Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you. You could I get a roll call, please? Chair Anderson here. Vice Chair Ericson here. Commissioner Tippetsz is excused. Commissioner Snow here. Commissioner Ludkkey here. Commissioner Edwards here. Commissioner Casperian here. Thank you. Did everybody get a chance to review the minutes? Yes. Comments. I wasn't here for that meeting. So, any comments? No. I thought they were good. Here I make a mo motion that we approve the minutes of October 22nd, 2025. Second. All in favor? I. Thank you very much.

Tonight we have public hearing and we have a couple of items. If you haven't signed in, um I need you to sign in out here so that we can have accurate minutes and so forth. Um, you can do it after. Just make sure you sign in for me. Thank you very much.

I um just a quick note, please make comments. Happy to have you here. First of all, thank you for being here and being interested. Um, please keep your comments concise and short if you can. Um, I think that's all. Yeah,

we'll address afterwards after the public hearing. We'll address some things if we need to. Anyway, first on the agenda is Leonard Sharp requests preliminary subdivision approval for a three lot subdivision located at 120 East 7615 South in the single family residential S SF-1 zone. Johnny is presenting. Tada.

Thanks, Chair Anderson. As you mentioned, this is for a preliminary subdivision. Um, this is a vicinity map of the area. It's just east of State Street off of 7660 and 7615 South. Um, here is the proposed plot. Um, it is Go back one. Yeah, go back one. Sure. It's the one circled in if this will work. And red.

Okay. Um this is the proposed plat. Um it is three lots um off of and I'll kind of go here because it is kind of backwards. So the north is to uh the right to the right here. Uh south is to the the left. Um there is two lots. One on the 7615 which is 103 101 off of 7660 and then a proposed flag lot here 102 um also off of 7660. Um staff has reviewed these applications. Um we find that it complies with the subdivision ordinance. um the lot standards for single family residential one and the flag lot standards. Um I will note that the appeal authority did grant a variance for this um for lot 101 as was noted in the staff report um due to the the right of way there on that um north end. Um so our recommendation to you is approval. Um, and I will note we did receive some public comments um, over the last couple weeks. I sent the majority of those to you Monday evening for you to have a chance to review those before the meeting. Um, I also printed out one that we received yesterday when we were closed for the holiday.

Yeah, thank you for getting those to us. Mhm. Any questions for me, Mr. Sharp, about the uh, appellet decision that was made uh, for the 16 and 12 foot. Is that the same decision that allowed other homes on that street to be built?

Um, for prior subdivisions, I don't know if they went through that process. Um, this one, it was specific to it as we recently adopted the or we overhauled the subdivision ordinance in the beginning of 2024. Um, which ended up having stricter subdivision ordinance than was previous for those. Um, those subdivisions for reference were done almost 25 years ago. Um, so yeah, that was the the grounds for this. And Mr. Sharp is here if you'd like to have to ask ask him any questions as well. Okay. Thank you. Anything else? Thank you.

Thanks, Julie. Okay. No questions at this time. Thank you. Mr. Sharp, would you like to come up and talk to us? It's not required. It's just if you'd like to talk about the project or Okay. Okay. Thank you. Let's open this to public hearing. So, come forward, state your name, please, and where you live. That would be great. And then any comments you have.

Yeah. So, um I'm Aubrey Earl and I live almost kitty corner to this lot. I think, um we we came in and had asked uh pretty recently to see if perhaps the city would be interested in purchasing this plot of land to to look at maybe making it into a park. This space has been really important to a lot of people in the neighborhood. And if we had our way, as you can see from that picture, it shows that there's a front lot and a back lot for most of the lots on that street. If we can't get the park option, we would much prefer um I'm speaking on behalf of a couple of people on the street that I've talked to. we would much prefer two lots instead of the three. Um that front lot and back lot for for the reason that the decrease in construction, the decrease in packing homes really tightly in that space. Um, if we do a front lot and a back lot, we felt like that would I mean, if we can't get the park that we all dream of, if there's a possibility of decreasing the amount of homes that we're trying to shove into a space so that everybody has wider spaces, more open backyards, front yards, things like that. We would much prefer that to the three lot situation. So that is me and four other mothers on the street who are very interested in preserving the the beauty and the really the charm of that street. So that is um that's all that I would like to comment is just an alternative option that would fit the street and the the charm of that street a little bit better in our opinion. So thank you.

Thank you. Thank you for being here. I appreciate that. Anyone else? Can you go back a couple pages on the

uh I had one. Sorry, my computer froze. Oh, that one. That one. Right.

