Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay, we'll go ahead and get started. Um, Chase and Drezy will lead us in the pledge. Repeat after me. I pledge algiance 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.

All right, we have a full quorum. Are there any conflicts of interest? No. Nope. All right. Moving on to the approval of the minutes for October 15th. Do we have a motion? Make a motion to approve the minutes. I'll second for October 15th. Sorry. Excuse me. Excuse me. I'll second that. All in favor? I

All right. Item 4.1. review and consider approval of a for conditional use permit amendment for Game Haven. Good evening. Um so this is a simple request um more or less. So there's a couple of u considerations we're looking at in terms of amending the conditional use. First is for the building elevations and then second is for change of use. Oops, I got to turn this on. So, this is uh in the Anthem commercial area, just uh the north side of the Anthem commercial, the Game Haven site. So, it encompasses two buildings. There's the main game haven building and then there's this event building uh called the Enchanted Event Center now, I think. I believe um the site has been fully developed um and as part of that process um once everything is completed and done we go out and do a zoning inspection to make sure that the plans coordinate with what was actually constructed. During that uh zoning inspection, there were several changes to the building based off of the stamped and and approved plans um that are before you here. So um because of the number of changes and the change of use um it we felt it appropriate to come back before the commission to have these elevations reapproved and uh have the the use approved as well. Um the applicant has received um a letter from the master developer of the site the the Anthem commercial site uh stating their approval of the changes in the building elevations. So, as we go through this, um, I'm just going to show some of the elevations and what with, you know, with the changes to them and pictures of the of the actual

building. So, this is the main game haven building. This is the one uh furthest to the north. It faces directly south. So, you can see the approved plan on the on uh the left and then what was what is being proposed and what is constructed. Uh there's not a lot of it may not look like there's a lot of changes but because of the number of changes we did feel you know like there was a significant change to the overall building. Anyways that's the front. This is the east facing side. You can see that there were some some uh windows that were removed from the approved um elevations to what was constructed. Um on the rear, same thing, elevation, there were windows that were removed from that side of the building as well. And also on the west side of the building, those windows have been removed. Uh as you can see, the roof structure is very different than what was being proposed. Uh there are some of those metal awnings above the above some of the windows that have been changed or not been installed. Uh and then this is moving to the the building on the faces well it's on the east side of the property right this is that events building now it was proposed initially as a retail building but it has been converted into a uh an events building which is a conditional use uh which is why it's before you again today as you can see from the building elevations that were approved you know some minor modifications in terms of the where the those awnings were installed installed um or not installed uh building windows that have been added uh in this elevation. One of the main windows was actually removed as you can see that bu that window on the right side of the building has been completely removed. Reasoning for that is because that's where the bathrooms are and that

makes good sense to not have a window there. Um but again things that we could have and should have looked at through the um approval process at time commission time. Uh this is the south elevation. Uh as you can see that there was a drive-in window that was supposed to be installed there. Um that has gone away. Obviously the use of our event center doesn't need or require a drive-in window or a drive-through window. Um some of the material was installed in was installed differently. A lot of the siding was supposed to be installed vertically and has been installed horizontally. And then this is the front of the building. Um, as you can see, some of the again some of those metal awnings typically those are installed between the doors and the transom. Um, in this instance, those awnings have been moved above the transom windows, not as shown in the approved plans. Um anyway, so that is uh kind of the elevation side of the story. The other side of the story is the changing use. So when it was approved, it was a retail building. It is now a fully uh event center. Um it's very well done. And then on the interior, they had a open house last night. Um and uh we're excited to see the use, but uh just in terms of consideration, there is a a there's a a modification or a discrepancy in what's required parking for the event center versus the um the retail stores. However, um that being said, there are 218 stalls in that direct vicinity. So in this area there is a shared parking arrangement for all of those properties. Uh which means that any use can occupy can park on any of those sites. So our recommendation is to just have the

applicant provide a parking management plan so they can show kind of how each use es and flows to make sure that there will be adequate parking for all of those uses as they're taking place on the site. There's also a couple of vacant properties that haven't been developed yet. Uh that will provide some additional parking once those get installed. So that is the one the third condition did not get into the report, but that's something that we uh noticed from the time of the report till today. So if there's any questions, I'd be glad to answer what I can. Uh the applicant is also here. So

I just had one quick one. Um so to confirm and I think they the changes were made after the permitted uh drawings had been approved. Correct. So, yeah, we we provided them the stamp plans and then the alterations were made after the stamp plans were approved by the city. What is the capacity for the event center? I'm not sure. The applicant could probably answer that better.

I think on the approved plans it had some, you know, some numbers on it as well. So, uh, but like I said, they can probably answer that better than I can. Any other questions for me? It just, uh, kind one more. Sorry. No, you're good.

It kind just kind of feels like we were sold, uh, one product and we're receiving a different product. Uh, and I know that uh, uh, in essence structurally and usewise and all that we're fairly equal, but what can the city do in the future to prevent these kinds of changes without the owners coming back to the city and saying, "Hey, look, things have changed and we'd like to make some modifications." They can't just they shouldn't just be able to do it and then come in or we get or get caught and then come in and ask forgiveness. So, So, as I mentioned in the uh in our earlier meeting, one of the things this has stemmed a lot of conversation between us and the building department, um we don't currently have a zoning inspector that goes out uh regularly and because of, you know, we're not we're kind of short staffed as it is, especially missing a planner right now, but uh we don't have the bandwidth to go out and inspect every building as it's constructed through all the different phases of construction. Our building inspectors will go out several times and you know inspect different phases of construction. Uh but they're largely looking at um you know building safety issues and not always are they pulling up plans and making sure that yeah they're doing this the way that you know the planning commission uh has proposed or stated but again in conversations with our building department. They are going to try to start taking a closer look at those elements um and and providing some feedback to the you know the planning department as um as those inspections take place through the through the construction of the building. Um, another thing that we've talked about doing and we'll probably implement as well is just making it uh, you know, when when things come before the commission anyway. So, if for a permitted use,

[snorts]

um, they wouldn't have any kind of letter of approval, it' just be, yeah, you're you're permitted to go here. Here's your your site plan and and nothing comes before a a a city a city uh, body. ood any for things that come before our city body like a conditional use or something like that. We can um put requirements on there that no changes to the elevations be made without you know the same way we do with our landscaping. You know no changes can be made without the approval of the architect and the city. So those are [clears throat] going to be things that we're going to try to make a little more clear through that process uh to [clears throat] avoid you know this this kind of situation. Um, another thing that I didn't mention in the presentation, but we are um as another condition of approval to still provide some um some interest in those elevations where the windows have been removed or we're requesting or requiring that spandro glass be put up in those areas where the windows have been removed to at least provide that aesthetic.

