Good evening, welcome to our Draper City Planning Commission meeting.

Today's date is March twelfth.

I'm Andrew Adams, and we want to thank all the commissioners up here uh that volunteer their time, especially also wanna thank the staff for meeting with the applicants throughout the uh week prepping up for this.

And then also want to thank the um attendees here tonight.

We've got applicants and then also our good neighbors that are visiting and probably have some input for us.

So welcome everyone.

So let's go ahead and get things started.

We have an agenda posted online and in the back of the room.

Uh that's gonna stay as proposed.

So we're gonna start out with our first public hearing tonight.

It's the Fratto Farms Development Agreement.

It's a zoning map amendment and land use map amendment request.

It's on the request of Troy Dana of Westland Development for representing Fratto Farms LLC, a development agreement, a land use map amendment from the residential medium density to residential high density land use designation, and a zoning map amendment from RA two, which is residential agricultural twenty thousand foot lot minimums to RM two, which is multifamily residential, twelve debt dwellings unit per acre maximum.

Zone for approximately two point zero three acres.

It's located at approximately seven nine one east, one two two two zero zero south.

This is known as application twenty twenty-five dash zero zero one three dash MA, twenty twenty-five zero zero one four-ma and twenty twenty-five zero two nine nine dash DA.

Our staff contact on this is Nick Whitaker, so Nick, I'll let you go ahead and uh present what you've got prepared.

Um since there's a few things going on in this application, here's a quick summary.

There's a land use map amendment to allow for higher density uh development.

A zoning map amendment to allow that.

So um the summary of the requests that are happening in this in this application are uh it's a land use map amendment to allow for higher density and development or higher density development.

A zoning map amendment to allow for smaller lots.

Um to change the existing residential medium density to residential high density.

Here's an overview of the two different types of land uses per our city's master plan.

If you look at the density, the difference in the density, that's really the reason why that this is going through, or the reason why they applied for this.

Sorry.

Currently allows for the development of 20,000 square foot minimum lots.

And the RM2 would allow for up to 12 dwelling units per acre.

This property is 2.3.03 acres in size, so that would be up to about 24 dwelling units.

And then there's the proposed development agreement.

This the development agreement has some key components to it that address the density.

And that is that the density is regulated.

So per the the agreement, no more than 15 lots shall be permitted.

And each lot is limited to one detached single family home.

So 15 lots and 15 detached single family homes.

The building height is limited to 35 feet in height.

Design standards that will not it includes design standards that will not close off the development from the community, which includes facing some of the lots toward 800 east.

And the agreement the agreement also includes and incorporates a master plan, which I'll get to in a moment.

So here is the master plan.

They complete the sidewalk that isn't there at this moment.

So the houses aren't right up against each other.

So here's a site photo.

It's right at the corner there of 122 or 1220 south and 800 east.

And that's a photo from 1220 South.

And that's what it looked like a year ago.

And that is my presentation.

Thanks, Nick.

All right, commissioners.

Any questions for staff?

I have a question.

On the height, the 35 feet, is that pretty standard in our residential code?

I thought so.

So it's 37 feet actually in 30%.

Has there I don't know.

Has there been any discussion about limiting the size other than the height of the homes, maybe square footage, things like that?

These are small lots, and I guess I just have general concerns about ginormous structures being built on really small lots.

Is so his architect may be able to answer some of those questions regarding the design and so forth.

Thanks.

On page 12 of the staff report, there's no signature by the um public works.

But uh the signer is here now next to me.

It's Brian.

I happen to be on vacation that day.

But yeah, I have reviewed it and signed off on the staff report.

There's another staff report later tonight.

Did you were did you do both?

I typically sign any of them that come, but I have reviewed all the staff reports for the meeting.

Okay, then we don't have to revisit that one.

I would like to know also, Nick, um showing the zoning.

I can't remember which if it's a zoning map or land use map, it showed some homes that were or some uh multifamily units that are I think they're the RM1.

Are those um town home?

Oh no, RM2, that little spot of RM2 just to the northeast slightly.

Um can you go to the yeah, like this?

Those look like those are townhomes too, except they're attached to each other, is that right?

Yes, that's that's correct.

Okay, and and do I see all of them of that lot or are there more in that lot?

Do you recall?

I believe there are more in that lot.

Okay.

Yeah, it's a pretty small development, so the that lot's kind of just right off the the page there, but kind of well, what you see is what you get there.

Yeah, at least I think that's all of them.

I actually drove through that yesterday.

Oh, yeah.

And I think that is all of them.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right, thanks.

Any question I have for staff or Nick or Jen or whomever?

Um, is the station area plan radius, is this property inside that station area plan for Kimball's Lane?

It it intersects it, or it's it goes through about half the property.

Okay, so it's dice.

Okay, so well, how do you how how does that station area plan affect this property then?

The um the so the stationary plan didn't um you know what I'm gonna I have for for another item here.

I've got some items for this is the well prepared level.

You know, half mile radius for the station area plan.

So it does look at, you know, you you've got existing neighborhood that maybe um some infill development, maybe some improvements to trails, things like that.

Um, but it the stationary plan itself really didn't concentrate in this the specific area of the grid and kind of concentrated closer to the actual station itself.

So what what's this radius represent here?

What are we looking at?

Um, so well, so the overall radius, that's the half mile radius that we had to look at under state law, the stationary plan.

Okay.

Um, so I think it's this one, yeah.

So this is kind of essentially this little paragraph right here is the only little blurb for this portion of that radius.

Um, knowing that there may be potential for changes in the future, um, but not really diving into exactly what that may look like.

So just to help understand, so does the state require different density and zoning to be allowed because of this stationary plan because of this radius, because what what I'm looking what I'm getting at is this property's come to us what three times, maybe there's a fourth time.

So what I'm getting at is this now I'm looking at this and saying, okay, well, this is this is in that radius.

So what does the radius mean?

Does the radius mean we have to allow or we should allow or we should plan for that, or or it doesn't matter?

Because what I heard you just say is well, our station area plan is around this little orange area here.

So the state law said we have to look at everything within a half mile radius, but within that half mile, we can determine what's right for redevelopment, what we uh think will stay the same.

You know, we do have existing residential neighborhoods, existing commercial development within that radius that we don't see being redeveloped, we don't see changes happening.

Um when the city evaluated the areas around um the Kimball station, we really looked at um the Labari farm and the actual UTA property.

We didn't um dive into other areas within that radius, because most of it is established neighborhoods that we don't see.

Yeah, none of these track stations have been plopped down in the middle of the desert.

They've all got yeah, they've got existing around them.

So what's the radius for?

Just one last clarification.

What's that radius for?

Is that radius why the radius, and then um what's the difference between the radius that's suggested versus what I'm hearing you say is you only looked at a lot, or we the city looked at something a lot more concentrated around that track station.

So that's the same.

Does that radius and the state law apply and and help or hurt this applicant as far as being able to say this this development agreement is helped based on this?

So that radius is based on walking distance.

The state basically said within half mile of that track station, people can walk.

So you need to evaluate density and redevelopment within that half mile.

As a city, we determined we're gonna concentrate on those properties we know are going to be redeveloped versus speculating on what individual private property owners may want to do.

Great.

That's good explanation on that.

Thanks for answering that.

Thank you.

Can I piggyback on that question?

Which was the last time this applicant was here.

I believe that one of the things we talked about was doing an overall assessment of what we thought development was going to be in the area.

So has a lot of that changed versus now.

Do we have updated info that would maybe change our opinions about what should happen?

Um well it it I mean, as we just discussed, it does fall into that half mile radius of the the um I I just blanked on the name.

Um, but the transit-oriented development.

Um it is within that walking distance of transit.

So I mean it falls into transit-oriented development in terms of how that should look.

Again, that's that's I mean, from what Jen said, that's kind of how that lands.

Um so for this property in particular, um I think it would be appropriate to say that that um having a more density in the at this property would be appropriate to meet those goals of transit-oriented development strictly in terms of walkability on to that.

Um so we did have two previous hearings with two different uh proposals on this property last year.

Um the city council did meet with neighbors and ask for information about that area in that neighborhood from the city council uh or to the city council.

So so staff did present to city council um some information about the neighborhood and kind of dive in a little bit on what the densities are that are existing, the land uses, that kind of thing, so that they can have kind of more of a basis of what's actually there in the neighborhood.

Um, but the city did not do any like master planning specifically for this area.

All right, go ahead.

And this did not go to the city council.

The two applications prior did not go to the city council.

Correct, right?

Correct.

Great.

All right, thank you, staff.

We appreciate that.

All right, is the applicant here?

Yep.

The architect, perfect.

Will you just state your name?

I'm Tyler Kirk with Think Architecture.

Okay.

So I'm not the applicant, I am just his architect.

So if you answer any questions you may have, so feel free.

Someone asked about the size.

I can maybe respond to that if you want.

Yeah, I mean, whatever information you could give would be correct.

None of the homes are permanently designed right now.

They're just conceptual, but most of them will probably be under 2500 square feet.

Some will probably be under 2,000 square feet.

Just depending on whether we finish basements, not finished basements, that kind of thing.

And I I think my issue is more that it's not in the development agreement, which you really don't have anything to do with.

So there's yeah.

Yeah.

The setbacks.

Yeah.

Well, the size of a whole size of the home.

Determined by our required setbacks anyway.

To some degree, yeah.

You can go up to 35 feet, which is true.

Which is pretty tall.

I mean, you could have a basement and two stories at 35 feet.

And yeah.

Which I I mean, I look at this and we had a member of our planning commission several years ago when we had development agreements would say, what's the city getting out of this?

And this that's kind of how I feel when I look at this.

I feel like the city's giving a lot of leeway with all the reductions and the zone change and all that.

And you know, we're we're getting some curb and gutter, sure, but um that's part of our code that has to be done.

And I just I look at that and I see so many homes in Draper or so many lots where it's just the hugest home that can be crammed onto that lot with the minimum setbacks.

And here we don't even have minimum setbacks, and I just find that really problematic in a situation like this where this um builder is being given a lot in the development agreement.

So that's where I stand.

One of the things I I think I noticed there, what is the with this zone change moving from the residential agricultural right down to the RM, what is RA2 to RM2?

What would be allowed without the restriction of only 15 lots?

Is the development agreement limiting that to 15?

And could there be a higher density without that development agreement?

So without the development agreement in place, you you could essentially get 24 units.

So that Mary would be the answer to what's the city getting is it's getting a limitation on the units.

Right.

From 24 down to 15.

Do you catch single family homes?

Yeah, yeah.

Instead of twin or multi or towns or whatever.

The last time I think came through, wasn't it town homes?

I think it was a lot of people.

It was it was town homes.

So again, so so a development agreement.

Yeah.

And sometimes so to me, that's what yeah, we're not getting a park or a trail system or anything out of it.

But it would be restriction on that.

And I think the last time, last time the big concern was the amount of cars that would come through with whatever it was, 38 homes or what have you, or what whatever the the amount of 24, what do we have?

Sorry, 24.

So uh I see this kind of evolving better, it's getting a little bit better every time, right?

As far as far as density goes.

Right.

Well, but we'll talk about that.

Yeah, and and again, I know where you're you know where where you're talking about is my favorite uh example of what we don't want is right there behind what there was going to be a dental office on third and it was 38 office, but that's why they were trying to push it through as dental office, say, oh no, we don't want the dental office, right?

But now we've got literally three foot six-foot gap between two homes there in there, and it is really super high density, and right up to the street.

I think we had one homeowner saying that they are welcoming a stoplight there or something because they just get people raising anyway, whatever.

I digress, but that's that's what happens, yeah.

So that's why we're worried about the high density and as well as the homes being barely single family, just with a piece of air between the two uh and two separate walls.

Anything you'd like to add as the architect that you think that we need to know, because we'll open this up for public hearing and then we'll discuss it.

Yeah, I mean I I guess regarding the setbacks between homes, we're not really modifying those from the standard city ordinance.

Um of those setbacks that were modified are more as they're relating to the public street and whatnot.

And especially that I guess you consider it a flag lot.

There was a lot of really restrictions on that, so there's some modifications from that, but for for the most part, the distance between homes would be per standard city ordinance, if not better.

I I have a question.

Um I don't know if you can answer.

I'm just curious if the applicant um engaged with the neighborhood at all in coming up with this development plan.

Um I I am not 100% sure.

Yeah.

If he had like a neighborhood meeting or something like that, is that go to house to house or did do you know?

Yeah, I don't know about it.

They've come before us before, and so we've heard public comment over and over.

So maybe from that they've gleaned things.

But Nick, do you know?

For this particular time coming back, I am unaware if he if he did or not.

Okay.

Thanks.

Okay.

I've I have a couple comments or questions.

The last meeting, really a year ago, a lot of our concerns was does this change change the general character of the neighborhood?

And a lot of us had kind of the opinion of going more with the R 4, I think it was.

Um zoning more along that lines.

But um, I have to agree with Mary's comment about what is the city getting out of this proposal.

If you can go to that concept plan, it does show the park on lot 15, which is pointless because the development agreement spells out that that could eventually go to a single family.

So to me, that's kind of deceptive.

You know, it's like, okay, let's call it what it's gonna be.

Um so what would the city be getting out of it?

Um the criteria, I was reading the criteria for a development agreement, and one of the item number four, so it's uh page seven of the staff of this staff report.

Let's see.

So it needs to meet this criterion, it lists all the criteria.

Then it says that the city has to include um agreement, the development agreement with the city to have as a whole included but not limited to assurances of design standards, dedication of approvement and open space, parks, trails, amenities, or infrastructure such as rights of ways or utilities.

So if the park is gonna not be there, it doesn't meet that criteria, it doesn't meet open space, and not only that, but the public rights of ways this proposal is requesting to encroach in the public right-of-way with the driveways for lots uh 10, 11, and I would assume 15 also.

Yeah.

And that just to me seems kind of contrary to what the goal should be.

So that's just kind of a comment um that I'm kind of concerned about.

That's a good point, Susan.

So the what we're looking at right here, is this the only way that if if the I mean, obviously, so just to prep the public tonight, what this is all about.

So this is our dry run tonight.

If you've been to one of these meetings before, uh, we give a positive or negative recommendation to the city council, and then they ultimately decide.

So the the question I have then is what we're looking at right here, is this the this is not the final say so on how this can be laid out.

This is strictly just giving guidelines as far as lot lot minimum lot sizes and uh quantity.

Well, I I mean, going off of the agreement, it would seem that this would be that this would be it.

Yeah.

Okay, so Nath that and then I know what I'm getting at here, this is why I'm asking.

So for us to just say, hey, conditions of this that would give a a uh recommendation one way or the other, uh, we can give requests or changes because I mean what you just said right there, Susan, is you could flip lot 10 and lot 15.

Well, you couldn't even flip lot flip lot 15 without coming out of the public access, but you definitely flip lot 10 into two driveway into the neighborhood, right?

Instead of out into the or something, because to me, to come to a city with a new project, to me, a new project should meet all the code, period.

But development agreement does allow some flexibility for that.

Something that I have a hard time with is giving a private property development the right to encroach on the city right-of-way, that they should meet that.

I mean, especially when one of the the criteria in um to approve a development agreement says that it will provide infrastructure and public rights or utilities.

Well, it is, but then they're asking us to encroach on it.

I I just have a hard time with that.

Five feet to me, it's like no, shift the whole shift everything five feet to the west or whatever, reduce the rear yard setbacks for lots one through five, so that 10, 11, and 15 can have a at least an 18-foot driveway on their property.

So it's not it it looks like it's a 20-foot driveway.

It is, but five of that is in the city right-of-way.

No, I thought I it looks like it's measuring from the house to the sidewalk, not across the um the rest of the driveway.

No, it's and it's even in the development tree.

It's 15 feet.

And it's 15 feet.

Those are 15 feet.

And unless everybody drives a mini Cooper, that just does not work.

Susan is correct.

On those, like specifically on lot 10 and 11, uh the driveway is 20 feet measured to the sidewalk, but five feet if that isn't technically in the right-of-way.

Part of the reason for that is we're trying to get enough lot size so that we can have the potential for more rambler plans.

So any time you we could reduce the setbacks somewhere else if you were open to that.

Um otherwise, if we'd reduce the setback or maintain the same setbacks for those lots, it would force a smaller footprint of a home, which would mean taller.

Yeah, so maybe that's so again if it doesn't work out, maybe there's too many lots.

I mean, I don't know, maybe the back to the drawing board.

I mean, you could reduce the rear setbacks for lots one through five from 20 feet to 15, but does that actually does that actually shift five feet to the west?

I don't know.

I just I just have an issue with that encroaching into the public right away with a new project.

See, and I like to hear the insight from the architect because the last thing somebody wants to do with their land is ruin it, and the last thing a developer wants to do is build stuff that nobody wants.

True.

They really just are not here.

Well, believe it or not, the city is not here to keep developers from ruining their land, you know.

And so what I'm looking at here is yes, they they put their head to this three, four times now.

The density's getting getting lighter and lighter, and I'm looking at this saying, yes, that that explanation right there makes sense to me because yes, you could satisfy that requirement at the expense of the other lot sizes or the whole development size, or get rid of some other lots, and again I I they put their time into this and and effort into this, but I'm serious.

