Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Nobody's hearing what we're saying. All right. How about now? I don't know. There's something odd.

I try exiting and rejoining.

Outline that she provided and from a commentary to the outline. So there's clearly the other things that we would like to address or changes to what I put out there as well, but it was basically that.

I mean, if it captures, if it basically summarizes what our discussion was, that would be excellent. Right? For me, it would just be, I would just want to check it with like, with the new code in our system. So it would almost be like, this is what's already in code. Like, or what's allowable from accessory unit. And this is what new code says. Right?

Well, we don't really have for the test. I mean, we have these guest houses, but only on a very large lot. So basically that will be deleted and we're just going to put new text.

I was just going to say there were a few times where we were talking through an item and then step right next step and say, you know, this is what we've got to print out for

existing yeah yeah like you would bring that up so like oh wait well there's a butterfly yeah it was trying to give in terms of just uh like a very hot coverage and how what size those might be just so relevant first yeah and that's how they're already um it's all same things for accessories

So it seems like there already is something. There is, yeah. Yeah, it's just the danger to die. The accessory buildings that I created, there's, I think there's, there are variants of people who make fun of them, but that's not the case. It's for a non-habitable sensor. But 750 square feet, that's bigger than 650. So that would be a place to start.

A 650 is just in relative to the parking requirement. In terms of state law.

Yeah, it's a statewide issue.

Then you have 650 or F2, or if none of it is just one, you can require the parking space. It's up to 650. If it's beyond that, then you can require two parking spaces. but they don't require it to be, you know, at least $650,000. They don't require it in terms of the statewide.

I was born in Brooklyn, so I grew up in a house. I think that concern I had about everybody coming in and popping up with this patch, the way the houses were built, just thought about it back then. you have that one-foot setback for a two-story or an end-foot for a senior school. I mean, there were, I was pretty far from square feet. Is that so correct?

Yeah. Or attach it and make it work that way.

It would be more efficient to attach it. Yeah. And then I average already. Right. Yeah, to be in that position. And then, and I'll print it off for my next meetings, but I have a coworker who wants to put a little line in his back here right before his parents do. And so I kind of thought, well, that's kind of nice to actually see a floor plan in elevation. It's just that sometimes they make this count. But I could print that off as a static visual contest if it's time-stressed. Thanks. piece of, you know, thoughts around what it were. I think that really one of the areas that may be very good, and I should understand this, but it's just the number of people, so it's not certainly good.

Dave, do you want us to print out that and then circulate it around and have a discussion on it?

Yeah, sure.

Sorry. But, you know, I just, Johnny, I mean, My memory of that last meeting is that you really were pretty involved in the meeting part about some things. There might be, and that's why I think it's fitting to be going through something, you know, like that outline, so that we can just really gild on what it is we do for the company and not for it now. And that would be helpful.

Thanks. So we do know what the council thinks, what their opinion is. Do you all know what the council's opinion is? Would we be able to know what that is as we're going through our discussion?

And that will be part of our presentation when we present our recommendation. Because what we're attempting to do is threaten the deal between everybody, right? Because it is true, council has a more conservative approach to this. You, I think, are a little bit more liberal in wanting to allow these and allow a lot more than what the council would want. And I think there's some sentiment to start at a certain point and progressively add more as they get comfortable. I think you're much more comfortable out the gate, so to speak, than I can hear from some people. But as a Planning Commission, you have the prerogative to make your own recommendation that may exceed what our recommendation would be. And then the council can then decide, do they want to go with staff's recommendation, do they like your changes, because ultimately there is a legislative body, they're the ones based on the recommendations from staff, based on the recommendations from you as the planning commission, and then decide how to perform from there.

So I think what Cameron was saying, I think some of the concerns that a lot of people have is that they think this is going to be just . It's going to be just this massive rush. OK, yeah, the ordinance isn't that loud, and we're going to get so many. And so I think it would be great to see more of this stuff here. I think that there was, during our last discussion, staff was also going to look at, basically, a lot of smaller-sized lots within the city. So we say, surely, this is what, on average, we have our cabinets that are out there now with existing policies. Again, if you're looking at a new subdivision, you can actually to have a home and a business cash ADU in a way better manner than an existing home. Like, way better. But the fact matter is, I think there's a lot of fear around it. This is going to go through flood dates. I think what we're missing out of is opportunities to go and find people with the opportunity to stay or come in to get sick. If you have people on either side, are we to come out on the other side and not listen to them, or are we to just come back and say, Some of these, at least in our foundation, we agree on these things. These things we need to agree on. These things would be our next fortification. And these are the far out of the company. So that they don't take a look at where they are. They're way far out of the company. We cordially agree with these. We would think these here are a little bit further outstretched, which we would agree with. And then here, maybe the ideal. We don't have a lot of time. So why don't we just pull up the feedback for this and see if people, poor people, kind of plan on that. Did everybody feel comfortable without all the events in the band? I'll pull it up on the screen here. So A, B, and C underneath, that's your commentary, huh? Yes, so basically I think that, yes.

and i don't and i don't want to put stuff on the spot but it would be helpful to know like for example just just council agreed that it should be policy but that's a lot of these yes sir so like having their recommendation would be helpful yeah the recommendation to us is not allowed we want to go with the state's minimum requirement

That's what makes their decision a lot easier, because if you choose to go with $11,000. Right, right. And there's a lot of good ideas that are now cut out just by the factor. And I think that's a lost-offer point for the community to really gain the benefit. We have a lot of horse property in our neighborhood, but not many horses. So that would be perfect for people. But there just aren't that many 11,000 plus compared to the number of less than that. But if you decide on something like this, would it be wise to say why we feel it's a bad thing? Absolutely. Otherwise, we're just saying. So we've got a list of a lot of our whys.

Yes, with Y. How many ADUs should be allowed on a lot? A, at least two ADUs on a lot? One internal and one detached. I think people would choose. And then B is consider allowing one internal and two detached stories in our report. I will say this one is the one that we have a consensus on. So maybe we'll skip this one.

Well, I would go with A. We always skip B. And my patch A is an internal and an external that we seek to have consensus on. Hold on a second. Hold this through. I'm good with that.

Hold this back. Two A's. Yes, two. Two B's.

We're eliminating, yeah. Yeah, it's three. That'd be three for all of this. So let me see. Are you just going to run this? Okay, yeah. It's great.

Okay, three. So three is your additional parking space. You can apply to pay $138,000. Less than $6,000 is worth it. So what I heard you guys last time was the analysis that Eleanor had prepared on the mapping.

showing where these eligible lots would be and when the transit stations are. It just, there's not a lot of lots that are covered. I mean, if.

So this, I'm probably dropping C. Okay, C just seems like an easy one. Oh, sure. I'm entering. I had success. I think you could add.

It's being considered, but I'm okay with that. So, okay, A through C. Yeah. Three's A through C.

I'm just going to keep going unless I keep going. Keep going. How large should be allowed to use a smaller with a pretty long divot? Consider setting a reasonable percent in relation to having a volume size. Consider establishing an additional size restriction depending on the size of the block coverage. 5. Create new table for DAQs. A. Do not use the existing if such a researcher size table. as this would be too limiting if there are detached structures containing living space or increase the accessory structure size table to something similar to the following. I'll wrap it up for those, but.

So basically, I think that if you're doing livable instead of just these, right now the table on a detached accessory structure is too limiting for going to have the, and so having a different table, not the same,

talking about footprint, not total square footage of the space itself, meaning that within that footprint, you can have more square footage through the basement or second floor, which we don't account for in an accessory building. We only account for the footprint.

Yeah. So does that make sense?

So say, for example, Say you have a 500-square-foot detached accessory building. Within that accessory building, you could have 1,000 square feet with a basement. I agree.

That's helpful. That is helpful. The other aspect that I thought about is if you have a pay zone, if you have a bar in the site, like right now, you're already very, FaceTime is the site of the bar. So I think you need to increase that, have some kind of sub-deal if you are a pay zone and have a bar or whatever. I think you can't, we need to accommodate more of these items that are somewhat easy, but not frivolous. This is pretty standard.

Did these square pictures come from the same?

They came from out of my career.

Okay, so maybe he's even vetted these sizes and vetted that.

Yes. These were just saying, hey, consider something bigger. A way to get bigger that's free. I think they're- Rather than going through a single piece. So if I'm doing a CUP, put parameters around it that allow a reasonable increase beyond that, beyond what our existing CUP allows the increase to be. If it's lowable, it needs to be bigger than what the CUP allows it to be.

And you're also saying on Q here, 5P, that you think that a CUP should also be, there should be a CUP process for increases.

That's what we're talking about right now, yes.