Are there any other public comments? Um, hi. So, I'm Josh Hartley. I also live on 7660. Uh, I would want it I'm part of the group that would also want it to be a park. I understand there aren't funds for that. Uh, but just like every other plot on the entire street, there are all two lots. I'm not aware of a single plot on the entire street that is three lots. not a single one. So, uh, and, uh, echoing Aubrey's comments in reducing construction time, all of that kind of stuff, it would increase, uh, that street isn't a through street, so we enjoy not very much traffic. And if two homes, so I live on the one that would have two driveways, that is even more traffic for the kids that walk to the elementary school. So, just bringing that up.

Thanks. Thank you. Thank you much.

My name is Amy Harris and I'm on 7660 as well. And we knew the park was an outside shot. Um, we can dream, but um, so I have questions that I'm not I'm It's so small I can't tell. Um, are there is there are there garages or they are all these people going to have to park on these two streets? We don't really have We're just It's just for a sub. It's just a plot. It's just for a subdivision. We have no idea what's there. And is it is there regulations in the city for like how much space for I think you said like between the houses and all that kind of stuff. Oh yeah, but it doesn't require garage parking. It does not require garage space,

but it does require off streetet parking. It requires off Well, that's what I meant. Sorry, I should have been more precise. Off street parking. It requires some off streetet parking. A minimum of some off streetet parking. So my question about the is about the flag lot because there's a flag lot on 7500 that's been for sale for years and was that part of the consideration for this subdivision is thinking about are flag lots feasible for the person who's trying to sell that house when it once it's built. Did you discuss flag? And that's not really what's before us tonight. The flag So you don't consider it's just what will fit in the space, right? we consider the land use laws. Okay.

Um but not necessarily what's going to be developed at this stage. This is a subdivision. So we're not we've had flag lots come before us many times, right? Um so our dis our recommendations aren't based on whether they can sell. That's not really our prerogative. It's whether it complies with the owner with the city ordinances. Right. And then if it does comply, the city has nothing else to say about it once it complies with the city ordinances. Okay. All right. Thank you. There there is quite a bit of quite a lot of restrictions on building on flag lots. Mhm.

You can go on to the city website and look at that. It's not you don't get the you don't get all the easiness of a normal lot. It has its own sections. Yeah. It has correct. But once it's zoned, it's out of your hands. But they even it's still a flag. They would still have to abide by the rules of a flag lot.

Sure. I'm I'm not interested in flag lot. That's I mean once you zone it for flag lot that's Yeah. That's out of your hand. So Okay. Thank you. My name is William Ellis. I also live on 7660. I'm in favor of this. With the way our property taxes have been skyrocketing over the last few years, what an easy way to get more revenue and I don't think it will harm the residents on this street. That's about all I have to say. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? Seeing there are no other comments, I move that we close the public hearing portion. Second. All in favor? I I Thank you. So, these are some Yeah, we're going to address a couple of things that came before us on the some of our emails.

Yeah. So, we did have um letters from Haley Brankman, a resident. We also had a letter from Brian Van Stingy um who also referenced um Haley's letter and then we received a letter from Alexis Wexler Wexler. So we have all the comments and we have reviewed them. Um it's great to have them ahead of time. I will say that that's an option for in the future. Um there are several concerns that have been voiced and many of them are I feel like there's a misunderstanding on some of them and I just want to in the record about um what frontage means and that requirement. There were a lot of um comments directed towards frontage and the requirements for that and that is the extent of land abuing a street or water waterway. So, it's not the width of the street. And I think that's what some of this letter alludes to. So, I just wanted to call that out to maybe dispel some of the the hurt that some people feel and have expressed in the letters. The frontage is different. And the staff has and are I consider experts in the municipal code and interpreting it. and when they considered all of the requirements and the the maps presented in the application, they say that it complies. So that's that's a difficult one when someone pokes holes in a lot of things and the and the people that work here in Midvil say that it complies. That's my two cents because I spent a lot of time on the letters to make sure that I understood them and what and was trying to understand the the pain and the hurt um that comes from them. I understand there's always a lot of

emotion when these things go on and it and um you know I mean I grew up on 7660 and so that field has been there since my parents moved in long time ago. So I think it's great that they want to do something. It doesn't seem intrusive. We're not talking about d high density. We're not talking about multiple families. It seems kind of a good fit, but I understand the emotional part of it.

So, we're aware of it, but there's a lot of these things we don't have control over. We're just looking at it saying, "Great subdivision. That's it." Now, as the process goes on, obviously, we have to come back and say, "Does this meet approval? Does this frontage? Is this that kind of thing?" and we have to look at all of it. We can't just But it's further down the road. This is just the subdivision. So, just to be clear about that. Okay. Mr. Attorney, do you have anything to say to us?

