All right, we're fine.

Sorry.

Yeah, yeah.

You can talk for five minutes.

Oh, just fairly sorry, though.

Yeah, yes.

Okay.

That's way.

So every disruption.

Are we recording?

Recording in progress.

Okay.

All right.

Well, welcome everybody.

Thank you for being here tonight.

Um, this is the August 7th, 2025 planning commission meeting.

My name is uh Danny Schoenfeld, and we'll do a quick introduction of the commission and then staff.

Steve Wrigley.

Cameron Duncan, David Hart, Craig Kitterman.

Lenise Davenport, Jennifer George.

And then Brian, do you want to do a quick introduction?

Yeah, I'm Brian McKuston, the assistant community development director to my right is Darien Alcorn.

She's our senior attorney.

Mike Wilcox, the planning director.

Up front, we have Doug Wilcox, who's our commercial.

What did I say?

Well cock.

Sorry.

Sorry, Doug.

Uh commercial development services manager.

Thomas Irvin, our senior planner, and then we have Ivan Hooper, our transportation engineer, Brittany Ward, our city engineer, and Travis Ackerman, city engineer, and then Aisha Malia Talua, our planning secretary.

All right.

We'll do a quick pledge of allegiance and then we'll get started.

Please stamp what?

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

And to the Republic for which is one nation under a individual with liberty to notice for all.

Okay.

Our first topic for the meeting tonight is the Kershaw annexation.

I think Brian's got that one.

Okay, thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um as you mentioned, this is the Kershaw annexation.

We've got a map up here on the screen for everyone to see where the properties we're talking about.

But these are homes are located off 1350 East, which is a little private driveway west of Alta View assisted living facility, and then 1380 slash 1400 east, just south of 9400 south.

So in this particular annexation, uh we're looking at just under nine acres.

We've got approximately 24 homes on this in this particular annex annexation area.

16 out of the 24 homes have signed the consent form, which is about 67%.

And these homes are already currently zoned R18 in the county.

And so we typically try to match that same zone or a very similar zone when it comes into Sandy City.

And so we would propose that this annexation uh the planning commission for a positive recommendation on this annexation with the zoning of R18.

Uh Janice Kershaw is the sponsor.

I've talked with her a number of times on the phone.

I'm not sure if she's here.

Oh, perfect.

So she's here if you have any questions or if she has anything to say.

Would you like to come down and add any additional information?

Would you like to come down and speak it on this at all?

Um, I think I thought we'd be able to do that.

If you have to come up if to the state your name and address for the record, please.

Um Janice Kershaw, and I'm at 9512 South, 1380 East.

Um I've been in that home 50 years.

Um almost 52 years actually.

Um I I think getting the 16 and the 24, it wasn't that I had any opposition or anyone say no.

I just didn't catch people.

I I either couldn't get them home or they didn't answer, or um yeah, so I I we didn't have any opposition that I'm aware of for this.

And I I know that every the county is going to basically kick us out in a couple of years anyway, but um yeah, we're just ready to move into Sandy and and get that going.

Okay, thank you.

Is there any questions for the commission?

Okay, Brian, any other comments?

No, okay.

This item has been noticed to the public.

Is there anybody here tonight that would like to speak on this topic?

Seeing none, Brian, or excuse me.

Mike, anybody online?

If you are joining us via Zoom webinar and would like to speak to this particular item, please use the raise your hand feature now and we'll address you one at a time.

I'm seeing no hands.

Okay, we'll go ahead and close that to public comment and bring that back to the commission for further action and deliberation.

You ready for a motion?

Sure.

I'll make the motion.

I move that the um it is recommended that the planning commission send a positive recommendation to the city council that the Kershaw annexation be approved and re uh and rezoned R18 based on the following four findings.

Is there a second?

I'll second David Hart.

Yes.

Cameron Duncan?

Yes.

Jennifer George?

Yes.

Steve Wrigley?

Yes.

Lenise Davenport.

Yes.

Craig Kitterman?

Yes.

Danny Schoenfeld?

Yes.

This motion carries.

Great.

Thank you.

That motion passes.

The the next item on the agenda is the Jameson Point annexation.

Brian, you've got that one.

Yeah.

Uh this is the Jameson Point, which is located up near the corner of Little Cottonwood Road on Old Wasatz Boulevard or Walsatch Boulevard on the southern side.

Um we have 10 parcels located within this area.

There's a small little triangle piece on the southeast corner.

Um, which would eventually probably be dedicated as right away.

So we're dealing with nine nine properties.

Uh, but most of them have a single family home.

That one on the corner of this of the two intersections.

Yeah, that one that's the highlighters on.

That's a vacant lot, which will eventually probably have a home on it.

Um we have eight out of the ten property owners who have signed the consent form to move forward.

They are interested in being in Sandy versus uh being even considered for the granite city incorporation if that decides to go through.

So uh these properties are currently zoned R115 in the county, and we would propose they be zoned R115 in Sandy City.

So you have uh in the staff report and the findings listed in that one as well.

And again, I'm not sure if the if there's an applicant here representing Jameson Point.

If not, okay.

We'll go ahead and uh open that up.

Is there anybody here tonight that would like to speak on this item?

Mike, anybody online?

If you are joining us via Zoom webinar and would like to speak to this particular item, please use the raise your hand feature now and we'll address you one at a time.

I'm seeing no hands.

Okay, we'll close the uh public comment and bring that back to the commission for uh action and deliberation.

I'm ready to make a motion if we're ready.

Take it away.

Can you just double check that there's only four findings on there?

And you are are there is it the same four as the previous annexation?

Okay, I didn't print that other page.

So um I make the motion that the planning commission send a positive recommendation to the city council that the Jameson Point annexation be approved and zoned R 115 based on the four findings that is outlined in the staff report.

Is there a second?

Second.

Okay.

Cameron Duncan?

Yes, Craig Kitterman?

Yes, David Hart.

Yes.

Jennifer George?

Yes.

Steve Rigley?

Yes.

Lenny Davenport.

Yes.

Danny Schoenfeld?

Yes.

This motion carries.

Thank you.

Uh the next item on the agenda is the Firefly subdivision.

And Thomas, I think you've got that one.

Yes, I do.

Okay, this is a preliminary subdivision review.

Uh the applicant is Jacob Balstead with Garbette Holmes, who is uh representing the property owners at this location.

Um it is approximately 517 east, 8680 south.

Um what they are doing is basically creating uh 30, they're taking the existing seven lots.

It's about a nine-acre total assemblage of property we have here.

Um they're combining they're subdividing them into 35 different lots, 28 of which will become single family residential new build lots.

Um the existing lots will remain facing 8680 south.

