah. Oh yeah, the scale is way off. Yeah, it's it's off. It's I close. But I think the the three boxes, you know, though they're very uh kind of a simple, clean aesthetic, I I would say it is stealth. I would also say the tree is stealth. Right.

Say this. But do we have any questions for Oh, I thought we'd moved into discussion. Sorry. We're in discussion now. Are we in discussion now? Okay. Question. No, not anymore. [laughter] I don't really feel like it's stealth because it's just a white panel, but I can see your point. It is a screen. They've covered it. They've screened it. I'm intrigued. It's a very simple approach, but it's it's an approach. I'd be intrigued to see what it would look like with with the the three symbols on it and to scale. Well, I mean, obviously like if if you had the Herman City logo or whatever on it, I would almost prefer it without a logo. Just simple and clean. And [snorts]

it gives it a nice uh a very clean simple aesthetic. So, for me personally, looking at scale, obviously the scales off. It's hard to look at. Yeah. You got to kind of ignore what they're showing and kind of envision more of a double the size of what it is. It's about that house sitting on top of the box. That house is about 30 feet tall. Like that height relatively. I would say double or triple d two and a half times the boxes on top.

Yeah. Um so for me personally, I I like the water tower approach. I think that that gives you capability of adding some arrays underneath the actual uh tower portion on the on the center mass and still be shielded by some of the legs. Um I like the tree approach. I think that those are are great. I I you know looking at the uh the lit up rectal linear one. I mean now that one looks a lot more within you know the possibility if you actually look at one two three

one two three and yeah so th those are those are good examples of uh of stealth in my opinion I agree I'm not a fan of the tree personally I I think it does stand out it it's the context is not there in that area yeah it does, but they trees will be growing. You know, this is a new neighborhood, right? [snorts] I mean, I think for me personally, I think

yeah, we don't have trees that are like this nearby, so the stealth option of a tree feels odd. I agree more with Jackson on making it look clean and it's a cell tower. So, oh, sorry. Go ahead. Okay. I just had a question. So, on that CMU wall, is that part of our code to have that it has to be CMU or does it just have to be some type of masonry? Yeah. Get to that. I'm assuming I'd have to It has to be

It could [clears throat] be a posting panel or something like that. match what's on the building. I would presume we could do something. A true I would say is there a CCNR with the the commercial district there. I don't recall that they had a CCNR but they may if we were to match that then I know we require some type of concrete wall. I don't think we specify what materials, not vinyl or anything like that, but it has to be not chain link, but yeah, some type of concrete. So, it could be CMU, it could be post. I think if you had like a CMU with 80% face.

Yeah. Rod iron as a condition, right? That it would match materials. Yeah. Match the materials of the of the business

primary building. Yeah. Would it be interesting to bring up the point that was brought up in our work session about the uh future development that's happening on the other side of Mountain View corridor? I know uh the developers here and might be interesting for you guys to stick around, but there might be an opportunity for uh not even using this location going to a different completely different location on the other side of of Mountain View corridor that's a little higher up. There's power that's coming in there. There's there's more opportunities. So that might be an option as well. So stick around. You want you may want to hear that. That may be an option too. So little teaser for you. So

thanks Andy. Well, I guess their interesting thing is how far away from this location they need to [snorts] can they go? I would think if they're up I would think if they're up higher on the hill that would give them a better coverage, but maybe may I don't know to be honest. And I think that's a different that's a different I don't think we're that's fine. I'm just letting them know they want to stick around. They may have another opportunity for another location. So let's let's go back. We're on here.

Can we go back to the triple? So, if we had the triple and this is a suggestion and I I wouldn't make it a requirement or say it's a requirement, but if you were to take the three and if you had the three boxes and uh you know added a a lighter version of say the Heramman green and you had a light green, a medium green, and a darker green on those three, all of a sudden it's quite interesting. I like that as long as you're getting all three. Yeah. What I worry about is we're only we're only talking about one. But maybe that's the stipulation is they actually have these covers. They do all three. Do all three covers now and then they can fill in the

