Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

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

Thank you. Can we have a roll call vote, please?

That's me. Chair Edwards.

Present.

Chair Liedtke. Vice Chair, sorry.

Here.

Commissioner Tippetts is excused. Commissioner Anderson? Here. Commissioner Erickson? Here. Commissioner Snow is excused. And Commissioner Brockie?

Here. Perfect. Did everyone have an opportunity to review the minutes? Anyone have items to address or change?

I don't.

I'm going to say no.

Yeah. I forget the date because I don't have the paper in front of me. July 8th. July 8th. I move that we pass the meeting minutes from July 8th.

Second. All in favor? Aye. Thank you. Okay, there's a public hearing next. Midvale, first item on the agenda, Midvale City initiated zoning code text amendment updating Utah State Code references in Title 17. And Johnny is presenting.

Got here a lot faster than I imagined. You got the clicker one? All right, well, it's loading up here. So this is just a few updates to a couple areas of our Title 17. The state legislature last year, last November, they updated, used to be Chapter 10-9A, which is the Land Use Management Act that applies to cities. They updated that to 1020. And so this is mostly just fixing a bunch of the references we had. as well as any others that were inconsistent with state code. We find it meets all the first three requirements required for approving a zoning code text amendment. And our recommendation is that you recommend approval to the city council for this.

So any questions for me? I don't think so. Awesome. Okay. Thank you. We'll open this agenda item up for public comment.

Seeing there is none, I move that we close the public hearing. I second.

All in favor? Aye. Anyone, anything they'd like to say about this one? Seems simple. No, seemed pretty simple.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I move that we recommend approval of the zoning code text amendment updating Utah State Code references in Title 17 as provided in the attachments with the finding noted in the staff report.

I second it.

Roll call vote, please.

Chair Edwards. Yes. Vice Chair Lidke.

Yes.

Commissioner Anderson. Yes. Commissioner Erickson. Yes. Commissioner Brocky. Yes. Motion passes. Thank you.

Okay, next item in the agenda is a discussion item. Discussion item to discuss the concept plan for Vista 270 at Jordan Bluffs, located at 8250 South Bingham Junction Boulevard, pods I, J, K, and L, in the Jordan Bluffs sub-areas, one through three zone. Wendland is presenting.

Good evening chair and members of the commission. I'll give a quick introduction. This is really the developer's item and you've seen this in the packet. Our code has a certain process that we go through with this type of development. There's the initial contact, initial staff and development review committee review, then the planning commission work session, then the large-scale master plan, and so on. So right now we are sort of at number three, the planning commission work session. And our code says the following about it. The applicant presents a concept plan, and comes to you at least once before a formal application is submitted. And the purpose of this work session is really to discuss the concept and to give the developer informal feedback so that the developer gets a sense if they have to maybe address certain things in the concept before it keeps on going in the process. And this implies that you really don't take any action. You just give feedback. You ask questions. And whatever interests you, I'm sure the developer can help you with.

Is someone representing the developer here? If you'd please state your name.

Sure, yeah, good evening. My name is Brandon Watson with Edge Homes, Vice President of Land Development, also a civil engineer, so don't hold that against me, but happy to answer any questions as I go through a brief presentation here this evening. So just before I connect my computer here, I just want to first of all you guys have a tough job as a planning commission so I appreciate you guys your time this evening and appreciate all you guys do on behalf of the citizens of Midvale City so as Edge Homes I've worked for this company for 13 years and I don't think we've yet to build a home within Midvale City and we're genuinely excited to be here and excited to be able to to build and be part of your community and help your community grow. So we appreciate all that you guys do on behalf of our future buyers. But what I'm gonna present to you tonight, I'll just pull up a concept plan here. Hopefully this works. But as you are all probably very familiar with this area, let's see if this, I see it on, there we go. You're all familiar with this area down by the Zions Bank building off of Bingham Junction Boulevard. This is part of a Superfund site. I always joke around it's a Superfund site because there's a lot that goes into this. And the concept that you guys are gonna see before you this evening is a collaboration of many experts and many individuals that have had a lot of say and a lot of opinions as to how we can make this community something that will work for the site given the historical nature of it. And then secondly, to try to create a community that's not just, well, as I'm often accused that Brother Brigham Young would be very proud of, that it's not just a straight roads and all lot and block type stuff, but let's add some curvature to this community. Let's make this look something unique and something special for this particular site. It has its, challenges, for lack of better words. And we've spent a lot of time and effort. I mean, I bet we're on probably concept 40 or 50 with what you're seeing this evening. Not only what we've shared with city staff, but also internally what we reviewed and what we've reviewed with the master developer. So a lot of time and effort. And really, everybody's opinion has really shaped the the community as you see it right now, and there's a lot of aspects to this that are very strategically there for a reason. But anyway, I just wanna present to you here, obviously this evening, what it is that we're proposing. So we really strongly believe in a community that isn't just one housing type, that presents a lot of different product mixes, and one that provides the ability for people to not only establish their roots in Midvale City, but also to be able to grow within that community. So I'll just start Bingham Junction Boulevard up towards the top of this page, which is actually, north is to the left, so this is on the east side of, or the west side of Bingham Junction Boulevard. We really wanted to be strategic on where we placed specific units along there. Rather than having backyards or having sides of buildings facing that, we wanted to really present that, the fronts of those buildings. And I know that it's really hard to see, I'll get through and I'll show you the elevations that we're proposing along Bingham Junction Boulevard, but there's a large 30 foot buffer between Bingham Junction Boulevard and the fronts of those buildings. And we are proposing, you'll see it later this evening, but we're gonna be presenting a little bit wider trail along Bingham Junction Boulevard, just to kind of connect with the community as a whole. And those are, obviously you guys probably aren't familiar with Edge Homes, but we don't do any for rent product. Everything we do is for sale. All of the units here that you see this evening, with the exception to the condominiums, which are stacked flat units, We'll have two car garages, a full 20 foot driveways that will fit two vehicles. And then we've got obviously guest parking spread throughout our condominiums. We'll all have one car garages and a 20 foot driveway for each of those units. So there really is, and this will be probably one of the most well parked subdivisions I suppose that's out there in the sense that you can fit four vehicles just on your own property per se. And then obviously we've got guest parking spread throughout. So just to give you an idea, there's I think a requirement of 1,400 parking stalls and we're over 2,000 parking stalls throughout this community. So really shouldn't see any issues or hiccups as far as parking goes. I want to bring your attention to the right-hand side of your screen, which is where the clubhouse and pool amenity is. Originally, we thought, oh, centrally located for an amenity like this would be awesome. But if you drive out there on site, and the reason why this is called Vista 270 is you really do have a 270-degree view all the way from the Wasatch Mountains to the Ochre Mountains out to the south. It's a really cool, unique site that just sits out on a peninsula. And, yeah, it would be nice to have units out there with great views, but sometimes those are only enjoyed by those individuals. So we wanted to put our clubhouse and our pool out here on the – kind of the southern edge of the project and really have an area that people can gather and enjoy the views that this project has to offer. So if there's any questions about maybe the strategic location of that, I just wanted to point that out. One other item, we've had 30% landscaping across this whole site. When you drive out there today, obviously you'll see that the sites build up significantly from the historical use of the property. The black bold line that goes around the east, south, and west sides of the property is actually where the top of that fill is placed, and we've set our buildings 70 feet back from that. So there is going to be a large open space area that does add to the additional hillside that's there and strategically placed for a trail system to go throughout and around the whole site itself. But we do have over 30% landscaping on this site, which is pretty significant. I talked about parking and I've got a slide in here. Just from a vehicular standpoint, we are showing in orange here is where we have sidewalks around all of the roadways and trail system throughout. We've got the red, which hopefully none of you are colorblind. If so, this will be a little challenging, but obviously the red is our vehicular circulation. And then we do have a bike path that we are proposing along High Street. along as well as Bingham Junction Blvd. All of these will ultimately tie into the park is that gets brought on board so you know that circulation will will all be very cohesive with that park. You can feel free to stop me if I'm. If you have any questions.

