Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay. We ready, Mike? Ron gave his speech when he volunteered for the. For the Christmas committee.

Recording in progress.

We'd like to welcome everyone out to the Planning Commission meeting this evening at today's Commission meeting for 12/04/2025. Welcome all those who are here in attendance with us as well as anyone who may be online as well and we will begin with the Pledge of Allegiance. If you could all stand and say the Pledge of Allegiance with me. Okay, so my name is Dave Bromley and I will be sharing the meeting this evening and we will introduce the Planning Commission members here first and we'll begin to my left here with Craig.

Craig Kitcherman.

Lenny Stavenport. Danny Schoenfeld.

Ron Mortimer. Steve Wrigley.

Cameron Duncan.

And James, if you could introduce staff.

Okay, my name is James Sorenson. I'm the Community Development Director. We have Darian Alcorn, Senior Civil Attorney with the city. Mike Wilcox, Planning Director. Doug Willwright, Development Service Manager Travis Ackerman is here with us. He is Assistant City Engineer. And got that right, right? Now we got Brittany Ward is the Public Works Assistant Director. And I just want to recognize Jennifer George as a Planning Commissioner with us tonight as well. And Ayesha over here is the Planning Secretary. Oh, where's Ivan? Oh, sorry, he was sitting back there. Ivan Cooper is the transportation engineer. Okay, thank you James.

Alright to kind of let everybody know how the meeting will go this evening. We will have for each of the each of the items on the agenda. We'll have our planning director Mike Wilcox will provide an introduction of the item. Afterwards the developer or the applicant will have the opportunity to address their item. And then there'll be a staff presentation, after which we'll open up the discussion to any public comment that would like to be made.

If you are in attendance here, you could come to the podium and then we would invite you to first state your name and address and then you would be provided two minutes comment. And then if there's other like to speak on the same topic, then if you could also come to state your name and address. And if you could just focus on items that had not been addressed by previous commenters, that would be appreciated. And after we've heard public comment, we will then close to public comment and then open it up for Planning Commission deliberation and motions. So we'll begin the first item, which is the amendment to Title 21 of the Land Development Code as it relates to the Automall Zone Land Use Matrix.

And Mike?

Thank you Mr. Chair. This first item is a staff initiated code amendment which involves the some amendments to the land use matrix or land use table for the Autumn Mall zoning district. Within the Autumn Mall zone district which is roughly bounded by 106 on the North end, Hundred And 10th South on on the South end and then the freeway and State Street is roughly where that's located. There are two sub districts within that area.

One is for the auto mall dealership area and then the other is for a auto mall commercial area. And within the matrix there are different land uses for each of those different sub districts within that area of the city.

And as part of the city's review of this area it came to our attention from the Auto Mall itself that it allows currently for certain land uses that are not congruent with the purpose of especially the sub dealership area.

And so there are certain land uses that don't help establish or ensure that only dealerships can be located within that area. So this has been supported and reviewed by the Auto Mall Dealers Association and they've included their letter of support of the city's action on this particular item and that's included in exhibit C. So the intent of this proposed amendment will hopefully help strengthen the Southtown Automall area put the land use matrix in better alignment with the purpose and of of establishing this Automall area in the city and restrict certain uses that are currently allowed to only be allowed either as in conjunction with the dealership or not allowed at all anymore in that area. So this kind of gives a little bit of a summary of what this the effect of this proposed amendment would do within the auto mall dealership subdistrict. So these listed uses would be allowed if they are done in conjunction with a dealership's operations as ancillary to the primary use of selling automobiles and operating a dealership.

And then these are uses that are currently either permitted or conditional in that same district, the sub district of the dealership area which we feel would be better located in other areas of the city and not allowed to be located in this particular area. So with that staff has proposed those amendments that are shown in exhibit A as the red line version in your staff reports as well as a clean version of what that would look like as a final product in exhibit B. If there are any questions you're welcome to answer anything that the Planning Commission has. If there are no questions staff would recommend that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to adopt this proposed code amendment that's found in the staff report and shown in the exhibits.

Okay, thank you Mike. And is there any questions that any commissioners have of

staff? Okay.

And nothing else from you, right? Okay. All right. So thank you, Mike. And this item was this

is

open to public comment. So if you have a comment on this item, if you could come forward to the podium. Seeing none here, Mike, are there any online?

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

Okay. Alright. So we'll close this to public comment and open it up to any public to Planning Commission deliberation and and a motion.

Mister chairman, ready to make a motion.

Thank you.

I move that the planning commission forward a positive recommendation to the city council to amend title 21 of the Sandy Municipal Code relating to the land uses within the Autumn All Zone District based upon the four findings of the staff report.

I'll second.

Lenny Stavenport. Yes. Cameron Duncan.

Yes. Ron Mortimer.

Yes. Danny Schoenfeld.

Yes.

Steve Wrigley.

Yes.

Craig Kitterman. Yes. Dave Bromley?

Yes.

This motion carries.

Alright. So we will move on to the next item which is the Smith Entertainment Group and the west facade of the structure there at the mall and Mike.

Thank you Mr. Chair. This next item is been presented by the Smith Entertainment Group. They are request requesting a further review of the architectural west facade remodel of their proposed rehabilitation and reuse of the Macy's former Macy's building that's on the south end of the mall. As shown here on the on the map in that affected area of the portion of the mall.

This is a building that was started in its redevelopment with the addition of the practice facility for the hockey and they are further rehabbing and expanding the use of that portion of the mall to include office use and other things for the SCG group. I believe the applicant is here and can make it further presentation on their request.

Hello. My name is Rob Cottle. I'm principal architect with Babcock Design Group representing Smith Entertainment Group and the design team. As Mike said, this is the what we're calling phase three, which is really the intermediate step or the next phase of development for the Smith Entertainment Group property at Southtown Mall, starting first with the practice brick wall, and replacing that with a new elevation that's much more in line with what you would consider to be like Class A office space. Because really, the intent is to provide the space that this will serve primarily is for the SCG administrative functions.