Like sometimes I really think that some of those some of that stuff, the development agreement is the way to say, hey, how can we satiate what the city would normally want?

How can we make it pencil?

Because they've got to make it pencil so that it's profitable, and how do we make sure that it fits in with everything else?

Uh, because there's really not a fit for these 15 lots here with a zone, right?

The only way it's either gonna be this or four houses, right?

Right.

I mean, it's uh well, eight.

Ten or eight or twelve zones.

So so see the big cutoff there.

So that's a huge huge difference between 15 and 8, right?

It's almost half.

But 12.

So anyway, so that's that's I appreciate that input that we're just trying to say, hey, well, yes, you could slide it all over that way, and and uh it sounds like smaller.

Yeah, I don't know.

I just know that a 15-foot front set your driveway, unless you all drive mini Coopers, that does not work.

They'll be hanging out into the right-of-way, which is I mean, you're not supposed to park a car with it hanging on the sidewalk, period.

I I I found out the hard way with some kids one time that was a sidable offense.

Well, even that the project that just to the north and east that Lisa asked about when I drove over there, not important fingers, but they're what their driveways I think are about 15 feet, and that was exactly the scenario.

There was a van parked in front of the garage, angled and still hanging into the driveway.

Uh or the sidewalk.

Sidewalk a couple of feet, and it was on a 45 degree angle because it can't fit in the driveway.

Which is why we have minimum.

Which is why we have minimums.

And it pushes people out onto the street.

I mean, there are all sorts of problems.

Right.

I mean, I can't totally agree.

That's a little detailed, whatever, but that is something that I personally am kind of concerned about.

So enough of that.

Yeah.

Perfect.

Good good catch there, Susan.

All right.

Anything else for us?

Not much of anything for me.

Okay, we'll invite you back up after public comment if we need to.

Okay.

Thank you so much.

All right, there's a public hearing.

Uh some of you may have been to one of these, but I'll give you the rules and the guidelines.

So uh we'll give anybody the chance to come up and speak for three minutes.

Uh we don't uh uh you don't need to fill the full three minutes, but we just ask you don't go over.

Uh if there's multiple you know, topics that are being repeated, you're welcome to abstain or or uh, but it's your call.

Uh and then uh just to put in there, there's no clapping, it's not a pep rally, even though we're a pretty peppy bunch.

But uh just no clapping or cheering, even though there might be some great comments.

So anyway, so I just add that.

Uh so with that, we'll go ahead and open up the public comment portion of this agenda item.

Who would like to address this agenda item?

It's kind of like the price is right.

Just come on down and get your three minutes.

And oh, and one other guideline, just state your name.

Thanks.

Hello, uh Dave Hansen.

Yes, we've been here a couple of times.

This is getting better, but honestly, from my perspective, and I believe from the neighborhood's perspective, we would like to see no chunk change in the zoning if possible.

Um we know that Troy has, you know, when he acquired the property, he knew the zoning.

We understand that this is a developer who wants to make his development build.

I don't, I'm not against him developing.

Um, I just don't want to see a zone change just for his profit.

He's not planning on acquiring and living on the property.

Where it's where we live, and we've had a lot about my input, and we've our vocal, we're not wanting to see the change to the zoning to allow higher density more properties.

Um, and Troy did not reach out to me when he made this plan.

Just I know that question came up.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, who's next?

Hello again.

Hi there.

I'm Kimberly Henry, resident of this neighborhood.

Um, I was listening online as we were driving in here.

So the question came up Did Troy talk to the neighbors about this plan?

No, he has not talked to us about this plan.

It's similar to one that he had presented before, but with more, um, with including the park on the corner.

My biggest concern is if you guys want to approve a development, don't change the zoning.

Because you start to change the zoning, and that has a waterfall effect for the rest of the properties, and that just every every property that's gonna come up for sale is gonna come back here and ask for a zoning change and a zoning change.

And with our home, we built 12 years ago, and we were told that this is the zone, it's not going to change.

This is what the plan is, and so this is a change of philosophy.

And we understand that with the um projects around the train stack the train station that we do need to have more high density housing.

And Edge came in last time and said that that that they were going to cover a lot of that.

There's 300 plus homes that are gonna go right down the street from us, not even half a mile.

So this is a lot better than it has been.

It's better than the commercial plan, and it's better than the full high density.

If you choose to move forward with something like this, if it can be done strictly on a developer agreement and not change the zone so it doesn't impact the rest of the properties going forward, that's be that would be something that I would ask for.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Uh Jim Duncan.

I'm in the corner lot right there back.

So a couple of things that I just wanted to point out.

I took a drone and put a drone in the closest corner of tracks there on the street and came to that back corner, and it is 4.935.

So I don't know where they're saying that it encompasses half of that because it doesn't.

And I don't know if that's as the crow flies, if because if I step it, it's over the half mile.

Um second thing is is that the telephone poles, there's going down eight decent there, they're 32 and a half feet tall.

Have you ever stood underneath the telephone pole and looked up?

I don't know where they're coming up with 35 feet, but the telephone poles there.

We marked a line at 31 and a half feet.

Excuse me, it was 31 foot, and there was only a foot and a half left.

So we're 32 and a half feet.

Troy originally mentioned that we would be 32 foot, possibly.

So single-family dwelling home that's not a two-story.

How do we get 35 feet?

Because the business is across eight east or across the 120 second tier, the businesses on that other side, they're not even close to 30 feet, so I'm not sure how we can have housing.

So I mean, I know I've had to accept the fact that I'm gonna lose my sight of the mountains, but to be looking up in my backyard, 35 feet up, that's a little bit ridiculous.

Just just me.

Another thing is is that Troy has been in contact with me, so I have to speak up for Troy.

He has talked to me many times.

He has asked me some questions.

I've explained to him my concerns.

So he has tried to work with me, and it's my fault, because I have talked with most of the neighbors close around, and uh explained the height, the number of houses that they that he was gonna do, and the fact that he was gonna keep it a single level with the basement, is what he said he would do, but he wanted to have the opportunity to have a small loft up above the garage.

That still does not require 35 feet.

Um those were my concerns as it so thanks.

Thank you.

All right, I'm just I'm taking some notes here because there's always some questions.

So anyone else.

Yeah, my name's Jerry Thomas.

I live in the house directly east, and the 35-foot thing, my house is two stories, and it's not 35 feet, it's 20, maybe 22 feet.

And I'm wondering if if that 35 feet is the peak of the roof, or is that the top of the dwelling ceiling?

Do you know that?

Like it says not a back and forth, but I'll note your question while answer it later.

Okay.

Uh also like she pointed out, his driveway is encroaching on your right-of-way.

Is that correct?

Uh because my lot ends 30 feet, I think, from the center line of eight beast, maybe 20 feet.

But that's a lot of property you guys have to uh uh widen the road.

Certainly at some time it will be widened because it always happens.

So my concern is the height.

Uh I appreciate that Troy has backed off of the 24 unit thing, but still uh he could put eight homes in there on the two-acre lots and make a lot of money, and we would only have 10 vehicles to deal with instead of 25 coming in and out of that uh subdivision.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Hi, sorry about that.

Um I'm Cindy Romero.

I live west of uh I have well my house should be showing up there.

Um the traffic of you guys have ever tried to get out on 22 and 7, and the just uh two cars per unit where they can put them.

Um I lived, I had owned a property at Parkstone, uh gated community.

There wasn't parking there, you know.

If you had kids, teenagers or what, where they can park at it, you know.

They've it's that's just not acceptable, and the traffic and the spot zoning too.

I've lived in that house for 50 some odd years, and I yes, I am see, I am commercial if if and when I want to be, but I'm not gonna be.

Uh I'm gonna stay there till I die.

And I've got six little kids under 10 living in my house, and I just don't want to deal with uh it's so crowded, and no no offense to Troy, but I don't quite trust him.

Um I those are small houses, and they need to be detached, and they need they do not need to be that tall.

I have a a two, well, I have a one-story app to two-story, and mine's only like 24 feet.

So I all I'm saying is, and I don't think it should be that many homes.

I think it should be down more in the 12 to 14 range.

When Troy bought it, he knew he was buying into half acre lots.

He was under the assumption he could zone it however.

He's a developer, you know.

That's what they do.

But as far as I'm concerned, it doesn't need to be rezoned, and it needs to be kept, I'd say about 12 lots, 12 houses.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Hi.

Hi.

My name's Ralph Broderick.

I live at 626 East, 12100 South.

I don't live here, but I have property half a block from where Troy is building this development.

I have more property than he does.

And I don't want a disaster like this on my property.

When I develop my property, I want to put half acres in to keep the the neighborhood as it is.

And this is uh this is going every everything against what they uh were told when they when they first moved here here to Draper.

You city council members are not going to get in trouble with Governor Cox if you downsize this project.

I guarantee you.

My property is within is closer to the track station than Troy's is, and so I'm hoping that I don't have a problem with the city council telling me that I have to develop my property under high density.

35 feet is is pretty tall, like is mentioned before.

Most of these houses you see around here are pretty low.

They're single story, and if they're two story, they're pretty low.

They're not 35 feet tall.

So this is gonna look like a big tower in a two two mile, uh two square uh you know block on the corner that's gonna be disaster.

Look at the neighborhood.

Anyway, consider that.

I appreciate it.

Thank you.

Thanks.

All right, anyone else before we close up public comment?

We'll do last call on there.

Okay.

All right, seeing none.

Oh go ahead.

You're a polite bunch, so sorry.

Still thinking.

Um I'm Lois Duncan, and I just live uh where those red trees are right there.

So my uh my two bedrooms will be looking up to this development.

Um and so that to me kind of is an invasion of privacy there a little bit.

I'm not opposed to that.

Um if it's one story and not looking down into my home.

I I feel that's just an invasion.

And the other thing is is I was trying to leave to go to a meeting, and they had the accident on the freeway, and so the traffic we it all scattered like ants.

Everybody was trying to get home, and there was backed up here, backed up there, backed up here, backed up there.

And um to me, I thought I'll wait and wait and wait, and finally I was able to get out, but not because anybody let me out, but they were going really fast on 800 east, really fast.

And this is the place where people walk their dogs.

This is a place where um people have animals outside that you know aren't in the street, occasionally maybe, but not to be you know, careless or anything.

Um if if there's high density, it's just gonna cost more traffic, and where are people gonna walk for peace?

Where are they gonna walk for their sanity?

You know, I I just I just feel like it I'm I guess I'm just not ready for a change of this nature.

Um I just I'm still trying to get used to what's going in west of the tracks on Kimball's Lane and or back in on 119.

I'm still trying to focus on how we're gonna deal with that, and then this came along, and um, it's just overwhelming to me.

That's all I can tell you.

But thanks for listening to me.

Thank you.

All right.

That looks to be it.

All right, we'll go ahead and close the public hearings portion of this uh agenda item.

All right, a couple quick questions were brought up, so I'm just gonna pose these to staff real quickly, and then uh actually before I go through my questions.

We'll invite the applicant back up or the architect.

Is there anything that you want to talk to about that?

Well, let me ask my question about the height first, and then we'll maybe have you up.

So um, who do you want me to ask this to?

Nick?

Okay, Nick.

So if this stays as it is right now, RA2, what's allowed with two acres, it would be four homes, correct?

Uh yes, that would be correct.

With two acres, so or eight.

So uh it would be uh two acres, yeah, it would be four.

It'd be lots because it's it's half acre, half acre homes, yeah, or half acre lots and but with infrastructure, you've got about 25 percent out of that.

So in reality, maybe it wouldn't be four, would it?

It would be would it be more three?

I mean if we're just going strictly off of the size of the property, it could get four lots on it.

And once you get the road in there and everything else, that could change, but in terms of size, it could be theory.

He just do four lots with every driveway shooting out onto the municipal streets, and that's it.

That's what they would do, just four backyards.

Okay, what's the height allowed in RA2?

Actually, it's higher than what's been proposed.

Wait, wait, no, I'm sorry, I have that.

It's 35 feet height in all of our residential zones.

Correct.

So my ivory neighborhood that I live in, that those are all 35 foot homes.

And it's up to the pitch, it's not to the top of my highest two story.

So it's the average finished grade to the midpoint in the peak.

Yeah, it's just the 35 is what we've always heard.

Now, what we're you know, when I want a red balloon up is when we want a 99 foot sign for a gas station, right?

That's when I want to see a red balloon flown up there.

But 35 feet.

So right now you could build four homes with 35 foot height on every one of those four homes, correct?

Okay, because the height has been brought up this time, and the other three times I didn't hear really peep about it.

So I don't I just think because that was read in that was a that caught everybody's attention, these could be 35 feet high since day one and without a zone change.

Well, and I I I'll point out too that in the way that our code is written, it's to the midpoint, 35 feet to the midpoint.

So technically it can actually go higher than 35.

Yeah, so if the pitch is kind of the average of the pitch, if it's one of these hipped roofs, it could be higher than 35 technically.

Right.

And as he spelled out in his agreement, it it terminates at 35.

35.

So these will be and and I've also heard too, and you know you always hear this, trust me, said the developer.

I'm I'm not saying that's what's being said here.

Uh they're trying to put ramblers on some of these, and if the lot's too small, you just have to go vertical, like in my favorite example over on 138th and third.

Okay, so the next so that's if it stays the way it does now, okay.

So let me let me ask this.

It's commercial right next to it, right here.

There's another one.

Can you go to exhibit D real quickly on the staff report?

It's the aerial map of the land use.

Okay, up there where it's uh one, two zero eight five south.

What's that where it says residential high density?

What's that in terms of the development?

Those are the those are the town homes up there.

Okay, so those can also go up to 35 feet, right?

Those would all be 35 feet.

So I think the last proposal with town homes would have mimicked that more than what we're looking at here.

So what I'm seeing right here is a hybrid of what's already been put into place.

Um I I didn't go to a zoning, planning zoning class, I'm just a regular citizen up here volunteering my time.

But I've always heard hey, you want to kind of feather, you want to go from heavy commercial to light commercial, which is what neighborhood commercial is, then you want to go to high density, medium density, low density.

Well, we have no feathering right here.

So if you're gonna ask me to pay two million bucks for one of these four houses that are sitting on a half an acre, but my backyard neighbor is neighborhood commercial, that's not cool to me.

So again, I'm not defending the developer, but they don't want to ruin their land.

And in my opinion, in my in my experience, to put a two million dollar house there because that's what you'd have to charge with your lot with your price of dirt and draper right now.

You'd have a 1.6, 1.8 million dollar home right next, slammed right in next to neighborhood commercial.

I'm not buying that.

So again, this product that we're seeing right here.

I I'm not really interested in that radius anymore.

That's why I brought it up.

It's not that that's just a free shoe in, right, Jennifer.

I mean, that's that was the point.

It's not just because the state said that we all have to say the city doesn't isn't isn't brought to doesn't need to take a knee and say you're right, that's what we need to do here.

So that's why I brought that up.

So the next point is that for this piece, it's going to get developed.

If it stays right now, um you're gonna have four homes in there that are 35 feet high and two million bucks each.

So and I I don't I'm not penciled it out, but you probably make the same amount of money.

So just in my experience, I've seen how I mean we we've seen these neighborhoods go in.

We were going uh uh I've been up here since 2012.

I'm not gonna pontificate on you know what I've seen, but it has given some some insight, and what I do see is I see these getting a little bit, you know, you you there's always no no no, and then what goes in is actually worse because it meets what the public clamor is, or it meets what the you know there's not any flexibility to say, can we do a development agreement?

I'm not gonna pontificate on you know what I've seen, but it has given some some insight, and what I do see is I see these getting a little bit, you know, you you there's always no no no, and then what goes in is actually worse because it meets what the public clamor is, or it meets what the you know there's not any flexibility to say, can we do a development agreement because none of these zones really fit the highest and best use of this?

So I just I don't like to see developments that are ruined, and in my experience, some of these have been just and and by ruined I mean you don't realize that your truck won't fit in the driveway until you've closed and you've lived there for a week.

And you're like, what the heck?

This is horrible, right?

And then they say, Well, why didn't the city catch it?

Oh, well, they should have caught it, but never.

Or they let it happen.

Great.

I've got now sign the mortgage and I get to park my truck slanted on my driveway for for you know the for all time.

So anyway, so that those the I just want to point out that if we don't change anything, that's what you can do here.

And as far as what we've already got, we've got town homes up there, and if you look at those town homes, no offense if you live in there, but this development to me is a better development than that town home development up there to live in.

And it's m uh in in I don't get a vote, but in my experience, that's just gonna be a better place to live with people that have are these two cars.

Well, I'm let's invite the architect back up just real quick because we can get you.

Uh, and then you can maybe ask, is is it two are these one-car garages, two car garages?

Because these homes have garages, is that what the intent is.

They would all have two car garages.

And you're doing that not because the city's forcing you, because that's what the per the customer wants.

So a two-car garage, so two-car garage homes.

Um, you know, some of these town homes, they have they have a two-car garage hole, but nothing fits in there.

You know, I mean, that's the opening.

The opening is two-car garage.

So again, barely.

You know, looking at what we've been through with three of these.

This is now the fourth, as I recall.

It's it's I keep hearing it's getting better, and I'd hate to see it turn for the worse.