Okay, so I'm so sorry. I didn't actually pressure to know if we all agree then on GLC. Or is it A or B or C, or is it A and B and C?

It's really relevant. It's always on the table. To me, I'm good with opinions. Yeah, I think you can have a table that's 1,000 feet, or a single story, or a 1,600 feet story. I bet you .

We're just, we like all three words to look at their stories. Okay, six, how tall should we allow TAP groups? A, up to two stories, if adhering to the setbacks, they're not getting any setback or pressures, property is resistant to the requirements. B, they can live on.

I think it should actually exist in the house. The house is a lot of storage. A lot of storage. That's really connected.

So let's just, let's go through the rest. These are specific factors.

Reducing some of the troughs.

It could be allowed to be set back to less than two stories. C, do not use the same height limits for a six-story structure at the traditional height. Should be allowed to be used as a standard setting.

Existing accessory structure height is only 15 feet. That's pretty much it.

If you see in some zones, then 20 is the largest.

So it's smaller. So basically, my overall philosophy on this is that just divide by the existing setbacks, unless you're going lower, then, and if you're inside the existing building envelope. But if you're going lower in height, then you could possibly sort of mirror setback. yeah well we aren't safe should we should we wrap this up i'd say five more minutes and then take a break

So we're gonna skip six, number seven, should basements be allowed? I think yes. Do we all agree? Yeah.

Can we use the basements at second? At second, yes. Again, if you just put existing, if that's what the zone, existing zoning. I do like that, the premise of existing zoning.

A best setbacks for the use, A, just use setbacks require setbacks that are different to this property zone just because the home is already been constructed as a home, therefore requiring the DDU to be set back to the 5%?

It's basically just use the existing setbacks for that wall.

Yeah, a setback.

As though it were attached. Is that what you're saying? We're following the setbacks of an accessory building. That would be that.

If you're building a livable unit on that, following the setbacks as though it's the primary loss of pipeline, because that quality goes out of the side yard. I don't think we have any news on that, but I think we have a majority that says, that would say that we don't need the setback. If people have a house to be there, I don't see a problem with allowing the heat. And Mike's concern earlier was that, only if it's because we're talking about that but it could be that's a casino in the front right or or you can just put an additional as long as you're done so yeah i think i'm yeah 80 of lots of the city don't qualify

Where did we roll on that? Sorry. Yeah, I don't know. A, B, C. What else would we decide? Do we need to skip this one?

Let's skip this one, too, and work on the language. I think we're close, but let's not. Okay.

Number nine. Should openings in two contexts be like A, yes, and within the original setbacks associated with the question?

One thing that we didn't talk about is the style. whether it should patch the house or not.

Yeah, OK.

So the latest on that, because there's conflict in state law where they say, well, you cannot regulate any of these design elements as they're stipulated in the state law. However, we can regulate setbacks taking into account a variety of factors. So that's kind of a tool that can be used in terms of a setback. If you're here, then you can have a window there. Anyway, but then later in this but you could require the EADU would be consistently designed of the single family model. It's like, well, wait a minute. So it's a concept and it's from a future program. Okay, but. but we, I don't think we can, because I asked them that, and they didn't give us a straight answer, and I asked them that at the training that was just yesterday, and I asked them the intent of it, because they were saying basically, no, you can't do that, but it says consistency remains high, so, and... i said well then what's the intent of that what they were trying to do was to allow for existing development agreements that had let's say a nice aesthetic theme and to allow those to still remain those development agreements where you can still require that but they are going because if using conflict they're going to go back and address this issue very widely they're going to take out that we will not be able to require the consistency with the design of the house but right now it's you know, it's open.

So if we do do that, if we incorporate design regulations, those may get clawed back. I think it's open to interpretation right now, but it may not be the intent of the legislature to allow that.

We would like it consistently.

In the next legislative session.

We can't dictate primary structure. We've never built something next to it. We want it next. In this case, it would be easy to .

And yeah, a legal approach to that is just using the same language of the state law. And then just administer it. And then if someone gets a roof back, we'd say, well, you can tell us. Here's the state law. You tell us what it means, you know?

And so I think we can help answer the question about decks at the house. It doesn't have to be a rooftop deck. They're not that helpful.

So I just put it well below, so there's a notice that says, if allowable, we can still accept it. Is that correct? Yeah.

Whatever the word that states.

Yeah, yeah. We can accept the credit. So if you're a mayor and then knowing that they may change it next year, that's not a problem.

It would be some type of design requirement. So in other words, because we had that discussion that we didn't want to have two stories and other stuff, that this stuff we can look at here when we're facing outward. Facing outward, that if we did it and then facing inward, it would be quite a story.

But we are going to talk again at the next presentation, right? And the next session.

We'll have it queued up so that it could be moved forward after our next meeting, should you feel like it's ready. If you're not ready to make it, it will be on the agenda for about a month. And you will then have the opportunity to fully review our proposal and make any changes to it in your deliberation or table it for further consideration if you're not ready for a motion that night.

So we can, so we can see it when we get the packet and then discuss it at the next work session.

And that's what I said. We'll have a work session starting.

My bet is that we're going to want to be in a position where we can build a response crowd to our motion.

And I would say, let's wait until you see the recommendation. You may like it. You may be okay with it.

Right.

All the rest are in the circle.

Thank you.

Hey, Richard.

What's your name? And assistant director. Yes.

We need to start attending those executive sessions, James. It got squirrely. We didn't even touch the trees.

They shut me down.

Wasn't it just the state? They basically stopped and said, we don't want to watch this.

Because there was nothing new in their minds. They just wanted to talk about what they don't want to recommend.

I just wanted to make sure I'm not forgetting.

Yeah. Yeah.

I think we're about ready to get started, okay? Do we need to wait for a recording before we begin? Okay. Okay. All right, well, good afternoon. We welcome you to tonight's Planning Commission meeting. I am the current chair of the Planning Commission, Lynnie Stavenport, and I'm joined by my fellow commissioners. Will each commissioner please introduce themselves, starting with Danny at the end?

Danny Schoenfeld.

Ron Mortimer.

Dave Bromley.

Cameron Duncan.

Steve Rigley.

Great, thank you. We're also joined by city staff members. James, can you please introduce your staff?

Yeah, we're having a little issue with that. Yeah, let's see. You can go The Planning Commission as a reminder the Planning Commission is a non elected body who makes recommendations on land use decisions to the City Council and the mayor

We are also the decision-making body for various land use reviews and applications as required in the Land Development Code. Our duty is to uphold the laws and ordinances as established and adopted by the Sandy City Council. We meet at the call of the chairperson, normally the first and third Wednesday, Thursday, excuse me, of every month at 6.15 here in Sandy City Council Chambers. Our meetings are typically preceded by a field trip of the agenda items and an executive session which consists of training by our staff and legal counsel. These are part of the open meeting, and the public may attend these. The training and the regular portion of the meetings can be attended virtually through Zoom webinar as well. And then with that, we will go ahead and move forward with the Pledge of Allegiance. The camera's going to lead us .. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it

for the clarity and justice for all.

All right. Tonight's planning commission meeting will follow the agenda that has been published. It's made available at the entry to the room and digitally on the city's website. Each item on the agenda will proceed as follows, unless it is on the consent calendar. Mike Wilcox, the Sandy City's planning director, will introduce the item. The project applicant will present the item. Staff will make a presentation. We'll open it up for public comment. We'll close public comment. And then the planning commission will deliberate and then take action. All right. With that said, we will move on to our public hearing and public meeting items. Mike, will you please introduce the first item?

The first item on our agenda is a proposal. Sorry about that. For the 106 church property. This is being presented by Matt Snead of the move group. They're representing the property owners the Mountainside Baptist Church. They're requesting approval for a modified site plan located at 166 East 106 100 South and they're proposing to shrink the size of that parcel and reconfigure some of their parking lot improvements and I believe the applicant is here to present on their request.

Please come to the podium and state your name and address.

