Uh, let's see.

We've got maybe what half hour discussion.

Yeah.

No, no video.

Uh just uh discussion.

Updates information.

Yeah, let's do that.

Recording in progress.

Recording in progress.

Okay.

Mr.

Chair, we're ready to what?

Okay.

Darren.

Darren Alcorn has our training time.

So I was gonna pull this up really quick so that I can tell you that official being I just have to remember where um well in that.

Um so Sandy City got sued on a land use decision.

So we actually had a claim filed in district court as an appeal, and they filed it in federal district court, so it was Utah Federal Court.

It was pretty recently, and it was um it was Magnet Investment and Development versus Sandy City.

Yes, and it was for a developer who had brought in some information on 1300 East and single, and the if you remember what happened at the beginning was that they brought in a conditional use application for a project that staff questioned whether or not it was actually an authorized conditional use on the property because in order to be able to qualify for a conditional use permit, they had to be proposing a mixed use development, and so the staff did uh went through some iterations with them trying to get something that the staff agreed was a mixed use development, and they weren't successful in getting any changes, and so the planning commission is authorized under our city ordinances to do an interpretation of the Sandy City Code, and so Sandy City staff sent the item to the planning commission to do an interpretation of the Sandy City Code, look at the definitions of mixed-use development, um, look at some substantive provisions of the Sandy City Code and make a determination and interpretation of whether or not what they were proposing was actually a mixed use development.

And the planning commission determined that it was not a mixed use development under those definitions and the substance provisions, and in order to move on from that decision, they're actually required to use their administrative skill process, and so they did filed an administrative appeal to the board of adjustment, and the board of adjustment affirmed the planning commission interpretation.

So the Board of Adjustment agreed with the findings and the conclusions of the Planning Commission, and they said that it was not a mixed use development, and didn't qualify as a memory stall, and so the next step in that process after they've exhausted their administrative appeal is that they appeal that to the court, and they had some other federal claims, some due process and constitutional type claims that they added to their appeal, and so they appealed it into the federal district court because a federal court would have the jurisdiction over those constitutional claims, and they received this other land use appeal as an additional point that is lumped in with those other ones, and so the court had um the case and the we filed Sandy City filed a motion for partial summary judgment, and um, so we used Spencer Fain, and our attorney is with Danny Severnich.

And so we used Spencer Fain, and our attorney is was Danny Severnich.

She did a fantastic job.

I think mixed use commercial and residential.

And we said all of those definitions applied, and we wanted the judge to make a determination that all of those definitions were correctly applied.

They filed a motion for summary judgment on all of their claims and their attorney's case.

I thought he did a very good job.

Federal courts don't typically do land use law.

So I thought he really was very well informed, having read all of the pleadings before he went into the oral argument.

I thought he asked very intelligent and on point questions.

I felt like he really understood Sandy City's position.

And then he issued the decision.

So that's the background, and then I wrote up a summary of a decision.

It was, I think, 37 pages or something.

So it's kind of lengthy.

And they did go into a lot of detail, but I think I have a pretty good summary of what the decision was based on.

And so I will kind of go through that, and then you guys can ask any questions that you have, and hopefully I will be able to answer that.

So the code section that the planning commission made their decision was 21 1 6, and that was what we called the interpretation section that just authorized either the director of the planning commission to do interpretations.

And they relied upon three different um provisions to make that decision.

And so one of the things that they relied on was the definitions that I told you, and so it was 21-37-14, 10 through 14.

So those were all the different definitions of mixed use that I mentioned.

The other support for that decision was Sandy City Code Section 21-23-24, and that code section is called mixed use development standards.

And then the third thing that the planning commission relied on was the definition of neighborhood commercial district in the CN zone.

And that was found in 21-4-11 subsection six.

And not that you guys are gonna remember those, but in case you are wondering and wanting to let them up if you want the same credit, there will be fitness.

So only if it's a project being developed in a mixed use zone, can you apply 2123-24?

And then they said the definition of neighborhood commercial district is a preamble and therefore is not substantive and cannot be applied at the substantive provision, and that was following Utah case law on preambles and not substantive provisions.

And that under that definition, that what they were proposing did meet that definition for a mixed use development.

The applicant was invited to contact Sandy City Planning Department when they're ready to proceed with submitting the additional information needed to proceed with processing and conditional use permit.

So we have some of the information that's required in our code formit, but not all of it, because we sort of put a pause on the whole process to do the interpretation.

Under A, when they said that mixed use development was the only definition, they basically said mixed use development had a standalone definition that does not need any interpretation.

And what we had argued was that there were sub-definitions that were referenced within that broader definition, the court disagreed.

Danny did a great job of arguing it.

So they rejected our argument that because that general definition used words like commercial office vertically and horizontally, that those were subsidiary definitions, and they said for a couple of different reasons.

So that was one of the things they said.

There was also some introductory language in the introductions of the definitions in Title 21 29-07-1.

I didn't copy down that introductory language here, so I can't remember right now why they said that that introductory language I think said these definitions are standalone definitions, and you know, so they looked at our documents.

Um so that was the reason they think one definition of mixed use adult applied.

The reason that they said section 212324 didn't apply was because it says the following standards are to be considered as applying specifically to development in the mixed use district, in addition to general standards provided elsewhere in the title, and they thought that was a clear indication that anything in 2123 24 didn't apply to a use permit if and it applied to a mixed use.

So um on the preamble, they relied on Utah case law that it does not allow a preamble to be substantively applied.

They dismissed all of the applicants' other claims.

So I told you they added on some federal constitutional type claims, those were all dismissed without prejudice.

So I guess that you know, if if Magna Investment wanted to still make those claims, they file another complaint, and then um the other thing that happened was that there was an ombudsman opinion that had been issued prior to the planning commission decision, and there's actually a state statute that says if the court makes a determination that's the same as the ombudsman and for the same reasons that the the party who loses can be responsible for the other party's attorney's fees, and so that's a state statutory remedy for not following a correct ombudsman opinion.

The court did not award attorneys' fees but said in the decision that this decision was based on the same basis as the ombudsman decision.

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

Um they push for that can I readdress that in court?

Well, I think so.

I think, in order for them to receive attorneys' fees, there's an evidentiary standard that they would have to need to prove the attorney's fees, the the amount, and so I think that's why it was premature to award them because I don't think that evidence had been presented.

I would think that it's probably pretty likely with that being in the decision that the city would negotiate a settlement on fees.

I mean the the I I think the court basically said that they're titled to them without say they're being awarded them, and so that's where we're sitting today.

I had one question when I sent out um this information to staff to look over, and the question was about the court using the word illegal to describe the actions of the planning commission, and so I I don't know how much depth you want me to go into, probably not very much.

So I'm gonna look up this one.

So here's what the state code says.

It says a land use decision is illegal, which it does not mean criminal.

So I think it seems like a really hard word, but it applies if the land use decision is based on an incorrect interpretation of a land use regulation.

Um I think that's basically why they were saying it was illegal, is that the court is saying this was correct interpretation, and that wasn't the one the planning commission made, and so it's illegal because it doesn't, it's not based on a correct team.

I did the planning commission know correct interpretation.

That right, no.

So the planning commission was making an interpretation, and that's what the court disagreed, and so the court is deciding that it was an incorrect interpretation.

That's what I guess the board is.

That's crazy.

Because it's contrary, and basically illegal means contrary to law.

So they're saying what was written, the words that were written in our code don't say what we interpreted them to say, right?

And therefore it's illegal because it's contrary to law.

But it's not criminal, it's uh I I don't it wasn't unfounded.

There were findings, but the board disagreed with the validity of those findings and made no determination about the the motive or intent of the findings.

I think that would have been a basis of some of the other claims, and all those claims were so they do a transcript of the uh planning commission uh meeting, which yes heard, and then the court produced the transcript as well, right?

Yes, okay.

And did what did the court have to say with regards to that transcript?

Anything that's that's that's that we should know it.

So no, the one thing that um uh I I can tell you that like what they did say about the transcript was well, so there's a couple things one thing they said was that the transcript supported the fact that the planning commission was applying the mixed use zone development standards, and that was supported a lot by my presentation, and um our staff report and the staff report, so so they so that was one of the things that they said about the transcript was that it supported the fact that we were applying the mixed use zone, and maybe that the mixed use zone was sort of the nucleus of those additional definitions, right?

Was the other thing is they went into a really long and detailed discussion about the standard of review of the board of adjustment, um and and maybe that was the transcript, maybe they used the board of adjustment transcripts.

Now I bet they did.

I think they cited both.

There were elements that they were citing the planning commission and the discussion was cited.

A lot of it was like was about the board of adjustment transcript and how they made the motion and what the motion said, and really they disagreed with the interpretation anyway, so I don't think the standard of review was going to be the tipping factor on the decision, and it it anyway so the question I have is the court ever addressed this with more of a parpa complex that it uh it had so little uh businesses in it, that was one of the issues is that it had like less than 10 percent.

Did the court even address that because it was part of a complex with a couple of businesses trying to meet fixed use?

