Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Just sad face emojis.

Oh, let's see. Who's sharing tonight? Let's see your rice? Yeah. But you tell us when you're ready. We've got maybe, what, half hour discussion? Yeah. Grab it

on. Maybe. Depends on how many questions.

There'll probably be a few. Probably.

Half hour on what's means?

No. No video. Oh. Just just discussion, updates, information. So you tell me when you're ready.

Yeah. I mean, if you're ready to join now, we can end when we're done. Take a take a break?

Yeah. Let's do that.

Recording in progress.

Just returning time over. Yeah.

Darin Darin Alcorn, how's our

training tonight?

So I will just tell Melissa for, like, quick so that I can tell you that visual pain. I just have to remember where I took it. So Sandy City got sued on a land use decision. So we actually had a claim filed in district court as an appeal, and they court. So it was Utah Federal Court.

What was this? It was pretty recently, and it was it was Magna Investment and Development versus Sandy City. For Sandy's City? Yes. And it was for developer who had brought in some information on thirteen hundred East and Seago Lily.

And the if you remember what happened at the beginning was was that they brought in a conditional use application for a project that staff questioned whether or not it was actually an authorized conditional use on the property. Because in order to be able to qualify for a conditional use permit, they had to be proposing a mixed use development. And so the staff did went through some iterations with them trying to get something that the staff agreed was a mixed use development, and they weren't successful in getting any changes. And so the planning commission is authorized under our city ordinances to do an interpretation of the Sandy City code. And so Sandy City staff sent the item to the planning commission to do an interpretation of the Sandy City code, look at the definitions of mixed use development, look at some substantive provisions of the Sandy ZIP code and make a determination and interpretation of whether or not what they were proposing was actually a mixed use development.

And the planning commission determined that it was not a mixed use development under those definitions and so substance provisions. And in order to move on from that decision, they're actually required to use their administrative skill process. And so they did file an administrative appeal to the board of adjustment, and the board of adjustment affirmed the planning commission interpretation. So the board of adjustment agreed with the the findings and the conclusions of the planning commission. And they said that it was not a mixed use development and couldn't qualify as a mixed use.

So the next step in that process after they've exhausted their administrative appeal is that they appeal that to the court. And they had some other federal claims, some due process and constitutional type claims that they added to their appeal. And so they appealed it into the federal district court because a federal court would have the jurisdiction over those constitutional claims. And they received this other land use appeal as an additional claim that is locked in with those settlements. And so the the court had the case, and the we filed Sandy City filed a motion for partial summary judgment.

And pardon? Affirm. So we used Spencer Fain, and our attorney is was Danny She did a fantastic job. And what we filed was basically a motion for partial summary judgment saying that we had five definitions of mixed use development. There was just mixed use development, and then there was mixed use vertical, mixed use horizontal, mixed use Office.

Office and residential. Residential. I think missed use commercial and residential. And we said all of those definitions applied, and we wanted the judge to make a determination that all of those definitions were correctly applied. Other party, Magna Investment, they filed a motion for summary judgment on all of their claims and their attorney's case.

And we went to oral argument, and the judge was very inquisitive. He asked a lot of really on point questions. I thought he did a very good job. Federal courts don't typically do Land Use Law. So I thought he really was very well informed having read all of the pleadings before he went into the oral argument. I thought he asked very intelligent and on point questions. I felt like he really understood Sandy's position. Position, and then he issued the decision. So that's the background. And then I wrote up a summary of the decision.

It was, I think, 37 pages or something. So it's kind of lengthy. And they did go into a lot of detail, but I think I have a pretty good summary of what the decision was based on. And so I will kind of go through that, and then you guys can ask any questions that you have. And, hopefully, I will be able to answer that.

So the code section that the planning commission made, their decision was 21 dash one dash six, and that was what we call the interpretation section that just authorized either the director of the planning commission to do interpretations. And they determined that the project did not meet the definition of mixed use, and they relied upon three different provisions to make that decision. And so one of the things that they relied on was the definitions that I told you. So it was 21 dash 37 dash fourteen ten through 14. So those were all the different definitions of mixed use that I mentioned.

The other support for that decision was Sandy City code section 21 dash 23 dash 24, and that code section is called mixed use development standards. And then the third thing that the planning commission relied on was the definition of neighborhood commercial districts in the CN zone. And that was founded 21 dash four dash 11 subsection six. And not that you guys are gonna remember this, but in case you are watching me and wanting to look them up

If you

want the same, they will. So

then, like I said, for the background, they appealed it to the board of adjustment, and then they appealed it to the federal district court. The board of adjustment agreed to the planning commission. The federal district court disagreed. So the court determined that the planning commission erroneously interpreted Sandy City code, and these were the reasons that they gave. And these are really general overview because there is a very in-depth discussion of the decision.

So on point a, they said there's only one definition of mixed use development that applies. And that was in 21 dash 37 dash 14 subsection 11. So 10 did not apply. Twelve thirteen fourteen did not apply. That was the court's decision.

They also said Sandy City code section 21 dash 23 dash 24 does not apply to a conditional use permit. It only applies to the mixed use itself. So only if it's a project being developed in a mixed use self can you apply twenty one twenty three twenty four. And then they said the definition of the American Commercial District is a preamble and, therefore, is not substantive and cannot be applied as a substantive provision, and that was following Utah case law on preamble and non substantive. The court overturned the board of adjustment decision, and they remanded the matter to the planning commission with instructions to issue a land use decision, specifically to process the application as an application for a mixed use conditional use permit, basically.

The based on that court's instruction, the community development director exercised his interpretation authority and sent a letter to the Magna Investment to let them know that we, based on instruction from the court, were determining that the only definition that was going to be applied was Sandy suit code the subsection 11 that the court said we could apply. And that under that definition, that what they were proposing did meet that definition for a mixed use development. The applicant was invited to contact Sandy's city planning Department when they're ready to proceed with submitting the additional information needed to proceed with processing the conditional use permit. So we have some of the information that's required in our code for insurance permit, But not all of it because we sort of put a pause on the whole process to do the interpretation. And so I I did summarize some of the rationale for the court's decision to kind of try to give you a little bit of an understanding of why they made the decisions that they made.

Under a, when they said that mixed use development was the only definition, they basically said mixed use development had a standalone definition that does not need any interpretation. And what we had argued was that there were sub definitions that were referenced within that broader definition. The court disagreed. Danny did a great job of arguing it. We had a case.

They actually distinguished that case and said that our issue was more like another case that landed in favor of that claim that's not in our favor. So they rejected our argument that because that general definition used words like commercial, office, vertically, and horizontally, that those were subsidiary definitions. And they said for a couple of different reasons. And like I said, it's a pretty lengthy and in-depth discussion, but they distinguished the case that we presented. And then the other thing they did is they reviewed other parts of the city code, and they said that there were different drafting techniques that were shown that the drafters knew how to reference subsidiary definitions, and those techniques weren't used in this one.

So that was one of the things that they said that there were footnotes that were used in another section, and those same type of footnotes had a sphere, but they weren't. Then they also said there was similarity between the those terms horizontal mixed use, vertical mixed use, and section 21, 23, 24, which they had just said couldn't apply outside of the. And so those were some of the reasons that they gave. There was some introductory language in the introductions of the definitions in title 21 one dash o seven dash one. I didn't copy down that introductory language here, so I can't remember right now why they said that that introductory language, I think, said these definitions are stand alone definitions.

And, you know, so they looked better. Okay. You gave us instructions how to use the definition, and what you're proposing isn't following those instructions. So that was the reason they filled one definition of mixed use development applied. The reason that they said section 21, 23, and 24 didn't apply was because it says the following standards are to be considered as applying specifically to development in the mixed use district in addition to general standards provided elsewhere in this title.

And they thought that was a clear indication that anything in twenty one, twenty three, twenty four didn't apply to a use permit if it applied to a mixed use. So on the on the preamble, they relied on Utah case law that it does not allow a preamble to be substantively applied. They dismissed all of the applicants other claims. So I told you they added on some federal constitutional type claims. Those were all dismissed without prejudice.

So I guess that, you know, if if Magna Investment wanted to still make those claims, they file another claim. And then the other thing that happened was that there was an ombudsman opinion that had been issued prior to the Planning Commission decision. And there's actually a state statute that says if the court makes a determination that's the same as the ombudsman and for the same reasons that the the party who loses can be responsible for the other party's attorney's fees. And so that's a state statutory remedy for not following a correct ombudsman opinion. The court did not award attorney's fees, but said in the decision that this decision was based on the same basis as the decision.

So he basically said that they're entitled to attorney's fees, but didn't award them.

Can they push for that? Can I readdress that in court?

Well, I think so I think in order for them to receive attorney's fees, there's an evidentiary standard that they would have to meet to prove the attorney's fees, the the amount. And so I think that's why it was premature to award them because I don't think that evidence had been presented. I would think that it's probably pretty likely with that being in the decision that the city would negotiate a settlement on these. And then the the I I think the court basically said they're entitled to them without saying they're they were more than them. And so that's where we're sitting today.