Smith Entertainment Group is centralizing all of their operations, all of their support, and all their employees to this location to be really their hub along with the practice facility, for the Mammoth and along also with the upcoming jazz practice facility. So, we're here today really for the approval on that elevation. And our hope is that what has been presented previously to the Architectural Review Committee and the city is it will be approved today.

Thank you. So Doug, do you have some you would like to add as well?

So we did visit this site today on our field trip just to help orient people to to this. So this is the former Macy's building, a 100,000 square feet on two levels. It's been vacant for a number of years. This is the icebox facility. Just died on me.

That's the icebox facility, and then there's a connecting that triangular shape is a connecting. And that's all pretty much finished. And that as Mike mentioned and as Rob mentioned, the next phase is the west phase of the building. So this is what it will look like. Over here on the right side is the icebox and the transitional corner entry.

That facility that Mike's pointing to right now is called a pylon. And it actually goes above the otherwise horizontal top of the parapet for all the building. And then right on that corner right there, that will be the on the Main Floor, that will be the pro shop for souvenirs and uniforms and that kind of stuff. And then going north from there along the face, we've got the existing entrance in the middle that will become the main office entrance for the SEG employees. And then further north on the corner, they're putting a conference room there with some emphasis material.

You can see they've got a row of columns, the overhanging parapet, which is also on the other part of the development. And the kind of the tan color is architectural is an aluminum screen that will be located hanging in front of the windows. And you can see it on the bottom down here on the materials exhibit. And that will reduce the solar energy entering the that west facing side of the building. I'm thinking about half, half or more of the solar.

You'd still be able to see in and out, but it'll be screened and reduced. So this did go the architectural review committee. They looked at it and discussed it. And they ended up making a recommendation that this view that are seeing here be approved. And that was a unanimous recommendation. So I'm happy to answer any questions. Maybe I'll go to this next slide here. That's the materials. The wood grain, it's a metal, but it's wood grain. That's basically the soffit material in the overhang.

And it also comes down in in some places on the building. And then you've got your two two different colors of architectural metal panel. And then you've got some on the bottom there that's that's supposed to be stone, which you can see again on this. And that's the stone is currently going up on that pylon that is the main entrance to the facility. It was wrapped in plastic to keep it warm, but when we went by there, but they're about halfway up with the rock. So are there any questions?

Just on the window screens, are those reasonable and they go up and down? It looks like they might be in

here or that's a fixed? No, they're fixed. They're fixed. That's right, isn't it?

Yes. Yes. Okay.

They're set out from the windows at a distance. Right?

Yeah. It's just a passive solar screen that sits out proud of the windows to help with that West Solar gain that you get primarily in the summertime. The glass will also have low E coatings on it to deal with it as well, but it's just another feature to help with that intense west sun that you get during the summertime.

Yes, sounds like a great idea. The drawings look like they may go up and down.

Other questions? No,

thank you. Any other questions of applicant or? All right, thank you. So this has been noticed to public and so is there anybody here that would like to speak to this item? Come on pulpit here. Is it your name and address? I think you know the story here.

Good evening. Planning Commission, Steve Van Maren, 1400178 South Bangor Parkway, Suite 207. It's it's interesting to me that the top picture in that display catches the hallway of this this the shopping center outside of Macy's. And that would be a good articulation of the roof to put a peak right there above the entrance. That wouldn't take a lot.

It wouldn't have any depth to it, I imagine. But there's a lot of places doing facade remodels like that. Just a suggestion if you don't want to quite follow the recommendation. Thank you.

Okay. Thanks, Steve. Is anybody else here that would like to comment? Okay, Mike, anybody online?

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

Okay, thank you. And then we'll close this public comment now at this time and open this up to Planning Commission for some deliberation comments motion.

I just want to make a comment. I appreciate the work that go and I think this is going to look really good. Danny, know you were involved in the and thank you for your time and your efforts. I don't know if you want to address anything with that, but I do appreciate. And I do miss not hearing the soft Lexington Circle address Steve's. That just rolled off the tongue so much better, but I'm glad you're here. Thank you. I'm done.

No, I was going to say the architectural review committee had a couple of comments, but overall it was a really well thought out design and we all thought it was something we should move forward with and recommend.

Thanks. And I think there is some discussion that has been had about the roofline. I think this looks great though. I think they've done a great job. It's going to be a great modification to the area. So that's my viewpoint. But I think you had a did you have a comment or question or?

I just had. I guess, Steve, the part to the right is already being built. We're just dealing with the part to the left down here at the bottom part, correct?

That's correct.

Peak on that would not be on the right side. It's just that one off to the left is what we're doing.

Cameron, did you have something?

Yes, I think it looks great. I mean compared to that block wall, this is phenomenal. I do think it would be nice with the whole theme of the mountain basketball that the Jazz are going with and the Cairns district to have a little pop up on that roof even if it's over that center. I know that they were trying to downplay that because that's not necessarily a public entrance. But I don't know that I'm going to vote no because of that either. I think it looks awesome.

Looking at it, think there's a lot of for a good long flat space, there's a lot of breakup on there. It is and so I think there's a lot of it provides a lot of interest on architectural interest I think on what they've done there. But are we ready for motion? We'd like to make one.

I move that the staff or or the Planning Commission approve the modified site plan and building architectural design colors and materials for the Smith Entertainment Group redevelopment phase three west facade modified review for the property located at 1045 South State Street based on the three findings and five conditions. I'll second that.

Sorry, who was the second?

I second it.

Danny Schoenfeld? Yes. Steve Wrigley?

Yes.

Cameron Duncan? Yes. Ron Mortimer?

Yes.

Lanise Davenport? Yes. Craig Kitterman?

Yes.

Dave Bromley?

