Live stream not working in Chrome or Edge? Click Here
No Bookmarks Exist.
All right. Good evening. We have the Planning Commission work meeting, May 7th, 2024. We are absent. Commissioners Cunningham and 00:00:00
Vilcinski, all other commissioners are present, along with Legal counsel and city staff Carrie Marsh and John Terling. And we 00:00:06
have. 00:00:13
Two agenda, 3 agenda items tonight, one public hearing and. 00:00:21
Two action items, the subdivision approval and minutes. So with that John or Carrie, whoever wants to carry us into the mixed-use 00:00:30
planned unit development for I think this is the one we saw three weeks ago or. 00:00:37
Four weeks ago, something like that. 00:00:46
That's item 2, John. 00:01:04
It's a very lengthy. 00:01:08
Two and three were items that were removed from the agenda, but the numbering wasn't fixed. 00:01:24
OK, so this was so a property that was rezoned to PO. We looked at this probably a month ago, two months ago. So the rezone went 00:01:32
through and was approved by City Council. Now the property owner is returning for a conditional use permit for a mixed-use planned 00:01:41
unit development planning on. 00:01:50
Turning the top floor of the office space into two residential units. Each one has two bedrooms. 00:02:00
And that and then continuing the office uses in the rest of the building. 00:02:09
Will there be any remodeling on the 1st floor or I'm not sure if there is, I think possibly some of the remodeling will be done on 00:02:18
the on a building permit, OK. 00:02:25
Why is this a PUD? 00:02:34
So in the PO zone to have any sort of mixed-use is a. 00:02:37
Planned Unit development is essentially which then requires A conditional use. 00:02:43
So having a mix of uses residential in an office zone is a conditional use. 00:02:50
But because there's no construction being done with this re retrofit, it's not going to change any setbacks or any conditions as 00:02:57
far as what the property currently has, right? If they were to like add on to the building or add a secondary building, anything 00:03:05
they'd have they just meet the requirements for the PO zone, but they're just remodeling interior space only. 00:03:14
They just have to meet parking requirements with the change of use and. 00:03:24
Their total parking spaces are over what what they'd be required for. 00:03:30
For the use, and I can't remember that far back, but when his son was here presenting on it, did he say that his dad was going to 00:03:35
live in the unit was was the other one for the son or is that going to be a rental that they disclosed possibly a rental they 00:03:41
didn't stay. But really it's those those units could be used both for rentals. They could be used as ownership. To have them be 00:03:47
under separate ownership, they'd have to do a condominium plat which would come to the Planning Commission. So they divide that up 00:03:54
into separate suites or. 00:04:00
Properties that. 00:04:07
Legally, can be owned separately, so they'd have to follow another process to do that. It's in this packet that his parents were 00:04:09
going to live in one. 00:04:13
Yeah, OK. 00:04:19
You're here all over it. You got it excited. You got it on there. I just, I read it. 00:04:21
Fantastic. Any other questions on the? 00:04:28
Public hearing item number one. 00:04:32
I just this seemed fine to me. I just wanted to know I know there are a bunch of pages of the floor plans and things. 00:04:35
And I'm not very good at reading them. So my question is always, is there something I'm supposed to be looking for that I? 00:04:42
Don't know how to look for it yet, not extensively. You're looking at the use. That's what the conditional use is for. So you're 00:04:48
granting or looking at a permit for that use specifically to mix residential and office space in the PO zone? Yeah, OK. 00:04:56
Question, Commissioner. 00:05:05
Question So is there any way that? 00:05:08
They could subdivide these into more than the 2 units. 00:05:12
Right. So the PO zone doesn't have any. So they can basically count whatever and they're limited by the size of the existing 00:05:17
structure. But in general, the PO zone doesn't have a set limit on how many residential units. So looking at a conditional use, 00:05:25
you're looking at what are the potential impacts from residential units, potentially the number of them parking associated with 00:05:32
that. 00:05:40
Having a residential use on the top floor, what sort of mitigation factors you'd want to include? 00:05:48
Considering the mix of uses. 00:05:55
Well, the parking is what, 1 1/2 spaces per unit? 1 1/2 spaces for a two-bedroom unit. So yes, on this one, 1 1/2 per each. So 00:05:58
that's less than the required parking for office. Yeah, so the parking is not an issue. 00:06:05
I'm just curious if they could continue to subdivide these and maybe make 4 or 6 units up there. Yeah, and if they wanted to in 00:06:13
the future, if they said OK, we want to split our two units into 4 units and. 00:06:20
Now have four one bedroom units, I think that's a possibility. They would still have to come back and have that reviewed by the 00:06:28
Planning Commission. Oh, really? OK, Yeah. So it's a changing their conditional use permit. So the conditional use permit that 00:06:33
you're looking at. 00:06:37
Is for the specific proposal. Modifications to that would require a new conditional use permit. 00:06:42
So the language in A. 00:06:50
Favorable recommendation does call out specifically for two units in it then I think. So you can add that in if it's not listed 00:06:53
specifically of this conditional use permit is for two residential dwelling units. 00:07:01
You could include that in the findings. 00:07:10
This is approval, OK? 00:07:14
Is the in PO mixed uses encouraged? Yes, Yes. So why does this need to be? But it's not explicitly right. Why is this a 00:07:19
conditional use? It's so that the Planning Commission has some overview oversight of because there isn't a specific unit count of 00:07:27
like. You can mix uses. They're permitted up to this amount because sites are going to vary based on size, conditions, existing 00:07:34
structures, proposed structures, all of that. 00:07:42
So. 00:07:50
As. 00:07:52
The deciding body you have the authority of like, OK, what is the appropriate use for this site specifically? I see 'cause it's it 00:07:55
could be it's very contextual to the building because they're right. Very standard. OK, cool. 00:08:01
So Carrie, even though they have applied. 00:08:09
For two units, 2 two-bedroom units, we still need to make that a condition of approval. 00:08:14
Yes, yeah. Because it's, that is what your approval is. You're approving 2 units, so that would be under their conditions of their 00:08:23
conditional use permit. 00:08:29
If you wanted to make it a condition of like you can have up to 4 units, you could, but it's fine to just stick with you. It's all 00:08:37
the upper level though, So I mean, to me it's kind of confining based on that, so yeah. 00:08:45
I don't really have a problem with the additional units. But if you want to specify, this is something we normally get printed 00:08:53
out. Carrie do we have suggested wording for a motion is that not in there? That didn't. It's not in there. It didn't make it into 00:08:59
mine. Well, not that we don't know how to do it. It's just nice when we have the hell Yeah. It's always nice to have the cheek a 00:09:06
little script. Yeah. That's going to. Yes. We like the script very much. 00:09:12
No, I didn't put the the script in there. 00:09:22
Yes, there's findings and conditions on there. So just the standard script would be. You can pull it from the second one if you 00:09:31
want a script. So we have to name Michael Alt and we have to state the address correct? Yes. So your script would be I whoever 00:09:38
motion to blank the. 00:09:44
6375 S Highland Dr. Yeah, so the application for APUD or planned unit development. 00:09:54
Involving mixed-use. 00:10:01
At the address or two units at this address. 00:10:04
Sorry, I'm making your your motion more complicated. 00:10:11
I'm sorry. And do we need to? 00:10:17
Legally, you don't have to pronounce the address. 00:10:21
He's here, item number one on the agenda, right? 00:10:24
You can just say I'd like to make a motion to approve the. 00:10:27
The conditional use permit for two residential units. 00:10:33
For this application and do we need to state the general findings and the conditions of approval? You don't have to state them, 00:10:38
but you could say including the general findings and conditions. 00:10:43
Including two units. 00:10:50
Because that I said that earlier. OK, yeah, you could put that in your intro of. 00:10:53
Approve the mixed-use Conditional use permit for two units. Would you give that to Would anyone? I did not assign Would anyone 00:11:00
like to volunteer to to to to show Brad how well they they remember exactly what's needed tonight and when it comes time to make a 00:11:05
motion. 00:11:11
Deals all over it, Commissioner Vaughn. Good job. 00:11:21
What Brad said. 00:11:25
Remember what he said earlier? There's been a time or two I've defaulted to that, absolutely. 00:11:28
All right, Commissioner. Font will take us through that one when it comes time. Thank you very much. And anything else on item one 00:11:34
before we move to item 4 because we're skipping 2:00 and 3:00 tonight. 00:11:39
Items two and three were there originally. They got moved off his agenda and then the numbering wasn't changed. So so item number 00:11:47