I had one question when I sent out this information to staff to look over. And the question was about the the court using the word illegal to describe the actions of the plaintiff's action. And so I I don't know how much depth you want me to go into, probably not very much. So I'm gonna look up this one. So here's what the state code says.

It says a land use decision is illegal, which does not mean criminal. So I I think it seems like a really barfed word, but it applies decision is based on an incorrect interpretation of a land use regulation. And so I think that's basically why they were saying it was illegal is that the court is saying this was correct interpretation. Yeah. That wasn't the one the planning commission had made. And so it's illegal because it doesn't it's not based on a correct. And then the planning commission know correct interpretation.

Did I understand that right?

No. So so the planning commission was making an interpretation. Interpretation, and that's what The court disagreed. And so the court is deciding that it was an incorrect interpretation. That's what And that's what because it was That's crazy. Because it's contra and, basically, the law. So they're saying what was written, the words that were written in our code don't say what we interpreted them to say. Right? And therefore, it's illegal because it's contrary to law. But it's not criminal.

It's I I don't it wasn't unfounded. There there were findings. The court disagreed with the validity of those findings and made no determination about the the motive or intent of the findings. I think that would have been the basis of some of the other claims that all those claims were assessed. So

Do they do a transcript court the transcript as well. Right?

Yes. K.

And did what did the court have to say in regards to that transcript? Do you think that's that's that's that we should know. So

now the one thing that I I can tell you that, like, what they did say about the transcript was well, so there's a couple of things. One thing they said was that the transcript supported the fact that the planning planning commission commission was was applying applying the the mixed use zone development standards. And that was supported a lot by my presentation. And

Our staff report.

And the staff report. So so they so that was one of the things that they said about the transcript was that it supported the fact that we were applying the mixed use zone. And they believe that the mixed use zone was sort of the nucleus of those additional definitions. Right? Was the other thing is they went into a really long and detailed discussion about the standard of review of the board of adjustment.

And

and maybe that was the transcript. Maybe they used the board of adjustment transcripts. Now I bet they did.

I think they cited both. There were there were elements that they were citing the planning commission and

disagreed with the interpretation anyway. So I don't think the standard of review was going to be the tipping factor on the decision. And if if anyway. So the question I have

had like less than 10%. Did the court even address that? Because it was part of a complex with a couple of little businesses trying to meet mixed use.

So the general definition of mixed use says residential and any other use.

You can have

That was You can

have two percent of businesses at Otto's Farm, but not once it would be a Michigan. Oh.

That was, I think, what what they were saying is that that totally, that definition of mixed use can be applied. And, therefore, if it's residential and any other use, it meets the definition of mixed use, which means we have to process it as a traditional use.

What was the zone? Wasn't the zone a commercial zone?

Yeah. It was a it was a CN zone. And so

Which has conditional access. That's it. Yeah.

Yeah. But the fact that

it's a commercial zone, that doesn't well, that was our basis for deciding that it didn't need it because it was very little commercial and many of it.

So that was the third determination that they made. They basically said the definition of the commercial zone is a preamble and has no substantive effect. And that was part of the basis of the decision.

They they felt like the application on its face met our definition of mixed use. We disagreed with that as staff, and you disagreed with

That's the

only justification and agreed with us.

But Agreed with you.

So And then the judge reversed that decision and said we did not follow our code as as written. It's basically the outcome.

So can we can we obviously, can't go retroactive. Can we rewrite that part of

the code? We have. We have. You already approved the change and so the account But the application is best It was. But the application, though, is bested under definition at the time of their application. So we'll be following the definitions that was in place at that time, not our revised code. Yeah.

And so we've basically told them when you're ready to proceed with your conditional use permit and submit everything we need to process a conditional use permit, let us know so false in their court. And if they bring in their additional information, you guys will see it as a police department.

Did that site plan

did their attorney the one who presented here, was he the one who tried the case?

He's not. He's not he's not right here. Yeah.

So are you gonna be dealing with the residents out there and let him know this decision? This will be harder for them to accept that the. So, I mean, are are the city gonna explain this to the residents so that they understand what

happened? Basically, a technicality. Right?

It I mean, it reads our code, the court doesn't see what we thought it said. I mean, that's that's basically the the I think the the real meat of the decision.

So I think his his comment is that

when this comes back to us, the residents I mean, the residents need to understand what you just told.

They're thinking of something else. And any any public notices that go out will provide a brief explanation of that.

Of just that process?

Yeah. We don't need the residents to accept the But then if they come back, it'll be the staff report.

It will be in the staff report. We'll provide information in the notice regarding why this is coming back. So that and then we'll explain it again in the in the hearing. That will be the public's opportunity to find out that information.

Do you know if that's very interesting to bring back the same one? Essentially, same project. We don't know. We don't even know when they're gonna bring them back. Do they have the time limit? Yeah. No. Okay.

Yeah. We so

I don't think so.

Sent them a letter. Same.

Like it.

We understand it's mixed use. They

got a relief from a judge, though, but we accept it. There's no time limit on this judge's ruling, no, sir, when they would have to bring him back. Okay. Now, otherwise, you can't keep the project open forever. What is our time limit? Think it's a hundred and eighty days if you're, again, if you're working on a project before you have to redo a can't sit forever.

But when does the hundred and eighty days

We process it as a conditional use test just like every other application that comes through us.

It's a same density that they had have before.

Well, that it meets the definition of a mixed use development. Is the new where this judge is really

I don't know. What's the new definition? So there are no more conditional uses that are mixed use. I mean, I think that really was the

So our old stuff so I the issues that I have, you know, we addressed this question really didn't have any, like Criteria. Criteria. And and I think that I think I was the only one that voted no on this. Right? Is that

No. I don't remember.

I and I I don't think we had any, like, objective criteria. And so it's I think that was one of the Right?

So so the so the new definition of mixed use, does

it say, like, a percent of other uses? Or is there to be Well, there's either mixed use zone. There's not conditional use mixed aspects of it. So we can't do conditional use mix is what We take all those out. Yeah. That's now that's that's what they applied under, and that's no longer they have. So

now they would be in the mixed use zone to do a mixed use. And then 21, 23, 24, I think, is what it is, would apply. But as long as they're in a mixed use zone, then you can apply the mixed use development. If they're not in a mixed use zone, the court said

Which this one not. Why? Commercial don't have a conditional use.

The mixed use development standards. And so we did change the definition so we don't have five.

Like

It's not relevant to this.

Yeah. This applies under the old code. Yeah. It sticks with it. Yeah. But we we took this new poll out, so somebody wouldn't be able to Yes.

And the planning commission has not adopted percentages. Right. So and the city council has not adopted percentages. So there are percentages. It just says it's a percentage that's set by the.

So is there let's say, additional use can be put in the. Yes. Okay.

So to mitigate, reasonably anticipated detrimental

We're treating it like any other conditional use. Yeah. Then we'll just come visit conditional use.

Is there a density limit or set against those based on It's based

on mitigation that can show that it works and that can be mitigated. And

Yeah. Density is not going to be a detrimental impact.

And that is what the Well, it's vehicles. And

Well, traffic would be. Yeah. But

I Seemed like that was

the biggest. Their traffic study is going to show that they don't have more traffic than a. Yeah. Their traffic study was great. I have good results. I was pleased with it. I've seen issues with it. They mitigated it well. I

think you just follow the rules. You don't look for any, you like, there's what it it's three steps. You can't you can't say, well, I'm gonna think

of these conditions. You know, you

can't play that game. You know, we'll get slaughtered on that one.

So they do have to meet all of the physical criteria for the Sanzone.

They'll have before step.

They'll have to meet the height Right. For the Sanzone. Right.

I'll I'll

repeat that.

Yeah. It's the same as normal. Yeah. It's just coming to us now in the form of a application and Yeah. The conditional use. This comment that because the question does misunderstand that. And I think you can spend ten hours trying to explain it, and they're not gonna care because it's gonna eat motion. So you have to explain it, but you just gotta Yep. They don't want a purple complex on that one. And it doesn't matter what you say. But if a judge says it meets the code, so now we move forward. Yeah. That's what I know. It's just it's gonna hit the fan. It's you know, the panic has been hit before since then. With

the think And

that's that's

the the planning. And he said, I understand the ball's in our court. So we're waiting for them to say they wanna proceed.

So once we have that additional information, we'll move forward, and we'll bring that back to this body. And you'll have a chance to review that and ensure that it meets all of the criteria for a condition

we need to permit.

Let's go through that analysis and site plan review analysis and all the other things that we typically do.

So he's at.

Communities?

Are they similar to us or completely different, or is this a precedent that's gonna be used in other cities? In regards to what? The court decision on the mixed use and conditional use. You know? I think think it's so unique. We've already Specific to last year. Yeah.

Everybody already. Right.

I think it just stresses the point that codes need to be clear without subjectivity. Right. And our code, I think, was found to be deficient. I think there are some elements of the code that have been adapted poorly from being the zone standards and then poorly adapted to become the mixed use development standards that would apply to any mixed use development. That was the intent.

Right. Right.

