Yeah, I don't think we'll quite as long as you'll see that I guess we should get all the way.

Yes.

All right.

I'd like to welcome everybody to the uh June 25th, 2026 uh planning commission meeting.

So we do not have our chair or our vice chair here tonight, so I'll need um the three commissioners who are present to vote for an acting chair for the evening.

Do I say like I make a motion that Susan would be the chair for today?

Yep.

Okay.

I have no microphone, but I second that motion.

There's plenty there.

Maybe I didn't added some extra microphones up there just in case Susanny died.

Thank you.

Here you could borrow use one of this.

I second the motion.

Okay, we will take a vote on that.

Christine, how do you vote?

Yes.

Laura.

Yes.

And I guess I will vote also so that we can proceed on.

Uh welcome ladies and gentlemen to the Draper City Planning Commission meeting for June 25th, 2026.

I am Susan Nixon.

I guess I'm the acting chair for tonight.

Laura Fiddler is on my right, and Christine Green is on my left.

We are also here supported by our wonderful staff, highly efficient.

Jennifer Jostremski is the director.

Todd Draper is the planning manager.

And then we have Todd Taylor and Nick Whitaker, who are city planners, and Paul Gallman, excuse me, Kyleman.

And then our uh legal department is represented by Tracy Gunderson and Lori Stout.

Thank you.

They'll keep us in line, hopefully.

Um thanks for the uh your interest in coming.

We do have a lot of public hearings tonight, and when we get to that portion, I will explain the process that we'll go through for that.

The first two items on the agenda are basically administrative housekeeping items.

They are review of the planning commission minutes for May 14th and May 28th of 2026.

Commissioners, have you had a chance to review those minutes?

And if so comments, questions, or I'll take a motion.

Yeah, same.

I make a motion that we accept the minutes as written.

Okay, I have a motion by Laura and a second by Christine.

And then we'll take a vote.

How do you vote, Laura?

Yes.

And Christine?

Yes.

And I also vote yes, so the motion passes unanimously.

Um it has been requested that we change the schedule a little bit so to accommodate those who are here so you don't have to stick sit through the meeting longer than uh you would like.

So item one D, which is a city initiated uh text amendment.

We are going to move to the end of the meeting if I can get a motion to do so.

I'll make that motion that we move item one D to the end of the meeting after 1G.

I second that motion.

Okay, and um motion by Laura, second by Christine.

And then the call for vote.

Laura, how do you vote?

Yes, Christine?

Yes.

And I also vote yes.

So it passes unanimously.

The next item on the agenda is a public hearing for Rivian Draper site plan and deviation requests.

This is on the request of Logan Johnson representing Wright Development Group and Smith Payne Lone Peak LLC, a site plan and deviation request on approximately 6.16 acres at approximately 11601 South Lone Peak Parkway.

Applications known as 2026-011 SP and 2026-0151 VAR.

And I believe our call uh staff contact is Paul Gallman.

Is that right?

Yes.

Okay, take it away, Paul.

Perfect.

Okay, so we take a look at the vicinity maps.

We are just south of Carl Malloin to Carl Malone Toyota, uh, just south of 114th.

Um there we have our aerial map.

Taking a look at the land use.

We are uh commercial special district, and that is also our zoning CSD KMAC.

Taking a look at our site plan, there's a view of what is proposed for uh the Rivian dealership.

We also pulled out a view of the site information showing the parking information that they they do meet parking.

Uh so we wanted to make sure that was pointed out.

Here is a a view of what the architectural plan is for what the building will look like, as well as materials and colors off on the right there.

Um for conditions of approval.

Um there are 10 points that are listed in the staff report.

Um these are summarized here.

Um so mainly meeting uh all engineering public work, building planning, fire requirements during development and permitting, compliant with the geotechnical report, consolidating the property, recording uh a cross access easement for the property to the north before permit issuance.

Ummit proof of access easements and power company sign-off before permit issuance, submit revised landscaping plans meeting tree diversity and street tree requirements, um, include a floor plan meeting draper city municipal code submittal standards with the building permit application, submitting a revised lighting plan compliant with uh Draper City Municipal Code Chapter 920.

Uming compliant fencing plans matching the existing decorative concrete wall uh by the Carl Malone property.

Um going into a little more detail about the cross-access deviation to the south of the property.

Um there is an incompatible use, it's an electric uh electric substation.

Um, so providing access there would not be a compatible use.

Um and then the to the east will show on some of our photos.

Um there is a grade change uh between the property to the east and the Rivian property.

Um so that meets two of our standards uh that would be required for uh approving uh cross-access deviation.

Uh so there's one of our site photos looking east uh towards the mountains from the road.

There's one towards the north side of the property showing the carmalone uh buildings, and then there's a look uh south towards there.

Uh if there are any questions, myself or Todd Draper can answer.

He has worked heavily on the project.

We also have uh Logan here uh to answer any questions if you have any for him.

Okay, commissioners, any comments, questions.

I don't have okay.

Well, we'll invite the applicant up then.

If you'd approach the microphone, state your name and where you're from.

That would be great.

Thank you.

My name is Logan Johnson with Wright Development.

Our office is in Centerville, Utah.

Um we appreciate how great staff has been to work with on this project.

We're excited to bring the first Rivian dealership here to the state of Utah.