two formerly there, but they are it's yes, 2/4. 00:11:53
So this one, we've seen the conceptual plan for this. 00:12:01
Extension and amendment to the Silver Hawk 2 so division where we looked at how much land they needed and proposal to add in. 00:12:08
Some area to create two lots. 00:12:19
So the property owner purchased some property from a neighboring lot to create their two total acres required, and then are 00:12:23
proposing to divide that two acres into two lots. So one is accessed from Wasatch Blvd. The other will be accessed from the Silver 00:12:32
Hawk Lane Rd. I'm not whatever it is Silver Hawk that comes up on the through on a private road. 00:12:41
Which is where the original lot was accessed from anyway. 00:12:52
There's area identified as buildable area on each lot. If they were to cross slopes greater than 30%, it will come back to the 00:12:57
Planning Commission to approve those specifically. 00:13:03
At this point in time, it's just the looking at the subdivision bringing more land into the existing subdivision. 00:13:12
And dividing that land into two lots. 00:13:20
This one is very much a Does it check the box kind of thing right? 00:13:25
So I have a question about that. 00:13:31
Because I think this is absolutely an inappropriate place to build. 00:13:35
I'm sorry I didn't hear you. I don't think they should build here, but at what point is it not a checking the box thing anymore? 00:13:39
Because when an engineer comes back and says it's not buildable, right? 00:13:46
I don't think it's in keeping with the how do you the fcoz zoning. 00:13:51
And they will have to meet those specific requirements with F cause it's pretty limited, they're limited to 30 feet in height. 00:13:57
There's some flexibility on setbacks because of slopes that are inherent in the F Cos zone. So and that's where small building 00:14:06
pads or buildable areas are identified. So they can only build in that area with slopes less than 30%, so limiting in that factor. 00:14:16
And then also in height, I think there's extra protections for trees and soil disturbance. It's pretty extensive in F cause. 00:14:26
I just. 00:14:35
If it's checking the box at this point and then when they present a building plan, it's checking the box at that point. Was it was 00:14:38
it 5 steps ago where we said actually don't build here, don't you can't even buy the lot. But now it's too late to take any of 00:14:43
those stuff. I just so so the. 00:14:48
These are they've had ownership for these for 25 or. 00:14:54
So there's already an existing block there right now. 00:14:58
What I'm saying is the F cause zoning is to. 00:15:02
So preserve visual aesthetic qualities. 00:15:08
Unsafe building. 00:15:12
I think this is a good place, Commissioner Gong. I don't know if you were part of the Planning Commission on this originally. What 00:15:13
about a year ago came to us? 00:15:18
I was here when they I think they were moving. 00:15:25
Border so that they would both be one acre. I was here for that one, right. So that this is basically that's the the extension of 00:15:28
that and then the subdivide is being tacked on there, if I'm understanding it correctly. Is that right? 00:15:35
So the reason they're back and don't have already hadn't already had that it's a lot line adjustment and a subdivision and it's 00:15:42
also a. 00:15:47
Showing you that in order to subdivide, they had to go and incur pretty significant expense for. 00:15:53
Geotech report. 00:16:00
So that's what this geotech report evaluates the slopes and meet the requirements within the EFCO zone. And if so, where is the 00:16:02
building envelope? So that's what their engineer has done. 00:16:07
That's what you're looking at and that's what 70 pages of technical things I don't really understand in pictures of dirts and 00:16:13
hammers is it all about right. And so that's why it's kind of the check the box thing. I'm, I'm and I know where you're at with 00:16:18
it. Like I agree. I look at it and I say, well, I'm not worried about their health. 00:16:23
House falling down. I am worried that it is. 00:16:28
Not preserving open space in sensitive areas. It is not preserving the aesthetic and visual. 00:16:31
Things of the foothills. It's not preserving wildlife habitat, it is. 00:16:38
I don't think this is the right place. It was right on the edge of open space. It's basically encroaching. 00:16:43
Here's my philosophy. If it's already done to make a denser, if it's not dense and it's open space, don't put a host there. That's 00:16:51
what I think. So my question is, is it just checking the boxes and there's no way to say this is not appropriate place to build? 00:16:56
Don't that so they they already had the right to build one house. 00:17:02
So. 00:17:08
That box and the only and if you recall it came twice. I remember it. They said we'd like to subdivide anyway. 00:17:10
And its substantial compliance. There's some discussion. I remember John and I had this discussion. I don't remember if that was 00:17:19
in. 00:17:22
Might have been before, might have been been in the meeting, but because it was like 1.97 or something like that, they were just 00:17:26
five or 600 square feet shy of two acres or something like that. And so they were told no. And then they said, well, we like an 00:17:33
exception. They asked City Council for an exception. City Council said no. They came back, went and bought the property difference 00:17:40
at significant expense. 00:17:47
The seller knew they were. 00:17:56
In a bad situation and took advantage of that. 00:17:57
And that's the priciest square footage, you know, in all of Holiday, right? 00:18:03
Anyway. 00:18:11
So anyway, then now it's. So now it's OK You didn't meet the two acres to check to subdivide. Now you do. 00:18:13
It's pretty much they're entitled to. They've met all the boxes. 00:18:22
Falls under the If you don't like things being built there the way that's going to look, then you should buy the property so you 00:18:27
can keep it that way. Category pretty much right. 00:18:31
Even on if they would have had the single Watt before, So they're just adding that dividing lot between. 00:18:36
The two, but as a full lot, there's building areas on that lot, so it could have an accessory structure and a main house. So the 00:18:42
the preservation of open spaces. 00:18:48
Kind of inherent with the slopes, but building rights were already associated with the land in buildable areas. So both of those 00:18:55
that are identified, they just split it into two. 00:19:01
And is this Sorry, go ahead, you're finishing. I think I'm not good enough for reading the topographical things, but is this the 00:19:07
thing where they're going to come back and say, oh, we built a house, but we need an exception for the driveway? 00:19:14
Like, no. 00:19:21
They do that before and that's that will be. 00:19:24
You know as somebody, if they purchase the lot and want to develop it, that's then something that is allowed in our code is if you 00:19:27
have a slope and that a driveway can cross it. 00:19:34
So. 00:19:42
Commissioner, So how much can it cross or is it just the least amount of disturbance? Yeah, that is, that is designated in the 00:19:46
code with crossing. It's like if there's no other option, then you can have an account. 00:19:53
Exception for crossing the slope or driveway specific. OK, So what about trenching through for utilities? Can that disturb the 00:20:01
30%? 00:20:05
I believe so. It depends on how what your cuts and fills are. They're limited elements. Well, I'm looking at this north side of 00:20:10
the lot 101. 00:20:15
It looks like it goes right through the 30% slope. 00:20:21
Or at least the easement does. I'm just curious if that's where the water line is going to actually be built. 00:20:27
My recollection isn't there already utilities, or is it on this drawing you're referring to? 00:20:33
Oh, no, it is on there. It's across Bossa. It runs parallel with Wasatch Blvd. This well there's parallel and then if you look at 00:20:40
connects to that that easement that runs North and South, this one runs east and West on the north property line of lot 101. 00:20:48
You see how that easement goes just all the way through the 30%? 00:20:57
Itself and runs down to where the private road is. Right where it shows exist. Well it starts is that north is on the left. There 00:21:03
it is right there. N is on the left. 00:21:09
Right. No, N is. Oh, sorry. 00:21:16
Yeah, the way I understand, all those easements are existing. That's where all the water is coming from, from Wasatch Blvd. 2 00:21:22
Silver Hawk already. OK. So due to the fact it's an existing easement, they have the right to trench. Yes. OK Yeah. All right. I'm 00:21:28
looking at the access to Wasatch Blvd. 00:21:35
It doesn't. It's not designated as an easement for access. So has U dot given authority to do the access to lot 100? 00:21:43
There is access. Well, there's a driveway there, but it's not designated as an easement. 00:21:53
Across in the right of way where the you see where that's it's kind of hitting the Wasatch Blvd. at a very steep angle. 00:22:01
And their U dot is not going to allow them to hit the road at that. 00:22:11
There may need to be adjustments, but that's typically handled at building permit stage. Well, the only reason I'm bringing it up 00:22:17
right now is that if we don't have access to one of the lots, that kind of takes care of. 00:22:23
The question of driveways and stuff, Isn't that off Silverhawk though? No, this is off. Wasa. This one right here? It's Lot 100. 00:22:29
