Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Recording in progress.

Recording stopped.

Good evening and welcome to the February 5 Planning Commission for Sandy City. We'll do a quick round of introductions of Planning Commission members and then I'll have James Ornson introduce staff.

Cameron Duncan.

Jennifer George.

Dave Bromley. Danny Schoenfeldt.

Ron Mortimer. David Hart. Steve Wrigley.

Thank you. I'm James Sorensen, Community Development Director of Darren Alcorn, the Senior Attorney for the city. Michael Cox, planning director. See we have Thomas Urban with us, senior planner. Melissa Anderson, zoning administrator. And we have Craig Kitterman, who's an alternate to the Planning Commission in the crowd with us tonight as well. And then show over here is planning secretary.

Thanks, thank you. We'll do a quick Pledge of Allegiance and then we'll get into our agenda.

Which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Our first public item tonight is the special exception for restoration on the sensitive overlay with 30% at 9677 South Quail Hill Lane.

Chair, can I recuse myself on this one? Yep, please.

And then Craig Craig Kitterman, one of our alternates, will be sitting in this place for this particular item. Melissa, take it away.

Alright. Thank you very much, chair and planning commission. We have the little clicker here. Yeah. So this is just a proposal to restore a sensitive area. It's a restoration plan with grading and landscape plan, and it's at 9677 South Quail Hill Lane. And so the city had been notified of potential disturbance in areas that were meant to be

with

And

work we're

corresponding pictures show that there had been, like, a retaining wall and grading done in that area. So a citation was issued for for this. And so the property owner has been working with staff and prepared grading plan as well as landscape plans. So this was the plan that was submitted a portion of that area to illustrate how they proposed to remove the retaining wall, regrade it similar to the extent possible as the original conditions, and then to re landscape with they're gonna put down some matting and seeding with native grass seed and then also putting in some some trees. And so we only had a couple recommended modifications to the landscape plan.

One is to add tree protection to preserve the the new scrub oak from any wildlife from consuming them, which they like to do when they're small little trees. And also to arrange the new trees and place them in an air in a way that kind of mimics the natural pattern versus a formal linear equidistance pattern. So that the rest of the conditions are standard. So those two recommendations to the planning commission were added as conditions of approval. And staff recommends that the commission approve the restoration plan with the grading and landscaping.

And

so if you

have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them. The applicant is here, and they can answer any questions too.

So I I just have one question. I noticed that if you go back a click, it says temporary irrigation system. I'm wondering how long that will be there. Because once the trees are planted, they obviously are gonna need water. Mhmm. And how long do we anticipate that they will need water before they are are able to live on their own without being watered?

Right now, we don't have a specific date identified. The plan doesn't have a specific date. It's cited as, you know, to get the vegetation established. I'm not sure if it's wise to add a specific date.

Well, the code only requires temporary irrigation if it's planted during certain times of the year. These are native plant materials that they're placing which don't necessarily need to have irrigation if it's planted in the spring or in the fall when we tend to have a little bit more wet season. Well this winter excluded obviously. So I would say there's normally enough moisture content in the soil that there's enough to get those established in the spring. So having the temporary irrigation system plan for now will help get those roots established.

But it's really if they're not planted during or if they're planted past I think it's April in our code or before October they do require a temporary irrigation system.

Yeah, no I think it's great and I want them to get established. I just don't want them to get partway established than have 108 degree day and have everything die.

Yeah, so

I That's think it's all I'm trying to get to.

Yeah, I would say, I think the developers or the applicants are going to be watching that. It's going to be to their advantage obviously to not have them die once they put them in. They're not going to want that to happen either.

Any other questions? Would the applicant like to come up and any additional information or? None from the applicant Okay this this item has been noticed.

I just have one more comment. There is a condition they've been there that kind of covers that because if the trees die they they have to yeah they have to replace it so it's their best interest to come up with a system that will allow that. Sorry.

Oh, thank you for that. Item has been noticed with the public. Is there anybody here in in the public who would like to speak on this item? Anybody online?

If you're joining us via Zoom webinar and would like to speak to this particular item, please use the raise your hand feature now and we'll address you one at a time. Looks like we have one hand raised. Mister Van Maren, you may unmute yourself and state your name and and address for the record.

