Live stream not working in Chrome or Edge? Click Here
No Bookmarks Exist.
Undoubtedly have. | 00:00:00 | |
I'll swap with you. | 00:00:03 | |
We're up. We're going. | 00:00:13 | |
We're going all right. | 00:00:15 | |
Good afternoon and welcome to the Holiday City Planning Commission work session. | 00:00:17 | |
We have in attendance all planning commissioners except for Commissioner Baron who will be absent today. And Carrie Ann is a | 00:00:24 | |
question mark Prince, excuse me, Karen Prince, but we have legal counsel and. | 00:00:30 | |
To city staff here to support this evening, and it looks like the first item on our agenda is the zone map amendment. | 00:00:38 | |
On Highland Drive, so is that going to be Carrier, John? That'll walk us through that. I will walk you through that one. | 00:00:47 | |
So this is a zone map amendment for 5428 S Highland Drive. A little bit of history on this property is that it was originally 2 | 00:00:54 | |
parcels until 2013. The owner of those two parcels combined them into a single parcel. | 00:01:02 | |
Sold to the current owner. The current owner would like to put them back into two parcels. | 00:01:11 | |
Keep the zoning on the rear parcel that has kind of the driveway access off of Baywood that will remain at half an acre and then | 00:01:18 | |
there's a remaining I think .44 acres that fronts onto Highland Drive. | 00:01:26 | |
And that is what the reason would be applied to is just that front piece. You can see that in the narrative you have a printed out | 00:01:34 | |
copy. That's the most recent narrative that accurately reflects the requested zone for that front portion on Highland Drive. You | 00:01:42 | |
can see the existing house, the garage. They are putting the property boundary exactly where it was before. | 00:01:51 | |
The two parcels were combined. | 00:02:00 | |
The house that's on there is an older house, there's access off of Highland Drive for that house, and then the rear house is half | 00:02:03 | |
an acre. Would stay as an R121 zone and have the access from Baywood Dr. | 00:02:10 | |
There any? | 00:02:18 | |
Questions on that. I know it's kind of a different situation where it's, it will be two parcels and just the front portion of the | 00:02:19 | |
parcel on Highland Dr. would be rezoned and the R210 zone was selected based off of the Highland Dr. master plan. So it does match | 00:02:27 | |
the guidance in that. Do we have a zone map in the packet that we can zoom there should be or I also John, I have a tab pulled up | 00:02:34 | |
with the zone map on it. | 00:02:42 | |
If you want to go to that. | 00:02:50 | |
It's not. | 00:03:00 | |
So this is one of four homes along Highland Drive in that area that doesn't have the. | 00:03:07 | |
Waldorf, look. | 00:03:13 | |
I think so. I haven't driven down that section of Highland Dr. There's because a lot of those properties, they are larger parcels | 00:03:16 | |
that the backside kind of backs up to Highland Drive. I just drove by, it is fenced. It's a fenced on a Highland. | 00:03:25 | |
I think there's the there's an opening where the driveway is, yes. So it's not the really cute little house that's been well | 00:03:35 | |
preserved. OK, that was when I was a little worried about it is still a cute house. | 00:03:41 | |
Just less visible. | 00:03:49 | |
OK. Is there any just anything that you can think of that would? | 00:03:51 | |
Next year's look at the general plan? Change the zoning. | 00:03:58 | |
So we'd have to do this again. | 00:04:04 | |
Right. And that's what with a rezone to prevent it from then coming back again and having to go through the same process it was, | 00:04:06 | |
this is what the general plan guidance is. So it is then in line with that just rezone it to the recommended R210 at this point | 00:04:15 | |
rather than the applicant originally was thinking like an R115. | 00:04:23 | |
Which works for the property but isn't necessarily in line with what the the Highland Dr. master plan. Can we zoom out on the? | 00:04:32 | |
Map a little bit here. | 00:04:42 | |
Yeah, you can see a lot of the. | 00:04:45 | |
So across the street is the Great Orthodox Church. And then you have neighborhood commercial slightly to the north. There is | 00:04:49 | |
another commercial property slightly to the South. So this is just this little pocket of properties that are a little bit larger | 00:04:56 | |
in size. So this whole section, I'm sorry to interrupt this whole section from basically the nursing home all the way to the R18 | 00:05:03 | |
PUD right there, that's all. | 00:05:11 | |
One right now, right, right. So we're going to carve out just one little square of R120 in there and then the other. | 00:05:19 | |
Homes strategy is to catch up because it's planned that way for the Highland corridor, right? So any properties that do have | 00:05:32 | |
frontage on Highland Dr. they could rezone in accordance with the Highland Dr. master plan. | 00:05:39 | |
And rezoning typically is done at the discretion of the property owner when they request that, when they apply for that, the city | 00:05:47 | |
generally does not just come in and rezone properties. So it's the property owner would request it. We go to the general plan that | 00:05:54 | |
gives us the guidance and that's how zone recommendation is made. And if I remember the HDMP said something and I can't remember | 00:06:02 | |
the exact language of the HDMP, but it was something to the effect of. | 00:06:09 | |
Not disrupting existing neighborhoods and. | 00:06:17 | |
I can't remember the exact. Anybody else recently look at the HDMP just for grins and giggles and read over that? Remember what | 00:06:23 | |
I'm talking about? I haven't pulled up in a tab too. John can click over to it. It's that specific section in. | 00:06:29 | |
The general plan that refers to the Highland Dr. Master plan and then the Highland Dr. Master plan as well, so. | 00:06:37 | |
Both of those are there. The guidance for rezoning is just that, not any new room. | 00:06:43 | |
Zones be established in that section. | 00:06:51 | |
A lot of things that we're seeing now with redevelopment too is that there's either townhomes or kind of a single family style | 00:06:55 | |
home that could have a second unit behind it. There's there are ways to create that, but with the square footage of the property, | 00:07:04 | |
you can see on the second page where to best utilize all of the the land that would be on that front portion. | 00:07:12 | |
At the most ideal is three single family homes. | 00:07:22 | |
Of course, whoever owns that property can develop it in accordance with the RT zone, but I. | 00:07:26 | |
The three single family units is the best use of all the. | 00:07:34 | |
And to be clear, in R210. | 00:07:40 | |
Allows for two units for every 10,000 square feet. | 00:07:43 | |
Right, two attached unit or two attached units for 10,000 square feet or it allows for single family detached as well and each | 00:07:48 | |
unit that's detached is 6250 square feet. | 00:07:55 | |
So you don't have to do attached units, they don't have to be duplexes, you can still do single family homes there. | 00:08:03 | |
But just trying to do math in my head because it's been a day 2 * 2 to 10, and then there's four 10s in an acre, right? So we're | 00:08:11 | |
talking about 8 in an acre of property, 8 potential attached homes if R210 was extended to the house next door on either side. And | 00:08:19 | |
they bought all those up and said here we want to put a row along Kentucky Ave. or whatever, you know what I'm saying? | 00:08:27 | |
Just making sure I understand the zoning math for me right? If if a if there was more than. | 00:08:36 | |
A acre there, or if there is an acre, then that is. | 00:08:43 | |
Or. | 00:08:51 | |
Yeah. And then going back to the HDMP language that John just had up, didn't it say something about 5 per acre in there? | 00:08:54 | |
Right, no more than 5 per acre. So this would be? | 00:09:02 | |
By that three more units than that if in my hypothetical scenario the neighbors on either side decided to go R210 and someone came | 00:09:07 | |
in and said I want to build this here. | 00:09:13 | |
Right, there's. | 00:09:20 | |
The. | 00:09:24 | |
What I was looking at the area with the Highland Dr. master plan versus the properties, most of those properties front on the | 00:09:27 | |
other, they would have to do a similar kind of scheme where they'd subdivide, keep half an acre in the protected zone and then | 00:09:34 | |
whatever is remaining would be on the front. So it would require then somebody purchasing some of those fronting parcels on | 00:09:41 | |
Highland Drive and then combining enough of them to get up. | 00:09:49 | |
An acre. | 00:09:56 | |
I'm just, like I said, trying to make sure I understand the future vision of 20 years from now. What does it look like when three | 00:10:00 | |
homes potentially are built on this plot and the neighbors say, well, I lost my view and Highlands a mess anyway. And then they | 00:10:06 | |
say, hey, how much do you want to give me for this? And they sell and they say, great, now we can put six or seven or we'll buy | 00:10:11 | |
you and the neighbors and put, you know, eight more in there. You know what I'm saying? | 00:10:17 | |
I'm sorry, I'm just trying again, just looking in the looking in the crystal ball. I'm not saying that's going to happen. What I'm | 00:10:25 | |
more concerned about this is an aside, as you know. | 00:10:31 | |
If you put all that on Highland Dr. here's a road that's just going to get busier and busier, and to have cars trying to pull off | 00:10:36 | |
of Highland drive into residential is a nightmare already. And this is just going to exacerbate that issue. But it is consistent | 00:10:43 | |
with the zoning that the city. | 00:10:49 | |
Wants there. | 00:10:56 | |
And then I just hope when we get no one, I don't think anyone's using the driveway now because they're accessing it off Baywood | 00:10:58 | |
through the back. Now she's going to have to access it off island, which I think she's going to learn to hate real quickly. But I | 00:11:05 | |
don't know. It's up to her. But then if you rezone and at some point they put two or three or whatever they can put in there. | 00:11:11 | |
Getting those people on and off a Highland Drive at that particular point is going to be very, very disruptive to traffic, right? | 00:11:19 | |
And it's likely then if you're looking at that kind of access typically. | 00:11:26 | |
We'd a lot of development that I've seen is a shared driveway. So you have a single access point that three houses are sharing and | 00:11:33 | |
that's pretty typical of some of those new developments off of Highland is having a sequel driveway. | 00:11:41 | |
Who owns Highland Drive at that point? | 00:11:49 | |
You don't or the state? No, it's the city owned. City owned. OK, all right. | 00:11:54 | |
And it is. Is that 2 lanes John? | 00:12:00 | |
One line in your direction. | 00:12:04 | |
At this location, I think no, there's two lanes, there's two. | 00:12:08 | |