So this is the one that's coming off Silverhawk, this one here. 00:22:35
Getting you dot permission on that stuff, that would be something they'd have to deal with potentially. Like I don't they may have 00:22:43
a prescriptive right. 00:22:46
OK, you understand why I'm asking the question because if you doesn't grant that. 00:22:50
This kind of comes back to us as a possible problem and I'm not trying to create a problem by this especially I don't know that it 00:22:56
come back to us. It would be come back to the property. 00:23:00
Well, OK. I mean that's their, I do have jurisdiction over that. So we can no, no, I do understand that. That's why I'm curious as 00:23:08
the applicant talked to you not to even give us an indication that that is going to be OK. 00:23:15
Or is this, am I asking questions that I shouldn't be asking the applicants? I mean, I think it's probably foregone conclusion the 00:23:24
applicant is doing this to sell the property. So whoever buys lot 100, if it's Bill Gates, he'll build a helicopter pad and fly in 00:23:30
there rather than worry about driveway access. But whoever buys that lot ultimately is going to have to figure out the road part. 00:23:36
So we need a helicopter easement somewhere on the road probably, Yeah, that's FAA rules. 00:23:42
That's beyond our jurisdiction. Now I know where this property is and I see the access. It's just. 00:23:49
It is a fairly precarious access onto Wasatch. Yeah, you can't see sometimes. And so I think there's going to be modifications to 00:23:54
that access. Okay, all right. 00:24:00
Right. Where there's access existing already, they'd likely then just modify that to. Well, I'm not sure if that is illegal access 00:24:08
and they've just it's an old farm Rd. or an old Jeep trail of which that has never been established as an actual access, so. 00:24:17
OK, I'll be quiet. 00:24:26
It's a valid question, I just don't know. It can impact our decision on checking the boxes though, right? 00:24:29
But this is a check the boxes. 00:24:35
For the for us, right. 00:24:38
The property. 00:24:41
Subdivide. 00:24:43
But you can't approve lots without access, so that's all. That's why I'm. 00:24:46
Making sure that we can do this. 00:24:51
I think from the technical review committee's point of view, the original larger piece had always had frontage up on Wasatch Blvd. 00:24:55
if we were to be creating a new lot. 00:25:00
If Lot 102 was up there up on Wasatch, yes, I would need to have a second driveway. 00:25:07
Or at least an easement that would grant access to that second lot. 00:25:13
But for prescriptive right, having this parcel preexisting quite a bit of holiday to begin with. 00:25:17
Access to Wasatch Blvd. shouldn't be an issue. 00:25:27
OK. Well, I really, I'm not trying to create a I would just wait. I would say, you know if you you thought we're coming to you dot 00:25:31
and saying we're creating another lot. 00:25:37
That needs to access Wasatch. That could be a problem. 00:25:42
The existing property parcel that is being subdivided now. 00:25:46
Probably would already have a prescriptive right to get there. They've already installed utilities to get down into Silverhawks, 00:25:51
so that. 00:25:55
It would be hard pressed for what it's U dot to prevent them from accessing that, but that's something I'd be interested in 00:25:59
actually ascertaining. You can ask them directly for sure. 00:26:03
And I believe in my conversations with them when you're talking about the access, they said that site has always had that access 00:26:08
on Wasatch. 00:26:12
So that's the where that was the existing parcel. 00:26:16
It's. 00:26:23
Fairly safe to save, so is there a statute of limitations on? 00:26:25
As long as they've used it for the last 100 years, it becomes. 00:26:31
It doesn't even have to go back 100 years, OK? I'm just using that as a term. 10 years. 00:26:35
Then that that's legal access then basically correct. OK. Thank you. 00:26:40
City attorney checks the box. 00:26:47
I think he's just telling him to be quiet at this end. No, no very good quality questions. 00:26:49
But I do agree with, you know, Commissioner Gong, there's reasons why some parcels are not, have not been developed. 00:26:58
Especially in our valley, the last ones on the foothills are the ones that are most precarious and slippery. Literally. 00:27:06
And this is one of the reasons why we're putting this property owner through so many hurdles. 00:27:13
Is to ensure that yes, it does meet underlying zoning and it does meet a development pattern for F 'cause, which is why you're 00:27:18
getting 2 practically postage stamp building lots. Those are no bigger than two swimming pools put together. 00:27:26
On each property. 00:27:34
Sorry, just one quick question. I know we're just about finished. When they do build the properties, do they stake the 30% slope 00:27:36
line, so they're not driving into that disturbing that or because they're shown on the plat? 00:27:42
With descriptions, Yeah, we'll have them staked and show them where they are. That's how they secure. OK. Thank you. 00:27:49
So before we move into that, anybody with a technical background maybe want to make the motion when it comes time for it. 00:27:59
Sure. Awesome. 00:28:07
Thanks, Commissioner Barrett. 00:28:08
I felt your case. 00:28:11
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that. Wasn't he pressured you? Did you feel the four sets of the? 00:28:13
I love it when we have a plan that's awesome. All right. 00:28:20
So with that, any other questions on the items before we roll right into our official meeting? 00:28:22
All right, then we will close the work meeting and join. Give me the green light when it's time to get us going. 00:28:28
Oh yeah, go ahead. All right. Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the Planning Commission on May 7th, 2024. We are excusing 00:28:39
Commissioners Vilcinski and Commissioners Cunningham from attendance this evening. We have three items on the agenda this evening, 00:28:47
a public hearing on the first one and then an action item on the 2nd and 3rd. And we have an opening statement we read at the 00:28:56
beginning of every meeting and I have asked Commissioner Prince if she will do that for us now. 00:29:04
The City of Holiday Planning Commission is a volunteer citizen board whose function is to review land use plans and other special 00:29:14
studies, make recommendations to the City Council on proposed zoning map and ordinance changes, and approve conditional uses and 00:29:21
subdivisions. The Planning Commission does not initiate land use applications, rather acts on applications as they are submitted. 00:29:28
Commissioners do not meet with applicants except a publicly noticed meetings. 00:29:36
Commissioners attempt to visit each property on the agenda where the location, the nature of the neighborhood, existing structures 00:29:44
and uses related to the proposed change are noted. Decisions are based on observations, recommendations from the professional 00:29:51
planning staff, the City's general plan, zoning ordinance, and other reports by all verbal and written comments and by evidence 00:29:57
submitted, all of which are part of the public record. 00:30:04
Thank you very much, Commissioner. 00:30:11
And with that, we will move to our first item on the agenda, which is the ALT mixed-use plan unit development at 6375 S Highland 00:30:14
and one of our wonderful city staff will roll us right into what is happening on this one. 00:30:22
Carrie Marsh, thank you. 00:30:33
All right, this is working great. 00:30:37
This is a property located 6375 S Highland Dr. .57 acres, recently rezoned from the RM Zone to the PO Zone. That PO Zone then has. 00:30:41
Expanded uses based on Office use primarily. 00:30:57
With that's permitted in the zone. One use that is a conditional use is a mixed residential planned unit development. 00:31:02
The applicant is proposing to convert existing office space on the top level of this building to residential units. They're 00:31:10
proposing 2 two-bedroom units, all the parking requirements on site with taking out office space and adding the three spaces 00:31:18
required for two two-bedroom units. I think parking on the site was about 35 spaces and they're only required to have 29 based off 00:31:26
of the total square footage for offices. 00:31:33
And now the added. 00:31:41
Or conversion to residential units, so meeting parking requirements. 00:31:45
And they're. 00:31:51
As a conditional use, having the residential use on the top, just looking at potential mitigation factors for any impacts. 00:31:54
No substantial impacts we're seeing with this property. It's not higher than residential uses that are neighboring it. There's a 00:32:03
higher. 00:32:08
Use zone, the Ord zone on the South side. Not a lot of impact to that neighboring property. If you are looking at possible 00:32:16
mitigation factors, you could look at possible vegetation screening factors. But. 00:32:25
The impacts to the residential neighborhoods that back up to this or not substantial. 00:32:35
IO will have the applicant come and present any more details and he can answer any questions for you. Kerry, could I just ask you 00:32:43
one quick question before you step away with the retrofitter? Adjust to residential properties on the top if approved. With this, 00:32:50
they're not actually altering the height of the structure as it exists now though, is that right? Right. They're maintaining the 00:32:58