Yes.

This motion carries.

Okay. Good luck. Okay. So we have some related items over the next four. It's the Silver Sage Business Park two office site plan review and then also Silver Sage Park business, the subdivision amendment. Do you plan on addressing these together? How do you do, are you going to do all four, how are you going to do this?

Yeah, Thanks for asking. Good question. What we propose to do is to discuss the first two items of this site, the Silver Sage Business Park site plan and subdivision amendment. Okay. And then we'll move to the Middle mile site plan and conditional use and kind of break those two those four items that are somewhat related into pairs.

Okay, two motions and then two motions.

Correct. And we'll have a presentation on each Okay,

great. All right, we'll take us off then Mike.

Thank you Mr. Chair. So the first two items regarding this particular site at 10008 And 95 And 10009 And 35 South 700 East as shown on the map and highlighted in the location as to these two properties. The proposal is brought to us by the applicant Kyle Spencer and Scott Bunnell of Navigate Private Wealth and Northern Engineering. They're requesting a preliminary site plan review for a new office building on this particular site as well as a preliminary subdivision plat review to consolidate two existing commercial lots into one and then allow for that building to be placed on that property.

I believe the applicant is here and can present on both of those requests now and then Doug will follow-up with his analysis and recommendation.

My name is Scott Bunnell, and I'm the managing principal of Navigate Land and Navigate Private Wealth. And what we're proposing to do is to build an office building on these two sites. So there's the north side on the left, south side on the right, and we wanna combine the two sites for a couple reasons. One, those are, as you're aware, fairly unusual size and shape. That's why they've been a weed patch for a long time.

And so in order for it to make any economic sense for us to be able to build on there, we need to have room for parking, which would require building, you know, a little over, I think it's about 6,800 square feet to have enough office space to cover the load on that and then have room for parking. We need to have them one lot for a couple of reasons. Main reason is a bank loan so that we they have to have over 51% of the lot. And if we did just one lot, one, there's not enough parking, and two, the South wouldn't have enough percentage to be on our loan. So we need to combine the two into one lot.

The other thing that makes this a viable project is Middle Mile and AECOM. We're gonna put this little utility thing that we can go into a little bit of detail. They're also online. They can talk more about it. But they're gonna do an easement agreement with us, which gives us an upfront dollar amount to make it worth buying that extra south lot.

Just odd things came together at the right time. The square footage we could work out, the parking we could foot out or make work as well as the financing due to that upfront easement lease. Anyway, so the idea here is we're financial advisors. Our office right now is at 12012 South 700 East, so just a mile or so south of that. We've been in business since 05/01/2014 and prior to that with another large firm that we broke off from.

So we also own an accounting firm and so we'll have the accountants in there, financial advisors and then we'll plan to bring on an attorney also so you can get all your financial needs done with us in one place. That's the vision. What else you need to know? You wanna look at the building or anything like that? It's just the site is what we're worried about here. There's the building. Fairly straightforward building. You walk in, got the lobby area. On the right there, see restrooms and drinking fountain and you go straight through past the reception as you go to a conference room. On the left would be most of the advisors.

We'll have a couple of open offices that we wanna sublease and then go down stairs to the basement where we needed another 3,000 square feet so that we could have enough parking. So that's the main thing behind that. That'll be a storage facility for anything we need. And then on the right would be more the CPAs and attorney. This is what it looks like from the outside.

The idea behind this is to blend into the neighborhood somewhat, but look a little different. We don't want it to look like a nursing home or a used car dealership. So a little bit different, but stay within the four eight roof and all that kind of stuff and the 30 foot height. So some depth, some color, fairly modern, but not super modern. This is the back of it. It'll be along the trail there. You can see the conference room is in the middle, and then, again, the office is built out to the sides. And then above the office is a flat area that will put some of the AC stuff and heating. You'll see the sides are a little bit asymmetrical. Again, that makes it look a little more grand in the front.

We still meet all the requirements and gives a little more texture for the neighborhood. And then again, you see the two sides being put together. We'll maintain the property. AECOM and Middle Mile will pay for their the $1.00 $8.95. We'll take care of all the utilities and everything on that piece. We'll maintain, again, all of the we won't have any grass. We'll have lots of plants and things around. We'll maintain all the landscaping and the snow removal, all that kind of stuff. They won't have any of that. They'll have a large fence around there.

They've gone several times. They've looked at that to make it kind of blend in and be decorative. And then in front of that area, we'll put some trees and things to make a blend in and not, you know, look like a utility company. What else, Doug, do we need to talk about? Is that enough? Any questions about that? Have you guys seen it? Is this the first time you've seen it? Okay. All right. Now, we appreciate Doug and Mike and all their help and yes, hope you approve it so we can get going on it in the next month or two. Thanks.

Thank you. And then Doug, did you have anything else?

No.

So the second part will will deal with the site, the the utility site. But this shows the context, and it was a staff suggestion that we required the landscaping to be maintained by the landlord around the utility station because we know how good the utility companies are at landscaping their sites. So quality materials that meets their architectural design requirements of both the city architect architectural design standards and also the there's some architectural design requirements with the zone. This is an SD zone, a special development zone that was created just for this subdivision area. So it meets those requirements.

We did mention the staff report that they've got a couple extra parking stalls. But we we've got two ways to deal with that. That won't require the planning commissions further action. Are there any questions?

Doesn't look like it. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Thank you for those presentations. We'll go the the next slide. Then

which is 410 Arcelor. Lived there for about ten years. Thank you for the whoever's managing the cursor. Appreciate that. I'd like to echo mister Bunnell's sentiments on the weed lot as it has been that ever since we've gotten there, sometimes to varying levels of weeds. And it's nice to be getting it developed. So very glad to be seeing that. And, actually, the comp this topic that I have at hand has to do with the reason we didn't like the weed lot. It really wasn't the weeds or the mice. It was the noise.