Thank you. Good evening. Commissioners and Mike, Steve Van Meren, resident of 1400178 South Bengaluru Parkway. Two things. First one is the landscape map goes down before the seeds.

I like an opinion from the landscapers on the commission. Seems like I would put those seeds in so I have direct contact with the ground before the landscape map goes down. And second, why not apply for a special exception to just grade this whole high grade area over in the subdivision? It's not a running stream. I know it's not natural, but over time, it's probably gonna collapse anyway. Just just an observation. And thank you for your time.

Thank you. Melissa, did you have any anybody else online? I'm sorry.

I'm seeing no other hands raised.

We'll close with the public comment. Melissa, did you want to respond to any of that?

Reiterate what they were again.

It was landscaping and why why the special exception or why wasn't there a special exception to the or applying for a special exception to this overlay areas when I

I think the first one is the seed versus the now I remember the seed versus the netting or whatever. I mean, we're totally relying on professional landscape architect that they're working with. I have no problem the way they're doing that. Okay.

Well then I guess we're good.

And then just to clarify what they're requesting. It's a restoration permit

Okay.

To restore back hillside that was disturbed. It's not a permit or a request to disturb an area that hasn't already been disturbed. So they're they're putting it back as close as as they possibly can to the native condition that they were originally required to protect.

Okay. Thank you for that clarification. With that we'll bring that back to the commission for any further deliberation and action.

Okay.

I make the motion that the Planning Commission grant a special exception to allow restoration of 30% or greater slope in this sensitive area overlay as described in the staff report for the property located at 9677 South Quail Hill Lane based on the following five findings and five conditions. Is there a second? Second.

Craig? Sorry. Who? Craig.

Craig. Craig. Thank you. David Hart? Yes. Craig Kitterman?

Yes.

Dave Bromley?

Yes.

Ron Mortimer?

Yes.

Steve Wrigley?

Yes.

Jennifer George? Yes. Danny Schoenfeld? Yes. This motion carries.

Alright. Thank you. Next agenda item is the Sequoia Cove subdivision special exception and preliminary subdivision review.

I'll introduce this item mister chair. So this is a request by Alec Moffett with Sequoia Development. They're representing the property owner Copper Creek Partners. They are requesting two items tonight. One is the preliminary subdivision review for approval of two special exceptions to create a flag lot and some relief from public road improvements as well as a subdivision of five lots for this property that's located within the R 18 Subdivision. The address of the property is at 1368 East Copper Creek Road and the applicant that I believe is here and can present on his on his request.

You want to just come down and state your name and address for the record? And any

It's Alec Moffett. 9055 South 1300 East Sandy, Utah. We are requesting a five lot subdivision with a flag law as a special exception. In the in the staff report, you can see that they asked for the trees to be protected. We have done a tree study on that. I just wanna let you guys know. The lot was abandoned for many years. It was an eyesore to the community. Our office is actually just behind it. We looked at it for years, and we decided let's just buy and tear it down.

So trying to improve the area, but because of that, a lot of the trees have not been watered in long time. They're in pretty bad shape. The city trees are in the park strip. But the arborist has things with proper pruning and watering through construction that we can maybe keep a few. But right now in the winter, we'll see how they how they go since it hasn't been the the wettest winter.

And with that, in our actual tree report, we have agreed that and state that we will follow city code 2125Dash3. We'll make sure all those trees are protected during construction. So with the lot, we do have the we do have the flag lot. Everything does comply with city code, and this is the most efficient way to reach the density that this infill development offers. We have five lots that all conform to to setbacks square footages.

It's Mister Moffick, could you speak right into one of those mics? Sorry. There's two. One. Okay.

Pick one. Alright. And it's pretty straightforward. So you guys have any questions?

Any questions from the commission? Okay. Thank you.

Well, thank you.

This item has been noticed to the public. Oh, staff. I'm sorry. Sorry, Thomas.

I know we've changed things around a little bit. Okay. So as we've been stated, this is a five lot residential subdivision in the R 18 zone. As of about a year ago, this went through a rezone. It used to be duo zoned as commercial and residential.