the same dimensions and structure. It's all interior remodel to convert office space to living space. 00:33:05
OK. Thank you very much. And with that, do we have a representative or the applicant, Michael OTT here today? 00:33:13
Alt. Excuse me. 00:33:18
So do you want me to go over what that our plan is, or do you want to just ask me questions? Just anything you want to add to what 00:33:24
our city staff has already presented, if there, if it's necessary. I think she presented pretty well accurately. I've talked to 00:33:30
her a few times and she's pretty good at at what Elaine, what are? 00:33:37
Thoughts are and how that we want to proceed to do a remodel on the upper floor? 00:33:44
And So what we're asking to do is turn it into our residents in an apartment on the third floor and then we leave the rest of the 00:33:50
building, the commercial, whatever we are acceptable doing in appeal zone. 00:33:55
OK, makes sense to me if there's any any questions for the applicant. 00:34:02
I just have one question. I didn't, I didn't see this originally, but there's three parcels here. 00:34:08
There are and so part of the parking is in the second and third parcels. Is that right? 00:34:14
I believe it is. I'm not totally familiar with it, but there's two small parcels and there's. 00:34:21
A couple of spaces in those marshals, so they're not going to rectify that with this application obviously, but. 00:34:26
Can they have parking in opposite in? 00:34:33
The, the parcels are all under the same ownership. They could combine all three of those parcels. That could be a condition that 00:34:36
that you could place on the application just doing a consolidation to consolidate all three of those little parcels to bring it 00:34:44
into one singular parcel. OK, thank you. I didn't see that originally. 00:34:51
Thank you. 00:34:59
That's the only questions I think we'll have. You go ahead and sit down and then we will open up the public hearing for anyone 00:35:01
that wants to, members of the public, if any, want to. 00:35:06
Make comments on this At this time, is there anyone here this evening that would like to make comments on item number one? 00:35:13
Going once, twice, all right, does not look like it. We'll go ahead and close the public hearing then. 00:35:21
And with that, Commissioners. 00:35:27
So you brought up the the parcel and I didn't see that. Is that something that we need to? I was just asking staff and as long as 00:35:31
they're comfortable, I'm good with that. 00:35:35
All right. So, Commissioners, any other comments, concerns, questions on this application? I know we had some questions on the 00:35:40
rezoning that may have. I hope those are resolved anyway by that by the nature of that decision, I think this works perfectly 00:35:48
within that expectation. So I'm all for this. 00:35:56
All right. Well, if there's no additional questions or comments, then I will be happy to entertain any motions. If someone wants 00:36:05
to make one, well, someone does. All right, fantastic. Let's hear it. This is Commissioner Font. I'll make a motion that we 00:36:13
approve the conditional use permit for the alt mix, mixed-use plan unit development. 00:36:20
Located at. 00:36:29
Where am I? 6375 S Highland Drive. 00:36:32
For two residential units on the top floor of the of the structure with the findings and conditions as stated in the. 00:36:38
Packet. 00:36:51
This is Commissioner Prince. I'll second that motion. All right. We have a motion and it's been seconded. We'll call for a vote. 00:36:53
Commissioner Baron aye. Commissioner Gong. Commissioner Prince aye. Commissioner Fulan, aye. And chair Roach votes. Aye, so passes 00:36:58
unanimously. 00:37:02
Thank you very much. 00:37:08
All right. And rolling right along, we have our action item on the Silverhawk 2 subdivision and we will turn to city staff again 00:37:09
to give us the intro on that. Will that be once again, Carrie Marsh? 00:37:17
Thank you, Chair Roach. So this application is for the preliminary and final. 00:37:29
Plan review for a subdivision amendment and extension The proposals to bring additional area into the Silverhawk 2 subdivision. An 00:37:37
existing parcel was not originally included in that subdivision, so they're bringing that area in, making some lot line 00:37:44
adjustments between an existing lot in the Silverhawk 2 subdivision. 00:37:52
So they have a total of 2 acres. That two acres is then so divided into two lots as one acre lots is required in the F cause 00:38:01
overlay. 00:38:06
We already held a public hearing on this when they presented their conceptual plan, did not receive any public comments on it and 00:38:13
so now just coming back for the preliminary and final approval staff recommendation to move that final approval to staff. 00:38:22
Any questions for staff on this? 00:38:32
I don't believe so. Are we going to invite the applicant up at this time? We'll have the applicant come up. 00:38:37
All right. Thank you very much. If we could have the applicant or their representative come up for us. 00:38:41
Hi, I'm Robert Jensen. I'm the owner of the property that we're talking about. 00:38:55
I live in Taylorsville at 4805 S, 3685 W. 00:39:02
I think the big thing we're really looking at is we've added the geotech report that was required. 00:39:10
And. 00:39:18
I think that gets all the hoops that you guys have asked us to go through. 00:39:20
So that this piece should be approved. 00:39:26
OK. And commissioners, do we have any questions for the applicant? 00:39:29
We'll appreciate. Appreciate all the work you've done to get to this point. And we'll go ahead and have you sit back down then. 00:39:34
All right. Thank you. Thank you. 00:39:39
All right. And this does not have a hearing. So, Commissioners, we can roll right into discussion on this or questions if there 00:39:45
are any that were not covered in the work meeting. 00:39:49
This is Commissioner Prince. I think the applicant's done everything that we've asked him to do and the the staff report is. 00:39:55
You know, shows that the required elements have been reviewed and are acceptable, so I. 00:40:06
I think that's. 00:40:13
Complete as far as I can tell. I would agree with that. I know there was concerns about the technicalities with the F cause zone 00:40:14
originally, and I would say more of the spirit of the F cause. 00:40:20
Intention. 00:40:28
Let me give a pause. All right. That would count me off guard. Thank you, Commissioner. So with that said, and the checks on those 00:40:30
boxes, unless commissioners, there's anything else to discuss, I am ready to entertain a motion if anyone's prepared to make one. 00:40:38
OK, thanks. This is Commissioner Barrett. I motion to approve the preliminary plan and final plat application by Robert and Connie 00:40:46
Jensen for an amendment and extension of the Silver Hawk 2 subdivision to include two new residential lots. 00:40:54
Based upon the findings, the staff findings and. 00:41:03
Conditions in the staff report. 00:41:07
And then there's another sentence. Do I add that to the motion also within one year? Yes, we do. OK, also within one year and in 00:41:10
accordance with 13. 00:41:15
.08 dot 010 dot D5 to defer administrative review and approval of the final plat by the Community and Economic Development 00:41:21
Director following a positive written recommendation from the TRC. 00:41:28
This is Commissioner Prince. I'll second that motion. All right, we have a motion and a second. We'll go ahead and call for a 00:41:37
vote. Commissioner Fault, aye. Commissioner Prince. Aye. Commissioner Gong. 00:41:42
Aye, Commissioner Baron. Aye. And Chair Roche votes. Aye. So it passes unanimously. Thank you very much. 00:41:49
Right. And with that, the last item we have on our agenda this evening is the approval of the minutes from the meeting on 5/18. 00:41:56
This has a typo and says 2021. I'm quite sure that meant 2024 because I don't remember that meeting and couldn't even begin to, 00:42:02
but. 00:42:08
That's really catching up there. 00:42:16
But for those that were here on the 5/18/24 meeting and read through those minutes, were there any adjustments or alterations or 00:42:19
clarifications needed? 00:42:24
Does it say 518? It should be three 19319. 00:42:30
It says Tuesday, March 19th, so this is for March 19th, 2024. 00:42:35
For all right, Those are the minutes being presented for review and approval in the future. I was going off of the agenda, so 00:42:42
sorry. I'm reading an old typo on that. So my bad. So 3/19/24, there we go. 00:42:50
Did we have no adjustments? Everybody felt good about it. All right? I wasn't here for that one. I wasn't here. 00:43:00
Can we vote or should we abstain if we weren't here? 00:43:05
There is no requirement for you to abstain if you would prefer to abstain when you can. 00:43:10
Well, but. 00:43:15
OK. And and traditionally with the approval of minutes rather than making the motion, we just all in favor? 00:43:17
Say aye, aye, aye, aye. That's four. We got four, We're covered minutes or 10. 00:43:24
Twice. OK, All right. So with that, that is everything we had on the agenda this evening. And unless there is anything else, 00:43:31
motion to adjourn. 00:43:36
Aye. All right. Thank you very much everyone. Have a good evening. 00:43:42
Link
Start video at
Social
Embed
* you need to log in to manage your favorites
My Favorites List
You haven't added any favorites yet. Click the "Add Favorite" button on any media page, and they'll show up here.