But the way the code was adopted didn't complete that loop, I think, sufficiently to say that those mixed use development standards could broadly apply to any mixed use development like we had interpreted them to be. When we do a

complete rerun code, do we also set it off to be like a

Our advisors that we're hiring have legal consultants as part of that team so we know who we're hiring. We do. Well, we're in the process of But addressing they independent legal review of that Yeah. Part. I don't necessarily agree with the decision, but it is what it is.

Right. Yes. That's that's what the court system is set up to do. Yeah. And we just accept the ruling, and and we move forward.

Disconcerting. But, really, it just only means that

It doesn't follow the law.

We That yeah. Follow the law. It didn't follow what so if they determine on the vote said x

Well, I guess, pardon me.

The interpretation

Yes. Liable for something. Like, okay.

Good. No. The only thing that we're liable for that the judge ruled is that we'll we'll have to cover attorney's fees at some point, but that's to be determined later by

the judge. We left that open. So I So we're stuck to having dinners here.

But that is what we're They

don't get a receipt manager. Yeah. Have

no idea what their attorney's fees are. That should be the extent that I guess

It's more than chicken meat sauce for Well, as Lynn said, that comes through negotiations, and so it's hard to even what that Right. What that is. And that's what he started to do now on his part.

Any other questions? Are you

are you done there?

Time's done.

Okay. Well, the.

All right Mike, you ready? Okay. Well, we'd like to welcome all of you who are here this evening for tonight's Thursday, 11/20/2025 Planning Commission meeting. So welcome all those who are here physically as well as those who might be online with us this evening as well. To start, we will stand and if you could join me in stating the Pledge of Allegiance.

Okay, so we'll begin with some introductions and we'll start to my left. So Jennifer, if you go first.

Jennifer George. Lenny Stavenport.

Greg Kiterman.

Ron Mortimer. Steve Wrigley.

Cameron Duncan.

And James, if you could introduce staff.

My name is James Swanson. I'm the community development director. Some of the staff we have with her with us tonight is Darien Alcorn. She's a city senior attorney. Mike Wilcox is planning director. Thomas Urban is a senior planner. Doug Willwright, development services manager. Brittany Ward, Assistant Public Works Director, Engineer Travis Ekerman, Assistant City Engineer Ivan Hooper, Transportation Engineer and I think that's it. And then we have Ayesha over here running the meeting in the Planning Division.

Okay, all right, thanks. Okay. So to kind of address the procedures this evening, for each of the items that are on the agenda, we will have the staff introduce the item afterwards. The applicant will have the opportunity to provide some comments if they would like. And then the staff would like to have additional comments.

They can come back up afterwards on that. We will then open the item up for public comment. And so if you are here, you can come up to the podium here and provide comment. If you could state your name and address if you do so. And if you keep your comments limited to two minutes and to items that had not been addressed by any other commenters before that would be appreciated.

And then after we've listened to the comments, we will then close public comment and open the item up for Planning Commission deliberation and a motion. And so we'll begin with our first item, which is the Falls Creek subdivision. And Thomas, are you able to do both items to present it together, the special exception and

the subdivision review? Yeah. Those will be presented together. Okay. So this is a a two lot subdivision by Ivory Homes.

It's they're looking at preliminary subdivision review special exception approval for the properties at 2873 And 2851 Wasatch Boulevard. This property is currently zoned PUD zoning planned unit development. It consists of two existing parcels that will be reconfigured to be two buildable lots. So as you can see here, the current property line, the one in the front was part of the Drake Subdivision plat that's been a recorded lot and is definitely a buildable lot. The one in back is basically a remnant lot that everything around it has developed, and it's landlocked and does not have street frontage.

So this proposal consists of modifying that existing property line and replacing it with the one you see in red, which will provide both lots to have street frontage and meet the zoning requirements for buildable area. And they are also proposing to connect the access from the southwest corner where there's an existing approach, and that will provide access across the front. A couple of things to mention about this lot is it is in the sensitive overlay zone. The gray areas you see have been designated as sensitive area and all of the conditions of the sensitive overlay will apply to this lot as well. And the special exceptions they are seeking are basically associated with street frontages.

On this side of Wasatch Boulevard, there's currently no street improvements, curb, gutter, sidewalk. And what's going on with that is the the city's agreed to go into a cash out agreement for curb and gutter at that location. At a future time, the city will install it. So we're not requiring the developer to install it. But they are seeking special exception to not provide the sidewalks location, and that would line up with the character of that side of Wasatch Boulevard. And I do believe Ivory was going to have a representative here tonight. K. Did you wanna present?

I don't I don't need to. I think that's great.

All right. So is there any questions of staff or applicant then?

I could just quickly go through some of the This of is a planned development, the zoning is, meaning there's much flexibility given to the Planning Commission to impose setbacks and locations and various open space on these lots. The current Drig subdivision, which applies to the lot on the front, specifically stated that the setbacks would be associated with our existing R110 zoning district, which is in keeping with the neighborhood conditions currently. Staff recommends that we continue with that on both of these lots. Underneath this subdivision review process, some of the things that we reviewed was the sensitive overlays. And I should mention that one of the reasons we are in agreement of the special exception request is that we just went on a site visit.

And as you may recall, there's a significant drop off of Wasatch Boulevard. And to cut into that wall would be cutting into what we consider sensitive areas, 30% grades or more. And so Ivory is proposing to rebuild and basically restore the wall where it's been damaged over the years and continue to use an existing approach on the Southwest side. This is being done to preserve that sensitive area in that one corner. Let me go back to that drawing here.

So that you can see up there on the the north the Northeast side. That's that way they don't have to bisect in front of that lot with another curb cut and drive approach and affect that area. It should be mentioned too that the back end of this lot do slope off significantly. We've had several residents ask us what will be how will we handle storm water and drainage at those locations. Underneath the subdivision review, we do want to look at drainage for the street streets that are in front of the slot.

But the individual lots themselves, those drainage plans will be associated with the building permit at a future date. So it's not really part of this review. However, Ivory has done they're they're currently did some geological studies, and they're looking at percolation testing and water retention. And they will definitely meet Sandy's requirements, but that will be handled through the building permit process. Another thing that was mentioned is that this is in the it was asked if this was in Pepperwood.

And and neither of these lots were part of the Pepperwood subdivision plat, so they would not fall within that group of homes. One of the residents asked about fault lines. There are all no fault lines here. As far as seismic concerns, that'll be addressed under the building permits as well when the homes are actually proposed. We're not reviewing any elevations or plans for homes.

Various neighbors also asked about the setbacks and the height limitations. The standard height would apply to 35 foot height limitation. And with the sensitive overlays, we can't specifically say where the homes are gonna be but they would have to meet that average of 20 feet off of the great area and no closer than 10 feet to any of those. So homes on each lot would definitely be far forward of where the lots do drop off at the back. The last thing I do recall someone asking about was traffic.

Using the existing shared approach from the Drake Subdivision that you see there at the bottom of the drawing, it's a 20 foot wide approach on this property. It does serve both this lot and the one adjacent to it. Let's see. I think I have a picture of that where the bottom right corner where you see those entry features. Those are existing entry features which designate where that shared approach exists.

So no additional approaches are going to be at this location. The only additional traffic will be enough to serve one additional residence. So that's kind of the highlights. As far as the special exceptions go, the city, like I said, will provide the curb and gutter at a future date. We just don't want to control storm water coming down the street unless we have storm water system to serve it. And that's definitely going to be a future project that the city is going to be performing. I think that covers it. Any questions?

So with the changing of the lots now, well, there would be no building on the sensitive area?

Correct.

Later on when they go to the building plans.

Will have to comply with those requiring to show them on the plat so that they're clearly designated and so that staff when we review it can ensure that they meet

their compliance with that. You get plenty of land there, it looks like without going down. Correct.

I just didn't know if

they planned on building on the sensitive area, which is another issue later on.

No, from my understanding none of the sensitive area should be disturbed in this project.

Right. And lately the city engineer has been requiring there to be fencing along the 30% slope lines. Is that going to be required on this as well?

Like temporary construction fencing? It's really what they're using it for is to demark where the sensitive area starts, right? Yes.

So you

know where the boundary is what you're Yes. Talking that doesn't get impeded. They've used that on others. Yeah.

Brittany Ward, city engineer. We only require it when it's needed and there's an unclear area and it's unclear where that 3% line is. Okay. So it's situational basis.

Okay.

Any other questions?

Yeah. Chair, I just have a a funny housekeeping. So I I was just looking at this map and it shows that lot on the right is 2877. And then the staff report, it has it as 2851.

Because I'm gonna readdress that when this is complete.

K.

They will be at readdressed. That's why they're showing the revised addressing. K. So so our motions will be proper. For the way the land is today, yes.

Okay. Thank you.

Okay. Any other questions? Okay. Thank you. All right. So we will now open this up for public comments. So if you do have public comment for this item, if you could come up to the podium and state your name and address and again keep your comments to two minutes. Go ahead.

Good evening. My name is Benson Lewis and I live at 7 Snow Forest Cove which is immediately north and down the hill from where these two lots are. I'm here with my neighbor, Reed Evans, who lives right next door to me. Craig actually did a lot of the work when we designed our home eighteen years ago. Reed built his home about sixteen years ago.