We've reviewed several different iterations of this over the last little while, and we do believe this is the most efficient way to subdivide the property. As a part of this five lot subdivision, there was in your staff report, there was two special exceptions referenced. One is the creation of a flag lot as you see here, where you have the staff and the body portion of the flag. The way this is designed, it meets all of our standard requirements. The length of the flag, the square footage of the lot, it does meet those requirements, but it is, in fact, a special exception that does require your review and approval.

There is a reference in the staff report associated with the five foot sidewalk. There was been some discussion with staff since we initially wrote the staff report that and after a visit on-site, the condition of that sidewalk is really bad. They are already dedicating it. Likely, they're gonna end up having to replace that as well. So that second special exception is no longer valid.

And so if you do make a motion on this, there'd be some changes to that language. It we are gonna require that they replace that four foot sidewalk with a full five foot sidewalk. As far as concerning the park strip trees, we do expect them to do the best they can, work with the urban forester, and work with staff. It's obvious by their layout. Certain trees won't make it. But obviously, we do want them to give it their best try and see if we can keep some of those mature trees at the park strip. Any questions for me?

I have

one. So is the sidewalk further south? Four feet or five feet? Four. So we're gonna have a foot and then a jog. Correct. And that's what you want?

Well, that's what the city engineer wants. And I listen.

That is the city standard.

Yeah. It is the standard. So it would be a special exception to seek otherwise. All all of the corners around there do have four foot sidewalks.

Can it be blended?

Well, they usually do a a curve. It's not gonna be a hard job. They never do it that way.

Oh, I wouldn't go to

pass them. I wouldn't either.

Some poor kid on a set of roller skates.

To be clear, on their plans, they show on one page, they show it being replaced. On another, they say retained. I think the reality was intended to be replaced anyway. So there's no need for that.

K. I don't have a problem with them replacing it. I just we ought to be able to

tie it in.

Tie it in. Smooth it properly. Correct.

Not just put an edge where it drops into an abyss.

The the side the side plan shows a tapering from five to four. Yeah. So it's not a hard one. If if it's still a permanent plan.

Okay. Any any other questions?

Okay. Thank you. Thanks.

This item has been noticed to the public. Is there anybody here tonight that would like to speak on in relation to this topic. We'll have you come back up in just a second after the anybody online?

If you are joining us via Zoom webinar and would like to speak to this particular item please use the raise your hand feature now and we'll address you one at a time. I am seeing no hands raised.

Okay, we'll close that to public comment. Thomas did was there some clarification we needed on the sidewalk? Sounds like there were. Yeah, please come back up.

I'll restate my name. Alec Monfitt, 9055 South 1380, Sandy, Utah. I would like to ask for a special exception for the four foot sidewalk. Yes. A lot of it is in bad shape and will be replaced. We want it to look as beautiful as possible. We're building homes that we wanna sell. Curb appeal is a big part of that. So the areas that need to be replaced, we will replace. But the four foot sidewalk, the entire neighborhood, it's an infill development in the residential area.

It's all four foot. And I'm with you guys. A lot of you guys have the same feelings I do. Kinda looks weird having five foot diving into four, especially when it's not really needed. So plus, it just adds more impervious hardscape to to the area. So we wanna keep things as green as possible, keep as many trees as possible. So any help that we can get there would be great. Thank you.

You. Bring that back to the commission for or is there anything else, Thomas, from you?

Well, the code does say that the city engineer has to approve that. So, we might wanna hear from her on her thoughts on the issue.

Well, it to clarify, it's it's to recommend make a recommendation to the Planning Commission. It's ultimately up to the Planning Commission to to determine special exception request such as this. But yes, I I think it would be good to hear from our city engineer.

Please.

Brittany Ward, the applicant is correct. The neighborhood to the east of this development does consist of four foot sidewalks that used to be our old standard. Our new standard is five feet sidewalk. In situations where the existing four foot sidewalk is in great shape and there's no trip hazards on it or anything and it's in, like, maybe just a a single family home subdividing subdividing into two lots and it's within the middle and center of a neighborhood. And both ways along along the street, continue that that four foot sidewalk.