* use Ctrl+F (Cmd+F on Mac) to search in document
Unable to preview the file.
* use Ctrl+F (Cmd+F on Mac) to search in document
Unable to preview the file.
All right. Good evening. We have the Planning Commission work meeting, May 7th, 2024. We are absent. Commissioners Cunningham and 00:00:00
Vilcinski, all other commissioners are present, along with Legal counsel and city staff Carrie Marsh and John Terling. And we 00:00:06
have. 00:00:13
Two agenda, 3 agenda items tonight, one public hearing and. 00:00:21
Two action items, the subdivision approval and minutes. So with that John or Carrie, whoever wants to carry us into the mixed-use 00:00:30
planned unit development for I think this is the one we saw three weeks ago or. 00:00:37
Four weeks ago, something like that. 00:00:46
That's item 2, John. 00:01:04
It's a very lengthy. 00:01:08
Two and three were items that were removed from the agenda, but the numbering wasn't fixed. 00:01:24
OK, so this was so a property that was rezoned to PO. We looked at this probably a month ago, two months ago. So the rezone went 00:01:32
through and was approved by City Council. Now the property owner is returning for a conditional use permit for a mixed-use planned 00:01:41
unit development planning on. 00:01:50
Turning the top floor of the office space into two residential units. Each one has two bedrooms. 00:02:00
And that and then continuing the office uses in the rest of the building. 00:02:09
Will there be any remodeling on the 1st floor or I'm not sure if there is, I think possibly some of the remodeling will be done on 00:02:18
the on a building permit, OK. 00:02:25
Why is this a PUD? 00:02:34
So in the PO zone to have any sort of mixed-use is a. 00:02:37
Planned Unit development is essentially which then requires A conditional use. 00:02:43
So having a mix of uses residential in an office zone is a conditional use. 00:02:50
But because there's no construction being done with this re retrofit, it's not going to change any setbacks or any conditions as 00:02:57
far as what the property currently has, right? If they were to like add on to the building or add a secondary building, anything 00:03:05
they'd have they just meet the requirements for the PO zone, but they're just remodeling interior space only. 00:03:14
They just have to meet parking requirements with the change of use and. 00:03:24
Their total parking spaces are over what what they'd be required for. 00:03:30
For the use, and I can't remember that far back, but when his son was here presenting on it, did he say that his dad was going to 00:03:35
live in the unit was was the other one for the son or is that going to be a rental that they disclosed possibly a rental they 00:03:41
didn't stay. But really it's those those units could be used both for rentals. They could be used as ownership. To have them be 00:03:47
under separate ownership, they'd have to do a condominium plat which would come to the Planning Commission. So they divide that up 00:03:54
into separate suites or. 00:04:00
Properties that. 00:04:07
Legally, can be owned separately, so they'd have to follow another process to do that. It's in this packet that his parents were 00:04:09
going to live in one. 00:04:13
Yeah, OK. 00:04:19
You're here all over it. You got it excited. You got it on there. I just, I read it. 00:04:21
Fantastic. Any other questions on the? 00:04:28
Public hearing item number one. 00:04:32
I just this seemed fine to me. I just wanted to know I know there are a bunch of pages of the floor plans and things. 00:04:35
And I'm not very good at reading them. So my question is always, is there something I'm supposed to be looking for that I? 00:04:42
Don't know how to look for it yet, not extensively. You're looking at the use. That's what the conditional use is for. So you're 00:04:48
granting or looking at a permit for that use specifically to mix residential and office space in the PO zone? Yeah, OK. 00:04:56
Question, Commissioner. 00:05:05
Question So is there any way that? 00:05:08
They could subdivide these into more than the 2 units. 00:05:12
Right. So the PO zone doesn't have any. So they can basically count whatever and they're limited by the size of the existing 00:05:17
structure. But in general, the PO zone doesn't have a set limit on how many residential units. So looking at a conditional use, 00:05:25
you're looking at what are the potential impacts from residential units, potentially the number of them parking associated with 00:05:32
that. 00:05:40
Having a residential use on the top floor, what sort of mitigation factors you'd want to include? 00:05:48
Considering the mix of uses. 00:05:55
Well, the parking is what, 1 1/2 spaces per unit? 1 1/2 spaces for a two-bedroom unit. So yes, on this one, 1 1/2 per each. So 00:05:58
that's less than the required parking for office. Yeah, so the parking is not an issue. 00:06:05
I'm just curious if they could continue to subdivide these and maybe make 4 or 6 units up there. Yeah, and if they wanted to in 00:06:13
the future, if they said OK, we want to split our two units into 4 units and. 00:06:20
Now have four one bedroom units, I think that's a possibility. They would still have to come back and have that reviewed by the 00:06:28
Planning Commission. Oh, really? OK, Yeah. So it's a changing their conditional use permit. So the conditional use permit that 00:06:33
you're looking at. 00:06:37
Is for the specific proposal. Modifications to that would require a new conditional use permit. 00:06:42
So the language in A. 00:06:50
Favorable recommendation does call out specifically for two units in it then I think. So you can add that in if it's not listed 00:06:53
specifically of this conditional use permit is for two residential dwelling units. 00:07:01
You could include that in the findings. 00:07:10
This is approval, OK? 00:07:14
Is the in PO mixed uses encouraged? Yes, Yes. So why does this need to be? But it's not explicitly right. Why is this a 00:07:19
conditional use? It's so that the Planning Commission has some overview oversight of because there isn't a specific unit count of 00:07:27
like. You can mix uses. They're permitted up to this amount because sites are going to vary based on size, conditions, existing 00:07:34
structures, proposed structures, all of that. 00:07:42
So. 00:07:50
As. 00:07:52
The deciding body you have the authority of like, OK, what is the appropriate use for this site specifically? I see 'cause it's it 00:07:55
could be it's very contextual to the building because they're right. Very standard. OK, cool. 00:08:01
So Carrie, even though they have applied. 00:08:09
For two units, 2 two-bedroom units, we still need to make that a condition of approval. 00:08:14
Yes, yeah. Because it's, that is what your approval is. You're approving 2 units, so that would be under their conditions of their 00:08:23
conditional use permit. 00:08:29
If you wanted to make it a condition of like you can have up to 4 units, you could, but it's fine to just stick with you. It's all 00:08:37
the upper level though, So I mean, to me it's kind of confining based on that, so yeah. 00:08:45
I don't really have a problem with the additional units. But if you want to specify, this is something we normally get printed 00:08:53
out. Carrie do we have suggested wording for a motion is that not in there? That didn't. It's not in there. It didn't make it into 00:08:59
mine. Well, not that we don't know how to do it. It's just nice when we have the hell Yeah. It's always nice to have the cheek a 00:09:06
little script. Yeah. That's going to. Yes. We like the script very much. 00:09:12
No, I didn't put the the script in there. 00:09:22
Yes, there's findings and conditions on there. So just the standard script would be. You can pull it from the second one if you 00:09:31
want a script. So we have to name Michael Alt and we have to state the address correct? Yes. So your script would be I whoever 00:09:38
motion to blank the. 00:09:44
6375 S Highland Dr. Yeah, so the application for APUD or planned unit development. 00:09:54
Involving mixed-use. 00:10:01
At the address or two units at this address. 00:10:04
Sorry, I'm making your your motion more complicated. 00:10:11
I'm sorry. And do we need to? 00:10:17
Legally, you don't have to pronounce the address. 00:10:21
He's here, item number one on the agenda, right? 00:10:24
You can just say I'd like to make a motion to approve the. 00:10:27
The conditional use permit for two residential units. 00:10:33
For this application and do we need to state the general findings and the conditions of approval? You don't have to state them, 00:10:38
but you could say including the general findings and conditions. 00:10:43
Including two units. 00:10:50
Because that I said that earlier. OK, yeah, you could put that in your intro of. 00:10:53
Approve the mixed-use Conditional use permit for two units. Would you give that to Would anyone? I did not assign Would anyone 00:11:00
like to volunteer to to to to show Brad how well they they remember exactly what's needed tonight and when it comes time to make a 00:11:05
motion. 00:11:11
Deals all over it, Commissioner Vaughn. Good job. 00:11:21
What Brad said. 00:11:25
Remember what he said earlier? There's been a time or two I've defaulted to that, absolutely. 00:11:28
All right, Commissioner. Font will take us through that one when it comes time. Thank you very much. And anything else on item one 00:11:34
before we move to item 4 because we're skipping 2:00 and 3:00 tonight. 00:11:39