Any other questions? Darl, did I answer your question? Okay. You you did it sounds like uh as a city, as a planning group, we've learned a lesson here and and you're trying to going to implement some corrective actions. And by and large, you know, most of our partners um like they'll have, you know, we we'll see a minor modification or variation in in plans to construction. And things always change, you know, time when during construction things come up that are not anticipated or or thought through or whatever. And we understand that. So we're trying to be flexible and understanding with our development partners as much as we can.

But on the flip side, they need to be aware of major changes too and come to you with those changes also to be a partner, not just do it without. Yeah. And we've had we've had a lot of our partners come before us and you know they when they've made changes, they say, "Hey, they'll come to the planning department and say we're going to because of this issue, we're going to need to make this change." and we've worked through that process to make sure that they're still in compliance with what was approved as they move through their processes. Exactly. Yeah. Get it approved before it's done.

Commissioners, if I may, um I think so that the administration is is um overseeing land use development in a pretty typical fashion. uh nothing nothing that we've been doing is all that different than what Clint or I have experienced in other cities but this type of modification during the course of construction I think has been unusual based on our past experience and as I mentioned in the previous meeting we've all have seen some pretty significant um uh events that have been changing the culture of development right think about the changes that we've witnessed even just stemming from uh co um just rapid changes in in the marketplace um supply chain um issues. Now we're not dealing with that as much today, but we've seen a lot of pressure on on development um and so we're we're making adjustments for the culture of this community. But again, it's not that we haven't been applying good practices, but it's just not been enough to keep up with the rapid growth. And I think some of these unique impacts that our development partners are having to adjust to in the marketplace.

I wonder if there's an opportunity for a third party, you know, oversight to help you guys because you are work so thin. if our development partners are required to have a third party to make sure I know it cost, but it wouldn't be a cost to the city. I I recognize that, but that may encourage them to uh not be making these changes as well. So, like I said, we we we'll be doing more to communicate more loudly about this issue, but yeah,

Michael, is there a time when um legal recourse is appropriate or withholding a bond or a business license or something like that? Uh currently um we can do a bond for occupancy under certain conditions. Certain things would be appropriate. Um but generally we're only bonding for public improvements these days. So okay, most private improvements are not going to have a bond for for completion.

And we couldn't withhold a business license or a certificate of occupancy unless the building was on sale. temporary CFO um which was appropriate in this situation and they've been very cooperative once we've explained to them what the concern was and of course they're here be able to answer any of your questions tonight. So thank you. Okay. Any more comments for Clint? All right. If the applicant wants to offer anything else, please state your name. James, thank you. Hi,

thanks for having us. I'm Troy Nord. I'm with CSM Construction. I'm the builder. Um, if I could just for a minute, I would like to I feel like I got thrown under the bus just a little bit. Um, I've been building for 35 years, hundreds of millions of dollars mostly in the state. Um, this isn't my first rodeo by any by any stretch. Um, had I known that the exterior elevations needed to be so so specific, then we would have been upfront with that. This isn't something I tried to pull the wool over anyone's eyes or get away with. As some have said, that's not at all the case. Like, we we're straight up rule followers, right? And um, like I say, never have I been held to this specific standard. And I'm not saying that's a bad thing. I think it's a great thing. um because I think it's important that you get what is expected right and um and so to speak a little bit to what you were saying about how do we fix this in the future I think a little education goes a long way um whether that happens upfront in in the in the meetings before we um get our building permits or whether it's even just a simple stamp a red stamp on the plans that says hey you know any any changes to the ex the exterior any of the elevations that change need to go through planning um would have helped us immensely. You know, we didn't do any of this hoping that we'd get away with it. We were just um doing what we thought looked the best and it didn't seem like any of this was was a a big enough change to waste anyone's time with. Um obviously we were wrong and that's that's on us. That's on me and I'll take that all day long. Um, and so I appreciate the conversation that we're having because I think if if if we all leave this and we find ways to make everything better, whether that's my job or your job, when it's a win, um, the only the only the only thing I would I would discuss is on this item number two where those where those windows are shown, um, actually the floor plans don't show those windows in there. They were just shown on the elevations. Um, they were supposed to be removed by the

architect and they and they just they just it was an oversight. that room where those go is a storage room. It's filled with shelving. Um, and so it doesn't make a lot of sense to put those in there from a from a use case. Um, it's also the very back dark corner of the building. I mean, that north elevation, it's literally 15 ft to a 10t tall or 12t tall center block wall. Um, so there's really there's no reason for light to be emitted. There's there's no reason for anyone to be looking out. Um, if anything, it becomes a little bit of a safety issue because that's that's the first place people are going to break a window. Um, it's the drive-thru right there. It's just not a place that is a great place for windows. Other than that, I you know, I think that we're on board with with just about everything that um that that's been said today. So, I appreciate your time.

Thank you. Do we have any questions for the applicant? Clint, do you mind showing us what um those when what that glass looks like? And just to be clear, we're not install, but this spandre glass, which is kind of a faux glass installation, right? Okay. So, for example, it's mostly on the main building right there. So in this building here on that that top left image where you can see those three windows on the bottom floor where the car is.

Yeah. Where the car is. So and then on the bottom image those aren't installed. So just installing spandal glass there. Um these ones on the back facing the north I agree with the the contractor that that you know probably doesn't need a lot of use. Um these ones on the side obviously probably can't be installed because of the utility panel that's there. But there were um three spandro glass windows just on on the right side of the building underneath that. Yeah. Anyways, they were shown on the building plans. They're not shown here, but they were shown on the plans that were approved. So, there would just be probably just those three. So, the three windows on on this elevation and then three windows on this elevation that we just spand.