I mean, uh not that he's gonna do this, but sometimes when when people get frustrated with their land, they just kick their heels in and throw a rehab center in, right?

Because you can't stop them.

That's it.

Just throw a rehab center in.

Uh uh, you know, extended care center.

So anyway, so I don't get a vote, but what I'm seeing right here, I do have a little bit of issue with lot 10, 11, and 15.

I agree, that's gonna be 15 is gonna be a house.

Uh, because there's nothing in this that says it won't be.

And then um, it almost looks like if you wanted to keep everything inside the community, lots 10 and 11 would need to turn into one lot with the driveway pointing out, or because Susan, your issue isn't that the driveway is is exiting out onto 122, right?

That's not against any of our code.

800, that's sorry, 800 or condition, though, of the development agreement.

That they're being allowed to do that because nothing.

No, that they need to do that.

Um my point is the development agreement is requiring those homes to be facing 800 east, not allowing them.

It's requiring them.

Okay, and then do you feel that that's good or bad?

Um, I I don't have an opinion either way about that unless we're talking about issues with the driveway length.

Yeah.

Um that's really my only issue.

But my yeah, it it's just I I think the idea of having that in the development agreement, and somebody can correct me if I'm wrong, was to not make it a totally closed-in community where all the homes are facing each other.

There's some out that's what it that's how it read to me.

Which which is good planning practice for a neighborhood.

I mean, if we live in neighborhoods that if that if the 800 had just more of these homes on the other side, that would be totally acceptable, right?

You'd just pull out into the nice big street and be on your way.

So just some things to point out.

If it stays the way it is with four lots, the height, I I just wanted to dip that because I I haven't heard that to that with that veracity yet to this point, and 35 feet being limited 35 feet at the peak peak is is uh also another concession.

What's the city getting, they're getting lower height.

Well, the whole point though, and you can probably sit down, you don't have to stand up there.

The whole point though is they're getting this zone that would have allowed a higher height, and then pulling it back to make it a residential height.

So they're they're getting the zone so that they can have higher density, but this city's saying we don't want the height.

My point is if you go back to that picture, instead of having maybe, you know, facing each direction, two homes, you've now got five that are giant right up against the property line, inevitably, if somebody is building on half an acre, there might be one side where it's on the property line.

But here we've got you know, multiple homes that are that high.

And I read that development agreement, and I noticed it said once cottage style homes.

And I have a I have a really clear picture in my head when I think about a cottage style home or a you know, a small variety and 35 feet.

And 35 feet.

I don't know that that fits into my idea of cottage.

And when I think about cottage homes on this lot, I think that's a really great idea.

I do because they're probably smaller in scale, but there is no guarantee, and that's my issue.

There's no guarantee in this development agreement that they will be smaller in scale, aside from obviously the lot size and the setbacks.

But I I do think it's kind of an encroachment on the feel of the neighborhood.

And and you know, like this one to the east, this one lot, it may be zone neighborhood commercial, but there is a single family home there, and I believe we heard from the homeowner tonight.

Um and I'm all for the feathering and the you know, being smart about planning, and I like this idea.

I do.

We've we've come a long way, but I also I would like to respond to your it's gonna get worse.

I hate that.

It only gets worse if city council approves worse, like that's on them.

And and nobody is coming in here saying we have to approve anything.

Or yeah, Mary, the only reason the only reason I bring that up is because you cannot stop a recap center.

My microphone cut out right there.

You cannot stop a rehab center, it's going in.

Well, in a single, but it but it still is subject to the zoning of a single.

I won't argue that out with you, but that's that's and it's not that it has to get worse, it's getting better and better.

It is, and and I'm yeah, and I think we were on there going in the right direction, and I think this has potential, but I just I'm not convinced it's there yet, and that's just where would it be?

Like what I'm not gonna be there.

Yeah, so the applicant can just be there because all we're hearing is we're saying, well, the developer wants to develop, they've spent they've applied three, four times.

The the the lot this lot keeps coming back to us, and all we hear is well, it's not quite there yet.

But is it it is there because it sounds like what's acceptable and allowed is pretty much the only thing that's not gonna get any public clamor until they build a 35 plus height.

Well, I I appreciate the development agreement number one.

Yeah, that's really a benefit to the neighborhood if there's a development agreement, because it usually will lock in the developer to things.

So I appreciate that.

But I think um maybe eight homes is a better um in this slot or in this this plot instead of um the 15.

I I think he's got a good design.

I kind of like it, but eight, I don't know, 12, easy, get rid of 10, 11, 15.

12, and then all of the lots can be a little bigger to say don't have to encroach the public anyway.

It's not for us as a commission to design their project, but I think we can say this as far as what it's worth, what our opinions are.

I mean, I see 12 easy.

Do you and I don't have a problem with that?

Well, that's why I ask.

I mean, what we've got here in front of us is it's just a pass fail, right?

I mean, we're looking at hey, the way what what that what's been presented here that they've worked with the planners over and over again with has now been brought to us again for a pass fail.

We don't even get to the final say so.

This goes on to the city council.

Uh and then they they give it a yes or no.

So I mean, as far as a pass fail, we don't get to shop this all up.

Yeah, um when you make your motion, whether it's to forward a positive recommendation or whether it's to forward a negative recommendation, um include in that motion things that you you would recommend the council look at if you're concerned about driveway width and home size or building height, put that in your motion.

Well, I and and I understand what you're saying.

We've had this conversation before.

My issue is I I'm not gonna say I give this a positive recommendation with a laundry list of changes.

I I would rather just vote no.

It and and it could be a negative recommendation, and your motion is you have a negative recommendation because it the agreement doesn't discuss these items.

Okay, that's fair.

Yeah, yeah.

Well, I want to make one other comment on the 35 foot height.

That's as Jen said, that is standard residential height.

Totally.

And that's not just draper, that's probably you see it everywhere.

Every neighborhood we're driving through is gonna have that 35 feet.

It doesn't mean that a two-story house is gonna be 35 feet.

And in addition to that, there's no such thing as protecting someone's view.

If if you want to protect your view of the mountains or whatever, you you need to buy the property next to you.

It's the only way to do it.

Right.

Because the development is going to happen eventually.

So let's let's um talk about some of the things that we're we're disliking, so we enumerate them.

My first question or concern is that the park is not uh mentioned in the development agreement as a park.

Right.

Well it is, but it says it'll could be converted into a no we want we want assure if they're gonna have a park, we want assurances if they're gonna do a park.

We want assurances that it's a park so that it remains a park.

Is that what you're doing?

Yeah, so that would limit the number of lots then to 14 instead of 15.

Right.

Yeah.

But but we're saying that we think fifth 14 is too many.

Well, that's my opinion.

I think 15 is too many.

I think my opinion, get rid of 10, 11, and 15, and then you've got bigger setbacks that meet the code.

There's no right.

So the driveway driveway length and encroachment is a pro is the next problem.

Well, that's one of them.

And then and then are you writing this down?

Yeah, I've got it down.

I've got the park.

And then we're gonna go.

I'm just I just yeah, I'm just and I'm hoping you guys are putting like a why because as you're as as we're just gonna hack up the architect's job here, help me understand why, because I'm I'm saying if you just feel better about having 12 lots instead of 15, help the applicant understand why.

Does the driveway face a different way?

Does lot 10 start facing north?

One of the well, the problem lot 11 face south now.

I mean, what what why?

Why wouldn't you go to the that's not our job though?

And ultimately these get really heavily negotiated with city council, and I think we all know that.

And so honestly, in the end, I think we can give general feedback, but I I think getting into the nitty-gritty is not a good use of our time.

Well, that's what we're talking about.

That's what we're doing with the with our job with suggestions.

We're talking about the length of the driveway.

So the number of homes is the is a problem because the driveways have to be shortened, and that's a really poor quality development or building that's for a person a resident.

Okay, so driveway length.

Yeah.

Driveway length.

So it's not even the the amount of lots, it's just driveway length.

Well, that's part, I think that's part of it.

I think driveway length needs to be minimum eighteen feet, preferably twenty, but minimum eighteen feet.

Are we seeing 20 feet though, Susan?

Am I not seeing 20 feet?

Some of yeah, they're all right.

Which one's not 20?

It's specifically asking.

The development agreement specifically calls out that lots 10, 11, and 15 will have the 15 feet.

15 feet to the to the well, okay.

Not to the sidewalk, but to that e to the access to the to this setback.

Including 15 if they made a building.

Yeah, okay.

So driveway length on 10 11 and lot 15.

And that's with a 10-foot rear yard setback, which is that a small thing.

And I think I think that's a fairer statement than saying we just feel better about three less lots.

So because there's that's that's a reason why, because those three lots have problematic driveways.

Yes, right.

Fair?

Fair.

Sure.

Okay.

Well, commissioners, that's what we got to do is a positive or negative recommendation.

Just uh like I said, it's just I I'm only fishing for feedback so the so the applicant and the planners can hear what it is.

I mean, that's what we're up here supposed to be doing is to say, hey, this is why we're not we the you know the what the problems are, and so that they can just fix them.

And whether they do that between now and the and the next meeting or not, we'll see, but it's worth a shot.

So just to give them some feedback.

Anything else?

Anyone want to make a motion?

I think also that does it meet the criteria for approving a development agreement.

If you review the criteria, which is 10, there's 10 separate listed of if we have all reviewed those and feel that this proposal meets that, well, then that's one thing.

But in my opinion, it doesn't.

And specifically number four, um and I've referred to that earlier.

Are you looking on the it's um oh on the development agreement, page seven?

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

So and then we also have findings for approval and findings for denial that kind of generally wrap into those.

Well, here's my chat.

Here's the challenge.

Do we approve the land use and the zoning, but not the I mean I can't, I can't do that because then it opens it up to uh whatever the developer wants.

Right.

Yeah.

So how do we how do we refuse the zoning then on what by what basis?

Well, like kind of in my opinion, they in this particular request, they go hand in hand.

We do all our well the zone is I would say it's definitely not appropriate without a development agreement.

It's too dense without it in my opinion.

I would have our is that one of our criteria we can use to forward a negative recommendation.

Absolutely I mean maybe not specifically too dense but I think inconsistent with the goals or you know and if you look at the minutes from a year ago which was this same zone request they didn't have the development agreement but they did have it was the same request several times in the minutes several of us express concern about it not being appropriate a high a high density zoning not being appropriate for this particular property based on the surrounding area and the existing land use in general plan.

This is much better I'm actually like this pretty well except for a few things that I've yeah I'm looking I'm looking at this so we always have you know the state's trying to push everybody into something that's almost impossible which is affordable housing and I know smaller homes are going to sell for last period that's it so if you want this more affordable if and if you don't build more neighborhoods like this in Draper uh if not here then where because I think this is the type of uh development that that draper needs more of we have plenty of the townhomes we have plenty of the the Mick mansions on sitting on a full acre and then we have our fair share of the flag lot which is the state bird of draper right where you've got an old house in the front and a three million dollar house in the back and you access it through the pig farm of the front yard owners you know driveway so that so it in my opinion this is what Draper needs more of and if not here where we don't need any more stack houses we've got those on the other side by 15 uh we don't need any more of those town home developments up there because that's it's it's the land's just too valuable so and it's too high density everybody complains about that right that that's the problem of all our traffic are those town home developments I guess but the uh so if not here where and this type of development I think is exactly the happy medium between hey we need affordability and people want to live in draper I mean my cats my kids can't live in draper they can't they don't and so with something like this you know it's it's getting closer.

Yes so I'm going to I agree 100% with what you just said Andrew.

Yeah I'd like to make a a negative motion then for the land use yeah it'll have to be the it'll just be the same on all of them right the well there's they're all separate don't we have to do them separately separate okay I I um I move that we forward a negative recommendation to the city council for the land use map amendment as requested by Troy Dana application 2025-0014-ma based on the findings for denial listed in the staff report dated February 24 2026 specifically that um the land use amendment is not harmonious with the overall character of existing development in the vicinity of of the subject property and um the amend it will uh adversely affect adjacent property perfect so that's our uh motion from Lisa who will second that I'll second it but also with all the concerns that we expressed previously and I don't want to state that in the motion but okay that you could lessen to the recording dad horse over the concern being the length of the driveways particularly and the probably falls more under the development agreement yeah so we'll just leave that should we just leave that motion what the way uh Susan seconded it so let's put this one to a vote this for the land use so Lisa how do you vote yes for the negative recommendation negative recommendation yes and now Susan yes Christine yes Mary yes and Laura no okay all right next zoning map I'll I'll take that one perfect sorry I need to get spot I got thought I was there I move we forward a negative recommendation to the city council for denial of the zoning map map amendment as requested by Troy Dana application 2025-0013 dash ma based on the following findings for denial is in the staff report dated February 24th 2026 um and specifically number one two and three numbers one two and three got it that motion is from Mary who will second that I'll second it second from Susan okay so Mary let's put this to a vote negative recommendation with your findings there yes on the zoning map how do you vote yes sorry okay and then Susan yes Christine yes Lisa yes and Laura no okay all right let's move on now to the development agreement I'll make a motion on that one perfect go ahead I move that we forward a negative recommendation to the city council for the development agreement as requested by Troy Dana application 2025 0299 DA based on the following findings for denial listed in the staff report dated February 24 2025 and the concerns that we expressed earlier thank you Susan who will second it I'll second oh sorry I'll let Chris we'll let Christine do it down there's been quite

I'll make a motion on that one.

Perfect.

Go ahead.

Uh I move that we forward a negative recommendation to the city council for the development agreement as requested by Troy Dana, application 2025-0299 DA, based on the following findings for denial listed in the staff report dated February 24th, 2025.

And the concerns that we expressed earlier.

Thank you, Susan.

Who will second it?

I'll second.

Oh sorry.

I'll let Chris.

We'll let Christine do it down there.

It's been quiet down there.

So all right, Christine.

Christine seconded that, so let's go ahead, Susan.

How do you vote?

Yes.

Christine?

Yes.

Mary?

Yes.

Lisa?

Yes.

And Laura.

No.

Okay.

All right.

So that's gonna be forward that way.

And uh the next time this will come up is at a city council meeting.

Those are always on Tuesdays.

So you can watch the calendar for that or the uh the notice, I think they put that on the sides there too.

But either way, uh you guys know the drill, so thanks for coming in.

Let's move on to our next public hearing.

It's uh the Juan Diego text amendment request.

So on the request of Joe Colossamo, representing SCAS Catholic Center, LLC, a request for approving of a zoning text amendment to table nine-10-090, Draper City Municipal Code.

The purpose of the request is to allow private schools as a conditional use in all residential zones known as application 2026-0006-TA.

And I don't see Mary Ann, so Jen, are you filling in?

It's me, yeah.

Okay, see how I caught that pretty pretty good.

Yes.

Even though it's late.

Got it.

Um yeah, so uh it's a so before you is a text amendment to change uh allowed uses within uh residential zones.

Your staff report is showing adding uh private school as a conditional use permit to all of the residential zones.

Um and I've got the uh public schools charter schools listed as well, so you can just see what we how we treat public schools.

Now public schools are different under state law.

We we don't have a choice but to allow them.

Um I want to go over some potential changes since the staff report went out for you guys to look at potentially include in a recommendation to the city council.

Um as we continued looking at this application, um looking at potential changes that we can do, um having it be conditional only in the R3 zone, but also allowing it only as uh a small scale ancillary use to existing uh schools, private schools that allows an existing private school to expand, offer more um options, that kind of thing without allowing for a full brand new large scale school to come in.

And that's it's but it's conditional use anyway.

So who is it approved by?

It's us, isn't it?

Or yes, or are we recommending to the city council?

Um so the text amendment tonight you'll be recommending, and then if council approves approves the text amendment, then any um conditional use permits will come before you guys that'll allow you guys to look at um lighting, parking, traffic, uh hours of operation, things like that.

So I I'm not clear on why you're just re recommending R3.

Can you further explain that to me again?

So the um applicant, the applicant is a private school.

The property that they are hoping to expand into is in the R3 zone.

So uh when I first looked at this, it looked like well, it was a change for any private school in any residential zone.

Correct.

And so this is limiting it to allow for this particular project, basically, that is being anticipated right now.

Yeah, well and others that's yeah, it wouldn't be specifically for yeah for this, but it would limit it to the R3 zone.

Um, with and if you look at the footnote, uh limit it to uh property that's one acre in size, and it does have to be auxiliary to an existing uh school.

So there are other private schools that could expand under this if they're if the property is R3, this would work for them.

If it's not then maybe they would come in with another text amendment.

Well, and it it addresses most of my concerns that we're large scale and making this a a change for anyone and everyone.

So I like this change.

I think that's really positive development.

So now this wasn't in the staff report, so you guys will need when you make your recommendation, you'll need to say, you know, recommending subject to these changes.

Okay.

To just this one for the R three.

Yes.

And this limitation.

This the number five, right?

Oh, yeah.

This number five limited.

So when we put our uh motion forward, why don't you pop the screen back up for us again just as a reminder?

Okay.

Okay.

Doesn't that get into the I guess I've hesitated even asking this?

Doesn't that kind of get into that gray area for it's kind of arbitrary and capricious where it's getting down to where so we're looking at one specific property or use or business or whatever you want to call it.