Um we are comfortable, and we've we've spoken at length with staff about the conditions in the staff report, and we feel like none of them are major, and we can work through those with them, and we appreciate staff's willingness to bring this to you guys with those conditions, except for one condition that maybe we would need a little clarification on, and that was the parcel consolidation condition.

Um currently the site is built on two parcels.

One uh when we applied for this, we didn't own, but we own it now, which is the back parcel that the building sits on.

But the one in front is actually owned by Rocky Mountain Power, and so we will not be taking title to that, so we couldn't be able to consolidate them.

So staff, if if you could clarify maybe the intent there, uh and just like the rest of the properties down the street that that also abut that parcel, we have access rights over that and we'll provide that documentation to staff.

But um, unless I misunderstood it, we would request that that condition be removed unless unless there was something else we were missing.

So we'd love a little input on on staff there.

And that we also have a representative from Rivian as well.

If you'd like to come up briefly and then just introduce yourself, and then we're also we're available to answer any questions as well.

Thank you.

Hi, good evening, commissioners.

My name's Carolina Kitchmarchik.

I'm the um regional development manager for um our facilities commercial team at Rivian.

So thank you for having us.

I want to say thank you to all of you and to the staff and the city of Draper for just being collaborative in the partnership along with this process.

Uh, we're very excited to be coming into Draper, uh, expanding our footprint and um providing more local job opportunities, uh, better serve the community for um our growing customers, um, and more so than anything being part of the community and the long-term success of the city.

So happy to answer any other questions you have for me as well.

Thank you.

Okay, if you you could welcome to have a seat, and then we'll call you back up if if we need to.

Um staff, any clarification on the parcel consolidation.

Yes, I can clarify that there are indeed two parcels here.

They are owned uh by the by them.

Um I don't know exactly why we have two parcels, uh, but you can kind of see the the gap or sliver between.

So those are the two we're talking about.

It's not a consolidation with the power company property.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, appreciate that.

Uh yeah, then we're we're totally fine with that condition.

Thank you.

Okay, very good.

That that clarifies for me too.

I've spondered the same thing.

Okay, um if commissioners don't have any questions at this point, we will open this meeting up for the public hearing portion of this.

Anyone wanting to make a comment, please approach the microphone and state your name and where you're from.

Everyone is entitled to three minutes.

That keeps us on schedule here.

And then once we're done with that, I will close the public hearing and and take it from there.

So public hearing is open.

Is there anybody wanting to make a comment on this?

I see no takers, so I'll close the public hearing.

Thank you.

Commissioners, any questions, comments, or motions?

It seems like a pretty straightforward um proposal, and it seems like they've worked closely with staff, and staff has addressed any concerns I'm sure that we would ever think of.

Um, with that, I will make a motion.

I um make a motion that we guess we have two different motions here.

Sorry, glad you said that.

Yes, so first um, sorry, start with the kid grief.

Sorry.

Page 64.

I just totally lost my place here.

Christine, do you want to just punt that one?

Okay, sorry, thank you.

All right, we're here.

Um, I move that we approve the deviation from cross access as requested by Logan Johnson representing right development group and Smith Payne Lone Peak Application 2026-0151-VAR based on the following findings for approval listed in the staff report dated June 17th of 2026.

Okay, I have a motion from Lara.

Will you second the motion?

Uh yes, I second.

Okay, motion from Laura, seconded by Christine, and then we'll vote.

How do you vote Laura?

Yes.

And Christine.

Yes.

And I will vote yes also.

So the motion passes, and then we need another motion for the other item.

I will also make that motion that we approve the site plan as requested by Logan Johnson representing right development group and Smith Payne loan peak application 2026-0011-sp based on the findings for approval and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report of June 17th, 2026.

Motion from Laura and a second.

Second, thanks, Christine.

And we'll vote.

How do you vote Laura?

Yes.

And Christine?

Yes.

And I vote yes also.

So it passes unanimously.

Thank you.

And then we will move to item one E, which is a public hearing.

And if I pronounced this name wrong, I apologize.

One E.

Well, when one D we moved to the end.

So now we're on one eight.

Right.

So public hearing for Adamal zoning map amendment.

On the request of Michael and Tori Adamo a zoning map amendment for approximately 1.08 acres located at approximately 265 East, 13275 South, known as application 2026, 0-0097-ME.

And Nick Whitaker is the contact for this.

Go ahead, Nick.

Thank you.

So yes, this is the Adamo zoning map amendment.

So a quick over uh quick overview of the request is um the zoning map amendment changing the current zoning from RA1 to RA2.

Uh that's a 40,000 square foot minimum lot size to a 20,000 minimum uh minimum square foot lot size.

Uh here's the vicinity map of the property.

And aerial map.

Land use map, the land use designation is residential medium density.

Here's a zoning map.

Uh the current zoning is RA1.

And here's the applicant's proposed zoning map amendment.

Again, that's to change the current zoning from RA1, which is residential agricultural 40,000 uh square foot minimum lot size to RA2, which is a 20,000 square foot minimum lot size.

Um the land use compatibility.

Um interestingly, the current zoning uh is not compatible with the uh current land use.

However, what they're proposing is compatible with the uh uh land use as RA2 is a compatible use with um residential medium density.

So here's an overview uh and definitions.

Um fact the definitions are the same for RA1 and RA2.

Uh here's a site photo of the property.

Oops, I pressed the wrong button.