MATT SNADE My name is Matt Snade. My address is 5143 South Chinook Way, Murray, Utah. So this project, from my understanding, we're going to talk about the site plan. There's three related items tonight. We'll start with the site plan. So the site plan is a modified site plan for the existing church that is related to the subdivision, which will be next. We are taking the church and basically reformatting the exterior to bring it up to current standards for the landscaping code and parking code and everything like that. The church itself will not really be adjusted or changed very much except for that exterior. And it's basically cleaning up and relaying out the parking lot. The parking ratio will meet the sermon how many patrons are in the church and how much is allowed there as far as what's required for code for the parking ratio. We have a landscape buffer along the exterior of the property as you guys require. We have our ADA spots there. There will be, regarding how this will be split, there's a couple of things as far as utilities will remain the same, but the drainage and grading will change. We also did a geotech report on the property that because It was pretty clear with the current parking lots all cracked and settling that it needs kind of to be redone and also a new layer of foundational base, I forget what it's called exactly, but base gravel put underneath it so that it's more sturdy and steady and doesn't crack down the road. So the entire exterior for the most part will be redone, new irrigation, new asphalt, the landscape up around the edge. and drainage. Right now, currently, it hasn't really been changed for many, many years. This has been existing. But the drainage for this site, we've worked with Mason and the city, and there'll be, I believe most of it will drain to the west, and in that landscape buffer, there's some inlets, and then that will drain to the front of the property where you see that hatched area. And that will be a... a basin that will then release to 106 at the certified CFM that you guys have acquired. So that's all been passed off with Mason in the city. Trying to think of what else high level stuff we need to go over. I think that is most of it. Let me kind of go over my notes here. Yeah, utilities are running power just through the front of the property so that doesn't have to change. For this work, I know that some of the comments and concerns from our meetings and some that have come in is just concerns about construction. The heaviest lift on the construction will be this exterior. There's quite a bit that will be done, but as you will see with the two lots or the gravel area on the west, that's just those two white squares, that's going to act as our staging area for the church. The church will go first, and all the construction and everything will stay off the roads, off 106 and off Hollow Bend. Um, and then we will move on to the house and, and, and utilities for those lots afterwards, um, to stuff those lots so that there'll be pretty minimal disturbance for the neighborhood and the street, um, as, as far as construction is concerned for this. And we intend to start that, you know, pretty much immediately after closing. Um, Yeah, we've got our swift done, so that's all good. So yeah, I think that covers high level. So happy to answer any questions and concerns regarding anything that comes up for you guys.

OK. Oh, go ahead.

So I've noticed there's a dark line here between the houses and the church. Will there be a fence? And what type will that be that will separate these properties?

Yeah, so the plan here is there actually is a pretty good vinyl fence. Everything around this property has been well kept. There's a vinyl fence on Hollow Bend that's on the current property line on the west on Hollow Bend Drive. And the intent is to move that fence to this new property line. And then there'll be new fences for those homes when they're built for those individual home lots. So yes.

Okay, so it'll be a vinyl fence that'll separate the properties then.

Exactly, yep. And that current vinyl fence basically runs the whole 300 feet on that west border. So it'll just move right over.

All right. Seeing no other questions from commissioners, thank you. We will turn it to Sarah Stringham, who is the senior planner for Sandy City. And Sarah, if you can provide some more information on the project.

Um, just a couple of concerns that staff had on this. Um, there's some existing nonconformities on the landscaping on the front and the east side. Um, what they're proposing isn't making anything more nonconforming. So staff has recommended that those, um, landscaping areas will be okay to remain, um, as they are. So is there any other questions on this, on the subdivision or sorry, the site plan? Okay.

No, it doesn't look like it. Thank you. All right. We will open this item for public comment. If anybody from the public wishes to speak to this item, please come to the podium and state your name and address, and you'll have about three minutes. Thank you.

Hey guys. I own the property with my family just to the south.

Sir can you state your name and address for the record please?

My name is Ken Gould 163 East Hall of End Drive. I want to thank you for the communication. Lots of my concerns have been resolved but I do have a couple that I wanted to just double check. First off, I know you've done the study on the widening of the road. You've given an exemption to that for various reasons. One of those being ensuring there's going to be no parking on the street right now. That street is very narrow. And coming into that area would be a concern if you've allowed it. It sounds like you've addressed it. Our concern is not only, I have a concern just if you could address this. The construction and work that'll happen on the church, fine, you got it all staged, great. If you put that fence up on the east side of the new properties, how do we ensure that there's no parking during that construction of the houses that are going on there? Because we're going to have, obviously, lots of stuff that's going on. So I'm just making sure you've taken that into consideration. In addition, that... Property in front of those houses is currently and I'm not on the HOA committee. I'm just I've been there The lots in front of the park strip in front of that is now managed and maintained by the HOA I know there's been I'd say some loose conversation that the developer will meet with the HOA. I just want to make sure that they do get together and there is resolution because I think the plat actually shows that as part of the HOA and at some point in time that may be a concern that should be resolved. And then the last open question that I have is The storm sewer on the west side, a decision was made not to widen the road because of the cost and other things going on, which is fine, but I believe that the HOA is still responsible to maintain that. just from the trees and weeds and stuff like that, if that is incorrect, then ignore what I'm about to say. But if it is the responsibility of the HOA, I'd also like to ensure that the developer gets with the HOA and that's also thought about with these new properties that are going to be there, at least sharing some of that cost.

Okay. Thank you for your comments. I do think... think many of those will be handled at the staff level and not necessarily here through the planning commission. But where appropriate we will make sure that we have staff response. Sarah do you want to do you want to answer some of those.

So a lot of those questions are concerning the subdivision and the special exception, which will be up next. So if we could put, those were all great, and we could put those on hold. Is that?

Yes.

Just put those on hold for a minute. Perfect. Thank you, Sarah.

Okay. Do we have anybody else from the public who would like to speak? Great. Thank you. Just when you get to the podium, state your name and address, please. You'll have about three minutes.

My name is Roger Brown. I live just directly behind it in the cul-de-sac at 10703 South Hollow Cove. I am on the committee for the HOA. From our initial meetings, we've been here a couple of times. The information that I had at that particular time was that the church was willing to assume the responsibility of moving the road three yards to the east to allow for bigger access, larger access, since those homes would be there. Now I don't know where that all got diluted or tossed out or whatever. I don't know how that happened. So I'm still at a little bit of a loss as to In this case, we're saying the church will not have to worry about assuming responsibility for taking a portion of the HOA. And that's what's throwing me off a little bit is that we've been responsible. We take care of it. We had a zero scape. We have, you know, we have it all up there, including the fence. And now there's this idea that we're going to bring these houses in there. We're going to put driveways into it. It'll cover it. It'll go into our HOA space. And I'm not sure, does that mean that they would want to become a part of the HOA? That they'd be required to become a part of the HOA? And our initial assumption was that with all this taking place, that in fact, it might create a situation where we would be doing away with the HOA, which was very happy for most of the people that are in that community of about 150, or not that many. but the houses that surround it. So I'm still at a loss, and so I'm here just trying to better understand how the decision was made not to widen the road, because we're saying if we widened it to the east, then the church would take responsibility for ensuring that road would be widened. if we take it from the west where the drainage is, then I guess the city would assume responsibility since the drainage area is the city's responsibility. And so I'm, I'm kind of torn. I'm going, how is this happening? And does it in fact mean that we will just have to have a narrower road? And if there isn't something, if it's not redlined so that no one can ever park on that piece of strip, that 150 East, which is, again, for those who've been there, it's not a very wide road. So when you pull a car into that, especially when it's close to 106, You know, and somebody's turning in there at night, they could turn right into and hit a car that would be parked right on that corner, even if it was 50 feet in. It just looks like a potential accident waiting to happen. So that's my only hope in sharing my feelings is that you guys know that it's a narrow road. It should be widened. And as for the decisions made as to why it's not going to be widened is throwing me off quite a bit. But, I mean, I welcome the growth, but I'm at a loss as to why the change is taking place the way it has.

Okay. Thank you, sir. Anybody else? Thank you.

Hi, my name is Matt Ahmadi. Address? Yes, please. 11555 South Country Crossing Road, South Jordan. I'm actually one of the pastors of the church, and we have several of our members here. We just wanted to come show support for the sale of the property. We've loved being in this location. I think 30 plus years now, the church has been there. I actually used to live on the property for four years, so it has a soft spot in my heart. But we've just been growing so much as of late and needed to do something else. And selling the property and moving to a mid-vale location with a larger building is going to accommodate our needs but we're very happy with matt's group and the proposal that they have put forward because we feel like it has a minimal impact on the property keeping the church building up and selling it to another church is really exciting for us we have one of our members here who built a lot of the buildings on the property and did a lot of the work and so to be able to sell it to someone who's going to have a minimal impact, and it's going to continue to be utilized is just real exciting. So I just wanted to introduce myself and show support for it.

I appreciate you coming. Thank you so much. It's great. Anybody else in the audience? OK, seeing nobody else in the audience, we will turn it to anybody that's joining us online.

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

Okay. Thank you, sir. All right. Does the Planning Commission want to – do you have any questions on anything that was presented or any of the questions that were asked? Okay. Do we want staff to come back up? Sarah, will you please come back up and address any of the questions that you heard?