So the the general definition of mixed use says residential and any other use that was you could have two percent of businesses at our department, not like mixed.

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

Oh, it was the zone, wasn't the zone commercial zone?

Yeah, it was a it was uh CN zone, and so which has conditional assessments of fact that's a commercial zone that doesn't that was our basis for deciding that it didn't need it because it was very little commercial and making everything.

So that was the third determination that they made.

They basically said the definition of the commercial zone is a preamble and has no substantive effect, and that was part of the basis of the decision.

We disagreed with that as staff, and you disagreed with the application and agreed with us, but agreed with you, and then the judge reversed that decision and said we did not follow our code as written, it's basically outcome.

So can we obviously you can't go retroacted?

Can we rewrite that part of the code?

We have you already approved the change, and so the county but the application is best.

It was so the application then vested under the definition at the time of their application.

So we'll be following the definitions that was in place at that time, not our revised code.

No.

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

And site plan.

Did their attorney the one that presented here?

Was he the one that tried the case?

He's not right here.

Yeah.

So are you going to be dealing with the residents up there and let him know this decision?

This will be harder for them to accept that the part of one so much of the court.

So I mean our city could explain this to the residents so that they understand what happened.

Basically a technicality, right?

I mean, it basically is that our code didn't say what I when the court reads our code, the court doesn't see what we thought it said.

I mean, that's that's basically the the I think the the real meat of the decision.

Is that when this comes back to us, the residents I mean the residents need to understand what you just told them?

And any or any public notices that go out, we'll provide a brief explanation of that.

Of just that process.

Yeah.

Yeah.

We don't need the residents to accept the case.

It will be in the staff report.

We'll provide information in the notice regarding why this is coming back.

So that and then we'll explain it again in the in the hearing.

That will be the public's opportunity to find out that information.

Do you know if that's very important to bring back the same report?

Essentially same project.

We don't know.

We don't even know when they're gonna bring them back.

Do they have a time limit?

Yeah.

No.

Yeah, we um I don't think so.

State sent them a letter, same like it.

We understand it's mixed use.

They got it really from a judge, though, that we accept it.

There's no time limit on the judges really necessary when they would have to bring it back.

Okay.

Otherwise, you can't keep uh project open forever.

What is our time limit?

Otherwise, it's 180 days if you're in working on the project before you have to read you know redo it, it can't sit forever.

But when does the hundred and eighty days start?

That has nothing to do with this.

Oh, if the planning commission has to approve a conditional use permit, it's definitely yes.

They're the body that has to prove it.

Yeah, so they would set the conditions.

So if they're still the council, reasonably anticipated that we process it as a conditional use permit just like every other application that comes through us.

Um, the same density that they had before.

Well that it meets the definition of a mixed use development.

What's the new definition?

So there are no more conditional uses that are mixed use.

I mean, I think that really was the so our old stuff.

So I choose that I have this question.

Really didn't have any criteria.

Criteria.

And I think that was I think I was the only one that voted no on this, right?

Is that no?

I don't remember.

Yeah.

I and I agree.

I don't think we had any like the criteria, and so it's I think that was one of the facts, right?

So the sort of new definition of mixed use, is it say like a percent of other uses?

Or is there did we well there's either mixed use zone, there's not conditional use mixed aspect.

So you can't do conditional use mixed is what we do all those out.

Yeah, that's now that's that's what they applied under, and that's no longer possible.

So now they would be in the mixed use zone to do a mixed use, and then uh 2123-24, I think is what it is, we would apply.

But as long as they're in a mixed use zone, then you can apply the mixed use development standards.

If they're not in a mixed use zone, the court said, which this was not commercial zone and a conditional use.

The mixed use development standards.

So we don't have five.

It's not relevant to this.

This applies under the old code.

Yeah.

It sticks with it sticks with it.

Yeah, but we we took this loophole out.

So somebody wouldn't be able to planning commission has not adopted percentages.

Right.

Or mixed.

So and the city council hasn't adopted percentages.

So there aren't percentages, it's just says it's uh percentage that's set by the rules.

So is there initial usefully put?

Yes.

Oh yeah.

So to mitigate reasonably anticipated detrimental.

We're treating it like any other conditional use.

Yeah.

It will just come as a conditional use.

Is there a density limit or set against those based on based on mitigation that can show that it works and it can be mitigated?

And yeah, density is not going to be a detrimental independence.

I mean that is what the well it's vehicles and well, traffic would be, yeah.

But um I think that was the best.

I think their traffic study is going to show that they won't have more traffic than a traffic study was great.

I have the results, I was pleased with that.

I see an issue with it.

They mitigated it well.

I think you just follow the rules.

You don't look for anything.

You can't say, well, I'm gonna think of this conditions, you know, you can't play that game.

You know, we'll get slaughtered on L.

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

So they'll become the four step.

They'll have to meet the height for the CNN.

Right, all our requests.

Well, same as normal.

Yeah, now it's not the difference.

Yeah.

It's just coming to us now in the form of uh application and the conditional use.

And I think you can spend 10 hours trying to explain it, and they're not gonna care because it's gonna motion.

So you have to explain it, but you just gotta want a purple complex on that one.

And it doesn't matter what you say.

But a judge says it meets the code, so now we move forward.

Yeah, that's what we're running.

Oh it's gonna hit the fan.

It's you know, the fan has been hit before since the use with the decision, they're just full.

We we sent the letter and said balls in your court, Lynn followed up, so Lynn followed up with a call to Wade, who was the attorney presented to the planning.

And he said, I understand the balls in our court, so we're waiting for them to say they want to proceed.

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

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

So case that snowware which is just in how the is this and I'm not I'm just questions about this.

What are some of the other communities?

Are these similar to us or completely different or is this a precedent that's going to be used in other cities?

In regards to what the court decision on the uh mixed use in conditional use in our specific to us, yeah, yeah.

And the area left the development right.

I think it just stresses the point that um codes need to be clear without subjectivity.

Right.

Um and our code, I think was found to be deficient.

Uh I think there are some elements of the code that have been adapted poorly being the zone that standards, and then poorly adapted to become the mixed use development standards that would apply to any mixed use development.

That was the intent.

Right, right.

But the way the code was adopted didn't complete that loop, I think sufficiently to say that those mixed use development standards could broadly apply to any mixed use development.

Like we had interpreted them to be.

When we do a complete rewrite of code, do we also set it off to uh big like a advisors um that we're hiring have legal consultants as part of that team, so we know who we're doing.

Well, we're in the process.

We're in the process of uh.

But they they have they all have an independent legal review of that.

Plus our attorney's office view would be reviewing it as well.

Good question.

Well, that wasn't a fun discussion at all.

I don't like that part.

Yeah, I I don't necessarily agree with the decision, but it is what it is.

Right.

Um that's that's what the court system is set up to do.

Yeah, and we just accept the ruling and and we move forward.

So I think that a finding of like since we did an illegal act and the planning commission didn't have the legal act.

Is there any like repercussions beyond just sort of that?

Yeah, that turns Dave's not gonna share your doing all the I engine.

We did this votes to go in either.

That was the reason why that was the reason why Melissa asked the question was because she read the decision, and the use of the word illegal is disconcerting.

But really, it just only means that.

It doesn't follow the law.

Yeah, it didn't follow what they determine said X.

Well, I guess the interpretation by the planning commission and the board of adjustment said why.

And that's all they're saying by the word illegal.

It doesn't mean it's a lot, just means that it wasn't uh, it's contrary to the law that's I don't think that allows you to guilty vertical.

Sorry.

Personally by a something like okay, good.

The only thing that we're liable for that the judge rolled is that we'll have to cover attorney's fees at some point, but that's to be determined later by the judge.

Okay, so we're stuck to have dinners here.

It is gonna be C management.

Yeah, I have no idea what our attorneys' fees are.

Um that should be the extent of it, I guess.

It's more than chicken hates, that's for well as Lynn said that comes through negotiations, and so it's hard to even what that would match what he started to do now on his part.

Any other questions?

Are you you done there?

Okay.

Well, the bathrooms are typically thank you.

That was very one of them.

Uh bathrooms are typically closed this summer.

So we might need to have the go upstairs.

Usually the ones upstairs.

If the ones downstairs are closed, then you can go upstairs.

Right.

Right wrong closed wrong side.

Right.

So we can eyes are open.

All right, Mike, are you ready?

Okay, so you say yes.

Recording in progress.

Okay, we would like to welcome uh all of you who are here this evening for tonight's uh it's a our Thursday, November 20th, 2025 planning commission meeting.

Uh so welcome all those who are here physically as well as those who might be online with us this evening as well.

Uh if to start, we will stand and if you could join me in uh stating the pledge of allegiance.

Okay, so we'll um begin with some introductions, and we'll start to my left.

So, Jennifer, if you go first.

Jennifer George, Lenny Stavenport, Craigerman, Ron Mortimer, Steve Wrigley, Cameron Duncan, and James, if you could introduce staff.

My name is James Swanson, I'm the community development director.

Um, some of the staff we have with here with us tonight is Darien Alcorn.

She's a city senior attorney.