Yeah, 2 with no sidewalk. | 00:12:13 | |
Did the. | 00:12:17 | |
Traffic engineer Yeah, there's a sidewalk there. | 00:12:19 | |
Did Jared take a look at this? Is he part of the TRC? Yes. | 00:12:23 | |
So what you're not seeing now is I don't know if you remember last year or the year before, we have a grant to improve Highland | 00:12:27 | |
Dr. dramatically. That hasn't happened yet. | 00:12:31 | |
Because we didn't get the grant or because we're changing, some of the grant aspects have changed. | 00:12:37 | |
It's still in process, but that holds this whole stretch of Highland Drive. The cross section will will change. | 00:12:43 | |
That's right. Is this the area that's slated for one lane and bike lanes and sidewalks? I don't think that's going to happen. | 00:12:50 | |
OK. Mm-hmm. | 00:12:58 | |
Isn't the whole point of the General Plan and the Highland Dr. Master plan? | 00:13:00 | |
To ultimately increase density along that corridor. | 00:13:06 | |
To a point, yes. That's why you have 55 units an acre maximum. | 00:13:10 | |
For long. | 00:13:15 | |
Other questions on this one? | 00:13:20 | |
All right, look forward to that. | 00:13:23 | |
Discussion and what the applicant has to say. And then on the next one on here we have action item number 2, the 1740 E. | 00:13:25 | |
Holiday townhomes. | 00:13:34 | |
Site plan. | 00:13:38 | |
Hey, so on this one, we initially saw the conceptual plan for this in July, July 16th. | 00:13:42 | |
The applicant came back with a revised site plan that has a central access with a hammerhead to facilitate turnaround in order to | 00:13:52 | |
have that central. | 00:13:56 | |
Access that was recommended by the fire Marshall and the city engineer pushed the setbacks a little bit smaller on all sides of | 00:14:03 | |
the property. | 00:14:08 | |
So moving it away from Big Cottonwood Creek closer to the multifamily on the north side, the South side is largely a road access. | 00:14:13 | |
There's another multi family property that's stuck back behind that kind of tucked in and then I don't remember what was on the | 00:14:20 | |
east side it's. | 00:14:27 | |
Kind of a smaller board property border there. | 00:14:35 | |
But I think it may be a single family property. So moved it back. The there is an allowance referenced in our code for site plan | 00:14:39 | |
modifications for public safety and for environmental concerns. So where we have the Creek that's there and public safety access, | 00:14:48 | |
making sure that EMS and fire services can reach all of those units, that's where those setbacks were reduced. | 00:14:57 | |
Did we resolve Weather 1740 as a public or private road? | 00:15:09 | |
It is public, but it is a smaller access because all these documents show this as a private route again. | 00:15:14 | |
It's still on there as a private road, but in the narrative it's as. | 00:15:23 | |
Public, but in the in the. | 00:15:28 | |
It all says private, so it's very confusing. | 00:15:32 | |
Yeah. And that's what we would make sure is clear on the final site plan. The Planning Commission can make sure that that's noted | 00:15:35 | |
in the findings is that for the final that that road needs to be clarified. It does have a green street sign on it. So that's | 00:15:44 | |
where it's public, but it's largely an access Rd. for the multi family development and this property. | 00:15:53 | |
And also I had a question about. | 00:16:07 | |
When we do the calculations for the density there, that includes 100 year floodplain, even though you can't build on top of it. | 00:16:09 | |
Right. | 00:16:18 | |
Kind of seems silly, but. | 00:16:21 | |
The ordinance allows it, right? So that right, the number is still correct, even though there's a big chunk of that South side | 00:16:23 | |
that could not be built on because it kind of looked like. | 00:16:29 | |
The new plan. | 00:16:34 | |
What we thought we were seeing in the old plan look much nicer than what we're seeing in this plan, because now there's no open | 00:16:36 | |
space. Essentially, it's just. | 00:16:40 | |
The floodplain, right? And that would be expected since you can't build into floodplain anyway. You'd see a similar situation with | 00:16:45 | |
any type of development near a floodplain. That is a common situation for a variance where you'd have a variance for setbacks. So | 00:16:53 | |
things get pushed away because your land and the area that you can build on is limited by a natural feature. | 00:17:01 | |
Can I just clarify to make sure I understand this? So we saw the preliminary was the preliminary we saw back in July concept, | 00:17:12 | |
conceptual? | 00:17:16 | |
But now the setbacks are smaller. So we're tonight we're deciding if that's. | 00:17:23 | |
Fine. Is there a point where we say sorry, 9 units don't fit, we don't want to change that. I mean is that an option? We can | 00:17:29 | |
either say this new sub X are fine, it seems like public safety, environmental blah blah. Or it's 9 units don't fit, don't change | 00:17:35 | |
the setbacks, do fewer units. Is that the other option? | 00:17:41 | |
Not with the entitled right of how many units are allowed for the amount of land. | 00:17:47 | |
So the total amount of units is entitled, right and we have allowances within our code to reduce that backs for public safety and | 00:17:54 | |
environmental concerns. So you do have the capability to reduce this. | 00:18:02 | |
So where is the leeway? | 00:18:14 | |
On our part, So what I think, let me clarify just a little bit. You're at odds with the TRC. | 00:18:17 | |
Right now, TRC. | 00:18:23 | |
Representation from the safety coordination side. Engineering and fire. | 00:18:26 | |
Was not going to recommend your previous concept layout. | 00:18:32 | |
Access was a concern, too many turns for fire trucks getting around the corners in there, and so in order to get a plan that could | 00:18:37 | |
be recommended by emergency access, this is the layout that they came to or derived to from with the developer. | 00:18:45 | |
What that requires is a reduction in set back on that north side. | 00:18:54 | |
Of what the RM zone requires. | 00:18:59 | |
In the ordinance, it stays that the Planning Commission can reduce setbacks if there's something that's in conflict. It has to do | 00:19:02 | |
with safety and health, health, safety and welfare for the site development site. | 00:19:08 | |
To not approve a reduction of setbacks in lieu of reducing the number of units. | 00:19:16 | |
That would put the city at odds for the allowance for density because they could just go back to the original plan. | 00:19:22 | |
You would have to consider an A recommendation from the TRC that doesn't. | 00:19:29 | |
Recommend that layout and. | 00:19:35 | |
Oh boy. | 00:19:38 | |
So right now this is. | 00:19:39 | |
The layout here doesn't isn't look as nice and does it's not as attractive as what you previously saw. But as far as safety and | 00:19:42 | |
access for a very deep lot getting all the way down there with an emergency access for another. | 00:19:48 | |
Who knows how many individuals, fire and emergency access emergency services were concerned, even with just a minor slip and fall, | 00:19:57 | |
getting in there quickly. | 00:20:01 | |
And apart from other some other things, snow storage and such. | 00:20:08 | |
But we the meeting which this was presented as said in the minutes that we're reviewing for tonight. So I. | 00:20:13 | |
Just handily looked at them. We did say that whatever was went forward. Had to meet with the fire marshals. | 00:20:21 | |
Requirements and the engineering items that would come up so. | 00:20:30 | |
Are we really not in agreement? But in order to do that they had to shift so all the units so far north it encroaches into that | 00:20:37 | |
set back area. So yes, they did meet with the with the engineer and the fire department to get a layout that's acceptable. | 00:20:45 | |
But that forced him to move into a set back. That's not required. That's required of the room zone. | 00:20:53 | |
That makes sense. | 00:21:00 | |
So it was a catch 22, Yeah, before the roadway access being on the north side and on the east side was essentially their set back | 00:21:02 | |
because I think it's is it 15? | 00:21:09 | |
So they went down from 15 to 10 and some of those points are a little bit further. The closest points are 10 feet. There's a | 00:21:19 | |
little bit of variation on the on the building designs. But because that road was not is no longer on the perimeter serving as | 00:21:26 | |
their set back and it had to be moved into the area where their buildings were going to be. They had to then move the buildings | 00:21:34 | |
out to the north and a little to the east for that hammerhead. | 00:21:41 | |
So are we then? | 00:21:49 | |
Said are we suggesting this change to the setbacks or were approving that we're being asked for that I'm now I've now I've gotten | 00:21:53 | |
lost in the weeds of what in the world we're doing. Yeah. So you are approved. This is their preliminary site plan and you are | 00:22:01 | |
being asked to approve or not approve this type. Thank you. | 00:22:09 | |
Is this already approved for APUD? | 00:22:17 | |
It's not a beauty. This is not a beauty, OK? It's just a permitted site plan in the room zone. | 00:22:20 | |
I'm just not clear on what basis we would not approve it. | 00:22:27 | |
We can't say this is too many homes on this site. We can't say that, right? We can't say you have to increase your setbacks | 00:22:33 | |
because then they won't get approval from the TRC, right? So it, it just feels like our hands are tied here. | 00:22:41 | |
And after all, the set back that we're worried about. | 00:22:54 | |
Mainly on the north is a chunky park parking lot, right? It's not a house or grass or backyard. It's a junky parking lot. | 00:22:56 | |
And a pretty large piece of parking lot. Yeah, yeah. | 00:23:05 | |
Yeah. And then in an ideal world, there could have been some easement agreements with that property owner for access, but you | 00:23:17 | |
know, that does not always work out. | 00:23:21 | |
But a lash? | 00:23:27 | |
And sprinklers are an option for fire suppression, but not for emergency paramedics or something. It doesn't. And that was another | 00:23:29 | |
concern that the Fire Marshall had. There's also garbage concerns. And because it is a public St. having a space where the public | 00:23:37 | |
can turn around on a narrow Rd. So having all those pieces incorporated into this development. | 00:23:46 | |
Was important for both. | 00:23:55 | |
Public safety and emergency, yeah. Considering there is the heat island just north of that on that side of the property, would it | 00:23:58 | |
be appropriate to request more or require more? | 00:24:04 | |
Free landscaping. Along that I think you could suggest it. | 00:24:12 | |
I don't know where you put any landscaping on this plan. There's no landscaping on this, right? Yeah, it's. | 00:24:18 | |
Yeah, all the stuff we heard about in the 1st. | 00:24:25 | |