And I don't know that that's good practice.

And maybe I'm wrong.

Maybe I'm so maybe we can get a clarification on that.

I'll I'll back that up too with with you, Susan.

So help me understand.

So if if if an applicant, for example, is just looking at a piece of property and they haven't purchased it yet, but it happens to be R3 zone.

Um what why would they just not put that thing under contract and then come in here and try to entitle it into something that does allow private school?

Um, a zone that would allow private school just for that one particular case instead of a text amendment.

Because I just heard you say this is what spawned that question as I heard you say now if another school, let's say prep pep prep academy or somebody wants to just say, hey, this actually would fit us, but behind us is R 4.

And they could come in and then also do a text amendment.

So which pretty soon after four of those, right, or six of those, we're back.

What Mary was worried about that everybody gets to put a private school on any zone.

Yeah, and I I think the key is that footnote where we're limiting the size, and um that it has to be auxiliary to an existing school.

So it allows an existing school to expand, but not allow new schools to come in.

So a private school currently is not permitted or conditional in any of our residential zones.

So any private school we have today that's in a residential zone is legal non-conforming.

So ancillary meaning that it's adjacent or ancillary meaning that you can get in a bus and drive down the street and it's yeah, it's it's part of it's a branch location, so it doesn't need to be in proximity, it just needs to be under my name, my LLC.

That's an ancillary.

I don't know.

Is ancillary a defined term in our code?

Is it and if it's not, maybe I don't think it's right, it's right there.

Um that's no, that's a good point.

Well, well, I mean again, I don't know.

We'll invite the applicant up and they can explain this, I guess a little bit better to me.

So those are the questions I have.

It's like, look, typically, if you want to do something with a piece of property that doesn't allow it, it's it this is very different than what I've seen in the past.

I'm just curious as to why you guys took that approach.

Uh you know, consulting with the applicant instead of saying, hey, go lock it up and then come change the zone.

Well, we can still close on it, but we can still use the footnote if we allow in all the zones a conditional use.

Can't we?

I mean, isn't that so I'm a little concerned why we're having it?

Why well I know that's the request to have it a conditional use, but to me we've already allowed public schools, charter schools is permitted.

To me, kind of to be fair, I guess, the private school should be a permitted use.

I I'm curious as to why the conditional, why it's the request with specific state law requires us to make them permitted.

True.

And and we don't want schools anywhere, if we can help it, I think is the idea.

I I anyway, but but the request is not to make it um permitted, the request is conditional.

Right.

Yeah.

So I I like the limitations.

I like the changes that have been made.

Um, but I I think Andrew made a good point, and maybe we did if ancillary is not a defined term that it becomes one for purposes of this footnote or um whatever number five is, and that that be clearly defined.

And is there a zone that is just built for schools?

So for example, if I if I see this R3 and I want to change the zone, what zone would I need to change it to to have a to have a private school be conditional, not even permitted, just a conditional use.

Where are conditional uses permitted now for private schools?

Where are they a letter C instead of a letter P.

We're gonna do that?

I'm just testing your savvy here.

Thanks, Jen.

Um, yeah, so private schools are commercial.

Community commercial okay.

So in all the commercial zones except maybe whatever.

So the so the struggle would be hey, we want to buy an R3 parcel, and now we're gonna ask the neighbors to change it to commercial just so we can put our school in, and then it's open to whatever else that zone would allow for.

It's not the it's not a school though.

It's it's an ancillary use of an existing school.

So it's not never new, it's never a net new school.

That's the whole point of the addition of that language.

So what you just said couldn't happen with this language.

Okay.

Isn't the request to add it to all of the zones?

It's a conditional private school.

That's the change she said that you have to do that.

Yeah, so this is the that's how it was.

Yeah, that we've got to do that.

Staff is looking at uh or suggesting uh a recommended change that would limit the zones but also provide some uh limitations on it.

Got it.

And Mary, you're against the all zones because why?

You're against the case.

Well, that would have allowed you new private schools in any as a conditional use in any residential zone.

That's a huge change to our zoning code.

Even with the footnote?

Will you just go back to the code?

No, no, no.

The original if we keep it the footnote, but conditional in all of these R zones.

That that there you go, Lisa.

That's my point.

I just that that's not what the applicant needs.

So the recommended change that staff is giving us.

So I just don't see any reason to do that.

And if staff is recommending our three so it works here, then I'd I'd like to ask our legal counsel a question then about it.

Is it is it um inappropriate for us to limit it just to one zone, even with this footnote?

No, um somebody brought up the point about something being arbitrary and capricious and and arbitrary and capricious is a legal standard, generally affiliated with punitive behavior by the um by the governing body.

This is a policy consideration, it's a legislative act.

You are free to recommend whichever way you want.

Um if you find good policy reasons for limiting this is a conditional use for just the R3 zone, you could add in whatever zones you wanted.

You could throw in commercial and industrial and agricultural zones in this if you wanted, as long as there's policy reasons to back up why you're why you're coming up with this recommendation.

And of course, city council is free to take your recommendation and say, nah, we like it the way it was first with conditional use in all of the zones because it's a legislative act.

So I think that uh we're probably getting a little bit too far into the weeds on this one.

Um because at the end of the day, we if we if we think that there's good policy reasons to support uh allowing it as a conditional use in just the R3, or if we think that there's good policy reasons to allow it in all of the zones, we can we can say those things.

And Mary, you brought up some some pretty poignant um points here that we don't really want to allow schools in all the zones, all the residential zones all over the city.

Um so this limitation actually makes sense as a policy matter.

We've gotten really deep into this, and is it a public hearing?

No, uh not yet.

Oh, all right.

Thanks.

Hey, look, you're just hitting us with this number five change now here, so hold on.

All right, is the applicant here?

Come on down.

And there was nothing, there's nothing punitive here, so just so you know.

There's just that's why I looked over at you guys.

I'm like, there's no punitive anything.

If you'll just state your name to you.

Yeah, Joe Colosmo 11745 South, Tatlan Rose Lane, Draper, Utah.

Um let me just start with a little history.

So we bought this property four years ago from Jeff Lamb, and we tore it down and planted grass, and now we want to try to fold it into the mission of the school, and we feel like we want to do a greenhouse uh form to table kind of a thing and educate the students on where food comes from.

And then looking at the current zoning, there was uh private schools weren't allowed.

So I thought we'd come in with Jennifer and we'll change the text in the R three zone.

Um we like the R three zone because never's a long time, and if we need to sell it, R3 is probably a good zoning, plus everything around it is complementary, and I didn't think changing it to commercial would fly.

You know, and so we're comfortable leaving it in the R3 and we're comfortable with uh the five foot note because it's uh it's specific.

Right.

And so the one site we can live with all those conditions and I like the conditional use from your standpoint because parking and lights and all that stuff gives you a little more control versus a permitted use, and like I say, we're comfortable with the conditional use as well.

So we should invite them out just about 20 minutes ago.

So thank you.

Yes.

I have I have a question.

I do have a request.

We have five students that would like to get up and speak.

Uh you can do it as public hearing.

How about we do that?

Yeah, and then they swear they're under three minutes, so I don't think we do the five minute group, and so I've got to do that.

Okay, yeah, we're happy to do that.

Yeah, we're showing you.

Can I talk about Eva Wagner, right?

Come on, I'll just go.

Well, here's the Joe.

I have a question for you.

Yeah, Joe, we'll we'll we'll get your question started, then why don't we have them do that as the public hearing?

Would that be okay?

That's great.

Let's just do that, because it'll fit right in line with what we've seen with everybody else.

You guys okay with that?

Okay.

Yeah.

So but let's get a couple more things from you and then we'll excuse you, open it up for public hearing, and that's when you guys can shine, okay?

Perfect.

Um, I'm familiar with your campus.

And so where is the land that you've purchased or that you want to build this on exactly?

It's uh north of 118 south, and our west entrance dead ends into it.

And so uh, thank you.

There it is, right there.

And so we bought it from Jeff and uh his house was old and decrepit, so we tore down and planted grass.

It's kind of turned into the dog park a little bit, so we're trying to plant some vegetables and trees on it.

The the other thing we're gonna try to do is uh as a project try to grow trees for our main campus.

We plant about 30 trees a year.

And so if we can get some seedlings and start our own tree farm there.

That'll be awesome.

Okay, I'm just worried about traffic.

Watch your students when they cross.

Yeah.

Well, Joe, there would be an actual structure on that property.

Just curious.

Where is it gonna be a garden?

Well, it's gonna be a garden.

We got a site plan.

We're gonna, and then we're gonna buy we're gonna start with an Amazon greenhouse, just a 20 by 20 greenhouse, and and start have some starts in there, and then if something's bigger, we'll probably come back.

But I think I think that's a phase three kind of an idea of a greenhouse.

But we we got some lavender planted up front, some crops, and then some berries along the fence.

So most of them are uh yearly fruits and vegetables, and then some are permanent, like the lavender.

And we're gonna sc we got some uh planner beds, but most of it's just gonna go on the ground.

Interesting.

Okay, thanks.

Perfect.

Well, thanks again for that explanation.

All right, so this is a public hearing, as I mentioned before.

Uh we'll give everybody that wants to speak up to three minutes.

You got a nice big red timer over there, so why don't we go ahead and open this up right now to anyone that would like to address this agenda item?

That's you girls.

And if you just state your name too, please.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Ava Wagner.

We are here today with our project manager, Mr.

Colossumo, and our food and you teacher, Miss Johnson, and our principal Miss Jacobs.

Hi, my name is Riley Logan, and we are in all in a class called Food in You, where we learn where our food comes from and substantial gardening practices.

Ms.

Jacobs and Miss Johnson are pa have already passed out a graphic with more information about our project as well.

Um is Olive Kiger, and we are all students at St.

John the Baptist Middle School.

St.

John the Baptist Middle School has an enrollment of 352 students in grade six through eighth, and the sky skags campus educates children from six weeks old to their senior year.

We purchased the law on the north side of our campus off of 118th south four years ago.

We now would like to use the land for a farm to table project that allows us to have a hands-on learning program.

As J SJBMS will lead this project, but our whole campus will take part and benefit from our farm to table program.

Can you meet your name?

Yeah.

L.

Breen.

Thank you.

And Jen, will you just reset that timer?

We'll just let it let it go.

Hi, I'm back again.

And our farm to table project has three phases.

We have already secured a $7,500 grant through Captain Planet Foundations.

During our class time, we have all already started planting seeds, including peppers and lettuce.

We hope to begin the first phase this summer with a small vegetable garden for our food in the new class and improving the soil with a cover crop.

God asks us to be good stewards of his creation.

We can do that by having this area by having this area to improve, make beautiful, and with the long-term goal of producing food for our cafeteria.

I'm Ava Wagner, and I have been on the Skaggs Catholic Center campus since I was in pre-K.

I would love to see our campus grow our food for lunchroom so all students can take part in this learning experience.

Whether it's through eating what we grow or having a hands-on experience through our food in you class or through our home base classes.

Hi, my name is Camilla Morales.

And as we close our request, we're reminded of the scripture from Ecclesiastes that reminds us that there is a time or era for all things.

We would love your support to help us have the time to plant.

Thank you.

No clap.

Well, if the parents want to clap, I'll allow it.

Okay.

That was a good idea.

We're not heartless up here.

We're not.

Girls, well done.

Thank you for that.

We appreciate that.

I love it.

I think that's great.

This is kind of how your city's run.

So uh when you're older and there's nothing on Netflix, you can come down here and watch these in your town where you end up living long term.

Okay.

So thank you.

We appreciate that.

It's still open for public hearing.

Would anyone else like to address this agenda item?

Okay.

We'll let it stand then.

Thank you.

We'll close the public hearing.

All right, commissioners.

Um, my question was answered.

Why not change the zone?

And it's because one day I now seeing right where it is.

Right.

We'll just have to change it right back to R3 and put a nice house on it, and I'm good.

Yeah.

Um, I would just say that was the most unfair public comment I've ever received.

And I'm not sure how anyone could say no to that.

But yeah, it was very well done.

Well done.

That's why we turned the timer off.

Okay, I get yeah.

I'll make a motion for a positive recommendation.

Anyone else um using this um our alternative text?

Does anybody else up here have a comment or question or only comment would be just well done to the group that took so much time and what a cool thing.

Yeah.

We all think that our food just magically appears in a grocery store.

So good job getting yourselves educated and doing such a positive thing in the community.

I'm a gardener myself.

It's good.

Okay.

Um I move that we forward a positive recommendation to the city council for the Juan Diego zoning text amendment alternate text, alternative text, as requested by Joe Colossumo, representing Skaggs Catholic Center LLC.

Application 2026, 006, wait, 0006 TA, based on the following findings and the criteria for approval listed in the staff report dated March 3, 2026.

The alternative text, however, is that um a conditional use will be allowed in the R3 zone only.

That will be the only change.

But there will be a footnote.

It'll be limited to sites and properties one acre in size or less than or less that are ancillary to an existing private school campus within the city.

Site coverage with buildings and structures limited to no more than 2,000 square feet, maximum height of buildings and structures limited to 25 feet.

Thank you, Lisa.

And who will second that motion?

I'll second.

Thanks, Christine.

Could I um propose an additional amendment that I think we all were on board with?

Um, and my brain just went totally blank.

Oh, the answer ancillary.

The word ancillary um should probably be defined in our code for this purpose.

Are you wanting me to define ancillary or are you?

Yeah, create a definition of ancillary.

That, yes.

Um, before this is passed or after it's passed.

As it is passed.

Additional text.

We can get a definition for the term before it could be between now and the time it goes to council.

Okay, if that's if that's in your motion.

So I will include in my motion that the city define ancillary in the code and present that to the city council.

Great.

And Christine, you're still seconding that.

Yes, I'll second.

Great, thank you.

Okay, let's put this to a vote for positive recommendation.

Lisa, how do you vote?

Yes.

Christine?

Yes.

Laura down there.

Yes.

Lisa.

Oh, sorry, Mary and Susan.

Mary?

Yes.

And then Susan.

Yes.

Thank you.

See, I try to mix it up and get keep you included down there, Laura.

Congratulations, guys.

Thanks for the presentation.

We appreciate you being uh part of our community.

All right, let's go on to our next public hearing.

Uh, this one is the High Point Office Building 2 site plan and deviations request.

It's on the request of Riley Young of Mint Architecture representing High Point Partners LLC, the site plan and deviation request for the construction of a new office building on approximately 1.02 acres, located at approximately 193 East Highland Drive.

This is known as application 2024-0350-sp and 2024-0217-VAR.

So, Jen, I'm assuming you're our staff contact on this one as well.

Todd is going to do this one.

Oh, perfect.

Great.

Sorry, I should have looked for the eye contact there.

There we go.

Okay, Todd.

Divide and conquering.

Yes, got it.

Go ahead, Todd.

All right, thank you.

So again, yes, this is Mary Ann's uh application, but uh I'm presenting in her stead.

Uh this is the vicinity map.

And you can kind of see where that is uh in relation to the rest of the city, kind of in that uh southwest uh corner.

Uh you can see Highland Drive there in the aerial a little bit better, and then Bangater uh just uh my mouse work uh kind of along the east side there.

So this is the existing site.

Uh at the time this site was approved.

This was a uh pad site, and so there is some parking that was uh already installed.

The particular development that they're looking at with this application would be a new office building uh on the remainder that's left.

Uh the land use here uh is the neighborhood commercial, and then the zoning is CR.

Uh this is the site plan.

It just kind of shows again where that building would sit in relation to the existing uh parking and and curb.

Uh there will be uh two small changes to the existing site.

Uh right now this is a larger planter island.

They will take out about half of that island and add one more parking stall there, and then they will be uh adjusting the uh ADA parking to add an ADA parking stall here.

Part of that is due to the fact they have an issue, and I've got a picture so it will make sense later.

Uh but they have an issue in the parking garage with their ADA parking.

One of the stalls does not meet the minimum sizes, and so with the addition of this building, they're kind of essentially going to be moving that stall to here.

It will still comply with ADA parking, and uh when they get that all fixed, they'll be kind of one stall off, so they needed to add one more stall in.

So in the end, it will all equal out the same uh as the parking that's available right now, uh, 310 spaces, I believe is the total.

And I better uh use this so it doesn't just keep rolling on me like last time.

And then there's just a little bit of a blown up version of that if uh there were any details that were a little bit harder to see on the other plan.

Same here with the landscape plan.

Uh all the landscaping on the site is existing except for what will go in immediately around the building, and of course, where that parking stall is uh going to be added, they'll be taking out the existing landscaping that's just in that area.

And then just a closer uh version here.

You'll notice this is kind of a walkout basement, and there's an amenity and a seating area down here, which is required.

Uh one of the conditions that is listed in the staff report.

Uh we didn't get any floor plans with this application, so we don't know that it is ADA accessible at this time.

So that's just a condition added to make sure that uh that ADA access is included at the time of the building permit.

Uh elevations here, uh, just with the colors and materials and the art uh architectural variation horizontally and vertically, uh, which does comply with ordinance.

So this is the north elevation, uh looking towards the existing building that's there.

This is the south elevation, uh, up back towards the street, and then we've got uh the east and the west.