And our other neighbor, Todd Eaves, is on he's in New York today, but he's joining us and he has some more comments that he'd like to make. Our big concern is we we have we wanna be good neighbors to these people. We don't we don't have any problem with any of that. But we are downhill from where this is. And and we've had storms where neighbors across Wasatch have told us about all the water that has come across Wasatch and flooded onto this on onto this parcel.

It's flat, and the water just goes away. But now all of a sudden, we're going to introduce a lot of concrete, a lot of roofs. And in this this meeting that was held the other day, they told us, well, we're gonna contain the water on the back end, which is just above our properties. And we're really nervous. We wanna make sure that we don't get it that we don't get something different than what we've had before.

And we asked for geotech reports. I'm disappointed that we we didn't get any response from anyone at the city when we reached out. And I don't know what what the procedure should be, but we were disappointed that we didn't get anything back. We feel like we're taxpayers and homeowners, and and we we wish somebody would have gotten back to us. That's all I have, but we would like to have Todd have a chance to to chat also.

Okay. Great. Thank you. Thanks. Is there anybody else here physically that would like to speak? Okay, Mike, everybody in line?

If you are joining us via Zoom webinar, excuse me, and would like to speak to this particular item please use the raise your hand feature now and we'll address you one at a time. We've got two hands raised or three hands raised. We'll go with David Chapman first. You may unmute yourself. Please state your name and address for the record please.

Okay. Hi, good evening. My name is David Chapman. I am the owner of 11003 And 68 South Pepper Circle. If someone somewhere can put in the the Q and A or somewhere an e mail address where I can also send a copy of the issues I want to raise, would appreciate that.

I did put it in the Q and A and I know it's not the right place. I was informed by that by Mike Wilcox, so I apologize about that. But I want to request strict adherence to the R110 height and setback standards, especially the 35 height limit and distances from the slopes. There's a number of neighbors. There's four of us on Pepper Circle, are just above this, and we don't want it to obstruct our view.

But also, I think there's a bigger issue here of infill. There is a link I'd love to share of a home that slid down in Draper due to unstable soil. So we've got just common sense. If you're ever near that area or at that area, look above. The drainage area above is absolutely massive.

And if we have a heavy snow and then a large thaw, this could be absolutely disastrous because that's where the water goes. And if we add infill on top of that, then Benson Lewis Reed Evans are going to have two homes that are going to come down on top of their homes. And so I'd really like for there to be clear conditions that prohibit in fill that could obstruct views and make for unstable soil. I want to see public disclosure interview of the final building plans before construction to verify compliance with height and infill, make sure no infill is added in the next few weeks before another survey is done. And I'd love to send someone a link.

I mean, I'm sure we all saw those videos of homes that slid down a hill in Draper just a few years ago due to unstable soil. So those are my issues. And lastly, I'll mention I lived in Squaw Valley, Olympic Valley, now known as Pacific Palisades, another great ski town. And the drainage area above that the people on the hill there was probably about 1% or 5% of what we're looking at above us. And there were massive mudslides, damage.

So there's really huge risks if this is not done right. And Benson Lewis and Reed, they've asked for some studies that have not been done. And I think there really is a huge liability here that really needs to be very carefully considered or we could have a massive disaster on our hands.

Okay. Thank you. Do you have

any other items? Two minutes are up. Do you have any other items?

That's all. I did put this in the Q and A. Would that help to send that by email to anyone or are we good and you can see that my issues that I brought up in the Q and A.

Yes, we will address these after the comments have been made. You.

Okay.

Next we have Todd Eves. You may unmute yourself.

Thank you members of the Sandy City Planning Commission. My name is Todd Eves. I live at 5 Snow Forest Cove, Sandy, Utah. I appreciate the opportunity to address this body and appreciate you taking the time to listen to some of our concerns about this development. I'm joined by I'm sorry I can't be there in person, but I'm joined by a number of my esteemed neighbors in the audience.

And we would like to formally express some of our concerns regarding the proposed development of residential building lots as part of the Falls Creek Estate subdivision. While we certainly understand the need for housing, this project presents several significant public safety environmental concerns that lack public transparency and or have yet to be adequately addressed in previous meetings planning documents. As a result, we would strongly urge the Sandy City Planning Commission to provide public transparency and adequately address the concerns noted that I will note before moving forward with the application. The first one I'd like to touch on is significant geotechnical hazards. The proposed development site is situated on a mountainside with 30 plus degree slopes.

In the area with building residential structures in this high risk zone raises immense safety concerns regarding slope stability, the potential for landslides and structural failure during an earthquake or severe weather event poses a significant risk to future residents and surrounding properties. Therefore, I would request the commission ensure the developer provides independent, peer reviewed geotechnical reports that are made public before any consideration of approval. Two, increase flooding risk storm water runoff. Developing the lots with significant mountain slopes will drastically alter the area's natural drainage patterns. The increase in impervious surfaces will inevitably increase the volume and velocity of storm water runoff.

This will exacerbate the risks of flooding, erosion and debris flows directly threatening downstream properties, infrastructure and public safety. The proposed storm water management plan must be robustly scrutinized to ensure it can handle extreme weather events which are becoming more frequent. Three, traffic hazards and inadequate ingress and egress. The plan ingress and egress point for development presents a traffic safety Mr.

Eaves, I think

this was all presented in your packet to us previously, previously, correct?

I didn't know what it had been. Yes,

it had. So I think we've received your comments already. Apologize, I should have mentioned that previously. My

apologies to the to the commission and I'll I'll stop wasting your time if if we can just have that read into the record that would be great.

It is. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Appreciate your time.

Okay. Next, we have Mr. Steve Van Maren. You may unmute yourself.

Hear me? Can you hear me?

Yes. Go ahead, Steve.

My Internet is unstable. I hope I my message gets through clearly.

We can hear you.

I'm concerned about the I'm concerned about the frontage on Los Angeles Boulevard. Normally, if you just have driveways coming off, you'd be able to widen the street and the driveways would resume use. But in this case, you could widen the street and cut into the plant approaches. I just wanna make sure the I width of the street is adequate for future traffic needs. I know it's part

of

the plan to extend the utilization of Wasatch Boulevard and it may need to be widened. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Steve.

Those are all the hands that I see you raised.

Okay. All right. Thank you. So we will close this item for public comment now and why don't we have you come up and address the comments that had been made?

I think anything we might as well have Brittany come up as well because there's issues on the geotech and things like that. That would be great at this point.

I could start a little bit on the drainage. They do they have provided a drainage plan, although that is not required. Right here is where they're proposing. You'll see on the back those retention basins that they're proposing. They are in the process of calculating how much water retention they're going to need on the site to meet our requirements. But as I said earlier, that is not part of the purview of a subdivision review. That's part of the purview of a building permit review. And so that will be something that will be reviewed when they submit their building plans.

And if the public would like to see those as well, how would they be able to see what has been calculated and

private geotech reports are not

So yeah they they can submit a grammar request and we can't provide copies of those because it's proprietary information but they can just make an appointment with staff through that grammar request process and then they can make an appointment to view the files that are that the city has but we can't provide copies of those.

Got

it. Brittany Ward, city engineer. That is correct. We will allow them to come to my office allow them to have copies. If they do want their own copy of it, they will have to request that specifically from the geotech engineer.

And then maybe I think we had a discussion well so for everybody's understanding as a planning commission we go on a bus and take a look at these sites beforehand and review them and get the opportunity to kind of physically see what's on there. We had a discussion with regards to water like from Wasatch Boulevard that might be going through there. Maybe if you could address those issues as well.

Yeah, So a lot of Wasatch Boulevard does not have improvements currently on it. Street improvements include curb and gutter, park strip, and sidewalk. And this property is no exception. There is not curb and gutter in front of it right now to handle that storm water runoff from the roadway. So currently, that water runoff is going into this property and adjacent neighboring properties.

In order to require a development to install improvements on a roadway, it has to be a reasonable request. Request. And because the roadway lacks those improvements, including storm drain infrastructure and leads and pipes and such, that would be extremely over and beyond the capabilities and the intent of what this development is doing. So we have offered them to do a cash agreement with them in which they will provide the city with funding to install as improvements so that when the city comes in with a project in the future, then we can use that funding to cover the improvements in front of this property. If neighboring developers develop properties and install improvements and and we slowly connect those along down the roadway and where it becomes a possibility for the city then to use that cash money to install improvements of this property, we will do so as well at that time.

In the meantime, the property will have to continue to accommodate that storm water runoff. When they submit for a building permit, public utilities will require them to submit drainage calculations. Those drainage calculations will take into account different year storm events, such as a ten year event or a hundred year event to see how much storm water runoff and flooding will occur on the property itself and as runoff from the roadway. They will then be required to accommodate that storm water runoff according to our city standards. Our public utilities department also has a planned project here to address the current storm water runoff issues because this property, like, we know, takes the storm takes the water runoff from the streets, and we don't like to put public water runoff into our onto private systems.

And so they're currently coordinating with the developer right now to do a project here to, pipe and properly convey that stormwater runoff back into our city systems rather than onto the properties behind it. So I'm not sure which will come first. That's something that the the developer is working out with the public utilities department, to see if public utility is gonna come first and address the storm water runoff through piping or if these properties will temporarily house the storm water runoff from the street when they develop until public utilities comes in with their project.