Right. Yeah, it's all yeah, in the floodplain. | 00:24:30 | |
Legally required ones by the. | 00:24:33 | |
Any other questions on #2? | 00:24:40 | |
This is not specific to their plan but just in general with 100 year flood plan. | 00:24:42 | |
Can it not be disturbed agree during construction either or it can be they just have to restore it in some way or what? It just | 00:24:49 | |
has to be there. Well you you can disturb within banks of the floodplain with special permitting from the state, which they | 00:24:55 | |
probably aren't really interested in pursuing. So they would be they would. | 00:25:01 | |
Be careful to stay up on the front. | 00:25:07 | |
I mean, ideally if you really wanted to, if you had unlimited amounts of funds, yes, you would disrupt that bank side, increase | 00:25:11 | |
the floodway elevation, and then go apply to FEMA for a flood map letter of amendment so you're no longer in the floodplain. | 00:25:19 | |
I also I mean. | 00:25:29 | |
Based on recent changes, is 100 year flood really still 100 year flood on this? | 00:25:31 | |
We think. | 00:25:38 | |
I don't know if it's entirely accurate, but we still have to go buy the FEMA floodplain maps. | 00:25:40 | |
Yeah. | 00:25:46 | |
Thank you. | 00:25:50 | |
Right. And then the last item on there is just minute meeting minutes for four meetings. So we'll go through those. | 00:25:52 | |
All right. So if there's no other questions at this time on the agenda items, I think we can go ahead and close the work meeting. | 00:26:05 | |
And then do any commissioners need a quick recess before we jump right into the official meeting? A quick recess has been called | 00:26:11 | |
for. We will be back in 2 minutes. | 00:26:17 | |
And. | 00:27:06 | |
Just want some sugar down there. I got some caramels in here, they're delicious. | 00:28:23 | |
Yeah, she knows what's up. | 00:28:27 | |
Digging. | 00:28:32 | |
Bless you. | 00:28:39 | |
We're in trouble after Halloween. | 00:28:45 | |
I don't have any little kids anymore. We're gonna have to steal Angela's. | 00:28:49 | |
All right, John, we set. | 00:29:07 | |
All right. | 00:29:12 | |
Good evening everyone. Welcome to the Holiday City Planning Commission, October 1st, 2024. In attendance we have all commissioners | 00:29:14 | |
except Commissioner Barrant and Legal Counsel and both city staff. And we have 3 items on our agenda. The 1st is a public hearing | 00:29:21 | |
and then two action items. And before we get started with any of these meetings, we do have an opening statement that we read to | 00:29:28 | |
the public and I've asked Commissioner Gong if she will do that for us. | 00:29:34 | |
The City of Holiday Planning Commission is a volunteer citizen board whose function is to review land use plans and other special | 00:29:43 | |
studies. Make recommendations to the City Council on proposed zoning map and ordinance changes. | 00:29:48 | |
And improve conditional uses into subdivisions. | 00:29:54 | |
The Planning Commission does not initiate land use applications, rather acts on applications as they are submitted. | 00:29:57 | |
Commissioners do not meet with applicants except that publicly noticed meetings. | 00:30:03 | |
Commissioners attempt to visit each property on the agenda where the location, the nature of the neighborhood, existing structures | 00:30:07 | |
and uses related to the proposed change are noted. | 00:30:11 | |
Decisions are based on observations, recommendations from the professional planning staff. | 00:30:16 | |
The City's general plan, zoning ordinance and other reports by all verbal and written comments and by evidence submitted, all of | 00:30:21 | |
which are part of the public record. | 00:30:25 | |
All right. Thank you very much. | 00:30:31 | |
And with that, we will roll into our first item on the agenda. We will ask city staff to come up and walk us through this zone | 00:30:35 | |
zone map amendment before us at 5428 Highland. | 00:30:42 | |
OK. | 00:30:59 | |
All right, first item on the agenda. This is a zone map amendment requested from the existing zone of R121 to R210. The property | 00:31:01 | |
is located at 5428 S Highland Drive. | 00:31:09 | |
The unique feature on this request is that the applicant is requesting to only rezone the front portion on Highland Dr. of this | 00:31:19 | |
property. | 00:31:23 | |
History for the property is that it was 2 parcels prior to 2013. Those two parcels were purchased by the owner of the parcel of | 00:31:31 | |
the Baywood parcel on the back. They bought the front one and then combined them into one single parcel. | 00:31:39 | |
The current owner wants to now divide them back how they were and then assign the appropriate zoning for each parcel. So the | 00:31:49 | |
Baywood property that has access off of Baywood Dr. | 00:31:55 | |
Would retain an R121 zone and then the front portion which is I believe it was .4. | 00:32:02 | |
.43 acres would be rezoned to R210. That zone was selected based off of the Highland Dr. master plan Which. | 00:32:11 | |
Calls for density that is no more than 5 units per acre, so about .25 or sorry, 2.5 units per half acre. | 00:32:24 | |
The. | 00:32:36 | |
Total square footage on that portion is. | 00:32:39 | |
I have this highlighted on here. | 00:32:45 | |
Maybe not. | 00:32:52 | |
The square footage on the R2 zone could be divided up in a couple of different ways. | 00:32:55 | |
If the property owner in the future would like to redevelop that as is, they. | 00:33:01 | |
Just want to leave the house that's existing there, but potentially the R2 zone would enable either. | 00:33:07 | |
Attached unit with two units in it and a single family detached house or would have could enable 3 detached single family homes on | 00:33:16 | |
it. At the point in time that any future redevelopment would occur, there would be a. | 00:33:24 | |
Building permit and access, all those kinds of issues that are addressed off of Highland Drive. The reason for higher densities on | 00:33:32 | |
Highland Drive is because of it serving as an arterial Rd. It has two lanes on it and. | 00:33:39 | |
With the uses around there on the north, there are some higher densities and the South also has higher densities. This is kind of | 00:33:48 | |
a unique pocket of lower density in segment B of the Highland Dr. master plan. | 00:33:54 | |
The Highland Dr. master plan does state that our M zones are not appropriate, but other zones are are open for rezoning in that | 00:34:02 | |
segment. | 00:34:07 | |
And just a little context on the zone that Mister Chairlink has pulled up there is the Greek Orthodox Church is directly across | 00:34:14 | |
the street. There's commercial properties on each side of the Greek Orthodox Church and then a pocket of those single family homes | 00:34:21 | |
all zoned as R121. | 00:34:28 | |
Majority of those have frontage on other properties or other kind of that interior neighborhood with the back up to Highland | 00:34:36 | |
Drive. I think there's probably two or three of those that front onto Highland Dr. directly, not very many that have frontage on | 00:34:43 | |
Highland Drive. | 00:34:50 | |
I outlined a scenario in the staff report about kind of the how many properties could potentially do something similar where they | 00:34:59 | |
portion off a portion onto Highland Drive. I think it's 3 or 4 properties could do a similar type of thing, but just because of | 00:35:07 | |
how those the size of the existing properties, how they're laid out. | 00:35:15 | |
Would require some coordination between property owners if they were ever to. | 00:35:24 | |
Expand to a larger size. | 00:35:29 | |
Highland Drive is also a transit route, UTA 220. I'm not sure where those transit stop locations are, but that does serve as a | 00:35:32 | |
main transit arterial. | 00:35:38 | |
So if there's any questions for me, I can answer those and otherwise I can have the applicant come up and present. | 00:35:45 | |
Their their application. | 00:35:55 | |
When this parcel was two separate properties, what was the zoning? | 00:35:57 | |
When it was 2 separate ones, I think it was still all under our 121 because there wasn't a rezone process that that happened to | 00:36:04 | |
when those were subdivided. | 00:36:09 | |
OK. And just while we've got the zone map up before we switch gears on it, could we just zoom out? I'm just curious how many other | 00:36:16 | |
R2 zones? | 00:36:20 | |
There are within. | 00:36:24 | |
Scope of this location along Highland there, so it looks like there's the ones that were built down on the corner. | 00:36:28 | |
So that's the corner of 5600. There's R210 directly across. There are some on the front of that. That's kind of a unique | 00:36:36 | |
development where some of those were R2 and then some are RM. The ones that are on Highland Dr. are zoned as RM. Is that correct, | 00:36:42 | |
John? | 00:36:49 | |
So the ones their backyard faces Highland Drive, but they retained an RM zone and then part of that development was R210. | 00:36:58 | |
RM for the property that's on the north. There's some more S that our R210. | 00:37:08 | |
And then? | 00:37:14 | |
On the Northside of those subject property. | 00:37:16 | |
I think there's some R1. | 00:37:19 | |
And RM. | 00:37:22 | |
So kind of a mix room there. | 00:37:24 | |
On both sides. | 00:37:30 | |
There's a neighborhood commercial that's. | 00:37:35 | |
On the corner. | 00:37:39 | |
And then a little pocket of R18. | 00:37:42 | |
So aside from that grouping of room, there's really not any R2 S along Highland until you get down to the intersection. | 00:37:45 | |
Right, OK. | 00:37:52 | |
All right. Thank you. | 00:37:56 | |
With that, we'll invite the applicant up. | 00:37:58 | |
My name is Ashley Wooley, I live at 4010 S Cumberland Dr. in holiday First. I want to thank Harry Marsh and the other staff for | 00:38:07 | |
guiding me through this process and preparing the staff report for this evening. And thank you to each one of you for volunteering | 00:38:14 | |
your time to be involved in our city government. | 00:38:21 | |
I am applying to rezone the front half of a property at 5428 S Highland Drive to bring it into compliance with the Highland Dr. | 00:38:28 | |
master plan. | 00:38:32 | |
This property has two complete residences sitting back-to-back on a single parcel, one facing east toward Highland Drive and one | 00:38:37 | |
facing West toward Baywood Dr. This is because a decade ago, the former owner consolidated the two parcels into a single parcel. I | 00:38:44 | |
purchased the property four years ago and lived in the Baywood house and used the home on Highland Drive as an accessory dwelling | 00:38:51 | |
unit. | 00:38:57 | |
I would now like to so our family has recently moved to a different part of holiday and I would like to undo that consolidation so | 00:39:06 | |
that I can sell the Baywood house. | 00:39:11 | |
But keep the Highland Dr. House. And the reason for wanting to keep it is because it is a beautiful, well preserved 1900 and 20s | 00:39:16 | |