they have to have they have to have the covers for all three installed. You got me sold on that idea. Two-year period. Hopefully they can sell the other two by within that two-year period. Or I think we just have them built all three. Yeah, build all three within a two-year period is what I was because they might it'll take them a little bit of time to Yeah. they can get their partners to help with the cost in the next two years. Great. If not, they need to take care of that. If you had three and just gave them, you know, some sort of color, it's not a terrible idea. It could be to give it a scheme that, you know, makes it nice. Maybe this the green impairment. Something a little more abstract. I like that idea of that pole is a box. Mhm. Mhm. Just three of it will be if you had three of them, you know, just give it a nice

nice abstraction. Breaking up the different breaking up the different boxes will add some interest. It will it will Yeah, there take away from that box feel and more interest. That seems interesting to me. Is [laughter] that a motion? Just go for it. I can make it a motion. I think you need to. Yeah. Yeah. You know how to say it better than me. Okay. Sorry, I've got to skip one more. [laughter] I didn't expect that to end that one. That's a good suggestion, though. We all like it. Carry on. Well, I will make a motion to Let's see. This one's a recommended. Nope. This is administrative. Okay,

this is us. I will make a motion to approve the uh threebox solution as proposed by the uh with the two city recommendations. Uh and I would like to add a a third that they all three boxes are installed uh within a two-year period and that they have a color scheme for those three boxes and that can be approved by staff. And then I would make a fourth comment that the uh wall uh containing the compound has to meet the uh standards of the business park as approved by staff. I'll second.

Okay. So, we have a motion by Jackson, a second by Brody. We'll do a roll call. Um Andy, yes. Forest, yes. Adam, yes. Preston, thank you. Jackson, yes. and Brody. Yes. So, that's um approved. We'll move on to item 4.2. Review and consider approval of a conditional use permit for a plan center sign located at 3512 West Marijana.

Folks, if I may, I just want to say thank you very much. I I didn't want to interrupt, but thank you very much. Thank you for letting us here. Thank you for letting us work with you. Thank you for challenging us. Um it's been a really collegial uh and great experience for us. I hope it's been beneficial for all concerned there and we just appreciate it very much. Thank you. Thank you.

Uh thank you. And and coincidentally, this is a request uh essentially part of that same commercial development, this mountain uh point development. Um they're requesting approval of a uh planned center sign uh which is a conditional use within the city code at this location. Um staff has uh reviewed this item. We've included the details within your staff report. Uh these are the uh the standards. These plan center signs are obviously taller than a monument sign, but they're not um as you know, they're not as large as what we typically would see maybe in other major corridors throughout the valley. So, our intent is to try and uh bring that overall size down, but allow for multiple tenants within a a center to uh advertise on this. Um, again, it's a C2 zone. It's a conditional use. Engineering did not have any uh concerns with the proposal. Um we are requiring um because there is an encroachment on a public uh utility easement that they do need to require a a a waiver and um also uh an encroachment permit will also be required from the city. Um this is the location of the proposed sign and again you can see that PUE uh so it is encroaching in that location. So again it other than those two concerns it is meeting our city standards. Um so these are the condition this is a summary of the conditions that are listed in your staff report. Any questions uh for staff? And again, the applicant is here tonight to be able to answer any construction or detailed questions on this.

I have a question just on that POE waiver. If if there is a need for that a utility to go in that vicinity, I guess it'll be up to them to relocate the sign at their cost for to do that or Yeah. And this is actually not that uncommon. We do this frequently. Yeah. I was just curious who and sometimes they're not obtained, right? Sometimes the utility companies will say no, right? But if they have identified, especially where something has already been largely developed, they kind of know what they need. So they can work around it. Okay, that's all I have. Okay, thank you. Um Damian, do you have anything you wanted to add?

I think the only thing that I want to add is just the property itself. The reason that the customer came to me asking me to uh [snorts] design, manufacture, and install this is that when you're coming down uh Academy Parkway just off uh Meridona, all those properties kind of sit down kind of further from the road. And until you actually get to the property line where you're pulling in to the gas station, you can't see some of those tenants back there. So the tenants were concerned that nobody's going to know they're there and unless they actually are driving to that location. So the whole point of this sign was just to get them some visibility from Academy. I think you'd actually even be able to see it from Mountain View. Um so it would allow these businesses to be seen and known that they're there. And I believe Domino's is uh coming in uh as one of his tenants and they actually said, you know, we if if we can't be seen here, we don't know that we really want to be, you know, in this building. So that that's kind of the whole point is just to kind of be able to advertise these businesses that you can't see from the road.