I think some of the main concerns were for the subdivision and the special exception that will be handled later. Yes, yeah, so there's any questions specifically regarding the landscaping or the parking Just for that church site nothing to the east of it. That is just this motion is just for those things Thank you for the clarification All right It's the Planning Commission ready to make a motion

I'm good to make a motion. I think that, again, those issues that need to be addressed are in those other two items that are afterwards. So I'll make a motion that the plan commission determine preliminary modified site plan review is complete for this 10600 church located at 166 East, 10600 South, as described in the staff report, and based on the three findings and three conditions that are detailed in the staff report. I'll second that.

Yes Yes All right, thank you so much, okay moving on to maybe the the star of the show at least for this item Is the hollow Bend subdivision the special exception agenda item Mike? Will you please introduce this? I?

Yes thank you Madam Chair. This item is also presented by Matt Snead of the move group who's representing the property owner Mountainside Baptist Church related to the previous item on the agenda. This is to further subdivide the property into four lots one for the church and three residential lots that would front onto Hollow Bend Drive. Along with this, we'll discuss both the subdivision and the proposed special exception. They're requesting to leave the existing improvements along Hollow Bend Drive as is, which would require a special exception to be approved by the Planning Commission. And the applicant is here to present on those two requests. And then Sarah will follow up with our staff recommendation.

All right, thank you. This one will be a little bit more lengthy. I'll try to get through it and stay high level. I didn't mean to disregard or, you know, they wanted me to stick to the certain things as we approach them in the different submittals. So we will answer a lot of those questions. I appreciate it. For the subdivision, the general premises is we're taking this lot in the church. We're subdividing. There's an existing house, the pastor's old house, which will be one lot, and then two new construction lots that will be on the northwest of the property. As part of that, there's a lot of stuff that came up. I'm just going to pull up this page here. All right, so... Basically, this is great. Okay, so we will be taking the current house, and there is a driveway that's accessed through the church property to the east of it right there. Right now, we're going to basically take that existing driveway and garage that's at the south end of that hatched house. That's a shed. There's the house there. The driveway will then come out onto Hollow Bend so that it's not accessing through by way of easement on the other parcel. The two new lots will be designed with, that'll be very conforming to the existing houses that are in the neighborhood behind and the surrounding area. We haven't and won't dictate per se the design of those homes. The end user will probably do that, right? But the base level of what is allowable in that gray area for each lot is the building lot area, the proposed area for the driveways and the curb cuts to go in for those driveways. As part of this, we've basically done a deep dive to most of the sticking point and the comments that have come up. were regarding the previous approval when this HOA was created and how it was designed originally, which was long before we were ever here, right? And in general, from knowing development and just going through this process, any subdivision that comes through has to retain their own water or detain their own water by way of going into storm drain or a detention basin. And that is whether I'm doing a two lot subdivision or a 20 lot or 100 lot subdivision, each of those approvals have their own requirements to meet. And so we're kind of coming in after this was all designed and so this is a good depiction of what the existing is and what we're going to and what's been proposed in our special exception that is alongside with this subdivision and so we we met with the city and all the officials in multiple meetings to basically brainstorm all of the different possible outcomes or solutions for this To address some of the comments before, this existing retention ditch on the left side, it has to be there in some way, shape, or form because that is where all the water is designed for that current HOA to drain and properly not cause floods. We've designed our project to not add to or inhibit or affect any of the current use, and we won't be dumping any of our water into there. So the two new building lots that are there and the home will all retain their drainage on site. That will be buttoned up when the final home that that design will be affected by the end homes and how those are designed and how big they are and the roof lines and all of that. But that will be part of, from what I understand, the final approval that they have to be met with some, I don't know if it's by way of developer agreement, but basically that's held so that we don't dump water into their drainage. As far as addressing to widen it or affect that, there's not a viable way for us or I assume the HOA to do that. And so that's why we've decided to basically propose taking into consideration all the concerns of the neighbors that we propose to make a couple of changes to it, but nothing completely drastic. We are being held to have a one foot dedication on the west property line of our entire property that we have designed into the project. um and then the um let's see the current sidewalk is a five foot sidewalk and an eight foot park strip if we were to follow the city guidelines to reduce that or yeah from downsize the park strip, all those trees would then also have to come out as well. The main concern from the neighbors was the drainage ditch. And although we brainstormed on how that could possibly happen, it's not really viable to get rid of that because the water has to go somewhere. And we hired Hales Engineering to do a traffic study to say, OK, with these homes, what difference in impact is going to have on that road? We brought a three-page summary of the chip generation study. And basically, they said there is almost little to no impact. Obviously, there's not no impact. But let's see. They said, where's that number? So they say these new homes and the change of the current home will generate approximately 28 trips on average weekday and four trips during the morning peak hour and four trips during the evening peak hour. So that's their basis for saying that's little to no impact. And so their recommendation was that to leave it as it is and make sure we're not dumping into that. I'm trying to think here. So without getting into... All of the nitty-gritty details of this, this was a summary of the ideas that we came up with the city of how to possibly mitigate these. At the end of the day, all of these options of mitigating and widening the road going west either were not possible because of the feasibility from a cost standpoint and or that there was – it would – actually invite more people to park on the street was kind of the logic here that if we widen our half of it on our side which is our responsibility of the road and move it either three or seven feet that's actually going to end not still meet the city requirements of coming up to the current code which is why we're asking for the exception and a wider road could possibly actually entice people to say, oh, this is wide enough. We're actually going to park here anyways, even though we're not supposed to. And it's still not the full width. And then you'd also have this jog. We don't own the corner home here. So if you see on the second line and third line, whether we widen left or right, or call it east or west, West is not possible because it affects the actual drainage basin and its capacity. Going east, it would have this jog and whether it's at night, that kind of thing, it could pose some issues and also not be pleasant to see. We can't really affect and change that neighbor because that's not our property. With all of these and going through the different options of what's possible, our suggestion and our request here is that we keep the road as it is, we put up multiple no parking signs, and we paint both of the roads, the curbs red. Additionally, the way that we've designed these lots, the shape of the lots, where the curb cuts are, and the anticipated home design will make room for, just like the neighboring homes, three car garages, so that you have plenty of off-street parking. There'll be also three spots in the driveway, and there'll be an RV pad room for an RV pad on the side, which is also additional parking. So for each home, you can see by this parking diagram, we've got seven off-street spots for the two new homes. And because of the existing home and the way it's situated, there would actually be nine off-street. You could actually fit two more. We didn't even diagram those out on the driveway there. So that'd be 11 off-street parking spots for the existing home. So we took into consideration to try and mitigate and promote as much off-street parking as possible because of the concerns that the neighborhood has brought up. Additionally, because we own the church right now and we're doing this process, our suggestion is that put into the agreement that a part of this approval to have a shared parking agreement with the church. It'll be way of... Typically the cities, I think you guys like to see it with a license, a parking licensor permit that the new owner of the church would then take over and inherit and basically create a time schedule that these homes can use the empty parking lot for overflow parking as well so that further mitigates people parking on the street. So that, hopefully I did a pretty good job of how much time we spent addressing as much as we can and mitigating any possibilities. But we all and the city and all the different people that were involved agree that actually keeping it more narrow with the signs and the curb will further mitigate people from actually using that. So that was our solution on the road. If we dive into the subdivision itself, that's pretty straight.

Can I just add something here real quick? Yes. Okay, so one of the things, just for the people that are here listening, so one of the conditions, number four says that no on-street parking is permitted. And signs restricting on-street parking will be erected on both sides, right? So that's one of the conditions that's going to happen, and that will be your responsibility to paint the curbs and install the signs.

Yep. Thank you. Exactly. And one of the comments that was earlier, we're fine to do that. I mean, that's a very simple thing for us to do. We're fine to do that right away so that that's taken care of, and especially through construction, so that any other contractors or anything like that won't be tempted to park on that street. So that can happen immediately just because it's very easy to do. If we get into the subdivision part of it, I can kind of just go over. The two new lots on the northeast, those two, those are basically the R110. They're almost exactly 10,000, just over 10,000 square feet. The existing home is, I think, it's a little small to read, but I think that's around 12,000 and change square feet. So pretty decent lot sizes conforming with the rest of the neighborhood. So regarding utilities, I'll kind of go over that. There is not going to be a ton of construction that has to happen here. The home will be remodeled. There's about 60,000 or so in repairs of the home roof and utilities mainly. There's going to be new utilities that will come off and tee off into the road. That's quick and easy work for the most part, relatively. Currently the sewer line for the home, existing home, it's not exact but on this image where the dotted line is that's about actually that is they've marked it so that is the existing sewer line one more dotted line left yeah just left yep so that's the existing sewer line that we scoped it is in good shape but it obviously cuts across all the new lots so that's for the home that will now be rerun out to the road the water line is the same situation i think that's the other one that you were on on the right that's the water line Yep. So that line has to also be ruined. Those will be abandoned, cut, and then new taps will go in for the existing home. And then it's pretty straightforward for the new building lots. Gas, sewer, power will all come out the front like a typical subdivision and typical home build. So those will all be brand new and stubbed and ready for somebody, whether it's a builder or an end user, to come in and design their home to build there. That's pretty minimal construction. Again, most of the heavy lifting and construction is going to be on the church. And these ones are pretty straightforward.