I'm not seeing that. Maybe I didn't see it. I see these the one by the car. I didn't see the one. So, these are the plans that were approved on the uh Well, these are the plans that were approved by the commission. There were another set of plans that were approved during the time of construction that showed those spandroglass windows on this one. Um where are you looking at? I'm I'm not seeing them. The difference between the approved and proposed. I'm saying that the spandlass windows on this elevation are not showing. Oh. But they showed on the on [clears throat] the plans that were uh okay approved as part of the building permit. Where would they be, CL? They would be on the right hand side of the building on the lower where you have that that darker window pop out. That D5

there's three windows underneath that darker window pop out. So kind of in that D5 note. Yeah. Okay. So when you say spandro glass, it's not actual cutting in the windows or anything like that. It's just a faux window. It just looks like it's Okay. Right. Gotcha. You don't have to do anything structurally to it or anything. Just provides just to provide that aesthetic. Gotcha. Just to break up those faces. Yep. Would you suggest four since there's four windows on the other side? Just there was just three shown on the elevations. Okay. just it would be if I may right there

right but on the left side there's four and I just for balance for symmetry I just was wondering if four would look better I think we're okay with three okay thank you

can I ask you a question um I do commercial construction too so I get the we're you do architecture too so we try to do it as close is the plans are, but the plans change sometimes. Um, like as a city, do we have something specific that says this is how much you can't change can change? Um, not necessarily, but I think that the number of elements that were changed from the time of building, from the time that they were approved to the time they were constructed, um, like I said, if it would have been one or two elements that would have changed, I don't think it would be back here. But because of the kind of the laundry list of of items that were changed on each elevation, I think that that became a substantial change from what was approved.

Okay. I don't for me I guess I kind of feel like as a city we need to define that so that you know we have can be like hey you changed three elements. You know what I mean? So it's not like Senate kind of subjective to that was too much or not enough or does that make sense? Measure would be better. Correct. Yeah. But but we approved the top one top. That's what we should be getting. So a lot more. Does that make sense what I'm trying to say? Like you changed like two materials that weren't approved or you know it's kind of tricky though.

Yeah. But it at the same time I think that's a almost more of a discussion for at the end of the meeting because this on this specific issue it's not part of this specific issue. We will say again that this was in an MDA that had a specific design approval. Yeah. And so we're trying to follow that agreement, right? Like what were to happen if somebody were to say down the road like why wasn't it built according to plan and we just washed our hands of it, right? We we at least need to, you know, make a record of it and then make some administrative decision to accept it or discuss how do we how do we modify, you know, how do we find a common ground,

which is why I mean we're just talking about bolting glass onto a building. Yeah. Not cutting anything in. So I don't I don't see it's not a structural modification. To me, I don't see it being aesthetic a great feature, but it's going to be something that seems like we're at least putting on some requirements attached to the exterior. Could it Could we put something else there, though? I wonder if there could be some sort of landscaping in front of that to kind of break up all of the There is landscaping there. I think you're talking grown in yet. I mean, something different like if you're thinking about Mountain View Village where they have the trellis

or something along those lines. I don't know if there's other options that you guys think that we could do. I don't know what I know that you're not exactly fond of the option that we're giving you, but are there other ideas that we could think of as a commission to some other architectural element or Yeah. If we're going to go off script, let's go crazy. [laughter] No, not too crazy. Well, something that you know

and the conditional use so the conditional use standards do have a an ele so it's uh it talks about the architectural quality integrity of of surrounding properties right so in this instance where the building wasn't constructed to what the architectural qualities were where elements were removed or you know taken out we're just you know that we felt like the uh you know the simple requirement of putting up a spandrog glass to to mimic that window. Yeah. Would meet that architectural um requirement. And I think we should stay consistent with what we were aligning. I agree with you, but I I feel like that starts to stretch outside of a Yeah.

a new normal. So, well, just by the way, it looks nice and we appreciate what you've done out here and it looks good and and we appreciate it for sure. We just want to make sure it's it's what was agreed upon. So, we appreciate your efforts for sure. Well, and I agree. Like I say, I it was never our intent to to pull the window over anyone's eyes. So, yeah, you know, on your your recommendation, we don't want windows in bathrooms. We understand. We understand that. Yeah. So, absolutely. [laughter] Yeah. So, I do have a question for the builder. Um, did you resubmit plans after those changes were made?

Yeah. So after Clint inspected it the first time, we came back through had the architect redraw it as it as it is. And that's what this this bottom that's what the revised proposed and those are the plans you're seeing today. So nothing was resubmitted before that that point. Okay. So you didn't resubmit the plans to the building department? No. Nothing structural changed. Yeah. Nothing codewise changed. Proposing matches with the building. So what they're proposing is what has been constructed. Sure. Sure. And that's been approved by the building. Okay. Okay. It's almost like our the stuff we approved needs to be attached to the building permit in my mind, right, in the future.

So, I I I think the major concern we're not we don't think that you try to pull the wool over anyone's eyes at all. Just want to be clear on that. Um things happen, things change. I just got back from from a site visit where we just kind of reworked an entire design for no reason, not at all. But so I understand that things things happen um at least in this instance especially where all the glazing had been removed um that's at the pedestrian scale. So instead of having some kind of pedestrian you know elements those have all been pushed up high you know and so you have blank wall basically at the pedestrian level. And so if we could do something whether it's landscaping or I don't even know if spandrel glass is a remedy to that because you know it's fake glass um you know but having some kind of landscaping that kind of softens that pedestrian scale I think definitely would would work well. So you guys are willing to work with the city to absolutely

accomplish those sort of things. I think that that's very beneficial. That was what my picture in my mind and and if this is garbage please tell me I have thick skin. Uh, these guys tell me all the time, um, if we did trelluses that were about the same form or shape as those windows were, right? Like maybe a metal frame with with like a metal grid in it of some sort that a vine or, you know, something could climb up over time. That that was kind of my my idea. Like I say, if it's garbage, that's fine. So a like element. I like that though. I think that's a good replace it with the like element that I like it. Okay. Yeah. So, I think we could just modify that condition to say bendrass or a like landscape element tied to the building. Yeah, seems reasonable to me.