So I think it's pretty important that they have that advertisement. That's pretty much all I have. And I build beautiful science, by the way. Thank you. Do we have any questions for Damian? No. Okay. Um, discussion or a motion? I think this one's pretty easy. I move to approve item 4.2 with staff's recommendations. Second. So, motion by Adam and a second by Preston. Brody, yes. Jackson, yes. Preston, yes. Adam, yes. Forest, yes. And Andy,

yes. So that's unanimous. All right. The public comment policy and procedure um allows 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 spokesperson recognized will be allowed five minutes. This applies to all public hearings. So item 4.3 re review and consider approval of a preliminary plan for South Hills Pod 14.

Thank you. And [clears throat] these three items will be very similar. They are all within a larger uh master planned community that the commission has uh worked with before. Um but as each item requires a public hearing, we will just present these separately. So again, this is for pod 14. Uh this prospect location within our city down in the um southeast quadrant of the city. Um this was subject to an extensive review by the planning commission and the city council as we reworked the south hills master development agreement. And that amended agreement now we call by an acronym is the ARMDA uh that will guide the the development in this project. Um, as you can see, this is the location of pod 14. The sub subdivision uh application that we received also does include open space uh around this project. Um, it complies with the uh standards that were agreed to in the development agreement. Uh, it has also um fewer units that were initially anticipated for pod 14. So again, that's not an issue. That is still compliant. And it is showing this increased acreage. You can see what was anticipated in the MDA versus the actual acreage. But as we said in our work meeting, that's because they are including open space. Whereas in the previous um land use study was just focused on the development pot itself. So that's why the the acreage is increased. But overall you can still see we have fewer units the actual units versus what was allowed within the ARMDA. Um [clears throat] so again uh we are recommending approval but we do have recommended conditions because

the water infrastructure is currently being developed and in order to facilitate facilitate some real estate transactions that the developer is working on with development partners. Um they are anxious to have this plat re approved. Um but the city's negotiated an agreement as far as the timing of when the water would be available to the site and that we would not issue a certificate of occupancy until that water is essentially delivered and available. Um primarily this is to accommodate um the construction of model homes. As I mentioned in our work meeting, this is something we have often done. we will will issue a building permit for a model home prior to um the recording of a flat. That's common. It's just the water issue, the timing of the water that we had some concern with. So again, we we do recommend approval as typical. There are some remaining um issues that we'll address between preliminary to final. Uh but we'll have a notation associated with the recording the plat that no certificate of occupancy until the water service is provided. Any questions at this point in time?

Okay. Thank you. So I think we have the applicant um Leif Smith here. Do you have anything you want to add?

Yes. Thank you. My name is Leif Smith. um on behalf of the developer um Mr. Mallaloy covered everything and we talked about it in the work meeting but in general um over the course of many years every ask um the commission council staff has asked to to do on this project we've done and now we're so excited to be finally at this point where we can be uh building some some beautiful multi-million dollar homes on the hillside there. So really no additional stuff, but thank you and um excited to see this hopefully move forward. Thank you. Do we have any questions for the applicant? Okay. Um discussion or a motion? Public hearing.

Public hearing. Oh, thank you. Anyhow, procedural. There's nobody here, but but yeah, we'll go ahead and open that public hearing. And seeing no one present, do we have a motion to close? So moved. Oh, I think I got you. Second by Adam. I All right. And all in favor? Oh, I Thank you. All right. Discussion or a motion? We've been waiting for this one. So, I don't have anything. Anybody? No. Go for it. I'd like to make a a recommendation for approval for item 4.3. This is actually an approval. Not a recommendation. Recommendation. I thought I was at a

Oh, this is administrative. Oh, I'm sorry. I make a motion to approve item 4.3 with [snorts] status recommendations. Second. Okay. So, we have a motion by Adam, a second by Andy and Andy, yes. Forest, yes. Adam, yes. Preston, yes. Jackson, yes. And Brody, yes.