Yeah, I can add. Uh, so this being an administrative decision, this is for the commission to make. Um it is a decision that if they meet the requirements of the city code uh which as staff has reported said they do it is something that you are required to approve. Mhm. Thank you. Okay. Thanks. Can we put the motion up so we can see it? Thank you. Well, I'll make a motion if you're ready. Yep. Yeah. I move that we approve the preliminary subdivision located at 120 East 7615 South with the findings included in the staff report.

I second. Can I get a roll call vote? Chair Anderson? Yes. Vice Chair Ericson? Yes. Commissioner Sn? Yes. Commissioner Ludkkey? Yes. Commissioner Casperian? Yes. The motion passes. Thank you. Thank you very much for coming. We appreciate it. Next is the Midbell city initiated request to modify Midbell Municipal Code section 17-7-17.3 to the TOD zone to provide design flexibility of the commercial mixeduse requirement.

Thank you. holiday. We had a little discussion about this item last time

and um this is the outcome. And just to sort of get us warmed up, I just wanted to um show you again what the TOD zone has in it. Two of those components are these maps which uh require mixed use in the shaded areas. The one area is um basically anchored by the Fort Union track station. Um so immediately east of um I-15 you could say. Uh the other area is um you know anchored by the center street track station and if you think back um we've uh done station area plans and these station area plans um which are required by state law um have a purpose and the purpose is to shore up the areas around highcapacity transit stations and to concentrate um residential uses or also commercial uses um so that uh you know that so that we as a society can sort of reap the efficiencies that come from public transportation. Um so in that context we've looked at this and um we talked a little bit about um commercial users on the main floor and our current uh requirement in the zone says that a minimum of 50% of the building footprint is supposed to be commercial as defined you office, retail or restaurant use.

Um, so far we've discovered that that's maybe a bit ambitious. Um, many of the development projects that that come for which we have seen concepts um propose buildings that have a lot of parking on the main floor. It's internal to the building but it's on the main floor. So if we as a city then require that 50% of the main floor should be in parking I mean should be commercial then that's the economics for that don't really work as it is right now. Um the question then is you know where where's the public benefit for commercial on the main floor of a building. If you look at Main Street here, um the benefit really is that it activates the street. Of course, there are other aspects, you know, sales taxes for example. Um but a lot of the benefit a lot of the benefit is really in activating the streets that people come, they go, they may go to one business and then they go to another one or they go to one restaurant, then they go buy themselves flowers whatever it might be. So in order to capture this effect without requiring something that is really unrealistic in a way um we as staff are proposing this change here and the change sort of flips the paradigm in this ordinance around a little bit. We're not looking at the percentage of the

building footprint anymore, but of the street facing building facade. And so the idea is to have that be 65%. in these required areas. Then an another change that um you'll see in the proposed ordinance language is that not only do we um not allow office uses on the main floor on Fort Union, but we expanded that a little bit. Um and let's see, this isn't Something is stuck one somehow. This is Ah, here we go. Now it's coming. Oh,

yep. Thank you. So, um Oh, that's fine. Stop it. Yeah, it's it's it's fine right now, I think. Okay,

thank you. So, um the second principle that we introducing here is that of clustering. So, we we allowing some flexibility. Let's say you have a corner lot. That means there are two frontages on a public street and um we are saying in the ordinance so a minimum of 50% of each frontage no that's the old one 65 of the building facade of each frontage needs to be commercial. Um because with the clustering we are basically allowing the developer to put less on one side and more on the other side. I mean it's pretty intuitive. It just in introduces some flexibility.

So one site could be 100% the other Yeah. could be commensurately less whatever works for that area. Yeah. So there's there's more of a you know I guess a market type of idea where um we are saying you know developer you hopefully know a lot more about this than we do and what might be a good commercial space. Well, it makes sense just for parking because when you use 65% or 50% you've reduced the available parking and so now we're going back to parking lots and large parking areas rather than hiding them underneath the building.

Yeah. And so

yeah. Okay. Thank you. Um then the other aspect is that the element where we say that the building may not contain an office use on the main floor that's expanded a little bit instead of just having that on Fort Union. So the area around the Fort Union track station, we are also making that a requirement for center street which is um I believe uh appropriate since all all of our efforts on Main Street will you know sort of bleed out onto center street and we want to just sort of keep keep that momentum going. Um so this these are really all the principles behind the changes. There's just another uh change and that's it's the same thing except uh the percentages are different. This is for the area where mixed use is not required. But if a developer chooses to give us a mixeduse building and hits a certain percentage um which is now proposed to be 40% in the current language it's 25% um then you know we applied the same language in that section. So this is uh in paragraph H um what we just talked about is in G. So they're just it's just the same language so that it's consistent transferred also to the to the other paragraph.