They're kind of the same.

This is uh rendering that the applicant did submit.

It's not 100% accurate, but it gives you kind of an idea of what that building would look like there on the site, and then some of the slope uh that exists in that area.

Obviously, the uh landscaping will be much more robust.

So the other part here is in adding this building.

Uh they are in need of a parking deviation.

Uh the square footage of the building uh with the available parking on site, uh slightly uh they have a slight deficit, um depending on kind of how you look at it.

So what I've got here is just what our ordinance requires, what the parking study looked at.

Um I did have to kind of calculate uh there was not uh a lot of information in the parking study about exactly what numbers they use.

These are the numbers I kind of reverse engineered from what they had.

There is some discrepancy we're noting between some of the uses.

They they termed everything, I believe, is medical service, and I think we had some that we were actually looking at as personal care with some other as the medical service rates.

In the end, the parking study basically would indicate that if all uses were open at the same time at the same and they had the same peak hour, they need 317 spaces.

Of course, that's about seven shy of the 310 that are there.

Um it's on the low end using that natural deviation would be somewhere between the 300 and 22, 395.

Um, so that may be 12 stalls short just on our use our natural deviation.

So in the end, the parking study when we look at those as staff, we look at are they valid?

Do they meet the requirements of ordinance?

Yes, this one does meet those minimum requirements of ordinance uh to be considered.

Uh there is one other piece of that which this table won't really show, uh, which is then they looked at time of day.

And one of those uses, of course, is at reception center.

The 34 spaces that they indicated fits within the range that we would have looked at even in a natural adjustment range.

So that's another way we can kind of tell the study is valid.

Um, however, in that uh, and I think in the report uh and in the condition, Marianne had it is uh asking that that reception center only operate after 6 p.m.

Uh in the study, it actually showed that as 5 p.m.

and after.

So if you wanted to make a slight change there, I think that would be in line with the study if you find that a deviation is appropriate.

Um if and part of the reason there is that would be consistent with the study uh showing that no use by uh that reception center during the day.

So there are a few things in the study where the engineer has talked about well, it would use a few spaces during the day, uh, but then in the actual uh calculation you showed it having none.

Uh it could probably uh accommodate that.

The the maximum uh usage uh that they calculated during the day would be I believe 283 stalls for all the other on-site uses that are proposed.

Um so there may be a little bit that could fit in there.

Uh and just again with those required findings for parking deviation.

Um I pulled these from the ordinance, but they're not exactly per the ordinance here.

So you what you're looking for is if you do approve the deviation from the strict compliance from the either the number of spaces or the required calculations, in this case, it's kind of both.

Uh you just need to be able to make these following findings that adequate parking will be provided.

The total number of spaces that otherwise be required would be overly burdensome for the site.

Uh estimated trade-offs between businesses which are open and others which are closed will not overburden the parking provider, and that is, I believe, met if we have that condition in there.

Uh that there is adequate availability of shared parking for all associated uses.

Again, that also goes back to the condition.

Uh that the site or use specific conditions or factors do not provide for compliance with the parking calculation used or parking requirements outlined in ordinance.

The transportation alternatives, including proximity of transit stations, provide adequate transportation to offset any reduction in parking.

This one's a little bit difficult.

We don't really have a transit line there.

Uh UTA does operate via, so there is transit availability, uh, but it's kind of limited to the on-demand service.

And then just the other one I've highlighted there, just the potential future expansions or additions to the development will have or provide adequate parking for that expansion or addition.

So Mary Ann is also included another condition in the list of conditions there, uh, requesting essentially that when a new business comes in that we're going to evaluate their parking.

Um that's just because in the study uh there's a second part of this where the engineer indicates that any of the uses in the city's chart of uses that would require five per thousand parking would be totally acceptable in this development.

Uh staff has kind of looked at that, and that's something else that we we kind of look at is the appropriateness of the conclusion.

We don't think that conclusion is appropriate here.

Um we we do think though that uh on a case-by-case basis with the businesses that are uh coming in in the future, we would need to to address the parking based on the parking that's there and available.

Um there is no on-street parking allowed either on Bangar or on Highland there, so there's no ability for this to overflow.

Um so we do have a concern there, but in the end the study is valid.

Uh if it's a couple of spaces, or you know, whether that's two, seven or twelve, uh really doesn't matter.

It there are a few spaces it would be short.

Uh but again that would be up to the property owner to make sure that they're putting tenants in there that aren't going to have parking needs beyond uh what is available.

Um again, the I believe the applicant is here as well as our traffic engineers, so they can answer any questions on how they did the study and and anything you may have uh in that realm.

Um see if there's anything else I missed, sorry.

And then just the site photos here again.

This is kind of looking from the corner of the site in towards the existing building where this this new building would go, and then this is kind of looking kind of from right here back across the site where you've got the two existing ADA, and they would be adding another.

And then this is just the one that uh we can't have a concrete pillar in the middle of the access aisle, so uh this one will be uh being amended, but that's kind of a separate thing.

Other than that, oh I have I have a question.

Yeah, is there anything else that could be removed in the parking lot to add other spaces?

Like can you go back to the parking to the site drawing?

So this is the site plan for this particular one.

I don't know that I have one for the overall site.

Um there's that's okay.

This might be the better to kind of show.

Uh really that's the only one that I I can recall.

Most of these other parking islands are pretty much standard size.

And it is a little bit more than that.

If you remove them, if you remove those end caps or whatever they're called, um it wouldn't add more parking.

No, in fact, they're required.

Those are required uh landscaping in the parking area.

This one just happened to be yes in draper code or in our code code.

In our code.

But that would be a deviation.

Yeah, to remove them, they would have to they would have to come in, and I don't re-stripe everything.

Yeah.

But in this case, this one was larger than it needed to be, larger than the minimum.

They could easily modify it, put the additional space in, and uh it still meets the parking lot uh landscape requirements still meets parking or for the site, and then uh landscaping for the overall site.

So there's no uh loss uh in the staff report.

I think Marianne reported that the actual on-site landscaping is at 21% or yeah, 21% of the site is landscaped and 20% is our minimum, so they're still above that.

So the reception center use that's that's in the new building, the anticipated or it's in the so we would be imposing a new restriction on an existing business that's there.

It would be a new restriction on the business.

That I don't know that that's in place right now.

That is correct.

I mean I like the restriction, but I think that's you know, once they've already negotiated rent and have that space.

I have I take some issue with putting that restriction on an existing business that hasn't already had it.

Didn't come in under those terms.

I mean, for parking purposes, it makes it works, it works.

Makes it work, yeah.

Or it could work.

Yeah.

But um, but I I find that really problematic, but I understand why you know the proposal was made.

Yeah, without that restriction in place, then the parking study does not actually justify the parking.

Right, exactly.

I would just kind of keep in mind that given given the mix of uses, there are some uses like a reception center that typically is gonna have different hours, may not always have different hours, but typically will.

Um, and I think that's what the parking study was was getting at, saying they're they're gonna have evening hours, and that that condition staff has.

Um this the site is tight, you know.

Looking at the landscaping, we really can't take the landscaping out and meet our landscaping code and the site's tight.

Um so really the the question I think you guys need to look at is are is there a condition that you can put that uh makes you comfortable with the that reduction in parking?

And again, it's not that that many spaces.

Um, and keeping in mind that uses do change or over time, right?

So that reception center is there now, it may not be there, you know, five, ten years from now.

Um uses do change, and and so parking needs will fluctuate.

I agree with Mary's concern.

I have the same concern exactly.

If they've already negotiated a lease, I'm curious.

Does that lease specify evening times?

In other words, if they're open 8 to 10 p.m.

on their lease, and now we're coming in and restricting that.

Yeah, that'd be a question for the applicant.

Okay.

Well, and presumably there is no restriction now, at least on a city level.

We we have there's no limitation because parking hasn't been an issue, right, up until this building is being added.

And I I and I agree, without the limitation, you could theoretically have that rented out every day for conference space.

Um, that reception area, that's exactly what I was thinking.

Yeah, they could have a conference space.

Right.

I think it's called the Ballard, yeah.

The reset, yeah.

Anyway, so yeah, we'll have that question for the applicant.

Okay, great.

All right, is the applicant here?

All right, you want to come on down to state your name, you can add anything to that presentation, and then we'll have some questions for you.

Um Greg Goffin.

Uh represent the owners and thrive development.

Um tough act to follow, the last one.

Holy cow.

Um with me, I have Jason with uh focused engineering, he's the one that did the parking study, and then Riley with uh Met Architecture.

So I have a few things here, so forgive me if I'm looking down and reading this, but got a couple things I just want to make sure.

So uh thanks for taking the time tonight.

And um, so we're excited about this plan.

Uh this is step or lot two of the development that we just talked about.

This is 25,806 square foot building.

The existing one there is roughly 75,000 square feet.

So this one's a third of the size that we're proposing.

Uh this was approved back in 2021.

So this is an office building, which we're also excited to get done because we're maximizing the best use for Draper City, trying to get the biggest building we can to get the most employees there that we can and um help that.

And also just with the change in the last five or six years um with the market and with COVID, we're pretty proud to actually get an office building up and going.

So that's great.

Uh couple things that we just want to clear up with the uh the report.

Um the personal care um classification.

Let's see, table four of the staff report uh classifies approximately five thousand square feet as personal care.

Um so there's on the first floor there's a surgical center, and on the second floor, there's the plastics clinic, and those two run in with each other.

So the plastics clinic has three doctors, two nurse practitioners, a registered nurse, and one physician assistant.

Um it's owned by the same owners of the surgical centers I just said, and um we've actually gone, we've worked with staff on this in the past, and uh Jen, the community department directors confirmed in an email December 5th, that because of that classification, or because of the uses and all the species sp the specific uses, um, it is considered medical use, or I'm sorry, medical service.

Um, and I have that email with us, so um, and this was um so yeah, the medical service is three per thousand.

Um if you go further on, it says the report states that the owner allowed uses that are more intense parking requirements than office.

Uh look at what the code actually says.

Surgical center medical is three per thousand, that's 25 less percent than office, not more.

Financial capital is general office, which is four per thousand, endeavor capital is general office four per thousand, and then the event center is four per thousand as well.

So um from the original plan, we've actually improved the parking by quite a bit and not made it worse.

Um let's see here.

Please interrupt me and ask any questions.

Let's see, the report states the IT peak demand is 283 stalls.

Um in that report it says this is still 12 more stalls than is provided on the site.

Um the site has 310 minus the 283, that's 27.

That's a 27 stall surplus, not a 12 stall deficit.

So that's just another um little correction that's that needs to be taken out in that report.

And that's a 39 stall swing in the wrong direction.

So that makes a big difference of how this looks.

Uh when you correct the personal care cassification, here are the actual numbers.

There's 349 stalls required by code.

315 with the 10% deviation under section 925-090.

There's 310 on site.

That's a gap of five stalls, not 10, not 48.

That's five.

It's a 1.6% variance that we're asking for.

And every world measure confirms that we don't need more, then we don't need those five stalls.

ITE peaks demand at eight, we're at 283, that's 27 below our supply.

Our average observed demand across 12 count days is 155 stalls.

So we go out and we'd take pictures and just take pictures to see how many stalls were vacant, and that's what so that's 50% of our capacity.

Even on the single busiest day we recorded, project demand with our new building is 291.

That's still 19 below of the supply of 310 that we have.

Um I want to take a note that the parking study conservatively assumes this is a a good point that when we did this parking study and we would monitor how many pictures or when we monitored those 12 days, we just assumed that the parking garage was fully occupied, which it never is.

And so right now there's 42 stalls in the parking garage.

So you can if you go average with the rest of those numbers, that's an extra 20 that we're counting that probably aren't being used at the time when we were doing this.

So that's a pretty big difference.

That actually demand is down to 155 stalls.

Um thing on the the different criteria to meet the transportation alternatives.

Um Draper City Mass Transportation Plan adopted back in 2019, the active transportation plan adopted um September 2020, identified Highland Drive as a designated bike corridor with existing bike lanes.

UTA Route 871 runs 30 minutes headways all day on the corridor.

UTA Route F 514 provides 30 minute peak services.

The TRAX Blue Line terminates at Draper or Drapertown Center with a 15-minute weekday um headways.

Front runner commuter rail operates in drain or in Draper with 30 minute peak headways.

Um continuing on, we too have a concern with number four, the reception center.

The reception center tenant has an existing lease that has been in place for approximately two years.

The lease does not restrict the tenant to evening and weekdays.

A site plan condition that restricts her operation beyond that, beyond what the lease allows, puts me in a position where the city approval conflicts with the contract I've already executed.

I can't unilaterally amend her use rights without exposing myself to uh breach in the lease.

So and as we go through the parking, and there's plenty of pictures there.

There's no need for it anyways.

There's there's ample parking provided.

So here's really we want the commission to understand.

If we have the reception center operating during the business hours every single day, the mass still works.

The code calculation gap is five stalls.

The reception center evening, because it's still four per thousand.

The reception center evening schedule is what makes the ITE time of day number so favorable at 283.

But we don't need to offset and justify the deviation.

The straight code math at 350 required versus 310 is available.

That's a 1.6% gap that we're asking for.

Um I think that's it.

Do you guys have any question that's not related to parking?

Okay.

On the um site plan, there is a on the let's see, that would be the southwest corner of the building or south the the west side of the building, but on that corner, there's a um let's see if Todd can get back to it.

Yeah, there's a a little um seat with benches and so forth.

That's but it needs to be ADA compliant.

Yeah, so that I'm glad you brought that up.

So if you go to, yeah, it's on the east side.

So that's the amenity that we had planned for the building.

So if you go on the other side of that, Todd, if you wouldn't mind going to the landscape plan, please.

I think that would be if you control your mouse, huh?

Yeah, right there.

So if you look to the right of the building on the east side, that that's what we had envisioned for the amenity space.

So that will be ADA accessible on one side, but not on the other.

Yeah, not on the other.

That that one's for the building and the tenants.

That's an amenity for the tenants, but amenity for the public was that parking or that uh bench and picnic that we had out there.

Todd, does it?

We did try to adjust or sorry, yeah.

Address it.

But Todd, does that other amend the the larger thing is that they're both needed?

They're both this one is listed on the on the west side there as an outdoor seating area as well.

So it has to be ADA compliant, even if there is another one available.

I believe it is AD.

Okay.

I don't I don't know the rules, so off the top of my head.

I'm gonna look up the roles.

So, but ask your other questions while I do that.

Okay, and we'll have a we'll have a hearing too, don't we?

Public hearing.

Yeah, okay.

I mean, you couldn't you'd have to do a door from the basement.

Yeah, from the lowest level.

Right now, that's the plan is a door from the basement out to that patio.

All right, are you talking about the lower the lower one, the one on the west?

Yeah, you'd have to do that to make it ADA compliant, plus an elevator inside.

Yeah, yeah, there'll be an elevator in the building.

So who parks in the garage?

I'm sorry.

In the cover who parks in the covered parking, the 40 stalls.

There's 42 in the covered parking right now.

And who has access to those?

Everybody.

Oh there, there's no it's just no gate.

Anyone can get in.

Yep.

Yeah.

Okay.

And so we just assume because we didn't have pictures of that, we just assumed that it was fully occupied in our empirical data.

Okay.

Okay, great.

But during the day, I think who honestly parked here.

Like the parking lots are so empty.

Yeah.

A lot in the day that it's honestly surprised everyone waiting parking.

Yeah.

Unless you're bringing in this like crate, because like I said, I haven't been there at night, but during the day, it's still an empty parking lot.

Yeah, I mean, there's parking, people parking, but it's not you never question where am I gonna park, how am I gonna get to this building?

And there's so much parking, I think.

Yeah, and so uh uh I'm glad you brought that up because the first building is three times the size of the one that we're trying to get approved with the five stall deviation.

Um, and then just another thing since COVID happened.

There's obviously work from home.

I mean, just going through this application, I can either come here or we do a zoom call, and most people take a zoom call.

So um, and what the clients that we have, there's medical service, they obviously get people coming in.

The other one is um a financial service, and he said there's the two parts that COVID happened and so work from home is a thing, but now clients aren't coming to the office either because they're just doing it through Zoom.

So it's been like a double whammy on.

I mean, thorough sites been fully released and it's still 50% vacant.

So crazy, huh?

Yeah.

I I mean you guys have beautiful office buildings throughout the city, and they're 50% vacant parking on the office.

So I have an answer to the question.

Um, so two amenities are required given the size of the building.

Um but it does it doesn't say they have to be ADA accessible from the outside.

So if somebody can can enter the building, use the elevator, go to the basement, and access it, that would comply.

So maybe that condition could be tweaked in wording for just to be verified that it is an AD accessible amenity.

Because it's included in the report, so it would be inclusive of our motion, but we need to clarify.

Okay, thank you.

Great.

Thanks.

Yeah, so just I I guess final, just the two conditions that obviously number four is a a problem having the existing lease in place.

We um ask that to be removed.

And then number three, uh, I mean, I feel like this parking study kind of handles that new tenant situation already, but that's that's my thoughts.

So great.

All right, we'll excuse you and then we'll bring you back up if we need to.

Okay.

That's the hot public hearing here.

Okay, thank you.