I'm sure we'll have questions, but we'll let you finish. Yeah, sure. You're on a roll here.

So I wanted to show you an idea of what it is that Edge Homes built. So these are our stacked flat condominiums. Again, all for sale units. We don't hold on to any units. We don't rent them. We really do believe strongly in home ownership. And so... What you're seeing here is just kind of a color palette that is consistent across three different product types. So the top two in the middle units are our stacked flat condominiums. Bottom left is a three-story townhome. And then the bottom right is a, we call them our back-to-backs, but it's our Finley plan. And essentially they're a 10-pack townhome. So you got five on each side. They share a back common wall. This is just a little more detail of what those color palettes look like. This is our color palette two. Again, what we're trying to do is incorporate uniqueness in each of the buildings, but also kind of have a core color scheme that goes with all of them. And so we really can use a lot of these color schemes and materials and this, I guess, unique look across all product types that we offer. Just kind of hustle through some of those, but Just some more renderings of what it is that we are intending and planning on building here. Really a good looking product that's received well, and a lot of people enjoy living in them. Here's a rendering of what we envision our clubhouse to look like. This is our clubhouse, and these are renderings of what we've created. I know looking at this, oftentimes people are wondering where this picture was taken, With technology nowadays and AI and whatnot, we can take all of our renderings and we plug them in there. But this is the vision of what we want this to look like. I don't want to just create pretty pictures that aren't going to be what you guys want to see at the end of the day, but here's what our vision is. Just some other amenity areas. So if you look in the bottom right, just on the legend, this just shows you an idea of what we would like to do in some of these areas that perhaps sometimes get overlooked and just become, I guess, mute landscaped areas. We want these to be an amenity of some sort. This is just a little seating area with a little shade structure in it. bring your own meat there for a barbecue. And then yeah, just what we do on some of our alleyways and some of our roadways as far as how we intend those to light up in the evenings. The rest of these are what I would consider boring civil engineering plans, so I'm happy to go through those, but I think for all intents and purposes, hopefully I've given you the vision of what it is we want this community to look like. We're excited and yeah, I'm happy to answer any questions you might have and did bring my team with me if there's any questions. I know, just real quick, one item that will be brought up this evening later on is public and private roadways. It's kind of interesting. This site's 30% open space. We've got 25%-ish is covered by homes and units themselves. And we have 42% or 46% roadway. Kind of intriguing to me how much roadways take up. These are a mixture of public and private roadways. One of the items that you'll be discussing tonight is a private alleyway. So this particular road right here, if you can see my cursor, We have just driveways on the west side of this road. As you go on the other side, we'll eventually have front doors. Those is where people will come. That's where my mom's coming to Sunday dinner. She needs a place to walk. So anyway, we do are proposing a sidewalk on that one side, but don't really see a purpose for a sidewalk on this other side as the front doors face High Street. in that particular location. Obviously this one, a private roadway, but we do have sidewalk on both sides. As we jump to this street, we do have a sidewalk again where front doors are facing. On this side, this is kind of more of the alley side of these condominiums where they're front doors. And there's a common breezeway, but it's intended to face towards Bingham Junction Boulevard. Other than that, all roads will have a sidewalk on both sides. It's just simply this little alley right here and this little alley right here where we won't necessarily have a sidewalk on both sides of the roadway again. We have a hard time sometimes putting, well, we put sidewalks on the driveway side when there's really no need for that because there's no front doors.

Why is there not a sidewalk on the west side of that same?

Right here? There is. I don't think it's highlighted. But yeah, there's a sidewalk park strip on High Street right here. apologize it's not not showing up on there I think it's because we've got again it's hard to see but there's purple a bike bike lane shown there but there it should be highlighted orange oops just like on the other side of High Street yeah there you have it

So one of the things you didn't show was like the phase map. One of your phases shows like a little blue stub down near where the park structure would be and it just seems oddly placed that you wouldn't include it in phase four.

Let me jump to that. That was part of my boring civil engineer plans. We're all about that.

Yeah, so like it's interesting to put that blue stub and not roll it into phase four.

Yeah. I mean, this is informal feedback. You don't have to... Sure, yeah. Yeah, we'll look at that. I'm not completely sure why we have it that way. It might be utility or detention driven, but it's good feedback.

The other thing that I think is interesting here is... like there's ample parking down by the park, but the ingress is a private road. I'm interested in like what the, what or why the decision of not using a public roadway is in that location.

Yeah. You're talking just the north side, this area right here. Yeah.

Yes. Correct.

Yeah. So we do plan on putting a public utility or sorry, a public access easement over the top of this roadway. We don't obviously want to restrict the public from using those stalls. That's why we're putting a giant cluster of parking stalls there. And so we are intending for that to be a public thoroughfare It's just we're calling it a private roadway because we don't have the park strip on this side, which is the alley side to those condo units, and then we have the sidewalk.

I guess one of my concerns here is the HOA being responsible for administering and keeping up that road. Yeah. what is a public access way that likely will get more traffic than others. And so worried about how the people that are paying into the HOA are going to feel about improving a road that's used for public purposes. Sure.

Yeah, that makes sense. I know I lived in Daybreak for a good while. I called it Daybroke when I moved because the HOA just kept escalating. But anyway, That was always a sticking point from the HOA standpoint is there's a lot of public, I guess, amenities, if you want to call it a road, an amenity that's owned and maintained by a homeowners association. That's always a sticking point. Although I will say when my front doorway wasn't plowed, you bet I was on the phone giving a call. So I think from a maintenance standpoint, if there is a snow plow that doesn't hit that roadway, I can guarantee our residents that we'll live here eventually, we'll be on the horn immediately.

I'm more concerned about how the road erodes over time, right, 10, 15 years, and how residents feel about footing the bill to repair it. Yeah, makes sense.

Back to the phased map. Sure.

I guess someone else, I mean, I feel like I've got lots of things to say. Oh, I am nice. She does have lots of things. Within... Phase one, you've labeled some of those private alley versus private street. Can we talk to the difference?

Yeah, just this goes back to the sidewalk on both sides versus sidewalk on one side.

So on the one that you talked about, the sidewalk, the top, the most east side is labeled as a private alley, but it did have sidewalks on both sides.

So let me see if I can zoom in on the escape out of presentation mode here real quick.

Okay.

perhaps this one might show it a little bit better. So we do have the sidewalk that's on the west side of there and no sidewalk on the east side. I think that other exhibit might have shown the sidewalk on that side. But this plan right here is what we're intending to do.

Good QA.

Yeah. Wow. So yeah, that's the difference between a private street and a private alley is simply if there's sidewalk on both sides versus, again, in this situation, we have a front door on the one side and just a driveway on the other.

Yeah, like Midville City Code, the way street is defined would encompass both alley and street. And so it's just an interesting thing to see there.

Don't we do that? Oh, go, Shane.

The one thing that we changed that the amenities need to be developed in the first phase rather than 15 years down the road. And so just wanted to make sure that those amenities, we've had problems in the past where they build phase 10 first, but the amenities are in phase one, and then they get to finally get to phase one, but everybody's paying for amenities that they don't enjoy. For 10 years. For 10 years. And so we've changed our... zoning so that amenities have to be developed at the beginning for everybody's use at the beginning rather than at the end. And so just want to make sure you're aware of that.

Yeah, so I guess food for thought on that. Obviously we're trying to be strategic on where we place the clubhouse and pool area. We do want to get to that as quickly as possible. Sometimes in the past, we've, I guess, capped ourselves on building permits until those amenities are reached. We do want to build, I'm gonna say this red phase here first, just because strategically from an engineering standpoint, I'll just say that we need to build this phase first, and then we do eventually want to get down and build this cyan phase as quickly as possible. So if we need to incorporate that into a development agreement as far as capping us at 50% building permits or whatever that threshold might be before the clubhouse and pool, I think that's probably the main amenity that maybe you're referring to that is of utmost importance to get done sooner than later. We're fine with that. We want it up sooner than later as well.

