The Sandy City Planning Commission met on February 19, 2026, to conduct public hearings and make recommendations on two rezoning applications. The Commission forwarded a positive recommendation for the Fortner Rezone (4-2) and unanimously recommended approval of the 106 Church Rezone.
Recording in progress. Good evening and welcome to the planning commission meeting for February 19th. We'll do a quick round of introductions and then a pledge of allegiance and go from there. Start with planning commission staff. Cameron Duncan. Jennifer George. Danny Schoenfeld. Dave Bromley. Ron Mortimer. Steve Wrigley. And then James, do you want to introduce staff? Yeah. We have a few staff members here with us tonight. I'll just ask them to raise their hand as I introduce them, and each of them will be participating in the meeting tonight. My name is James Sornson. I'm the community development director. Mike Wilcox, the planning director, is here with us. Brittany Ward, assistant public works director. And Ivan Hooper is transportation engineer who's back here with us. And then I Ish over here is the planning secretary with us tonight. Thanks. All right. We'll do if you could please rise and we'll do a quote Pledge of Allegiance. We'll go from there. And to report which stands one nation under God inevitable with a liberty and justice for all. Our first public hearing item tonight is the Fortner rezone. Jake, I think you've got that one. Good evening, uh planning commission. Uh for the public, Jake Warner, long-range planning manager for the city. Uh the city has received a rezone application for property located at 8564 South, 10th East. The application is requesting a zone change on the property from the R110 zone to the RM12 zone. Property, there's two parcels involved. The property total is is approximately uh.65 acres. The um as I mentioned, the property is currently zoned R110. It was a recently annexed into the city and given that zone at that time. It is surrounded by um unincorporated county property zoned A1 in the county to the north, and then RM12 and R210 zoned properties to the east. R210 zoned properties to the south, and an SDR17 uh zoned property to the west. The property, as I mentioned, was recently annexed in the city, so it was not part of the city when the city's general plan was done, which uh includes the future land use map. Um but we do have an annexation plan in the general plan that shows kind of that missing puzzle piece indicating what that land use would be when it comes into the city, which it has now. And so that puzzle piece, um, that missing puzzle piece is shown in that cutout window, and it's designated as medium density neighborhood. Again, not all of that area in that puzzle piece came into the city with the annexation, just a portion of that, including the subject property. Um that uh the subject property is designated as medium density neighborhood on the feature land use map, which allows for up to uh 12 units per acre, and then um and that matches the properties to the south and to the east of the subject property. There's some other pockets in that area that are also designated as medium density neighborhood in the area. Um the majority of that area is designated as low density neighborhood, which would be that lighter beige color on the map. The applicant has submitted a concept plan um showing their intent to uh develop the property for six units. This would um according to the concept plan, they're showing a four-plex on 10th east and a duplex um back behind to the west. They have also submitted um conceptual elevations of um what the architecture would be. This is a change from what was shown at the neighborhood meeting. The neighborhood meeting was held on January 21st. Um my understanding is that they've attempted to address some of the neighbors' concerns as far as the architecture, and so this is uh a different elevation than the than what was shown at that time.