Through retention sizing?

Correct. Okay. Yes. But in any case, I will also require a geotech report at the time of the building per at the time of building permit. They will review the soils, do a soils analysis.

They will check existing fields on the site. As this site is adjacent to Wasatch Boulevard, there is likely excavation soils from the Wasatch Boulevard when it got built on the site, which are definitely unstable soils and just field material and not native ground. So those boring for the geotech report will core down into the road, into the property, make some cuts, find where that native soil is, and then make recommendations as to, the foundations that need to be built for the homes and what type of soils that the homes need to be built on and how deep. So that will all be addressed. When the developer comes in for the building permit, the conditions will be will be made better.

So the soils will be make sure that they are that they are stable, that there's not any adverse effects from it and the storm water situation will be improved upon.

Okay. And then also the comments about fill being brought into the site, not just existing fill that might be there but also fill being brought in there. There are going to be there are standards that would limit or prohibit some aspects of that fill too. So maybe just address that too.

Yeah that's correct. That will all be reviewed with the geotech report after they determine existing conditions of the soil on the site, they will recommend several things. Number one, that the existing fill materials that are not structurally sound or not engineered filled fill. They may request that those get removed if there's significant amount on-site and then new engineered fills be brought in so that the structures can be built upon it. Or they'll require that the non engineered fills be moved aside and they build build on that foundation of native soil.

Really, a lot of that just depends on the geotech investigations. But if soil is brought in on in on on-site and that's ends up being determined that that's what the geotech engineer recommends, those soils will be structurally sound and certified that they are by the geotech engineer.

I would also add that that's part of the reason why we're allowing that driveway to be a down sloping driveway off of that existing access on the South side so that those homes can be built closer to natural grade. We required a typical driveway which would slope back towards the road, a massive amount of fill would have to be brought in in order to have those homes and they'd be super elevated out of the ground. So that's another reason why beyond access and other things we're having them bring that driveway access around and closer to the native Lower

level. Correct.

I I want to mention one more thing. The the front lot has always been a developable lot. It's always had development rights. Yeah. It's the lot behind it that's remnant that is being added. So, in a sense, we're only looking at the increase of one more lot that's existing and making it a lot that can be truly developed. Otherwise it would remain a landlocked feature that could not be developed as all the properties around have already developed. And

then Thomas maybe address there were some comments about the R-one Hundred 10 application and I think you already previously said that the that that zoning is what will rule as it relates to the review of the homes when they come across.

Correct. It's already does. It it it did apply to the lots that have already developed in the subdivision along Wasatch and we wanted to continue that because a big part of this parcel is already part of that. It's it's an existing part of the drags. It's just being modified, and we feel that that is a equitable requirement. It matches the character of the neighborhood. You're going to see similar setbacks, similar heights that all neighbors enjoy currently.

There was some discussion about Wasatch Boulevard with that. I don't know that that

I'm not. I I think I couldn't quite understand his comment, but I think he was wondering if there was any plans to widen Wasatch Blvd. I just I'm not really part of this review. Brittany?

Yeah, Brittany again. Right now we don't have any plans in the master plan to Wyand Wasatch Boulevard. Based on the outcome of the Highland Drive EIS, though, that could become a possibility in the future should that EIS be done, and it determined that a corridor is not needed. So any widening or future improvements of Wasatch additions to Wasatch Boulevard besides standard curb and gutter and sidewalk improvements right now is not planned.

Okay. Alright. Did we catch everything?

I have a question. Yeah. I know that in the past, neighbors are not required to be notified when a building permit is applied for. It sounds as though in this case they would like to know when that's going to happen so they can look at the geo report and that kind of thing. Is any vehicle that we can use to help them know that the building permit has been applied for?

I think at what point could they look at a geo report really is what he's asking. Mean, Britney when at what point could they if they want to come down and see one at what point is that usually available? You say?

Well, we do require before we approve the permit. So, after they first submit for the permit, will require that geotech report and then the timing on when they submit that to us is up to them.

Yeah, Mike makes a good comment. We don't know when they're going to submit when they submit. It could be weeks, it could be a month, it could be two. Years.

We don't really I guess that's my point for the neighbors.

So. We don't notify.

These are that's an administrative review. It's not a a public review process for getting a building permit. So we do not provide public notice when a building permit is going in. So there's really not a vehicle to provide notice of neighbors when a building permit is being submitted. We do review those following all of the standards that are in our development code to including the sensitive area overlay.

Brittany board and our public works department and public utilities also participate in that building permit review process to ensure all engineering standards are being addressed. Just like anything that's done in the public you can file a grammar request and request of review and see those records when they are submitted. But if the record isn't there we can't provide them either.

And Brittney you did mention that all of these additional tests are going to be reports would be part of the building permit, none of them part of the subdivision review, correct?

Correct. They'll be part of the permitting process. Okay.

So I guess at this point really once you see dirt turning on the site that would be a notice that hey, you know what, go in, start and there would be sufficient for you to be able to take a review and support before things really got really far along the way in construction at that point. That's probably the approach at this point.

Yeah. And anyone from the public is welcome to call me and check-in to see if there's been any application or progress on it at any time.

I see an Ivory Homes representative. Is it possible to have Ivory agree to notify the neighbors? Back

there.

Because if you call every two weeks, you'd have to call every two weeks.

I'm just thinking about, you know, every every homeowner has a right to pull a permit and it's an administrative review and there is no requirement to notify your neighbors.

Yeah, know I know there's no city requirement. I'm asking Ivory if they would be willing to do that.

I'm not sure we can Do want

to come up in a transition? Is

that something you believe that we can I'm

just curious.

Like

the comment you said

regarding just watching when the dirt. Yeah, I think that's usually the time that you

see dirt turn. That's your notice. Think at this point there

and they do have our contact information. They're welcome to come by and like like we've said, we can show them the plans. They're not allowed to make copies. We're not going to provide it to them.

I mean, they could even reach out to Ivory and get some agreement between them. But that's not part of our process here.

Correct. It's definitely not part of the subdivision review process. That's just moving this property line.

Okay. Lisa, did you have a

I do. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just really appreciate, and I'm reminded of the full confidence I have in staff here in the city. Thank you for taking the time to really walk through all of this and to explain to us what the process is and you know that you're going to adequately. We're all going to adequately make sure that you know properties are developed appropriately so thank you for that and I have no other questions. Just want to remind everybody that we've got a great staff that can do their jobs well on this.

Yeah, thanks Lee. Okay, any other comments? Okay, thank you. Okay, I'd already closed at the public comment, right? Okay, so any other discussion among the Planning Commission?

I'm ready for a motion.

Okay. Make the the motion that the Planning Commission approved the requested special exception for the Falls Creek Estate subdivision located at 2873 And 2008 And 51 East Wasatch Boulevard Boulevard to not provide full street improvements in front of the development based upon the three findings as written in the staff report.

Can we have a second?

I'll second.

Cameron Duncan?

Yes.

LaNeese Davenport? Yes. Ron Mortimer? Yes. Jennifer George?

Yes.

Steve Wrigley?

Yes.

Craig Kitterman?

Yes.

Dave Bromley?

Yes.

This motion carries.

Okay. Good luck. Well, sorry. Yeah, let's do another one there.

Alright. Make the motions of the Planning Commission determine the preliminary subdivision review for the Falls Creek Estate subdivision located at 2873 and 2851 East Wasatch Boulevard is substantially complete based on the following findings subject or the three findings and the eight conditions as outlined in the staff report.

I'll second that motion.

Cameron Duncan? Yes. Lenny Stafford? Yes. Ron Mortimer? Yes. Jennifer George?

Yes.

Steve Wrigley?

Yes.

Craig Kitterman? Yes. Dave Bromley? Yes. This motion carries.

Okay.

Now, good luck.

Mister chair, one other item that we've Yes. I forgot to address was the question of views and protection of views.

Okay.

Just for way of note, the state of Utah does not allow us to protect views, view corridors and things like that through we just have building standards that we have and that's what we apply. So 35 feet is the maximum building height from average finished grade is the standard that we have in Sandy City. So just a point of clarification there. That was one other item that was brought up in the public comment.

Thanks, Mike. Okay. So we are now moving to it Iona? How do you pronounce that? Iona EV charging station, preliminary modified site plan review?

Okay. Alright, Doug.

Yes, Doug Wheelwright, development services manager in the planning division. It's my pleasure to bring this item before the planning commission tonight. The applicant is here. We're re it is requesting preliminary site plan review post conversion of a vacant gas station site into an electric vehicle charging station. The conversion of the old gas station site involves retaining the existing pump island canopy and adding two new canopies, remodeling of the existing 1,230 square foot building into a customer waiting area, and the placement of 12 EV vehicle charging points, and adding the necessary utility infrastructure and re landscaping.

At this point, I think it'd be best if we maybe looked at the exhibits k. To particularly if if anyone from the public is here to look at this. So this is this shows the site. It's on 106 South is on the North. This is the Automall commercial area. The new Maverick store is right here. This has been a gas station since 1985. And they had leaky underground storage tanks, and the site's been remediated. They have the no further action certification from the state. It has been vacant for a number of years and it's become an eyesore.