I apologize.

Uh here we go.

Site photo.

And uh any questions or comments.

Okay, commissioners, any questions?

I I think I well, I asked this question earlier.

I sent an email, but I got an answer back.

But I was I'm gonna voice my question anyway.

Um should the properties there's two parcels on there, and I like the previous application.

I was wondering if the two parcels should be combined in order to proceed with this zone map amendment.

Um it appears that there is a structure that crosses the boundary line.

Is that I guess out of compliance, I would assume.

Can you explain that maybe?

Yeah, so um if if the applicant is to uh do a uh if they're to subdivide the property, um then they would have to bring that into compliance.

Um the uh the lot or that that extra parcel was done in a way that draper doesn't does not recognize, so they will they will have to um correct that at the time of application when they if they if they decide to um subdivide the property and that's the same with the structures too.

But if they're not going to subdivide, if they just leave it as is they don't need to combine or try to bring them in.

I'll add to that.

Um the city's well the zoning administrator, so that's me, is currently working on an administrative interpretation on this property to determine if the the two parcels are are legal and what the steps are that need to be taken to uh make to cor to correct the issue.

Um I think there's a couple different options for them, um depending on how the properties were created and when they were created, that that house is historic, it's it's very old.

Um so just doing research, see like when the properties were created, that kind of thing, because state law may have been different at that time.

Right.

Um, but they they'll either be able to do a uh parcel uh boundary adjustment and move the property line so that they have two parcels that are conforming to lot size, or they'll have to do a subdivision.

Okay, so but that's being analyzed right now.

Great.

Thank thank you.

Appreciate that.

Okay, if there's no other questions, we'll invite the applicant up and state your name and uh where you're from, I guess, if you would please.

And add any information you'd like.

Hi, thank you.

And first of all, I'd like to um appreciate the uh the staff for all their work on this.

I know it's kind of a historic uh the house is older and it's a little more complicated than the average bear, but so I know it caused them extra work, but I really appreciate the time you guys are putting in.

I think it's pretty straightforward.

Most of the um this area was RA1, like the next door property was RA1, has been moved to RA2.

And so it seems like that's the direction of the area.

So I'd just open it up and see if you guys have any questions.

Okay, does it appear that way?

Can you just confirm your name for me?

Oh, sorry, Mike Adamo.

And I live on the subject property.

Sorry.

Thanks.

Super excited.

Thanks.

You can have a seat and if we need to invite you back up.

Thank you.

Okay, if there's no questions from the commissioners, I will open this up to um public comment.

Um this is a uh legislative item, so we do not take action on this, meaning we don't approve or deny this.

We are the recommending body for the city council, so we will make a recommendation which is forwarded to the city council at a letter later hearing date.

Um but um again I'll open this up for public comment.

If anybody wants to make a comment, please approach the microphone.

We got a lot of eager people to talk tonight.

Okay, I feel like I'm talking to myself.

All right, well, I'll close the public hearing then and then uh commissioners bring it back to us.

Do you have any discussion, comments, or a motion?

I don't have anything extra to add to it.

Uh you guys would like I could make a uh motion for the positive recommendation.

Um I move that we move.

I move that we forward a positive recommend recommendation to the city council for approval of the zoning map map amendment as requested by Michael and Tori Adamo.

Application 2026-0097-MA based on the following findings for approval listed in the staff report dated June twelfth twenty uh twenty-six.

The findings for the approval, there's four of them.

Okay, I have a motion from Christine.

I'll second that motion.

And Laura's second from Larson, Laura and vote.

How do you vote, Christine?

Yes.

And Laura?

Yes.

And I will vote yes also.

So it passes unanimously and will be forwarded to the city council.

All right.

The next item is also a public hearing, and this is for solid construction land use map and zoning map amendment requests.

It's on behalf of Morgan Lovato representing JLF Ventures LLC, a land use map amendment and a zoning map amendment for approximately point three one acres located at 273 East, 1380 South, known as applications 2026-0016-MA and 2026-0044 MA.

And our staff contact is Todd Draper.

All right, thank you.

This is the solid construction land use map and zoning map amendment applications.

Uh this is the vicinity.

Uh there on 138th, not too far from uh the intersection with Bangater there.

Uh this is the property uh from the aerial view.

Uh there are residential properties on either side of it, and as you'll recall the recent uh zone change uh and uh development agreement for the property to the north.

It is currently in the office commercial service land use and in the RA1 zone.

They're looking to move that to the regional commercial designation, same as what is behind it there, and to the Sierra zone.

Um just by zoning comparison, uh we're really moving from that residential agricultural 40,000 square foot minimum lot size, which this parcel doesn't quite meet either.

Uh and uses such as kind of I've listed a few there to the proposed zone, regional commercial doesn't have a minimum lot size.

Um and all the uses that are listed in that zone.

So I've got a few of them there.

And there are a few site photos here.

And uh if there's any other questions, I'm here to answer.

Thanks, Todd.

Um you know it's funny when we had the previous hearings for the properties to the north and uh west of here.

I kind of thought to myself, hmm, I wonder if we're gonna see some more coming down the pipeline for surrounding properties.

So I'm not surprised this was on the agenda, but have we received any public comment um for this?

I did not.

Okay, thank you.

Um yeah.

Um I had a question on um the opera the business that's currently on the property for the past five-ish years.