Sounds good. Sound like a motion. No, I'm kidding. If everybody's ready before No, this is good. Good discussion. [snorts] There any more questions for the applicant or discussion? And if not, a motion. Well, maybe I'll just make it quick. Uh I think Adam, that's not a bad idea. just have a like element so it doesn't feel bolted on or an afterthought. Yeah. Can somebody just flip it so I can see the recommendations so I can just edit the slides. You can go to the last slide with this. There we go.

You know the windows are a few different colors. So I just that'd be another recommendation. I would think if that's the route we go, let's make sure those frames are powder coated the same color that the windows would have been just to kind of keep the theme. All right. I would like to make a uh uh approval of item 4.1 with staff's three recommendations with an alteration to number two to install spandro glass with powdercoated uh framing or uh powdercoated landscape feature that matches the same size on the game haven main building as shown on the building permits and on the west elevation where the windows have been removed. I'll second.

I would say west and east. I was just tying it to the building. West and West and South, I think it is. I South and West. Yeah, corners. Yeah, south and west corners. Okay, I'll second. [laughter] Okay, so we have a motion by Adam, a second by Brody. Um, Andy, yes. Daryl, yes. Adam, yes. Heather, yes. Jackson, yes. Brody, yes. That was approved. Thank you. Thank you guys. Appreciate it. Thank you.

All right. Item 5.1, review and consider a recommendation to the city council to amend the Panorama Panorama master development agreement. As I mentioned in the staff meeting, um the applicant Jason Drezy is here tonight and uh he will address the specific points of this this amendment. Um I will just kind of cover um just to clarify what the planning commission's role and what uh the staff's recommendation is on this proposed amendment. This is a little bit unique in that you are making a recommendation to the city council, but it was determined by uh city staff that a public hearing was not noticed because it wasn't affecting uh any of the uh essentially the baseline uh zoning regulations that were uh approved as part of this MDA. Um but traditionally uh our city council has asked for the input of the planning commission when considering these types of amendments to the MDA. So um your role is to review and consider the proposal. We've re given you materials in your packet and then again the applicant will further explain uh some of the details of the proposal. Uh discuss the amendments and consider any alternatives um such as suggested in the staff report. and then forward a recommendation to the city council for decision. Uh as you know this is the general vicinity of this project um this near the south hills in the city. Um this is the uh development plan that was approved uh as part of this Panorama project and it's also within context of of two other major development proposals uh the South Hills uh MDA and also the Rose Crest MDA. And so those three

developers are very much working in concert with each other as they are working to forward and advance the infrastructure within this area of the city. Um so these are the elements of the proposal. Um we're looking at uh modifying the boundaries of the of the of the MDA, the legal boundaries, but it doesn't change any of the entitlements um associated with the MDA. In fact, there's even a reduction in the overall number of units in the amended village plan. Um we are just clarifying some of the procedures when the administration is reviewing a potential double frontage lot scenario. We try to work to avoid those, but because of the grades on this site, which the applicant will discuss with you, there were a number of lots that needed to have that kind of treatment. And then we just want to have some um maybe some guidelines to to protect how that would blend in with an an adjacent property that's not double frontage. There's a uh recommended u approval for a grading plan that includes some retaining walls. There's an exhibit in your packet that explains that. And as was mentioned in the work meeting, this um amended grading plan will reduce the amount of soil uh and and modification of the natural topography that's in this project which is the staff has recommended that that's a a positive change and then again um a change to the village village plan itself. Now with that uh staff is recommending a a a couple of different um modifications um to the commission to consider. one is there was uh we received that village plan but in the language of the first uh amendment it didn't specifically reference that particular exhibit. So we just want to make sure that that exhibit as it moves forward to the city council is proper and identifies all the different

elements that will be amended in this in this amendment proposal. The other is just um maybe creating some additional standards. Uh the amendment does talk about how administratively the city can approve these double frontage lots in places where we typically wouldn't on a local street. Um and so we just identified some issues with the um applicant. Um and it seemed like we were in concert with one another as far as saying let's find out ways to address how what happens with uh maybe a setback or a fence line. when you when you have a a rear yard adjacent to a front yard, sometimes those fence lines can be kind of awkward, right? Because they have different standards and different heights. Um, and then the recommendation is that that we would work with the applicant before we take this to the city council for consideration just just to include some of those minor um modifications. And then just to review overall the MDA itself, just making sure that we don't have creating any further inconsistencies between different exhibits. I mentioned to um u our applicant that some of the other exhibits have that rectangular shape for the school property. Uh and and this is now introducing more of a bubble kind of a more geo geometric shape. Um and so I just wanted to make sure that the other plans are consistent, right? We're just not creating inconsistencies in these different exhibits. Um so those are the staff recommendations. With that said, um I'd like to have the with the commission's approval, unless you have any questions for me, I'd like to have our applicant come up and just go through a few slides that illustrates these different changes. Is that okay? Okay. Good evening, commissioners. Um Chase Andrezy here for the applicant.

Appreciate Michael kind of just setting the stage and explaining a little bit why we're here today. It's not trying to change any land uses. We're not trying to increase density or change from multif family to single family or vice versa. We've just been able to really hone in a little bit more on the plan. Um, and as mentioned, that included being able to eliminate a lot of the haul off of a lot of material with this particular village. And as we did that, we recognized that there was some opportunity to swap some land with Jordan School District who owns 12 acres um almost right in the middle of the project and they were interested in doing that, but as I mentioned during the work meeting, they're not a party to the development agreement. So, the land that they previously had, which is highlighted here kind of in red, you can see the original shape of the 12 acres that they owned, um that was not in the development agreement. After swapping property with an adjacent land owner, they received the property that's outlined in purple. Um, a portion of that was the Backbone Road, Blooming Rose Boulevard. Um, and everything in that kind of tan orange color was previously in the development agreement. So now Jordan School District, who wasn't a party to the the development agreement originally, owns a little bit of property that was in the boundary of the development agreement. The owner who traded with Jordan School District received a portion of property that wasn't in the boundary of the of the development agreement. So that necessitated really the first purpose of this amendment to just clean up that boundary with regard to that individual parcel. Before I move on, any questions on that? I stuttered my way through that, but really it was an acre foracre swap with Jordan School District. Um,

cleaning up the boundary between those parcels that swapped so that the owner who gave up their land to Jordan School District is within the boundary of the MDA. Jordan School District who received some new land is totally out of the MDA. So, will you build all of Blooming Rose Boulevard? Yes.