They're proposing to provide a public street that uh uh connects on 8620 south on the on the west side and 8680 south on the south side, and these are full street dedications meeting the standards of the historic district.

Um I do believe the developer's here too if you want to speak on this issue.

Is the developer do you have any additional items?

If you want to come up, please and state your name and address for the record, please.

Jacob Alstead, Garbett Holmes, uh 273 North East Capitol Street, Salt Lake City, Utah.

Um thanks for your consideration today tonight, uh, Commission.

Thanks for uh the planning staff and engineering staff for all the efforts.

And thank you to the homeowners.

This is an assemblage of eight property owners.

Um not an easy deal, but um they've been quite cooperative and and unified in trying to make something happen here.

And um I'd also say thank you to the neighbors.

They've been uh cordial and willing to discuss issues and be up front and express their concern, and we've done our best to listen to those concerns and try to address them.

Uh there's quite a bit of history on the site.

Um I think the major issue the the important thing to remember with this is that um we're proposing a street that's compliant with the existing zone in a uh in an infill, which is difficult to do.

Um the lots are far exceed the minimum lot uh standard.

And um we're also taking care of uh some cleanup that uh the EPA left for us and and making this area safer for everyone.

So we look forward to a good development and are happy to answer any questions you may have.

Any questions from the commission?

Yeah, I'm just curious.

What is your average lot width?

Just take a lot number nine, for example.

Do you have the minimum lot width is 50 feet?

50 feet.

That's the minimum, but there's several many that are wider than that.

I would say the average is probably about 55.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions from the commission?

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Um, this item has been noticed to the public.

Is there anybody here tonight that would like to speak on this topic?

If so, please come down and state your name and address for the record.

And we'll give you two minutes.

My name is Richard Vanderheid.

I live at 514 East, 8575 south, in the northeast corner there.

Um there for 30 years.

Uh I'm not opposed to the subdivision.

I knew it was going to happen at some point.

I'm actually grateful that's not apartment buildings.

So thank you for not doing that to us.

Um my biggest concern is the possibility of the north part of that property being lined with two-story homes where uh I'll have three new neighbors, and if they're all three-story, I'll lose sunlight for six months out of the year.

Uh I've got an eight-foot fence back there a little over seven foot that I shared with the Shelby's for years.

That in the winter time until March keeps half my yard frozen.

So if I got a 30-foot house, which government doesn't make it very clear on their uh plans on how tall the houses are, they tell you how tall the interior rooms are, but they'll tell you how tall the house is.

Um I'm just worried guys might as well put a 30-foot sound wall on it for us to block the sun out.

And then, of course, two-story homes were all below those houses, so we'll have folks putting in on us for going from open windows for 30 years to shut the ones and keep the neighbors out.

And I understand that there's gonna be neighbors back there, but um my only request would be that on those north lots.

Uh I've spoken with my other neighbors there in May Street on it too.

Um, they've got kids playing their backyards.

Um just that you put a height restriction on those lots that on the north side there, so that's single or single story, not the two-story.

Everything else.

I'm fine, I'm grateful you guys didn't put high density housing in there.

And um, I mean you did make quite a bit of changes for garbage to make it profitable for them by making the lot sizes smaller when all that was originally subdivided, it was half acres, so you got yeah, yeah, six lots for three acres, and then when they did one, you'd get nine lots for three acres, and now we're getting twenty-eight lots on three acres.

So but again, that's my only concern is loss of privacy and then turning our that into a canyon basically uh where our houses are on that going.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else that would like to speak on this tonight.

Please come down and state your name and address for the record.

And if there's anybody else that would like to come down might want to come just um right behind me yeah we'll have them speak up thank you Scott thank you.

And speak directly into one of the two microphones please I I couldn't even hear back there what this last gentleman was saying.

So could this be turned up or is there something just speaking directly into one of those two mics.

Hello there you go your name name another my name is Scott Cadell I uh live at 8660 South in that uh in that neighborhood my lot is part of this neighborhood this proposed uh proposed subdivision I'm one of uh I'm one of the what when we started this I was we was one of six property owners uh one of them dropped out and so as far as I knew there was five and then another one come in and so as far as I knew there were six but I think somebody said eight I don't know where that came from but uh I'm in favor of the of the development I think it will be a shot in the arm to an area that is to an area that may be having a struggle right now with some of the resources and things of having a younger neighborhood it will certainly help the school which is right next to our subdivision the park is right across the street and uh in my opinion it cleans up um six and a half acres which are unsightly right now and uh we ought to be very cautious and concerned about that now I can only speak for my lot I'm just speaking for my lot that some of the other property owners are here and they may want to stand up and speak to their lot but I'm only speaking to my lot we are very much in favor of the development we've been there for over 10 years.

We uh I bought I wished I would have bought the property when I was 30 instead of in my 70s but uh I did and it's uh it's just uh got to the point the only reason I'm selling is got to the point I can't take care of it the way I would like to anymore and this would be a good uh opportunity for uh uh what we consider to be a very good developer we when we uh originally started this the uh six of us put out an RFP to any developer who wanted to bid on the project uh Garbett Homes was the one who and they weren't the ones who bid the lowest price but they were the what we considered to be the best developers we I come and talk to the city about them they were they were in agreement that Garbette is a good developer.

Uh we uh they went through the plant through the historic commission here a while ago and brought the homes to a historic look which uh should be done in the area uh but just what improvement it'll make to the area in my opinion will be tremendous uh yeah the lots are a little small but now day and age that's what that's what it is developers have to make money and uh they'll be very good and we we believe Garbette will do a good job thank you next if you state your name and address address we have two minutes my name is Mark Steegan I live on 484 east 8575 south and so I'm just up there on that north side as well of the development and um you know we moved in about coming up on like 10 years and so we haven't been here as long as a lot of people in that area have been but uh you know it's been a a really beautiful opportunity we've had to live there with an open back there's no neighbors in the back right um the Shelby property is the property that we butted up against got to know them and some of the neighbors there as well and uh that said we did know like this day was probably coming when this was going to be developed and something was going to be placed there the fingers crossed scenario was that it was not the high density housing and it we're in that situation where it's not so uh I think Rich mentioned that that grateful for that that that's not the case.

The fingers crossed scenario was that it was not the high density housing, and it we're in that situation where it's not.

So uh I think Rich mentioned that that grateful for that that that's not the case.

Um the really the the only reservation I have, and looking at the plants, the homes look like they're gonna be beautiful homes.

Um I appreciate that.

It sounds like there was some concessions, some give and take about the design and how to keep it at least somewhat aligned with historic Sandy.