So this is the current site plan showing the existing, which was a convenience store at the time. And the the canopy for the pump islands is here. And we have and the parking lots all connect.

Oops. Sorry.

I always hit the wrong button. So this is the new site plan. We're keeping the building, keeping the canopy. We're adding two new canopies, one here and one over here, and four charging stations under each of these. And there'll be four charging stations here.

This will continue as as they as it is now to connect the east and west sides of the site underneath the canopy. This is the landscaping. They'll be re landscaping the site, expanding this landscape area quite a bit. And let's see. I was pushing the wrong button again.

Well, this is what their this is their branded canopy for Iona. Just a single support support just on one side of the canopy and then cantilevered over to the site. And that's what the charging point equipment looks like. There will be one of those in front of each charging station. With that, I would like to turn it over to the applicant for his presentation.

Evening, commissioners. My name is I I am a site development manager for Ayana, particularly working on this site. Fun fact, I grew up off of 7th East and 8004 South, so childhood spent in Sandy. So a little bit special for me to be developing this in my old neighborhood. But representing Ayana, we are fully private funded EV charging station.

We're building 100 sites across The United States by end of this year, very aggressive goal. And in year two, we're focusing more on the greenfield aspect sites. We wanna attract customers to come in off the highway, go charge, hang out in the lobby, which is the intent of the building we're gonna have there. We offer some vending, restroom, twenty four seven access for people to just hang out while their cars charge. As far as the chargers, we're gonna be offering full level three charging for our customers, both CCS and Nax plug.

So the North American charging standard, commonly known as the Tesla plug, and the other standard CCS. With the level three fast charging, it'll bring the car depending on the year of of the car from zero to 80% in about half an hour and a full charge within an hour to an hour twenty. We're very excited about this project. We realized that we found a perfect station to come and redo with the Iona branding, colors, spruce it up a little bit, and unify that road. Super excited for this project and open to any questions the commission commission may may have. Have.

Any questions?

Yeah. I just have a couple of curiosities. What happens if you're really popular and you have more than 12? Is there places to park as you prepare to because you don't want to lose your space on here.

Sure. How

do you I'm sure you guys deal with this, but how do you deal with it? Is there places to park for these people preparing to get into

one of 12 slots should they need to?

That is a good question. At this point in time, we don't anticipate high utilization if not for a few more years now into the future. We do have some queuing in mind, but if anything as the site develops and our use increases through plug share, app notifications, or how our technology evolves, we'll find a way to add queuing either digitally. But to answer your question directly, right now we don't have queuing on-site.

Any other questions?

I have a basic question. Is Iona?

Yes, Iona.

Is that the charging network? So in other words, like, are you like, right now, if I go charge somewhere, it could be like charge point or so I would charge with Iona?

Yes, ma'am.

Okay, cool. Nice. Thank you. Are you is this your first facility in Utah?

Our first one was in Beaver, Utah, actually. Nice. So we had a four charger set up down there off I 15.

Yeah. Okay.

That's a big one, right?

Thank you.

It's actually a fun fact that Beaver, Utah site is one of our highly utilized sites. Yeah. And I developed that one too. So, again, Utah native super proud of these projects. We get a new Utah site, I I call dibs.

Good job. Any others? All right. Doug, do you have additional? You. Thank you.

So maybe at this point it's it would be easiest to just to see if you have questions with

me. Any questions of Doug?

Okay, all right.

Good. Okay, thanks Doug. All right, so we'll now open this item up for public comment. If there's anyone here present that would like to comment, if you'd come up to the podium. Okay, seeing none, Mike is there any online?

If you're joining us via Zoom webinar and would like to speak to this particular item please use the raise your hand feature now and we'll address you one at a time. We do have one hand raised. Mister Alton White, you may unmute yourself.

Yeah. Can you guys hear me?

Yes. Go ahead. State your name and address for the record, please.

My name is Alton White. I live at 618 Wilderness Drive, Alpine, Utah. I would love to see this site become a a charger because there's not really too many chargers in this area, and Iona is a great charging network. And, yeah, I just love to see this become as an EV driver, become a charging site.

Alright. Thank you. All done. Anybody else? Mike?

I see no other hands raised.

So staff is recommending the Planning Commission approve this site preliminary site plan review.

Okay. Alright. Thanks, Doug. Alright. So we'll close this public comment and open up for Planning Commission deliberation and motion. I'm

ready

for a motion. Great.

I'd like to recommend that the Planning Commission approve a modified site plan review for the Iona EV charging station as described in the staff report for the property located at 151 West 10600 South based on the two findings and the eight conditions.

Do we have

a second?

I'll second it.

Jennifer George?

Yes.

Steve Wrigley?

Yes.

Cameron Duncan?

Yes. Ron Mortimer?

Yes.

Vanise Davenport? Yes. Craig Kitterman?

Yes.

Dave Bromley?

Yes.

This motion carries.

Okay. Thank you.

Alright, good luck there.

Okay.

So, Mike, you got the next two and do you plan on doing both of them at the same time or what do you? Yeah,

we'll we'll present both of these items at the same with two separate motions. Yes. If that's okay with.

Great.

Planning commission. This item is submitted by David Kelly of Doctor Horton. They're representing the property owner interim capital LLC. It's shown here on the map. Area in question there. They are proposing to develop 63 residential townhome units in accordance with the previously approved mixed use master plan for this area. That master plan was reviewed by the Planning Commission earlier this year. They've gone through several cycles of plan review and submitted this project as shown in the application materials and I believe the applicant is here and can present on this item and then staff will follow-up with any additional information.

Good evening, commissioners. Thank you for your time. David Kelly with Doctor Horton. So, did you have anything else in there in the slides? Yes. Okay.

Everything that's.

Okay. So, yeah, we'll we'll be building 63 townhome units. We've been working with the staff since the master plan amendment was approved back in February. So we've been working through a number of issues on on the site. We all wish that it could be like 15 feet wider on the East side. That'd make things a lot easier. So 63 townhomes, two car garages, there'll be 2,198 square feet, four bedrooms, three baths. So we're not talking small, little small townhome units. These will be for targeted first time homebuyers and people looking to relocate into the city. So yes, that's pretty much what we're going be doing there.

Okay Mike are you going to follow-up with additional? Yes.

So this site is a complicated and difficult site because it's an irregular shape as you can kinda see. It's also limited with access. The only road that they would be able to have full vehicular access is from Harrison Street on the north side. Here's the main point of entry and that is serviced through a central alley system with two private pedestrian muse, private streets that anchor both the west and the east side of this project as well as the north and south of the east end of the development. This does terminate here at the end of the property.

We are asking them to get a cross access agreement here at the end to allow for reciprocal access into the MVP Parking Lot that's on the north side of the development and east side of the development. That would be a secondary ingress and egress out of this development because this is the sole point of access for these 63 units. Future reciprocal access would be at this point here shown on the map that would allow for further connectivity of of the overall mixed use master plan for future development. The existing access that's on 90 South would be utilized only as a right in right out emergency access and so it would be prohibited from being used as a typical entry or access for the development and only for emergency vehicles and or in the event that one of the other access points was cut off due to a waterline break or something like that. So this project is located in the Cairns district.

It's part of an overall mixed use area. The properties surrounding that were all part of the former Larry Miller card a lot and dealership. The Arcadia apartments to the north were redeveloped under this mixed use master plan. This is the next piece of to that puzzle and then we anticipate further redevelopment of the rest of the site to follow that mixed use development pattern that has been established and approved by the planning commission. They are seeking several exceptions to the Cairns development standards for this particular location and we can kind of go through those and explain that what's being sought and what's being offered as development enhancements to offset the impact of not complying with those standards.

So first is the combination park strips along 90th South essentially following a revamped public improvement of park strip, sidewalk, street trees, street lights, etcetera along the 90th South frontage. Because of what's called a no access line, their current understanding is that UDOT would restrict them from redeveloping most of that frontage and leaving it as is. If so that would qualify as a hardship that they would not necessarily need to comply with that standard. But what they are offering is to provide what would have been implemented into the park strip and in form of street trees and other things behind the sidewalk and enhance that landscaping behind. So that's what they're looking offset in that particular aspect.

The other request that they're seeking involve on street parking on Harrison Street. Let's get to this, this will work. So typically we require additional widening along the street so that there's on street parking outside the travel lane that would service the development. They are able to count any on street stalls towards their overall off street parking requirement in the Cairns district but they're opting to seek an exception to that standard and provide off street parking that meets the minimum standard for city code off of the that would be accessed off this alley system. Part of that is because of the constrained nature if that were to be widened out that pushes those townhomes further south further pinch points would would occur with the pedestrian views as well as reducing the overall open space that they're providing.

And so let's see building an articulation. Let me get to the building elevations that they're proposing. So let's go back up. So this is a perspective view of of their proposed building elevations. So a couple of items that they're seeking exception on.