All right. So, that's unanimous. Item 4.4, 4. Review and consider approval of the preliminary plat for South Hills Pod 15. Okay. So again, pod 15 within the same master development agreement. Um you can see this is adjacent to pod 14. This is the layout as shown in your packet. Uh again, just like the previous item, um there is additional open space that is being um dedicated to the city as part of this project. And the the intended or the projected units for this uh pod was 34. What is actually being platted is 22. Um again we have the same concern with water, same restriction with the certificate of occupancy won't be issued until the water is available and provided. Um same recommendations on conditions of approval.

Okay. Any questions for Michael? I have one quick question, Michael, and I probably should have asked this previously, but does uh Camp Williams have to review this anymore? I know that the current lawsuit that within a half mile of Camp Williams, they armed to cover that, right? Yes. Yeah, they we included certain um within certain pods, they will have to have a notice, right? Uh, as far as the I don't know if I had to go back to them now that we're actually plotting it. Y, but okay. That was my

Thank you. Did the applicant have anything? Okay. Thank you. All right. Um, we'll go ahead and open the public hearing. And seeing none, motion to close. So moved. Second. So a motion by Adam, a second by Forest. All in favor? I. All right. Any discussion or a motion? I can go ahead and make a motion to approve item 4.4 with staff's recommendations. Second. [snorts] A motion by Adam, a second by Preston. Andy, yes. Forest, yes. Adam, yes. Preston, yes. Brody, yes. And Jackson,

yes. All right, that's unanimous. Michael, downs in today. I almost got there. [laughter] All right, item 4.5, review and consider approval of a preliminary plat for Southwest Pod 8A.

Okay, this is the third and final one for tonight, but as you heard in our work meeting, we anticipate more coming in this project. Uh so 13 or excuse me, pod 8A. Uh again just extending along that same roadway uh from pod 15 and 14. Um 59 single family lots are being proposed in this phase. Uh originally it was in uh intended to have 65 as a maximum potential. Um we have the same issues with that water not being currently available. Um, we also had flagged in the staff report that there was we wanted to be clear on the landscape requirement for the detention area. So, that was one of the conditions of approval that's different in this project. Um, but again, we are recommending approval.

I actually do have a question too on this. With all of these lots coming in, it appears there's only one access from Mountain View corridor, correct? For all of these. And is that I I'm assuming with all these lots that is acceptable with only for for emergency purposes that is allowed and and I think the applicant can address that because we have been talking about that issue as well through either um temporary uh secondary access or just the timing of when other road systems will be made available. Obviously, you're only seeing a portion as as was mentioned by the applicant. There are other phases of the subdivision that we also currently reviewing, but

but there's city requirements for that. So, we're we're covered from an emergency standpoint. So, I'm fine. I just want to make sure that Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Did the applicant have anything that you wanted to add?

Yes, I'd love to. Could we go back to the few slides that shows the overall Yeah. right there. So just to share information just because you asked the question um you can see the one access in and out here even now um in the middle top section of this you can see pod 19 and the road continues on that road is there now in a road base form it's just not paved. Um, so there actually is dual access just with that. But then if pod uh 15 that we were just talking about, you can see how a road disappears to the south. Mhm.

That road is roadbased all the way through the neighbor's property and connects to Porter Rockwell. Okay.

However, you get to Porter Rockwell, it's barriered off at the moment. But if a if if Unified Fire wanted to put in some type of gate that they could control, it's there. They've also already approved uh these preliminary before you guys even saw what you've seen in your reports because they had the same question. Even beyond the secondary one I just said if you drive up Porter Rockwell and drive the ridge line all along the Camp Williams border uh the mining company Staker Parson that hall road is also roadbased but it's open all year maintained all year snowplow all year. So there's actually three if not four um access points in and out. And then the last thing I want to share just if I was thinking about this as a a resident watching this or reading about it or whatever which I am also happy to be a Herman resident. Not only are we have listened to all the requests to keep density down as the chart showed we're even going below that. This has been a active mining site for decades. It's not very pretty. As we approve these pods and start building houses, the hillside here is going to get a lot prettier. The trail connection system that we've been working a lot with uh Wendy Thomas with the city will connect to Juniper Canyon Recreation Area. It'll connect to the Bonavville Shoreline Trail. The there's going to be a mountain bike park right below Pod 7 that you'll see in a couple weeks or so. But if I was a Haramman citizen going like, great, they're approving more houses. That's not what I want. I actually think this does benefit. It's going to make it prettier. It's going to be more trail systems. This doesn't really impact traffic for the rest of