Um the only concern that I have is what Rich kind of brought up as well was the idea of you know the a backyard, I don't you can't tell from there, but the backyard of that north side of the property goes down and then back up to the street level, and yeah, you can see the grading on that top part there, and uh I guess a couple things there's obviously gonna have to be considerations made for how that's gonna not fall down, like as construction's happening, and then it's like homes are developed there, but then also the idea of like now there's gonna be even stacked higher, looking straight down and kind of into the yards, the line of sight.

Um, I know Jacob had mentioned that the idea was with the two-story homes that they'd be set closer forward in the property.

I think that that's right.

Potentially, I'm not even keep spot.

Um, but I know there've been some talk about trying to mitigate that, but um, I don't know if there's opportunity, like a height limitation or anything.

I don't know how that part of it works, but um, I will say that that is something that does concern me to have just you know, all of a sudden going from nothing to a potential two story, which I imagine is 30, 40 feet tall, um right there on that end of the uh what used to be nothing.

So those are kind of the thoughts I have on that.

Um thank you for the time.

Thank you.

If you could just speak into one of the two mics and name and address, please.

Hello, my name is Zach Vergard with I live at 478 East C575 South.

Actually, Mark's neighbor.

Um kind of broken record at this point.

Similar thing, the loss of privacy is a bigger deal.

You speak up closer to those mics.

Sorry.

Thanks.

Um, my larger or one of my concerns with that as well to add on is the property lines are not very fixed.

Um part of my backyard is uh like at the top of the hill, the other section where the fence line is, like they they basically they own the last 10 feet of the hill that is my backyard.

Um the topic of privacy.

If that line is brought all the way down, I'm an arborist by trade, it will likely kill majority of the box elders that I have that are creating the only privacy that I would have in that situation, and that's the same for all of the houses along that line where the Shelby's um property is located because they did not move their fence lower like the rest of the neighbors.

Um, and if that's the case, the main selling point when we bought the house was how private and almost magical the backyard feels when you're down in that valley.

Um so similar thing.

If there is a way to have a height restriction, that would be wonderful.

The development sounds um is expected a long time coming, but the loss of privacy was very disappointing.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh I'm Marvin Coombs.

I uh live at 392 East Lindell Avenue.

Um, my uh project uh property is part of this project.

I'm selling 30 by 147 feet of my uh property uh for this subdivision.

I am obviously in favor of the subdivision.

I uh just want to say that I've lived uh at uh my address for 55 years.

Uh in that 55 years during the summertime, uh most of this property is uh just growing weeds, and so it's been a constant concern for us for the the fire danger that exists uh because of this because uh most of the uh property owners are absentee owners, and uh and they haven't taken very good care of their property.

I know my uh my lot is a full-time job.

Getting rid of 30 feet of mine will be that many uh less weeds I have to take care of, and with the aerial uh uh fireworks uh becoming more and more prevalent around our area, it's uh more becoming more and more a concern because of the fire hazard, and so uh I just wanted to bring that up.

And so uh I just wanted to bring that up.

This would be very good for the neighborhood.

Uh and I would I'm definitely looking forward to to having it uh uh accepted and and um and built.

Thank you.

Thank you.

You've already heard from some of my other neighbors.

Speak into one of the mics and then just name an address, please.

Oh, my name's Mike Milligan.

I'm a little nervous, so I apologize.

You're good.

448 uh 440 east, 8575 south.

Uh I'm part of the north side of this subdivision, and as uh several of them explained, we have a goalie that'll be affected by this.

So it's not just a matter of how high the houses are, that is a concern, but I think is as far as my concern, and I'm sure the rest of them is what it'll do to our goalie property.

So uh part of our property has fence on there that was since 1995, so as far as I understand, that would be covered by acquiescence.

I'm not sure how that works at uh protected by that.

My yard is halfway fenced, halfway not, and I know the surveyors have been there a couple of times, and it sounds like they would be looking into uh putting up a retainer wall or something in there where my goalie, the slope, which is quite steep, kids use it to go down on sleds and stuff.

Uh the goalie would partially be they'd have to cut away, build a retainer wall, cut out trees, as Zach had said.

So there's a concern about what it'll do to our property value as well as our our our lifestyles.

I think all of us bought our property, probably for the uh um just the uh the uh wildlife type of nature still is in a goalie.

We have hawks that are in there, we have owls that are in there.

When I first got in there, there was a rooster on the next door where Zach lives.

Uh here him every morning.

These are the things that we bought our property for so that we could kind of separate ourselves from the rest of the city by having our own little country life in our goalies.

And uh I've been there for 36 years, and basically the property that belongs to that's part of the survey that they would be retaining off its property that I've had to take care of.

It might have belonged to the other owners, but it's been property I've had to take care of it because I have to look at it every morning.

And uh those are the concerns I have.

I know I was on the call in July.

Other concerns was the height of the house, which uh uh one of my neighbors brought up, which I would also not like to have anybody look into the yard, and we like to be able to see the mountains from our our our yards.

Um but some of the other concerns was just uh the amount of traffic that might be there on 8600 south, which doesn't involve us, but being on the call in July, that was one of the primary concerns was how much uh more traffic there's gonna be because it's around uh elementary school and things like that.

But I appreciate the opportunity to express myself and thank you for the time.

Thank you.

Chair, can I ask a quick question?

Yeah, Mark, you you sent two emails to Thomas, our planner, is that correct?

Did you send two emails to the I just wanted to make sure that was that you were the person that sent me?

Yeah, we didn't.

One was for me, and one was wasn't it was some help from another person that's gonna be.

We received those and we and we read those.

Yeah, we read those earlier.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

You can state your name and address and speak into one of the two mics, please.

Sure, we'll have two minutes.

Yeah, my name is Zamine.

Uh, I live in ADC Sudhe, South Scout and Rain Circle.

It's also in that community, so I live in that community for uh for more than 10 years.

So I love the plan, but uh I really appreciate I have this opportunity to bring up my concern.

Actually, the only concern is the that looks like the the entrance or the exit to that area it directly facing the park.

Um which to me is it's not where I say because that area is really really crowded, especially during the uh summer evening.

So people just uh come here to U.S.

spots and uh this is a lot of people just across the street and the parking along the street.

Sometimes when I exit the aerial, when I make a turn, I have to really careful because I'm not able to see the boat directions, the traffic coming through.

So if that entrance or exit of the new uh development area is directly facing the the park, I'm pretty sure it will bring more traffic to that area.

So um I I'm not sure if we have a consider these as a it's a safety concern, especially for kids.

Like I mentioned, uh it got the like um uh new playground and a new pickable records, and it just you know the keys just across the street or the time.

Yeah.

Um that's my concern.

Yeah, and thank you.

Is there anyone else?

And if the topic's already been mentioned, we have noted that just if sure.

No, that this isn't uh already been talked about.