Will you keep your current comments specific to the special exception?

Yeah. Are we doing just special exception, not subdivision? We're doing both. We're doing both. Okay. All right.

Combined. Okay. Never mind.

Okay. So... As part of the conditions of this, it will be what I've suggested and what we've said, which is the off-street parking spaces, the road dedication on our side of the property to be carried out on the plat, the shared parking agreement, and the no parking signs in red. So that's all stuff that we agreed to and are happy to do. If there's more questions that are more detailed, I'm trying to give it as much as a high summary because we could get into real nitty-gritty, but hopefully that's a good summary if you guys feel that's good. So I'm ready for questions if you have any.

We do have some questions, Danny. Just one general question.

When you're completed, I know that HOA does most of the street maintenance.

How are you going to handle or how are they going to handle street maintenance relative to what this is supposed to be?

Good point. Okay, so a couple of things. I know one of the concerns was street maintenance. The street itself, at least when I look on the plat, and correct me if I'm wrong, is a public street. So that maintenance itself for the street is them. The detention basin is on the plat map, does show it's... because it's dedicated and was dedicated years ago, does show that it's city as well, right? But part of that HOA, we're not part of that HOA because that's its own subdivision, and we're our own subdivision. So as regarding are we joining that HOA, that's not a desire for us and not a requirement for us either. That being said, all of the land that's affronting our properties, our new lots that are now our new frontage, That park strip and the maintenance of those trees, keeping those clean and the watering of those areas will be adopted like any other home where every homeowner, your frontage is your responsibility to maintain. So that will be capped off as far as I believe they're watering it right now. That will be capped off at the end of the property line for them and then the new water service for each new home will be tapped in for their frontage so they sprinkle and keep those maintained. So that is not their concern anymore. As much as in a perfect world whether the city were to take over the retention basin to the west or us take over that's not we're not funding any of that property that's not technically our responsibility and as much as it would be great for the HOA if I was living there I'd want the same thing to go away because it's my understanding is most of their cost has to do with this retention basin but this basin has to exist or else if it goes away and isn't properly upsized or taken care of and buried it the neighborhood would flood, right? So that's part of the original design and is a major, major change that just isn't feasible or our responsibility from what we've discovered and researched. Yeah. Thank you.

Do we have more questions before we turn to staff?

OK. I have a question for you. Has the church taken any consideration that while these houses are being built, that they allow the construction to actually maybe come in through the church and also the construction workers to stay there so they're not parking on the street? And I don't know where they'd park, I guess on 106. But is that going to allow that to happen while these houses are being built?

Yeah, so currently, if you can kind of see from this image, those two new lots of the new construction homes is a gravel parking lot, which are fairly big, 20,000 square feet worth of construction parking and staging. And so there won't be a significant impact in the construction side of it, and they can enter through the church. We don't intend to really, during any construction, impede construction. any of Hollow Bend for that whole time. The only time there'll really be construction is just a stub and they'll just be those four-foot tees that go out to just tap into the existing sewer water and gas. That should be fairly nominal, but the big lift on the construction, yeah, we will access through the church.

From the east side or whatever so you won't have impact upon the road or the HOAs.

How about during the construction of the future homes on those two lots? I think that's going to be probably the bigger impact.

That It's a great question. We are not planning to build the end homes. So those permits in that process of the end user, whether that's a different home builder or an individual, call it homeowner, that plans to build and live in their own property, my understanding is they'll go through the building permit process after they purchase the lot from us. We're just stubbing utilities, so it's a fully stubbed paper lot.

So construction parking for subcontractors to park during the construction of those, is the church going to accommodate that on their property? Can I just comment on that real quickly?

Real quick. So we talked about and you talked about no parking the streets. That's going to happen early and that will include anyone later who is constructing or any site they're going to have to find an area to construct. They will also not be able to park on those streets. If they are signed that way that includes everybody.

And is that going to be a note on the plat as well or is it just going to be a license that is, it seems like it ought to be on the plat because I think a license can not live afterwards.

Yeah, licenses are usually recorded, right, on title.

We can have Sarah address that when she makes her presentation.

Great. Yeah, it's tough because there'll be a new owner. Like we're doing all of this part of it, but even with the church and the new owner, but there's probably also some verbiage we could put into the license regarding, I mean, they'll have the parking agreement of parking during non-church hours, which will apply to construction as well. So that could be a possible solution for that.

All right, thank you so much. I think we'll bring Sarah up. Sarah, if you can please provide us more information about these two items.

Yeah, just a few things. I think Matt did a good job at explaining the special exception requests and kind of the conversations that he's had with the city. With us, our land development code, we do have for the special exception, we have a set of criteria and we did go through those and decide that The majority of those did meet their special exception request Just a few of those the number of houses and the configuration of lots we felt wouldn't make a huge impact to leave the road as is with the pedestrian concerns there is that one side of the sidewalk that it is already finished and Provides safe access down the street the flood control and storm damage as another one of the considerations And kind of discussed that and also public utilities has recommended that they would like to just see that remain as is and not make any changes changes to put in full improvements, sidewalk, and all of that would be pretty extensive. And so public utilities at this time doesn't think that that's necessary. What's there right now is good. And if we need the city engineer to come up, we can also have him come comment on that. So, yes. So those are some of the considerations we felt met. The special exception. And then they did go through... some of those conditions as well that we feel help to mitigate that with the extra off street parking requirements and then the parking agreement that would be recorded would be another mechanism to help that along with the no parking signs. So any other questions about the special exception?

I was going to say on the 20-foot road, that probably was a special exception for the HOA when you put it in there, wasn't it? That there had to be some kind of an exception for the 20-foot road originally?

It must have. I am not exactly sure of all that history. I know the road was built in the early 2000s.

Yeah, because otherwise, that's less than what typically they would have to put in. Correct, yes. And they probably couldn't put that road in there and require that the other property owner gave them more road. More space, correct?

That's possible, yes.

The existing right-of-way is 50 feet wide. The exact configuration of that was reviewed by the Planning Commission and city staff and it was approved at that time. So that existing configuration was reviewed with the Hollow Bend subdivision and approved by the Planning Commission and city at that point in time when it was installed.

Yeah, I was just wondering why it went 20 and it sounds like there was a reason for that 20.

Rather than encroaching upon the church's property to say you need to go over Yeah, and the 50 foot was the minute was our standard instead of our current standard is 52 feet But that existing lane is 50 feet wide So which meets our typical right-of-way width at that point in time when it was developed.

Okay. Thank you

All right, do you have more to present? That's just on the special exception. I don't think I really have anything else to add on the subdivision unless there's any specific questions.

Maybe you could follow up more on the parking agreement and the necessity of that being noted on the plat as well. It seems to me that something like this, if it is a big deal, that it needs to be on the plat so that all owners, future owners, comply.

Yeah, I know. My understanding, I know that there is the parking agreement that is a document that does get recorded as far as being on the plat.

Is that something that if you want that noted on the plot we can have that amended in the condition that that report that also be recorded and noted on the plot beyond just recordation with the county.

All right. Thank you ma'am. Do we have anybody in the public in the audience that would like to speak to this item if so please come to the podium and state your name and address.

Seeing oh we do Know you've already come to the podium, but just state your name and address one more time I just want to know that I've got no issue with that and it's really around the items that I brought up before the only thing You need to speak to the point I still have is still around the requirement of the HOA. And again, Matt has talked to this in the sense that The property in front, you know, the park strip in front of those new lots, which didn't exist before, which is probably why the 50-foot easement was okay or the width of the road was okay because it was never contemplated to have houses there, which, again, is fine. But my question, and maybe you have an answer for this, is right now I believe in the plat of the HOA, that park strip is called out and in the plat of the HOA covered. The idea that I'm going to build these houses, it's there, and not address that is really the only reason I'm saying we should have a conversation, just to make sure. Because if that is still in the HOA property, and I don't expect that they should join at all, but it's going to leave something that's open where 10 years from now when none of us are there, it's going to be in the HOA, which maybe doesn't help anyone. So that was it.

Thank you. Anybody else seeing none Mike do we have anybody online.

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

Okay thank you. With that I will close the public comment period. Does the Planning Commission have any more questions for the applicant or staff when we're ready for a motion?