And those types of situations are when times I would consider recommending to leave the four foot sidewalk in place as long as they can protect it during construction. But if at any time it is damaged during construction and they need to replace it, then I do require them to, upgrade that and put in the five foot sidewalk per our standard. In this particular situation development, this is a gateway or entry into the neighborhood. It is on a corner lot where the ADA ramp is in Batshave as well. It's next to a commercial property, so it's not like it's not like a single family home development in the very middle and center center of of a a neighborhood where it would be out of place.

And the sidewalk is in poor condition. It does need to be removed and replaced. And so in this situation, I would require it to be replaced per our city standard to that five feet.

Steve. So I have a question. Does the sidewalk coming from the road from the highway there, do we know how long is that a five foot or is that a four foot?

I think that's four feet as well. If that property were ever to redevelop or subdivide, they would be held to that same five foot standard.

Okay, so it'll go from a four foot to five foot and back to a four foot there.

Would. During construction, our inspectors will address that transition from the five feet to four feet and do it over a gradual line so that it's not an abrupt end. Cost difference difference between four foot and five foot sidewalk is very minimal, especially in this situation where they need to remove all of the sidewalk anyway.

Is it an ADA sort of requirement that they went from four to five or

No. That it's

wide enough to accommodate people or what?

The ADA the 80 the the four foot to five foot standard is ours. When the current ADA ramp at the corner does not meet current ADA standards, so when that gets replaced, it will have to meet those standards as well. There's not even a detectable warning surface on there.

Yeah. Dave? I I just wanted to be clear. I'm not opposed to the five feet. I just don't want an abrupt stop. I wanna blend it. That that's all I was asking. So I was not suggesting to go back to a four foot. I was suggesting that you have a incongruency and that the two should meet rather than having a foot displacement in a jog. That was my concern.

I will make sure that our inspector is do that. K. Thank

you.

Mhmm.

Thomas, is there anything else?

So you're you can go either way with this. I mean, personally, I feel that if you're gonna be replacing all of it, which is what we saw when we went on the site visit, the majority of it's in bad shape, putting the five foot would probably make a lot more sense. It would tie better into the ADA rack that's required at the corner. There would be a transition, we've but done that quite often and done it well. So if you choose to go that direction, then just don't include that language for that special exception. And the first the first Finding. Finding would be deleted. Okay. And that would cause them to have to come into compliance with our current standards. Okay.

Thank you. We'll bring that back to the Commission for further deliberation and action. Is there any feelings on the sidewalk or?

I I like the five foot sidewalk myself and I think staff can transition it just fine whether they extend it from the property to the to the West at four feet and go till they get to a driveway or something like that. They can make a transition. It doesn't have to taper whatever fits appropriately. Appropriately. When you look at the property on the the West South Side, that's all concrete there. They filled in the sidewalk on both sides. So there's I think there's no problem. Problem. Yeah, they can just. Invert your right into there, so I think I support the pipe, but Dave's in favor of. Dave, did you want to say?

Nope, I'm in support that as well and ready for a motion unless there's other.

Any other further conversation? Okay. We've got a motion.

Please go ahead. Okay. Make a motion of the Planning Commission approve a special exception to create one flag lot for the Sequoia Cove subdivision based on the second, third, fourth, and fifth findings detailed in the staff report.

I'll second.

Yes. Cameron Duncan.

Yes.

David Hart.

Yes. Ron Mortimer. Yes.

Steve Rugley.

Yes.

Jennifer George. Yes. Danny Schoenfeld. Yes. This motion that

lot of about the the mature trees and park strip are preserved. Again, think that that is going to be subject to as we even noted out on-site the flag lot. There's going to be one that's healthy, that's gone. So I think that there needs to be some pragmatic approach to wherever the entrance is for the driveways. Not sure what that modifies to number three.

Can that tree be moved? Or is it not worth moving?

I wouldn't worry about that stuff personally.

Just ask.

So are you looking for some clarification language or?

To ensure that all healthy mature trees that do not conflict with future drive approaches? That would be. That make sense?

Wouldn't wouldn't that be built into the preservation plan? That is a kind of get to that point and know where the driveways are going be

at the South Farm Preservation to to ensure that all healthy mature trees in the Park Strip are preserved.

That's in conflict we with got to change three. The

idea behind that is that you would allow us as staff to work with the applicant to preserve as many as possible. And maybe that's what you place in that instead of all as as many as possible because they can place drive approaches in certain locations that could allow for the tree to be preserved. They could also purposely place a drive approach in such a way that it eliminate a tree.