Thank you. The second purpose of the amendment was to just address some of the double frontages that are shown here in red. The issue that we had again as I explained in the work meeting when we came in with um this kind of new layout and were able to be a little bit more efficient in the hauloff and using the existing topography. The result of that was some of these lots that ultimately ended up being double fronted. As I mentioned before, that's not a primary design principle that we were going for here. It's a lot more expensive to build this way, but it's also a lot more efficient given the topography there. We're able to use a lot more of that natural topography. Um, and as Michael mentioned, are open to looking at ways to mitigate some of the safety concerns and aesthetic concerns of double fronted lots here.

Hey Jace, real quick on the back on that one. The next to the one that's by itself, the the corner lot, oddly shaped corner lot that has like quadruples sided. Yeah. Is that a lot? So, in current city code, an exception to the double frontage um prohibition is corner lots. Um another one I think is Clint mentioned is uh arterial roads. Yeah, I just mean that one and the the other one that are right there, those those two that are really close, triple floored lots. I was just curious what the actual buildable area is of those two lots.

Yeah. And if you look at this next slide, um this shows what kind of that grading plan would look like for those particular lots. That one that's more rounded looks like it will be very limited is what I'm going to say. Can I draw on this thing? No, I can't. Huh. I think I know which one you're talking about though. The one right by the note in the middle. Yeah. What's your question with it though, Adam? I'm more just saying, have you looked at the buildable buildable lot for that one is all I'm trying to say. Yeah. Okay.

And and admittedly, one of the things we've looked at, and this is this is a preliminary plan, right? This isn't our final plat. One of the things that we've looked at is can we reconfigure these lots a little bit? Um, as you know, being on the planning commission and seeing these day in and day out, a lot of the times your roads dictate where your lots end up. And that's kind of what we've had here given the topography and how we've needed to connect those and not have 12 12% slopes between uh neighborhoods. So one of the things that we are still looking at is you know maybe a reconfiguration of those lots. But okay

so this is as Michael mentioned just the update to the grading plan. The grading plan that was in the development agreement really was just there to say this is where we are going to do our preliminary grading. We're not coming in, this isn't the final grade. That still will be part of, you know, civil plans that are submitted. This just allows us to come in and do some initial um grading and cuts to get to um close to what our developable final grade will be. This exhibit again was just shown to demonstrate what the original layout looked like for the village plan. as you see kind of in that middle area, village 4, where that um that call out is for that area behind that is the original school location. And this is now where it's located. And you'll see how those roads shift from, you know, being very straight and rigid to, you know, following a little bit more the topography in that area.

What was the total unit difference? I was trying to Well, you're flipping back and forth between those. This one is about 50 units less as shown here. Sorry. Say that again. 50 50. Yeah. So, Chase, just curious on the double frontage lots where it says village 4, have you thought about It looks like there's going to be a retaining wall about right where the V is in village 4. Yeah. So I assume that culde-sac is mostly only accessed off of that side, not the retaining wall side.

Yeah. People aren't going to be going in their backyards from that road really. They're not going to pull a trailer in there or anything creating. So I I I I understand you have to have double fronted lots and some triple fronted lots. So, I don't have an issue other than when it comes to final plat, I think we need to define that the driveway has to be on one side that you decide before the builder comes in. Sure, that makes sense. So, and that's why I'm highlighting that one. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it, but that one that's very curved and very there is technically no side to it, right?

I just want to make sure you look at that before it comes back forward. And that to your point, Adam, that's where we have the flexibility to say it is what it is. What can we do now to tweak the layout of the home or put some standards in with regard to fencing or, you know, what side of the lot the driveways on for the adjacent lot, you know, those types of things. And that's what I would like you to address when you come back. That's the only reason I'm bringing it up now for those more interesting triple fronted sites. Yeah.

That's all I had. So almost as an extension of that, um the one thing I looked at with the double lots is uh the orphaned park strip, is there a an HOA setup, they can take care to maintain the orphan park strip or how does you know because if it's on the back side of or what becomes the back side of the double-sided lot, who who takes care of the park strip? Are these public roads in this neighborhood? Are these private? On that one, we'll have the There's no park no park strip next to the double lots, right? So, it's just fence and sidewalk. We will have um I think on that part on the Let me go to the this one.

Yep. On that long skinnier one, the very first one kind of on the north side. Yeah, on the top top of the There's an eight foot trail on the back of that one. And then on there's another 8ft trail. Our 40ft cross section. If you go back to the development agreement, we have a 40ft rideway cross-section that has an 8 foot um trail on one side. That 8ft trail will be located I didn't show it on this exhibit, but on the back the top of that lot, which will be the back of that lot. Um and so we do have things like that that are built in to give some more buffer, but to your point on maintenance, um there won't be an orphan park strip on that one.

So there's no park strip. It's curb gutter and then the path or sidewalk is what you're saying. Or is there there's not even like a stamped concrete park strip is just trying to remember the cross section off the top of my head. Yeah. But it sounds like there's no landscaping that would be orphaned and not maintained by an owner or difficult for an owner to maintain.

But to your point as well, Jackson, that's one of the things that we're open to figuring out, right? It's like Michael mentioned identifying additional standards or you know some objective criteria to build into this because as I mentioned this isn't our primary design objective something we just kind of fell into given the topography and what we're trying to work with. So we're totally open to having those conditions. based on our previous kind of preliminary subdivision review, it felt like maybe just adding two or three little kind of design standards would would address this. And so I felt like it was something we could easily address before going to council. Right. Yeah.