Uh this is my father, name and address too, please.

Yeah, my name is Dallas Chapman.

I live at 5006 West Tabletop Way, South Jordan, Utah.

And I'm Phil Chapman, and I'm at 527 East, 8680 South.

And if we go back to the topographical map, thank you.

So he lives in the um yes, that at that space there, which was not normally or was not originally part of the Firefly um subdivision.

And recently, my father's been approached by the developers to sign a piece of paper asking him to join the Firefly um subdivision.

And um there's a question about the small strip of land that sits directly east of my father's lot.

Yes, that there.

Um I'm here and on a and uh as a last minute sort of call from my father, doesn't really know exactly what's going on, why he's being asked to be part of the fire flying um subdivision when originally he's never has been.

So if there's some resources we can get more educated around um what exactly going on and why he's now been asked to be a part of the Firefly subdivision when it's been a year or so, I think it's been in consideration and um it was up until last week.

In fact, last night he was brought a piece of paper and was signed to be a and asked to be a part of that.

So can we speak to that now?

Or we can ask the developer some additional clarification during after you're done in the public.

Okay.

Yeah, that's that's my my question and kind of just my concern is why at this last minute is he being asked to be a part of the Firefly subdivision.

Okay.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Is there anyone else that would like to speak to this?

Uh I'm Doug Shelby.

I'm the uh executive of the Shelby estate.

We moved in on in or I moved in in uh on five seventeen east eighty-six eighty south in nineteen fifty-three.

So I think I outdate anybody here, and then Mr.

Kitterman designed me a house up in holiday, and so I don't have to weed that place anymore, which is quite nice.

Anyway, I think they can clear the item up with that little strip of land.

We had a 15 foot by uh right-of-way that went well, we actually owned it.

And the city doesn't want this little orphan peas hanging around, and so we've been trying to figure out so apparently uh they can address it in more detail, but apparently that needs to be added to to Phil's lot.

Uh and so that makes him technically part of the subdivision because the the park the parcel sizes are gonna change.

But anyway, uh I think this is an absolute miracle.

Four years ago when somebody says, Hey, let's get all these people in their backyards, and we'll we'll put a road through there.

And I thought that will never happen.

It only took one that wanted to keep farming.

And so everybody that's involved is really smart.

Of course we don't grow any food anymore, but we don't have to weed and farm stuff like that.

But but we own the largest parcel.

We could have done something without everybody else, but I think generally this is good for all of those lots that are 465 feet deep because it's like what do you do with the back piece when you get old?

Or even what do you do when you get young?

So anyway, I I hope you considered it and there are a few technical things that happen that happen to happen on Phil's property and us, because we own that little strip that we're gonna use.

That's what I wanted to clarify.

So are you is that little strip part of this now?

Yes.

So you own it so you've sold or you're in the process of selling that strip to Garbett.

They don't want it.

That's that's the question I'm asking.

Is it part of the subdivision that is going to go forward?

Or is it going to remain an orphan piece that's 15 feet wide by the city won't?

What is it?

70 feet or something.

The city won't process this unless we get or so.

We're we're going to essentially work out a deal or give it to Phil so it will become part of his property.

I see toxic bullets.

And we'll it'll make so we won't have that.

Yeah, we'll circle back on what kind of questions that come up during this.

He can address the technicalities of it, but that's that's where we're at on that piece.

So anything else?

No.

Thank you.

Okay, anyone else that would like to speak to this?

Okay.

I was like, Oh, I'm sorry, we hadn't if you need to say something, you can come back up here, please.

We can't hear you on the mic.

Or sorry.

We just have to say one word.

That's all, still on the mic in a public record.

Uh and I should have mentioned this before, I'm sorry.

Oh, come down.

Come down here, please.

Oh, you want me to say I'm sorry, you mean?

No, no, no.

Yeah, get that on the right.

Okay.

Uh name and yeah.

All of the I don't know if you know this, but most of the property owners except Hansons are all gonna stay in these homes, the homes that we own.

We're gonna stay there in that neighborhood.

So we're not selling and abandoning it.

We're we're gonna stay there.

Okay, thank you.

Anyone else that'd like to speak to this topic tonight?

Come down and please speak on in directly into the mic and name and address, please.

You'll have two minutes.

So I'm Ann Hanson, and um I'm a trustee over at that the Hanson State.

And no, we won't be keeping the house, and the whole thing is very, very sad, but it is going to be the best um use of the land.

And originally I reached out to Garbad because I purchased two of them, and they've in within Sandy, and both developments have ended up being very successful and have held their value and gone up in value.

And um, I just want to support that.

I think it's the best use of the land.

And I also wanted to echo what um Mar Kuhn said about the fire danger.

When you get these long strips of land that go back, um, it's hard to manage as far as fire and keeping the irrigation go back going back, it's just an exhaustive process.

After so many years, you lose the arrogation if you're not using it.

So, anyway, that was about all I wanted to say is I think it'll end up being a very successful and and a good development.

So looking forward to it.

Thank you.

And if there's anybody else, if they could come up work directly behind her, and then we'll I'm Susan Vanderheid.

I am at 514 East 8575 South.

Again, I want to stress that all development is good as long as it's not affecting the properties that are in existence and the lifestyles that we're living already and have for so long.

We want to see it happen, but you gotta realize again, and I'm gonna say this one more time, because it's the most important factor is this big goalie.

This big goalie comes down, and that is where we start.

And if they're building up here and we're down here, you can see the potential of the life and the loss of value, not just financially, but of a healthy living environment that we're in that's going to be affected.

And I just want you to think about that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anybody else?

Mike, anybody online?

If you're joining us via Zoom webinar and would like to speak to this particular item, please use the raise your hand feature, and we'll address you one at a time.

Currently, we have two hands raised.

Uh we'll go to uh Mr.

Steven Crapo.

Uh you may unmute yourself.

Please state your name and address for the record, please.

You'll have two minutes.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

My name's Steven Crapo.

I own the I'm an 80 uh 399 east 8680 south.

My property is not included in this development, but it is the uh on the southern edge of the development.

Um the the previous slide that you had up there, or this one, yes, that one.

If you see the this the west edge of the uh border of this development, it looks like it juts out into the road and then juts down into my property a little bit and then juts back on the other on the uh plans, the survey that's a straight line.

And I'm wondering why that jut out is there on that one particular drawing showing something different other than a straight line all the way back my property it line.

On that one it's straight, but on the on the it's the yeah, it's the north-south uh east edge of my property is straight back to the road, but on that uh that drawing right there, it juts out, and I don't understand that jet out.

I spent sent an email to Thomas today, and he sent me the survey, and it's straight just like the previous slide.

It doesn't show that juto.