Arts and Crafts style home and I've put significant resources into restoring and preserving it. | 00:39:23 | |
In the four years that I've owned it. | 00:39:31 | |
The reason I'm here this evening is because that original Highland Dr. parcel is slightly too small for the current zone of R121, | 00:39:33 | |
so with the advice of the planning office, I'm requesting that it be rezoned to R210IN accordance with the Highland Dr. master | 00:39:41 | |
plan. To be clear, I'm not proposing any new development or changes to the use of any property. | 00:39:48 | |
To answer a few questions that I heard raised during the work session, several commissioners were wondering if this was a historic | 00:39:56 | |
home. It is not designated as such, as far as I know. I looked into it when we purchased the property four years ago. As far as I | 00:40:02 | |
understand it, it would be eligible for that designation, but nobody has ever applied for it. And when we purchased the property | 00:40:07 | |
as a family with young kids, the cost benefit analysis just didn't work for us at that point to go through all of the process of | 00:40:13 | |
getting historic. | 00:40:19 | |
Nation, it didn't seem that there would be sufficient benefit for us at that time. That's something that we can look into in the | 00:40:25 | |
future and would be interested in doing. If anyone would like to know more about that property, I put together a little photo | 00:40:29 | |
album. | 00:40:33 | |
Since the agenda is short tonight and I don't want to take too much time, but I just want to point out it's only 5 pages. I don't | 00:40:39 | |
know what the appropriate procedure would be. I'll give it to Kerry and if anybody wants to look at it, they can. One highlight of | 00:40:44 | |
the home is the living room. It's got it used. It's it's a, it's a time machine. | 00:40:50 | |
Back to the 1920s, you step into the living room and has original windows with original glass, original woodwork, original | 00:40:55 | |
hardwood floor, original hardware lath and plaster walls with original paint and stenciling that's appropriate to the time period, | 00:41:01 | |
and you just get this beautiful doorknob that's on the front door. It's just stunning. | 00:41:07 | |
So that's that's an answer to that question about the the nature of the property. It is not on a designation, but in my view it | 00:41:15 | |
has architectural and aesthetic value and could be on a designation if we were to pursue that. | 00:41:23 | |
There were Commissioner Cunningham was expressing a truth which is that access from Highland Drive to that property is difficult. | 00:41:32 | |
We have never had, well at one point we had someone living there full time for a short period of time, but it's been used as an | 00:41:37 | |
Adu. | 00:41:41 | |
There is no one currently living there. We are going to be renovating the bathroom this fall. We don't have any plans for anyone | 00:41:46 | |
to live there full time anytime in the future. It could happen, but that's not our that's not how we've been using it and that's | 00:41:52 | |
not how we intend to use it right now. | 00:41:58 | |
So. | 00:42:06 | |
Again, we we don't intend to develop this property. If we did, we would have to get site plan approval and go through all those | 00:42:10 | |
other procedures and that would be the time to talk about increased density and things. We have no intention of going down that | 00:42:17 | |
road right now. In fact, the reason that we are doing this is to. | 00:42:24 | |
Preserve that special little place. | 00:42:31 | |
Rather than selling the property as it is, as one property where someone else might come in and tear it down and build a bunch of | 00:42:36 | |
homes, we're wanting to preserve that little piece of our history. | 00:42:41 | |
So that's it for me. I'm happy to answer any other questions that you might have. | 00:42:47 | |
I have just one quick question. So the decision to go to R210, was that on the advice of city staff or was that OK? | 00:42:52 | |
I had originally talked to them and in our initial conversations they had said maybe it are 110 or 115. So I had originally | 00:43:02 | |
submitted the application with that. But then after they looked into it more, they came back to me and said we actually think that | 00:43:08 | |
our 210 would be more consistent with the master plan. So that's what we'd recommend. So yes. | 00:43:14 | |
I appreciate that, Commissioners, any other questions for the applicant at this time? | 00:43:22 | |
All right. We'll go ahead and have you sit down for us for a few minutes here and then we will open our public hearing up. | 00:43:25 | |
Looks like we have some people here tonight that want to, might want to speak on this before you come up to the podium. We would | 00:43:32 | |
ask or when you come up to the podium, we would ask that you state your name and address for the record. And also try and keep | 00:43:39 | |
your remarks to roughly 3 minutes or less and try to avoid restating any comments made by other members of the public that might | 00:43:45 | |
have gone before you. And with that, we'll go ahead and open it up to anyone that would like to come up and speak on this now. | 00:43:52 | |
Once. Twice. | 00:44:04 | |
Nobody's here, nobody wants. OK, fair enough. Well then with that, we'll go ahead and close the public hearing. And since there's | 00:44:06 | |
no additional comments to work through, we'll turn to commissioners. And I've asked Commissioner Prince if she'd kind of lead us | 00:44:12 | |
in the discussion on this one. Just before you start, actually, Commissioner Cunningham, you're on the next one. Sorry, throwing | 00:44:18 | |
you on the spot there. But. And Commissioner Gong, just before we start, we've got a family connection, so I'm going to recuse | 00:44:24 | |
myself from this vote. So. | 00:44:30 | |
Good luck. | 00:44:36 | |
Ashley, I love you. | 00:44:38 | |
Fair enough, Commissioner Cunningham, I think we talked about everything there is to talk about. | 00:44:43 | |
Go ahead and make a motion if no one's supposed to doing that. | 00:44:51 | |
Try and make a motion out of what staff gave us here and then. So I make a motion. We forward recommendation of the City Council | 00:44:56 | |
to approve. | 00:45:01 | |
An application by Ashley Wooley to amend the holiday zoning map for .45. Is that correct .45? | 00:45:06 | |
4-5 or .43. | 00:45:15 | |
Yeah. So it's .43, correct? | 00:45:19 | |
So .43. | 00:45:24 | |
4/4 OK .443 acres of land located at 5428 S Highland Drive from R121 to R210 based on the following findings. A. The proposed | 00:45:26 | |
amendment is consistent with the goals, injectors and policies of the General Plan BE. The proposed amendment is harmonious with | 00:45:35 | |
the overall character of existing development of the vicinity. | 00:45:45 | |
See that there's been no public. | 00:45:55 | |
Identification of adverse effect of abutting properties. | 00:45:58 | |
And indeed, there's an adequacy of facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, including roadways, Parks and | 00:46:04 | |
Recreation facilities, police and Fire Protection, school storm drain drainage systems, environmental hazard mitigation measures, | 00:46:10 | |
water supply and wastewater and refuge collection. | 00:46:16 | |
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. | 00:46:24 | |
Commissioner Prince Aye. Commissioner Vaughn Aye. Commissioner Cunningham, Aye. And Chair Roach. | 00:46:31 | |
Will vote aye. | 00:46:40 | |
And therefore it does pass to the applicant. I would advise getting in touch with the Holiday Historical Commission. | 00:46:44 | |
I don't know if she heard me. She's she's she's off. That's OK. If city staff will make that recommendation and provide her with | 00:46:54 | |
who she could contact, that would be great. And pass the book up. Yes, yes. | 00:47:00 | |
Do you want me to pass that up now? Do you want to after? OK. | 00:47:08 | |
All right. And with that, we have an action item Next up on the agenda here for 1740 E Holiday Townhomes. And this is for the | 00:47:12 | |
permitted use preliminary and final review. And we'll invite city staff to come back up and walk us through this one. | 00:47:22 | |
OK. Second item here is for a permitted use site plan in the room zone at a preliminary level. Address is 4821 S, 1740 E This is a | 00:47:37 | |
site that we reviewed for conceptual site plan July 16th and they have now come back. | 00:47:48 | |
For preliminary receiving feedback from the Fire Marshall, from the city engineer, and from planning staff. | 00:48:01 | |
So. | 00:48:09 | |
The size of their property allows for 9 units and two parking spaces for their proposed use of three bedroom units. So those | 00:48:11 | |
require 2 spaces. Those will be in garage parking spaces. The original site plan had access going around the perimeter on the | 00:48:19 | |
north side and east side of the property. | 00:48:26 | |
The fire Marshall and city engineer both had concerns with how that access was. | 00:48:36 | |
Was shown on there concerns with public safety and environmental with the Big Cottonwood Creek that is there and how much pavement | 00:48:42 | |
there was. So there's different aspects with both the amount of payment garbage access, public works access, having a turn around | 00:48:50 | |
for public since 1740 E as a public road and. | 00:48:58 | |
Then also emergency services. The original concept plan had two units that were going to be on fire sprinklers which would have | 00:49:06 | |
met. | 00:49:10 | |
The requirement for fire, but with other emergency services getting back in there to access some of those units that were a little | 00:49:15 | |
bit further away and not being able to make turning radius with fire trucks or other emergency vehicles, that is where the fire | 00:49:21 | |
Marshall. | 00:49:27 | |
Worked with the developer to create an access that is central on the site because of the floodplain. | 00:49:35 | |
With Big Cottonwood Creek, the the property is pretty limited in where development can take place where structures can be built. | 00:49:44 | |
For that central access with a hammerhead turn around in it, the buildings had to be readjusted in their placement. With adjusting | 00:49:53 | |
their placement and putting that access down the middle of the property, it pushed those buildings out to the. | 00:50:01 | |
Northside and slightly to the east side as well. | 00:50:09 | |
Neighboring property on the north is ARM multifamily development. Also their parking and their dumpsters are right there on that | 00:50:14 | |
side of the parking lot. | 00:50:19 | |
The previous concept development was, I mean, the developers preferred it, he said. You know, it's a little bit nicer having all | 00:50:26 | |
of those units that were facing the Creek in kind of a central court, but when it comes to a public safety issue, then that's | 00:50:32 | |
where it had to be readjusted So that preliminary plan is presented. | 00:50:38 | |