Yeah, got it.

I like that.

Okay, I'll make that adjustment. No,

just get he has a motion needed that motion yet. Is there any discussion further on that?

Go ahead. We need a second.

Yes. I have not yet. Ahead. Okay. I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission determine preliminary subdivision review for the Sequoia Cove Subdivisions located at 1368 East Copper Creek Road is substantially complete based on the three findings and three conditions in the staff report with a modification of the third condition to add that as just a moment.

To state that the applicant work with staff on a tree preservation plan to ensure that as many as possible as many mature healthy trees as possible be retained in the park strips and better preserved.

I'll second that.

Just have a clarification. Did you say working with that?

Sure. That's I thought I heard that.

It says It did say it says we're gonna step. Yes.

Stay working with step. Yeah.

Is there

a second? I'll still send it. Oh, Cameron did. Perfect.

Dave Bromley? Yes. Cameron Duncan?

Yes.

David Hart?

Yes.

Ron Mortimer?

Yes.

Steve Wrigley?

Yes.

Jennifer George? Yes. Danny Schoenfeld? Yes. This motion carries.

Thank you. Alright. Next item on the agenda is the 9272 Office condominium preliminary review. It's on 700 East.

Yes, this item is a office condominium plat request submitted by Brooke Hintz of Alta Commercial. They're representing the property owner Imports LLC. They're requesting this subdivision of a commercial condominium platform an existing office building located at 9272 South 700 East. The request consists of subdividing the interior of the space into 22 separately owned condominium units along with their associated common space. We do have the applicant here and they're able to present on their request.

I can't hear you back here at all. If you would mind.

If you would just speak into one of the two mics

What?

One of the two microphones in front of you. If you could speak into one of them. Just one or the other. Yeah. And then just state your name and address.

I'm just wondering on this property. What is the

I'm sorry, ma'am. What's Ma'am.

Go up with the development of the property.

Are are you

What are you saying? What? What do I need to do?

Hold on.

Am I what? No.

Just a moment. Thank you. Thank you. If you could just pick one of the two mics name and address for the record, please.

Reg Hincy. 7612 Cardiff Circle, Cottonwood Heights, Utah. Yeah. We're the applicant. We've converted the building. We're in process of converting the building. We've been doing this for about twenty years. We've actually done four or five other buildings in Sandy over the years. It's been a few years since we've done some. So, anyway, it's a kind of speech for itself. I don't know if there's any questions or if you don't want want me to kind of explain what happened.

Go ahead.

Oh, anyway. So we're take we we purchased buildings that are that are having a hard time leasing up. They they don't compete well with the new class a buildings around. And we fill a need for people who wanna own their own space. And so we buy a bigger building and we convert it into or cut it up into smaller spaces and make it possible for people to own their own space in a in a condominium type setting and it's worked really well. So, okay. Any

other questions for the applicants? Okay. Thank you. Excuse me Thomas. I'm sorry.

Okay, so this is this building that's commonly known as the Randlife Building. It used to be a a fitness facility. Basically, what they're doing is a change in ownership, not a change in use. There will be no improvements changed on the site. Parking will be jointly owned by all the various tenants.

There's 22 specific units they're subdividing it into. Our our particular review consisted of ensuring that they have reserve funding for building maintenance so that all the all the different tenants, owners, I mean, within the building will have some money just in case there are major issues with the facility and it can be maintained in a in a proper order. And our building officials also reviewed this facility to make sure it meets all basic life safety requirements such as egress and fire safety, and it has passed that review. And then staff will review the bylaws and the recorded plat, which we've done a preliminary view on and find it that meets all of our standards. And we believe we can we can recommend approval of this subdivision.

Steve, did you have a question?

Yeah, I just have a question on parking. Park our parking is not based upon the number of tenants. It's based upon the size of the building, correct? So, it's not going to change as far as parking though Correct.

It's it's by square footage of the office, and it was preliminary approved under the previous site plan. So there's

plenty of parking based upon the square footage even though we're subdividing into 21. Correct.

Okay, yes, thank you. Any other questions? Okay. Thank you. This item has been. Noticed to the public. Is there anybody here that would like to speak to this item?