Mike Wilcox is planning director, Thomas Irvin is a senior planner, Doug Wilwright, Development Services Manager, Brittany Ward, Assistant Public Works Director, Engineer, Travis Eckerman, Assistant City Engineer.

Ivan Hooper, Transportation Engineer, and I think that's it.

And then we have Aisha over here running the meeting in the planning division.

Okay, all right, thanks.

Uh okay, so to kind of address um the procedures this evening, uh, we'll for each of the items that are on the agenda.

Uh we will have the staff introduce the item afterwards, the applicant will have the opportunity to uh provide some comments if they would like.

Um, and then the staff would like to have additional comments, they can come back up afterwards on that.

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

And then uh uh after we've listened to the comments, we will then close uh public comment and open the item up for planning commission deliberation and a motion.

And so we'll begin with our uh first item, uh, which is a fall the Falls Creek subdivision.

Uh and Thomas, are you able to do the both items to present it together?

The special exception and the subdivision review.

Yeah, those will be presented together.

Okay, so this is uh a two-lot sub two lot subdivision by Ivory Homes.

Um it's they're looking at preliminary subdivision or review and a special exception approval for the properties at 2873 and 2851 Los Houlevard.

Um this property is currently zoned, PUD zoning, uh, planned unit development.

Um it consists of two existing parcels that will be reconfigured to be two buildable lots.

So as you can see here, um the current property line, the one in the front was part of the Drake subdivision plat that's been a recorded lot and is definitely a buildable lot.

The one in the back is basically a remnant lot that uh everything around it has developed and it's landlocked and does not have street frontage.

So this proposal consists of modifying that existing property line and replacing it with the one you see in red, which will provide both both lots to have street frontage and meet the zoning requirements for buildable area.

And uh they are also proposing to connect the access from the southwest corner where there's an existing approach, and that will provide access across the front.

Um a couple things to mention about this lot is it is in the sensitive overlay zone.

The gray areas you see have been designated as sensitive area, and all of the conditions of the sensitive overlay will apply to this lot as well.

Um the special exceptions they are seeking are basically associated with street frentages.

On this side of Wasatch Boulevard, there's currently no street improvements, curb, gutter sidewalk, and uh what's going on with that is the the city's agreed to go into an uh cash out agreement for curb and gutter at that location at a future time.

The city will install it, so we're not requiring the developer to install it, but they are seeking special exception to not provide the sidewalks and the park strips at that location, and that would line up with the character of that site of Wasatch Boulevard.

And I do believe Ivory was going to have a representative here tonight.

Okay.

Did you want to present?

Um I don't mean to.

I think that's great.

Okay.

Okay.

All right.

So is there any uh questions of staff or applicant then?

I could just quickly go through some of the review of this.

Um, this is a plan development.

This zoning is, meaning there's much flexibility given to the planning commission to impose setbacks and locations and various open space on these lots.

Um, the current DRIC subdivision, which applies to the lot on the front, specifically stated that the setbacks would be associated with our existing R110 zoning district, which is in keeping with the the neighborhood conditions currently.

Staff recommends that we continue with that on both of these lots.

Umerneath this subdivision review process, some of the things that we reviewed was the sensitive overlays.

And I should mention that one of the reasons we are in agreement of the special exception request is that we just went on a site visit, and as you may recall, there's there's a significant drop off of Wasach Boulevard, and to cut into that wall would be cutting into what we consider sensitive areas 30% grades or more.

And so Ivory is proposing to rebuild and and and uh basically restore the wall where it's been damaged over the years and continue to use an existing approach on the southwest side.

Um, this is being done to preserve that sensitive area in that one corner.

Let me go back to that drawing here.

So that you can see up there on the the north, the northeast side.

That's that way they don't have to bisect in front of that lot with another curb cut and drive approach and affect that area.

Um, it should be mentioned too that the back ends of this lot do slope off significantly.

We've had several residents ask us what will be how we handle storm water and drainage at those locations.

Umerneath the subdivision review, we do want to look at drainage for the street streets that are in front of this lot, but the individual lots themselves, those drainage plans will be associated with the building permit at a future date, so it's not really part of this review.

However, Ivory has done their they're currently did some geological studies and they're looking at um percolation testing and water retention, and they will definitely meet uh Sandy's requirements, but that will be handled through the building permit process.

Um, another thing that was mentioned is that this is in the it was asked if this was in Pepperwood, and neither of these lots were part of the pepperwood subdivision plat, so they would not fall within that group of homes.

Um of the residents asked about fault lines.

There are all no fault lines here.

Um, as far as seismic concerns, that'll be addressed under the building permits as well when the homes are actually proposed.

We're not reviewing any elevations or plans for homes.

Um various applic uh neighbors also asked about the setbacks and the height limitations.

The standard height would apply the 35-foot height limitation, and with the sensitive overlays, we can't specifically say where the homes are going to be, but they would have to meet that uh average of 20 feet off of the grade area and no closer than 10 feet to any of those.

So homes on each lot would definitely be far forward of where the lots do drop off at the back.

Um, the last thing I do recall someone asking about was traffic.

Um, using the existing shared approach from the Drig subdivision that you see there at the bottom of the drawing, it's a 20-foot wide approach on this property.

It does serve both this lot and the one adjacent to it.

Let's see, I think I have a picture of that.

Where the the bottom right corner where you see those entry features, those are those are existing entry features, which designate where that shared approach exists.

So no additional approaches are going to be at this location.

The only additional traffic will be enough to serve one additional residence.

So that's kind of the highlights.

Um, as far as the special exceptions go, um, the city, like I said, will provide the curb and gutter at a future date.

We just don't want to control storm water coming down the street unless we have storm water system to serve it, and that's definitely going to be a future project that the city's gonna be performing.

And I think that covers it.

Any questions?

Correct.

Later on when they go to the building plans.

They will have to comply with those, and we're requiring to show them on the plat so that they're clearly designated, and so that staff when we review it, can ensure that they meet their compliance with the plenty of land there, it looks like without going down.

Correct.

I just didn't know if they planned on building on the sensitive area, which is another issue later on.

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

Okay, right.

And lately the city engineer has been requiring uh there to be fencing along the 30% slope lines.

Is that going to be required on this as well?

Like temporary construction fencing.

It's really what they're using it for is to demark where the sensitive area starts, right?

So you know where the boundary is, is what you're talking about.

So that it doesn't get impeded.

They've used that on others.

Yeah.

Um Brittany Ward, City Engineer, we only require it when it's needed, and there's an unclear area, and it's unclear where that 30% line is.

So it's situational basis.

Okay.

Okay.

Any other questions?

Yeah, chair, I'd have a funny housekeeping.

So I was just looking at this map, and it shows that lot on the right is 2877.

But in the staff report it has it as 2851.

Because I'm going to re-address that when this is complete.

Okay.

They will be readdressed, that's why they're showing the revised addressing.

Okay.

So our motions will be proper.

For the way the land is today, yes.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, catch.

Okay.

Um any other questions.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

Uh so we will now open this up uh for public comments.

So if you do have public comment uh for this item, if you could come up to the podium and state your name and address, and again keep your comments to two minutes.

Go ahead.

Yeah.

Good evening.

My name is Benson Lewis, and I live at Seven Snow Forest Cove, which is immediately north and down the hill from where these two lots are.

I'm here with my neighbor uh Reed Evans, who lives right next door to me.

Craig actually did a lot of the work when we designed our home 18 years ago.

Reed built his home about 16 years ago.

And our other neighbor, um Todd Eaves, is on, he's in New York today, but he's joining us, and he has uh some more comments that he'd like to make.

Uh our big concern is we we have we want to be good neighbors to these people.

We don't we don't have any problem with any of that, but we are downhill from where this is, and um and we've had storms where neighbors across Wasatch have told us about all the water that has come across Wasatch and flooded onto this onto this parcel.

It's flat and the water just goes away.

But now all of a sudden we're going to introduce a lot of concrete, a lot of roofs, and in this uh meeting that was held the other day, they told us, well, we're gonna contain the water on the back end, which is just above our properties, and we're really nervous.

We want to make sure that we don't get it with that we don't get something different than what we've had before.

And uh we asked for geotech reports.

I'm disappointed that we we didn't get any response from anyone at the city when we reached out, and I don't know what the procedure should be, but we were disappointed that we didn't get anything back.

We feel like we're taxpayers and homeowners, and and we wish somebody would have gotten back to us.

That's all I have, but we would like to have Todd have a chance to chat also.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Is there anybody else here physically that would like to speak?

Okay, Mike and Van Light.

If you are joining us via Zoom webinar, excuse me, and would like to speak to this particular item.

Please use the raise your hand feature now, and we'll address you one at a time.

Uh we've got two hands raised or three hands raised.

Uh, we'll go with David Chapman first.

Uh you may unmute yourself.

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

Okay, hi, good evening.

My name is David Chapman.

I am the owner of 11368, uh, South Pepper Circle.

Uh if someone somewhere can put in the uh maybe the QA or somewhere, an email address where I can also send a copy of the issues I want to raise, I would appreciate that.

I did put it in the QA, and I know it's not the right place.