With that central access that you can see pushing those units and now all of the garages will be off of that central access. It | 00:50:45 | |
then puts the front doors of the units on. | 00:50:52 | |
Five of those units on the larger building on the Northside. | 00:51:00 | |
And. | 00:51:05 | |
But there is adequate turn around there space for public turn around and for emergency service turn around. | 00:51:07 | |
The Planning Commission does have the ability to approve those kinds of adjustments on setbacks with your on a site plan when | 00:51:14 | |
there are issues with environmental concerns or public safety concerns. So that's what's being brought before the Planning | 00:51:23 | |
Commission today for preliminary review and approval. Any questions for staff before we have the applicant come up? | 00:51:31 | |
To help me just understand on the South side of this property that's up against the canal, with the change of the layout from what | 00:51:41 | |
was originally approved, is this going to require additional? | 00:51:47 | |
Birmingham and Earth to be brought in to keep everything high enough and level up out of that. Like I mean, it is basically going | 00:51:55 | |
to make the canal jut up to a wall to accommodate this this change versus what there would have been before. | 00:52:02 | |
I don't believe so. | 00:52:11 | |
So you have a retaining wall which is 4 inches tall. It's a curb. | 00:52:15 | |
OK. | 00:52:22 | |
So no, there's not going to be a wall. | 00:52:23 | |
I'm just curious whether that was going to look like on the Creek side. So 4 inches. So you can see here. I'll try to highlight it | 00:52:26 | |
4343.2 top back of curve at the bottom here and 4330434324 which is the middle of this turn around parking area, which is not much | 00:52:33 | |
of a difference. | 00:52:39 | |
OK. | 00:52:47 | |
I have a question for when we. | 00:52:49 | |
Go ahead and and, and act on this. Whatever form our motion takes. Do we have to specifically address the set back or can we | 00:52:53 | |
simply say we approve? | 00:53:00 | |
Don't approve. Suggest continuing this plan. | 00:53:07 | |
You can reference the staff report if you want to be specific. The section of code that's outlined in that is 13.08 point 08/01 | 00:53:12 | |
A&C and then 3D. It's in the third paragraph here. | 00:53:19 | |
If you want to reference it specifically, I mean does it need you can just say following staff. | 00:53:27 | |
Recommendation or the TRC recommendation as presented? OK, All right. Thank you. | 00:53:33 | |
As far as parking spaces are met with garage parking. So is there no visitor parking in this plan from what I'm saying, OK. | 00:53:39 | |
So park down the street, walk on the sidewalk all the way around to get to where you're going. Got it? OK. | 00:53:50 | |
They plan on maybe we can ask that to the applicant, but I think they planned on a couple. | 00:53:56 | |
And these being stalls, these pavers. | 00:54:02 | |
I'm not sure if that changed. Yeah, OK, well then I probably should get the applicant up here. | 00:54:06 | |
Oh, I have one more question for city staff. I apologize. | 00:54:15 | |
I'm remembering that this street 1740 E what other private or public with. | 00:54:21 | |
Public signage but listed as private on our documents. | 00:54:28 | |
I'm I don't remember if you can do parking along the side of that street or not because there's a wall at one point. | 00:54:32 | |
Yeah, we looked at this in our TRC meeting. It's it has green signage. It's a public St. It's been maintained as a public street. | 00:54:40 | |
Is that right? So, but I think that there's no parking on one side of it. In fact, I would be surprised if. | 00:54:49 | |
Fire Marshall recommends painting some of that curb red because you're right, there is a wall that's built into the asphalt pretty | 00:54:59 | |
far. | 00:55:03 | |
Which makes me wonder if that's something that we should consider as part of our recommendations. | 00:55:07 | |
Sure, yes, yeah. If you have a consideration of maybe no parking along that first section because it's off of this drawing, maybe | 00:55:14 | |
I'll bring up the Salt Lake County assessor signed up too, if you want to go to their map where you can see the property lines. | 00:55:22 | |
Well, let's see, I can just bring this aerial up. | 00:55:33 | |
Looking at this photo, it might help. | 00:55:37 | |
It's going to get grainy. | 00:55:40 | |
But it would be. You can see where this driveway for Linden Apartments is located between the driveway and their entrance. | 00:55:42 | |
Likely should be recommended that that is no parking painted red. Mm-hmm. | 00:55:51 | |
Further north I think they all use it currently as on street parking. | 00:55:56 | |
All of these residents do. | 00:56:02 | |
But the West side, where there's the wall? | 00:56:04 | |
That's working. That's a no parking currently. OK, thank you. I don't think there's enough space for people to park there. Well, | 00:56:09 | |
that doesn't mean people won't park. It doesn't mean that people won't park in your situation because I don't there's not a curb | 00:56:13 | |
there. | 00:56:17 | |
It's just a the end of asphalt and the ball. | 00:56:23 | |
Thank you. | 00:56:27 | |
OK. | 00:56:29 | |
All right, now we'll have the applicant come up. | 00:56:30 | |
Good evening. Brad Reynolds, 2500 E Haven Lane in Holladay, UT. | 00:56:36 | |
I am the applicant for the proposed project at 1740 E. | 00:56:43 | |
We has been stated by staff, we originally had submitted a little different site plan and as we got to meet with some of the staff | 00:56:50 | |
and engineer and particularly the Fire Marshall, there was a strong recommendation that we change our site plan. So we went back | 00:56:58 | |
and reworked it. It's a challenging site because there's certain. | 00:57:06 | |
Restrictions with FEMA and the flood control in the stream where you have to have a minimum of 50 feet. | 00:57:16 | |
That you cannot encroach upon that 50 foot set back. So we reworked the site plan and I think. | 00:57:24 | |
Everyone was quite pleased, including the Fire Marshall and the engineer, because it has easy accessibility and it seems to flow | 00:57:32 | |
well for all emergency vehicles. | 00:57:38 | |
And we are certainly planning on at least 2 parking stalls. Uh. | 00:57:45 | |
And then we hope depending on how our FEMA flood maps and different things go or we could potentially on that little center turn | 00:57:50 | |
around, maybe add to that at a future date. But for right now, we do have two additional stalls. | 00:57:58 | |
We feel like this is a very nice plan and we've tried to open a lot of green space open to the Creek where everybody that's living | 00:58:06 | |
there can have that. | 00:58:11 | |
Available to them to go use and enjoy. It's a relatively flat as what would brought up so there's not a steep bank or anything off | 00:58:18 | |
the Creek and all that will be grass going down to the Creek. | 00:58:24 | |
Any questions I could answer for you? | 00:58:31 | |
So I'm I'm remembering when we saw this before the units faced. | 00:58:35 | |
Seems like they all faced the Creek for a view. | 00:58:42 | |
What is your current plan? This is on your screen. I put up the original concept. | 00:58:45 | |
OK. So you can see they all kind of faced each other. There was a center court, OK, that you would. And then we'd have balconies | 00:58:52 | |
and decks that you could look out towards the Creek. And we tried to keep the center portion open so everybody could see the Creek | 00:59:00 | |
or most could have a accessible route to go use that open area by the Creek. | 00:59:08 | |
And now with our new one, it's pretty similar. We've opened up the center. We just have more units that face directly to the | 00:59:18 | |
north. So the the five that are in one building, their front door will be on the north side and they'll face out. Yeah, the front | 00:59:26 | |
door will be on the north, but they'll have upper balconies that will look back towards the Creek and towards the mountains if. | 00:59:35 | |
When the view will allow. | 00:59:44 | |
OK. | 00:59:47 | |
And if memory serves, there's a wall currently running along that N into the property. | 00:59:48 | |
There's not a wall, but there's a fence from the Linden Apartments and a little bit of a just a slight lip of asphalt there where | 00:59:53 | |
it connects to our property, but very minimal, no wall. | 00:59:59 | |
Will you put a wall up? We're not planning to. We're hoping to just transition off that fence to our grade and we think it should | 01:00:07 | |
should work well without a wall. So there's no wall planned. There is a four foot sidewalk that kind of connects and goes around | 01:00:12 | |
the perimeter of the project. | 01:00:18 | |
OK. Is there any? | 01:00:25 | |
Arbor scape in your landscape plan that doesn't involve the Creekside? | 01:00:28 | |
Yeah, No, when you say arborscape trees, trees, yeah, we, we will definitely as we finalize the landscape plan and that will | 01:00:37 | |
certainly have some trees and different things that will try to soften some of the hard surface and that around there. And I think | 01:00:43 | |
with this central and surprisingly on that back against the Creek, there are huge pine trees that they're just absolutely | 01:00:50 | |
beautiful trees. So we're trying to make sure. | 01:00:57 | |
Try to stay away from those and take good care of them. | 01:01:06 | |
I'm just thinking the heat island and noise island that will be created in the middle if you don't have, because I'm based on what | 01:01:09 | |
you have on here, I can't see the dimensions of the space between the drives for the garages. But I mean, I can't imagine that | 01:01:16 | |
that's going to be a Maple tree that's going to fit in there. No, unfortunately in the center there. I I seriously doubt we might | 01:01:22 | |
have a few shrubs that are in between the driveways by the aprons that go into the garage. | 01:01:29 | |
But there won't be much landscape in that center area there. | 01:01:36 | |
There's just no room. It's all. It's like a 20 foot wide drive approach coming in. | 01:01:41 | |
Any other questions for the applicant So the. | 01:01:49 | |
The public Rd. would end at your property line. | 01:01:52 | |
Correct. And that what were we doing for garbage collection, This will all be private. So we'd have like waste Management, | 01:01:57 | |
everybody would have an individual garbage can and they'd come in once a week and pick up those garbage cans. So whether that's | 01:02:04 | |
placed right at the entrance where it typically would be, we haven't totally. That's most likely everybody would cart that out to | 01:02:11 | |
that center approach area right there as you come into the project. | 01:02:18 | |
But it won't be any dumpster pads or anything like that. | 01:02:26 | |
And back to the visitor parking issue. | 01:02:31 | |
So how many visitor parking? | 01:02:36 | |
Stalls are they're going to be. | 01:02:38 | |
Right now there's just two designated ones, and code requires 0, so we're actually 2 above what the city requires. | 01:02:40 | |