Thank you.

We'll have a note of the staff fill in with that after we're done with the public comment.

Okay, that's my only comment.

Thank you.

Okay, uh Mr.

Zach Crawford, you may unmute yourself.

Please state your name and address Zach Crawford, 504 East, 8575 South.

Uh I would just say that I have concerns about the uh the lot size and the density of the homes.

I think they're opposite to what the historic sandy typically has been to take what is you know, six or seven lots, and just add a new subdivision into their backyards.

Doesn't take a lot of account into the folks on the other side of the fence.

Um aside from that, the historic sandy is a very vibrant place full of young children.

We already deal with heavy traffic.

Uh thank you to the city for your recent paving job, but now most folks travel around about 20 miles over the speed limit.

So adding in additional density, folks driving just as something that's not needed here in a storic sandy.

Um to the uh speak of the fire danger or any of that sort of stuff.

You know, I understand that that yard works tough, but uh to turn that into a home is seems like a strange way to solve a problem.

Uh same with the beautification.

I understand that sometimes weeds look gross, but nothing's better than open space, particularly in an area that is very lacking for open space.

So that's all I have to say.

Thank you.

Anyone else, Mike?

I'm seeing no other hands raised.

Okay, well then we'll go ahead and close that to public comment.

And Thomas, do you want to come up and there was a list of a couple of things and maybe some addressing of some of those, and if the developer has some additional comments?

Okay, the first one would be um the last phone call we just took with that little jog out up on the west side.

That was from a previous iteration of this plan, and I just reused it from a few months ago because we've this is the one I presented to the historic committee, so they understood the area, but actually on the plat itself, his um let's see where the plat right here where the lots are created.

His uh his property is not included in this.

So that street right there is a fully improved 58-foot uh street width.

It's gonna have eight foot um park strips, five foot sidewalks.

Um, it will jog in at the location where it connects to his property because he's not part of this at the future when he wants to develop, which he probably will, that will have to be dedicated to make that a linear connection.

Um we were there earlier today.

You may recall where we were on that.

Um other questions.

I might want to just talk about zoning real quick from the top.

This is R17.5 historic sandy, seven and a half thousand square foot lots generally.

They are invoking the historic district over the historic sandy district overlay zone, um, which was something we put in our code to allow for developments just like this on exceptionally deep lots, and they can go down to 5,000 square foot lots with 50-foot frontages as long as they commit to be to be uh reviewed by the stork committee and meets very specific guidelines for the homes that they're building.

Um, part of this review tonight will be to review those plans and elevations, and uh the historic committee has looked at these.

We actually went through it three different times because they are very extensive.

The requirements are there's porch widths, roof line requirements, window and doorway requirements on the front, uh pedestrian-friendly amenities, connection to the public street.

They've agreed to comply with all these additional requirements.

That being said, these elevations are the ones they're gonna commit to.

So there are two different single family plans and two single story plans and two different two-story plans with two elevations each.

So a total of eight exterior elevations that customers can choose from.

The concept is that if if these are approved this evening, these will be the eight different elevations that'll be presented to potential home buyers.

And they can mix and max and put those on whichever lot they would like.

I don't think all of the two stories fit on those lots.

As you can tell from this footprint right here.

Could you also address the gully and maybe some of the height issues there?

Well, they are gonna have the standard height limitations of 35 feet.

I don't believe, based upon the requirements, the width they have and the limitations on the on the pitches and such, they're not gonna they don't approach the 35-foot height limitation that they could normally do.

As you recall from our field visit, those homes to the west.

Is that you that's moving like crazy, Mike?

Because I can't find out where you're going.

Okay, let's see.

These homes to the west that continue on 8620 South, if if the presumption is that's the type of homes you're gonna see here, that is not a good presumption.

These are much smaller than those homes.

The intent of the historic sandy development overlay district is to ensure that homes are complying with the historic district.

They are sized appropriately with other homes in the neighborhood, and I personally think that Garbett's really stepped up and met every requirement we've we made them meet for these particular homes.

As far as the gully in the back, I do know that that there is a significant drop down as you head north, and that that is an existing condition.

I do believe there's some mitigation they're gonna have to do to make sure that that stays stable.

They're gonna have to restabilize some of it because it's been not well maintained for quite a long time.

Um but that being said, the majority of it is outside the bounds of this, where that grade change is.

Uh it's difficult to see when you're on site because it's very tree-covered in that location.

Um, the only zoning issue that staff found, um, oh, I should mention the remnant pieces.

So that to the east, that one little 15-foot-wide sprig of property there.

Um, our ordinance does not allow uh for remnant pieces to be left during a subdivision.

So when they come to subdivide this, they have to include every lot that is having its legal description modified in any meaningful way.

So all of those lots have to be included, and we we do an analysis on those to make sure they when they've been modified, they meet zoning.

We see that they all meet zoning except for at one location, which I'll talk about in a second.

But that remnant piece, although it's been historically there as part of the subdivision, we want that cleaned up, and so it needs to be consolidated with the adjoining lot.

How that's accomplished financially, that's outside of our purview, but it does need to be combined with that lot, and so it becomes a legal buildable, part of a legal buildable parcel.

Um, the only zoning issue we had after doing extensive reviews on this is this um the home.

Let's go back one.

The home right at the entry on the east side, that is now becoming a side yard instead of a it's becoming a front yard instead of a side yard.

So it's going to be one foot less than we would traditionally require.

We'd want a 20-foot front yard at that location.

But considering everything else works, we're getting full street improvements.

Staff feels that that's a minor issue that we can resolve.

You're saying it's an existing home.

It's an existing home.

And so the definition of what yard that is went from a side yard to a front.

So it's an existing condition.

Everything else works.

Um, I should also mention the northwest corner.

So you can see that he did acquire they're acquiring a small portion up in the northwest corner.

That is predominantly filled dirt, and there isn't there is a condition in the staff report saying that that location is gonna have to be a plat restriction, that those are not buildable at the back end because that those are not stable soils to construct.

But they did need to acquire those so they could meet the minimum 5,000 square foot requirement for the um lots themselves.

Um, the last thing I want to mention is that this what we talked about on the field trip is this was downwind of the smelter many years ago.

In the early 90s, the EPA did mitigation on the soil conditions.

Um, Garbetta's come in as part of their requirements, have done soil analysis.

There are still some contaminated soils, but they've agreed to comply with those requirements to uh any soils they run into that don't meet current standards, will be shipped off site to a uh landfill that will take that kind of soil.

And there was a question from the other property owner about um papers or something like that from the developer.

Was that addressed or papers?

Um the job.

Oh, as far as why we require signature.

Because that parcel now has to be included in this, because we're not going to allow the remnant to be left.