A couple things I wrote down. You mentioned the parking, and in some with the two-car garages, you would have parking for four vehicles. I will say feedback from Midvale residents, that's not enough. Even though it's to code, even though we can't plan for a Thanksgiving dinner every single day, because I feel like that's what residents are looking for, that their whole family can park and their neighbor's whole family can park. That's not realistic. but just kind of foreshadowing that. We know that that is kind of, it fits within code and is generous with the four, but that is still a contentious issue with Midvale residents.

We probably hear about that almost more than any other single topic.

Yeah, yeah.

We hear about it as well. You see us all laughing.

Yeah, I bring it up because we say four and we go, yes, that's over code, but it's still not... Something, change is hard. Chair Greg Musil. Let's see. I appreciate the thoughtful consideration of when a sidewalk is needed versus not. When it comes to that, I always think of Halloween and if you're able to find the front door. So I appreciate that. I have two more. So my only issue with the clubhouse being kind of off in the peninsula, off to the side, is if there would be any difficulty with people finding it, because it's kind of tucked in the back. But wayfinding and that sort of thing could certainly alleviate that. I like the idea that it's open for everyone, and it's not just a few homes getting the best views. So I do appreciate that. And my last one is maybe reconsidering High Street if you want to keep your signs around because that is the most stolen sign ever.

Oh.

Just putting it out there.

The name of it you're referring to, yeah. Oh, that's funny. Yeah, that's funny. Or monetize it. Yeah.

Right, just stack them up on each other.

I had a question about the street lighting. Could you go to that image that you had shown?

Sure. You're talking our night, this one here?

So is that street lighting going to be on all the time or will the residents be able to turn that on or off?

Yeah, so the ones above our garage, we have them on a photo cell. So yeah, at a certain time during the night or when dust hits, they kick on themselves. We have that above all of our garages.

And then will that be the only street lighting in your community? No. Okay.

No, this is just showing what the homes themselves can produce as far as lighting goes. But yeah, we'll do additional street lighting throughout the community.

The intent was to dark sky compliant, only light, not have street lights, essentially. All street lighting will be provided from the surrounding building.

I got you. OK.

That was the intent. That was the intent of showing this picture, that all street lights, there won't be street lights, but we'll meet the requirements of the photometric plan, light pollution, light illumination, but it will all be met from the building.

Did you catch that for minutes, Elizabeth? Okay, thank you. Do you want his name?

Yes, can I get your name? Yeah, Quinton Elder. Thank you.

Thank you, that'll help her a lot.

I just have one thing. So when we're done with, so we're working on phase one, let's say, and we get done, and then we're going to move to the clubhouse area. Let's say we implement that. How in bleep this out, hell, are those people going to get to the amenities? They're not going to have roads in there.

That quick, right? Oh.

See what I'm saying? So we get phase one and it's gray and then everybody wants to go use the pool. How do they get there?

Yeah. And I think kind of what he thought is like a development agreement on postponing the development of the amenities to coincide with phase four. Did I paraphrase you correctly? Is that correct?

As an example, so yeah, obviously phase one being the red. Right. You know, as we build... you know, whether this is phase two, it looks like to me like the purple seems like the logical phase two and phase three that would potentially bring on this loop going back around there. So there is that road that would come along with all of those units. Perfect.

But in a developer agreement, you could figure out percentages or something like that.

Okay. That was all.

We have to be a little strategic on this. Again, obviously if you drive out to the site today, there's a massive pile of dirt that's out there. There is. Yeah, so we're surcharging the site. And there's a lot of engineering that has to go into the buildings themselves. And that material, we've got to move and let it sit on other parts of the site to surcharge it. And so, unfortunately, we can't just say, okay, here, tomorrow we're going to move to this phase and start building on that, right? We've got to be strategic on how we do it and how we phase the project, and we've got to let it sit for a certain amount of time, do a lot of monitoring that way. So we're planning on doing that, and we're geared up. We've had, I don't know, countless meetings internally to discuss that with our geotech. So we'll be very strategic on how we get to that sooner than later.

Oh, yeah. Oh, Mark. I'm Mark.

I'm Mark with the Gardner Company, and we are kind of like the overall. It's good to see some of you that I've known for years. Mark Murdock, 201 South Main Street. Sorry, Elizabeth, I apologize. That's great. One thing I just wanted to point out is just that the park has always been kind of a topic, if you remember. We actually have set aside the money for the park. It is sitting in escrow waiting to be deployed. So as he was sitting here talking, I was thinking, you know, as these phases come in, we're going to try to get the park in as soon as possible. We have wanted to do it earlier. The only reason why we've held off is like, if you can imagine if we went to install this park, to your point, Councilman or Commissioner Anderson, how in the whatever do you get to it? You know what I mean? So say that this was the first phase, Brandon, we would come and try to install that next to it. And then however it shakes out, as soon as they get to the one close to here, you know, and then I will give Adam and Brandon and Quinton and Dave big kudos because we didn't know how the parking was going to work out, but Edge stepped up to put the parking there. And honestly, it's coming together really great. And they've, I know we always kind of say this, but this is a pretty tricky site and they really have dug in and done a good job. So I'm pretty impressed.

Yeah, I like it. Thank you.

I think just concerns I've had from prior condos is again, just the concern that I've heard is just that phase one is years out before they ever have amenities. The one thing though I think with this is that as they put the park in, there's gonna be some public amenities rather than the private amenities. And so that makes me feel warmer and fuzzier about some amenities rather than waiting. Yeah, it's not an island.

It can share with some other existing infrastructure.

But that's just feedback that I've gotten from prior projects that those amenities took place. a long time to enjoy. Some of them are still ongoing. And some of them, they're still waiting for those amenities.

And I'm sure as a homeowner, that's frustrating that you're paying into a an association for an amenity that's not there. Yeah, a pool fund. Yeah.

Yeah. And no pool. And no pool.

No pool inside. No hole.

Yeah.

I still want restaurants and places over there for everybody, eateries. Yeah.

I mean, I guess that's one other thing. I think when this site was originally envisioned, it was envisioned as commercial. recognizing this as a step away from, I think, what some people that have been close to this project possibly thought it could be at some point. So food for thought there.

Yeah. But yeah.

This is great. Great feedback. We genuinely appreciate it.

Now, will High Street be a public road? Yes. That's the public road. That's what I thought, but okay.

It is high, I mean.

We run in different circles.

Where this isn't open to public hearing, we don't have a motion or anything to close this. So does anyone have anything else they would share?

I appreciate the explanation on the sidewalks versus no sidewalks that, you're putting sidewalks on the doors rather than on the rear of the property where the driveways are, because no one's gonna be walking homes that way. That helps. I appreciate that. Especially on an alley-load product, right?

Yeah. Yeah. My kids' friends always will come through our garage anyway, so I guess maybe...

You shouldn't give them the code.

I know. It's my own fault, right?

I do appreciate your fun layouts, though. I've done some inspections for a bank for Edge Homes, so I got to know them very well. They're fun floor plans.

Thank you.

I don't know if people define floor plans as fun.

I appreciate the looks of your products that you presented. I know there's some developers that it's pretty much stucco box and they're pretty ugly. and pretty bland, and so I appreciate making your products pleasing to the eye rather than cheap.

It reminds me of Hurricane when I've been down and rented a little bit of Hurricane neighborhood down there with the lighting and so forth. It's kind of nice.

Cool. Thank you very much.

Go home now.

Yeah.

Oh, wow.

I'll be here for the next items. More as a listening ear. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you. With the conclusion of that discussion item, we're going to move back to public hearing items. Section six of the agenda, item A, the Gardner Group requests amendment to figures one and two in chapter 17-7-10.12 of the Midvale Municipal Code to eliminate rights of way adjacent to POD1. And Wendland is presenting.