And where would they be? It'd be right now you can see there's kind of a little brick paver area next to that little. | 01:02:49 | |
Turn around area in the center of the project. There's kind of brick pavers there. | 01:02:56 | |
So that that's really hard skate parking, right? Not it's not even decorative. Well, it's like it's paver. So it is decorative. | 01:03:03 | |
Was possibly a small rubber tree. Make it in there. There you go. | 01:03:16 | |
I've got to say, I mean I know the code doesn't require any, but it just shares the mind that you have 9 residences. | 01:03:23 | |
Only two visitor stalls, and then you're going to impinge on the public roadway, which is already impinged on by the big apartment | 01:03:31 | |
complex where all those cars parked because they don't want to park in the parking lot every time I go by there. | 01:03:39 | |
It's full. Is it because it's surprising if you drive into their very entrance that's closest to us, they have a lot of excess | 01:03:48 | |
parking whenever we go by that side of it is empty. Now, whether some choose to park on the street, I don't know, but there are | 01:03:56 | |
several stalls that are very seldom used that are just open stalls. So I don't know how many use the street. But did you enter | 01:04:03 | |
into an agreement with them? So we've actually been talking to them and, and. | 01:04:10 | |
Looking to perhaps even purchase a little more property to the north, but we have not finalized any negotiations to do that. | 01:04:18 | |
We might be able to workout a parking arrangement. | 01:04:28 | |
We know him a little bit, so we'll continue to work on that. | 01:04:32 | |
And as a developer, do you have any objection if the city says? | 01:04:36 | |
Parking one side only. | 01:04:41 | |
I don't have an issue with that. I really don't. I, I do not as a developer and we do a lot of big projects throughout the valley. | 01:04:43 | |
I do not like painting the curb red, to be honest with you. I'd rather see a sign because after a year and a half it looks | 01:04:50 | |
horrible. And so somebody to keep it looking nice, it's got to repaint that like every year. And what happens, it never gets done. | 01:04:56 | |
So in my opinion. | 01:05:03 | |
I think that's not the way to go. I think you'd be better off to put a sign. No parking. | 01:05:10 | |
Or parking, you know, something on this side only. Or whatever was signage. | 01:05:16 | |
Problem. I guess the problem there is the sign that the side that you want to put the no parking doesn't have anything to put the | 01:05:22 | |
no parking on except that. | 01:05:25 | |
Wall. Well, no, you've got see if you look right there where his arrow is, See right there, you've got a little bit right there. | 01:05:30 | |
But other than that you don't 'cause it's all approached going into Linden Apartments. | 01:05:34 | |
But there is a small area right there. | 01:05:40 | |
Between the sidewalk and that fence. | 01:05:43 | |
And that curve that you could put a sign there. | 01:05:46 | |
I mean, and if it had to be painted, it does. It's just typically we do not like how they look after a year or two. | 01:05:49 | |
So we typically try to stay away from that. | 01:05:59 | |
But if the council feels like it should be painted, we'll certainly do it. | 01:06:04 | |
I think for those types of things, the city actually will go in and paint them and sign them. | 01:06:10 | |
Paint is cheap. | 01:06:19 | |
That's Holiday is on top of that as well as. | 01:06:22 | |
Keeping the weeds cleaned up, they do a great job so. | 01:06:25 | |
After my public safety days, I would tell you that I. | 01:06:29 | |
Prefer that there not be any parking on that at all. It isn't a regular sized road and if you need to bring a fire truck or | 01:06:33 | |
something in I. | 01:06:37 | |
I would just stop all the parking on that road on both sides, yeah. | 01:06:42 | |
Well, if I might, if I may, it's definitely been brought to the attention of our emergency services as they look at this in more | 01:06:48 | |
detail and understanding where the city is coming from, from public service, from public works department. | 01:06:54 | |
Acknowledging that this is a public St. even though you've got a fence that's relatively new been built a good 5 feet into the | 01:07:01 | |
right of way. | 01:07:05 | |
Access is at the top. | 01:07:11 | |
Top of the list, so on street parking it might be, is something that they can definitely look, start looking at and how that's | 01:07:13 | |
being treated. | 01:07:18 | |
At the risk of making Mr. Reynolds stand here longer, how in the world? | 01:07:23 | |
How does somebody just build a fence into the cities right away that the city hasn't come through with a bulldozer and taken it | 01:07:30 | |
out? The problem is that it wasn't right of way. But when we incorporated this area in 2014. | 01:07:37 | |
It was a private drive to who lived back here? What was their names? | 01:07:45 | |
Yeah, Van der Linden. Yeah. Anyway, so over time, the city starts plowing it and maintaining it, and they decide to put up a green | 01:07:52 | |
sign. So we have a lot of these substandard streets that were started out as private and then morphed into a public situation, as | 01:07:59 | |
you know, as intensity goes on, but their property line goes to the middle of the road. | 01:08:06 | |
So we're lucky the fence isn't in the middle of the road. True. | 01:08:15 | |
So at some point, when and if this development starts to morph. | 01:08:19 | |
Change get raised, we will address that and bring that fence back to the proper width of the right of way. | 01:08:25 | |
Can I? Can I ask a question? Certainly. | 01:08:34 | |
I I. | 01:08:39 | |
I think this plan actually lost a lot in the change and I understand that there are public safety. | 01:08:41 | |
Concerns, but. | 01:08:47 | |
The feel of the the plan changed from a neighborhood feel where you could walk out your door down to the Creek you would see your | 01:08:49 | |
neighbours, to one where you're gonna drive in your garage. You never see anybody. So I I think. | 01:08:54 | |
The plan is. | 01:09:00 | |
Materially different in how it will feel to live here, um. | 01:09:02 | |
So I'm just wondering, did you consider building fewer buildings? Did you consider making them smaller? I just, I actually think | 01:09:07 | |
this is it sort of changed from a place where I was like, oh, I could picture living there to be like, I don't, I don't know, | 01:09:13 | |
because the, the nature of the neighborhood, this little 9 house neighborhood is quite different than it was. | 01:09:19 | |
I think there's advantages and disadvantages too. And obviously we've talked about how the Fire Marshall emergency vehicles and | 01:09:27 | |
the engineer feel about it. And I honestly feel with the amount of hard surface that was on the other site plan where you had a | 01:09:36 | |
big U-shaped driveway that was going around the entire project, there was a tremendous amount of hard surface. | 01:09:45 | |
And I think with what we've done, that has been. | 01:09:54 | |
Greatly reduced and so you'll definitely have a lot more green space and opening it up to the back, it is my opinion there will be | 01:09:57 | |
much more of that will actually enhance the community. | 01:10:04 | |
And when you get that much hard surface, we were a little reluctant at first, but as we looked at all the different factors, I | 01:10:11 | |
think it makes a lot of sense and I think it would definitely be a nicer project to live in. | 01:10:17 | |
So I don't know if that answers your question or not. | 01:10:24 | |
Got a question just to follow along on that. I asked earlier about the direction that the front doors would face. Have you | 01:10:28 | |
considered in this, I'm going to call it A5 Plex because I don't know what else to call it. Doing something where the front doors | 01:10:35 | |
open out into the drive and you've got the balconies above and people can say hello as the Amazon driver shows up. I mean, I, I | 01:10:42 | |
don't that's, that's a good question. It we do have the balconies that open up. | 01:10:50 | |
They'll be to the back and if you can look even on the sides, we have doors on the side. So you have 3 units that actually open to | 01:10:57 | |
the north and the front. | 01:11:01 | |
The other two of the five Plex opened, one to the East End and one to the West End. | 01:11:06 | |
And then on these as we're designed, there are balconies and decks that will be up on that third floor that will be open where you | 01:11:12 | |
could see some neighbors and have a lot of, we're hoping some great views out of most of them. Oh, I think the views have just | 01:11:19 | |
marvellous potential. I just. I. | 01:11:26 | |
I don't know that I would be. | 01:11:34 | |
Excited to step out my front door and to not see anything besides the dumpsters at the apartment. You will have a fence and then | 01:11:37 | |
you've got a four foot sidewalk and then you've got another 6 or 8 feet of buffer with landscape. And as we talked about trees, | 01:11:46 | |
right and and and grass is good and hopefully trees and even on our other site plan. | 01:11:54 | |
Some of those areas you were looking right into your, you only had 10 feet in between the front doors on that too. So it it's very | 01:12:04 | |
similar on that aspect compared to what we have. And the big driving force which I think is people are living there, you'll have | 01:12:11 | |
on most of these units well over 57 feet or so that. | 01:12:18 | |
Face towards the Creek, that's all going to be grass where people will be able to go out and hopefully we'll have a picnic area | 01:12:26 | |
and different things where neighbors can mingle and get to know or throw a frisbee or kids a football. It will be a large grass | 01:12:32 | |
area where everyone can enjoy it. | 01:12:37 | |
Any other questions I can answer? I have a question and and it this follows along with Commissioner Gong's question. Did you think | 01:12:48 | |
about reducing the number of units on this property to provide for more open space and green space? Well, we've got a lot of green | 01:12:55 | |
space. We do have that when you consider all the Creek, but that was considered and I think what's challenging for developers and | 01:13:03 | |
even more so for for homeowners. | 01:13:10 | |
Is the affordability. | 01:13:18 | |
So you take the price of the ground and you take all that into account and you take out 2 units. | 01:13:20 | |
And you'd still have the same setbacks you'd still have to have, you might have a little more open space on the side as you come | 01:13:26 | |
in and it just the numbers make it so it's challenging for people to afford it, particularly here in holiday. | 01:13:34 | |
And as you look at what we're against, we have apartments on every side of us. | 01:13:42 | |
And so you have to be a little bit in consideration of cost of value, what will they sell for, what will people be willing to pay? | 01:13:48 | |