Is that and that fact that there's not a home on there?

Can you maybe looking back?

Uh we weren't really able to locate a permit uh for the construction of the garage.

It does show up quite a few years ago on aerial.

Um far enough back that uh if there was a permit, it has a great likelihood of not being located.

Um at the same time, uh the operations have been occurring on the property have not been in compliance with the zone.

The intent here is to rezone so that they can uh indeed put a construction sales and service yard here on this location.

So the proposed use that they would like to do would would conform to that CR zone.

Okay, and then they would still have to go through some kind of business licensing approval, I would assume.

Yeah, licensing any permitting anything else would be separate from this, yes.

Yeah, right.

Okay, thank you.

All right, any questions, commissioners?

No.

Okay, well, let's uh uh invite the applicant up.

Um again, state your name and where you're from and any other additional information.

Thank you.

Uh Gavin Winslow on behalf of the applicant JLF.

Um do you have any questions in particular?

Uh I was kind of just curious.

Like, are you planning on to building something there?

So initially um bringing the property into compliance and and using it as a construction sales and services yard uh for storage of equipment indoors and so forth.

Uh but ultimately um JLF is in discussions with the developer of the rezone property and uh looking into potentially acquiring some of those other three remnant parcels of RA1 and incorporating that into the commercial development behind out there in the future, right?

Like ideally, this I mean, this is fundamentally a commercial spot geographically.

It's not it's not a residential in nature location anymore, right at that major intersection with with this commercial that's going behind it.

So I ultimately we'd love to get it incorporated into uh a harmonious development with with the uh project that's going on behind.

Anticipate that will take a little time, but in the interim to use it as a uh an approved uh construction sales and services yard.

Okay, thank you.

All right, you can have a seat, and if necessary, we'll call you back up.

Thank you.

Okay, this is also a public hearing, so I will open this up for any public comment uh for anyone wishing to do so.

And doesn't look like we have any response, so I'll close the public hearing for this item.

Commissioners, any questions, comments or or motion?

I'm like you, I surprised that um I wasn't surprised to see this spot come before us just because of the development behind it.

Um so it's interesting to see what that lends in the future with such a big development behind it.

I would think those other two parcels would be probably inevitable.

Yeah, but yeah, so we'll see.

Yeah.

I mean, this one seems logical.

They've been using it that way.

I drive by that every day and have seen it.

So we do have two, um, there's two motions or two requests.

So uh buddy, no further questions.

I'm open for a motion.

Again, these are recommendations that this our our recommendation would go to the city council ultimately for a yay-nay or whatever.

So I'm willing to make a motion on that.

I'll start with the land use map amendment.

I move that we forward a positive recommendation to the city council for the land use map amendment as requested by Morgan Lovato representing JLF Ventures LLC application 2026-0044-MA based on the following findings and criteria approved approval listed in the staff report.

There are six conditions to that that they previously discussed.

Okay, I have a motion from Laura, and do I have a second?

Yeah, I will second that.

Okay, and a second from Christine.

We'll vote on it.

Laura, how do you vote?

Yes.

And Christine?

Yes.

And I vote yes also.

So it does pass at again this recommendation that will be forwarded to the city council at a later date.

All right, moving right along.

The uh next item on the agenda is also public hearing.

We have another item on that one.

The zoning map on the zoning map.

Yes, you're like, I second motion, excuse me.

I'll also make a motion to that positive recommendation to forward to the city council the zoning map amendment as requested by Morgan Lovato representing JLF Ventures LLC.

It is application 2026-0016-MA based on the following findings for the criteria for approval is listed in the staff report dated June 16th of 2026.

Thank you, Laura.

And do I have a second?

A second.

Thank you, Christine.

We'll vote on that.

How do you vote Laura?

Yes.

And Christine?

Yes.

And I also vote yes.

So positive.

It does pass.

Thank you.

Boy, when you can't make motions, you kind of lose track of how many motions we need to make.

So thanks for keeping me straightened out on that.

Okay.

Next item on the agenda.

There's also a public hearing.

This is Kawar Nursery Land Use Map Amendment, zoning map amendment and development agreement request on behalf of Cameron Smith representing Alpine Homes, LLC and Kawara Produce, LLC, a land use map amendment, zoning map amendment and development agreement to allow for the construction of 21 detached single family dwellings on approximately 1.95 acres at 762 West, 123rd South, and known as applications 2026-019-MA and 2026-020-MA and 2026-021-DA.

And Todd Draper is our contact.

Go ahead, Todd.

Thank you.

This, of course, is the Kuhar Nursery, land use map amendment, zoning map amendment, and development agreement requests.

So all of them kind of in concert with one another here.

This is the property.

It's currently the site of the Kuahara nursery.

This is the aerial map.

You'll see the existing greenhouses and other buildings on the property.

And it is currently the CO1 professional office zone, which they would be looking to have in an RM2 residential or multifamily residential, similar to what you see here to the east.

Total of 21 homes.

They're looking to put this into a building pad lot style of subdivision.

So the actual ownership would just be the underlying footprint of each home, and then the rest of the area would be owned in common.

As part of this, they are also asking through the development agreement for a couple of additional asks to reduce the interior width of the garages from the typical code of 20 feet.

So they're looking for reduction on the interior width and to have that still count as two spaces for each individual unit plus the two that would be on the driveway.