You wanna tell her she can

come back? I think she's.

While we wait for that.

You wanna see if there any.

On one?

Yes. If there are any participants on the Zoom that would like to speak to this particular item, please use the raise your hand feature now and we'll address you one at a time.

Okay.

We do have one hand raised. Ms. Krishna Athota you may unmute yourself. Please state your name and address for the record please.

Hi. I'm from 9239 Brighton View Drive. I live on the corner of the property and I think Jackie who just came and spoke right now, she's my neighbor. We just wanted to clarify that there's no additional buildings building that will be built on the side of the property or anywhere around. That that that's that's our only concern. You guys can hear me, right? Yes.

Yes, can. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Athota.

Anybody else?

I'm seeing no other hands raised.

Okay we'll go ahead and close that to public comment and bring that back. Thomas do you want to address that question?

Sure. It's just as we stated earlier, there will be no additional structures. There would be no physical changes on the site or physical changes within the building itself. This is literally changing the ownership designations of the space that exists already. So no no additional buildings were gonna be constructed on the property.

Thank you. Okay. We'll bring that back to the commission. Were there any other questions for staff or everybody? Okay. We'll bring that back to staff, excuse me, to the commission for further deliberation action. Any thoughts or want to make a motion or? Not everybody wants.

I'm ready for a motion if you guys are have any comments.

Okay.

I propose the Planning Commission determine that the preliminary view for the 9272 Office Condominiums located at 9272 South 700 East is substantially complete based on the the findings and subject to the conditions listed below findings one through three and conditions one through six. Is there a second?

Second.

Dave. Ron Mortimer?

Yes.

David Hart?

Yes.

Dave Bromley?

Yes.

Cameron Duncan? Yes. Steve Wrigley? Yes. Jennifer George?

Yes.

Danny Schoenfeld?

Yes.

This motion carries.

Thank you and good luck. We have a couple of administrative items to do. We've got the January 15 meeting minutes that we need approval for.

I'll make a motion that we approve them. All in favor. Aye.

Okay, those are approved.

James? I don't have anything additional tonight. Mike, do you have anything that you want to maybe our new employee?

Yeah, I do. I'll let you do that. So this last week we had a retirement gathering and celebration for Doug Wheelwright. His last day was on Monday and we're excited for him and taking that next step in in his life and and fully retiring I believe. Though he did hint at maybe doing some consulting still.

But he completed a very amazing career. He in total had over fifty three years working and planning which is incredible. Fifteen years with Sandy City, thirty years with Salt Lake City and then he also worked I believe with Weaver County and did some private consulting for that portion of that time as well. So we wish him all the best in retirement and we're excited for him and his family. We've been working on replacing Doug and as a development services manager for the last couple months and we're excited to announce that we have made a selection and that employee will be starting on Monday.

Clinton Spencer will be replacing Doug as our development services manager. He comes to us from Harriman City was his last employment but has also worked in Ogden and in Orem in his career. So he's comes with a wealth of knowledge and experience and and we're excited to have him join our team and we'll introduce you to him during our next planning commission meeting. So we're excited for you guys to get to know him and work with him. So yeah, same exciting news for

us. Excellent. Is there anything

else? As far as the future meetings are concerned we will have a meeting on let's see February 19 will be our next meeting. So we will have a meeting that night. We've got at least three items I believe that will be on that agenda right now. Possibly more but but that's what we can anticipate for next week.

Or sorry not next week in two weeks from now. Apologize. Next week by way of note as I mentioned during our executive session we will have a Board of Adjustment meeting this month. There's been a request for an appeal of an alleged error by the Planning Commission on a previous item that we had heard back in November for the Falls Creek Estates subdivision that's located off of Wasatch. So we'll let that process play out but that item is scheduled for next Thursday. We'll report back as to what occurs during that meeting.

Question on not on that issue but on schedule and so forth. Is everybody is that file working now except for with me or is that? Yeah, so Okay, so it's not.

Do we need to find another solution? Google.

Yes. Google works. Yeah.

And until you do that May 7, I'm out.

Okay.

With that, we'll take one last motion.

Motion to adjourn. All in favor?

Aye. We're adjourned. Thank you everybody.