Items two and three were there originally. They got moved off his agenda and then the numbering wasn't changed. So so item number 00:11:47
two formerly there, but they are it's yes, 2/4. 00:11:53
So this one, we've seen the conceptual plan for this. 00:12:01
Extension and amendment to the Silver Hawk 2 so division where we looked at how much land they needed and proposal to add in. 00:12:08
Some area to create two lots. 00:12:19
So the property owner purchased some property from a neighboring lot to create their two total acres required, and then are 00:12:23
proposing to divide that two acres into two lots. So one is accessed from Wasatch Blvd. The other will be accessed from the Silver 00:12:32
Hawk Lane Rd. I'm not whatever it is Silver Hawk that comes up on the through on a private road. 00:12:41
Which is where the original lot was accessed from anyway. 00:12:52
There's area identified as buildable area on each lot. If they were to cross slopes greater than 30%, it will come back to the 00:12:57
Planning Commission to approve those specifically. 00:13:03
At this point in time, it's just the looking at the subdivision bringing more land into the existing subdivision. 00:13:12
And dividing that land into two lots. 00:13:20
This one is very much a Does it check the box kind of thing right? 00:13:25
So I have a question about that. 00:13:31
Because I think this is absolutely an inappropriate place to build. 00:13:35
I'm sorry I didn't hear you. I don't think they should build here, but at what point is it not a checking the box thing anymore? 00:13:39
Because when an engineer comes back and says it's not buildable, right? 00:13:46
I don't think it's in keeping with the how do you the fcoz zoning. 00:13:51
And they will have to meet those specific requirements with F cause it's pretty limited, they're limited to 30 feet in height. 00:13:57
There's some flexibility on setbacks because of slopes that are inherent in the F Cos zone. So and that's where small building 00:14:06
pads or buildable areas are identified. So they can only build in that area with slopes less than 30%, so limiting in that factor. 00:14:16
And then also in height, I think there's extra protections for trees and soil disturbance. It's pretty extensive in F cause. 00:14:26
I just. 00:14:35
If it's checking the box at this point and then when they present a building plan, it's checking the box at that point. Was it was 00:14:38
it 5 steps ago where we said actually don't build here, don't you can't even buy the lot. But now it's too late to take any of 00:14:43
those stuff. I just so so the. 00:14:48
These are they've had ownership for these for 25 or. 00:14:54
So there's already an existing block there right now. 00:14:58
What I'm saying is the F cause zoning is to. 00:15:02
So preserve visual aesthetic qualities. 00:15:08
Unsafe building. 00:15:12
I think this is a good place, Commissioner Gong. I don't know if you were part of the Planning Commission on this originally. What 00:15:13
about a year ago came to us? 00:15:18
I was here when they I think they were moving. 00:15:25
Border so that they would both be one acre. I was here for that one, right. So that this is basically that's the the extension of 00:15:28
that and then the subdivide is being tacked on there, if I'm understanding it correctly. Is that right? 00:15:35
So the reason they're back and don't have already hadn't already had that it's a lot line adjustment and a subdivision and it's 00:15:42
also a. 00:15:47
Showing you that in order to subdivide, they had to go and incur pretty significant expense for. 00:15:53
Geotech report. 00:16:00
So that's what this geotech report evaluates the slopes and meet the requirements within the EFCO zone. And if so, where is the 00:16:02
building envelope? So that's what their engineer has done. 00:16:07
That's what you're looking at and that's what 70 pages of technical things I don't really understand in pictures of dirts and 00:16:13
hammers is it all about right. And so that's why it's kind of the check the box thing. I'm, I'm and I know where you're at with 00:16:18
it. Like I agree. I look at it and I say, well, I'm not worried about their health. 00:16:23
House falling down. I am worried that it is. 00:16:28
Not preserving open space in sensitive areas. It is not preserving the aesthetic and visual. 00:16:31
Things of the foothills. It's not preserving wildlife habitat, it is. 00:16:38
I don't think this is the right place. It was right on the edge of open space. It's basically encroaching. 00:16:43
Here's my philosophy. If it's already done to make a denser, if it's not dense and it's open space, don't put a host there. That's 00:16:51
what I think. So my question is, is it just checking the boxes and there's no way to say this is not appropriate place to build? 00:16:56
Don't that so they they already had the right to build one house. 00:17:02
So. 00:17:08
That box and the only and if you recall it came twice. I remember it. They said we'd like to subdivide anyway. 00:17:10
And its substantial compliance. There's some discussion. I remember John and I had this discussion. I don't remember if that was 00:17:19
in. 00:17:22
Might have been before, might have been been in the meeting, but because it was like 1.97 or something like that, they were just 00:17:26
five or 600 square feet shy of two acres or something like that. And so they were told no. And then they said, well, we like an 00:17:33
exception. They asked City Council for an exception. City Council said no. They came back, went and bought the property difference 00:17:40
at significant expense. 00:17:47
The seller knew they were. 00:17:56
In a bad situation and took advantage of that. 00:17:57
And that's the priciest square footage, you know, in all of Holiday, right? 00:18:03
Anyway. 00:18:11
So anyway, then now it's. So now it's OK You didn't meet the two acres to check to subdivide. Now you do. 00:18:13
It's pretty much they're entitled to. They've met all the boxes. 00:18:22
Falls under the If you don't like things being built there the way that's going to look, then you should buy the property so you 00:18:27
can keep it that way. Category pretty much right. 00:18:31
Even on if they would have had the single Watt before, So they're just adding that dividing lot between. 00:18:36
The two, but as a full lot, there's building areas on that lot, so it could have an accessory structure and a main house. So the 00:18:42
the preservation of open spaces. 00:18:48
Kind of inherent with the slopes, but building rights were already associated with the land in buildable areas. So both of those 00:18:55
that are identified, they just split it into two. 00:19:01
And is this Sorry, go ahead, you're finishing. I think I'm not good enough for reading the topographical things, but is this the 00:19:07
thing where they're going to come back and say, oh, we built a house, but we need an exception for the driveway? 00:19:14
Like, no. 00:19:21
They do that before and that's that will be. 00:19:24
You know as somebody, if they purchase the lot and want to develop it, that's then something that is allowed in our code is if you 00:19:27
have a slope and that a driveway can cross it. 00:19:34
So. 00:19:42
Commissioner, So how much can it cross or is it just the least amount of disturbance? Yeah, that is, that is designated in the 00:19:46
code with crossing. It's like if there's no other option, then you can have an account. 00:19:53
Exception for crossing the slope or driveway specific. OK, So what about trenching through for utilities? Can that disturb the 00:20:01
30%? 00:20:05
I believe so. It depends on how what your cuts and fills are. They're limited elements. Well, I'm looking at this north side of 00:20:10
the lot 101. 00:20:15
It looks like it goes right through the 30% slope. 00:20:21
Or at least the easement does. I'm just curious if that's where the water line is going to actually be built. 00:20:27
My recollection isn't there already utilities, or is it on this drawing you're referring to? 00:20:33
Oh, no, it is on there. It's across Bossa. It runs parallel with Wasatch Blvd. This well there's parallel and then if you look at 00:20:40
connects to that that easement that runs North and South, this one runs east and West on the north property line of lot 101. 00:20:48
You see how that easement goes just all the way through the 30%? 00:20:57
Itself and runs down to where the private road is. Right where it shows exist. Well it starts is that north is on the left. There 00:21:03
it is right there. N is on the left. 00:21:09
Right. No, N is. Oh, sorry. 00:21:16
Yeah, the way I understand, all those easements are existing. That's where all the water is coming from, from Wasatch Blvd. 2 00:21:22
Silver Hawk already. OK. So due to the fact it's an existing easement, they have the right to trench. Yes. OK Yeah. All right. I'm 00:21:28
looking at the access to Wasatch Blvd. 00:21:35
It doesn't. It's not designated as an easement for access. So has U dot given authority to do the access to lot 100? 00:21:43
There is access. Well, there's a driveway there, but it's not designated as an easement. 00:21:53
Across in the right of way where the you see where that's it's kind of hitting the Wasatch Blvd. at a very steep angle. 00:22:01
And their U dot is not going to allow them to hit the road at that. 00:22:11
There may need to be adjustments, but that's typically handled at building permit stage. Well, the only reason I'm bringing it up 00:22:17