And that's always a challenge. We've been doing this for 35 years and we're certainly conscious of that. And I live in holiday and | 01:13:56 | |
so it's important to me. But it's a fine line of what's affordable and when, when do you cross that line? | 01:14:04 | |
So we did consider it and we looked at it from a marketing standpoint because obviously we're doing it where we want a nice | 01:14:14 | |
project, but we also want to make money. | 01:14:18 | |
And so we looked at all those different factors. But if you look at what's around it, it's not like we've got some really, really | 01:14:23 | |
nice units all the way around it. We don't. So we have to be conscious of the price point. | 01:14:30 | |
Brad, if I may add in on there too. When you're adding more units, you're naturally going to end up with smaller units. Smaller | 01:14:38 | |
units end up being more, more affordable. When you have fewer units, your size increases, your price increases. So that's kind of | 01:14:46 | |
the the trade off with with doing smaller or fewer units, you naturally end up with larger and more expensive. | 01:14:53 | |
But I appreciate the comment that you made. I do. | 01:15:04 | |
And we certainly always look at that. | 01:15:08 | |
Any other questions for the applicant? | 01:15:11 | |
All right. Well, we've grilled you enough. We'll go ahead. No, you're good. Thank you. Appreciate your time. You bet. And just to | 01:15:14 | |
clarify, this is a public hearing, right, Brad? | 01:15:18 | |
This is not. It's not. We held the public hearing for the concept. | 01:15:24 | |
And moving forward with our new subdivision stuff, it will concept is kind of done with staff and then only preliminary will come | 01:15:30 | |
to the Planning Commission and then final goes back to staff. So that's in the in the ordinance. | 01:15:37 | |
So we we kind of went back to the former one with the concept first coming to Planning Commission and holding the planning the | 01:15:46 | |
public hearing at that point. But all the same neighbors were notified and aware of the of the project. | 01:15:53 | |
And having said that. | 01:16:02 | |
If we have people here, since this plan is not at all what we saw at the concept level, would we entertain if they want to talk to | 01:16:05 | |
us and. | 01:16:09 | |
Tell us whatever they want to tell us. | 01:16:15 | |
Do we do that? | 01:16:17 | |
That's why I'm asking. | 01:16:24 | |
So we've already had a public hearing on this. They had to go through the process. The TRC had to weigh in. | 01:16:27 | |
There's certainly an ability for, I mean. | 01:16:36 | |
They didn't get notice of public. | 01:16:42 | |
Be able to speak. You know the process is the process. | 01:16:47 | |
So my my feeling is. | 01:16:53 | |
And this is the legislature, and whether or not I think the legislature is going to be on, we're not going to get into that. | 01:16:55 | |
The process of legislature legislature is set forth and. | 01:17:03 | |
Kind of if you're looking at a balancing act, it kind of. | 01:17:12 | |
Balances it more in favor of developers at this point with the fewer public comment periods, public hearings, our legislature | 01:17:15 | |
Shocking. | 01:17:21 | |
Sorry, that was. Don't put that in the record. | 01:17:27 | |
Commissioner Prince said. Sorry, Brett. | 01:17:33 | |
What is in the code? | 01:17:39 | |
OK, Well thank you for clarifying and I think as I look through the the suggested findings on this for me personally like the only | 01:17:45 | |
thing that I. | 01:17:50 | |
Might have questioned concern around old plan versus new plan would be. | 01:17:56 | |
Does the property lines as shown on the site plan are required to address environmental and public safety? I think the public | 01:18:03 | |
safety. | 01:18:07 | |
The T shape, whatever we call this turn around shape that we see in a lot of PUD's and these type of smaller projects. | 01:18:11 | |
Absolutely complies and makes sense why they had to change it up to accommodate a big fire truck and emergency services in there. | 01:18:17 | |
My biggest concern is that all of the green space tends to be out on the Creek where it naturally exists, and we've got hardscape | 01:18:26 | |
against hardscape. | 01:18:31 | |
Surrounded by hardscape. And that's, that's, that's a tough one to soften and say, Gee, I feel really good about this because I | 01:18:37 | |
think we're perpetuating a heat island problem and. | 01:18:42 | |
But won't some of that be addressed when the applicant comes back with actual? | 01:18:49 | |
Building. | 01:18:55 | |
Like this is how this is going to look. This is what our. | 01:18:58 | |
Our design is and here's our landscape plan. Won't that come back to us? | 01:19:03 | |
Landscaping plan would not come back to the Planning Commission, but it is we have landscaping requirements in our code that is | 01:19:08 | |
compliant with water conservation. | 01:19:14 | |
There's, you know, when even the focus of Puds is to concentrate open space and create larger, more open areas that preserve | 01:19:21 | |
natural features. | 01:19:27 | |
And I think we talked a little bit before about like a variance process on this too. This would be a property that would would go | 01:19:34 | |
through a variance process anyway if. | 01:19:39 | |
For reduced setbacks and would likely be granted just based off of the Creek having. | 01:19:44 | |
A50 foot border where you can't build anything, which is a significant impact on the property, so reducing setbacks is a. | 01:19:53 | |
Pretty standard application for this, even outside of a Planning Commission approval. | 01:20:02 | |
Can we just put the trees on the roof or something then? | 01:20:10 | |
Green groups first units with grass on the roof in holiday. OK, that's right. Yeah. Like I'm all for greenscape and roof, you | 01:20:14 | |
know? | 01:20:17 | |
All right. Well, Commissioners, discussion, any other questions amongst ourselves or for city staff on this? | 01:20:22 | |
If not, if someone want to make a motion, I think, I think the thing that I'm I'm struggling with is it makes sense of itself to | 01:20:28 | |
change the plan for public safety. | 01:20:33 | |
What I'm what I think I'm having a hard time with is. | 01:20:40 | |
We knew from the outset, they knew from the outset that it was built on the Creek. There were certain zoning things for that and | 01:20:46 | |
their building space would be limited so. | 01:20:51 | |
It's I'm. | 01:20:57 | |
It feels like if they knew that that's the kind of lot this is, then then changing the setbacks because now the road has to be | 01:21:01 | |
bigger in the middle feels like it's. | 01:21:07 | |
Doubling up on on, I don't know does. | 01:21:14 | |
I'm having a little trouble saying this, but, but, but it feels like that's the that's the lot, that's what this is. And, and so | 01:21:19 | |
if we're changing the setbacks to meet this thing, why are we doing that? Why don't we just build in the buildable? So you're | 01:21:25 | |
saying like build for the lot, not for the density. Yeah, because they're entitled to 9 buildings. | 01:21:31 | |
But also it's on the Creek and both of those things have to. | 01:21:38 | |
Which of those takes precedence? To me, it's the Creek, not the number of buildings. So that's confusing to me why we're changing | 01:21:43 | |
the setbacks in order to fit the number of buildings on the lot. But we don't have a choice, in other words. | 01:21:49 | |
If they're entitled to 9 buildings and we have to consider the floodplain. | 01:21:57 | |
Our hands are tied. | 01:22:04 | |
Well, if it's found that you know it's in addresses the environmental and safety, not just the safety. | 01:22:07 | |
Right. You know, there there's a consideration from some cities I'm going to put on pontificate while you think of this over. | 01:22:16 | |
In some municipalities, when you look at land development code and protection of hazardous, hazardous spaces, floodplains, | 01:22:23 | |
earthquake zones, landslides, steep slopes. | 01:22:28 | |
Most cities will go through their entire municipality boundaries and designate greenfields. | 01:22:35 | |
Permanent open space and exact them from any type of development procedure or process. | 01:22:41 | |
Obviously, the county has never gone through that process, taking a swath of 100 feet from. | 01:22:48 | |
Banked or middle of the Creek back on either side and design that as this is a hazard. You no longer have access to this spot. You | 01:22:54 | |
know you can't count it to your density. | 01:22:58 | |
That's not something that's done in Utah. It's not done in most Western states. | 01:23:03 | |
So if that was a consideration of. | 01:23:08 | |
The legislation side of things, yes, that would be on your side of that argument for sure. | 01:23:13 | |
Yeah, we're considering the. | 01:23:19 | |
Full bandwidth of Big Cottonwood Creek and its flood potential. | 01:23:21 | |
And therefore it's not developable anyway. | 01:23:26 | |
So why should we even be using it in this density calculation? | 01:23:29 | |
That is something that this state just does not do. So in fact, that's one of the reasons why FEMA has a process by which you can | 01:23:34 | |
modify the floodplain and create developable area so that's safe for habitable spaces. | 01:23:42 | |
It leaves that door open so to speak, so they can actually go in and re landscape this whole area, channelize Big Cottonwood | 01:23:52 | |
Creek, remove all that open space and move all these homes right to the water. They could do that. | 01:23:59 | |
That option is is still available to him. | 01:24:06 | |
But rather than messing with the Creek as it is now in its natural escape, they're requesting flexibility and setbacks to move it | 01:24:09 | |
off of all of that that hazard into this north side of the law. | 01:24:16 | |
I know it doesn't answer your question or at least address your concern, but that's one of the reasons why. So here's one more | 01:24:25 | |
question. This is to see why don't we just buy a smaller fire truck? | 01:24:30 | |
Like why is the fire truck the thing that's dictating how this layout is? That's crazy, right, right. Like this was a nice little | 01:24:36 | |
thing and now it's not it's nice. It's not like it's because we have to drive a giant fire truck that why don't we just get a | 01:24:44 | |
skinnier fire truck? This is a real question. Did you you buy you buy fire trucks for the. | 01:24:51 | |
Worst case scenario, not the easy ones. | 01:25:00 | |
It's when you have to go up to the three or four stories of the new holiday hills and stuff like that. | 01:25:03 | |
And then because it's cost effective, you put your medical response on a fire truck. | 01:25:09 | |
Which would make more sense to send it on a medical unit, which some cities have done now? | 01:25:15 | |
If I have a fire at my house, I don't want skinny mini showing up, I want the whole deal. | 01:25:20 | |
I want the the big truck. | 01:25:27 | |
Chair, one other point, just to give you some context. So residential use of land has in the history of the United States and even | 01:25:29 | |