I just have a comment. I think I agree with Ken that if that landscaping in front has been maintained by the HOA, if they just go in on day one and cut that water off and it takes three or four years or ten years for a house to get built there, then we're going to lose the trees and the landscaping. I don't know that I have a solution for that. It seems like it probably just needs to be addressed and kind of cleaned up so that to its point in another, you know, ten years that people are looking at that saying, well, who really owns this, right?

So my bet is from what it sounds like the city owns that ground but the HOA was required to maintain it.

That's my understanding. Is that correct Sarah?

The park strip and the right-of-way would be technically city-owned.

But maintained by the HOA.

Maintained by the HOA like in a normal house. You have your house and maintain your park strip.

So it is owned by the city even though it was on the plat it shows that that was dedicated and then it would be maintained by the HOA but I do have the same question that Cameron has raised and that is that once the utilities have been stubbed into these new lots and the water has been capped, what ordinances do we have right now that would address the maintenance of the park strip prior to them being assumed by the future owner of a home there? Just basically what do we have that would ensure that that gets maintained, watered, maintained, just like the HOA has been doing?

I don't think he's asking me.

No, I'm asking staff. I'm asking staff.

I am not sure how that works with HOA because normally all of that is privately handled. And so I'm not sure where this HOA or that subdivision has already been created.

My question is what city ordinances would make sure that the owner of this new subdivision will maintain that?

So as part of the conditions of approval of the hollow bend or the crescent hollow subdivision I should say when hollow bend was created part of the condition because they didn't have lots that fronted that street and the detention area that's on the west side was necessitated by the development itself. That's why the HOA was formulated. That's the reason why an HOA exists for that subdivision was to maintain those areas because there weren't other property owners that fronted that street. But that subdivision needed a second point of access. Otherwise it would have been a long one axis subdivision. So this west side was critical for that development to have that secondary access point and to have that storm drainage system. It is owned by the city. The requirement because that road was developed with the rest of that subdivision that's why the HOA exists. The proposal would be that as it was explained by the applicant that upon recordation of this plat Though that frontage on the east side as I'm showing on this diagram the right-hand side of the page That would that park strip and maintenance would be assumed by the property owners that front that street and The HOA would no longer be needed to maintain that east side of the street the HOA would still need to maintain the west side and that storm drainage area and is currently in process and has been doing for the last 20 plus years. You could put in a condition if you wanted to because I think the maintenance of those trees and ensuring that those are watered in the meantime because that's part of the reason to support the request to not change the profile is part of that is to maintain that existing urban frontage and the street trees are part of that. So you could require that the property be subject to creation of a homeowners association for those three lots to maintain that area. so that we ensure that that occurs or they'd have the option I guess if they wanted to, to join the HOA that's to the west of them and to the south of them and then maintain that existing infrastructure as it currently exists. That's another option that they could work out with that HOA if they didn't want to formulate their own.

Thank you Mike for doing the digging on that. That was helpful.

Did that answer your question?

Yeah, we need to address that.

All right. Can we still have the applicant come up to say some more things?

Think having him come up and addressing what he would prefer to do on get like do a separate HOA for his three lots or join From my understanding just doing real estate These new three homes are no different than any other three homes in any neighborhood in the entire valley meaning that almost that red property line is Every property line in every area, you don't actually own typically the park strip, but it's part of city code and maintenance and to maintain that, right? Everybody maintains park strips in front of their property, even if it's not technically on their property. So we're under the assumption of just using that. That's the uniform way of doing it for everything. The chicken and the egg or what you know there there is it's a legitimate concern about the timing of Taking the water off who's paying for it and then switching those lines over to the new thing so that they don't die I think the mechanism in place for my understanding is code that Anyone could call in if your weeds are too tall and you're not maintaining the park strip as properly that could be reported and then code enforcement could handle it but as far as the agreement to be a good neighbor, basically, I would suggest that we just get together and say, okay, let's figure out how much water usage is being used monthly and have a temporary agreement to pay for that water until that rollover is completed. Because there is some lag time between this approval and the plat recordation versus when the actual water lines will be constructed and up and running. And so to have the maintenance of that park strip and also make the trees not die, that would be my idea. Because we don't want a full HOA for just three lots because there's nothing else actually dictating an HOA that wouldn't be desirable for. Then we're just in the situation again like they are rather than just being like a city lot. So my suggestion is we figure out how much we need to pay them monthly until we roll over to the water on our own. That could be a requirement or condition of the approval.

I would be interested in staff's comments on this to see what you guys think as well. I guess my perception on this is that the HOA is there and has been maintaining that, enjoying that they have a more pleasant access into their area that they maintain. that it sounds like city ordinance would not really come into play until you get some future homes that are on there. So you could do a temporary HOA that gets abandoned once you have you know all owners there is a possibility. But I guess I have concerns about the HOA and In this whole aspect of it. So and again it is different in my mind because you're looking for a special exception So that you don't have to do a full road. So I think it's different as far as that goes Yeah, I would totally agree that normally it wouldn't and that's why I was asking other ordinances that would cover it right now Sounds like there's not yeah, it's kind of that gray area, but we want to keep those alive It's beneficial for the resale of those lots and the neighbors and the new homeowners.

So I to pay our fair share until the water lines roll over seems like a very reasonable and something that we'd be happy to do with them. Yeah, and it's crass as well, right? Yeah, because you guys will have to probably modify it.

My problem is you sell one lot, happens to be the one that's on the south side, cut off the water. The trees of the north are outside the lot bed. So you're going to have to do something more than we just suggested. A temporary HOA or something where you're going to have to be responsible for those four trees and the maintenance there until a homeowner builds and then they take possession of it and maintain it. Otherwise, it shouldn't be the HOA's problem anymore. That needs to switch over. It becomes your problem, not theirs. I agree.

So I'd be interested in staff's comments on those thoughts.

Yeah, and I think we can condition it in such a way, right?

Yeah, my suggestion is because it is unique, And also the fact that we have the existing home that's on that south side I think it's lot 4 on the subdivision plot where the existing pastor home will be reoriented and facing to the west. That one will need to have a new water service and that will be live for that existing home. If they didn't want to join the existing HOA they could create their own HOA that would exist up until each of those two other two homes to the north of it were developed and at that point each of them could then take on their own responsibility of that park strip. So that's one way that they could address it. The second option is to leave the existing improvements as is, join the existing HOA and continue that in perpetuity. I think it's up to the property owner to work that out as best that they see fit but at least they have the ability because there will be an active water service for that existing home on the south side regardless. And that's another unique situation that that isn't common in a typical subdivision that we have an existing home that will have a live water meter that could then maintain the existing landscaping and the park strip along that frontage. Yeah. Up until such time as the other two homes are built and occupied.

Yeah. And then at that point they'll cut off at that point and the new home will take over. So I think that's a great idea for the existing home to just basically have that maintenance until they're sold.

So I think they have two options to address that concern which I think is a legitimate concern regarding the maintenance of that park strip in the interim.

Yeah.

I agree.

Great. Good discussion. We ready for a motion yet?

I rarely, as long as Dave addresses those issues, because I think that's critical.

The note on the plat's easy, but how do you word that?

Well, can't we just say something as simple as adding a condition that requires that they work with the developer to create an agreement that we don't have to prescribe what that agreement actually says?

But that the city approves it. That's the note on the plaid. Are you talking about parking or are you talking about water?

The shared parking is a no.

On the water, I think that we had an additional condition that just says that they establish an HOA for the existing three lots or they join the other and that covers both options.

It would be a temporary HOA. That's up to them.

They can keep it or they can kill it. But it has to live through the sale until all three homes have it.

So why can't the developers take over that responsibility until all the homes have it? Because there's no ordinances that...

require that right now we have no ordinances that would basically through the HOA creating he is saying the developer has to take it basically that that is basically what he's saying okay so the developer creates the HOA at this point it would still be controlled by them the HOA yeah okay yeah I mean somebody's owning this property yeah so let me give it a shot yes okay any other discussion before okay

I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission approve the requested special exception for the Hollow Bend subdivision located at 166 East, 10600 South as described in the staff report and based on the two findings as detailed in the staff report as well as the four conditions with a modification to condition number three that a note on the plat is documented associated with this parking agreement in a manner that staff is comfortable with and an additional fifth condition that the developer create either an HOA to cover the three new lots in the subdivision that will maintain the park strip existing park strip along hollow bend drive abutted by these three lots that will last at least through the construction and occupancy of all three lots. Or that the developer subject these three lots to the existing I don't know whatever subdivision that is adjacent sub. Crescent Hollow.

What? Crescent Hollow.

Crescent Hollow HOA. Did that cover it?