I was informed by that by Mike Wilcock, so I apologize about that.

But um I want to request strict adherence to the um R110 height and set back standards, especially the 35 height limit and distances from the slopes.

Um there's a number of neighbors, uh, there's four of us on Pepper Circle, which are just above this, and we don't want it to obstruct our view.

But also, um, I think there's a bigger issue here of infill.

Um there is a link I'd love to share of a home that slid down uh in Draper due to unstable soil.

So we've got just common sense.

If you if you're ever near that area or at that area, look above that the drainage area above is absolutely massive.

And if we have a heavy snow and then a large thaw, um, this could be absolutely disastrous because that's where the water goes.

And if we add insill on top of that, um Lewis and Reed Evans are gonna have two homes, they're gonna come down on top of their homes.

And and so um, so I'd really like for there to be you know clear conditions that prohibit infill that could obstruct views and make for unstable soil.

Um I want to see public disclosure interview of the final building plans before construction to verify compliance with height and infill, make sure no infill is added in the in the next few weeks before another survey is done.

And um I'd love to send someone you know a link.

I mean, I'm sure we all saw those videos of homes that slid down a hill uh in Draper just a few years ago due to unstable soil.

So those are my those are my issues.

And lastly, I'll mention I lived in Squaw Valley, Olympic Valley, uh now known as Pacific Palisades, another great ski town, and the drainage area above that, you know, the people on the hill there was probably about one to one percent or five percent of what we're looking at above us, and there were massive mudslides, massive damage.

So there's there's really huge risks if this is not done right.

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

Okay, thank you.

Do you have any other items?

Two minutes are up.

Do you have any other items?

Uh no, that's that's all.

Would it uh you know I did put this in the QA with that help to uh send that by email to anyone, or uh are we good?

And you can see that my my issues that I brought up in the QA.

Yeah, we will we will address these after the comments are been made.

Uh thank thank you.

Okay.

Uh next we have uh Todd Eaves.

You may unmute yourself.

Thank you.

Uh members of the Sandy City Planning Commission.

My name is Todd Eves.

Uh I live at Five Snow Forest Cove, uh, Sandy, Utah.

Uh appreciate the opportunity to to address this body and uh appreciate you taking the time to uh to listen to some of our concerns um uh about this development.

Um I'm joined by well I'm sorry I can't be there in person, but I'm joined by a number of my esteemed neighbors in the audience.

Um we would like to formally express some of our concerns regarding the proposed development of residential building lots as part of the Falls Creek estate subdivision.

Well, we certainly understand the need for housing.

This project presents several significant public safety environmental concerns, the lack of public transparency and/or have yet to be adequately addressed in previous meetings or planning documents.

As a result, we would strongly urge the Sandy City Planning Commission to provide public transparency and adequately address the concerns noted that I will note uh before moving forward with the application.

The first one I'd like to touch on is significant geotechnical hazards.

The proposed development site is situated on a mountain side with 30 plus degree slopes in the area with uh with uh building residential structures in this high-risk zone raises immense safety concerns regarding uh slope stability, the potential for landslides and structural failure during an earthquake or severe weather event poses a significant risk to future residents and surrounding properties.

Therefore, I would request the commission ensure the developer provides independent peer-reviewed geotechnical reports that are made public before any consideration of approval.

Two increase flooding risk and stormwater runoff.

Developing the lots with significant mountain slopes will drastically alter the area's natural drainage patterns.

The increase in impervious surfaces will inevitably increase the volume and velocity of stormwater runoff.

This will exacerbate the risks of flooding, erosion, and debris flows directly threatening downstream properties, infrastructure, and public safety.

The proposed stormwater management plan must be robustly scrutinized to ensure it can handle extreme weather events which are becoming more frequent.

Traffic hazards and inadequate ingress and egress.

The plan in Greece ingress and egress point for the development presents a traffic safety hazard.

Mr.

Mr.

Eve, I think this was all presented in your in the packet to us previously, correct?

Uh I didn't know it had been.

Yes, it had.

So I think we'd we've received your comments already.

I should I apologize.

I should have looked, I should have read that I should have mentioned that previously.

My apologies to the to the commission, and I'll I'll stop wasting your time.

If uh if we can just have that read into the record, that would be great.

It is.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Appreciate your time.

Okay, next uh we have Mr.

Steve Van Merrin.

You may unmute yourself.

Oops.

Hear me?

Can you hear me?

Yes, go ahead, Steve.

My internet is unstable.

I hope I my message gets through clearly.

We can hear you.

Uh I'm concerned about the about the frontage on Lost Edge Boulevard.

Normally, if you just have driveways coming off, you'd be able to widen the street and the driveways would resume use.

But in this case, you could widen the street and cut into the planned approaches.

I just want to make sure the width of the street is adequate for future traffic.

You needs I know it's part of the uh plan to extend the use utilization of Los Angeles Boulevard, and it may need to be widened.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Steve.

Those are all the hands that I see raised.

Okay.

All right.

Uh thank you.

Um, so we will close this item for public comment now.

And uh why don't we have you come up and and address the uh comments that have been made?

Um I think anything we might as well have Britney come up as well because there's issues on the geotech and things like that.

That'd be great at this point.

Well, I could start a little bit on the drainage.

Um they they do they have provided a drainage plan, although that is not required right here, is where they're proposing.

You'll see on the back those retention basins that they're proposing.

Uh, they're in the process of calculating how much water retention they're gonna need on the site to meet our requirements.

Um, but as I said earlier, that that is not part of the purview of a subdivision review, that's part of the purview of a building permit review, and so that will be something that will be reviewed when they submit for their building plans.

And and if the public would like to see those as well, how would they be able to see what has been calculated and the private geotech reports are not so yeah, they they can submit a grammar request, and we can't provide copies of those because it's proprietary information, but they can um make an appointment with staff through that grammar request process, um, and then they can make an appointment to view the files that are um that the city has, but we can't provide copies of those.

Brittany Ward, city engineer, that is correct.

We will allow them to come to my office in person and review the reports, but we want to allow them to have copies.

If they do want their own copy of it, they will have to request that specifically from the uh geotech engineer.

Okay, and then maybe um, I think we had a discussion.

Well, so for everybody's understanding as a planning commission, we could go on a bus and take a look at these sites beforehand and and review them.

Uh, and uh get the opportunity to kind of physically see what's on there.

And we had a discussion with regards to the water like from Wasatch Boulevard that might be going through there.

Maybe if you could address those issues as well.

Yeah, certainly.

So a lot of Wasuch Boulevard does not have street improvements currently on it.

Street improvements include curb and gutter, park strip, and sidewalk, and this property is no exception.

There is not curb and gutter in front of it right now to handle that stormwater runoff from the roadway.

So currently that water runoff is going into this property and adjacent neighboring properties.

In order to require a development to install improvements on a roadway, it has to be a reasonable request.

And because the roadway lacks those improvements, including storm drain infrastructure and leads and pipes and such, that would be extremely over and beyond the capabilities and the intent of what this development is doing.

So we have offered them to do a cash agreement with them in which they will provide the city with funding to install those improvements so that when the city comes in with a project in the future, then we can use that funding to cover the improvements in front of this property.

If neighboring developers develop properties and install improvements, and we slowly connect those along down the roadway, and where it becomes a possibility for the city then to use that cash money to install improvements of this property, we will do so as well at that time.

In the meantime, the property will have to continue to accommodate that stormwater runoff.

When they submit for a building permit, public utilities will require them to submit drainage calculations.

Those drainage calculations will take into account different year storm events, such as a 10-year event or a hundred-year event, to see how much stormwater runoff and flooding will occur on the property itself and as runoff from the roadway.

They will then be required to accommodate that stormwater runoff according to our city standards.

Our public utilities department also has a planned project here to address the current stormwater runoff issues because this property, like we know, takes the storm takes the water runoff from the streets, and we don't like to put public water runoff into our onto the private systems.

And so they're currently coordinating with the developer right now to do a project here to pipe and properly convey that stormwater runoff back into our city systems rather than onto the properties behind it.

So I'm not sure which will come first.

That's something that the developer is working out with the public utilities department to see if public utility is going to come first and address the stormwater runoff through piping, or if these properties will temporarily house the stormwater runoff from the street when they develop until public utilities comes in with their project.

Through retention sizing.

Correct.

Yes.

They will check existing fields on the site.

As this site is adjacent to Wasatch Boulevard, there is likely excavation soils from the uh Wasuch Boulevard when it got built on the site, which are definitely unstable soils and just fill material and not native ground.

So those borings for the geotech report will core down into the road into the property, make some cuts, find where that native soil is, and then make recommendations as to the foundations that need to be built for the homes and what type of soils that the homes need to be built on and how deep.

So that will all be addressed.

When the developer comes in for the building permit, the conditions will be will be made better.

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

Okay, and then I'll also the comments about fill being brought into the site, not just existing fill that might be there, but also fill being brought in there.

There are gonna be there are standards that would limit or prohibit some aspects of that fill, too.

So maybe just address that too.

Yeah, that's a correct.