So typically in the Cairns district we require a building base that has brick, stone, architectural metal, glass or precast concrete as the base material. They're proposing fiber cement siding, two different types and stucco as the primary building materials for these units. So they're seeking an exception to that standard. They're also articulated on the front elevation but not on the other three sides. So the Cannes design standards require greater articulation both on the side as well as on the rear of those units.

So there's no pop out, undulation, undulation movement of that building like there is on the front elevation. Nor is there any there's just change of materials on the sides of the building but not any building articulation of pop outs etcetera. So they're seeking an exception on that as well. Let's see. They are seeking an overall exception for the driveway entrance width which is typically limited to 24 feet because this driveway access into the development is a fire lane.

This private alley services the fire lane access for fire department and due to the height of those townhomes it is required to be a 26 foot width throughout that alley. They also are seeking an exception for open space, a publicly accessible open space within a quarter mile of any residential unit that's standard in the Cairns District. Part of the reason for that standard is because we're changing an area that was developed as a commercial area and introducing residents into that mix. And most of these units that are developed in the Cairns won't have a private open space or yard that they can recreate in. And so one of those requirements is to ensure that we have some type of publicly accessible open space within a quarter mile of walking short walking distance for any resident that or any residential units created in the Cairns.

While they are not providing a publicly accessible open space they are providing a privately accessible open space here on the west side of their development towards the middle. That would be open to the residents of the neighborhood but not to the public at large. So they are providing some type of recreation opportunities in a passive recreation form. So while they're not meeting the full requirement they're meeting some of the intent in that in that way. Building setback along 90th South so typically we do require buildings to be built up to the street as opposed to being setback a certain distance.

And in this case they're looking to push those units further away from 90th South and not actually front those units onto the public street and so they're seeking an exception for that. There's also several pinch points of the pedestrian view that they're seeking an exception that would be less than the the minimum 20 foot width and I'll point those out here on the map so that they would be pinched through this northwest corner of the development and and as it comes through here around this unit. Also further south there becomes a pinch point through here as well as some of the parking and this unit comes closer and pinches that total width down. They would still maintain a 10 foot wide path, walking path but there would be limited landscaping in certain points along that pedestrian court or pedestrian view.

Let's see.

On the easterly side, so this Dais Court that's adjacent to the MVP facility, they're proposing a half width pedestrian view there, pedestrian street that would be complemented when and if the adjacent development, the MVP facility were to redevelop and build a new building. So I can kind of show on this plan it kind of shows where the existing MVP facility is right now. There's a large open parking lot area to the east side. The mixed use master plan for this area shows the MVP potentially building a new building to replace this at some point in time down the road that they could put that new building here and then redevelop this edge that they share with this townhome development with additional townhome or residential units that would complement in front onto that pedestrian view. So they're proposing to do 10 feet of a pedestrian street on that easterly side of their development as opposed to the full 20.

So that's a lot of exceptions that we've got here but they are also proposing several different development enhancements that would help offset the impact of not complying with those standards. So they're proposing different things like utilizing saw cut concrete that cuts that concrete rather than scoring it traditionally gives it irregular shapes and a unique feel and design to the area that make it distinct from other areas of the city. They're proposing raised front porch areas along the majority of the units. They are providing a balcony along the front of each unit which is a requirement for multifamily units. These are considered single family attached units and don't require that feature but they are providing it for each unit that's at least a four foot deep balcony, elevated balcony on the front.

They're proposing to extend eyebrow ledges on the corners of these units. So you can kind of see that they have this covered door, front door up on this corner that is actually the deck or balcony above it. They're proposing to kind

of wrap

those eyebrow ledges around the side to kind of further articulate that. It doesn't quite come to the full requirement for articulation in the building but it does help. They're proposing to have meandering landscaping along the Muse to create some variety and not just a straight linear path as well as providing connections to the future Dice Court that's on the east side of the development that would allow for connectivity in the future to that adjacent please. Slide, outside of going down the to Monroe Street. There as I mentioned they're providing a roughly 6,000 square foot open space area that would be a private open rather than a publicly accessible one.

They're proposing to use architectural lighting to help provide that would be photocell control that would help provide pedestrian lighting along those pedestrian streets or muse as opposed to using bollard style lighting. They're proposing to enhance the landscaping of the adjacent UDOT lands. So those are shown here on this landscape plan in those hatched areas. Right now it's the typical UDOT native seed mix that's unirrigated and unmaintained. What they're proposing is to replace that with planted materials that is also irrigated and then would be eventually maintained by the city.

But they would install those improvements along that. That could also include boulders, bushes, shrubs, flowering type vegetation to help beautify that area and to make it look a little bit more along that Cairns Mountain Meats Urban Design Ethos that we're trying to achieve in this district. It would also beautify the area overall. They're also proposing a primary gateway feature along this 90th South Corridor that would help brand the area as part of the Cairns district, give that name recognition and provide a kind of a sculptural piece along that corridor as well that would draw attention and branding to the district. They're also proposing to install a Cairns branded pedestrian trail sign along that corridor as well on that 90th South frontage because there is a pedestrian trail that runs east to west along 90th South that would help provide directional guidance to any pedestrians on that trail.

So those would all be enhancements that they're proposing in exchange for the offsets and and the exceptions that they're seeking as part of this development. That was a lot of information. If there are any questions, please let me know. Let's see. We addressed the gated access and the cross access with the MVP facility that was a concern of ours.

That's one of the conditions that we've added to the report that they work out that cross access agreement. And then the other enhancement that we would like to see them implement is to implement an elevated raised mounding of the area along this 90th South frontage where they're placing that monument sign and entrance gateway feature so that it helps enhance that. Similar to what Mountain America has done with the landscaping around the parking lot that sits out in front. It kind of hides, conceals that but also provides mountain style landscaping, rock and other features granite boulders, trees and other things that give that kind of mountain meets urban feel to that area even though the building itself didn't comply with the mountain meets urban design. That was one of the offsets that they proposed was enhanced landscaping along that corridor and elevated landscaping through that corridor.

So that's one of the things that we think that could be added to the list of exception or development enhancements that they're seeking so that we can achieve that iconic landscape and structural feature that we expected as result of the master plan process that we went through with the city. With that said, staff does recommend that the Planning Commission determine that site plan review is complete for the Sandy Station townhomes located at 8925 South Harrison Street and that subject to the findings and conditions there in the staff report. And then a second motion for the subdivision of this land so that they can be individually sold units and staff recommends approval of that as well for the subdivision according to those findings and conditions in the staff report.

May I just add one comment as well, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to add that in looking at this site overall, Mike just did a fabulous job with that as far as going over that. But looking at this site over we drove it tonight. You all went through it. We've all looked at this for thirty years. This is an eyesore coming into Sandy City on off of 90th South. It's it's not a pretty site as it currently currently stands. I think what they're doing, we have an opportunity here that we haven't had in a long time to beautify this site, to have something productive on this site. And some of the enhancement that Mike talked about, we have an opportunity to make 90th South look better here than it looks now.

I mean they're building homes along 90th South I-fifteen. That's a difficult area. But this is the type of housing that we would want there and the type of housing that should be there. We feel as far as that goes, this is something that fulfills the need of the city as far as getting an alternate type of housing in place as well. It's something that will serve diverse population and those with varying incomes. So it's important to us both visually coming into our city to enhance this area. We have an opportunity to do it. And it also serves several other needs that are important to the city as well.

Thanks, James. Why don't we address any questions we might have first before we open up the public comment. Any questions to staff or applicant? Have a couple

of questions for I the applicant, just want to start out by saying I agree with James. I think you've done a wonderful job on squeezing a lot of houses into this little area. But I do have a couple

of questions. I don't know

if you remember from the rezone or when you were here in February. I asked about what you were going to do to help make it affordable. I think you called it attainable. And so you're asking for some exceptions, right, with some other enhancements. But could you maybe just talk to your letter in here where you said you wanted to be an example of attainable housing without government subsidies that will be showcased at the state legislature. So I guess kind of my big question is, do you have anything in place to really make this be first time home buyers or members of our fire department or police department and not be investors to just come in and swoop up a cheap property?

Yeah. So we we call it attainable housing because, you know, affordable housing is a legal definition. And so if we say it's affordable housing, we fall under a bunch of other different codes and and regulations. So we want it to be attainable, and that's why some of the design the exceptions for the designs we're seeking. If we were to use you know brick or rock on the on the Ground Floor, the units would would cost about 10 to $15,000 more a unit.

We are trying to keep these attainable. We are willing to we want these to be marketed towards the first time homebuyers. Doctor Horton, 80% of our buyers are first time homebuyers. So it's kind of that natural market for us. We we did indicate to the city, to the mayor, you know, that we'd be willing to come in before the marketing window opens, that we would come into the staff, to first responders, to, you know, school teachers and market them to them and give them kind of the first option to purchase.

We also write if they're too cheap then that's what brings in the the investors are like, can, you know, I can make money on the rent. So that is that's what our intent is and that's why it's some of the exceptions we're seeking. And then with regards to, you know, having this be showcased, you know, Zach Hartman who represents Interim Capital as our broker works a lot with the state with their affordable housing plan. And, know, we're not coming in and saying, hey, you know, city, we need you to buy the site and donate the site to us in order to make this affordable. It's, you know, we're doing this with some some simple exceptions that accommodate that accommodate making these housing the housing attainable.