The noise from the streets and underneath there is pretty tremendous, and we've been looking forward to developing the that back lot just to have some sort of a sound block. Unfortunately, we're not talking about an apartment community, which I'm probably the only person in the room that would actually want an apartment community there, but it is for sound block. The the road there is concrete, and the other side of the road, which is to the west of what we're showing here, so on the bottom end, has a sound barrier in place, which acts as an echo chamber for us, and we get a lot of noise. So when I reviewed the plan, I was really excited to see that except that, you know, as you can tell, mister Bunnell's building is immediately behind my neighbor and not behind me. So my comment today is to see if the if there's been any contemplation or if there's any willingness to address the noise issue.

Presumably, at at one time when noise barriers were put in place, the owner of the property at the time opted out of the noise barrier, probably because it was commercial. And as such, I get a lot of it. So that's my comment.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anybody else here? Okay, seeing none, Mike.

If you are joining us via Zoom webinar and would like to speak to this I am seeing no hands raised.

Okay. I would like to come as a private residence. My name is Travis Ackerman. I live at 828 East Savannah Drive, which is just a few houses down from here. We are grateful that we have the trail behind the house. That has been a really nice feature that's been added. I will just echo Ryan Fowler's comment that this section of trail is really loud. Like, I can't even talk to my wife when we're walking down this section of trail. And the noise has has been a big issue. The city has a requirement that, there'll be 15 foot landscape buffer in front of the parking.

And I feel as a resident that that would be better served if we had a 15 foot landscape buffer at the back of the property and a requirement that they have tall evergreen trees like the property that's just north of this and like the fire station that's just north of this.

They have

a variable forest behind their property that acts as a sound buffer. And so I would ask that we consider a variance to that ordinance so that the residents and the trail users can have a little bit of peace and quiet.

Thanks, Travis. Okay. So we will close this to public comment now. And then maybe first off, Doug, if you could get up and maybe talk a little bit about any sound related issues.

Yes, I intended to discuss the sound issue with the second set of staff reports.

K.

So yes, it's true. There's no sound barrier wall because it's not residential property. That was I wasn't here at the time when that was done, but I believe that was a UDOT decision. And that UDOT paid for the noise buffer walls where the highway was adjacent to the rear of residential properties.

Okay. And is that issue applicable only to the second set of items on the agenda or is

it also mitigation of noises relative to the second set.

I think what Doug's referring to is sound mitigation that's coming from the site itself is being addressed in item in the second part for the middle mile. I think the impact that they're discussing is not coming from the site itself.

It's off-site.

It's from the the adjacent road.

Right. So anything we do on the site to add buildings or landscaping or walls is going to help. Is it going to eliminate it? No. Is it still gonna be loud? Yes. But it's nothing Nothing that the development of this site is

hampering. Okay. Maybe just review where there is so we can see the building, where there is wall and then where the rod iron fence would be?

I'm sorry?

I lost my pointer. You could so you see the white area there on the right, the extreme right of the site. That is the Middle Mile. Oh, this Yeah. There.

On the south side.

The Middle Mile. And so what we have proposed there is well, when we went to the neighborhood meeting, which this gentleman was a participant in that meeting, the issue of noise was raised. Initially, Middle Mile had proposed a eight foot Trex fence on the east side of the site and then well, actually they were it was corralling. Let me back up. They had initially proposed a wrought iron fence around the white area.

So that would allow some view into the into the site for, you know, crime prevention and that kind of thing. But it's also a negative in that you're gonna view these otherwise utility buildings and no landscaping on the white area. So we talked about that after the public hearing and what we ended up with suggesting and they accepted was that eight foot masonry wall on the east, the northeast and the south sides of the white area. And then the chain link or the wrought iron fence only on the Can

you show that with your cursor?

So from the gate around and all along the south, that's the east and then along to there and then on the south side all the way the whole south side. That's your eight foot masonry. And then the wrought iron is in the northeast, there's a gate northeast and the west side would be the wrought iron. So that and then the utility structures are about 14 feet high. And then we did suggest increasing the landscape.

But the landscaping with evergreen trees mixed into the mix between the detention pond and the fence on the west side of the site. So that's we we can't do a noise barrier wall along the trail because we don't want that. It's not consistent with what we've done both to the north and south within this with the three rail fence and the masonry columns. I think it's also nice that the trail users will have some views across the parking lots and between the walls and that of the street to kind of give it some context.

Okay. So what is the existing the landscape plan then for the center parking lot and the east side of the center parking lot?

We can go to the landscape.

And did you say it's being modified or is it going be as per the landscape plan that they're pulling up? It should be there, right? It's not real visible.

There we go.

This is the landscape plan here.

Yeah. That one doesn't show that area,

does it? So this is the north side.

The north side.

Right? So there's this first pod of parking. They're showing deciduous trees along this back edge, street trees here. And then this is that retention area, that second part of parking along here.

Yeah, this landscape plan hasn't been updated with the revised site plan. So the detention pond for the middle mile is actually between street and the fenced in area and then you can see that row of trees that's been added there along the wrought iron fence portion. So the we don't require grass for landscaping anymore. So they can have mulch, stone mulch or bark mulch. We do require trees and we do require a 33% maturity ground cover with low low plants over the mulch.

So that's what's being shown there is is all of the plantings that mainly are ground level.

One thing that I'm not seeing in this is any evergreen trees and there is a requirement to have a sixtyforty split in the amount of trees that they're providing. So that's something that we can work with them at final and you could provide a condition that requires that those evergreen trees are placed along that edge along that westerly or sorry easterly edge. That something we could work through in final review of the site.

We've had to balance the policing aspect of being of the police being able to see into the utility site through the wrought iron. We have to balance that against you know, trying to screen it so it doesn't look as bad. And and we're doing that with the architectural treatment of the buildings to make them look more residential in character. But I I think I think everyone's done the best they can with this site and it is extremely difficult. Okay.