Each driveway is uh minimum of 20 feet from the adjacent curb and private road.

Uh as mentioned the staff report, these are a little different.

They are calling out the fronts as those uh uh garages that face the street, and then the rear is the other side where the entry door is located.

And that's kind of shown here on the elevations.

Uh so this would be considered the front where this would be considered the rear.

Uh just as far as the zoning goes, just again that comparison.

Uh they're the professional office right now, doesn't really have a minimum lot size.

So they're looking to go to the RM2.

Has a minimum lot size of 4,000 square feet per single family home.

And there are the the different uses that would be allowed now versus uh if the zone change were to occur.

Um of course there's more in the ordinance, but these are just a few that I kind of picked out to kind of show the difference between the two zones.

Um they're asking for is kind of to reduce uh because they're using that building pad lot style development, they're looking to reduce kind of the overall per unit size.

Uh so they wouldn't just have the the pad and then the balance is in the common area.

The co common area would not uh quite equal up to the 4,000, and that's in the report as well.

Um so as far as the development agreement is concerned, benefits of the city, right-of-way dedication, and owner occupancy requirement uh for 70% of the units, and that would be per their private CCNRs.

Uh some of the benefits to the developer from the agreement, uh, the land use and jump zone changes, which are the separate applications, a gross density of 10.7 dwelling units per acre, uh, that building pad lot style of layout.

Um technically, this is a reduced lot size from 4,000 to 800 because it's just looking at the footprint.

Uh, but then the that net reduction in area uh comes down to about 2,950 per uh individual unit as the ratio.

They would be getting some reduced setbacks, um, and that's really kind of between uh those that are kind of facing each other at the rear.

Um but they would still meet kind of the same regular setbacks from a street and from uh side uh sides of the building.

Uh they are asking for some modifications to the private road cross section to follow uh with the the plan that they proposed.

Uh and they uh like I mentioned the reduced parking stall width within the garages, and then just a small addition of one additional unit above the 20 that would otherwise be allowed on a private right-of-way.

Um there were some concerns still with uh city staff on this.

Um the dedication of property for the right-of-way along the sh uh 123rd is a standard condition for development, and that would happen with or without a development agreement.

Um the fact that the number of single family units proposed does exceed what would be allowed in the RM2 zone for single family units without the development agreement, and that the agreement may not have adequate consideration, which could render the agreement void.

That was a concern from uh legal council.

There are a couple of site photos here.

Um this is just kind of on the uh westernmost corner, looking north into the property.

A couple more where you can see the buildings and and the greenhouses, and then uh photos looking uh east and west, uh up and down 123rd there, and then another uh photo looking into the property from that uh southeast corner uh and and you can kind of see some of the uh hillside before you get to the development that's up there on top.

And if there are any other questions I can help answer, I'd be happy to.

I also did not receive any public comment on this one either.

Uh we'll take public comment in just a minute.

Uh so I uh questions, Commissioner public.

I have I had a couple.

It's funny, I actually went to Kawara because I was looking for some plants.

I went there on Saturday and noticed the sign of the public hearing before we had gotten the agenda, so I was a little like, oh wow, okay, cool.

Yes, that's coming up on the agenda.

So um, anyway, uh my couple questions on the staff report page 224.

It talks about, and this is in the restrictions and conditions of approval.

The applicant has it indicated that the minimum lot size of 2,000 square feet of 2,000 square feet with a minimum width lot width of 32 feet.

But I didn't see that 32 anywhere, but it is spelled out in their um verbiage they submitted.

So does that need to be addressed or is that I don't see it anywhere on any of the site plans or anything.

It's on page 224 of the staff apart, sorry.

And then um, let me see if there was something else here.

Oh, and then I had a question in comparison.

This property they're asking for 10.7 dwelling units per acre.

Um, do we have any idea what the adjacent development to the east is?

It kind of looks similar.

I know they're attached, but um do we by chance knowing uh give me just a second and I can open up that plot and see I think they had 31 units they're attached, and and it is a little bit bigger part property, but uh I'm kind of thinking maybe the densities are similar.

Draper mill uh has 31 units.

Um let me just double check the yeah, let me let me do the math real quick.

Okay, yeah, 31 units.

I think it was a little bit the property's a little bigger, but I don't know, you know, take the streets out, etc.

What the density is.

I'm just I think they're probably fairly similar.

I yeah, Draper Mill is at 11.7.

Oh, okay, so just a little little bit more than what uh 2.64 acres in size, and there's 31 units.

Okay.

Huh, so similar, thank you.

And then um, any idea on that 32 lot width that they've put in there in the in their verbiage.

I'm wondering if that needs to be removed or if or is that applicable or what?

I was just a little confused when it said the lot width would be 32 feet.

I'm thinking okay, I don't see that anymore.

If you have some I I don't um give me just give us just a second to look at the uh staff report.

It may thought is it might be referring to the street width, not the lot width, but um but let us let's pull it up.

Okay, yeah, again, it's on page two twenty four of the packet, I should say the the the packet.

But okay, um any other questions, commissioners.

I don't have a little bit okay.

Okay.

All right.

Um well while we're waiting on that.

Why don't we open uh uh invite the applicant up then again state your name and where you're from and add any information that certainly would enlighten us.

Uh good evening.

My my name is Austin Richards.

I work with Alpine Homes.