right now is that if we don't have access to one of the lots, that kind of takes care of. 00:22:23
The question of driveways and stuff, Isn't that off Silverhawk though? No, this is off. Wasa. This one right here? It's Lot 100. 00:22:29
So this is the one that's coming off Silverhawk, this one here. 00:22:35
Getting you dot permission on that stuff, that would be something they'd have to deal with potentially. Like I don't they may have 00:22:43
a prescriptive right. 00:22:46
OK, you understand why I'm asking the question because if you doesn't grant that. 00:22:50
This kind of comes back to us as a possible problem and I'm not trying to create a problem by this especially I don't know that it 00:22:56
come back to us. It would be come back to the property. 00:23:00
Well, OK. I mean that's their, I do have jurisdiction over that. So we can no, no, I do understand that. That's why I'm curious as 00:23:08
the applicant talked to you not to even give us an indication that that is going to be OK. 00:23:15
Or is this, am I asking questions that I shouldn't be asking the applicants? I mean, I think it's probably foregone conclusion the 00:23:24
applicant is doing this to sell the property. So whoever buys lot 100, if it's Bill Gates, he'll build a helicopter pad and fly in 00:23:30
there rather than worry about driveway access. But whoever buys that lot ultimately is going to have to figure out the road part. 00:23:36
So we need a helicopter easement somewhere on the road probably, Yeah, that's FAA rules. 00:23:42
That's beyond our jurisdiction. Now I know where this property is and I see the access. It's just. 00:23:49
It is a fairly precarious access onto Wasatch. Yeah, you can't see sometimes. And so I think there's going to be modifications to 00:23:54
that access. Okay, all right. 00:24:00
Right. Where there's access existing already, they'd likely then just modify that to. Well, I'm not sure if that is illegal access 00:24:08
and they've just it's an old farm Rd. or an old Jeep trail of which that has never been established as an actual access, so. 00:24:17
OK, I'll be quiet. 00:24:26
It's a valid question, I just don't know. It can impact our decision on checking the boxes though, right? 00:24:29
But this is a check the boxes. 00:24:35
For the for us, right. 00:24:38
The property. 00:24:41
Subdivide. 00:24:43
But you can't approve lots without access, so that's all. That's why I'm. 00:24:46
Making sure that we can do this. 00:24:51
I think from the technical review committee's point of view, the original larger piece had always had frontage up on Wasatch Blvd. 00:24:55
if we were to be creating a new lot. 00:25:00
If Lot 102 was up there up on Wasatch, yes, I would need to have a second driveway. 00:25:07
Or at least an easement that would grant access to that second lot. 00:25:13
But for prescriptive right, having this parcel preexisting quite a bit of holiday to begin with. 00:25:17
Access to Wasatch Blvd. shouldn't be an issue. 00:25:27
OK. Well, I really, I'm not trying to create a I would just wait. I would say, you know if you you thought we're coming to you dot 00:25:31
and saying we're creating another lot. 00:25:37
That needs to access Wasatch. That could be a problem. 00:25:42
The existing property parcel that is being subdivided now. 00:25:46
Probably would already have a prescriptive right to get there. They've already installed utilities to get down into Silverhawks, 00:25:51
so that. 00:25:55
It would be hard pressed for what it's U dot to prevent them from accessing that, but that's something I'd be interested in 00:25:59
actually ascertaining. You can ask them directly for sure. 00:26:03
And I believe in my conversations with them when you're talking about the access, they said that site has always had that access 00:26:08
on Wasatch. 00:26:12
So that's the where that was the existing parcel. 00:26:16
It's. 00:26:23
Fairly safe to save, so is there a statute of limitations on? 00:26:25
As long as they've used it for the last 100 years, it becomes. 00:26:31
It doesn't even have to go back 100 years, OK? I'm just using that as a term. 10 years. 00:26:35
Then that that's legal access then basically correct. OK. Thank you. 00:26:40
City attorney checks the box. 00:26:47
I think he's just telling him to be quiet at this end. No, no very good quality questions. 00:26:49
But I do agree with, you know, Commissioner Gong, there's reasons why some parcels are not, have not been developed. 00:26:58
Especially in our valley, the last ones on the foothills are the ones that are most precarious and slippery. Literally. 00:27:06
And this is one of the reasons why we're putting this property owner through so many hurdles. 00:27:13
Is to ensure that yes, it does meet underlying zoning and it does meet a development pattern for F 'cause, which is why you're 00:27:18
getting 2 practically postage stamp building lots. Those are no bigger than two swimming pools put together. 00:27:26
On each property. 00:27:34
Sorry, just one quick question. I know we're just about finished. When they do build the properties, do they stake the 30% slope 00:27:36
line, so they're not driving into that disturbing that or because they're shown on the plat? 00:27:42
With descriptions, Yeah, we'll have them staked and show them where they are. That's how they secure. OK. Thank you. 00:27:49
So before we move into that, anybody with a technical background maybe want to make the motion when it comes time for it. 00:27:59
Sure. Awesome. 00:28:07
Thanks, Commissioner Barrett. 00:28:08
I felt your case. 00:28:11
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that. Wasn't he pressured you? Did you feel the four sets of the? 00:28:13
I love it when we have a plan that's awesome. All right. 00:28:20
So with that, any other questions on the items before we roll right into our official meeting? 00:28:22
All right, then we will close the work meeting and join. Give me the green light when it's time to get us going. 00:28:28
Oh yeah, go ahead. All right. Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the Planning Commission on May 7th, 2024. We are excusing 00:28:39
Commissioners Vilcinski and Commissioners Cunningham from attendance this evening. We have three items on the agenda this evening, 00:28:47
a public hearing on the first one and then an action item on the 2nd and 3rd. And we have an opening statement we read at the 00:28:56
beginning of every meeting and I have asked Commissioner Prince if she will do that for us now. 00:29:04
The City of Holiday Planning Commission is a volunteer citizen board whose function is to review land use plans and other special 00:29:14
studies, make recommendations to the City Council on proposed zoning map and ordinance changes, and approve conditional uses and 00:29:21
subdivisions. The Planning Commission does not initiate land use applications, rather acts on applications as they are submitted. 00:29:28
Commissioners do not meet with applicants except a publicly noticed meetings. 00:29:36
Commissioners attempt to visit each property on the agenda where the location, the nature of the neighborhood, existing structures 00:29:44
and uses related to the proposed change are noted. Decisions are based on observations, recommendations from the professional 00:29:51
planning staff, the City's general plan, zoning ordinance, and other reports by all verbal and written comments and by evidence 00:29:57
submitted, all of which are part of the public record. 00:30:04
Thank you very much, Commissioner. 00:30:11
And with that, we will move to our first item on the agenda, which is the ALT mixed-use plan unit development at 6375 S Highland 00:30:14
and one of our wonderful city staff will roll us right into what is happening on this one. 00:30:22
Carrie Marsh, thank you. 00:30:33
All right, this is working great. 00:30:37
This is a property located 6375 S Highland Dr. .57 acres, recently rezoned from the RM Zone to the PO Zone. That PO Zone then has. 00:30:41
Expanded uses based on Office use primarily. 00:30:57
With that's permitted in the zone. One use that is a conditional use is a mixed residential planned unit development. 00:31:02
The applicant is proposing to convert existing office space on the top level of this building to residential units. They're 00:31:10
proposing 2 two-bedroom units, all the parking requirements on site with taking out office space and adding the three spaces 00:31:18
required for two two-bedroom units. I think parking on the site was about 35 spaces and they're only required to have 29 based off 00:31:26
of the total square footage for offices. 00:31:33
And now the added. 00:31:41
Or conversion to residential units, so meeting parking requirements. 00:31:45
And they're. 00:31:51
As a conditional use, having the residential use on the top, just looking at potential mitigation factors for any impacts. 00:31:54
No substantial impacts we're seeing with this property. It's not higher than residential uses that are neighboring it. There's a 00:32:03
higher. 00:32:08
Use zone, the Ord zone on the South side. Not a lot of impact to that neighboring property. If you are looking at possible 00:32:16
mitigation factors, you could look at possible vegetation screening factors. But. 00:32:25
The impacts to the residential neighborhoods that back up to this or not substantial. 00:32:35
IO will have the applicant come and present any more details and he can answer any questions for you. Kerry, could I just ask you 00:32:43
one quick question before you step away with the retrofitter? Adjust to residential properties on the top if approved. With this, 00:32:50