We do need signatures from all the owners that they are allowing Garbette to speak to the speak for them concerning their land.

That is literally a legal requirement that they have.

So we did want to make sure we had his his signature on file that we could discuss his property as we're doing tonight.

Okay.

Are there other questions from the commission?

I just did one question.

We had a lot on regarding height of those properties that we have going on the north side.

How many of those are build buildable for two stories?

Are we talking there's what 17 or so of those couple or what what's the number we may be to consider?

Do you want to come up?

Could you come up, please?

Just trying to find out how big the problem is to be standing.

So if you go along that property line, um we have two lotways along there.

One is 50 feet, one's 52 feet.

In order for us to build uh a two-story home that has to be on a 52-foot wide lot on the 50-foot wide law, it's a two-story home won't fit.

So essentially every other lot along those deeper lots will be a two-story home.

Uh, in the cul-de-sac, I'm not quite as certain about those.

They're not as deep.

Um, some of those more may more likely be only a two-story like lot.

I can't read it, but you know so potentially only about half of them are what could be, but the people are gonna choose the lot and choose the house to go on it.

Yeah, so it could be that it could be open big enough for a two-story, but they choose not to and go one story.

Okay, yeah, exactly.

So we don't know, but yeah, we don't know.

And one thing that's important to address is if you look at a previous slide, you can see the houses to the west.

Those back, those homes have a really short backyard.

I mean, they're maybe 10 or 15 feet.

Our lots are 105 feet deep.

Our two-story homes are on average no more than 40 feet deep.

There's a 20-foot driveway.

That leaves a 45 feet deep backyard.

That's a big yard.

And so I I honestly think that any any type of encroachment, weather view or or any other encroachment on the neighbors of the north will be quite minimal.

So they're gonna be moved up forward, it sounds like there would be more time for them to look up and develop.

That's right.

Yeah, and the homes themselves, there's a 35-foot height limit.

We won't have any homes.

I mean, the peak of a peak of a of the roof on a two-story, I think it's still below 30.

The roofs are probably only as high as 18.

So it's um it's not what it is now, but it won't be too bad.

I mean, we're doing the best we can to minimize the impact on the neighbors to the north.

Thank you.

Did you have a question?

I do um there was a comment about trees um in the area, and I just wonder if you can talk to that.

If there are a loss of trees, is there a plan to replace them or um offer that for the owners?

There are a lot of trees on the property.

Um I would say, and most of those will go away.

The trees that the neighbors are concerned about are the prop trees on the northern property line.

If you if you look at the topo, from the property line going north, there's a dramatic drop going into the goalie, and there are some larger trees in that goalie.

Unless they're unless the trees are hanging over onto our property and we think are a threat to to life or building, um we will gladly keep them and want to keep them.

But in addition to that, all of our all of our eight-foot parks drifts will include a minimum of at least one tree in that park strip, plus our homes will be fully yards will be landscaped.

Though there'll be more trees here eventually than there than there is currently for sure.

The the parks direct department has looked at that and they didn't request that there be a tree survey done on this.

We do have the right to require a tree survey, but after looking at and looking at the site and meeting with the applicant and walking through, they didn't feel that it was necessary.

There wasn't the type of trees or the quantity of trees that we want we would require a full survey on.

Thank you.

Um Cameron, did you have a question?

Yeah, I I was just just maybe for those neighbors that that are on the top of that hill.

Um I I think maybe this might be more of a question for Brittany to maybe talk a little bit about how these guys are going to be required to keep their water on their own site so that it sounds like there's been in the past some some flooding where the water from this ground has gone off site, flooded other people's homes that that Jacob's going to be required to make sure that all of your storm water stays on your site.

Yeah.

I can address that.

Brittany doesn't want to.

Okay.

It's not Brittany anyway.

So okay.

Well you can.

Historically, the the property's been flood irrigated.

Uh there's an irrigation system along 8680.

There's head gates that take the water to the rear property.

Historically, they've used it to water water their crops and animals.

Sometimes that's uh ran long and flowed into the neighbor's property and created erosion and flooding issues.

Um we are not intending to use any flood irrigation for our property, so those that issue will go away.

Um all of the water for our property will be contained within our property, it will not flow to the north.

That includes uh storm water.

We have a stormwater detention base in the size appropriate for a hundred year flood, it will accommodate and hold that water and release it slowly as needed for state code.

So that is a big problem, I think historically, but will be solved with the development as with this development.

You can see it on this slide right here.

A lot, I think it's part of lot twenty-eight.

It's been included that large green area you're seeing right there.

That is his retention basin for this, and everything will be graded towards that location.

Brittany Ward, City Engineer, our Sandy City Code requires all property owners to maintain their own drainage on their own properties.

So yeah.

I have a question.

Craig?

Um, in thinking that through, how will the how will the north backyards be handled?

The drainage.

Is it are the lots going to be regraded so they drain south?

No, the existing lots to the north uh won't have any construction um impediments onto it.

But for the existing lots, yes, there will be some regrading when the homes are built, and when they submit for a building permit, it will be required that they submit a grading plan with that as well for us to review.

What's your intent there?

Is there gonna be a swale along that north property line to keep water from going over into the neighbors?

No, they're just gonna be have to be properly drained from north from north to south.

They're not gonna be anything as significant as a swell.

If it was going to be regraded to drain from north to south, so they wouldn't have that property.

Yes, it will be.

They'll they'll drain towards the street and then toward the retention area that's been provided.

But nothing is dramatic as a swell.

The swells usually only come into play when there's really large developments with a lot of hard surface where they need to have on-site retention of the water, but usually in single family home developments like this, uh swells aren't necessary even for the hundred-year storm events.

Dave, did you have a question?

I do.

It's uh going back to the orphan piece.

I just want to make sure I understand the city's position.

It has to be cleaned up, so it either go can you go back to where it was to it either is gonna get sold or given or somehow transferred to the Chafen family, or the Chafen family is going to sell to or somehow become part of this development.

Because it has to go somewhere, right?

Can't just sit there.

Correct.

So those are the two options.

And how it happens, we don't care, but it has to happen.

Any remnants or lots, just like all the lots that are on 8680 South, all of those, those are included in the subdivision because their legal property lines are being modified, and they do have to comply with the underlying zoning district when we're done.

Right.

So their yard areas have to meet all of the basic zoning requirements.

That little stub piece right there can't remain as such.

It can't just be a little spite strip between properties.

It needs to be meaningfully connected to an adjacent property.

Okay, so it has one of those two options, right?

Correct.

That's all I want to hear.

Thank you.

Question Does that answer the the uh that owner's question about why he's receiving a request to sign the document?

Would you like us to stand and speak to the case?