Uh Cameron helped submit the application, he's back there as well.

Um so maybe just a little bit more uh context on this project.

So we were uh working with uh uh Kuaharas on the sale of their property and figured out how to how to make something work here.

And uh a couple things obviously looking at this property surrounded by residential properties on three sides, you know, front on the north, west, and east, um, and then across the street, I believe uh when we met with EDOT mentioned that there was some commercial stuff pending on the other side, and also that one should have a median.

So anyway, this property being used as a red uh as a residential property, we felt like fit, and then on and then finding the right product type for it.

Um we're a primarily single-family home builder and find it really important to uh try to do homes for sale, uh not for rent.

So something unique that we felt like we could offer on this project is you know, is an entry-level home, um which is a little uncommon to find in Draper.

That is new construction.

Um, but it's something that could be uh really attainable and maybe a longer term solution for people.

Um anyway, we felt like this would be a great product type for that.

Um and so this is what we came up with.

Uh again, we did go to building pads versus lots.

We felt like we could get a little bit more flexibility and in the end create a better product with uh the open space that where where the landscaping could be privately could be maintained by the HOA and things like that to make sure that we're keeping it up and uh uh keeping it in uh in uh good repair.

So um anyway, we're happy to answer any other questions.

Um I don't know if I've got the answer off the top of my head for your question.

Either there's a few iterations of this development agreement, so I'm not don't know if I know that on off the top of my head either without looking at it in front of me.

So anyway, happy to answer any questions you guys have.

I actually have a question.

My question was it and I could have heard the numbers wrong.

We were it was talking about an adjustment to the length of the driveways for or the garage size.

Oh, so sure.

So the driveways, uh so the the home widths are 20 feet, so for that would be outside outside, I believe the code is 20 feet inside to inside.

Um we're going deeper in these garages.

The I don't think we've provided the floor plan.

I kind of wish we did, but the floor plan actually is a 24 foot deep uh garage.

I mean, so it's actually bigger and more spacious than most homes that would have a normal two-car garage.

Um, also as a comparison, we recently built Rasmussen Farms uh kind of next to the post office behind the Chick-ofly over there.

Um, and this would be equal to or greater than a number of those garages that are built in that community.

So some just a point of reference on new on recent construction in the city.

That's yeah, that's great.

I have recent experience with a garage that was right at the 20 feet minimum for a two-car garage, but then the stairs made it inside so you couldn't park cars in it.

So I don't want to see that happen again.

Yeah, I think they're asking for 18 and a half feet wide garage.

Isn't that right?

It's the depth that was concerning to me.

So I yeah, the width is less important.

That's okay.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Sure.

Any other questions for our applicant?

Okay, you're welcome to sit down and we'll call you back up if I need to.

All right.

Um further questions or yeah, so I think we have answers to the previous questions.

Okay.

So uh looking at the staff report, um, the section you're referring to on the 32-foot wide for the uh lots.

That was in the applicant questionnaire, um, where they're just kind of explaining what what they're requesting.

So not sure if that was an early earlier reiteration, and then the ultimate plan that they submitted had the 20.

So that will have to be removed or corrected or whatever.

So the information is.

So that's not on um it's not part of the development agreement.

Okay, so um, but it isn't it's a discrepancy between the applicants, the application, and the actual development agreement document.

Okay, but I guess we don't need to be concerned about that.

Yeah, okay.

Thank you.

And uh the other one there, as far as public comment is concerned.

Uh I do have one that I overlooked simply because they did not address it.

The planning commission, they addressed it to the city council and the mayor late last night.

Uh, and if they're here, they're welcome to present to you today.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right.

Um, if no questions from commissioners, I will open this up for public comment.

Again, please approach the microphone, state your name and where you're from, and you are uh limit limited to three minutes, and please address your comments to the commission.

We'll take notes of that, and then after the public hearing is uh closed, we will respond to those.

So go ahead.

Um I was just I I have a concern a little bit about safety.

Can you please Chris Hughes Chris Hughes?

I'm a uh next door neighbor.

Um the uh 123rd.

I'm I'm just concerned a little bit about how people exit um onto the onto 123rd.

It's uh increasing traffic every year, right about that point is where in the winter time, not this winter, um traffic stops and then people slide off.

Um it's uh at the bottom of the hill, we had two fatalities within three days.

There's quite a few fatalities at the bottom.

People usually go three-way speeds along that road.

Um so anyway, it it's it's just direct access.

The you see the the development next door comes out on 700 West.

Um very slow traffic, it's kind of uh buffers that kind of problem.

Um I have a concern about drainage, it might not be a concern.

Um I I I suppose the detention pond is for drainage.

Um so that might not be a concern.

Have a concern about the privacy.

The uh Kuhaj property is about six to fourteen feet higher than the neighbors.

And I don't know how high these uh houses are, uh, but they'd be directly kind of like looking into yards.

Um I guess I I get I don't know if this is the purpose of this, is just maybe this is just a zoning uh issue today that we're discussing, but uh if there's going to be something there, um I would think that a a really good solid high masonry fence would at least be something that should be uh considered for the sake of the current neighbors, um, who are about three lots per acre versus 21 or versus 11 lots or houses per acre.

And frankly, last of all, I could use office space without having to go to Riverton and South Jordan, and it seems like there's a lot of good housing coming in, high density housing, but it would be nice to have some office space locally, and that's where we're zoned now.