Any other?

Go ahead.

I also have a landscaping related question which really gets it. So there was this recommendation to possibly move the building a little bit further. I think if I'm understanding the recommendation a little bit further west to add more of the landscaping buffer to the east. Is that something that's possible? Or or are we or or is it just to add additional trees on the east side? In other words, could you do more landscaping on the east

about the office building or at the

I'm talking

about mile.

The building the building yeah, the middle the building itself.

I I think Travis was talking about the parking lot that's between the the two of them there. The one that's on the bottom of that right hand side. If there is a way to take that front yard setback between those I can't see how many stalls are there, four stalls, and and pull that parking forward so you could have more landscaping at the detention pond in the back to provide a buffer further back. I don't know that you can because you need a certain amount of throat to get your car to pull out without blocking all the other cars. I think if some of those trees on that east side in that detention area were evergreen trees, I think that would go to what Ryan was asking Yes. And

so if that if these were modified if the reports were modified where would that be added?

Just an additional condition. Which one?

Under the site plan, the first motion.

First motion, yes. Right. And whoever is making a motion, see if you feel comfortable about adding that in there because it sounds like there's some good traction with that. Mr. Chair? Yes.

There's really not a way to not have the landscape front yard setback along the street.

Okay, don't think we were talking about that. Think we're just talking about the evergreen aspect of it in east of that parking lot that is adjacent to the middle mile.

We've looked at all kinds

of things on this, obviously. We're wanna be sensitive to the neighbors and whatnot. If we need to put Evergreen on the east side of those the parking, fine. And then the other so we can kinda see throughout the building, we'll find that. But as far as, you know, the parking goes, we've done everything we can to maximize that. And you can see there's all kinds of stuff in there we have to and fully staffed, we have 27 people in there. And we gotta have client parking too. And we built or spent $200,000 on a basement to get parking. And so it's there's just a lot of restrictions. So we we know we can.

And the other thing you need to realize, there's some texture on the sides of those buildings. And I think one of the reasons there's so much noise now is because the echo between the the flatness of the apartments and all that kind of stuff. So we break some of that up. I think it'll help quite a bit, but I'm sure there'll still be noise and whatever. But and there'll be shrubs along the bottom too that kinda help. So I think we're doing what we can.

With your building, with your fences, with the landscape, I think those things combined will definitely assist. And I think that we are favorable of trying to make sure there's some evergreens on the east of that.

And we're fine. Whatever the covenants are, we're fine. Parking, we just can't. We just gave up like four more parking spaces because they had to have a crew or something. Mean, it just sucks up parking like crazy. So we just can't do it. Again, the whole thing becomes unfeasible. Thanks. Any

other comments? We're ready for motion.

I'll take a crack

at it. Okay.

Alright. I make a motion that the Planning Commission approve the proposed Silver Sage Business Park 2, navigate Product Of Wealth Office Building, preliminary site plan review located at 10895 South 700 East as described in the staff report and based on the two findings and five conditions with the addition of a sixth condition that the trees on the east side of the south parking lot be revised to Evergreen to help mitigate the noise from 700 East.

So Evergreen's within the sixtyforty.

Sixtyforty split. Split. Is

is that good Mike or you got?

I would just say along the both parking lots. Not just the south.

That's fair. Yeah, I'll amend that to be both parking lots on the east side of both parking lots.

Okay, do we have a second? I'll second.

Cameron Duncan?

Yes.

Danny Schoenfeld? Yes. Ron Mortimer?

Yes.

Steve Wrigley?

Yes.

Lanise Davenport? Yes. Craig Kitterman?

Yes.

Dave Bromley?

Yes.

This motion carries.

Okay, do want to do the next one too? Portion 5. Are we going

to have a presentation?

Think we already We have to do the second motion.

We jump forward again. Yes, the subdivision review. I make a recommendation of the Planning Commission to determine the preliminary subdivision review for the proposed Silver Sage business part two subdivision amendment as described in the staff report for the property located at 10895 South and 10935 South 700 East based on the two findings and four conditions as outlined in the staff report.

I second that.

Sorry, who was the second? Craig. Oh, thank you. Cameron Duncan?

Yes.

Craig Hitterman?

Yes.

Ron Mortimer?

Yes.

Danny Schoenfeld? Yes. Steve Wrigley?

Yes.

Lenny Stavenport? Yes. Dave Brom Dave Bromley? Yes. This motion carries.

Okay. Alright. So, now, we'll move on to the next two items that are related to the previous two items. This will be the middle mile infrastructure site plan review and conditional use permit for public utility station.

Okay thank you Mr. Chair. So this next item is on the same site but on the southern end of this. It's a proposal that's been put forward by oh shoot I just lost her name. Christina Lewis with AECOM.

They're representing the middle mile infrastructure and they are proposing both a conditional use permit as well as a site plan review. The conditional use permit is related to the proposed public utility station for fiber optic booster station. And the site plan of the improvements that are associated with that proposed use. And I believe Christina is online so let me give her a chance to speak. Let's see. Christina you may go ahead and unmute yourself and present your item to the Planning Commission.

Hear me?

Speak right up into that your microphone.

Okay. Is that better?

Yes. Much better. Thank you.

Okay. Okay. Great. Good evening. My name is Christina Lewis.

As you said, I work with AECOM technical services middle mile infrastructure for the site plan review and the conditional use permit. So what we're proposing are, it's an inline amplification HUD, and it's used to boost fiber optic cable. So about every 50 to 60 miles, the, the fiber optic cable starts to lose signal or bandwidth. So we will pull the fiber optic cable into the building and reenergize that and boost that. And, so what we're proposing to install, initially is gonna be one, prefabricated concrete building.