Yes, I I would I mean I would suggest that the developer and the homeowner speak after the meeting and they can look at it that in more closer detail.

Um I don't know if it necessarily has to be determined tonight.

Right now, their preliminary plat does show that being included as part of their plat.

But if that's a minor deviation, if if they're not able to work out an agreement at some later point in time, it could be retained as part of the the future lots as an access to somebody's rear yard.

That's a potential solution to this as well.

Um, but I according to the the maps that we see, it's currently being used by Mr.

Chaffin, storage of boats and other materials on the side of his house.

So it it makes sense for it to be included, but we'll let that kind of be worked out between the developer and and the owner.

Okay.

That's always good.

Okay.

Yeah, yeah, we want to work it out.

We just there's implications property tax-wise, maintaining maintaining trees, and things like that, as my father's been doing for the last 30 years without owning that.

Um without owning that.

We need to have this conversation needs to be either on the record record or after the fact.

Yeah.

But that being said, there was I I don't know if I mentioned it earlier.

The Northwest portion wasn't a part of the initial plat that's part of your packet.

One of the conditions is that they include that in their next in their next email to us, and that will be part of the same.

Okay.

I have one.

For the same reason, by the way.

Dave, what was your other question?

I have one more for the developer.

Have you seen uh the uh conditions and the uh findings and conditions and the conditions and are you okay with those?

Or do you have any issues with them?

And I'm okay with them.

All right, thank you.

Okay, any other questions?

Okay, we'll bring that back to the committee or the commission for deliberation and action.

Any thoughts or additional questions we need to get clarified before acting?

I'm wondering if if it's if those trees are identified, the ones that are on the north property versus the ones that are included in this um in this subdivision.

What trees will be gone versus the ones that'll be left?

If you look at the map, most of those trees are on the other property.

They must be on the slope then.

They're on the slope or they're going into the gully or something.

I'm sorry, we've closed public comment.

Um I realize that there are issues with uh the tree crowned and root balls and some of those things, but I think the developer has a right to move forward with what he wants to do on his property.

Yeah.

Um I think if there's a tree, like there's one tree where the looks like the property line goes through it, I guess that's something the developer could figure out how to work around.

I don't know to answer your question.

Okay.

With that in mind, is there any I mean, as it's set forth, are there any uh amendments or changes to the those findings and conditions, or do we need to move forward with that?

As they've set forth as recommendations.

I don't have any.

Okay.

Someone like to make a motion.

Yeah, I'll make a motion.

I move that uh uh planning commission has determined that preliminary subdivision review is substantially complete for the Firefly subdivision located at approximately 517 east 8680 south based on the following uh five findings and subject to the following eight conditions.

Is there a second?

I'll second that question on the motion.

I just noted that there is a typo on 1A, the street name.

It's 8620.

Can we make a friendly amendment to I will accept that was 8620?

Uh it should be it should be probably consistent with the 8680, and this is saying 8280.

8620 is the street name that's being extended.

Okay.

All right, very good.

So I accept that as part of my motion.

Is there a second to that?

I second.

David Hart?

Yes.

Lenny Stappenport, yes.

Cameron Duncan?

Yes.

Jennifer George?

Yes.

Steve Rigley?

Yes.

Craig Kitterman?

Yes.

Danny Schoenfeld?

Yes.

This motion carries.

Thank you.

Next item on the agenda is the Jordan Crate Union subdivision.

For those that are exiting the room, if you could do so quietly, we still have to continue with other items that are on the agenda tonight.

Take your conversations outside, please.

And do you Doug, do you want to take all three of these together or do you need to present okay?

All three together.

So Doug Wheelwright, I'm development services manager in the planning division.

So can you speak into the mic, please?

Okay.

Okay.

Is that better?

That's better.

So the property that we're looking at tonight is the Jordan.

Can we come closer, ma'am?

You're welcome to.

So it's shown here on the map.

Uh historically it's been part of the was uh Jordan District, now it's Canyons, uh, the junior high school and the shops and bus, all that complex.

So it was originally built on school property.

At some point it was deeded off to the credit union as they kind of separated from the school district ownership to the ownership as a credit union entity.

It's been that way for a number of years.

They came to us so a good six months ago or so and said we want to upgrade the exterior and we want to make some changes to the parking lot.

So staff spent a lot of time working with them because it's an existing site and it's the site is uh bound by the property they own and development around it.

Um it was challenged to do what all the things that they wanted to do, but we got there, and uh so we have three items here for you to consider three different motions.

The first is a subdivision, and I want to talk about that first.

Subdivision, there's two parcels that make up the site.

Uh we require that uh when we do a new development that we combine those parcels, and we're doing a subdivision to accomplish that combination as well as to dedicate some street widening along 300.

Um subdivision plat is the best way to dedicate streets and easements.

So they've agreed to that.

We have a subdivision plat.

It's been reviewed, it's ready for your uh action.

Let's go let's go through the uh exhibits mic.

So there's the site plan.

Uh the driveway on the north is being eliminated.

Uh this is the new layout and driveway location.

This is where the remote teller ATM facility will be here with its queuing.

Let's go quickly through the others.

So this is what the new site looks like with the landscaping elimination of that driveway, the queue for the drive-through.

So we think this is really a substantial improvement from the existing condition uh in the site design.

And the refreshing of the building exterior materials will be uh, I think a welcome change and blend a little better with the architecture of the junior high school, middle school.

Sorry, wrong district middle school.

Um so that's what that looks like.

So with that introduction, maybe turn it over.

I'm not sure whether we have an applicant's representative or not.

Oh, we do, yes.

If you could come down and state your name and address for the record or business address, please.

Uh Nate Reiner with CIR Engineering.

I'm the applicant and civil engineer on the project.

Uh address is 10718 South Bextead Lane in South Jordan.

Um as part of this, so Jordan Credit Union, they've slowly just throughout the valley been modernizing a lot of their existing buildings.

Um this is just the next one on their list.

The existing building will stay as is with same use, um, but just kind of modernizing the building a little bit.

They want to detach the current drive-thru, which is along the south side of the building over to the west side.

Um, as part of that, it kind of triggered enough to where the entire site need to be redone for traffic patterns that the entire site is being brought up to certain to current city codes.

That also includes dedication and road improvements along 300 east, and then also improving a little bit of the parkship and sidewalk along the south side, which is currently a private street owned by the school district.

Um yeah, we're excited.

It's been a long process.

Staff's been great.

Thank you.

Is there any questions for the applicant?

Do we have a drawing of what's there now?

Staff report.

Yeah, I'm looking.

Just that just now it's basically all asphalt parking.

Basically, yes.

Yep, existing building, north side has a drive aisle, that's their entry in, and then entire west and south side is all parking lot.