So those are just some of my thoughts.

Thanks.

I'm Elaine Barris.

I live in the same neighborhood.

Um, I don't even know if this is an appropriate time to ask that, but I am concerned about the 123rd.

Um, because it's divided highway there, people go through our neighborhood.

You know, you've got that ivory development down 700 west.

You know, all those homes since they've come in, it's gotten so busy on our street.

And I'm just wondering if there's any way we can I don't know, consider something on 123rd to maybe redirect traffic instead of through our neighborhood, maybe on to 700 west somehow.

There's there's no light at 700 West.

So people going east will drive um through the neighborhood to get to all those homes that are off of 700 west now.

So maybe this isn't the time to ask, but we're adding more homes, and so I'm like, oh, we're gonna get even more drivers driving through our neighborhood.

So, anyways, that's all I want to say.

Okay, thank you.

Anyone else?

Okay, I'll close the public hearing for this agenda item and bring it back to the commission.

We um do have some questions that were raised, uh, and I'm thinking probably staff could maybe our engineer could address the traffic uh and uh in grassy grass, possibly, and then uh and drainage if anyone's here for that.

Um, we did have questions fencing, buffering, and I to I I could probably address answer the question about the height.

Um, these are three stories, but 35 feet is allowed for single family residential homes, but these are not going to be 35, I don't believe.

I think they were somewhere between 30 and 33-ish, but that's not uncommon.

Um, 35 typically is a the maximum for a single family home.

So um that's meets the code.

And then if staff could address those other couple of items, that would be great.

Thanks.

Sure.

So there's a couple of items that I can address.

First of all, 123rd South is a U-Dot street, so the city doesn't actually control that street, that's controlled by the Utah Department of Transportation.

Um we do regularly provide them input on what we'd like to see happen or maybe some modifications, but um aside from the fact that we you know they're they have the ultimate decision.

When we review a site plan such as this, we do make sure that the access has adequate visibility to see up and down the street to be able to turn out um try and proceed with traffic um safely.

Our traffic access management plan does require that if the lot or the parcel has access to a lower classification street, such as the one on the corner to the east of this, they have to use the lower classified street as the access point rather than the arterials, which 123rd is.

So that's why the what the development on the east has all of its access is out on 7th west, but this one only has that one front inch, so this is where the access will have to be.

And then just to clarify on the drainage, um, all of the drainage will be collected in the detention basin, and that's where they'll attenuate the flow so that they can discharge it into the storm drains that exist in seven in 123.

Um, and then on the um grading plan, the street does have slope requirements, so they'll have to make sure that they keep the roads within the natural slope of the lot, which means that there will be some grading, but we don't know to how much until they actually get into the engineering of the site, and that'll affect where the homes are placed.

Okay, thank you.

Um there was one question about fencing buffering.

There was um comment about that.

Would any kind of buffering fencing be required with the zone change?

There's nothing required with the change in the zoning as far as fencing.

Now, when they come in to do an eventual site plan and subdivision, we can look at things at that point in time, but there really isn't uh requirement for any just regular subdivision to do fencing.

Okay, thank you.

All right, I think we got the questions answered.

Um, commissioners, do you have any further questions or comments?

I'm looking just for education for myself.

Where this is located on 123rd, am I thinking correctly that it's divided there?

You would have to go in or out.

You like going out, you would have to turn west, turn right, or is it both directions in that section of 123rd?

I don't believe so.

I believe that it's you can still turn into the center lane here in either direction.

So that might change at the time of a site plan.

Brian could probably talk to that better.

So as I stated before, you dot will have to actually review this, and they'll actually make the determination if they want that to be a right in right out.

The business that's being constructed to the southeast of this, um currently it's under construction in this aerial visit uh photo.

Um, they are having to extend the island westward so that their west access would be a right in right out because of the hill side.

But at this time we don't have a determination of what would happen with this access at this parcel.

Okay, thank you.

I I just have a comment.

I think that um when you have a residential neighborhood to the north of this, and you've got a busy street as 123rd is that medium to high density is really a good buffer and good buffer between the single family residence with to the north and the busy street.

I think that serves as a good buffer, any kind of a medium to higher density, good place for it.

Um so I actually like this proposal.

Um just a comment.

Any other does anybody have any comments they want to make or if not?

I'm open to any motions, discussions, etc.

And there are three motions again that uh the motions would be forwarded to the city, or the yeah, the motions, whatever they are, would be forwarded to the city council for uh final decision.

Um yeah, I'd like to make a motion for the development agreement.

Um I move that we forward a positive recommendation to the city council for the Kuahara Nursery Development Agreement as requested by Cameron Smith representing Alpine Homes LLC and Kuwahara Produce LLC application 2026-0021-da based on the findings for approval as listed in the staff report dated June 17, 2026.

Um, the approval, the proposed development agreement complies with DCMC Section 9-5-200 C and D.

Okay, I think that have a motion from Kristen.

I'll second it.

And a second from Laura, we'll vote on that.

Kristen, how do you vote?

Yes.

And Laura?

Yes.

And I vote yes also.

So it does pass.

And then we have another motion.

I'll take this one.

I move that we forward a positive recommendation to the city council for the land use map amendment to residential high density as requested by Cameron Smith representing Alpine Homes LLC and Kuahara Produce LLC application 2026-0019-ma based on the findings for approval as listed in the staff report dated June 17th of 2026.