All right, we'll go ahead and open this up to public comment, just the same rules as before.

Anyone that would like to address this agenda item.

Feel free to stand up, come on down.

Nobody, all right.

We'll go ahead and close the public hearing portion.

Commissioners, what are your thoughts?

I have some staff questions.

So there seems to be some dispute for lack of a better word.

Um do you, Todd or Jennifer, but Todd, it's your project, right?

Do you feel like anything needs to be revised in our packet?

Or are I because we really have to rely on information that that comes from our staff.

So it's hard for me to have an applicant stand up and say, no, that's all wrong.

And then so I I think the one that they did point out where it just says the peak usage would be 283, which is still 12 more than is provided on site.

I think that is a bit confusing.

I agree.

Um because the what the study says is 283 is the peak usage calculated using that ITE parking manual.

283 would be the peak usage at I believe it's 11 a.m.

at in the day, not including the reception center at all.

Okay.

If you add what the reception center requires at peak usage, that's now 34 more parking stalls.

Now they're that now the peak usage, all uses at the same time at peak is still seven more parking stalls than they have on site.

Okay.

So their calculation that they put in the the study for each of those uses is correct.

Altogether, that's 317 parking stalls would be needed.

Site has 310 or to seven stall deficit if all uses are open at peak at the same time.

Uh staff's concern, and I know that Marianne put it in a few places here, is really more towards future uses that might exceed uh what is in what has been calculated here in the study uh and our and our own ordinance.

That's the concern.

Um I think at one time there was a you know uh condition potentially to say, well, or you know, the other way is we could reduce this, you know, recommend we're reducing the square footage of the building.

Original building, I believe was two floors, not three.

So this is an increase from the from that by a floor, but it still is within um pretty close to what existing parking was provided for the two buildings.

So really it is up to the planning commission on that deviation, uh, how you want to handle that.

Uh the study would not support it as uh as uh without some condition because the study obviously altered times of day and did those things.

So if we're not gonna alter time of day, then we need just look at the the calculations uh straight out of the study.

Okay, thank you.

All right, commissioners, any thoughts, debate or uh so on page nine.

Um the applicant the page nine of our report, the applicant wants to um change three and four, I believe.

Um is about the um use of use only after 6 p.m.

the nine 9100 square feet, but he has a contract.

So I'm willing to um remove four, but I do think that um any future number three, any future tenants in the buildings should come comply.

We should have them do a a review.

So I still think three should stay in place.

Any uh what do you guys think?

Well, I I don't support number four.

Um however, I understand why it's there, and I have a hard time saying yes to a deviation without some sort of restriction that will make the parking compliant.

The deviation or the the condition on limitation of use is what makes it work, and without that, it doesn't work.

So that's my concern.

So that would cause the applicant to come back with um the changes or the corrections to the parking study and right and discuss that with staff, Mary.

Is that what you're doing?

Yeah, um, it won't come to you guys.

Essentially, as new businesses come in, we would be looking for updated parking numbers from the applicant to show that it still works.

And if it's a like for like business, then that's gonna be unnecessary if it's a new use that's being um put in, um, then we'll have to look at those numbers.

But that's for three only.

If we if yes, the proposal was to eliminate four, which makes none of it work anymore.

Right?

I mean it's got a lot of people.

It makes it not math.

Right, it makes them exactly so it it is a it is a small number of parking spaces that we're we're really talking about.

Um it and that that parking study, and and let me just read three here because um yeah, it says in the any future tense and existing or proposed building, so what that does is you know that that parking study is gonna take into account the reception center.

They're gonna they're gonna have to take into account their parking needs for the overall property in both buildings.

So it does give us the ability to say we're not gonna issue a business license or a tenant improvement for this business because it does not meet parking needs for future businesses.

For future businesses, including the businesses in the new building.

Including the new building.

Okay.

Um so existing businesses would be able to stay.

Right.

They're they're there, yeah.

But um new businesses going into the existing building would also be subject to three.

If they if there's new business, they're different from what we were anticipating.

Yes, but with without the limitation on time for the reception center, none of it works, right?

I mean, uh as far as our code for the meaning, if the reception center left and so and more medical moved in upstairs, is that what you're saying?

I mean if it with no time limitation, because that's what's being proposed in number four is 6 p.m.

or 5 p.m.

Um and beyond only for hours of operation.

But this is an existing business that I don't I mean I I agree with the applicant, like that's hard for him.

Um there may be some clause in his lease that allows this to happen, but I don't I that's not anything I have any appetite to do.

Yeah, and unfortunately that that's the parking study that well, right, right.

Generated that because the parking study said there will be no use but of any parking by the reception center before 5 p.m.

Um however to your point uh I think as staff we we can live with if you eliminated four.

Um because I think a lot of that is covered under three, where we would be reviewing each each uh tenant as they came in to ensure they complied with parking.

What that what that would do, however, is it would mean say, and this is just an example in the new building.

The new building has been calculated essentially at uh the four per thousand.

Um I forget what the rate was the study.

I'll see if I can go to it.

So um they counted they they looked at it 3.65 stalls per thousand uh in that general office.

It was all looked at as general office.

We we look at it for the study came up with 3.65.

What that would really mean is in that building, they'd have to put in uses that use less than 3.65 to comply.

And so that may be something more on that medical service was a 2.75 kind of our three or or something else that's allowed in the zone that has a lower parking requirement.

So they could this could fix itself with the right kinds of businesses coming into that building.

And and that would be the applicant's job to make sure that they comply.

Okay.

I mean that's that that's another way of looking at it.

Okay, I appreciate that.

They could use storage area.

I'm kidding.

A lot less required parking.

Our legal department.

I in the back of my mind I'm thinking somewhere and tell me if I'm wrong.

I seem to be like one of our trainings.

We talked about deviations from parking where does it line up with the traffic study and this exact scenario?

My thinking right?

Does this recall?

I don't recall having trained on parking.

But that might be that might be something from your previous life.

Maybe that was it, yes.

Cobwebs, right?

Do you have any input on this situation?

Um for the traffic study.

My my only or wisdom.

Wisdom is is trust the numbers.

The numbers, the numbers are there.

So what we do is we strive to make our code uh uh clear and objective and enforceable.

Right.

And everything that's in our code says this is how we're gonna do this by numbers, and we're not going to I don't know, um do the study for people, but we're gonna trust what the study says.

And there's people much smarter than me that go out and figure out how many how many parking stalls should be in any one given development or how much traffic one any one development is going to cause.

And I don't understand the science behind it, and I don't understand the math behind it, and I'm perfectly okay with that because trust the numbers.

Okay, thank you.

All right, commissioners.

Should we put forward a motion?

Uh I'm I'm ready.

I'm willing to forward a positive recommendation.

How do you guys are you guys this is for parking deviation?

Wait, which one's first site uh parking deviation?

Well, we're not yet making a recommendation.

Site plan and parking deviation.

Um staff recommendation four, but add to seven that um access could be from inside the building.

It doesn't have to be outside the building.

I guess it just says that standards of the American Disabilities Act.

We can leave it that way.

They can they can read the act themselves.

I think that kind of covers it's I think that covers itself.

Yeah, I don't think we need to modify that to edit that one.

Um okay.

Well, I'm gonna do that then.

Um I move that we approve the parking deviation as requested by Riley Young of Mint Architecture representing High Point Partners LLC application 2024-0127-VAR based on the findings for approval listed in the staff report dated November 12, 2025.

Except um we um want the removal of of staff recommendation number four about um the hours of occup of uh occupation and just to clarify that's not removal of a finding, that's removal of a condition, correct?

I'm sorry, well not removal of a finding, but removal of a condition, just a staff recommendation condition.

Okay, so is that it, Lisa?

Yeah, okay, great.

All right, so that's your motion with uh for approval on the parking deviation removal of number four.

Who will second that?

I'll second it.

Okay, thanks, Laura.

Lisa.

Yes, Laura.

Yes, Mary?

Yes, Susan.

No, and Christine.

Yes.

Okay.

Yeah, we got one more here.

This is for approval of the site plan.

Do I need to do the same say the same thing?

Probably.

I move that we approve the site plan as requested by Riley Younger Mint of Mint Architecture representing high point partners LLC application 2024-350-sp based on the findings for approval and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report dated November 12, 2025, except that we will remove condition number four listed in the staff recommendation section.

Perfect.

Thanks, Lisa.

Who will second that one?

I'll second it.

All right, thanks, Laura again.

So Lisa, how do you vote?

Yes.

Laura?

Yes.

Mary?

Yes.

Susan?

No.

Christine.

Yes.

Okay.

All right, that'll get approved.

Congrats on that.

Thanks for coming in, spend some time with us.

Appreciate all your hard work on that.

All right.

We're gonna take a quick little five-minute bio break, and we'll see you guys all back here in five minutes.

Ready, go stereo.

All right, let's readjourn.

Everyone's back from break.

Everybody's here.

Great.

All right, welcome back.

So we've got two more agenda items here.

Hang tight with us.

We'll get through these.

Uh the next one we've got is a public hearing.

It's the Kimball's Junction Development Agreement amendment request.

It's on the request of Mike Winters representing Edge Homes for an amendment to the Kimballs Junction Development Agreement in order to set design standards and concept plan for approximately 21 acres of land located at 632 East Kimballs Lane in the RM2, which is the multifamily residential zone.

The application numbers 2025-0293-DA and Jennifer Destrimski is a contact on this.

So go ahead, Jennifer.

Great, thank you.

Um the Kimball's Junction development, um, the original degrement development agreement was approved last year.

It set just a couple things, it set a density uh range of 25 to 27 units per acre, called for 30 workforce housing units to be done but with um the applicant and the city, and then called for uh a future amendment to uh to approve uh design standards and concept plans.

Um so the the property is on Kimball's Lane and 119th South, uh directly across the street from the Kimball's uh track station.

Um it is in our high density land use designation as well as our RM2 um multifamily uh zoning designation and it's within that uh Kimball station area plan.

Um kind of opened up those documents earlier in the uh evening.

Um our stationary plan did look specifically at this property.

It was one of the ones that uh we looked at.

It did call for uh extensive uh residential as well as um a trail along the creek.

Um let's see.

So the proposed development agreement maintains that uh density that's already been approved.

Um it complies the concept plan complies with our parking standards, so they're not asking for any deviation to parking numbers.

Um it will change the name to uh Kimball Station instead of Kimball's Junction.

They do have uh extensive uh amenities, um, which I'll show you a plan of in a minute.

It does call for a public trail along uh the East Jordan Canal.

Um excuse me, and it does uh call for uh good faith efforts to preserve existing trees along the canal.

Um that uh canal trail is on our master plans, our trail and open space master plan as well.

Access to high nineteenth south would be limited to emergency only access, so it wouldn't be uh general access point for residents, and then it sets uh design standards.

Um, so there's specific building elevations that are approved.

Um they do differ in architectural designs, building materials, that kind of thing from our code, but it sets uh specific elevations.

Um building heights would be allowed up to 54 feet tall.

So our code allows 35 feet right now.

So they're proposing uh three-story and four-story condo buildings as well as three-story townhomes.

Um the code requires uh sidewalk on both sides of the street.

Um they are proposing a pedestrian uh sidewalk system that's not on both sides of the street, but that is uh connecting all the buildings and the amenities and to the public sidewalk.

Um parking space um standards they're proposing to reduce lengths by two feet.

So carports, they're proposing um to be 18 feet deep and parallel spaces are proposing to be 20 feet deep.

Our code uh requires 20 and 22.

Um reduction from our standard 30 percent to 25 percent.

Um, this is uh TOD, it is next to a track station, so having a reduction in that open space does make sense for a TOD.

Um building setbacks, uh it calls for a 10-foot setback from the public roadways, our code uh setback standards are based on this height of the structure.

So if it's under three stories, uh it can be anywhere from five to twenty feet, and then if it's over three stories, 15 to 30.

So they are proposing just 10.

Um, and then a 10 foot setback between buildings on the property.

The code uh calls for 15.

And then they are looking for a two-foot reduction in uh driveway depth from 20 feet to 18 feet.

See, um alleys and roadways, alleyways, they're asking for uh 20 foot wide alleys, and that would be um they're they're shorter alleyway lengths, um, and I'll show you that in the concept site plan with the the through streets being 27 feet wide.

Um they're proposing to eliminate the landscape buffer along Juan Diego, but still have a 10-foot landscape buffer and eight foot wall adjacent to the uh existing residential that's along the west property lines, and then signs they are proposing two monument signs.

Um our code for residential um signs requires it be kind of a fairly small sign included in uh uh fence that goes around the development.

They're proposing just to be able to have a monument sign in each of their entrances that would comply with the our standard free standing monument sign uh height and area standards, and then public street design, they do have a little bit different uh uh plan for Kimball's lane with an integrated uh sidewalk with trees rather than have a traditional park strip and uh sidewalks, and then it does allow staff to approve small deviations to the agreement as as it's going through the approval process.

Um with those two standards, it would not materially affect the overall design and development standards, and it's necessary due to unforeseen technical or engineering considerations.

If a change doesn't meet those two parameters, they're either they have to meet the code or they have to amend their development agreement, and then um it does give uh supremacy to uh the designs and layouts in the agreement versus um code if there's a conflict, unless it's life safety or fire protection.

Okay, concept plan.

Um they do have let me sorry, I'm trying to get the mouse to work here.

So these are uh four-story buildings, the grays colors four-story buildings, the yellow or the brownish color is the three-story buildings, and then the yellow is your three-story uh uh townhome buildings.

So you can see we do have uh short some shorter alleyways here.

Those would be these would be the areas that are 20 feet wide.

All of the roads that go through the development are the ones that would be that 27 feet.

Are they um are the the little alleyways?

Are they supposed to be larger because of um to a car coming from each direction?

And if they're smaller than this, then the cars can't pass each other, right?

It would have to be one per one person at a time.

20 feet is um sufficient for two-way traffic, it's kind of the minimum.

Um, if somebody has a larger vehicle, maybe harder backing up or you know, that that kind of thing, but 20 feet is um sufficient for two-way.

Our emergency services are the ones that requested us to go from a 20-foot alleyway, six-foot alleyway when we made the change in our code.

So if there's a car parked in one of those alleys, they're not gonna be able to drive a fire truck through it.

Well, these have driveways, so there can't be any parking in these specific ones, but that is a consideration generally in our code.

Yeah, yeah.

So all the garages do have driveways.

Um they're proposing uh 18 feet in depth, but they do all have all of them have um driveways for for each each garage.

The townhomes do have uh two car garages each.

Um the condo buildings do have a row of parking uh garages on the bottom floor, and then there are uh car ports and uncovered parking as well.

There is um uh community clubhouse amenity space here, as well as several smaller uh amenities throughout the development.

So yeah, so amenities, um clubhouse, pool, seating areas.

You can kind of see um that uh kind of center walkway and their their open spaces.

This is more of the amenities.

Uh so building designs, this would be the four-story condos.

Um they have two different roof types, um, one sloped and one flat.

Um, and then we've got the three-story condos as well, and the townhomes, and then uh their parking plan.

So this is just kind of designating what that covered parking would look like and and where it would be.

Um there's a couple of recommendations uh staff would like you to include um with your recommendation to the city council for language to include in the development agreement.

Um, the first two really just get at uh street dedication and public improvements and making sure that there's something in the development agreement that's clear that unless the agreement is allowing for a modification that they're they're meeting our standards.

Um, and then the third one.

I don't know, Brian, if you want to talk about that one specifically.

Sure.

Can you go back to an aerial photo?

So the 119th South, that's at the very bottom right of the image.

Currently, that ends in a dead end, just straight.

That forces our garbage trucks and snow plows to use a private driveway to turn around, and it's difficult.

Our city standard is to have a cul-de-sac at the end of every public street.

Um, I don't know specifically because 119th South is you know, been this way for quite a while, but in the past, the city has allowed a deviation from the cul-de-sac when there was an opportunity for the road to continue to another public road to connect it through street rather than a dead end.

This development in essence ensures that this is going to be a dead end street on 119th south.

So staff is recommending that they put in half of a cul-de-sac at the end of the existing public street on the north side that would impact their their site plan.

And as you're aware, with the site plan where it says that you know, if there's a conflict, the site plan governs.

We want to make sure that it's clear that the cul-de-sac is required.

But that exit is um, the exit would be blocked, right?

Well, the exit would still be an emergency exit, and they're proposing to have some controls on that so that it's not used as a public entrance or exit.

But that's just so that our you know, we have we meet the city standard at the end of a dead end street where we have a cul-de-sac, and when the south side of the road redevelops or changes, then we'll have that side provide the other half of the code sac.

And just one more clarification.

There is a triangle shown on Kimball's Lane that's near that east entrance.

That's to ensure that the buildings don't encroach into the site distances that vehicles need, and that was a concern that we had at a conceptual level just to make sure that when we get to design that the buildings won't be forced to be creating a potential safety issue with traffic entering and exiting onto the site from Kimball's lane.

And those properties don't get backyard fences anyway, those are the condo products right there, right?

So you're not no fencing.

They have not proposed any fencing.

They are like the development agreement says, Um, our typical standard on Kimball's would be a 12-foot right-of-way dedication behind the curb and gutter.