Okay, so it'll actually be decreasing the amount of parking lot as part of this, and adding quite a bit of landscape.

Correct.

Just the question about that street dedication.

Is that for a turn-in lane?

It looks like it's widening there.

Am I seeing that correctly?

Doug.

It's widening it to the standard street width.

So it it isn't a lane, it's uh it's the overall.

It'll be this consistent with the street width in front of the junior high or the middle school.

I mean, it's north of there will stay as they are.

Yes, it'll transition back to that existing profile width.

But at least along this frontage, it will mirror what's um across the street on the south.

Any other questions for the applicant?

Steve?

So it looks like you're giving more privacy to the residents in 9248 by taking away that road, so it should be quieter for them.

You are putting out that island out there, which is gonna be louder, probably.

Is there a wall or fence or something to stop the sound from going over to the residents or there is so there's currently a I think it's just a wood picket fence right now?

Um, but there should be plans to improve it with a new masonry screening wall along that entire north property line.

So you'll be able to, yeah, because this there may be some sound coming from this island or whatever you're putting in because it'll be speakers.

But it looks like you're giving them extra privacy along the back side to the north side.

Yes, and a lot more solid of a wall.

So keep that sound down.

So and then the building itself is same height, same everything, just a different exterior.

Correct.

So it just it'll update it and make the property value in that area probably greater because it's a brand new building.

Great, thank you.

Any other questions?

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Um, this item has been noticed to the public.

Is there anybody here?

Or sorry, Doug, did you have other stuff?

Yes, so if we could go on to the we'll discuss the site plan implications a little bit further.

So if we go to the site plan, Mike, please.

So there's where the existing driveway is eliminated.

We have an entrance here, we'll have a new entrance here, the widened park strips along the uh private street to the south.

Um this is the location of the key of the uh remote teller, and we do have a profile, or we do have an elevation drawing of that that will show you that there is a there is a solid wall here along this side of that.

Um so there this I guess it's a louver, uh it has a roof.

Let's go to the next.

So towards the end of the PowerPoint.

There we go.

There's the floor.

So there is a basement level that's used for storage.

Uh it's gonna continue to be used for storage related to the bank.

It can't be like third-party storage or anything.

So we're not assessing any parking demand for that floor.

Um a big part of this is because of all the changes to the site, we've reduced their available area for parking, and so there is a request as part of this for a 20% reduction in required parking.

The code has standards for parking reductions.

We go up to 10% with the director or anything more than that is planning commission 25%.

There's five criteria with they meet three criteria.

There's a parking study that's been done that's part of the packet.

Um so they're they're going to um they're gonna need a install reduction from what the parking requirement would be.

And they justified in the parking study, they have justified the meeting those three of those five criteria, which gives them up to 20 percent.

So you do recommend that uh you find that that's uh acceptable building architecture and materials, they meet the Sandy City architectural design requirements for the new building.

Um finally the conditional use.

So the the remote teller drive-through in the PO zone requires conditional use approval.

And I've gone through the 15 criteria in the staff report.

We're recommending that you find uh that the conditional use permit can be approved for the drive-through.

Are there any questions?

Any other questions from the commission?

Okay, anything else, Doug?

No, thanks.

Okay.

This item has been noticed to the public.

Is there anybody here tonight that'd like to speak on this topic?

Anyone online, Mike?

If you're joining us via Zoom webinar and would like to speak to this item, please use the raise your hand feature now.

I am seeing no hands and no attendees.

Okay.

Well then we'll close that to public comment and bring that back to the commission for further deliberation and action.

I think it's great.

I would agree.

Someone won't do we want to handle the subdivision one first.

Which one do you want?

Subdivision one first?

Yeah, subdivision, then site plan, and then conditional use.

Thank you.

I'm ready.

Okay, take it away.

Okay.

I'd like to recommend that we determine the planning commission determine that preliminary subdivision review is complete.

Can you speak into that microphone?

Thanks.

That the subdivision review is complete for the proposed Sandy Jordan Credit Union subdivision as described in the staff report for the property located at 9260 South, 300 east, based on the three findings and the three conditions.

Is there a second?

Second.

Jennifer George?

Yes.

David Hart?

Yes.

Cameron Duncan?

Yes.

Steve Wrigley?

Yes.

Lenny Stavenport.

Yes.

Craig Kitterman?

Yes.

Danny Schoenfeld?

Yes.

This motion carries.

Next is the site plan review.

Wanna do that one, Jennifer?

Sorry.

I'd like to make a motion.

Okay.

That the planning commission determined preliminary site plan review is complete for the proposed Jordan Credit Union branch office located at 9260 South, 300 East, based on the four findings and the eight conditions.

Sir a second.

I'll second.

Jennifer George?

Yes.

Cameron Duncan?

Yes.

David Hart?

Yes.

Steve Wrigley.

Yes.

Lenny Stavinport.

Yes.

Craig Kitterman?

Yes.

Danny Schoenfeld?

Yes.

This motion carries.

And finally, the conditional use permit.

Okay.

Like to recommend that the planning commission approve a conditional use permit for the drive-up window.

Remote teller building and its related vehicle queuing layout based on the staff report analysis and the two findings and two conditions.

Sir, a second.

I'll second.

Jennifer George?

Yes.

Cameron Duncan?

Yes.

David Hart.

Yes.

Steve Wrigley?

Yes.

Lenny Stavenport.

Yes.

Craig Kitterman?

Yes.

Danny Schoenfeld?

Yes.

This motion carries.

Great.

That concludes our business for that.

And then we've got a set of meeting minutes for July 17th that we need to approve.

I'll make a motion that we approve those.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Okay.

That passes uh Brian or Mike reports.

Do you have anything in mind?

Um just by way of note, we have uh received uh approval uh to move forward with our land development code update.

Good the funding is in place, our contract with WFRC uh to use the the uh their funding mechanism to uh provide that the majority of that grant 200,000 uh from WFRC as going towards that.

So we'll be putting together and finalizing our um our uh scope of work and get an RFP out for consultants to uh give us their bids and uh hopefully have a consultant on board by the end of the year.

Great, great.

It's good news.

Ryan, anything okay?

Next meeting is next meeting would be August uh 21st.

Um as of right now, it's questionable whether we'll have a meeting.

So we will let you know as soon as we do know uh whether we'll hold the meeting on the 21st or not.

Okay, that'd be great to know as soon as possible.

I know I know we'll know by Monday.

How about that?

That's great.

That's perfect.

Awesome.

Um and one final motion?

Motion to adjourn.

All those in favor?

I alright, thank you, everybody.

Thank you.

Motion to motion adjourn in favor of motion.

Oh pull it back.