So we've already talked about this at the previous meeting. So part of this is just going to be a review. This is figure one in our code. It shows where the parts are, the different, you could say, maybe sub-phases in the whole area. On the left side are the current project areas. The right side, what's proposed, and Port Eye is the one directly south of the park. And the proposal is to omit that somewhat skinnier right of way between park and Port Eye. So you can see that roughly where the arrow locations are. And then directly south of Pod Eye, that larger street. And so this is, you know, figure one. Figure two adds a little bit to it. Figure two shows how public streets are. Same thing again. Left side, what we currently have in the court. Right side, what's proposed. And here are the locations again. And the right of way on the southern end of Port I is what's called a secondary street. A secondary street is defined by a 61-foot right-of-way, and the image there just shows one half, just so that it's not as cluttered. And it's, I mean, it's really a good-sized public street. It has, you know... A lane, two lanes technically, two bike lanes, a park strip, and a six-foot sidewalk. And so in the context of a somewhat higher density development, this would get used in several ways, cars, bikes. sidewalk maybe for walking, for playing, and so on. So with that in mind, and this isn't new since I presented this last time as well, so as, from my perspective as staff, I've come down as saying that if I screen the proposal against our criteria, that to me it does not hit the threshold for us to recommend approval. And the main reason really is the aspect of connectivity. Connectivity does a lot to the urban fabric. If you look at different cities, when you have smaller blocks, you have more walking. because everything is more permeable. People have an easier time to get from point A to point B, and therefore walking as a mode of travel is easier to accomplish, you could say. And, you know, that same concept sort of feeds through all of these criteria that we have. The, you know, the last number four, obviously there isn't a clerical error or a mistake of fact involved. And number three is, you know, that one can... you know, serve different purposes. But in this case, you know, what we have in the plan is simply what was the intent of the city council at the time this was approved. Of course that, you know, that can change. So that's my... you know, view of that in your behalf, I guess. And so I gave you two motions. A motion to deny would go along with the findings that I have in the staff report. A motion to approve, It's very similar, of course, you just need to come up with a finding that supports taking the road out. And you can also sort of, I guess, engage with the applicant a little bit about that narrower right of way that's shown what the purpose of that could be and does it really have to come out as an example.

Now on that little right of way, what is that? Is it a road? Or is it a path?

Or is it a... That's what we'll ask, yeah.

Yeah, I mean, in a way, our underlying system doesn't inform us of that. You look further north, let's say around pod H and E, the line work there is maybe somewhat inconsistent. And if you look at this, It seems if you read between the lines, the purpose here was to identify the public streets. So the other items that are shown on there just simply aren't as emphasized and also not fleshed out. So do you have any other questions for me? Thank you. Yeah, you're welcome.

All right, would someone representing the applicant like to speak?

Thank you. How do I go back to that?

Remember, as much as we know your name, it'll help for the minutes. Sorry, I was just trying to add. Dave Dennison, Gardner Group, 201 South Main, Salt Lake City. You might be our biggest fan. You come more than anyone. I do come a lot.

Commissioners, it's all very good to see you tonight. Thank you last time for tabling this. I wanna thank the staff. We've spent a lot of time on this as well. And to give you a little, it's kind of interesting as I listened to this, the challenges of staff, developer, the commission, city council, it's a challenge. You've got 120 acres and you're creating a master development plan and you're putting in roads when you really don't know exactly how it's gonna work. And so you're kind of putting in roads and like for example, these drawings are not to scale. The high street right now if we scaled that would be much wider than it really is in real life. And maybe it does need a name change, I don't know. But that other little road, and I tried to explain this last time, it's not a road per se, it's just part of the park trail system. So it's not really necessarily going away, we just thought showing it that way would just simplify it. It's not labeled as a primary, tertiary, secondary road. It's just part of the park and the park is gonna have lot of walking areas and it's gonna all tie into how this works. And when we brought in Edge Homes, That's when we had to start laying out. And like Brandon was saying, they've iterated this 40, 50, 60 times to try to get it. And then you can imagine the difficulty. You know, when Mark was designing this initially, we put in some streets and put in some different things. But now we're really getting down to the nuts and bolts. and we're trying to say, okay, how do we make this work? And then we've got all these rules in our development agreement and over here we've got all these city codes and we're trying to get them all to fit. I was even thinking about the park and the challenges. When we first met, Quinn and Steve Maddox went in and we met with Matt Dahl and the mayor and a few members of staff. And we actually had an iteration where the clubhouse was much further north. And the comments from staff was, why don't you capitalize on those views? Why don't you really use them? And we thought, yeah, that's a great idea. And then now we get into this meeting and suddenly it causes challenges because if you look at the mass amounts of earthwork that has to be done and the earthwork is balanced out with the park, we don't just have a 15 acre park because we want to spend $13.3 million and give the, park to the city. I mean, it's a great amenity to the city, but it's also helping to balance that out. And so you can't just go and build 15 acre park from day one. It's difficult to get to, you don't have the parking, there's all these challenges. And so you start figuring out, okay, it actually makes sense to start building on this north side. So it creates other challenges. So as we've been working through this, we've got all these regulations on both sides and we're trying to balance it. We've really spent a lot of time, you know last time we were talking about the challenges of the different text amendments. Some of them seemed okay, some of them didn't. So what I did is I paid my fee, I've now separated all three of them. So now we can look at them individually and vote on them and this one is primarily just getting rid of that one road because way back when we didn't have the foresight to know exactly where the roads go. But when you look at the large scale master plan, the edge has developed. Most of us are thrilled and delighted that it's turned out so well. I mean, when you look at it, I mean, Mark and I, years ago, we had how many? 2,200 apartments on here. We had taken it into the city staff. It wasn't super exciting. People weren't really excited about it. But now we've got a for sale product, and I think people are really starting to get excited. And you can see the challenges. We're trying to balance and make everything happy. That's kind of a little background for some of you and some of you it's new and I apologize for being a little redundant. So if you have any other questions.

So I mean one of the complexities for this commission is we have to find at least one finding that matches the criteria. Like is there a criteria from those four that you can like put forward to help support why we would approve it? So I think if you click the clicker forward.

That's what I was gonna do.

Yeah.

I mean, staff is awesome. But I have a different opinion on some of these things because I look at that road and it's problematic. It's too close to the light at Ivy. And I mean, it really is. I mean, you talk to traffic engineers and they're always stressed about putting too many intersections too close. We have to have the one down below. And the interesting thing is, is across the street on the other side, we spent how much time changing Sagini, all it was doing was we were moving it and went through these whole text amendments just to change it. And again, it goes back to, we did the best we could. Once we start laying things out and you put buildings there and then you have setbacks and you have all this stuff, it starts to get challenging. But you know, when I look through those, I think we've done a really good job.

Yeah, but to answer your question, I would say probably the most clear one that you could go with, in our opinion, would be that it does promote the general plan. So if you want to go back in time, and I know a lot of you might remember this, but in 2017, we came through. We initially had, if you guys remember, all warehouses. We added residential. We came through with the pod map. You can blame me. I just didn't have the foresight. I will totally fall on the floor and say you can blame me. I just probably should have looked at pod I and J and said, you know, that's a little tight. You look at F and G, there's a little bit more whatever. That doesn't mean one day we won't come and say, oh, my gosh, office buildings are back and we're going to build a big struck thing and we need you to remove that. Like, it might happen. I'm just telling you this is how development goes. But I would say for us, I think it actually promotes a better cohesiveness in the general plan. and the development agreement in the plan. So this is one of three tonight.

I mean, transparent feedback here. I would love to, if that we can find a finding that like, I think I can stand behind.

Let's go back to the findings.

So I guess what I'm saying is like, I wonder if you guys want to workshop this and come with something that. For sure.

Are we on tonight or is this just work session?

I'm sure this is, this is like, yeah, but we can, we can table this for up to 30 days and then you guys can like force it forward. Um, it goes with a recommendation for denial to the city council. Um, if you do that, but, um, you definitely can bring this back. Yeah. So anyone, anyone have other, okay.

Oh, I think you're spot on with that.

I'm going to put my engineer hat on, not my edge homes hat on. I'll take that off and put my engineer hat on.

Well, and I'm just wondering if you want to open the public hearing maybe at this point or something. Oh, there is. I don't know. Yeah, why don't we do that? I don't know if you want.

Dave, we're going to open this up to public hearing, I think. Okay, yeah, state your name again.