That's cleaning it up ahead of time. Okay. Um so one thing that I haven't mentioned is that if we go back to the map um especially around the Fort Union uh track station, there are of course more roads there than just Fortun Boulevard. And our transportation master plan designates, you know, different road classifications. I if if you remember when we, you know, created the city's transportation master plan, there's what's called a functional classification map. And um wait a minute, it's this one. And it designates streets in a in a hierarchy. And the new language builds that into the code as well. I mean it's for the purpose of you know the clustering. So in in this in the yellow sentence clustering of this requirement of this requirement on arterial minor arterial center street collector and feeder roads as defined in the transportation element and so on. So we are basically saying to the developer if you cluster then this is your priority. If you have one of these roads um next to your lot then if you cluster then you give us more commercial on center street or more commercial on a minor arterial. So we we've tried to you know sort of maximize the effect that we can get from from this by doing that.

Um yeah. Um otherwise that's that's really everything that's going on with this language. It's actually pretty simple. I mean it hits all the criteria in the zoning code um that are you know our sort of guideline for when we want to approve something and when we are sort of hesitant about it. So staff recommends approval. Um, do you have any questions on this?

I think it's straightforward. I like I I like what you've done. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. We're open to a public hearing. I mean, you could ask the applicant, but it's him. No, it's him. I've asked him enough questions. There's no seeing there's no public comment, I make a motion we close the public hearing. I second. All in favor? I thank you very much. This is a quick turnaround. Can we do a motion? Yeah. Unless you want to discuss some. Nope. No.

No. I think it I mean it makes sense to me and I think it helps clarify it and I think it makes a better use of the the property and I I like it in just the fact that if if you keep it the way it is then you're going to have larger parking lots outside the building rather than trying to minimize some of that. you know, just having lots of parking lot instead of, you know, more. I will say the clustering is a great idea just because of tenant improvement considerations. When a developer comes in, you're going to be able to fit a larger variety if you have a blanker wall versus just all

windows meeting that requirement. So, that's a great consideration that gives more flexibility that I I think will help developers. Yeah, I agree. Okay. I move that we recommend approval of the Midbell city initiated request to modify Midbell Municipal Code section 17-3-17.3 to provide design flexibility of the commercial mixeduse requirement with the finding noted in the staff report. Second. Can we correct the code municipal code section 17-7-17.3? Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Do I need to reset that? No. Okay. Thanks. Can I get a roll call vote? Chair Anderson? Yes. Vice Chair Ericson?

Yes. Commissioner Snow? Yes. Commissioner? Yes. Commissioner Casperian? Yes. The motion passes. Nice job, staff. Good job. Next, we need to approve the planning commission meeting schedule. Jonathan, this is where it gets spicy. Does it? Yeah. This this is a brutal part of the meeting. Yeah. Pull up that calendar. Oh.

So, this is, as you guys know, you have to adopt the calendar for every year. Um, these are the proposed days staying consistent with the second and fourth Wednesdays that we usually do. Um, if you look behind you, you might be able to see it a little better. Um there is two days that we have um noted um depending on if you guys want to do them or not. Uh May let's see where is it? May 27th um and July 22nd um just due to proximity to holidays. Um if you would like to take them off the schedule now you can. Um or we can just go by uh as projects come in and if they're not needed not hold it. So, I like that idea.

Up for your discussion. By the seat of our pants. I don't anticipate that they're that close to those holidays. They're not. No, I think we're we're further away. Yeah, it it'd be great to just keep them on. Okay. Um I like and I'll give you this motion. I move that we approve the 2026 planning commission meeting schedule as included in the attachments. Second. Can I get a roll call vote? Chair Anderson, yes. Vice Chair Ericson, yes. Commissioner Snow, yes. Commissioner Ludkkey, yes. Commissioner Casperian, yes. The motion passes. Thank you. Let's have a staff update and other business.