Will the retaining walls be taller with this grading plan? So, we've been able to eat up a lot of the slope in the lots themselves. Um, so as you see from this plan, there are still some retaining walls and some of them are still I mean I think one of them is 13 ft. Um, but if you saw the other grading plan, you'd be like, "Wow, this is a huge improvement." So I know that didn't answer your question, but yes, compared to what we had previously, this is uh this is a huge improvement both in terms of number of walls and and height of walls. I know that saves you money, but it also I think it maintains the topography of the of the site as well, which which we want to do as well. We do as well, right?

So, it's a win-win, right? Yeah. And really what this does as well, if you go and you compare, you know, the way that these lots are situated, they're almost north to south um or east to west entirely. But as you look at this, it actually uses that topography and preserves a lot of the views for these, especially given the topography and the way that they sit with each other. And I think just makes this a better neighborhood.

Will you remind us what the maximum grade is? Maximum grade on one of the roads or Bill? I think they're all under 10. Maximum. It's 10 typically. Yeah. Yeah. [clears throat] I think it looks good. I just more just worried about those few and that can be discussed later. Mhm. That's just my opinion. They look uh larger than some of the other lots. I Yeah, it's it's mostly just that it's this one that I'm talking about. Single isolated,

single with the curve and the triple. It's It's a double-sided with really no backyard is all I'm trying to say. So, it takes some interesting architecture for something like that to actually fit well. And I don't remember what size that lot. Let's look here. It's bigger. Um, yeah, it's bigger than 85 foot. It's listed as an 85 foot frontage. So, yeah. Yeah, it's like a 300 foot frontage because it's the hole. Yeah. It's a premium lot. Yeah. There you [laughter] go. Yeah, the little green one is concerned, but if you look at the grade right by where that V is, that thing's it's a mountainous corner.

So, I've got I've got a different question here. Um, so we lose about 50 lots in the change. Um, are those gone forever? Are you looking to bank those for something else? So, as Michael pointed out, the adoption of this village plan isn't part of the development agreement, but we're open to incorporating those changes into, you know, an administrative approval or coming back with another amendment. This was really to capture the change in the boundary with the school

and the double fronted lots. That was the purpose of the amendment. Um, but as Michael included in the staff report, the recommendation to update all of the exhibits, that would be that would be part of it. So if so, so you're saying it's still open to moving those lots somewhere else within the development. Yeah. And really, Jackson, the answer to that is until we have a final plat, right? It's hard to give up the lots. But I can also tell you standing right here, I don't think we're going to put them back in. As I mentioned in the in the work meeting, I think these are just I mean, I'm I'm spilling all the developer secrets. More density doesn't always equal more money, right? sometimes a bit lot. Put that on the record.

It's better. Is it on the record? [laughter] I'll deny saying it. Nobody pulls these meetings anyways. So, and for clarification, it was not my understanding or my intent to recommend that we make that change the maximum vested to reduce the number. Yeah. Because we know as we've seen as as developers start working through these projects and start doing real subdivisions, we will see further Yeah. you know, move, you know, changes in in pods, um, which they will come back to and make those presentations to us.

But I guess my question is I'm wondering if there's a future request coming somewhere where there's a pod that's not shown here that all of a sudden has a lot more smaller lots, which I'm not necessarily against. I'm just wondering if that's something coming.

No. Um, and you know, I'll add here, and this is beyond the scope of this amendment, but we are under p we are under contract to purchase all of the remaining Rose property as well. And so, we're not going to change anything from that, but we'll be in front of you again just to formalize that and recognize it um, you know, as part of the the Panorama Development Agreement. And so, there will be an opportunity there to dive into those discussions. And frankly, when we do come in for that, there will be more detail and engineering behind the design that we can really hone in on some of those details. Okay.

I just Yeah, I just appreciate you guys mixing in, I guess, product types, which is nice.

We had another developer a while back where they wanted us to reduce some of our frontages and stuff like that to make how many lots they wanted to work. So, thank you So, I have a I have a question and it's it's kind of on the topic of the land exchange and kind of on the front the double frontage, but not the double frontage you're showing. I asked you this question just before we finished a little bit, but um so on I don't know if it's Blooming Rose Boulevard or if it's what what the name is because it's named two different things on on the maps

by the school Blooming Blooming Rose or you have uh I don't know what the other name is. Blooming Rose is that big backbone kind of you also had it labeled something else on one of these other maps. Uh we used to call it what do we call it? Right. No, it's not. Anyhow, blooming road. Panorama view. Oh, panorama view. Yes.

Yeah. So, two different one of those. Anyway, so with that with that exchange, um you've got those double back double fronted homes along that line and and then you have a steep drop off now as well according to the topography. So, I mean, I'm just I guess I'm concerned. Kids walking to school along there, people not paying attention, cars going down into backyards along this double fronted road. How is there any kind of a landscaping plan to maybe maybe put some natural barriers between the sidewalk that's going to be along those doublebacked roads or something? because obviously you don't want like we talked about you don't want the need need for landscaping as well. So what's the plan?

So we've got um I I'm sorry I'm processing your question you're fine. I think the way I understand it um and correct me if I'm wrong is that you're worried about the drop off from the top of the slope to the bottom of the slope. Yeah. You got a sidewalk and then a drop off in an in an area where kids will be walking to school. And the drop off is right into people's backyards and it's off of a main It goes the other way. The other way is the other way. Oh, it's a sidewalk with a cliff up going up the side on the side of the school. Mhm. Oh, yeah. Sorry. That's why I was processing it, making sure I heard it correctly. So,

for some reason, I thought that was sloped down towards Mountain View corridor there. Yeah. So, and all of those lots press. No, it does slope. They face towels. The sidewalk. The sidewalk would have a retaining wall above the sidewalk. Houses are higher than the school. Correct. These houses are all going to be higher than the school. Yes. Yes. There's a null right there. The school's in a hole. Oh, the school's in a hole. It's a weird little If you were in the school property, you couldn't see Mountain View. It's like this big hill. Okay. We need to take you up there again, Preston. No, now I I'm seem to remember. Yeah, that little drop in now. Okay.