Brandon Watson, as a general public, 137.02 South, 200 West, Draper, Utah. Just putting my engineer hat on. I understand the idea of more roadways means more connectivity, more walkability. I totally understand that. But from a health, safety, welfare standpoint, the more intersections you have on such a busy road, like Bingham Junction Boulevard, the less safe that's gonna be. I think, I don't remember who brought it up, but as a traffic engineer, the more intersections you have, the more congestion you have, the more conflicts you have with pedestrians and vehicles. In my three-minute public input, I would just simply say that would be something I would consider as the health, safety, and welfare of those driving along Bingham Junction Boulevard and the amount of intersections coming onto it.

Thank you. No, hey, it's public. Come on up. I mean, you're public as well, so.

Sort of.

Sort of.

Yeah. Depends on the hat he's wearing. Seeing there's no other public comment, and then I pregnant pause from the last meeting. Yeah. Yeah. I move that we close the public hearing portion. I second it.

All in favor?

Aye. Aye.

I would feel more comfortable if we had more details of what is changing. I kind of feel like we're drawing on a napkin still, and I'm not comfortable with a zone change with that kind of information. That's what I have. I think I need more detail of tertiary, secondary, primary, whether it's just a walking path. Just more detail of how.

So, I mean, the code is currently envisioned in a way where it's a secondary road.

Yeah. Yeah. I can put the, do you want the cross sections?

No, no, I understand the cross sections and identifying it. It just, it seems like it's a, oh, we changed our mind and we, I mean, we're with a new developer. I understand that. And so plans change. I think I just need more. Clarity? Clarity, yeah. It still seems kind of up in the air, and it could change again, I guess is my sense. And to Vendelin's point, I don't see it meeting any of these four criteria, as is, as it's been presented.

I mean, it brings up the valid point, health and safety. We don't want... Sure. But we need to be clear about...

That's my concern is just that Bingham Junction is such a busy street and that brings another intersection into that busy road next to a street light. So in my mind, getting rid of it could justify promoting the health and safety of the area. My other thing is that, you know, you look at, is it pod G? You know, you eliminate that road, pod I and J is about as big as pod G. And so what makes the difference that pod G doesn't need a street through the center of it, but pod I and J need a street through the center of it? For connectivity. And maybe that we could use that as a clerical error. I mean, that's kind of, looking at the pods, it's kind of like why is, why doesn't pod G have a road in the center of it? And we don't have an issue with that, but we have an issue with the connectivity with I and J. but we're bringing out another road onto that Bingham Junction, which is gonna be a busier street, and you've got an intersection up at the top and up at the bottom, and then you've got this random road that's gonna just, gonna be trying to cross all those ways. It just seems like it would be better to direct the traffic to the intersections rather than to, create a free willy intersection there.

If the road were to remain the same, that intersection there that we're concerned creates a public safety issue, what's the difference between the northern road over Pod G? It's essentially the same unless there's something different being proposed on that intersection.

I don't understand. I catch what you're saying.

Yeah.

I understand what you're saying. Between F and G. You're just saying, like, if we can, like.

If that's okay, why isn't the other one for public safety?

Yeah, and like I was saying, and I don't want to forecast that we're going to come and change something again, but, like, it is hard. Like, we do our best to create these pods, and for the most part, these pods have more or less stayed the same. You know, this is obviously changing because, in reality, we didn't realize that we would have one group come in like edge to really take these pods. And so it's a great thing though, because then we get a better master plan. You get the curvilinear streets, you get the design, blah, blah, blah. You guys get it. And so our hope is that this is all office buildings up here, right there. And then this is apartments, but we may be coming to you one day and say, Hey, we got to slide that down because we don't have enough distance or, I mean, It's a, Commissioner Snow, it's a good point. Like, we just aren't there yet. And this is always.

The traffic engineer will want to line those roads up, is my guess.

Right there.

That's what they're, yeah, that's what they're going to want to do, almost guaranteed. Like we did right there. Yeah, I think that makes a lot of sense. Yeah, yeah.

Just for. Go ahead. Just for the minutes, I'm Commissioner Brocky. Oh, I'm so sorry. I apologize. They got the wrong name plate in front of you.

Oh, sorry.

Be Dustin for a day. Dustin's fine.

I thought that. I thought, wait a minute. I thought, wait a minute. Yeah, so I apologize. Yeah, when you said it, I was like, oops. That's on us. But we do our best at guessing. Clearly, we don't always get it right. But. Part of the reason too, and I'll stop with this, is just that when we met with Edge, this road actually was a big deal in our contract. And they did want to remove it because it allowed them to design it more freely. And so that's why we're in here. If you want to say why, I think safety is probably the best reason to land on. If you need us to come back and write that in a more elegant way, we can do that. We'll make it easier to... We'll do as you wish.

Well, yeah.

Or try. We'll try to do as you wish. Yeah. I think staff wanted to add something.

Yeah, I think Adam had his hand up.

I just wanted to make a comment that I can see what you're saying and where all of you are going with this, but if you disagree with the staff's recommendation, if you feel that one of the findings should be flipped and reversed, you can do so and make that recommendation. Okay, absolutely. Just so you know. If you feel that... maybe this enhances safety or whatever finding you want. I mean, you can still move that forward. So I just didn't want you to feel like you were confined.

Yeah, no, I think we are searching for one of those that we could change. Thank you, we appreciate that.

Yeah, we're searching and finding.

Making findings.

Because you don't know what's going to be there, what are the densities, what are, what's the vehicular demand, you know.

I'm just going to say it, but as a commissioner, I just need more reason.

So one other thing, maybe if you, Dave, could you flip this back to the criteria? The four X's, I think. Yeah, go the other direction.

That's.

Good arrows.

Five more. We're almost there. Yeah, thank you. Thanks.

So the general plan has objectives, and sometimes They're general, that's why it has that name, I guess. And one can interpret them in different ways. If you feel like this road doesn't have that much of a purpose, let's say, then you could maybe use number two, the purposes outlined in Utah code. the city court has this in it as basically as a screen, so that when we make these types of decisions, that we are for certain that they align with the state law. And the state law has, I'll read you the purposes, or at least some of them, there's a pretty long list. provide for the health, safety, and welfare, promote the, I mean, this is just one, my idea, so take it or leave it. You could say, if you feel like this road really doesn't have a purpose, then why do we put it in place? Why do we spend resources on maintaining it? So to me, that would be, E, for example, secure economy and governmental expenditures. Or it could also be a part of protect the tax base. If we look at our revenues and expenditures, if there's an unnecessary expenditure, then why should we have it?

Could it also be that, to the point made by the civil engineer, and I apologize, I'm not as familiar with you as I am with Dave, that having two intersections at that close of proximity really probably does pose some type of a health risk.

That's what I feel.

Yeah.

I feel the more intersections you have that close together, especially when you have those two intersections which could have lights at them, I don't know if they have lights now, but you could put lights there, it would help. I just think it would be safer and it just seems, and again, for the city to have to maintain that little road, it just seems like a waste of resources and money for the city and I think it's a safer option to remove it. I think number two, it does promote the health and welfare and orderly growth aspects is my opinion.

I think it would have been great if it came in that way. I think we've done a lot of work to make this happen.

I think so.

Yeah. Because if it's promoting safety, I mean, I'm all behind that. Say it. Yeah. I don't want to just make it up to make it fit in the box. That's kind of where my conflict is happening is we're We're making it work for the developer, which is good, we want developed land, but also we need to, we can't do that work for them. Yeah.

So if we do, let's say we do a denial, and then we say come back and give us something that we can go with.

Yeah.

Play us the minutes back, but then that seems a little bit petty. Yeah. You know what I mean?

I know. Cuz we've arrived at this now, why would we wanna come back?

do we know what would be proposed at those intersections, those Ts that?

I think the answer is no at this point. And unfortunately, we don't have the city engineer here. You know, there are all sorts of ways how one can deal with intersections. I mean, this particular street, well, Maybe it could be right in, right out. There could be a median. I don't know. I mean, that's, again, sort of a question on what's the actual demand. I mean, if one wanted sort of a scientific answer to this, you would probably want to get a traffic engineer involved.