I like it I'll second it.

Dave Bromley.

Yes.

Cameron Duncan. Yes. Ron Mortimer. Yes. Daniel Schoenfeld. Yes. Steven Wrigley.

Yes.

Laniece Davenport. Yes. This motion carries.

Now I'll do an easy one. Make a motion that the planning commission determine the preliminary subdivision review for the hollow bend subdivision located at 166 east, 1 to 600 south is substantially complete based on the four findings and four conditions detailed in the staff report. I'll second it.

Yes Yes All right, thank you Okay, we'll move to the next item.

This is item number five for the indigo subdivision special exception review Mike will you please introduce this item?

Thank you Madam Chair. So the next item is a proposed subdivision that has been submitted by Damian Mora of Garbet Homes. They are requesting that this property be further subdivided. It was recently rezoned to the RM 12 zone. They're proposing to develop this into residential single family lots. I believe the applicant is here and can present their request. We're going to hear both the subdivision and special exception at the same time similar to the previous item.

Damian Mora, 371 East, 9,000 South, San Diego, Utah. Thanks, everyone, for your time this evening. Like I said, I'm Damian Mora with Garbell Homes. We are proposing this 20 single-family detached lot subdivision called Indigo. Before I go into what Indigo is, I want to say what it's not. A few years ago, it was rezoned to the RM-12. So what it's not, it's not within the RM-12 We're allowed 12 units to the acre, 20 units or 49 units.

Mr. Mohrer, can you make sure you're speaking right into one of those two?

One of these two, yeah, perfect. Or 49 units using the PUD method. But earlier on with the rezone, the public comment and just we wanted to present the the best product, the best subdivision we could. Those 20, a similar site plan to this, 20 lot detached subdivision was contemplated and as you see here is what we were proposing with Indigo. um it's a tough little site um just with the the the it's it's a single access so there's a special exception uh application for for that um it is uh the the seller when they they uh The seller is the one, I think, that did the rezone. They demoed the building on site. But as you can see, it's surrounded by existing uses, existing subdivision to the east, a church to the west. And that's also the west property line. The line on the left is Midvale City, and then residential on the south side. It is three, three and a half times longer than it is wide. So again, we would have to, part of the subdivision application, the special exceptions was the single access ingress, egress, and then special exception to the public standard of right-of-way, the 52 feet wide. I don't know if it helped me that the previous project was 20 feet wide. We're proposing 27 feet of asphalt, just asphalt, on the project. So I don't know if that was a good or bad segue or, I don't know, maybe no help at all. But anyway, we feel this project, this proposal, balances the needs of the public and presents the most efficient use of the land. Even though we're proposing a private street, it is accessible by the public. We did a lot of back and forths with the staff, just trying to get the best Project proposal forward and I wanted to just present them now just so you're aware of just kind of some of the work that we did we originally proposed Sidewalk only on one side and I think staff felt strongly that we should include it on both sides And and we agreed and so we we show the sidewalk on both sides of that private road all private improvements would be maintained by an HOA that would be created and So that would be maintaining the private road and improvements. And then part of the, because it's a single access, we show a stub road with the potential of future development if we were able to purchase that adjoining property. But we have made some attempts and have not heard back from them. But that was part of the application requirements is to show how we could plausibly develop that adjoining piece and provide a secondary access to the project. Okay, yeah, elevations. These are some elevations we're proposing. Garbet, we pride ourselves in some more modern design, but we do a mix of modern design and also some more traditional looks. But these were some of the elevations we're proposing. All would have a two-car garage that would meet city standards of unobstructed, I believe it's a 20 by 20 feet. And then we would also have a 20-foot garage setback. And then these are the list of the special exception requests. I'm happy to dive into those if you'd like or... happy to answer any questions.

I don't know if there's any other slides.

Is that the last slide?

I think we're good. Are we good on slides? OK. All right, thank you. We'll turn it to staff time. Cash Hansi, will you come please provide the staff presentation on this before we turn it to questions?

Yeah. Thank you, Commission. I just briefly want to talk about we had a great neighborhood meeting this last week with the surrounding neighbors. I think we had four or five show up, but they had some questions about fencing, and we didn't really talk about that in this presentation, so I just wanted to touch on that. This zone does require a fence to be around the property, so there's already an existing fence on the east side there, and I believe the west side, and they're going to replace that with some sort of vinyl fence, I assume. Six foot vinyl fence and and they the applicant said that they'll work with those residents who live up on the East side there to inform them of when they're planning on doing that But besides that They've been great work to work with and we have no concerns with this project moving forward Excellent.

All right. Thank you. That's the scene. Okay, so We will now open this item to the public for public comment. Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak on this item? Yes, please come to the podium and state your name and your address, and you'll have approximately three minutes.

It's Michelle Walker, and it's 8028 South Tap Lane. Um, I appreciate Garbet homes, building detached single family homes. So thank you very, very much. We worked very hard on the other subdivision to make sure that was in place and, and it was, and they're beautiful. I just wondered about the sidewalk because there is an existing sidewalk, but it's very, it's in rough, rough condition. Um, and a tree fell on it. Um, I'm just also in. Not with Garbett Homes, but Sandy. Sandy, come on. I know you have money. We need sidewalks, good sidewalks all the way up. There is a school there, and there are children walking, and there is not sidewalks all the way up 80th South on Sandy's side. Thanks to Garbett Homes, there is now on Midvale's side. So that's my other concern is let's get with it, Sandy, and get a nice sidewalk all the way up on Sandy's side. Thank you.

Yeah. Thank you so much. Anybody else. All right. Mike do we have anybody online.

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

All right. Thank you so much. With that we'll go ahead and close the public comment and turn it back to the Planning Commission for deliberation. Do we have any questions or comments or do we want any questions answered for Cash or the applicant?

I've got a couple of questions actually. So on the What is this one, the subdivision review one? Condition number three talks about signage for no parking. Is that just limited to the Hammerhead area? It's not the whole street, correct?

Well, I was told to be prepared to speak about it. Is there one that – yeah, we would put signage on the Hammerhead.

Right. That is a condition.

I guess my question is, is that –

Is that the whole street? The entire street. That's good. Why? Oh just the hammerhead.

It's within the hammerhead itself.

Okay. I think we need to clarify that on that condition.

Because their width of street is at least 27 feet wide it does allow for on street parking but where it would not allow for any on street parking is within the fire hammerhead turnaround area.

Yes. That makes all the sense in the world. Storage or anything else. Makes all the sense in the world.

Perfect. We're happy to put no parking signage on the hammerhead. And the 27 feet is just asphalt. We also have gutter.

And then Mike can you pull up that site, the plan that shows right there, the detention. Have these already been sized, the detention basins? I mean like particularly the ones that are on the homes on the west side, those are all been sized and know that you can build a home and the detention basins?

Yes, they've all been sized. So the ones on the rear, I guess the bottom and the top of the lots are all retention.

Those are retention. Right. Those are retentions or sized, particularly the ones on the west side of the road where they're a lot tighter. And they can be built to size, and our public works has looked at that and good with that?

Yeah. Yeah, I think they take the whole site, I think, analysis. I think that's what – I don't know if that's what it is. That's the drainage. I think the – I don't know if the color on the top blue takes all the drainage to that top retention. Actually, that would be a detention pond that would detain and then – flow into the city system. And then, you know, the different colors go to the different detentions. But, yeah, the site as a whole, we've analyzed and sized those accordingly to city standard and required detention, retention. Okay.

Any other questions? Any other comments? I guess my one comment would be I do hope that you hear back from the other landowner to allow for a secondary access point. I think that would be a really good thing to have. But other than that, I think we might be ready for a motion from the commission.

I'll make a motion. Let's see. I make a motion that the Planning Commission approve the requested special exceptions described in the staff report for the Indigo subdivision located at 348 East, 8000 South, based on the three findings as outlined in the staff report.

I'll second it.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes. Yes.

Yes. Thank you. One more motion?

Yes, I'd like to make another one. Make the motion of the Planning Commission to determine that preliminary subdivision review is substantially complete for the Indigo subdivision at 340 AD East, 8000 South, based on the five findings and... Seven conditions as outlined in the staff report with an amendment to condition number three that the no parking signs are within the fire truck hammerhead area second Yes

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

Thank you. All right. That ends all of our business for today. Thank you so much. The last item of business is to approve the meeting minutes from June 18th, 2026. Do I have a motion?

I'd like to object to me being the vice chair.

You can't. Too late. You're in.

It's always dangerous to miss a meeting when we're voting for chair and vice chairs.

Can we have an official motion?

Motion to approve minutes from the document.

I think Cameron wants to be chair. Is that what he's saying?

That works for me.

I'm in favor.