That will all be reviewed with the geotech report after they determine the existing conditions of the soil on the site.

They will recommend several things.

Number one, that the existing fill materials that are not structurally sound or not engineered filled fill, they may request that those get removed if they're significant amount on site, and then new engineered fills be brought in so that the structures can be built upon it, or they'll require that the non-engineered fills be moved aside and they built build on that foundation of native soil.

Really, a lot of that just depends on the geotech investigations.

But if soil is brought in on site and that's ends up being determined that that's what the geotech engineer recommends, um those soils will be structurally sound and certified that they are by the geotech geotech engineer.

I would also add that that's part of the reason why we're allowing that driveway to be a downsloping driveway off of that existing access on the south side, so that those homes can be built closer to natural grade.

If we required a typical driveway which would slope back towards the road, a massive amount of fill would have to be brought in uh in order to have those homes and they be super elevated out of the ground.

So that's another reason why beyond access and other things, we're having them bring uh bring that driveway access around and uh closer to the native grade.

Lower level.

Correct.

I I want to mention one more thing.

The front lot has always been a developable lot.

It's always had development rights.

It's the lot behind it that's remnant that is being added.

So, in a sense, we're only looking at the increase of one more lot that's existing and making it a lot that can be truly developed.

Otherwise, it would remain a landlocked feature that could not be developed as all the properties around have already developed.

Okay.

And then Thomas, maybe address there were some comments about the R110 application.

And I think you already previously said that the the that zoning is what will rule as it relates to the review of the homes when they come across.

Correct.

It already does.

It it did apply to the lots that have already developed in the trick subdivision along Wasatch, and we wanted to continue that because a big part of this parcel is already part of that.

It's an existing part of the Drigs is just being modified.

And we feel that that is an equitable requirement.

It it matches the character of the neighborhood.

You're gonna see similar setbacks, similar heights that all neighbors enjoy currently.

Um there was some discussion about Wasat Boulevard width.

I don't know that that I'm not I I think I couldn't quite understand his comment, but I think he was wondering if there was any plans to widen Wasch Boulevard.

I not really part of this review.

Brittany.

Yeah, Brittany again.

Um right now we don't have any uh plans in the master plan to widen Wasatch Boulevard based on the outcome of the Highland Drive EIS, though, that could become a possibility in the future.

Should that EIS be done and uh determined that the corridor is not needed, so any widening or future improvements of Wall Satch additions to Vostotch Boulevard besides standard curb and veteran sidewalk improvements right now, it is not planned.

Okay.

All right.

Uh we catch everything.

I have a question.

Yeah.

Um I know that in the past, neighbors are not required to be notified when a building permit is applied for.

It sounds as though in this case they would like to know when that's gonna happen so they can look at the GO report and that kind of thing.

Is there is there any vehicle that we can use to help them know that the building permit has been applied for I think at what point could they look at a geotech report, really is what he's asking.

I mean, when Brittany, when at what point could they, if they want to come down and see one at what point is that usually available?

Um would you say well, we do require before we approve the building permit.

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

Yeah, Mike makes a good comment.

We don't know when they're gonna submit when they submit.

It could be weeks, it could be a month, it could be two weeks.

We we don't really point for the neighbors.

Uh we don't notify these are administered when it's a good idea.

That's an administrative review.

Um, it's not a public uh review process for getting a building permit.

So we do not provide public notice when a building permit is going in.

Um there's really not a vehicle to um provide notice uh of neighbors when a building permit is being submitted.

We do review those uh following all of the standards that are in our development code to including the sensitive area overlay.

Brittany and Ward and our uh public works department and public utilities also participate in that building permit review process to ensure all engineering standards are being addressed.

Um just like anything that's done in the public, you can file a grammar request and request a review and see those records when they are submitted.

But if um the record isn't there, we can't provide them either.

And and Brittany, you did mention that uh all of these additional tests are gonna be uh reports would be part of the building permit, none of them part of the subdivision review, correct?

Correct, they'll be part of the building permit process.

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

So that's probably the approach at this point.

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

I see an ivory homes representative.

Is it possible to have Ivory agree to notify the neighbors back there?

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

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

Yeah, I know I know there's no city requirement.

I'm asking Ivory if they would be willing to do that.

I'm not sure we can't do that.

You want to come up in a transition.

Is that something legally that we can just curious?

No, I don't think so.

I like your I'd like to read comments.

What's that?

I like the comment you said regard regarding just watching when the dirt's and that's usually the time that you see.

If you see dirt turn, that's your notice, I think.

Uh at this point there.

And they do have our contact information, they're welcome to come by and like like we've said, we can show them the plans.

They're not allowed to make copies.

We're not gonna provide it to them.

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

Correct, and it's definitely not part of the subdivision review process.

That's just moving this property line.

Yeah, okay.

Um, I do thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um, I just really appreciate and it I'm reminded of the full confidence I have in staff here in the city.

Um, thank you for taking the time to really walk through all of this and to explain to us what the process is, and you know that you're gonna adequately we're all gonna adequately make sure that you know properties are developed appropriately.

So thank you for that, and um I have no other questions.

Just want to re remind everybody that we've got a great staff that can do their jobs well on this.

Yeah, thanks, Lee.

Okay, any other comments?

Okay, thank you.

I think okay.

I'd already closed it the public comment, right?

Okay, so uh any other discussion amongst uh the planning commission.

I'm ready for a motion.

Okay, make the the motion that the planning commission approve the requested special exception for the Falls Creek Estate subdivision located at 2873 and 2851 East Wasatch Boulevard to not provide full street improvements in front of the development based upon the three findings as um written in the staff report.

Okay, do we have a second?

I'll second Cameron Duncan, yes, Lenny Stavenport, yes, Ron Mortimer?

Yes, Jennifer George, yes, Steve Rigley, yes, Craig Kitterman, yes, Dave Bromley, yes.

This motion carries.

Okay, good luck.

Well, sorry, we got one more.

Yeah, let's do another one there.

All right, make the motion that the planning commission determine the preliminary subdivision review for the Falls Creek Estate subdivision located at 2873 and 2851 East Wasatch Boulevard is substantially complete based on the following findings and subject are the three findings and the eight conditions as outlined in the staff report.

Okay, do we have to do that?

I'll second that motion.

Cameron Duncan?

Yes, Lenny Stappenport, yes.

Ron Mortimer, yes, Jennifer George, yes, Steve Rigley, yes, Craig Kitterman.

Yes, Dave Bromley?

Yes.

This motion carries now.

Good luck.

Mr.

Chair.

One other item that we've I forgot to address was the question of views and protection of views.

Okay.

Just uh for way of note.

Um the state of Utah does not allow us to um protect views, view corridors and things like that through we just have building height standards that we have.

Um, and that's what we apply.

So 35 feet is the maximum building height from average finished grade is the standard that we have in Sandy City.

So just a point point of clarification there.

That was one other item that was brought up in the public comment.

Uh thanks, Mike.

Okay.

So we are now moving to is it Iona?

How do you just pronounce that?

Iona EV charging station of preliminary modified site plan review.

Okay, all right, Doug.

Yes, Doug Wheelwright, development services manager in the planning division.

It's my pleasure to uh bring this item before the planning commission today.

Um the applicant is here.

Um it is requesting preliminary site plan review, proposed conversion of a vacant gas station site into an electric vehicle charging station.

Uh the conversion of the old gas station site involves retaining the existing pump island canopy and adding two new canopies, remodeling of the existing 1,230 square foot building into a customer waiting area, and the placement of 12 EV vehicle charging points, and adding the necessary utility infrastructure and re-landscaping.

At this point, I think it'd be best if we maybe looked at the exhibits to particularly if uh anyone from the uh public is here to look at this.

So this is this shows the site.

It's on 106 south, is on the north.

Uh this is the uh Automall commercial area, the new Maverick stores right here.

Uh, this has been a gas station since 1985.

Um they had leaky underground storage tanks, and the site's been remediated, they have the no further action certification from the state.

It has been vacant for a number of years and it's become an ISO.

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

Oops, sorry.

Always hit the wrong button.

So, this is the new site plan.

We're keeping the building, keeping the canopy.

We're adding two new canopies, one here and one over here, and four charging stations under each of these, and there'll be four charging stations here.

This will continue as it is now to connect the east and west sides of the site underneath the canopy.

Uh this is the landscaping that will be relandscaping the site, expanding this landscaped area quite a bit.

Let's see, I was pushing the wrong button again.

Well, this is what their uh this is their branded canopy for Iona.

Um just a single support support just on one side of the canopy and then can leave it over to the site, and that's what the charging point uh equipment looks like.

There'll be one of those in front of each charging station.

With that, I'd like to turn it over to the applicant for his presentation.

Okay, great.

Come on up.

Thank you.

Good evening, Commissioners.

My name is Andres.

Pull that over.

Just speak into the mic there.

Good morning.

Good evening, Commissioners.

Uh, my name is Andres.

I I am a site development manager for IONA, particularly working on this site.

Fun fact, I grew up off of 7th East and 8400 South, so childhood spent in Sandy.

So it's a bit special for me to be developing this in my old neighborhood.