Because that's the other consideration is if it's like if they're all lit intersections, that could affect the speed on Bingham Junction, which we already know is out of control. So more intersections may make that more dangerous or less dangerous depending on how that's addressed. So I mean, that is a great point, Commissioner, about what exactly are we talking about? It doesn't seem quite planned out yet.

I'd like to turn it to legal. I believe this is a legislative decision. I just want to make sure we're pursuing this appropriately.

Yeah, that's correct. This is a legislative decision. You do have a lot more discretion as what you can and can't consider with this item. You are just making a recommendation for city council on what you think that they should do. I would say, as Wendland already pointed out, there are several things that you can consider under number two for this state code that things that you can consider, whether you agree that that helps it or doesn't, it's completely up to you and your discretion.

Thank you.

Does that help you?

I mean, I'm pretty helped right now, so. Is there any more discussion to be had on this?

No, we beat it to death. Okay.

Does anyone want to make a motion? I think I spoke my piece. One of three ways?

No. I'm not proposing.

She's gonna propose. Would you advance it to the proposal, the recommendations? Thank you.

So I guess the question is, is do we want to recommend a denial or an approval?

I think make a motion and see if you have a second and then we'll vote.

Yeah, put it out there.

I mean, I'm going to be transparent. I think I could find in favor of the Utah code section as the finding.

That's how I feel. I'll make an approval and hopefully I can, a recommendation and hopefully come up with the finding wording right. I move that we recommend approval of the amendments to figures one and two in chapter 17-7-10.12. of the Midville Municipal Code to eliminate the rights-of-way adjacent to Pod I, as shown in the attached, based on the following findings, that it does promote the safety and welfare of that area.

According to the Utah Code, annotated as referenced in the...

Findings.

Item two of the findings. Item two of the findings. I will second that. Can we get a roll call vote, please?

Chair Edwards.

Yes.

Vice Chair Lidke.

Yes.

Commissioner Anderson. Yes. Commissioner Erickson. Yes. Commissioner Brocky.

No.

The motion passes. Thank you.

Okay, we'll move on to the next item on the agenda. Gardner Group requests amendments to subsection 17-7-10.12.10, subpart D, subpart three, of the Midvale Municipal Code to decrease building separation requirements for four-story buildings from 10 to 20 feet. Wendland is presenting.

From 20 to 10 feet. From 20 to 10. From 20 to 10.

Okay.

Did I say it backwards?

Yeah, you said it backwards. Sorry.

From 20 to 10. That's all right.

There was a word missing in there, so I'll invent the word.

I don't have anything in front of me. QA is strong tonight. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.

Hey, this proposal would be obviously talked about before as well. It's pretty simple. In this chart, The current code says if you have a four-story structure, you need to separate the buildings by 20 feet. The proposal is to cut that in half to 10 feet. And the one, you know, I guess technically speaking difference we have in the application is that the applicant provided this image. you know, there are no dimensions. I suppose it's showing the 10 foot separation and, you know, the applicant. Dave, is it supposed to show 10 feet or 20?

So this was to show, we're not asking, we're asking that three stories approved at 10, we would like it to be a four story also, that the delineation wasn't just the four or five that we moved that one more story. Do you need me to announce my name? Does that help?

Yes, it would be helpful. Thank you.

Quentin Elder with Edge Homes, 13702 South, Draper, Utah, 200 West. Thank you.

Why don't why don't we let why don't we let Wendell and Finn are you are you finished?

So this was added just you know for some visual visualization of what it might look like The you know, obviously a four-story structure is taller than what's shown and Is there a problem with, let's say, fire code, building code? No. That can all be mitigated. I checked with our building official beforehand. That's not a problem. It's purely a decision on is this something that you think is a good idea for a general operations, I guess, of a development like this for usability, aesthetics, and so on. Yeah, our criteria again, I landed on the side of that I don't believe this furthers our code and quality development in this case. And with that, I have that motion. Thank you. You're welcome.

Would the applicant like to add comments?

Thank you. I'm Dave Dennison, 201 South Main, Salt Lake City.

Good to see you all again.

I have, this kind of goes back to what I had before said, which was in the previous.

Would you change the input to what he plugged in? No, it's not you, Dave, it's Juan's gonna change the input. Oh, he has to switch to the HDMI, okay. Thank you.

That's the difference right there. That's a four story. And kind of like what we talked about. Pardon? Much better picture. Yeah. That's the four story. That's the three story. And all we're doing is asking, we can already do a 10 foot up to three story, and we're just asking for the four story. And again, the design that Edge has put forth for the 640 units doesn't actually have one. But what we're doing is we're, again, we're trying to meet all these rules and regulations and plan for the future. And we thought, well, there's really not a whole lot of difference. In fact, both of these buildings are sprinklered in this case, a three and a four story. So there's, you know, there's literally very visual, visually, there's very little difference. And we still, on a five story, would do 20 feet. You know, you can do five story, you just have to have it 20 feet apart. And so we're just trying to, I mean, development is hard, and we're trying to, mitigate some of the issues we might have in four years and not have to come back here again. As much as I would like to, it'd be nice to kind of have some options as we roll forward. So that's kind of how we got to this point on this particular item.

Same question, which of the four criteria do you think that this matches?

I mean, I think, I mean, really, it's kind of like what I said. It doesn't, it's not changing anything for safety. They're both sprinklered. It's not really changing a whole lot aesthetically, you know, and visually. You still have your views. You know, if you look at those, we've tried to make them as realistic as possible with the mountains. You really can't see a whole lot of difference. And again, we've got all these different things which we're trying to, you know, fit all these rules into the box and make it work. And we can see that four or five years down the road, we might want to have an option. And we just don't feel like the four story versus the three story. is a whole lot. We're not changing the five story. We would still make that a 20 foot.

Currently in the master plan that you guys have, that you've presented, is that with the 20-foot widths in place, or would that be with the 10-foot widths in place? I'm just asking if, like, sidewalks will change, parking might go away, or we might gain some parking with these differences?

Yeah, well, a lot of those, I believe, are 10 feet, aren't they?

So I can make comments. Can you go to the...

Which one do you want? Just the overall map here. Say your name.

If you look at the condo building, Quinton Elder. Thank you. That's enough. You got that okay. So the buildings really, when we did this layout, it's the ones around the perimeter that are facing kind of southeast, south, and southwest. Those buildings right now is currently laid out have 10 feet of separation. Every other building has 20 or more. so it was hey in the future if edge has an opportunity say this project is doing really well and we want to add additional units to have more residents to the city these units potentially could increase to a four-story we don't plan for that now it was just hey in the future versus coming back here we're already doing it tonight we thought hey let's add this in here if it's an opportunity currently we don't have a plan for it And we can make any one of those other buildings the four story. But as you can understand, in these areas around the exterior, that's where I think you have a higher potential to sell the homes, better views. So that's where we would prefer to add that. So we saw in the code, this was something that wasn't in there.

Yeah, and keep in mind, we're just changing the text amendment for this Jordan Bluffs area is all we're asking for. And as EDGE did a work session tonight for the Large Scale Master Plan, just if you approve it, you're not approving them to do it in the future regardless. They still would have to come and change their large scale and work with staff. It's not like a carte blanche to just do whatever. There's still a lot of checks and balances in place.

Okay.

Anyone questions for the applicant?

Not at this time.

Okay, thank you. Okay, we'd like to open this up to public hearing or public comment.

Seeing there is no public comment, I move that we close the public comment portion.

Second. All in favor? Aye. Legal, legislative? Thank you. Thank you.

I don't understand the point of it.

Yeah, I'm not inclined to either. I mean, I really don't. I mean, you can put higher density. With no end game. Does it change it for everything? Does it just change it for that? But also, it doesn't support any of the four areas. My concern is that... for the whole area, changing that. What about the places, you know, the four stories that are 20 feet apart and now all of a sudden we're kind of changing the dynamics of the whole thing. And so I just like the idea of a little bit more space and it's not feeling so sardiney as we already start cramming more in. I'm... I don't see the need, I don't like the idea of changing it.

Yeah, I can't justify which of the four criteria I would list as a finding.