It's about 24 feet by 36 feet, and that sits on a concrete foundation. And then the other, that where your cursor is, that's an emergency generator. It's natural gas fired, so there will not be any fuel stored on the on the site, and that also sits on a concrete pad foundation. And then at the same time, we will be installing concrete pads for one future in line amplification hut and one future emergency generator. So along with that so this our our site will be enclosed by the fence as discussed earlier.

So the south side, the east side, and part of the north side will be an eight foot, concrete masonry wall. So that will help with, any kind of noise issues. And then the rest of the fencing around the site is gonna be, wrought iron, to allow for a view into the site for crime prevention as requested. And then also, we are gonna be doing some architectural upgrades to our buildings. So we'll have a brick veneer and a gabled roof, so it will be in line with the residential, surrounding area.

These these huts are unmanned, so we'll only have somebody coming to the site about once a week. So it's not much of a traffic generator, and access will be through Navigate Wells Parking Lot. So I think that is all I can think of. Do you have any questions about that?

Any questions? No, thank you. Doug, a quick question for you. It is, will this have to come back before the planning commission for the other pad or is this going upon to both. Be Okay.

The full development. It's just gonna come in phases as their services become more in demand than they'll add the second hut.

Okay, that makes sense.

They would only need to get a building permit for the second hut when when that comes along. But the site improvements would all be made at this time.

Okay. Anything

else? So Christina was remote because she's in South Carolina. So we're keeping her up. She's been great to with even though it's been a long distance relationship which doesn't always work out.

So

I think we've done all we can to mitigate this. As I mentioned, we're we we had additional information submitted on the safety, which is one of the other issues that was raised in the neighborhood meeting. Concern about electromagnetic magnetic radiation and and and basically, they're putting their electronic equipment in concrete bunkers. So and we're not there's no there's no danger from a chemical or electro oral risk from this site. And they are this is this is new stuff.

You know, it's it's a new industry. It's a new need, but it does fall into our public utility site definition. And we've got the conditional use to mitigate any anticipated negative impacts. So staff is recommending approval of this, both the conditional use findings and the site plan review.

I just had a question about the construction. If I understood right, it's precast concrete walls and then brick veneer on it.

Yes. They're adding the brick veneer to meet our requirements.

Sounds pretty protected.

And then there's a truss roof that will sit on top of the concrete roof of the of the hut to to get the pitched roof that's a requirement from the zone. Okay. There you can you can see it there in that lower left corner. You can see the truss that's being put on top of the hut. And then Michael go up one, maybe maybe another one, a couple. Keep going, please. Right there. Oh, yeah. Back there. So this is a profile of the fence.

The wrought iron fence, they wanted barbed wire and we don't allow that. So they're curving that upper part of the wrought iron columns to and pointing those. Eight feet tall with that current top is going be pretty hard to get over that. And even if someone did, you know, they are locked out of a steel, of a concrete bunker. About as safe as we can make it.

So the electrical infrastructure for that area is sufficient to fund to do this? There is no transformer

coming with And then the gas, of course is buried, the gas line. So all of this infrastructure exists in 700 East now.

That's why it was just, yeah, great, thank you. There'll be nothing new.

All right. Thank you, Doug. All right. So we'll open this item up to public comment now. And if you have any comments, you could come forward.

State your name and address and then got two minutes.

Mark Scott, 10810880SavannahDrive. Appreciate the opportunity to address the Planning Commission. And I'll begin by stating that we're adamantly opposed to certain portions of this development project, conditional use permit, and the applicant is requesting for numerous numerous reasons. I'm just gonna go ahead and read my comments so I can get through them quickly because I have such a little time. But the purpose of the STPO Silver Sage Zone was established an area for professional and business offices.

The intent and purpose of creating the zone is clearly stated. The fiber optic portion, booster station portion of this development does not in any way meet the professional office zone restrictions nor its intent. The applicant, along with Sandy City, is attempting to place this facility on the property by pretending that it is a public utility, which it is not, and that it qualifies for a conditional use permit, which it does not. A public utility is defined as an organization that provides essential services to the public, such as electricity, water, and gas. Division of public utilities describes its purpose as promoting the public interest in utility regulation and works to ensure that all customers have access to safer, reliable services and reasonable prices.

It also states that it does not regulate Internet service providers. These providers and the companies that build infrastructure for them, such as Middle Mile, have no or pricing controls to protect the public whatsoever. So unfortunately, a fiber optic booster station does not meet these standards and therefore is not truly a public utility. These types of facilities are typically placed in remote areas that can be situated as far as 50 miles apart and are generally used to provide services to unserved and underserved areas of the country. There is no reason whatsoever to plop one in middle of a well populated area of Santa, Utah, and expose it expose its citizens to potential hazards and nuisances.

In addition to this, a conditional use permit requires that the conditional use is beneficiary to the community it's in and is not detrimental or harmful to the community, its residents, and their property. No evidence has been provided that the signals this booster station provides even serves the residents of the Sandy City. Residents of Sandy City are already well served by Internet service providers, and we have numerous options at our at our disposal. In the previous neighborhood meeting, we we we requested that the applicant be required to provide verifiable data and studies that show that short term and long term exposure to their facility and its operations pose no ill or harmful effects to nearby residents. All we received was a copy of a letter from Middle Mile Infrastructures and a statement from one of their engineers citing a mathematical equation that they believe justifies the amount of magnetic field produced by a 600 foot 600 watt wire.

They also mentioned that neither Sandy City nor the state of Utah have any standards or requirements governing standards for magnetic field level similar to what the equipment admittedly produces to some extent. Very concerning that Sandy City has no regulations and or government code and and probably no real understanding of of the facility, its equipment, and functions, and what they produce. And yet they want to put one in the middle of our community to make use of a piece of vacant land. And no real information on potential other hazards such as backup batteries and things that could happen from potential failure. It was indicated that there's no fuel stored on on the property.