the city because it's kind of off on its own little thing. But I just wanted to throw that out there just in case people online or whoever was watching might want to learn more about it. Good point because we all see it, we know it. So, yeah. Thank you. We'll go ahead um and open the public hearing. And seeing none, a motion to close. So moved. Second. Motion by Adam and a second by Jackson. All in favor? I. All right. And discussion or a motion. Like the other ones, I move to approve item 4.5 with staff's recommendations. I'll second. Motion by Adam, a second by Brody. Brody. Yes. Jackson. Yes. Preston. Yes. Adam,

yes. Forest, yes. And Andy, yes. That's unanimous. All right. Chair and commission comments. And I had two comments. Um, Michael, we had talked about adding an agenda item for public comment. Is that something we can do or Yes, I need to see if we need to modify our procedures, our our policy. I did have uh staff review that as far as how other cities or who is doing it and we wouldn't be the first. There are others uh within the Salt Lake County that uh do this. So, we're still supportive of of doing that. Yeah. So, we could we could bring that at our next meeting.

Okay. Um and then my other question was on the stealth. Do we want to put in more um requirements whether that be it has to be an art feature or a tower or a tree or do we like it to be more broad like it is?

Well, as is typical when we have these major amendments, it's not unusual to revisit, but we often would kind of learn through the process and we've had one, right? Um, I think given the priorities of the city council, if you wanted to initiate a potential amendment to address that concern at this point in time, it would probably be a lower priority. We could eventually get to it. I don't have any other um cellular uh applications. I don't know of another one that's coming in uh any, you know, like next month. I think I think the flexibility is a good thing.

Yeah, I feel like it's really sight specific. I I do think we need to make sure people come with exhibits that fit, but just just I know you couldn't have caught that, but it just seems like we're seeing renderings that you could do if you really wanted to in this day and age.

Well, I think what's interesting is um continued support from the commission for stealth. I think there was some maybe question as to how the commission would respond in a commercial location. Uh still there was a neighborhood, you know, not too far away from this location. But I think now we can say to other potential applicants like this is our track record with our with our city, with our commission, you know, you really need to do more than paint right for stealth. So, and actual visualizations. Yeah.

Okay. Yeah, that just took so long. And I I was curious if other cities were like it just always has to be a water tower or it always has to be No, not that I've seen. Okay. Well, and I think in this case, if they would have if we wouldn't have put on the requirement for the three, it would have been a no-go for me. So like just that addition made it actually more stealthlike than whether they put one or three in there in my three with thericolor. I think it was a great suggestion. Good job. Well done. Well, [laughter] you did. You saved us all. Also a good observation that there will be some other locations that have some verticality

that haven't been there previously. Right. So as we extend infrastructure into the south hills or uh you know this fivetory residential project that is nearing anyway. So they'll there'll be some other opportunities for the location or stealth. So tell them to plant sequoas now. [laughter] Plant sequoas. Start now. Yeah. Start now. [laughter] See what happens. this time. [laughter] Do we have any other commission comments?

Okay. Um, future meetings, the city council will meet November 12th and the next planning commission meeting will be November 19th. Sorry. Oh, go ahead.

I forgot to tell you, we did receive a response from the state on our moderate income housing report. Um there has been some communities that had received a request from the state for additional information or potentially even uh re in requesting further amendments to their plan. Um so I was a bit nervous but we actually did receive a response saying that that our report was accepted. Uh and because we have identified um objectives or goals that or strategies more than the minimum, we um that places our city in a priority funding for transportation funds.

So we've maintained our our priority status with the state. So that's that was really good. I was it wasn't quite Christmas, but I was that was a day that I was relieved. So I was really glad. Congratulations. Well done. Labor Day. [laughter] Labor Day. Okay. Uh motion to adjourn. So moved and second. Got you back. Okay. And all in favor? I. Thank you.

It meets our code. Did you notice this? 15 marks. Yes. [laughter]