But um, representing IONA, we are fully private funded uh EV charging station.

Uh we're building hundreds sites across the United States by end of this year.

Very aggressive goal.

And in year two, we're focusing more on the preenfuck aspect sites.

We want to attract customers to come in off the highway, go charge, hang out in the lobby, which is the intent of the building we're gonna have there.

Offer some vending restrooms, 24-7 access for people to just hang out while their cars charge.

Uh, as far as the chargers, we're gonna be offering full level three charging for our customers, both CCS and NAX plug.

So the North American charging standard, commonly known as the Tesla plug, and the other standard CCS uh with the level three fast charging, it'll bring the car depending on the year of the car from zero to 80 percent in about half an hour and a full charge within an hour to an hour 20.

Uh, we're very excited about this project.

We realize that we found a perfect station to come and redo with the Iona branding colors, spruce it up a little bit, and unify that road.

Super excited for this project and open to any questions the commission may have.

Any questions?

Yeah, I just have a couple of curiosities.

What happens if you're really popular and you have more than 12?

Is there places to park as you prepare to because you don't want to lose your space on here?

Sure.

How do you?

I'm sure you guys deal with this, but how do you deal with it?

Is there places to park to for these people preparing to get into one of the big this 12 slots should they need to?

That is a good question.

At this point in time, we don't anticipate high utilization, if not for a few more years now into the future.

We do have some queuing in mind, uh, but if anything has the site develops and our use increases through PlugShare AV notifications or how our technology evolves, we'll find a way to add queuing either digitally, but to answer your question directly.

Right now we don't have queuing on site.

Any other questions?

I have a basic question.

Is Iana?

IONA is that the charging network?

So in other words, like are you like right now?

If I go charge somewhere, it could be like charge point or so I would charge with with Iona.

Yes, ma'am.

Okay, cool.

Nice.

Thank you.

Are you is this do you is this your first facility in Utah?

Our first one was in Beaver, Utah, actually.

Nice.

So we had a four-charger setup down there off I-15.

Yeah, okay.

That's a big one.

Right.

Thank you.

It's actually a fun fact.

The Beaver Utah size one of our highly utilized sites.

So and I developed that one too.

So again, Utah Native, super proud of these projects.

So anytime we get a new Utah site, I I call it Dibs.

Good job.

Okay.

Any others?

Any other questions?

All right.

Uh so Doug, do you have an additional items?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um maybe at this point it's it would be easiest uh just to see if you have questions of me.

Yeah, any questions of Doug?

Okay, all right.

Good.

Okay, thanks, Doug.

All right, so um we'll now open this item up for public comment if there's anyone here present that would like to comment if you come up to the podium.

Okay, seeing none, Mike, is there any are they online?

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

We do have one hand raised.

Um, Mr.

Alton White.

You may unmute yourself.

Yeah, can you guys hear me?

Yes, go ahead.

State your name and address for the record, please.

Uh my name is Alton White.

I live at 618 Wilderness drive out by New Utah.

Um, I would love to see this site become a uh a charger because there's not really too many chargers in this area, and I is a great charging network.

And yeah, I just love to see this become as an EV driver become a uh charging site.

All right, thank you, Walton.

Anyone else, Mike?

I see no other hands raised.

So staff is recommending that the planning commission approve this site preliminary site plan review.

Okay, all right, thanks, Doug.

All right, so we'll close this uh public comment and open up for planning commission deliberation and motion.

I'm ready for a motion.

Great.

As described in the staff report for the property located at 151 west, 1060 south, based on the two findings and the eight conditions.

Okay, do we have a second?

I'll second it.

Jennifer George, yes, Steve Wrigley?

Yes.

Cameron Duncan?

Yes, Ron Mortimer.

Yes.

Craig Kitterman?

Yes.

Dave Bromley?

Yes.

This motion carries.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

All right, good luck there.

Thank you.

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

Yeah, we'll we'll present uh both of these items at the same time with two separate motions.

Yes, that's okay with great planning commission.

Uh this item is uh submitted by David Kelly of DR Horton.

Uh, they're um representing the property owner interim capital, LLC.

Uh, it's shown here on the map, um, area in question there.

Uh they are proposing to develop 63 residential townhome units in accordance with the previously approved mixed use master plan for this area.

That uh master plan was reviewed by the planning commission earlier this year.

Um they've gone through uh several cycles of plan review and submitted this um project as uh shown in the application materials, and I believe the applicant is here and can present on this item, and then staff will follow up with any additional information.

Good evening, commissioners.

Thank you for your time.

David Kelly with DR Horton.

So did you have anything else in there in the slides?

Yes, okay.

Okay.

So yeah, we'll we'll be uh building 63 townhome units.

We've been working with the staff since the master plan amendment was approved back in uh February.

So we've been working through a number of issues on the site.

Um we all wish that it could be like 15 feet wider on the east side.

That'd make things a lot easier.

So 63 townhomes, two car garages, there'll be 2,198 square feet, four bedrooms, three baths.

So we're not talking small, you know, little small townhome units, these will be for uh you know, targeted first-time home buyers and people looking to relocate into the city.

So yeah, that's pretty much what we're gonna be doing there.

Okay, Mike, are you gonna follow up with additional?

Yes.

So this site is uh a complicated and difficult site because it's an irregular shape, as you can kind of see.

It's also limited with access.

Um the only road uh that they would be able to have full vehicular access is from Harrison Street on the north side.

Um here is the main point of entry, and that is serviced through a central um alley system with two private pedestrian mews, private streets that uh anchor both the west and the east side of this project, as well as the north and south of the east uh end of the development.

Uh this does terminate here at the end of the property.

We are um asking them to get a cross-access agreement here at the end to allow for reciprocal access into the MVP parking lot that's on the north side of the development and east side of the development.

Um that would be a secondary ingress and egress out of this development because this is the sole point of access for these 63 units.

Future uh reciprocal access would be at this point here, shown on the map.

Um, that um would allow for uh further connectivity of the overall mixed-use master plan for future development.

The existing access that's on 90 South would be utilized only as a write-in write-out emergency access.

Um, and so it would be um prohibited from being used as a typical entry or access for the development, and only for emergency vehicles and or in the event that um one of the other access points was cut off due to a water line break or something like that.

Um this project is uh located in the Cairns district.

Um, it's part of an overall mixed-use area.

The properties surrounding that uh were all part of the former uh Larry Miller um car lot and dealership.

The Arcadia apartments to the north uh were redeveloped under this mixed-use master plan.

This is the next uh piece of to that puzzle, and then we anticipate further redevelopment of the rest of the site to follow that uh mixed use development pattern that has been established and approved by the planning commission.

Uh they are seeking several um exceptions to the Cairns development standards for this uh particular location, and we can kind of go through those and explain that what what's being sought and and uh what's being offered as development enhancements to offset the impact of not complying with those standards.

So is the combination park strips along Ninety of South, essentially following a um a revamped um public improvement of park strip, sidewalk, street trees, uh street lights, etc.

along the 90th south frontage.

Because of what's called the no access line, um their current understanding is that UDOT would restrict them from redeveloping most of that frontage and leaving it as is.

If so, uh that would qualify as a as a hardship that they would not necessarily need to comply with with that standard.

But what they are offering is to provide what would have been required uh implemented into the park strip and in form of street trees and other things behind the sidewalk and enhance that landscaping behind.

So that's what they're looking to offset in that particular aspect.

The other request that they're seeking involve on street parking on Harrison Street.

Let's get to this.

This will work.

So typically we require additional widening along the street so that there's on street parking outside the travel lane that would service the development.

They are able to count any on-street stalls towards their overall off-street parking requirement in the Cairns district.

But they're opting to seek an exception to that standard and provide off-street parking that meets the minimum standard for city code off of the that would be accessed off of this alley system.

Part of that is because of the constrained nature.

If that were to be widened out, that pushes those townhomes further south, further pinch points would occur with the pedestrian mews as well as reducing the overall open space that they're providing.

And so let's see building an articulation.

Let me get to the building elevations that they're proposing.

So let's go back up.

So this is a perspective view of their proposed building elevations.

So a couple of items that they're seeking exception on.

So typically we're in the Cairns district, we require a building base that has brick, stone, architectural metal, glass, or precast concrete as the base material.

They're proposing fiber cement siding, two different types, and stucco as the primary building materials for these units.

So they're seeking an exception to that standard.

They're also articulated on the front elevation, but not on the other three sides.

So the Cairns design standards require greater articulation both on the side as well as on the rear of those units.

So there's no pop-out undulation movement of that building like there is on the front elevation.

There's just change of materials on the sides of the building, but not any building articulation of pop-outs, etc.

So they're seeking an exception on that as well.

Let's see.

They are seeking an overall exception for the driveway entrance width, which is typically limited to 24 feet.

Because this driveway access into the development is a fire lane.

This private alley serves as the fire lane access for fire department.

And due to the height of those townhomes, it is required to be a 26-foot width throughout that alley.

Um, a publicly accessible open space within a quarter mile of any residential unit.

That's the standard in the Cairns district.