I would argue that this makes it less safe, just experientially between those buildings. I would not walk between those buildings during the day, even as it is in the code right now. It's just not a good place to be. And experientially, when you go higher, it amplifies that. So I don't see a reason for this. I'm all for density and creating more housing in Midvale, but I think that this is just a step too far for me.

I kind of agree with what you guys are saying. Yeah. I appreciate the transparency and the explanation.

Absolutely.

Anyone want to make that into a motion?

If you pulled that up on the screen, we could.

Juan's got us. Juan's going to do it. Can you change this back to your input? What am I doing?

You're at the meeting.

That's it, right there. There we go.

I move that we recommend denial of the amendments to subsection 17-7-10.12.10 of the Midvale Municipal Code to decrease building separation requirements for four-story buildings from 20 to 10 feet, based on the finding noted in the staff report.

Second. Roll call vote, please.

Yes. Chair Edwards.

Yes.

Vice Chair Lidke.

Yes.

Commissioner Anderson. Yes. Commissioner Erickson. Yes. Commissioner Brocky.

Yes.

Motion passes.

Thank you. Okay, we'll move to the last public hearing item on the agenda. Gardner Group requests amendments to section 17-7-10.12.5 of the Midvale Municipal Code to add private lane standards. Wendland is presenting. Thank you.

So this amendment in this form is new. So last time, We had a different amendment before you, and as we already heard, they were all wrapped up with each other, so it made it hard to split them apart. And so the proposal now is not to necessarily modify private streets, but to come up with category for private lanes. As a reminder, I had this up last time as well, you know, we just made changes to the private street standard in Title 16 that sort of locked in that we would like to see sidewalks on both sides. So just as background where we as a city where we've come from. Now the language here is, you know, it's, Pretty simple. The applicant proposes a new category, a private lane that is 20 feet wide. It can be used for vehicular access to driveways and or garages. Then it also says additional right-of-way width is required if private lanes will have on-street parking or bike lanes. So there are several things here, I guess in the mechanics of this, that don't quite jive with our code, unfortunately. If you look, that language tracks very closely what our private road improvements section in that same ordinance is. Now, here are some of the difficulties that just come up with the method of implementation here. And that is that we have definitions in our code. They're in a separate section. And one of the definitions is for streets. And the street definition says that a street equals public right of way, highway, avenue, parkway, road, walk, alley, viaduct, and so on. And it also includes lane, which means we sort of have a paradox here. On the one hand, we say, we have a different category that's called private lane, but on the other hand, the code says, oh, but we don't have a different category because a street equals a lane. So it's just, unfortunately, the mechanics of the whole setup. And the whole, there are other problems. one problem is from what I remember last time we dealt with this, the feedback was that this should be, you know, if at all targeted towards the case here, the two streets. Depending on how one reads this, one could come to the conclusion that This lane services, it says, driveways and garages. Well, virtually all the development has driveways and garages. I think the intent was to say that You know, if you have a front door on the other side, then maybe one can dispense with the sidewalk in the rear. But the mechanics of it aren't quite watertight, I believe. So... So I think that's one angle on how to judge this.

One of the things that I was kind of reading on there, there's no sidewalks, but if your front door and the garage and driveway is in the front, then you don't need a sidewalk there. and we would want sidewalks along there. But if it's just an alleyway where it's just garages, no entrances to the homes and stuff, then that, yeah, it kind of makes sense to me to eliminate some sidewalks. But the wording seems to make it a little ambiguous and a little bit. It's a paradox. Yeah, a little bit complicated for the future.

Yeah, so and that's, I think the, you know, from that perspective, I can't say on any of these criteria that it really meets them. It adds confusion to our code. I mean, I think the one perspective would be philosophically, are we okay with this or not? And if we are okay with it, then the applicant maybe the city would have to look deeper and see how can that be implemented and targeted. But the way it is, I can't with a good conscience say it fulfills that purpose. And for that reason, all the criteria really don't check out.

Does this also, narrow the street. I think it was a 30, so it's to 20 feet, right? That's the minimum width.

Yeah. And so 20 feet that, that, that tracks, um, with, um, with our standards. If I go, um, here, So if I go to this, our current private road standards, it says must accommodate the pavement width required by fire code and curb gutter and so on. Fire code and curb gutter, that boils down to a minimum of 20 feet. So that does, you know, that's all right, that aspect of it.

Any other questions for staff?

Not at this time.

Actually, I will leave it on the code language then. That might make it easier.

That's great. Maybe bring the clicker with you.

Pardon me?

Bring the clicker. Oh, okay. Yeah, I will do that.

He who has the remote is so powerful.

Would the applicant like to speak to this agenda item?

Yes. Dave Dennison, 201 South Main, Salt Lake City. I'm just gonna say right off the bat that the Utah State Code section 109A102, this helps to the public welfare and provide for the health, safety, and the community comfort. Because it really is a safety issue when you have kids playing and you've got all these driveways and they see a sidewalk on the other side, they will take that sidewalk. And what we've done is And again, this kind of comes back to how difficult it is to lay this out. Edge has done such a great job. There's 38 acres that they've laid that site out.

I don't know why it's not. Can we change to his PC input again?

Thank you. Thanks. And again, if I may, it's only two of these small little lanes, alleys, whatever we wanna call them. And we actually worked with staff to try to figure this out. We worked with Wendeline and Adam to try to figure this out. And we said, it is gonna be safer and aesthetically pleasing and it conforms with that state code. And the other thing that we did is, as we discussed it, they talked about how Midvale City has plans to widen this walking path along Bingham Junction. And we thought, well, let's get in front of this. And we measured it. And the exact amount of footage that we're taking out, we decided we'd put it right back in and make this 10 feet wide all along that borders so that as Midvale works its way through, it will conform and have a wider path. So it's kind of a horse trade, if you will, of we're still putting in the same amount of square footage, linear footage, however you wanna look at it, but it's allowing us good design, good development, and, again, conforming with the Utah Code Section 10-98102, the public welfare, and we're providing for the health, safety, and community comfort. And we believe that is a huge benefit on both the comfort for future pedestrians to have that 10-foot walkway and for us, for the neighborhood kids to stay off of those driveways and get onto the sidewalk. Thank you.

Anyone have questions for the applicant? Okay, we'll open this up to public hearing.

Seeing there's no public hearing, I make a motion to close the public hearing.

I second it.

All in favor? Aye. I'm not averse to removing sidewalks, but I don't think the language presented does it in a way that I would reasonably vote for it.

Right.

It's the language. I don't like the language. I think whether the intent I think meets the safety and stuff because If you have all these driveways going in and you've got sidewalks going up there and the little kids and people walking by and you're trying to pull in and back out and there's no... That just seems... It's cumbersome for sure. Yeah, it seems like it makes sense to eliminate those sidewalks so that people aren't walking past everybody's driveway and garage. But I think it needs more clarification on... Like I said, if you have... someone's front door and garage and driveway, then you'd wanna sidewalk, but if it's the back of it, then this would fit, but I think it needs clarification.

Yeah, I also think it's paradoxical to the way the city has defined street as well, and that that's gonna require clarification. And so,

I'm not as worried about the semantics of the word definitions. That can be fixed. That can be easily defined. It's just more of thinking about it holistically and how it fits in the code rather than being so specific to a condition, a proposed condition. I think it just needs to be a bit more holistic and thought out.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I would like to see it where it clearly delineates that where the building doesn't have ingress that's not through the garage, that a sidewalk may not be required. Yeah.

Yeah, I agree. I'm not opposed to the intent. I'm not either.

Agreed, agreed.

But it's gotta be, the language has to work, right?

I have a question. Just so that, I guess as staff, so that we know along which lines you are thinking. So in the concept, we have the, you know, the potential lane that's closest to Bingham Junction Boulevard. And that building type, can you describe what that is like? I mean, doesn't that have an entrance door and driveways facing the lane?

Are you referring to the units that front Bingham Junction Boulevard?

Yeah, so that, you know, the plan to call some condos.

Yeah, yeah, so those condos, so yes, they're 10-plex condominiums. There's a breezeway down the middle of it, so you do have the ability to walk, you know, from Bingham Junction Boulevard through the building, essentially. And then, yeah, driveways on the backside of that.