Drop off down there into those backyards. Okay. Sounds good. Did that answer it? Yeah, that then it's not a problem because there's not a slope off down and it's not just like this abyss where these kids are walking right next to cars going right by them. And if [laughter] that was the case, we'd actually we'd flip the house the other way, right? So that that was why I was like this is going to be an interesting little area. Yeah, these will all have walkouts which will be really I mean valuable to those homes to have that walk out view unobstructed. Can you go back to the other slide? This one?

Um yes, this one. Um, so one of the changes that I noticed on this proposal is that it went from light blue to purple. Um, kind of up in that culdeac area against the mountain right there. Will you just flip back and forth for a second? I was doing that to make sure I was tracking. Thank you. What's happening up by the village there? I maybe it's just labels. You know, a lot of that village seven is what I'm trying to say. A lot of that is our own just kind of internal coloring. Um, but as you'll see there, the numbers are pretty consistent. Go back and forth one more time. Oh, yeah. The numbers are the same. Okay. Yeah. Sorry. Your headache's not sufficient yet. I could look like that all day. That's perfect. [laughter]

Are we losing? It's Christmas time, right? And back one more time. Getting a village two. Okay. Yeah. So, with village two, my concern is more so if we're putting more houses on that stretch right there. So what we what we did to answer your question and again this is all internal this hasn't this one isn't in front of you for um approval necessarily but village we combined village two and village nine so it's the same number of units in fact that one is I think 44 we've lost 59

between village 2 and village 9 there were two fewer units in that same area. So, and we did introduce, you can see there's some green open space area. Um, again, using some more of the natural topography and not hauling off as much material. We kind of have that little buffer of it's not really usable open space, right? But area that we're not developing on. So Chase, did we get more open space open space considerably or are we now including the Rose Crest open space in the 172? Because when you go back to your old one,

it was like 115 plus 58 and now when we go forward it's 172. That's not that much different. No, but I'm just asking. I know that we're not talking about Rose Crest now. We're not gonna be hearing you're gonna give us a lot less rose crest. No, there. Right. That's what I'm trying to ask. Right. But really, we're getting a lot more open space. We're going from 58 acres to 172. Am I reading that wrong? I didn't honestly track those numbers um when I came into this. And you're asking the attorney to do math off on the fly. Well, we're seeing on this right here, you're showing panorama.

Panorama's just 58. Go back to the original one. 58. That's all it says. 58. 58. You go to the next one. And now shows. There's two of them. 72. Go back to the I know, but that's Rose Crest. That's a different discussion. We're not talking about that. What I'm saying is my question for Chase is I'm not saying open space acre for open space acre, but we're still going to be getting in the hundred range. Yeah. Oh, yeah. when Rosest comes in. Yeah. In essence, you gain a lot, but I don't know.

Everything that's kind of on the south end of the of the Rose Crest plan, that's all staying the same. Um, the dog park is part of our p our MDA. We have come to you before on that or that was our modification, I believe, was part of the the dog park, but that plan hasn't changed at all either. Okay. But again, there's only the four items we're looking at tonight, right? So, are we losing commercial?

Nope. So, the the mixeduse area you'll see is in purple, mixeduse/commercial area. Um, in village six is the same acreage. Village 7 is the same acreage. Oh, sorry. and down off of Mountain View corridor um on I can't remember the name of the road uh kind of on the southeast corner there is the same size so because it goes from 36 to 21.

Yeah, I don't think those numbers are correct because if you look at it the it's the exact same commercial areas. Again, we sent this map not to say, "Hey, here are the exact numbers and here are the exact acreages." It was more to show just the the the changes in the school site and some of the uh topography within those villages. But no, Heather, the intent is not to lose any commercial. It's the same as you can see between the two plans. [clears throat] Okay. I have a question for engineering, but I don't have anything else.

I told everybody I was going to be quick. I was not quick. I'm sorry. Wasn't you? He kept asking questions. Yeah. Well, they were good questions. Is there um so that that area that I was kind of questioning the blue that turned to purple in that area? Is there like an emergency way to get out of that culac over there? Yeah. And that's not shown on here. Um in fact, if you go to this plan, you can see like a trail. Um this one shows it better. There is a we've talked about putting that in it as a road. It's kind of shown as an emergency access, but we'll put it in as a 20 foot ride, 20 foot wide paved road there. Okay.

Question for you. Go to the grading plan on the 2:1 slopes. Oh no. Are those okay? Uh they're okay if Sorry, I've got a terrible cold. Yeah, my voice is bad right now. um two to one is allowed with a geotechnical engineering report that um supports it and then the city engineer has to okay it and then with the retaining walls coming in will those be before the homes typically retaining walls usually are tied to the home who's maintaining those retaining walls so in this area we we're not developing that area so that would be between the owner selling that and the builder who's purchasing it you're you're selling on a whole pod is what you're saying.

That pod we don't own. That's a different owner. Okay. Um but the other pods down in village 9 area where it's shown here or village 2. Um we'll be developing those and generally obviously we don't we haven't sold them yet, but we would build those walls. But long term, who maintains those? Are those city maintained, public maintained? The owner. The owner. The owner. City. if they're on a common area, if they're within an HOA, and it's common area, the HOA, that would make sense to me. But I'm more meaning the ones that by my my favorite lot we're talking about within the lot, not there's a wall that's owned by three people. Yeah, it would be the lot owners.

Okay. But the city wouldn't be maintaining those. Okay. But I understand that. But typically, you don't share a wall that goes across. If one guy doesn't maintain it, it affects the house next door. I think each individual owner would maintain his section, if I'm understanding the question correctly, that's spanning through multiple lots. Yeah. But I'm saying if you clo if you clog the the drains on that, the wall fails and the houses fall down like we saw in Draper. So, I'm just trying to understand who who's protecting that wall. Homeowners don't know that. Engineers know that. Yeah. I don't know if I can answer that question right now. first.

It's just something I think we need to think about especially where something to be on it's coming in first and if it's built first then there's sediment that flows into the the the parts of the retaining wall that get once they get clogged then the wall fails causing that's what I'm trying to say is this somebody needs to protect that during the construction of the home and landscaping of the home or the the wall fails and the houses fall down. So that's definitely not something we don't want motivated to make sure that that doesn't happen. But but we've seen other other developers that were personally motivated to to not have that happen either. So

yeah, just just something to think about where normally we don't have walls like this. So I was just curious, are they a true concrete wall? Is it just the standard Haramman rock wall? Like those those do matter. They're a different type of maintenance. and where there was it four feet over four feet requires engineering approval, right? I mean, that's on board with that fully how we anticipate comes time for that. Okay. I'm just saying that most homeowners I think that says 12 feet, but I can't tell. Um, listen, if we That's a 12oot wall. 12 foot max gravity wall. Mediocracy, we would be here for hours.