They're proposing a 10-foot sidewalk with the street trees and the grates.

So it is a reduction of right-away there for 10 for two feet from the standard, but we just wanted to make sure that the buildings and landscaping whatever don't impact the visibility as you go around that corner.

I have a question about the sidewalk deviations that they were looking at.

Um the differences on this map for us.

Are you not?

Are we not there yet?

Um, we don't it it's it's shown a little bit where this is conceptual, it's kind of hard to identify.

But where we're on the eastern part of the site, kind of on the east side of East Jordan Canal, all along Kimball's Lane on the west side of the street, that would go from curb and gutter that exists presently to a 10-foot concrete with trees in the first four or five feet, and that's where the deviation is.

And from an engineering standpoint, we don't see an issue with that, but that's why we're concerned with this triangle there.

But that's the only place they've asked for deviation from our standards.

But we're requesting those three conditions be added to the development agreement, just so it's clear that they're providing the existing standards for right-of-way on 119 south of Kimballs Lane and other areas.

Okay.

Thanks.

Anything else?

I have a comment.

Calling out the canal trail, the city's small area plan, master plan, and trail plan all show the creek trail.

And I think there are a few opportunities we have to get those.

And this is one of those times where we have a development that I think we should spell that out more.

So I I didn't see in the um development agreement that that is even addressed.

And so I feel strongly about it.

I think we need to cap capture that at this opportunity and have that included with the concept or in the development agreement that they will do the creek trail.

Yeah, so the development agreement and the language does say that they'll do the canal trail.

Um well, so sorry, the the uh design documents itself in the agreement mentions the canal trail.

Um it's more in the uh design standards where it talks about it.

Um yes, uh uh keep going.

It's in three, I think.

Three, yeah.

Yeah.

So um so it does discuss the the trail um in the agreement, um, and then the language in the actual development agreement itself says they'll make a good faith effort to preserve trees along the the canal.

Um so the so I think the development agreement does require the canal trail to go in.

Now their concept plan itself doesn't call it out or really show it, right?

Um, but it is uh mentioned and called for in the agreement in addition to what we're looking at right here.

Is it spelled?

That's some this is an exhibit within the agreement.

Right, okay.

So if we go to where it's 3.4.10 of the agreement, it's page 163, I think.

I couldn't find it.

In other words, I couldn't find the verbiage text saying that.

It does call it out on the page.

So I I just want to make sure that that is incorporated with this development, they build it, and then it's the dedicated over to the city.

So if that's covered, then great.

I didn't see that it really was spelled out.

Jen, may I address that?

Yeah, we'll invite you up and just when they invite you, yeah.

Um, I would well, I was just looking at 3.4.10, keep going.

I just couldn't find it, so I was asked my question.

I couldn't find it spelled out in here.

It does talk next one down.

So that would just talk about the what you were just talking about, the um preserving vegetation, perimeter plannings, blah, blah, blah.

This is that it's not going to apply for this project, but that they'll make a good effort to preserve the existing trees along the canal.

I I just want to make sure that that trail is incorporated with this development, that they include that.

And if you're saying that it is, great.

I'm okay.

So, yeah, the exhibits for the development agreement are are calling that out as part of their amenities and open space.

Um, and then the language in the agreement specifically is talking about the preservation of trees.

So if you that's a good catch, Susan, just to ask great, but where?

Right, just a point.

But did you say it was included in the in the in the illustrations that no, they only pointed that they're gonna make a good effort at the trees, but we'll invite the applicant up and see if they've but it still is a good catch.

If no matter what the applicant says, it'd be nice to see where where that's stated.

It's interesting that it's evaded the uh design plan, right?

So we'll we'll go from there.

Any other questions for staff before we get the applicant up?

Okay, yeah.

Come on up.

We'll we'll get the applicant up now.

Come on up.

Okay.

You can add anything you want to that presentation.

So then we'll have some questions for you, okay?

I'll try to answer what only you you want to hear.

There's so much here, right?

Um, first of all, thank you for your time tonight.

My name is Paxton Guiman.

I'm general counsel for Edge Homes.

I've been very involved with this project from the start.

And um, I'll answer that question first, Commissioner Nixon.

Um, we fully we are committed to putting in that trail along the canal.

That's why it's in the design standards where it says we're going to put it in, and we have no problem at all adding a sentence to the body of the development agreement that confirms that.

So that's a that's a good catch.

It was not an intentional omission, it was specifically in the design standards because we fully intend to do that.

But there's no reason why you couldn't forward a recommendation, positive or negative that says make sure we specify that in the body of the of the development.

Okay, thank you.

That is an important part of our amenity package and our our recreation.

I mean, let me back up for just a moment.

You might recall that when we went through this process of getting this land rezoned last summer, there was a big push to say, look, we got to figure out something here before something different is mandated by the state, and as part of our negotiations with the city, the deal we struck was we're gonna build a for sale project, not a rental project.

And we all know that there's a lot to be decided, but for now, let's agree to the zoning.

Let's have a maximum and a minimum density, and let's agree that after we get that in place, we'll come back with a much more detailed plan.

Well, here we are now, nine months later, with the details, which do comply with the zoning framework that we set in place.

And so now we're trying to get you know to a point where we can move forward.

Um we're very excited about this project.

We've done a lot of work with the city staff.

Uh what you see today is the result of months and months of back and forth, and we have agreed on every single item as far as getting the staff comfortable with what you see now, which have required a lot of changes to get to this point, with the one exception of that um half cul-de-sact, we'll talk about that on 119th South.

But you might recall that when we were here last summer, um, there was a lot of public outcry saying we don't want 119th South.

We don't want traffic coming out 119th South.

So that's why we said, okay, we will only use that exit point there as an emergency ingress or egress with collapsible bollards to ensure that that's all who will use it is for emergency purposes.

And the fire marshal agreed with that approach and using collapsible bollards.

Um maybe we could start with those three conditions that were proposed at the end by staff.

Is that okay if we start there and talk about them?

Would you mind going to those three conditions?

Um the first two, I had a good discussion um with Brian and Jen earlier today.

We are completely on board with that.

All that that's really doing is putting in the body of the development agreement, what we intend to do anyway, similar to the trail.

Um the third one is the real question, and candidly, we're open to your input.

If there's one real issue that we want you to weigh in on tonight and then see what the city council decides, it's this one.

If you could go back to the site plan, I'd I'd simply ask for your patience in hearing our point of view on this, and then we'll accept what what the city council decides.

We're not gonna die on this hill.

Um as they say.

So right now, if you look at 119th South Street, it already dead ends right up against Juan Diego.

The bound the school boundary to the west here.

You already have a dead end street with no cul-de-sac.

So we're we're dealing with an existing condition.

There is very little likelihood.

I don't know how it would ever happen, and there's certainly no plans in the reasonably foreseeable future for 119th South to actually be developed as a road and somehow make it through Juan Diego to connect to a public road.

So as we see it, city staff in asking us to put in a half cul-de-sac here, is asking us to fix a pre-existing problem that our project does not create.

Where 119th South currently jogs, the city doesn't own anything to the west of there.

That is not even a public road.

It's essentially a prescriptive easement that some of the property owners on the south side have used to access their properties.

That's really what it is.

Um then you have to say, well, who's gonna benefit from this half-cul de sac that's being asked of us?

Our project isn't, our residents won't use that.

What we what you see there is we've we've put in about is it eight additional parking stalls for additional on-site or guest parking within our project.

Our our residents can't go in or out from 119th South.

They're not gonna use that half cul-de-sac.

So who is gonna use it?

Well, it would it would simply be the existing residents on 119 South, if they have a somebody that comes to see them and needs to turn around or or an Amazon vehicle or somebody.

But my point is that's that problem exists today.

Our project is not creating this impact.

It's a pre-existing problem.

And under typical land use standards, if you require us to solve a pre-existing problem, the city pays for it candidly, not the developer.

Um so that's that's an issue as we see it.

Um the other point to that is that to do the half cul-de-sac, the city's asking us to dedicate that land to the city that we had to pay for at a very high price, and to pay for the improvements.

Again, this is an off-site improvement, land that we own for an improvement that our project doesn't need or won't use.

And so, under exaction standards, if you're familiar with those in the land use arena, that's sort of a tough sell.

Having said that, we have been partners with the city from the start, and we're not going to change now.

There's got to be a solution here.

If the city is really adamant about having a half cul-de-sac there, then perhaps there's a solution through impact fee credits to help offset the cost of the land value and the improvements.

And I'm throwing that out there because that will be a negotiation item that takes place with the city council.

That's not an appropriate item for us to try to negotiate with you here tonight.

Um, but I think you can understand why we're saying there's some give and take here.

We want to be a partner with the city.

Maybe there's a solution.

If you insist on having us put it put that in to avoid any sort of a takings analysis, then there should be some sort of an impact fee credit or or a cost sharing arrangement, and we are open to that.

Like I said, we're not gonna die in this hill.

There's too much at stake with this project, but under applicable law and land use standards, there should there should be some participation with the city in one way or another.

I'll just leave it at that.

Um I'm here to answer any other questions you have.

I I do have a question.

I'm sure.

Yeah, the the cul-de-sac, the half cul-de-sac that we're asking that the city is after or the staff, excuse me, is asking for is for emergency vehicles.

It's for fire, um, snow plow, anybody that's coming through in an emergency that can actually access that gate.

So um it would be turnaround and um you know ability to get through.

See, I don't I don't see it that way.

Yeah, these are these are price these are private drives, right?

This is all private.

Everything's all private in here.

So yeah, Brian mentioned that it's for the city to be able to move their snow plows around.

I question that because trucks, to garbage trucks.

Brian, isn't that what you said it was for emergency vehicles?

Well, it would be for anybody that goes down the dead end street to be able to turn around in a public cul-de-sac bulb rather than having to use a private drive or which dead end street 119?

119.

So it's not just you're not saying it's just public or it's just emergency vehicles, you're saying it's even visitors to that those homes.

Well, it would be any public use on that 119th South would use that.

So if somebody takes a wrong street trying to get to their neighbor's house, well, somebody lives in the town homes, their address makes Google think that they get to it from 119th South.

They go there, they find the bullards, they can't get in there, it allows them to turn around and go back out to 70s to drive up to the access, the public access is on Campbell Lane.

So, you know, it's it's for any public use there to be able to turn around without creating a liability of having to back up or you know, use somebody's driveway because the people that live there now, that's where the garbage trucks and the snow plows turn around now, or people's driveways.

But isn't it the right out of the way?

They turn around on the vacant lot right there, it's what they turn around on.

Yeah, it's it's it's literally just um road.

Right, right, where this where the ballards are gonna be right there?

Yeah, so the public road ends right here, and after this point, it is dirt.

Um, but there is no where to turn around even in the public portion unless you go into somebody's driveway.

Well, then why is it why is it a um builder or developer's responsibility to build that if it if it's the public uh going on 119th that's the problem?

So, Mr.

Paxman is correct that it is um an existing deficiency that we have in our road in the spirit of negotiation and such.

We are saying we can live with a smaller dedication along Kimball's lane of a reduction of two feet to go to a 10-foot dedication rather than our standard 12-foot dedication there, but similarly would like to have a little bit of give on 119th South because that is a deficiency that we do want to correct, and we do think that you know deliveries or guests or others may use 119th South trying to access the development, and when they get to the the limited access point there, they may park on the street and walk in.

They may you know need to turn around and go back out and around the other visits.

So I'm not saying that the development will use the cul-de-sac 100%, but it is a deficiency that needs to be corrected.

And we feel like in giving some of the right-away on Kimball's lane that this is an equal and you know, just exchange of dedication and improvements.

But we do we do also require like a Hunterhead turn or other kinds of turns for emergency vehicles.

If that's for emergency turnarounds, our public standard for public streets is a cul-de-sac.

That's the only standard we have is a cul de sac.

We don't have these are all primarily.

Hey, if I if I can be so bold on that one topic, if we just I mean we don't have any power to negotiate that, and and I would just let that horse trading happen with the city council if if I would just move on from that, frankly.

I'm curious, a half cul-de-sac, would that would that eliminate some of those parking stalls?

It doesn't matter.

It doesn't eliminate those.

Yeah, I mean the parking is more important to the development.

We're here to talk about design standards, and if this thing flies, so the the more parking the better inside for the for the development.

And that other that other option, I honestly I just think I mean we don't we're out of our depth.

We can't even we couldn't say, yeah, do this, do that, or do the other.

So I would just skip past that and then just focus on the uh on on anything else.

Is that fair, Paxton?

Let's just really do.

Let's do that and then just let them kind of because they do have the power to do that, like you mentioned impact credits.

You know, it's land you purchased, it's a problem we had.

I know you guys will work it out, but it's probably out of our depth just to even just spend time on that.

We will we'll work it out.

Yeah.

Anything else?

I have a question.

Is there a requirement on that small parcel that um comes up to a 119th to put curb and gutter in?

Is that let's see.

Are you are you referring to where there's the little jog there?

Yep.

So curb and gutter, I don't actually don't know.

So public road, they anywhere where they front the public road, only the public road, they do have a requirement.

Yes.

Okay.

So you would need to do curbs.

At a minimum, you'd be doing curb and gutter then gutter there.

And then okay.

Yeah, that makes sense.

That is part of that language in points number one and two, isn't it?

Correct.

That's our standard.

Yeah.

Um, local street standard is to have curb gutter sidewalk and park strip on a hundred nineteen south, just at the public street frontage.

That makes sense.

Yeah, we're not gonna contest that.

Um, I have some questions about the reduction in width on the alleyways.

I mean, obviously, that's so you they can put more units.

I you know, I I mean to alleviate that you'd have to cut out buildings, but what's some justification for that that we can look at?

Well, the justification is simply that we're trying to meet the density that was approved, and we're delivering a project that is gonna be a for sale project with workforce housing units, price restricted units for a certain number.

We're providing a project that still has 20 feet wide, two cars can pass.

There's no need for street parking because you've got garages and driveways, and um frankly, it's the only way we can make the project work with the densities, right?

There's been so much work going into how do you fit the right mix of units and streets and then still have pedestrian walkways that connect everything?

That's why we gotta get rid of some of the sidewalks because we now have interconnectivity of of pedestrian walkways throughout the entire project.

We we put a higher value on that.

If you're looking at like um sort of a traditional subdivision, of course it makes sense to have sidewalks because that's how you get around.

You can't trip traverse through people's private yards.

This is an entirely different concept.

This has an interconnectivity where people can walk through the entire project, and we will not need to have sidewalks to line every every street frontage.

That makes sense.

Yeah, the alleyways too, just for clarity.

There's no parking talking about the backload garages that Edge builds.

So you're going in, you're maybe passing your neighbor, but you're pulling into your garage.

So you you still have the 20-foot alleyways plus driveways and garages, right?

Yeah.

Paxton, have these two in talking about the edge just in the past just some travels for business.

I I'm looking for what this will look like based on what you've already built.

Are the condo products and the town home products the same as anywhere else, like Mountain Ridge or any of these existing places that you've got?

I noticed that you want four stories high on the condo, that's usually not allowed in other municipalities at all, right?

So you help me just shed some light so that as we're thinking of this, this is like is the townhome and the condo product like or unlike what you built in the past.

Very good question.

Um and I'm gonna give you a very honest answer here.

This is the first time we'll be building a four-story condo.

We have designed a four-story condominium for this project.

Candidly, this is the highest density project that we've ever built.

And it's sort of a remarkable feat to be able to design a four-cell product with this kind of density and still have a functional layout uh with the streets and and the design.

So we've we've come up with some you know very unique but very workable designs here to get the density that was approved.

Now, typically when you see four to ten story buildings, those are apartments, right?

That's where you see the high the real high building.

We're not building anything higher than four stories.

And so that's sort of the trade-off.

Having said that, we are building the back-to-back townhomes and the three-story condominiums in many locations.

It's that same product you've just slapped another layer on the condo.

So this is this is what sorry to interrupt, but this is why I asked that question.

So if you go to Mountain Ridge, you'll be able to see the townhomes that back each other with that alleyway.

You'll actually be able to see two condo products that actually back each other.

And frankly speaking, it is tight.

So as you're pulling out of one driveway, you're almost like go if you go back to that just the site plan, you'll look, for example, where you mentioned that private lane up here, let's say on building, it's right right underneath where it says covered parking TYP, right?

So that that little example right there, so that's asphalt road, but that's that's driveway there.

So the white is the driveway.

And frankly speaking, I mean, that is you're you're backing out of your garage, you're you're traversing over the asphalt in some situations and and bumping back up on the on the uh other side of the driveway, if you will, on the other neighbor's driveway.

Same dynamic, most likely down here in the uh with the private lanes in between the townhomes with these with these garages that are backing the and again to be expected if you say that this is the density.

Now, again, just to clarify, is the density there because of our station plan, or because this this dirt's expensive and that'll pencil out, or both.

It's both.

It's both.

The the station plan, there was a real threat that this that potentially the state would require even a higher density.

And and so the the give and take was look, let's agree to a minimum of 25 units, a maximum of 27 units per acre.

And let's agree that it has to be a for sale product.

And let's agree that there's going to be a certain number of units set aside for workforce housing, city employees, teachers, first responders, price restrictions.