Part of the reason for that standard is because we're changing an area that was developed as a commercial area and introducing residents into that mix.

Well, they they are not providing a publicly accessible open space, they are providing a privately accessible open space here on the west side of their development towards the middle.

So they are providing uh some type of recreation opportunities in a passive recreation form.

Um so while they're not meeting the full requirement, they're meeting some of the intent in that in that way.

Uh building setback along 90 South.

So typically we would we do require uh buildings to be built up to the street as opposed to being set back a certain distance.

Um in this case, they're looking to push those units further away from 90 south and not actually front those units onto the uh public street, and so they're seeking an exception for that.

Um there's also several um pinch points of the pedestrian mew that they're seeking an exception that would be less than the the minimum 20-foot uh width, and I'll point those out here on the map.

So that they would be pinched through this north uh west corner of the development, and and as it comes through here around this unit.

Also, further south, there becomes a pinch point through here as well as some of the parking, and this unit comes closer and pinches that uh total width down.

They would still maintain a 10-foot wide path, walking path, but there would be limited landscaping in certain points along that pedestrian court or pedestrian mew.

Let's see.

On the easterly side, so this dais court that's adjacent to the MVP facility, they're proposing a half-width pedestrian mew there, pedestrian street that would be complemented when and if the adjacent development, the MVP facility were to redevelop and build a new building.

So I can kind of show on this plan, it kind of shows where the existing MVP facility is right now.

There's a large open parking lot area to the east side.

That they could put that new building here and then redevelop this edge that they share with this townhome development with additional townhome or residential units that would complement and front onto that pedestrian mew.

So they're proposing to do 10 feet of a pedestrian street on that easterly side of their development and as opposed to the full 20.

So that's a lot of exceptions that we've got here, but they are also proposing several different development enhancements that would help offset the impact of not complying with those standards.

So they're proposing different things like utilizing saw cut concrete that cuts that concrete rather than scoring it traditionally, gives it irregular shapes and a unique uh feel and design to the area that make it distinct from other areas of the city.

They're proposing raised front porch areas on along the majority of the units.

They are providing uh a balcony along the front of each unit, um, which is a requirement for multifamily units.

These are considered single-family attached units and don't require that feature, but they are providing it for each unit that's at least a four-foot deep uh balcony, um elevated balcony on the front.

They're proposing to extend eyebrow ledges on the um corners of these units.

So you can kind of see that they have this covered uh door uh front door up on this corner that is actually the um the deck or balcony on above it.

They're proposing to kind of wrap those eyebrow ledges around the side to kind of further articulate that.

Um doesn't quite come to the full requirement for articulation in the building, but it does help.

Um they're proposing to have meandering landscaping along the mews to create some variety and not just a straight linear path, as well as providing um connections to the future uh dice court that's on the east side of the development that would uh allow for connectivity in the future to that adjacent development.

They are providing two pedestrian mews with this development, which is uh a positive.

It's helping break up this entire large big block and providing another way for pedestrians to get in and out of this particular area outside of going down to Monroe Street.

Um as I mentioned, they're providing a roughly 6,000 square foot open space area that would be a private open space rather than a publicly accessible one.

Uh they're proposing to use architectural lighting to help provide uh that would be photo cell control that would help provide pedestrian lighting along those uh uh pedestrian streets or mews as opposed to using bollard style lighting.

Uh they're in proposing to enhance the landscaping of the adjacent U-Dot lands.

So those are shown here on this landscape plan and those hatched areas.

Uh right now it's the typical U dot native seed mix that's unirrigated and unmaintained.

Um what they're proposing is to replace that with planted materials that is also irrigated and then would be eventually maintained by the city.

But they would install those improvements along that.

That could also include boulders, uh, bushes, shrubs, uh flowering uh type uh vegetation to help beautify that area and to make it look a little bit more along that Cairns Mountain Meats Urban Design ethos that we're trying to achieve in this district.

Um it would also beautify the area overall.

They're uh also proposing a primary gateway feature along this 90th South Corridor that would help brand the area as part of the Cairns district, give that name recognition and provide a uh kind of a sculptural piece along that corridor as well that would draw attention and branding to the district.

They're also proposing to install a Cairns branded uh pedestrian trail sign along that corridor as well on that 90 south frontage because there is a pedestrian trail that runs east to west along 90 south that would help provide directional uh uh guidance to any pedestrians on that trail.

So those would all be enhancements that they're uh proposing in exchange for the offsets and and the exceptions that they're seeking as part of this development.

That was a lot of information.

Um if there are any questions, please let me know.

Um let's see.

Um we addressed the gated access and and the cross access with the MVP facility.

That was a concern of ours.

That's one of the conditions that we've added to the report that they work out that cross-access agreement.

And then the other uh enhancement that we would like to see them implement is to implement a uh elevated raised um mount mounding of the area along this 90 south frontage where they're placing that um uh monument sign um and entrance gateway feature uh so that it helps enhance that similar to what uh Mountain America has done with the landscaping around the uh parking lot that sits out in front.

It kind of hides um conceals that, but also provides mountain style landscaping, rock uh and other uh features, granite boulders, uh trees and other things that give that kind of mountain meets urban uh feel to that area, even though the building itself didn't comply with the mountain meets urban design.

That was one of the offsets that they uh proposed was enhanced uh landscaping along that corridor and and elevated um landscaping through that corridor.

So that's one of the things that we think that could uh be added to the list of exception or uh development enhancements that they're seeking so that we can achieve that iconic landscape and structural feature that we were expected as uh result of the um master plan process that we went through with the city.

Um with that said, uh staff does recommend recommend that the planning commission determine that site plan review is complete for the Sandy Station townhomes located at 8925 South Harrison Street, and that uh subject to the findings and conditions there in the staff report, and then a second motion for the uh subdivision of this uh land so that they can be uh individually sold units, and staff recommends approval of that as well for the subdivision uh according to those findings and conditions in the staff report.

May I just add one comment as well, Mr.

Chair?

Um I just wanted to add that um in looking at this site overall, Mike just did a fabulous job with that as far as going over that.

But looking at this site overall, we drove it tonight.

You all went through it, we've all looked at this for 30 years.

This is an eyesore coming into Sandy City on off of 90 South.

It's it's not a pretty site as it currently stands.

Um I think what they're doing, we have an opportunity here that we haven't had in a long time to beautify this site, to have something productive on this site, um, and some of the enhancement that Mike talked about.

We have an opportunity to make 90 South look better here than it looks now.

I mean, they're building homes along 90th South, I-15, that's a that's a difficult area, but this is the type of housing that we would want there, and the type of housing that should be there.

We feel as far as uh as far as that goes, um, this is something that fulfills the need of the city as far as um getting an alternate type of housing in place as well.

It's uh uh something that will serve um diverse population and those with uh varying incomes.

So it's it's important to us both visually coming into our city to enhance this area.

We have an opportunity to do it, and it also serves several other needs that are important to the city as well.

Okay, thanks, James.

Um why don't we address any questions we might have first before we open up the public comment?

Uh any questions of staff or applicant?

I have a couple questions for the applicant, David.

I just want to start out by saying I agree with James.

I think you've done a wonderful job on squeezing a lot of houses into this little area, but I I do have a couple of questions.

I don't know if you remember from the rezone or when you were here in February.

Yeah.

I asked about what you were going to do to help make it affordable, and I think you called it attainable.

Um, some exceptions, right, with some other enhancements.

But could you maybe just talk to your letter in here where you said you want it to be an example of attainable housing without government subsidies that will be showcased at the state legislature?

So I guess kind of my big question is do you have anything in place to really make this be first-time home buyers or uh uh members of our fire department or police department and not be investors that just come in and swoop up a cheap property?

Yeah, so we we call it attainable housing because you know affordable housing is a legal definition, and so if we say it's affordable housing, then we'd fall under a bunch of other different codes and and regulations.

So we want it to be attainable, and that's why some of the design except the exceptions for the designs we're seeking.

Um if we were to use you know, uh brick or rock on the on the ground floor, the units would would cost about 10 to 15,000 dollars more a unit.

Um, and we are trying to keep these attainable.

Um we are willing to you know, we we want these to be marketed towards the first time home buyers.

As DR Horton, about 80% of our buyers are first-time home buyers, so it it's kind of that natural market for us.

Um we we did indicate to the city to the mayor, you know, that we'd be willing to come in before the marketing window opens, that we would come into the staff to first responders, to you know, uh school teachers and market them, market it them to them and give them kind of the first option to to purchase.

So, but we also right they if they're too if they're too cheap, then that's what brings in the the investors are like I can you know I can make money on the rent.

So that is that's what our intent is, and that's why it's some of the exceptions we're seeking.

Um, and then with regards to you know, having this be showcased, um, you know, Zach Hartman who represents interim capital is our broker, works a lot with the state with their affordable housing plan.

Um and you know, we're not coming in and saying, hey, you know, city, we need you to buy the site and donate the site to us in order to make this affordable.

It's you know, we're doing this with some some simple exceptions that accommodate uh that accommodate making these houses the housing attainable.

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

Um I'm happy to give a little couple of things.