I believe, though, that propane is a fuel. Any kind of emissions, any effects on environment, and no explanation as to what the racks of heat producing equipment that they need to keep at certain temperatures, etcetera. Clearly, facility does not meet the requirements outlined for the granting of a conditional use permit. It is not the responsibility of Sandy City's planning zoning department to provide a pathway for a developer to circumvent the zoning requirements and their intent, nor is it the responsibility to all alter permitted uses of the zone so that a developer can include a use that makes their development economically feasible. I would not understand why a developer would build the professional offices if they can't sustain themselves economically on their own.

It's the duty and responsibility of the planning and zoning department to protect their citizens' safety and property from unintended consequences. Therefore, we ask that you deny the applicant's request for condi conditional use permit for the fiber optic booster station in the Sani ESD professional office Thank you.

Thank you Mr. Scott. Is there anybody else present who would like to speak? Okay, seeing none, Mike, is there anybody online?

Yes. 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. And we do have one hand raised Mr. Todd Bobang you may unmute yourself.

Hello. Can you all hear me?

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

Todd Bobang, 418 Randle Street, Greenville, South Carolina, as well with Christina. So I am the design engineer on this project with AECOM representing Middle Mile. And kind of want to make myself known if there's any technical questions that you all may have about the site. And one other thing I want to kind of bring up is you all

kind of mentioned it when we're talking

about the Silver Sage site and the Navigate Wealth Building. That CMU wall that is on the north, northeast and south part of the site is eight foot tall and is there to also mitigate noise from our site, which then in turn should hopefully help mitigate noise from the rev as well. I know that's a big concern. And kind of wanted to also point out, because it's brought up and we're talking about it, the EMF levels. Although the state of Utah and city of San Diego, they don't have specific regulations, we looked at the World Health Organization.

And based on I won't get in the nitty gritty of the numbers, but based on their levels and what is their guidelines for the general public, we are well below that threshold of property lines. And so our confidence level of that not being issued is high. And so again, we'll get in the nitty gritty of the engineering efforts, but went a step further with World Health Organization with that. Yeah, and just kind of want myself, if there's any technical questions that you all may have. Thank you all.

Thank you. Anybody else?

I am seeing no other hands raised.

Okay, so let's close this to public comment then at this time and then maybe how staff would like to address this, but maybe just talk a little bit about the conditional use and public utility definition that might be one thing to address and then another thing would might be the any harmful effect issues. So I don't know how you'd like to maybe address that or who would like to address that.

Yeah, so I can read the definition that Sandy City Code has regarding public utility stations. It means that a structure or facility used by a public or quasi public utility agency to store, distribute, generate electricity, gas, telecommunication excuse me, telecommunications and related equipment or to drill, capture pump or to otherwise engage in all aspects of treating and distributing water or affluent. The term public utility station shall not include storage or treatment of solid waste or hazardous waste. So it's broader than just a public utility. It does include any group that's engaged and or acts like a public utility or quasi public utility agency.

And in this case it's telecommunications that they're providing. It's fiber optic booster station just to make I mean it is a technology I think is widely not well understood but it's light that they're transmitting in these cables. And so that's what's diminishing as they travel and that signal weakens and this is a booster station that energizes energizes that that as as was articulated by the applicant. So we would find that this does meet our public utility station definition. It is a conditional use as listed in the approved land use table for this SD zone and they are following our city procedures for a conditional use permit to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission as long as any impacts that are generated from this proposed use are adequately mitigated through this review process.

What is a quasi public utility?

So I'm not sure what a quasi public utility would be but I I would looking at the definition say that it's something that acts like a public utility by providing

the It services to the is defined and you yeah I didn't think it was a defined term but it is. So we do have a definition for quasi public. Means essentially a public use although under private ownership or control.

Okay that makes sense in this case then correct?

Yeah. So it doesn't mean that it's necessarily regulated like Rocky Mountain Power as a sole proprietor or sole provider that hasn't been classified as or fiber optic has not been provided like that. But it is a utility that is being provided for the use of the public but it's under private ownership.

Okay. Well just like the Internet. Yeah. It's new. It's it's not going away and neither is the fiber optic. So we have to accommodate that. Can I ask the question?

Yeah. There was the point brought brought up about it not serving the community, Sandy itself, but someone forty, fifty miles away. Can we address that? Is that an issue to be addressed?

It's part of a larger network.

It's just like having a power substation I guess.

But does it have to serve Sandy in order for it to meet the conditional use?

No it does And as far as whether it impacts any residents I defer to the applicant to address whether that is or not isn't but it isn't necessarily something that is a definitional standard that has to be met.

Guess my comment would be conditional uses under state law cannot be denied. The role of the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission is the land use authority on conditional uses under our ordinance. So you you are the ones that decide whether the mitigating measures are adequate to address the anticipated negative impacts of the conditional use. K. You you cannot deny a conditional use in Sandy in the state of Utah.

So any other discussion or comment on that harmful effect aspect that was addressed? I know that Todd with Middle Mile touched on that briefly, but is there anything staff?

The gentleman did mention propane that is not propane. The generators are underground served by natural gas just like everybody's furnace in there.

Okay. Also I think they were mentioning the electromagnetic or is there anything harmful with that,

right? Do I understand that generators are only for emergency? They don't run constantly to power the system. Do cycle on and off like a lot of home do?

They'll be tested once a month for five minutes. Other than that, they'll only run when there's a power outage and they'll run for the duration of the power outage. And the noise level projection was 55 decibels, which is far less than the street noise.

And that that was when the generator was going with the 55 decibel issue? Okay.

That's in that supplemental letter we sent

out. Yes. Okay. Any questions, thoughts? The Planning Commission? Okay. Are you ready for a motion?

Move that the Planning Commission approve the middle mile infrastructure preliminary site design located at 1000935 S 700 East as described in the staff report with the three findings and five conditions.

Is there a second?