Let's get all of that on the table right now with the rezone, and then figure out later from an engineering perspective, how you can design a product that will actually meet that density.

And this is what we've come up with.

I do want to come back to that when you when before we're done with the affordability.

So we'll talk about that in a second.

You can see our this these exact same products are being built at Mountain Mountain Ridge or even at Mount Rainier in Harriman right now.

And they're beautiful.

We we were out there just this morning looking at them.

They really do look and feel nice.

Um our condominium units are what we call generational units, where it's not just a one or two-bedroom condominium.

These are every single one of these is a three-bedroom condominium condominium unit where families can have children and stay there longer than just you would if there was only one or two bedrooms.

So they're designed to have a livability factor, and then the clubhouse and the amenities there, we came up with a new design, um, an enhanced design for the clubhouse that is truly spectacular.

It's a very nice facility.

Hey, just for kicks, Paxton, do you know how deep these driveways are?

Yes.

How deep?

18 feet.

Wow.

Right on short and and you know what?

But again, I I I'm I'm I'm jesting a little bit just because I mean 20 is what we're looking at, the other one, but the short drivers were 15, and these driveways are 18.

Right.

So that's a parking stall.

That's the case to make is to say if you're at 15 all over it.

And again, to be to be expected.

Very good.

Very good.

So the garages and then so, yeah.

I mean, that that's really where where you take the the space as you take it out.

And and the private lanes, the private drives you said are 27 feet across, right?

27, not just 20.

So where it says private drive everywhere that we've got, that's all 27 and 20 is only 20 are the alleys.

Okay, got it.

Yeah, the alleys are 20 and everything else because you're you're you're banking on the driveways as some kind of yeah.

So yeah, again, I mean for how high density that is, that's that's where it comes from, is it's gonna come on that on that hard hardscape.

It's gonna come off of that.

I will say if you drive around town and you look at some townhome projects, they don't even have driveways.

A lot of these townhome projects have these little aprons, yeah that are like five or six feet.

I mean, that to me that's a waste of concrete.

Why why do that?

Nobody's got you've got a case of that just that was put in long before I even was well, probably right when I hit the planning commission, like in 2012, it's just to the south of this, and it's it's yeah, it's almost non-existent.

It's bad.

Like it's almost you're coming out of your garage and you're hitting the fence of the property line.

Right.

You know, to trust try to try to back out of your garage.

So this will all work.

That's why I put it in perspective.

If you want to, if you want to if you guys want to see a little bit more about this, you what when you're looking at edge's products that are existing, that helps to hear that this is these are like the ones you've already put in.

They are okay.

Can I ask about the affordability you mentioned the uh who who and how is that happening?

Because that's one of the pieces in this development agreement.

I don't know if you guys knew this, but there's uh proposed different pricing for not just law enforcement, but you know, I mean, we I think we've got employees, first responders, single single moms, whatever you want to call other whatever low income is from the original development agreement.

Don't have that.

Okay.

Um 30 units or something.

Is it 30 force housing units and it called for uh public prior partnership between Edge Homes and Draper City to accomplish that?

I think it did set uh specific um standards as far as how much uh buy down edge may do and how much buy down the city may do.

That's right.

Yeah, I just don't remember how much that's written in the development agreement already the original development.

So that's already part of the development agreement.

There's a lot of people.

Is there anything in there you'll be privy to this?

Was there anything in there that says that X number of units are being sold at cost for low income qualifiers?

Reach for the resale?

No.

Okay.

That's interesting.

We I heard that from one of your sales guys, so you don't want to reel that in.

So that no just just it was in passing, just saying, hey, we've got you know, uh X number of units that are that will be sold at cost.

And I that really that sounded appealing because typically what it is is just the law enforcement, you know, essential workers, nurses, medical, stuff like that.

So what we were looking at is in that conversation I had was to say, okay, how do we get just everyone that's not that into the low income?

Subsidy amounts to if depending on how much the city wants to subsidize with some of the RDA funds, it's about a sixty thousand dollar subsidy for each of the 30 workforce housing units.

So you take a market rate, what we're selling those exact units for on the open market, and you get a sixty thousand dollar subsidy for those buyers who qualify.

That's fair.

Okay.

And you're calling it workforce housing.

That's the I'll use the same term workforce housing, then so and that's not just law enforcement and medical.

It's not.

Okay.

Yeah.

Good.

Um it's part of the attainable housing pricing functions that the the state's working on.

But it's the only way you can do it.

I mean, it's it's uh especially here in Draper again.

You know, I hear you heard me comment uh on the last one.

I don't need my kids to live here in town, they've got to earn that, but at the same time, it's it's it's just making it making it available, making their making places as we're making new places to live.

Uh it's it'll be nice to see something that you know they can live here.

But what we did not do is put any for any sort of a restriction on the resale price.

In other words, if somebody qualifies to buy it the first time, we're not gonna restrict what they can sell it for when they sell.

That's fair.

Yeah.

Cool.

What percentage of it is um ownership?

Is it a hundred percent?

I was thinking it that some of it was rentable.

So that they're oh my goodness.

I didn't review the development.

I'm sorry.

I am so sorry.

That's not before us tonight, because we're not asking for that to be changed in the in the development agreement.

I probably should be able to do that.

And it can just be a yes or no.

Is some of it rentable?

We've been talking like it's been all home ownership, and that wasn't my impression.

Yeah, some of it is rentable, but it's it's um what we all can I do remember this.

Thank you.

This just dragged my memory.

Sometimes I don't know where that came from.

Um we cannot sell to institutional investors.

Okay, that's that's a restriction in the development agreement.

So what we interpret that to mean is that because you hear about like the Wall Street entities coming in and buying mass numbers of homes, and then they're controlling the rental market for that area essentially.

No, institutional investors are gone.

So it's it's gonna be sold to owner occupants and one off people who want to buy and try to rent it out.

Is that what your question was?

Or you were asking if if edge is keeping any and renting them out like they are across the way.

But I appreciate that.

We also have that.

I'm sorry, we also have that in the that we are now.

That was my question.

Okay.

That's clearly stated in the and that's not our business plan.

We never do that.

Okay.

So 100% of these units will be sold.

Sold.

And then is there a restriction then beyond the initial purchaser on the institutional investors?

Or is that just a no, but you know what?

An institutional investor will never be able to get a hundred different unit owners on board with selling to them at the same time.

That's we we've had a neighborhood in Draper where that has happened where a large number of in a small home neighborhood, and it has done terrible things to that neighborhood.

Well, so according to the residents.

Yeah, this is if I can give you the track record, Mary, with these guys just to just for some perspective.

It wouldn't be on them.

No, what what the what they've done in other neighborhoods that they they've said, hey, look, only the the only ones will sell to non-owner occupants are like the second floor, second floor gets non-onor occupant, third floor, first floor on the condos has to be owner occupied.

I'm not saying that's what they're gonna do with this, but that's been without city restrictions.

Well, okay.

No, I'm just you guys want to hear it or not.

No, they can though.

There's there's no rental.

One thing I will anyway, I'm all add is there will be an HOA, there'll be an owner's association tied to this.

Um so the HOA can put regulations in just like in addition to what the city has with the development agreement.

Great.

All right, let's get back on track and then go through the design standards here and what's in front of us tonight.

So thanks for for explaining a little bit about the the development agreement.

We'll look at that if we're interested.

Yeah, basically I'll answer any other questions you might have.

I have another question.

Um the landscape buffer on Juan Diego.

I you know, this was a nine months ago.

I don't remember every detail, admittedly, but I remember that being discussed and sold to us as like we're we're doing this thing and we're gonna make it right with all the neighbors.

And um now we're looking at no buffer, really.

We've got parking stalls, it looks like there, and I I don't remember all the details, but there's definitely a reduction.

Yeah, so we're very we we want to avoid those projects that are underparked.

We are overparked here.

We have more parking this than the basic city standards require.

And I probably should have asked Joe Calissimo to stay because we've worked with him on this and we've gotten his approval.

And I don't think is anybody.

I don't know if you were part of any of those discussions, Jen.

But we have worked directly with Joe Calassimo and the one Diego school on this exact issue, and he said, I am fine with this because you're gonna have a fence there, and we don't really care if you have parking stalls or landscaping on the other side of the fence that we don't see.

They just didn't want buildings, is that I mean what all he cared about is that we meet the distance between the the f the wall and where our buildings start.

And yes, we're meeting that distance.

Basically a setback from the property line before your structure starts.

Exactly.

That's the only thing.

So you didn't have your condos backing right onto the ball field, right?

And so I guess in terms of a neighbor, especially not being a residential neighbor, we're accomplishing the same thing, whether it's landscape or not.

Sorry, I'm talking out loud about in getting working this out in my hand.

If we have like parking stalls, right?

That didn't matter to him.

All he cared about was the setback from the the buildings to that property line.

Yeah.

And frankly, we want to put every parking stall we can inside this project.

Even down around the cul-de-sac.

Even down by 15.

Even those eight, even those eight slots, which is on point for tonight.

So let's go ahead and look at this amendment.

That's our theme, right?

I didn't mean to sit and harp over that creek issue, but when I didn't see it, even on like your amenities map.

That I went, oh, yeah, don't apologize.

That's that's a fair point.

Yeah, it's straight, it's curious it's not on this this plan.

It's on the amenities map.

The next step in this process is a site plan approval, and it will be clearly shown there.

So quick.

Maybe we'll just add a sentence in the body that says we'll be developing that trail.

Yeah, yeah.

That would be awesome.

It is interesting that it was left out of the document.

Yeah, that's when I panic.

Not intentional.

We're trying to slide one by anybody here.

No, I mean the city council.

Well, Paston, let's let's do this.

Let's let's pop this open for public comment.

And then if there's anything that we need, uh then we can just deliberate and just move it on and get it pushed on.

So okay, thank you.

We'll bite you back up if we need you.

All right, this is a public hearing.

Who would like to take their three minutes?

Come on up and take their time to shine.

And as before, just please state your name.

Sure, my name is Denise Smith, and I live in the property just across the street.

So I sat here all night long and we talked about parking and driveways and the length and the spaces, and they want to shorten, make smaller and all this stuff.

And I'm concerned, number one, about the traffic of this place.

And I just want you guys to really think about when you start developing this, figuring all this out.

I just can't even imagine what it's gonna be like.

And so I really want you to think about that and think about these alterations, making it tighter, smaller, more tight, and it just starts to get more claustrophobic.

And maybe the solution is not as many.

That's my thought.

Thank you.

All right, anyone else?

I'm just looking looking at some neighbors back there.

No, that have hung out this late.

It's late.

You guys have to hung out this far.

Good.

We won't coerce you to come up.

All right.

We'll go ahead and close the public hearing portion of this agenda item.

All right, commissioners.

So just a recommendation on a on a uh amendment here to the to the DA.

When we're talking about driveways, um, we were talking about 15 feet.

These are 18 feet.

How much of a difference is that?

Is that well a standard parking stall is nine by eighteen?

That's kind of why I was always at least stuck on at least that minimum.

So it's not really a concern because we have so much other parking.

I'm okay with what they're presenting as far as size.

I my myself okay with that.

Because they're at least 18.

Because 18 generally fits vehicles where 15 well, and there we are looking about we are looking at cars encroaching on sidewalks.

Right, into the public right of the public right of way.

And here we're not looking at that issue.

Correct.

Well, here, I mean, to be fair, that if you've just got that driveway just pulling right out into the street, if it's 15 feet or 25 feet, it doesn't matter.

Here you've got shorter driveways.

I'm just I'm just pointing that out.

That that went out into the street, didn't really affect anything except on paper, and logistically and realistically, this 18, they're gonna be you have to back almost onto the other person's driveway.

You will touch the other person's driveway to you do a back out of your driveway.

For sure.

Versus the other project that we're talking about I was just yeah, I was just in jest wanting to hear get ready for this.

These are 18.

Stir up the pot.

What about the what about the amount of traffic?

Is that something that um a stuff have they done a study, Brian?

How do you think the zones already approved?

The density is approved.

So just to clarify, they will have to do a traffic impact study and they will have to mitigate those traffic impacts.

Um we've touched on it briefly for impacts to the development well to the surrounding streets.

The only thing that they mitigate is the impacts the project has on the surrounding streets.

So that analysis and study will be part of the site plan process.

Got it.

So we'll address it at that point.

Thank you.

But traffic is always a good point to be noted.

So it's here.

So Susan, do you want to make the motion and include the the um adding the information about the the canal trails?

The canal and then the three staff recommended yeah, additions.

I'm I'm good with that.

Anybody else want to talk or about more?

Yeah, as soon as I find it here.

Yeah.

Uh sure, I'll give it a shot.

Okay, I move that we forward a positive recommendation to the city council for the development agreement amendment as requested by Mike Winters, representing Nedge Holmes for Kimball's Junction Development Agreement amendment, application 2025-0293-DA based on the findings for approval and subject to the rec recommendations listed in the staff report dated February 27, 2026, with the addition of the three um shown on the screen, and then a sentence also to include that the canal trail be installed and when completed, dedicated over to the city.

I think those um three staff recommendations are in the report.

Oh, they are the three ones on the screen.

I think they're in our report.

I'm opening it up to tell you the page.

Oh, you've got it.

It's right there.

What pages are?

So that's page eight.

Of the staff report.

So it is included, Susan.

So we're hold on then.

Okay, let me get to page eight.

It's got those in there.

Okay.

But add your add your trail deal.

Okay, then just add my trail request.

Okay, we'll put that as the motion then.

Thank you, Susan.

This is for a positive recommendation with that addition.

And then who will second that?

I'll second.

Thank you, Lisa.

Let's go ahead and put this to a vote.

Start with you, Susan.

Yes.

Lisa?

Yes.

Laura?

Yes.

Christine?

Yes.

And Mary.

Yes.

I didn't know if my microphone was on there or not.

So okay.

Thanks.

All right.

Good luck with that.

Yep.

Good luck with the city council.

Thanks, Paxson.

All right.

Let's go on to our last public hearing item.

It is the city initiated Alpine Draper boundary adjustment land use map and zoning map amendment.

So on the request of Draper City for land use map and zoning map amendments to remove approximately 0.45 acres of property from Draper City land use and zoning maps.

The property is located approximately 16001 south and 3500 east and is subject of a municipal boundary line adjustment with Alpine City.

This is known as application 2026-0046-MA and 2026-0047-MA.

Todd Draper, take it away.

There.

And then it's really hard to see.

Yeah.

It's probably easier to see here.

And this one happens to be into the R R 22 zone, which does not appear in our land use code anymore.

And it is in that hillside sensitive overlay zone as well.

Here's our infamous site photo.

And I have moved the uh arrow slightly to show where this one is located.

I used the same photo.

And we're just looking for uh recommendations of the city council on removing those areas from our land use map and from our zoning map.

Perfect.

Thank you.

All right.

It's a public hearing, so we'll open it up for public comment.

Anyone like to address this agenda item?

Here we go.

Man, we we we could have we could have bumped this up.

I'm first off, thank you for staying.

Well thank you.

My name is David Whitbeck.

Um 19 months ago, Carrie and I, or my wife Carrie and I purchased a lot in Alpine, just on the other side of the Draper border.

Uh we did our due diligence.

We uh walked a lot with a surveyor.

Uh there's metal survey stakes on our property.

Um we thought we knew what we were getting.

We bought it after we bought it.

We found out that uh there was an error made by the county recorder that uh moved that basically subtracted about 20 feet from our property, and uh we would like to correct that error.

Essentially, what uh the county said was that the Alpine City border was about 20 feet to the east, and uh that didn't match where the you know the where the the subdivision was staked and uh the surveyor who's also here tonight said that uh in order to correct this, we just need to have draper and alpine and the county all get on board.

And I just want to just basically wanted to tell you we just want to correct this error.

Perfect, thank you.

So not the applicant, but rather the affected party the reason for all of it.

Okay, thank you.

Interesting.

Anyone else?

We summed it up pretty pretty succinctly.

All right, thank you.

Okay, all right.

Let's go ahead and uh this that we'll go close the public hearing portion and let's put this to a vote for a positive or negative recommended mandation to the city council.

Go ahead.

I'll make the motion.

I move that we forward positive recommendations to the city council for the proposed land use map and zoning amendments as requested by Draper City application 2026-0046-ma and 2026-0047 ma based on the findings and criteria for approval as listed in the staff report dated February 25, 2026.

Um the amendments are consistent with the goals and objectives and policies of the city's plan and are appropriate.

Thank you.

Who'll second that motion?

I'll second.

Thanks, Mary.

Okay, let's put it to a vote.

Lisa, how do you vote?

Yes, Mary?

Yes, Laura?

Yes, Christine, yes, and Susan.

Yes.

All right.

Congrats on halfway there.

So thanks for staying late.

It's uh it's definitely a record setter tonight, so thank you.

All right, it looks like we have training now from Spencer.

Is that right?

For 35 minutes.

We adhere, yeah.

We have to do that.

So that's adjourned.

Seeing no other business.

We'll adjourn.

Is that why is that?

I think he went to go talk to Paxton.

I think.

He went to go talk to Paxton.

If we would have known later, he told me he's gonna talk to us.

Oh, yeah.

We would have put it earlier.

We're like, no, he's coming.