Yeah. A 12oot max gravity wall. Yep. A substantial retain. That's a big wall. So, just just questioning. Thank you. Yeah. Where it's along a property line, somebody's got maintain. Thanks. Thanks, okay. Sit down, Chase. [laughter]

All right. Discussion or a motion? Was there a slide on the motions? Yeah. just to help us. There we go. Thank you. All right, I'll make a motion. You guys good with that? I'll make a motion to recommend approval of item 5.1 with staff's recommendations. I'll second. Okay, we have a motion by Brody, a second by Andy. Andy, yes. Daryl, yes. Adam, yes. Heather, yes. Jackson, yes. Brody. Yes. All right. That passes unanimously.

All right. Any commission comments?

No, I made my comments during the just making sure we're maintaining the standards and stuff. And I don't know if there's an MDA when when we're in the middle of an MDA if if there's some way I know I threw out the third party, you know, oversight or something. But when you're working with an MDA and it's different for the cities, I don't know if there's a way we can put more ownership on the MDA owner or the property owners to make sure that the standards are being upheld. That'd be my only comment. It's always a it's always tough during construction to make sure everything works perfect. I mean, you things change, availability of products change, things, you know, stuff happens.

Yeah. That's why if there's somebody there to help manage that, right, to help guide the process when things do change or attaching our approval to the building permit may help. Yeah, that too. The approved elevations that we approve.

Can we do some sort like is is there an option for like a a fine of some sort if they vary from it? them them having to show up tonight because I'm [clears throat] not saying this I'm not saying this home or this uh business owner necessarily did it nefariously like you know he said no this wasn't intentional but that's not but what what it exposes is the potential for it to be we could do a little more research I mean like I said I I have found that the culture of development here in this city is just different but I'm not saying that there's I don't think it's really intentional. It's for example, a lot of commercial development in other cities maybe just [clears throat] a permitted use, right? They don't have to go to the planning commission and get an approval.

It's just based on building codes and the kinds of things that they were changing weren't necessarily a violation of the code, but it's in an MDA, had a conditional use. You know, there is an expectation of it being figure A, not figure A prime. and you know, we just want to make sure that everybody understands what's happening here and and I would get that modification approved if it's necessary. So, but we we could, like I said, we've already been talking internally about how we can address this issue. Um, so,

and I would say the fact that it was caught and it was brought to us is indication that it that it it's working. Yeah. and zoning a zoning inspection at occupancy. That is standard. We've been doing that. That's that's typical. The problem is is when you catch the problem like this, at the very end, it's just painful for everyone. Well, and and so that's why we've been talking about is there some interim measure that we can do to try and catch these before it gets to the final. Us trying to legislate against contractor, that's even harder than Yeah. So, I would say there's not we can't legislate it out, but I think what we're doing is is good. It came in tonight. We got to see it. It's

always a balance. I mean, we want to be good a good welcoming city. Yep. Yeah. We're still trying to figure out how to maintain our standards. So, Michael, what did we do with that daycare that had the windows that weren't right? They had to fix those, didn't they? Um, so they changed out from it was a a commercial grade window to a residential grade because of there was a supply chain issue. Okay.

And that's the one over in Anthem. And again, Anthem approved that modification. None of the window patterns changed. It was just the frame. And so it was decided that that would not be a significant modification to come to you. Okay. So, but yeah, we did communicate like don't make that kind of change on the hotel because it's the same group. Okay. Thank you. Yeah.

Okay. So, regarding the panorama discussion today, I and I know this has nothing to do with what we reviewed today, but I noticed that the connectivity within their their layout has degraded significantly. And if we could have someone with the city look at their proposed site layout now as to what it was prior when we did the NDA and just look at you know how many how much has changed because there's some culde-sacs that don't meet fire code. They're over 30 units to a culde-sac. Yeah. And we're aware of that and and they're they will make um

I just don't want to get them all the way down the road. No. And so that you know they're doing all their surveying, they're doing all these things in them and they come to us and say, "Sorry, we can't do anything. It's the topography. This is the way we planned it out. Sorry." Yeah. We we've been already addressing that issue with them. And again, I think you're going to keep seeing little iterations. Yeah. And this isn't the final one, and that's fine. I understand that the first one wasn't the final one. That's fine. Understand that. But what we don't want to do is go from something that looks very connected to something where you just have cult sex everywhere with the excuse of topography only allows cult sex. Maybe maybe add roads don't connect. That is for sure. Yeah,

some trails. Some trails connecting some of those culde-sacs might make it more walkable if there's some way to get some trails. Trails will help, but I mean, yeah, if you have to drive two miles to get out of your culdeac just to go to your neighbor's house that's behind you, like that's just ridiculous. Yeah, but if there's a connecting walkway that you can walk up, yeah, [laughter] it might be a significant up at 2 to1, but

that's that's like just putting a small band-aid on. If we can catch it now and make more connectivity because it's not just the walkability, it's also getting out of your neighborhood to go somewhere else. Not just to your neighbors, but to go somewhere else. Like do you need 50 cars going through one intersection to get, you know, and having just that that choice, especially on a hill? Yeah, just shorter intersection. Fire like possibilities like tires on the hill and no one can get in.

Well, yes. No, that [laughter] too. I'm just I just want us to think ahead and make sure that the city's reviewing that and that they keep that in mind. It's not just because I can just see them just changing it and going, "Oh, sorry. to park doesn't allow it. Well, but we currently also don't have that requirement in the MDA. I mean, but they do have to get sign off from fire code, so it should be okay. Yeah, fire code. Yes. Okay. Um, our next planning commission meeting will be December 3rd and the next city council meeting December 10th. Motion to adjurnn. So, move second. Got it. I. All in favor? I thank you.