Thank you.

So um who are you?

I represent the seller.

Um I kind of came in originally to this, I kind of I believe in this, and I kind of believe in two things on the housing side.

You have to get a unit cost that comes in under the median home price of a town, and you gotta make it so it's not subsidized because that just inflates the price.

We've kind of seen that.

You want to make sure that anyone that buys a house here doesn't have a deed restriction on their appreciation, otherwise they just become poor later, right?

And and I think those are the things I'm kind of pushing pretty hard.

I'm volunteering at the point to take out the next 60 acres, and the idea is to create something with the league and with the state that has kind of more of a comprehensive blend of how we actually deliver housing that people can buy that live here in the state of Utah, right?

And so I'm using this as a case study because we've done, and honestly, it's been a really interesting process to go through because Horton's the largest builder in the country, and then it's been great to watch Mike and James kind of work through the issues that we just have to exist as a city because Sandy's a nice place, right?

And there's things you need to do to keep it this way.

And and I think this is a pretty fair balance of the kind of everybody's been.

I think we've maximized what's available, but as far as the outlook here, we want to get it built, we want to have a story, we want to see people living there, and then we want to take the zoning and the outlay and the structure we use to kind of match the outcome.

And I think the outcome is gonna work.

I think um I think Nilson Homes did a really good job up north where they kind of identified who they were gonna open the forestall market to first.

And I think I think this if we mess that up on the on the Horton side, or then I think that that's a that'll be a miss, and we don't want to mess it up.

So I think you know we we won't know exactly where the final pricing comes out until they start finishing units because things keep moving all the time.

Maybe we'll get different tariff tomorrow, and you know, it will cost five percent more, five percent less.

Um so I think I don't know if that answers your question, but sorry to jump in, he's the expert.

No, it's okay.

I just I I mean, I think everybody agrees it's it's something a solution we want to figure out, right?

And we don't know what that looks like.

Um I just there's gonna do we do, you know it, right?

It's it's really simple.

Homes have to be completed in a shorter period of time so that Uncle DR's money gets counted shorter.

He's happy about that, buyers happy about that.

Pricing has to get a unit cost that drops so that it matches the current income increase to the housing increase spread.

We just have to cut it.

If the if the goal is median home price gets cut, no subsidy, no restriction, and you know, probably in five years from now, and I'm happy to sit down and map this out.

I think this problem's over.

Because anything that we start construction on in five years from today, basically you have enough of a population decline that comes out in 2035 that it's kind of not an issue, right?

Sorry, thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, additional questions?

Just marketing plans.

I mean, what keeps it, what percentage do you think will be written, basically by investors.

You sort of did that.

I mean, is there any idea or are your marking plan as to go?

How are you going to market it to these families so that that maybe gets around that?

So I I wish we brought in our sales team.

Um, right, like they they go out and they're they're knocking doors, they're they're hounding people, they're you know, it's yeah, so it's we we can't say that invest somebody wouldn't come in and pick up a unit or a couple units and and buy it, but that's certainly not the intent here, and it is you know, to really market it to that first-time home buyer.

Yeah, I'm sort of sensing that you want this to be a neighborhood that people actually live in and take care of and stuff, so that's nice but asking my question.

Okay, I've got a couple questions then.

Um maybe Mike, can you pull up?

Oh, yeah, that's what I wanted to look at.

Um and then uh just walk through the materials on the unit, the exterior material materials.

Do you want me to walk through it?

Or how do you walk through that?

Yeah, so this this rendering is a little bit old from what we are proposing.

Um so it's hardy board, hardy plank on the ground floor, um, and then a different uh a smaller reveal on the mid floor or then middle floor, and then we're going to have a party board.

Huh?

And that's also hardy board.

Yeah, it's just a different yeah, yeah.

So so instead of it being you know six inches tall, to you see it's it's yeah, I think it's two inches on the mid two or four.

I don't have that in front of me.

Okay, and then the the top would be a different uh reveal as well.

So, and that's something that we're we're working with our design department to try to make it feel but more of you know mountain meets urban that you do have that sense of scale that you know when you're looking up the the the maybe the the smaller reveal is higher up to where you kind of feel like it's it's a little bit higher.

Okay, and then the white is the stucco is yeah, okay.

Um and then Mike question for you.

I think that the only the only thing that I think as staff you've recommended uh for us to consider would be that enhanced the uh raised landscaping aspect of it, right?

Uh yeah.

Um okay, all right.

To clarify, we're we're looking at this area here where that monument sign would go.

This this area in question right there is where we'd be looking for that enhanced, mounted.

Yeah, it would also have the side effect of also helping buffer some of those uh units that are taking a lot of noise from the road from night to south and things like that as well.

So okay.

Okay, all right.

Any other questions?

Okay, thank you.

All right, so we will uh now open this up for public comment.

So if there's anyone here who has comment uh on this item, come forward.

Seeing none, 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 now, and we'll address you one at a time.

I'm not seeing any hands raised.

Okay.

All right.

Actually, I had one more question, David.

Uh you you were meant, so there were some aspects about ballards or lighting and so forth, and you're stating that you wanted to have that be from the the exterior of the home of the units.

Um would you have in your in your HOA docs some aspect about maintaining those?

Because I think that's probably an area where unit owners will you know, best of intentions don't happen on oftentimes on that aspect of it.

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

And it would be the HOA maintaining those, not the individual unit owners.

Yeah, yeah, makes sense.

I mean the HOA maintains the entire exterior of the buildings as well, so you know everything will be painted regularly and and cleaned regularly.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, so we'll close this to public comment now and uh open up for planning commission deliberation.

So I just want to make a quick comment that I think staff and um great job.

This is really tough site, tough location.

You don't have a nice layout of property and to be able to fit all in in there.

I I compliment you on it.

Nice job.

I want to put motion probably before that again.

Yeah, I think just the others may want to do some before we get to that point.

And again, maybe just uh a little discussion on that uh enhanced aspect of the landscaping because everybody feel comfortable about that aspect of it.

Okay, yeah, good.

Looks like you include that then.

Your motion right, hopefully.

Yeah, are we ready?

Any other comments?

All right, I'll then make a motion that the planning commission determine the preliminary site plan review for the Sandy Station town homes located at 8925 South Harrison Street is substantially complete based on the following findings.

Um the four five no, how many findings?

Five findings and uh nine conditions, including um the enhanced landscaping as discussed tonight.

I'll second Ron Mortimer, yes, Cameron Duncan, yes, Jennifer George, yes, Steve Wrigley.

Yes, Lenny Stavinport, yes, Craig Kitterman, yes, Dave Bromley?

Yes, this motion carries.

Okay, you can do the next one.

Yeah, I'll do the next one.

Give me a chance to get down there because I don't have it memorized, and we got it.

All right, thank you.

I make a recommendation that the planning that the planning commission determined that the preliminary subdivision review for the Sandy Station townhomes located at 8925 South Harrison Street is substantially complete based on the findings.

Two the two findings is subject to the seven conditions in the staff report.

I'll second.

Ron Mortimer?

Yes, Cameron Duncan?

Yes, Jennifer George, yes, Steve Brigley, yes.

Lenny Stabenport, yes, Craig Kitterman, yes, Dave Bromley, yes.

This motion carries okay.

As was mentioned before, it's I think it'll be a great project as well.

So good luck as you move forward there.

Okay, so move to some of the administrative business.

And so the first would be the minutes of the previous meeting.

I don't remember the date.

Uh November 6th meeting for minutes.

Motion to approve.

So moved.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Okay.

And then I have I have a couple things, and then I'll turn it over to Mike if he has anything.

Um just wanted to remind you of our December 1st holiday social.

And I usually need an RSVP for that, just so we can order the food and not over order too much.

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

Yes.

Hopefully, you can all come.

We usually have a very a very good time.

Or dig through your closet and find the one that you got last year or the year before that, or the year before that.

Um so try to get that to IC as soon as possible.

That is December 1st.

Just a reminder on that, and that is at the Mortimer's home.

And we're cathy still unaware, right?

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

Yeah.

We appreciate them uh making their home available.

And then also make sure that each one of you take a point set of it's right in front of here.

There's one for each of you from uh the mayor had given us those yesterday to make sure the planning commission gets one.

And if you forget, we know where you live.

Thank you.

Can I thank you?

Also, thank you for the the little thing, the little Thanksgiving.

So you give you okay.

Yes, thank you.

That arrived because we appreciate that.

Mike, do you have anything you want to bring up?

Uh the only thing that we've got, um looks like we'll have a meeting on December 4th, but possibly not on December 18th.

Darn it.

I know you'll be heartbroken if that doesn't come to come to pass.

The only hesitancy to cancel that one right away is that we won't have another meeting until January 18th.

Darn it.

So we we want to keep that open.

Uh uh if we have an applicant that needs to move forward with a with a project and get them processed timely.

Um and we'll know for sure by our next meeting on December 4th.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

All right, so we have a motion to adjourn.

Motion to adjourn.

All in favor?

Aye.

Thank you, everyone.

Make sure you grab your don't forget to grab your 27.