And building ingress is on the Bingham Junction side?

So from an ADA, again, putting my engineer hat back on here, you've got to have two points of ingress and egress to a building. So that's why the breezeway goes all the way through on this class of a building. And so from an ADA standpoint, yes, you will be able to get out to Bingham Junction Boulevard by walking out through that breezeway. And then you'll also be able to get out from an ingress, egress standpoint on the driveway side of it as well.

Through the garage or?

Through the breezeway.

Okay.

Yeah.

So there's this, so the facing the lane, is there no door at all? No door, no. Okay, no door.

Yeah, fire won't allow you to put, to enclose the breezeway portion of that from a safety standpoint.

Okay, I see. Brandon, do you want to just re-highlight what you were just saying?

Oh, yeah. Can you see my cursor there? So yeah, so this sidewalk, if you were living in this unit, you would come down the stairs that are in a common open breezeway, and you could turn and go out to Bingham Junction Boulevard, or you could turn and come out this way to be able to get to your garage.

Okay.

So yeah. The only unit that has direct access into their unit themselves is the middle garage. That's the only one because they're... But it's into the garage, not... Into the garage, yeah.

It's a cool plan. Yeah. Okay.

Yeah, essentially they were, it's a 12-plex unit that we've eliminated two units out of that and turned that into one-car garages. So from a livability standpoint, they live really good. Perfect. Thank you.

Sinan, I don't think I have an issue with that, with the breezeway requiring a sidewalk. There is still just the driveways, and I still think... you know, it's not necessarily a walkway there along those, even though it, you know, where the other one, the other street, you know, the entrance faces one street and then it's just the garage there. But the breezeways doesn't concern me too much that we would want to require, you know, driveways there. I think it fits.

Yeah. Again, where the principal building ingress is not on that side, I could live without a sidewalk and justify it through any number of findings, but I don't think that the proposed amendment does that.

So the wording.

Correct.

I think the wording needs to be more clear. Is there a reason why you worded it this way?

Is there a secret code we don't know about?

No.

You think we could come up with a secret code? Look, we're okay with what you're saying. I think so, too. So if you want to propose it, we're going to. I don't want to put words in your mouth. It's really going to you. But I like exactly what you're saying, Commissioner. Yeah, I think it clarifies and prevents. And if you want to phrase it that way and go with that, we're all thumbs up.

Yeah. I like it. I think a text amendment, I would like to see what it actually says before I would vote to approve it. And so what I would do is I would table this and allow you guys to continue to work with staff in a way that your proposal says something that is functional based on what we're looking for. Is that fair? And can I do that? Okay. Yeah, I think that. Yes, sorry. That's okay. All right.

So I was ready to say yes.

I mean, okay, if you're favorable. Okay, does someone want to make a motion?

I can't know what it is. Oh, we're tabling it? You have the clicker.

Yeah, I have the clicker. This is a lot more convenient now.

So we table or deny?

Table. I make a motion that we table this motion for a later date.

I second it. Does that sound right? Did that sound right?

I mean, you should probably read the whole thing.

I recommend that we table the amendments of section 17-7-10.12.5 of the Midville Municipal Code to add private lane standards based on our discussion tonight. I second it. Roll call vote.

Chair Edwards.

Yes.

Vice Chair Lidke.

Yes.

Commissioner Anderson. Yes. Commissioner Erickson. Yes. Commissioner Brocky.

Yes.

Motion passes.

If you continue to work with staff, I think you guys can get that clarified. Clean that up.

Clean that up. We got a mixed bag tonight.

Yeah.

We had all the different options. It was fun.

Thank you. Thank you. We'll move to the agenda section seven, staff updates, planning department report.

Yes, this is great to have the clicker here.

It's only taken half a year. I'm going to need a meal after this meeting.

So Planning Commission dinner, it's that time of the year. I guess so. It's maybe the easier part is when to do it. It seems we've always, has it always been a Thursday? Seems like it. Typically. Yeah.

I think we try other days, and it doesn't work.

And typically, it's been in September, like after school starts and after Labor Day, just so everyone's back.

I'm good, whatever you guys decide. I'm open.

I've got a pretty full calendar, but I can work around it.

Does anyone have places they would recommend? Food types, even?

That Venezuelan place, Arrampas, is pretty darn good. It's not just in Midvale, though.

I believe they have, if you want to do it somewhere like that, that place, I believe, has a separate room.

Yeah. Oh, yeah? They do. Where is this place?

It's on 7200 on the north side.

It's by the new 711. East of Travis. Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah. Okay.

They have good potato salad.

They have good what? Potato salad. Yeah. The corn pancake thing. Oh, yeah. So good. We can go there.

Okay.

Dates? Not a week that we do this, so like the 17th. The 17th?

Okay, we'll let staff work towards that. And we can also do something like catering at a park. Oh, right. I mean, I know we've used Shane's backyard. We've used Candy's. Candy's. Candy's backyard.

We could go have a pool party at my place. Do you have a clubhouse? Well, I do, but it's a little... Oh, yeah. I'm in it all the time. But you have to come in your swimsuits.

Yeah, we could have.

I say a restaurant because it's easier for everybody.

Yeah, and we don't know the weather.

Make someone else clean up. Yeah. Yeah.

Okay.

Okay.

If someone comes up with a different restaurant, we can try it.

I always liked... Where was... Longhorn. That was good. That was really good.

Should we do that in the winter again? Yeah, the winter is good for that. It's Johnny's favorite.

Can you wait that long, Shane?

Let's try the new one.

The other thing that's over there, too, is the Mexican place that replaced the... Oh, yeah, the new Mexican place there.

That place is good, too.

Oh, I've not been there yet. Let's go.

Let's do it. Yes.

Oh, yeah, yeah. Or the old Chi-Chi's.

Yes, the Chi-Chi's.

It's been many things. Oh, my gosh.

Okay. We'll let staff decide. Yeah, either of those two is great. You can make a final decision.

You've got two choices.

It's right next door. Is it Cafe Vallarta?

Yeah, it's like something Vallarta.

Cafe Vallarta. Yes. Okay.

Yeah. Okay. He's got the accent. You let us know.

Surprise us, but then tell us the address. Yeah. Okay.

And we did say the 17th? Yeah, does that work? 17th of September, right? Yep. And should we bring our spouses? No. Yes. Okay, you can bring a date. I can't leave mine in. Okay. Yeah. Let's talk about APA conference. Yes.

9th and 10th. The APA conference is coming up September 9th and 10th. That's a Wednesday and Thursday. It's a little different than it's been in the past. I don't know if you can read the agenda. It's in the packet as well. There are actually, I think, pretty pertinent sessions on this particular one. If you are interested, let us know.

Do you want me to reply to the email or is this good enough? That's good enough.

I can remember one. I won't be able to make it.

Oh, yeah. Do you? Massive.

I've got something. I can't remember what. It's a busy month for me.

I get paid and I get CDs.

I believe we have three that if Candice can go, that gives us the better rate. Yeah.

I'll take one for the team.

Okay, so there's four of us. Take one for me.

Yeah. We're good friends, like, no? Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.

OK, great. Bring me home some swag.

You love your swag. Shane carries around a little BIAC with him.

And there's another one, the Utah Bike Summit. That's more for like a half day type of thing. Bike Utah, which is the state's main advocacy organization, puts this on pretty much every year. And this year, it's at the Cultural Celebration Center in West Valley.

In where?

West Valley. Oh.

I thought you said death valley.

Convenient for the bikers.

Wow. Is there a hotel there? So anyway, if you're interested in that, just Google it maybe for the session descriptions. But this one, it's already on the 18th, so that's coming up real quick. Oh, yeah. Cool. And that's everything all of us have.

Perfect. I would move that we adjourn the meeting at 7.51 p.m. I second it.

All in favor, aye. Aye. Thank you. Aye, aye, aye, aye, aye, aye, aye.

Look at this cool thing on my phone. So you just play this game. It's like pinball.

They did find the word. Oh, it's a lie.

It's been over. Because I needed more things to win.