Thank you, Laura.

And do I have a second?

I second.

Thank you, Kristen.

All right, we'll vote on that.

Laura, how do you vote?

Yes, Christine.

Yes.

And I vote yes also.

So that motion does pass, and one more motion.

Okay.

I move that we forward a positive recommendation to the city council for the land use map amendment for the residential high density as requested by Cameron Smith, representing Alpine Homes, LLC, and Kuwahara Produce LLC, which is application 2026-0019-ma, based on the findings for approval listed in the staff report June 17th of 2026, with the following additional or modified findings listed in the staff report.

Thank you, Laura.

And do I have a second?

I second.

Thank you, Christine.

We'll vote on that.

Laura, how do you vote?

Yes.

Christine, yes.

And I vote yes also.

So that does pass.

Again, we'll be forwarded to the city council.

Thank you.

Thank for thank you for those coming to attend.

And now we will move back to item one D, which is the city hearing uh public hearing, city initiated corner lock tech locks text amendment request.

Request from the Draper City seeking approval for a text amendments to titles 9 and 17 of the Draper City Municipal Code in order to clarify the definition of a corner lot and how it is applied to certain properties.

An application known as 2026-0145-TA and Todd Taylor is our contact.

Thank you.

So this is a proposed text amendment in response to some unclear text that we have in our code related to uh lots or parcels that are abutting a private road and have no access to that private road.

Um so previously, before we realized that the text that we were using was unclear, these lots would typically be uh determined to be interior lots uh for setback purposes.

Uh but since we realized that that text wasn't as clear as we had been using it for probably quite a few years, um, they're currently being determined to be corner lots.

So this text amendment is to try to get back to the way that uh we were determining those lots uh for quite a bit of time previously.

Um I have an example here uh just to show uh how this sort of plays out, and this is you know, this sort of occurs throughout the city, and this is just one of many, and they're all slightly different, but um this is one that's been coming to us recently.

So you can see this uh subject property in red, uh, this parcel uh back in 2012, back in you know, rural draper off of Fort Street.

Um, and then uh subdivision came in uh to the south of it.

Um this is 2025.

Um recently that home has been removed.

Um so this is 2026 aerial.

Um, but you can see the subdivision that went into the south of it uh did not include this piece of property, and they put in a private road that is owned by the lots within that subdivision, and so this property has no access to that private lane.

Um, so again, previously we would determine that this parcel would be an interior lot and have in the setbacks uh as such, since they have no access to that roadway.

Uh currently uh we're having to call them corner lots, and we're just trying to put that back the way it was.

Um, so that goes into our text amendment.

Um what we did was go into the definition of corner lot and add uh that you know, corner lots are something are uh lots or parcels where there are two or more uh abutting streets, and so we are we added this clause here that says if that lot or parcel is uh prohibited by plat or other recorded instrument from access to uh the budding uh private street.

We it shall not be considered as a budding for the purpose of this definition, which would then allow it to be an classified as an interior lot.

Um we also brought in uh definitions for public right-of-way, um private street and public street from our uh title 17.

And uh because they were a little bit more clear than our uh Title IX definition for street.

I will note that uh acting chair Nixon has uh proposed that we change uh this uh definition for private street from lot owners to property owners and plan uh staff does not have any concern with that, so we will be recommending that be changed.

Um we went through just as we were looking through all the sections that touch this.

We you know cleaned up um various parts of uh of the def or the standards.

Um then again uh acting chair uh Nixon pointed out that the in here this blue text actually should not be crossed out, so we will be correcting that to uh put it back.

Um and then this is the section that actually have the unclear language, so we were just crossing that out, uh referencing other sections where we talk about measuring setbacks, and then in Title 17, since we had moved those definitions of public right-of-way, private street, and public street.

We are just referencing uh to Title IX, so we don't have duplicates and you know, ultimately with our comprehensive code amendment, we're hoping to bring those all together into one definition section.

Um that concludes my presentation, and I'm available if you have any questions.

Thanks, Todd.

I appreciate that.

Um isn't it funny how you can look at a code for years and years and years, and you think you got it, and then all of a sudden some quirky thing comes along.

You're like, oh, whoa, wait a minute, we got to tweak this a little.

So thank you for for going through the efforts of that.

We appreciate it.

Um for them.

Yeah, a lot of a lot of work, a lot of red tape just to change a couple little things.

Wow.

Thank you.

Okay, well, this is uh public hearing, so we will open this up for public comment, and I don't see anybody here to make a comment, so we'll close the public hearing, bring it back to the commissioners, and we need a recommendation that would be forwarded to the city council on this item.

I will go ahead and forward a positive recommendation to the city council for the city initiated corner lot text amendment as requested by Draper City application number 2026-0145-TA based on the finding the following findings and criteria for approval is listed in the staff report, dated June 11th, 2026.

Thank you, Laura.

And do I have a second?

I second.

Thanks, Christine.

Take a vote.

Laura, how do you vote?

Yes, 15?

Yes.

And I vote yes also, so the motion passes.

Thank you.

And then the last item on the agenda, other business staff.

Do you have any business for us?

No, we don't have anything.

Cool.

Okay, well, I guess I need a motion to adjourn.

I'll make a motion to readjourn.

Adjourn.

Thank you.