I'll second. Danny Schoenfeld? Yes. Lanise Davenport? Yes. Cameron Duncan? Yes. Ron Mortimer?

Yes.

Steve Wrigley?

Yes.

Craig Kitterman?

Abstain.

Dave Bromley?

Yes.

This motion carries.

Okay. So we got the next motion which is for the conditional use permit. Would you like to do that I

move for the conditional use permit for the public utility station for fiber optic booster station as described in the staff report located at 10009 And 35 South 700 East based on the three findings and three conditions.

Okay, do we have a second on that?

I'll second. Danny Schoenfeld?

Yes.

Lanise Davenport? Yes. Cameron Duncan? Yes. Ron Mortimer?

Yes.

Steve Wrigley?

Yes.

Craig Kitterman?

Abstain.

Dave Bromley?

Yes.

This motion carries.

Okay. Well, good luck as you move forward both those projects then.

Thank you.

Okay. Quick question, chair. Can you abstain? Is that?

That's what I was wondering too. Don't think you I don't think

Yeah, we need some direction on that.

If I remember right through the whole

The planning discussion, commission doesn't have the, they have to either thumbs up, thumbs down, yeah.

If you can remind me.

Yeah. We covered this years I

think that's what I remember from years ago too. Was before me. Yeah. Yeah. Must have been that.

Yeah, just want to make sure we're following the right procedure that we're not

All

right, thank you.

Yeah, just okay. So in the meantime, let's go through and we've got minutes from November 20. Is there a motion to approve?

Motion to approve the minutes.

All in favor?

Aye. Okay.

And then Okay. So James, I think that legal abstinence of that is with the other crew. Maybe if you can go for some Sandy development report.

Thank the Planning Commission for participating Monday. That was fun. Yeah. And appreciate the all of you being able to participate with that. I'm trying to think a minute ago I had a couple of things on my head, but then my mind just went to that. To see what we were, what we were doing on there. Oh, Mike had just mentioned that the December 18 meeting is officially canceled. So we're not. We don't need to have that meeting just because we don't have some items there. We thought we're going to be there in time that we wanted to have it if they were.

So we didn't hold anything up, but officially we'll looks like we won't have to have that meeting. Put that down and enjoy your extended

We're all

heartbroken. As am I. So

I appreciate that. And as we're coming to a year's end, which the eighteenth would have been our last meeting of the year, I just want to tell the Planning Commission how much we appreciate you. And it's been a good year. We have a lot of things coming up the first of the year and some pretty big projects that we'll be working with the Planning Commission moving forward. But just a big thank you to you for your efforts and just your consistency and how well you treat the public and other each other and work together. Just very much appreciate it. Thank you.

Thank you. And we very much appreciate I think the support that staff provides. It's I think you guys do an amazing job. I do am in the development world and I've gone to many different municipalities as several of these other people have as well. I definitely am impressed with the staff that are here. So thank you for everything you guys do. So We found your answer. Do we? Okay.

So it's under Article 11 under the Quorum and Voting Requirements. And it says that you can only abstain if you're voting on an item where you weren't present. So if the commission is voting on an item where the member was not present for the presentation.

Okay.

So if you're present for the presentation then we do not have an abstention.

Okay. So how do you want to handle this? Do we and that we have six yeses on this. Do we want do we need to revote or are we okay on just leaving it as is?

So I think it's okay to leave it as is. The thing about these bylaws that because it's not going to make a difference. No. Right? So the thing about these bylaws, it's a little bit different is that they don't count the abstention as a no. So it it's not counted as a vote under the circumstances where the person wasn't present. So it would have been counted as six members voting and unanimously yes. Okay.

But generally speaking I would participating in the discussion you need to vote. You're abstaining from voting or recusing yourself from an item you actually need to withdraw yourself, disclose the reason for the recusal and things like that, step out of the meeting, even remove yourself from the chambers during that deliberation and such. So those would be reasons why you would want to abstain from voting because you have a conflict of interest or some type of thing like that. But otherwise if you're participating in that discussion and there's no conflict of interest I would say that you should provide a vote. And then like she said in this case it didn't end up mattering but as a matter of procedure and rules that we should follow that would not be a practice that we would recommend.

Okay. And I'd say maybe even at this point maybe even for this item, I guess my take would be is that if there's some thoughts about whether there's sufficiency of items, whatever, maybe address that or bring that I think up for discussion. And then so that we can all understand and know what the thoughts are and then at least address those thoughts. And then you can still have the opportunity to vote yes or no. But I think that addressing those amongst planning commission deliberation would probably my take on that aspect of it.

Yes, I would agree. If there are issues or things that you feel haven't been addressed haven't been discussed want that part of the discussion of the planning and we want that to be brought to the surface and raised as an issue or a question so that those questions can be answered or at least deliberated. You may not still agree with what the motion is on that's been proposed and seconded. But at least knowing what those objections are, what those concerns are is relevant.

Or even make sure that you let us know that you don't think that there's sufficient there and that you don't feel comfortable and whatever as well. So that I think that's good to know. I like to know I personally really like to know what other people think in these issues and that does help me understand and process things as well. We a really important item as the final item on our agenda and that is to get this guy out of this seat.

Or put back.

No. And so we will vote on a new chair and vice chair. There's been ties before. I think there has been ties

before. I

just like to make it clear in my defense. I am glad that they're developing this vacant piece of property that's been an eyesore forever. Okay.

So we have a winner. Danny Schoenfeld.

Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Question. Vice. Ayesha.

Wait. Who's Vice? Wait.

Go ahead.

So did you vote?

No. Craig did not. No.

Okay, then we're

Who is vice?

Who is vice chair? Lanise.

Lanise. Danny.

Congratulations

to you both. We look forward to working with you in over the next six months as chair and vice. And just to clarify and just by way of record the December 18 did we discuss that? Don't okay.

We were deep thought.

Alright. Very good. Never mind. Thank you all.