But then Zach would love to be able to go to the state legislature and say, see, this can work without having to have, you know, government step in and and provide subsidies.

I'm I'm happy to give a little color on that. So Who are you? Name I'm Zach Hartman with Life Advisors. I represent the seller. I kinda came in originally to this I kind of I believe in this, and I kinda believe in two things on the housing side. You have to get a unit cost that comes in under the median home price of a town, and you gotta make it so it's not subsidized because that just inflates the price. We've kind of seen that. And you wanna make sure that anyone that buys a house here doesn't have a deed restriction on their appreciation. Otherwise, they just become poor later. Right?

And and I think those are the things I'm kind of pushing pretty hard. I'm volunteering at the point to take out the next 60 acres, and the idea is to create something with the league and with the state that has kind of more of a comprehensive blend of how we actually deliver housing that people can buy that live here in the state of Utah. Right? And so I'm using this as a case study because we've done and honestly, it's been a really interesting process to go through because Horton's the largest builder in in the country. And then it's been great to watch Mike and James work through the issues that we just have to exist as a city because Sandy's a nice place.

Right? And there's things that you need to do to keep it this way. And and I think this is a pretty fair balance of the kind of everybody's been I think we've maximized what's available. But as far as the outlook here, we wanna get it built. We wanna have a story. We wanna see people living there. And then we wanna take the zoning and the outlay and the structure we use to kind of match the outcome. And I think the outcome's gonna work. I think think Nelson Homes did a really good job up north where they kind of identified who they were gonna open the for sale market to first. And I think I think this if we mess that up on the on the Horton side or then I think that that's a that'll be a miss and we don't wanna mess it up.

So I think, you know, we we won't know exactly where the final pricing comes out till they start finishing units because things keep moving all the time. Maybe we'll get a different tariff tomorrow and, you know, it'll cost 5% more, 5% less. And so I think I don't know if that answers your question. Sorry to jump in. He's the expert.

No, it's Okay. I just mean, I think everybody agrees it's something a solution we want to figure out, right? And we don't know what that looks like. Just there's

gonna do. We do. You know it. Right? It's it's really simple. Homes have to be completed in a shorter period of time so that uncle Dior's money gets counted shorter. He's happy about that. Buyer's happy about that. Pricing has to get a unit cost that drops so that it matches the current income increase to the housing increase spread. We just have to cut it. If the if the goal is median home price gets cut, no subsidy, no restriction. I mean, you know, probably in five years from now, and I'm happy to sit down and map this out, I think this problem's over. Because anything that we start construction on in five years from today, basically, you have enough of a population decline that comes out in 2035 that is kind of a non

issue, right? Thank you. Okay. Additional questions? Just marketing plans, what percentage do you

think will be written basically by investors? You sort of did that. I mean, is

there any idea or your marketing plan is to go how are you going

to market it to these families so that maybe gets around that?

So I wish we brought in our sales team. Right like they go out and they're knocking doors, they're hounding people, they're you know it's yeah. So it's we can't say that somebody wouldn't come in and pick up a unit or a couple units and buy it. But that's certainly not the intent here and it is to really market it to that first time home buyer.

Yes, I'm sort of sensing that

you want this to be a neighborhood that people actually live in and take care of and stuff.

That's why I would ask you that question.

I've got a couple of questions then. Maybe Mike, can you pull up? Yes, that's what I wanted to look at. And then just walk through the materials on the unit, the exterior material materials?

Do you want me to walk through it? Or Yeah.

David, why

don't you walk through that?

Yeah. So this this rendering is a little bit old from what we are proposing. So it's hardy board, hardy plank on the Ground Floor and then a different smaller reveal on the Mid Floor or the Middle Floor. And then we're

Hardy going board. And that's also Hardie board. Yeah. It's just a different

Yeah. Yeah. So so instead of being, you know, six inches tall, you can see it's it's yeah. I think it's two inches on the mid two or four. I don't have that in front of me. Okay. And then the the top would be a different reveal as well. And that's something that we're working with our design department to try to make it feel a bit more mountain meets urban that you do have that sense of scale that when you're looking up that maybe the smaller reveal is higher up to where you kind of feel like it's a little bit higher.

Okay. And then the white is the stucco. Is

Yes.

Okay. And then my question for you, think that the only thing that I think as staff you've recommended for us to consider would be that enhanced raised landscaping aspect of it, right? Okay. All

right. To clarify, we're looking at this area here where that monument sign would go. This area in question right there is where we'd be looking for that enhanced mounted. It would also have the side effect of also helping buffer some of those units that are taking a lot of noise from the road from nine to south and things like that as well Okay.

Right. Any other questions? Okay. Thank you. All right. So we will now open this up for public comments. So if there's anyone here who has comment on this item come forward. Seeing none, Mike anybody online?

Particular item, please use the raise your hand feature now and we'll address you one at a time. I'm not seeing any hands raised.

Okay. All right. Actually, I had one more question, David. You were meant so there were some aspects about bollards or lighting and support that you were stating that you wanted to have be from the exterior of the units. Would you have in your HOA docs some aspect about maintaining those? Because I think that's probably an area where unit owners will best of intentions don't happen oftentimes on that

aspect And of that's our intent on that is instead of having the bollards that somebody comes a kid comes along and kicks the bollard and the first time it gets replaced, second time it might get replaced. But five, four or five years down the road or the homeowners going, okay, we got to raise a little bit more capital. Everybody needs to increase their dues for the HOA dues because we have to keep replacing these bollards. If we put the lights up on the buildings with the photo cell, it's a lot harder to tamper with. And then also it's easier for the HOA to maintain as well.

It would be the HOA maintaining those not the individual unit owners.

Yeah.

Makes Yeah. Sense.

And the same with the I mean the HOA maintains the entire exterior of the buildings as well. So everything will be painted regularly and cleaned regularly.

Okay. Thank you. Okay. So we'll close this to public comment now and open up for planning commission deliberation.

I just want to make a

quick comment that I think staff and you're doing a great job. This is really a tough site, tough location. You don't have a nice layout of property and to be able to fit all in in there. Compliment you on it. Nice job.

Wait, Before that again, I think just

the Others

may want to do something before we get to that point.

And again, maybe just a little discussion on that enhanced aspect of landscaping. Does everybody feel comfortable about that aspect of it? Looks like you include that then your motion right?

Hopefully

yeah, we ready any other comments alright. I'll then make a motion that the Planning Commission determine the preliminary site plan review for the Sandy Station townhomes located at 8925 South Harrison Street. It's substantially complete based on the following findings. The four find no. How many findings? Five findings and nine conditions, including the enhanced landscaping as discussed tonight.

I'll second.

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

Yes.

Lenny Stavenport? Yes. Craig Kitterman?

Yes.

Dave Bromley?

Yes.

This motion carries.

Okay. You can do the next one?

Yeah. I'll do the next one. Give me a chance to get down there because I don't have it memorized and we gotta alright. Thank you. I make a recommendation that the planning that the Planning Commission. Determine that the preliminary subdivision review for the Sandy Station townhomes located at 8925 South Harrison Street is complete based on the the findings. Two. The two findings that's subject to the Seven. Seven conditions in the staff report. I'll second.

Ron Mortimer?

Yes.

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

Yes.

Lenny Stavenport? Yes. Craig Kitterman? Yes. Dave Bromley?

Yes.

This motion carries.

Okay. As was mentioned before, it's I think it'll be a great project as well. So good luck as you move forward there. Okay. Move to some of the administrative business. And so the first would be minutes of the previous meeting. Don't remember the date. November 6 meeting for

minutes. Motion to approve.

So moved.

All in favor.

Aye.

Then. I have I have a couple of things and

then I'll turn it over

to Mike if he has anything. Just wanted to remind you of our December 1 holiday social and Ayesha needs an RSVP for that just so we can order the food and not over order too much.

And don't forget to order your white elephant gifts.

Yes. Hopefully you can all come. We usually have

a very good time. Or dig through your closet and find the one that you got last year or the year before that or the year before that.

So try to get that to ICEE as soon as possible. That is December 1. Just a reminder on that and that is at the Mortimer's home.

And Kathy is still unaware, right?

She'll find out on the, what is it, the '30?

Yeah. We appreciate them making their home available. And then also make sure that each one

of you take a poinsettia that's right in front of here. There's one for each of you from the mayor giving us those today to make

sure the planning commission gets one.

And if you forget, we know where you live.

Can I

just say, can I

can I thank you also, thank you for the the little thing, the little Thanksgiving?

The gift yes.

Thank you.

That arrived. Appreciate that.

Mike, do you have anything you wanna bring up?

The only thing that we've got looks like we'll have a meeting on December 4 but possibly not on December 18.

Darn it.

I know you'll be heartbroken if that doesn't come to come to pass. The only hesitancy to cancel that one right away is that we won't have another meeting until January 18.

Darn it.

So we we wanna keep that open if we have an applicant that needs to move forward with a with a project and get them processed timely. So I'll keep you posted on that and we'll know for sure by our next meeting on December 4.

All right, thank you. All right, so we have a motion to adjourn. All in favor?