Whose business is this? None of your business. The city's business. Okay. The city's business. Put those away. Oh, boy. Oh, no. We worked ourselves up. Um, it was for sure. We got one more of these if you remember. Yep. To the back of my car. So, the And unless you want me to do this otherwise, I I just wanted to just go through this real quick. There really isn't much left in the last chapters that pertains that's what I kept

to the US the planning commission very much I read it twice did you so um chapter 14 is about enforcement um and that is an interesting topic Adam has lots of stories about enforcement and how hard enforcement can be

did you come up um main principles there are there's you know the criminal track and the civil procedure and if you ever have questions I'm sure Daniel can tell you a lot about it the the book basically says with the civil procedure it's it's what we all know you know you you have weeds that are this tall in your yard the zoning enforcement come officer comes by gives you a warning Maybe hopefully the weeds get taken care of off. If they don't, then the next step is a fine and that keeps on accumulating until hopefully the weeds disappear. If it's

So what if you keep getting fined and fined and fined and you don't do anything? What's the consequence? I mean, I'm just talking about 10th. What is the consequence? So the the city, Daniel, correct me if I'm wrong or if the book is wrong or both of us. Um at at some point the city can actually put a lean on the property.

Yeah. Hm. And if it follows the criminal track, then it's, you know, it goes to court presumed innocent until proven guilty. Once the judge says you must prove and or there's a fine, then that's then you're settled with that. But that of course requires a lot of resources on the city's end. And in general, this requires a lot of resources, more than I would have ever imagined, honestly. So, and more than we have allocated with our tax dollars.

Exactly. But we can get very aggressive if we want to raise our taxes and quadruple the code enforcement department. Start planning more and have it self-und that bigger fine but you don't get paid until the person sells the property or goes to refinance it then and that again takes resources to get those in place. So yeah, sounds like a lot of life experience here.

Yeah. So the other item that I wanted to bring up is of course there's always an appeal possibility. Uh an appeal in this case would go to the appeal authority which is an administrative law judge um that the city hires basically. Um if that doesn't happen in the way the citizen would like it to then there's another appeal possible but then it goes to strict district court. Um so I think that's enough on that topic unless there are any questions. Um, chapter 15 goes more into appeals, more into the detail, different types. I'm not sure that that's really relevant for us as the planning commission. Um, chapter 16 is maybe meant for developers in a way. It's it's really all the means and ways how uh city city decisions could be challenged. Of course, it also is informative for the city. You know, there are certain pitfalls and the main one that I wanted to mention for you um is what are called takings. So, and that's that's a case and this is I'm sure there's a lot of case law on that. And Daniel probably spent thousands of dollars in uh law school fees to take several classes on it.

Law was really cheap. Yeah. Um basically as a city or as a governmental authority, you can't um regulate a property. so much that the owner doesn't have any use of it left or if you do then you have to pay for it. Um then the last um chapter is about referenda and I in midfield we really haven't dealt with that much it seems cottonwood heights the old cottonwood mall um unless that's on holiday I'm not sure but

the redistricting that just happened in the state that's yeah I think that followed that um principle as well so anyway That's basically that finishes out the book. I do have a question for you. So next year, how would you like to handle you know land use related training? Do you have anything you you wish we could do? Um any any feedback? Let's do a bike tour. Okay, we can do that. for the weekend right after this meeting.

Yeah, and I had a great time. Let's go to Disneyland. It has to do while there is land use in Disneyland, too. So, yes, we could do that, I guess, if you all paint our own way. I just thrown that out. I'm going in January. So, so think about it a little bit. If if you have any ideas, um, let me know. There's lots of things we could do and I will check. I mean, we could um bring someone in from the Utah League of Cities and Towns. They sometimes do trainings where they come to the cities. So, I'll I will check on that. Okay. Anything like that is great when you have somebody come in and talk to us. I like that.

And sometimes it's good to just hear a difference. We could feed them. Pardon me. We could feed them. Yes, we could. Just saying. Just saying.

Um then with regard to department report, we are trying to work on sort of closing out um you know projects for the year. um the development agreement, large scale master plan, and the code change that went along with um the gardener company's property just south of Ivy Drive that Ivy Drive that will finally be on city council agenda next week. So that's finally everything is in place. So I so that's moving forward and we are working on finishing up the applications um for WFRC for funding of several projects. Um the everything that we submitted has made the first cut where WFRC has said yes we can keep on going with this. It fits the criteria of some of their funding programs. Then we had a training um on title reports and that was very interesting. We all

run by uh one of the commissioners. Yes, the one who's smiling. Yes, you should get credit. Yes, that was very informative. And we've also um worked pretty hard on the Porter Rockwell study for the trail. That's been um a little harder than everyone thought, including the consultant, but I think we're getting to the point where at least some good options are crystallizing. So that's yeah, that's everything that I had for you today. Thank you very much. You're welcome. And so we just have one more meeting this year in December. Yes.

Yeah. Good. And Okay. And we do have items for it. So we will definitely hold that. So have a great Thanksgiving. Oh yes. Yes. Please have a good And what time are we supposed to be at your house on Thanksgiving? If you want beef organ, it's probably around 4. Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. I move that we adjourn at 6:43. All in favor?