they're not actually altering the height of the structure as it exists now though, is that right? Right. They're maintaining the 00:32:58
the same dimensions and structure. It's all interior remodel to convert office space to living space. 00:33:05
OK. Thank you very much. And with that, do we have a representative or the applicant, Michael OTT here today? 00:33:13
Alt. Excuse me. 00:33:18
So do you want me to go over what that our plan is, or do you want to just ask me questions? Just anything you want to add to what 00:33:24
our city staff has already presented, if there, if it's necessary. I think she presented pretty well accurately. I've talked to 00:33:30
her a few times and she's pretty good at at what Elaine, what are? 00:33:37
Thoughts are and how that we want to proceed to do a remodel on the upper floor? 00:33:44
And So what we're asking to do is turn it into our residents in an apartment on the third floor and then we leave the rest of the 00:33:50
building, the commercial, whatever we are acceptable doing in appeal zone. 00:33:55
OK, makes sense to me if there's any any questions for the applicant. 00:34:02
I just have one question. I didn't, I didn't see this originally, but there's three parcels here. 00:34:08
There are and so part of the parking is in the second and third parcels. Is that right? 00:34:14
I believe it is. I'm not totally familiar with it, but there's two small parcels and there's. 00:34:21
A couple of spaces in those marshals, so they're not going to rectify that with this application obviously, but. 00:34:26
Can they have parking in opposite in? 00:34:33
The, the parcels are all under the same ownership. They could combine all three of those parcels. That could be a condition that 00:34:36
that you could place on the application just doing a consolidation to consolidate all three of those little parcels to bring it 00:34:44
into one singular parcel. OK, thank you. I didn't see that originally. 00:34:51
Thank you. 00:34:59
That's the only questions I think we'll have. You go ahead and sit down and then we will open up the public hearing for anyone 00:35:01
that wants to, members of the public, if any, want to. 00:35:06
Make comments on this At this time, is there anyone here this evening that would like to make comments on item number one? 00:35:13
Going once, twice, all right, does not look like it. We'll go ahead and close the public hearing then. 00:35:21
And with that, Commissioners. 00:35:27
So you brought up the the parcel and I didn't see that. Is that something that we need to? I was just asking staff and as long as 00:35:31
they're comfortable, I'm good with that. 00:35:35
All right. So, Commissioners, any other comments, concerns, questions on this application? I know we had some questions on the 00:35:40
rezoning that may have. I hope those are resolved anyway by that by the nature of that decision, I think this works perfectly 00:35:48
within that expectation. So I'm all for this. 00:35:56
All right. Well, if there's no additional questions or comments, then I will be happy to entertain any motions. If someone wants 00:36:05
to make one, well, someone does. All right, fantastic. Let's hear it. This is Commissioner Font. I'll make a motion that we 00:36:13
approve the conditional use permit for the alt mix, mixed-use plan unit development. 00:36:20
Located at. 00:36:29
Where am I? 6375 S Highland Drive. 00:36:32
For two residential units on the top floor of the of the structure with the findings and conditions as stated in the. 00:36:38
Packet. 00:36:51
This is Commissioner Prince. I'll second that motion. All right. We have a motion and it's been seconded. We'll call for a vote. 00:36:53
Commissioner Baron aye. Commissioner Gong. Commissioner Prince aye. Commissioner Fulan, aye. And chair Roach votes. Aye, so passes 00:36:58
unanimously. 00:37:02
Thank you very much. 00:37:08
All right. And rolling right along, we have our action item on the Silverhawk 2 subdivision and we will turn to city staff again 00:37:09
to give us the intro on that. Will that be once again, Carrie Marsh? 00:37:17
Thank you, Chair Roach. So this application is for the preliminary and final. 00:37:29
Plan review for a subdivision amendment and extension The proposals to bring additional area into the Silverhawk 2 subdivision. An 00:37:37
existing parcel was not originally included in that subdivision, so they're bringing that area in, making some lot line 00:37:44
adjustments between an existing lot in the Silverhawk 2 subdivision. 00:37:52
So they have a total of 2 acres. That two acres is then so divided into two lots as one acre lots is required in the F cause 00:38:01
overlay. 00:38:06
We already held a public hearing on this when they presented their conceptual plan, did not receive any public comments on it and 00:38:13
so now just coming back for the preliminary and final approval staff recommendation to move that final approval to staff. 00:38:22
Any questions for staff on this? 00:38:32
I don't believe so. Are we going to invite the applicant up at this time? We'll have the applicant come up. 00:38:37
All right. Thank you very much. If we could have the applicant or their representative come up for us. 00:38:41
Hi, I'm Robert Jensen. I'm the owner of the property that we're talking about. 00:38:55
I live in Taylorsville at 4805 S, 3685 W. 00:39:02
I think the big thing we're really looking at is we've added the geotech report that was required. 00:39:10
And. 00:39:18
I think that gets all the hoops that you guys have asked us to go through. 00:39:20
So that this piece should be approved. 00:39:26
OK. And commissioners, do we have any questions for the applicant? 00:39:29
We'll appreciate. Appreciate all the work you've done to get to this point. And we'll go ahead and have you sit back down then. 00:39:34
All right. Thank you. Thank you. 00:39:39
All right. And this does not have a hearing. So, Commissioners, we can roll right into discussion on this or questions if there 00:39:45
are any that were not covered in the work meeting. 00:39:49
This is Commissioner Prince. I think the applicant's done everything that we've asked him to do and the the staff report is. 00:39:55
You know, shows that the required elements have been reviewed and are acceptable, so I. 00:40:06
I think that's. 00:40:13
Complete as far as I can tell. I would agree with that. I know there was concerns about the technicalities with the F cause zone 00:40:14
originally, and I would say more of the spirit of the F cause. 00:40:20
Intention. 00:40:28
Let me give a pause. All right. That would count me off guard. Thank you, Commissioner. So with that said, and the checks on those 00:40:30
boxes, unless commissioners, there's anything else to discuss, I am ready to entertain a motion if anyone's prepared to make one. 00:40:38
OK, thanks. This is Commissioner Barrett. I motion to approve the preliminary plan and final plat application by Robert and Connie 00:40:46
Jensen for an amendment and extension of the Silver Hawk 2 subdivision to include two new residential lots. 00:40:54
Based upon the findings, the staff findings and. 00:41:03
Conditions in the staff report. 00:41:07
And then there's another sentence. Do I add that to the motion also within one year? Yes, we do. OK, also within one year and in 00:41:10
accordance with 13. 00:41:15
.08 dot 010 dot D5 to defer administrative review and approval of the final plat by the Community and Economic Development 00:41:21
Director following a positive written recommendation from the TRC. 00:41:28
This is Commissioner Prince. I'll second that motion. All right, we have a motion and a second. We'll go ahead and call for a 00:41:37
vote. Commissioner Fault, aye. Commissioner Prince. Aye. Commissioner Gong. 00:41:42
Aye, Commissioner Baron. Aye. And Chair Roche votes. Aye. So it passes unanimously. Thank you very much. 00:41:49
Right. And with that, the last item we have on our agenda this evening is the approval of the minutes from the meeting on 5/18. 00:41:56
This has a typo and says 2021. I'm quite sure that meant 2024 because I don't remember that meeting and couldn't even begin to, 00:42:02
but. 00:42:08
That's really catching up there. 00:42:16
But for those that were here on the 5/18/24 meeting and read through those minutes, were there any adjustments or alterations or 00:42:19
clarifications needed? 00:42:24
Does it say 518? It should be three 19319. 00:42:30
It says Tuesday, March 19th, so this is for March 19th, 2024. 00:42:35
For all right, Those are the minutes being presented for review and approval in the future. I was going off of the agenda, so 00:42:42
sorry. I'm reading an old typo on that. So my bad. So 3/19/24, there we go. 00:42:50
Did we have no adjustments? Everybody felt good about it. All right? I wasn't here for that one. I wasn't here. 00:43:00
Can we vote or should we abstain if we weren't here? 00:43:05
There is no requirement for you to abstain if you would prefer to abstain when you can. 00:43:10
Well, but. 00:43:15
OK. And and traditionally with the approval of minutes rather than making the motion, we just all in favor? 00:43:17
Say aye, aye, aye, aye. That's four. We got four, We're covered minutes or 10. 00:43:24
Twice. OK, All right. So with that, that is everything we had on the agenda this evening. And unless there is anything else, 00:43:31
motion to adjourn. 00:43:36
Aye. All right. Thank you very much everyone. Have a good evening. 00:43:42
scroll up