All right. All right. I don't think we need a roll call vote for that, right? All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? All right. I call that motion unanimous passing, unanimously. Thank you. All right, with that, James, is there anything that you have for us?

Yeah, just a couple items. First item, we talked a little bit about on the field trip, but I will get you information as soon as I have it. I just wanted to invite you to the pink box grand opening. It's actually a pretty cool event usually. I went to the one down in American Fork just to see how they ran it. So as soon as I get information on it, I'll send it out to you so you can come and kind of see it. But it's kind of the first of its kind in – well, we're second now behind American Fork, but still first in Salt Lake County. But – they do quite a few events and things so it might be fun for you to participate in that. The second item I wanted to discuss is you had your somewhat of a I guess an executive session today as far as talking about ADUs and so forth. I want to address though and make some clarifications to make sure you're completely understanding where and how we run a City initiated code amendment and how we're required to do that So I think it's important for you to understand the process and what we will do on that and what we do Consistently on all them. We have to run them the same obviously because that's the law so when we get a when we get a City initiated like we will run on anything that we initiate or that we're required to initiate We will draft that as staff. We will make a staff recommendation. That staff recommendation will come to the Planning Commission. We'll present that. The Planning Commission will review that recommendation. The Planning Commission, as we go through that, we can discuss it. We can have whatever discussion you want on it. If you agree with all of it, then you vote as a Planning Commission to agree with all of it. If there's parts you don't, You don't have to agree with everything that staff may say. But at that point, you can send or create your own, you know, we don't agree with this. We would like to send this to the city council. So what's important, though, is as you have that discussion, that has to be a discussion that has a majority vote to send to the city council from the planning commission. It can't just be one individual or two sending that. When we send something as a code amendment process, we'll have to have it a majority. So on the things that we agree on in the staff one or disagree on, It'll be whatever you send on, but it will have to be through a majority, obviously, vote from the Planning Commission. That'll go to the City Council. They'll have a staff report. They'll have the Planning Commission's recommendations that may or may not agree with everything that the staff says. That's super common. I mean, when we have code amendments, we may not always agree on everything, and that's what the City Council will look at. They'll make a final decision. But the key point I wanted to make is when you guys... all of you, when you discuss this, you'll discuss it and you'll have to have majority votes on it. And so at points you either agree, you'll agree with us, or points you don't, each one will have to come as a majority vote. If there's personal items that each of you have that you feel stronger about, maybe you, as a planning commission, do not totally agree with what the majority of the planning commission sent on. It's still the voice of one planning commission sends that on through a majority vote. If you want to come and wrap around and come to a city council meeting and speak as an individual, but not for the planning commission, you have every right to do that as well. But my point is it's important to know that if we bring something you don't agree with, yeah, it still goes. We take that, and you'll make your recommendation to the city council as well. But it has to be a majority from the planning commission who will send that on.

I think that we all understood and agreed with that and I think that we were just trying to make sure that we have information soon enough so that if there's anything that we felt like we needed to jointly come to determination on, that we would have the opportunity and ability to do that in a manner that we would be able to understand where we were united or not united and figure that forward.

That's what we were trying to do. Are you recommending possibly this could take two meetings?

That depends on what comes in the order. So we'll just see.

But if, for instance, it did take more than that, there's no reason we couldn't take more time if you needed it. We need to take the time the Planning Commission needs. And I totally agree that you need the time. to decide what your recommendation is and whether you have unanimity or not. But unanimity has to be passed on from the planning commission. Majority has to be passed on. Oh, sorry. Majority has to be passed on from them to the council because that's what we recognize by the council. We totally agree.

Wait, can you just remind me what the majority number is? Four.

Well, it would be four.

Four if there's seven votes.

OK. Or whatever, how many are here. You have to at least have four. So it's based on a quorum?

It's based on your quorum, which is seven. OK. So any motion. So even if there's only five of you that show up, you still have to have four positive votes to move anything forward.

If six show up and it's 3-3, it's denied. Got to have four.

James, do you anticipate having the recommendations out? I know typically you try a week before the next planning commission. Do you anticipate having the report out before, even earlier than that, or are we only going to see it a week before?

We'll have it out as early as we can on Friday the 31st. I can't commit to it any earlier than that but if we do by chance have it drafted and in a form that we can share then we will do so but I I am imagining that we're probably going to need all the time that we can to make sure we have it as tight and as polished as we possibly can. Because it is a complicated code amendment. It's not just a few words and a few lines. It touches in a couple of different sections even. And so it's going to be fairly complex.

Could we get a briefing paper in advance of that then?

It depends how far along we are on it. We don't want to say anything on that that might not match that later on or something. But my point is, though, if you don't feel like you have a ton of time or need more time, we'll take the time in this meeting or a next. You know what I mean? I'm just curious. We'll take the time we need to give the Planning Commission the time to do what you think is the time you need to pass something that you feel comfortable with.

And we don't want to make you feel rushed in any way, except for the fact that we do have a October 1st deadline, that we need to have something in place prior to the state's code going into effect.

And you guys are usually fairly quick and efficient.

And we want to make sure we have equally enough time for the council to deliberate and make their decision prior to that October time frame. I say no more. So we appreciate you taking the time. And I know it's one that people feel very strongly, both in no matter whether they're in support of the concept or not, we do need to adopt something. And so yeah, we'll try to be as thorough as we can. Give us something good then. And hopefully it's something that's great. Hopefully it's something that you feel that could be adopted or with some minor tweaks or changes that could also move forward. But if we need more time, don't feel like you have to adopt anything on that August 6th meeting. We do have a second meeting in August, which would be on the 20th.

But I can't. We won't take it. We need to have it within that August time frame for sure.

Yeah. I wouldn't push it into September because that then doesn't give the council much time for their deliberation and discussion on that as well.

I know they're the boss. We're good. I just didn't. I didn't want to get there.

I think we will too. And I appreciate the input and feedback that we've received thus far from both the council and from U.S. planning commissioners.

Anything else James? I guess I would hope also I think the overall premise in my mind is that we're hoping to provide greater opportunity for existing Senate residents to stay and other ones to be able to come in. And so I'm hoping that this is also understood by the council and that I think what I've heard anyway is that there's some thoughts that it's going to open floodgates by doing this and that because if we're expansive in the way that we do this, it's going to be too much. our existing stock, there's not that many places to build and so we're looking at existing stock. So having homes built, many of these homes built in a manner that preclude likely a detached ADU as one issue and then also cost as another issue, I just don't see that happening. So I just hope that kind of a premise can really be discussed with the council also.

The council has had many discussions on this already and they've been thinking about this for a long time since the general plan process went through. So they have been thinking and I think everybody is agreeing with you on your points. I think it's a matter of how fast we take it and how fast we get it there. You know what I mean. I think there's some that would like to Well, I don't want to open this up to a discussion on this right now, but I think it's a matter of how fast we actually take and how fast the approach moves on it. I think that there's some who would like to go just a little bit slower and see how it works.

When I was a kid, I loved ripping Band-Aids off because I could deal with it rather than let it fester.

Well, there's a difference between planning commission and city council. Okay.

So one quick note of reference as far as you all are concerned. The Utah EPA just published their kind of preliminary conference agenda. It will be held up in Layton at the Davis Conference Center this year September 9th and 10th. They do have a track that's specific for planning commissioners and citizen planners. So city council members or any people that are citizen planners that want to be involved in the urban planning process. There are specific classes that are tailored to you as non-planning professionals. So it's a great opportunity. The city will cover your costs to go if you commit to going. And so if that's something that you're interested in please reach out to me directly and we can get you registered and get that lined up. If you're thinking about it pencil it in on your calendars and let me know so that we can get you registered for that. There was an email that Utah APA also sent out that I'll forward this information to you all regarding this conference as well as some things that they're rolling out. They're doing quarterly planning commissioner chats, group chats essentially, where you all can talk as a forum and a group which I think is an awesome opportunity.

Oh, for some reason it's not sharing. That's weird.

Well, okay I'll just discuss what what's on there. So I'll send this link out to you so that you could join that if you're so interested They'll have different topics and things that you can Talk with your fellow planning commissioners about issues that are happening across the state how other communities are doing that Good opportunity for you to generate new ideas or help other planning commissioners that maybe are newer and can provide some guidance to those other planning commissioners that are serving throughout the state. So anyway I'll forward this information to you all but I just wanted to make sure you were aware of those opportunities. Thank you guys.

And thank you for your efforts and time and this like Mike said this one's going to be a little longer and tougher but I appreciate you hanging in there and just working with us on it. You guys are great. All of you.

Motion to adjourn.

Motion to adjourn. All in favor? Aye. That was a mess. My bad.