beyond, even prior to that has been the highest and best use of land is residential. It's for people. People are our greatest | 01:25:36 | |
resource, greatest asset, that's what it's for, so. | 01:25:44 | |
Our in in the state of Utah, it also favors property rights, but also favors, you know. | 01:25:53 | |
The full utilization of the highest and best use for residential right? And sometimes that's denser and that's why we air on the | 01:25:59 | |
side of, you know, instead of. | 01:26:04 | |
Eliminating units. We err on the side of giving them more units so that that's the highest and best use of property is. | 01:26:10 | |
Reside. | 01:26:20 | |
And that isn't, I think there might be cultural things changing where people don't like people anymore. | 01:26:23 | |
At least, at least it appears that way. | 01:26:32 | |
And, and some cultural norms are changing, but historically, you know, people have been the greatest asset, greatest resource. | 01:26:34 | |
And that's why it's one of the reasons that that's the way it is, in fact, when you look at these side by side. | 01:26:42 | |
Just eyeballing how much asphalt has gone around the outside in the buildings in the middle and now we've just flip-flopped them. | 01:26:48 | |
Buildings are on the outside and asphalt and we're not probably not that far off from where we started, I don't think. I mean, for | 01:26:53 | |
me, it's not a percentage thing. I think it's actually a layout thing. The layout is not nearly as good for for feeling like you | 01:26:58 | |
have neighbors. | 01:27:04 | |
But yeah, it does feel, and that does, yeah. And that comes down to design and architecture for sure. | 01:27:09 | |
Well, and I'll just I'll chime in with this and then I'm gladly invite anyone to make a motion on this. But to the developer, I | 01:27:19 | |
would strongly encourage, look for as much as you can to soften preferably with you know trees and things that are going to | 01:27:26 | |
disrupt the overwhelming amount of hardscape within the structures and the parking itself because obviously the Creek is going to | 01:27:33 | |
negate a lot of that and offset that for you. | 01:27:40 | |
So that would just be an encouragement from me personally on that, but. | 01:27:48 | |
That being said, I mean, when I look at the neighbors, I look at the zone, everything else, I mean, it's not out of line. It's | 01:27:53 | |
not. I think the parking is a challenge. I don't know how you negate that with this layout. And I'd hate to be the FedEx or UPS | 01:27:58 | |
guy that has to deliver to the top corner of that and especially if somebody decides to visit and park in the way. But that being | 01:28:04 | |
said. | 01:28:10 | |
Well, A. | 01:28:18 | |
A question I have is going back to our street and no parking, do we want to include a suggestion to the City Council with whatever | 01:28:20 | |
motion? | 01:28:26 | |
We compose that suggests that the street should be. | 01:28:33 | |
No parking all the way from Murray Holiday Road to the property boundary. Are we interested in being that? | 01:28:39 | |
Active that activist Nami, not you. Nope. OK. | 01:28:47 | |
I mean, I I would like it, but if if the fire department wants it, they certainly could. | 01:28:52 | |
Bring it up, OK? They didn't and they didn't. | 01:28:58 | |
OK. All right. | 01:29:05 | |
Well, I'm ready to make a motion then. | 01:29:08 | |
So I motion that we approve the preliminary site plan application by Brad Reynolds for 1740 E Townhomes A9 unit multifamily | 01:29:11 | |
residential development located at 4821 S 1740 E in the RM zone. Based upon the suggested findings that the requirements for | 01:29:18 | |
preliminary site plan have been substantially completed, the development complies with the minimum area required for a nine unit | 01:29:26 | |
multi family. | 01:29:33 | |
Home development in the room zone. The development complies with the General plan. Parking minimums of 18 spaces are met with | 01:29:41 | |
garage parking. Reduced setbacks on North, East and West property lines, as shown on the site plan, are required to address | 01:29:47 | |
environmental and public safety concerns. | 01:29:52 | |
Comments from the City Engineer are required to be met for final approval, subject to the comments from the City Engineer and any | 01:30:00 | |
other engineering commitment. Comments as part of the final TRC approval and that the applicant provides. CCNR specifically | 01:30:08 | |
detailing maintenance of the access lane and stormwater retention areas for final TRC approval. | 01:30:16 | |
We have a motion. Do we have a second? | 01:30:26 | |
Commissioner Vilcinski, I second that motion. All righty. We'll call for a vote. Commissioner Gong. | 01:30:29 | |
Here you start at the other end, Commissioner Cunningham. | 01:30:35 | |
I reluctantly, Commissioner Bilkinski, Commissioner Blunt, under protest, aye. | 01:30:40 | |
Commissioner Prince Aye. | 01:30:47 | |
Aye. | 01:30:52 | |
That was an I. That was an I because all of the findings are true. | 01:30:54 | |
All right. And Chair Roach also is a reluctant eye. So with that, it passes unanimously and look forward to to seeing really great | 01:30:59 | |
things happen over there. | 01:31:06 | |
Thank you. Thank you. | 01:31:18 | |
All right. And with that, we just have the last item on the agenda, the minutes. We will just go through these one by one since | 01:31:21 | |
there are four separate meetings. I can't remember who was it each. Oh goodness, right there at the top. | 01:31:27 | |
So for the commissioners that were present on April 16th, I'm not going to lie, I have no recollection. Like I remember vaguely | 01:31:36 | |
things, but that was several months ago, so. | 01:31:41 | |
Did anyone have anything that stood out to him that needed correction? | 01:31:47 | |
No. OK, so all in favor of approving April 16th minutes. Aye, aye. All right, check that one. Going to the next one. June 25th for | 01:31:54 | |
the commissioners here, for those, anything that stood out. | 01:32:01 | |
All right. And all in favor. Aye, aye, all right. And July 16th, I was not present. So I don't have to think about that when | 01:32:10 | |
anyone else find anything from those minutes I did not. | 01:32:16 | |
You guys are like that's no great. All right, all in favor say aye, aye, OK, that's mostly unanimous, it sounded like. And last | 01:32:23 | |
one, August 20th. | 01:32:28 | |
Anything on this one? I just have to comment that all of us were here for that meeting. I'm very proud of us. Everybody got the | 01:32:35 | |
attendance award that day. That is true. Was that the really short one that lasted like 20 minutes? | 01:32:41 | |
I think so. I think it was, which is awesome. | 01:32:48 | |
All right. If there's no adjustments on that, that anyone found all in favor of approving those say aye, aye. All right, that | 01:32:52 | |
sounded unanimous. And with that, that is completion of our agenda. | 01:32:58 | |
All in favor of adjournment, Aye Don, have a great night. | 01:33:06 | |
Really think. | 01:33:12 |
* you need to log in to manage your favorites
* use Ctrl+F (Cmd+F on Mac) to search in document
Loading...
* use Ctrl+F (Cmd+F on Mac) to search in document
Loading...
* use Ctrl+F (Cmd+F on Mac) to search in document
Loading...
Undoubtedly have. | 00:00:00 | |
I'll swap with you. | 00:00:03 | |
We're up. We're going. | 00:00:13 | |
We're going all right. | 00:00:15 | |
Good afternoon and welcome to the Holiday City Planning Commission work session. | 00:00:17 | |
We have in attendance all planning commissioners except for Commissioner Baron who will be absent today. And Carrie Ann is a | 00:00:24 | |
question mark Prince, excuse me, Karen Prince, but we have legal counsel and. | 00:00:30 | |
To city staff here to support this evening, and it looks like the first item on our agenda is the zone map amendment. | 00:00:38 | |
On Highland Drive, so is that going to be Carrier, John? That'll walk us through that. I will walk you through that one. | 00:00:47 | |
So this is a zone map amendment for 5428 S Highland Drive. A little bit of history on this property is that it was originally 2 | 00:00:54 | |
parcels until 2013. The owner of those two parcels combined them into a single parcel. | 00:01:02 | |
Sold to the current owner. The current owner would like to put them back into two parcels. | 00:01:11 | |
Keep the zoning on the rear parcel that has kind of the driveway access off of Baywood that will remain at half an acre and then | 00:01:18 | |
there's a remaining I think .44 acres that fronts onto Highland Drive. | 00:01:26 | |
And that is what the reason would be applied to is just that front piece. You can see that in the narrative you have a printed out | 00:01:34 | |
copy. That's the most recent narrative that accurately reflects the requested zone for that front portion on Highland Drive. You | 00:01:42 | |
can see the existing house, the garage. They are putting the property boundary exactly where it was before. | 00:01:51 | |
The two parcels were combined. | 00:02:00 | |
The house that's on there is an older house, there's access off of Highland Drive for that house, and then the rear house is half | 00:02:03 | |
an acre. Would stay as an R121 zone and have the access from Baywood Dr. | 00:02:10 | |
There any? | 00:02:18 | |
Questions on that. I know it's kind of a different situation where it's, it will be two parcels and just the front portion of the | 00:02:19 | |
parcel on Highland Dr. would be rezoned and the R210 zone was selected based off of the Highland Dr. master plan. So it does match | 00:02:27 | |
the guidance in that. Do we have a zone map in the packet that we can zoom there should be or I also John, I have a tab pulled up | 00:02:34 | |
with the zone map on it. | 00:02:42 | |
If you want to go to that. | 00:02:50 | |
It's not. | 00:03:00 | |
So this is one of four homes along Highland Drive in that area that doesn't have the. | 00:03:07 | |
Waldorf, look. | 00:03:13 | |
I think so. I haven't driven down that section of Highland Dr. There's because a lot of those properties, they are larger parcels | 00:03:16 | |
that the backside kind of backs up to Highland Drive. I just drove by, it is fenced. It's a fenced on a Highland. | 00:03:25 | |
I think there's the there's an opening where the driveway is, yes. So it's not the really cute little house that's been well | 00:03:35 | |
preserved. OK, that was when I was a little worried about it is still a cute house. | 00:03:41 | |
Just less visible. | 00:03:49 | |
OK. Is there any just anything that you can think of that would? | 00:03:51 | |
Next year's look at the general plan? Change the zoning. | 00:03:58 | |
So we'd have to do this again. | 00:04:04 | |
Right. And that's what with a rezone to prevent it from then coming back again and having to go through the same process it was, | 00:04:06 | |
this is what the general plan guidance is. So it is then in line with that just rezone it to the recommended R210 at this point | 00:04:15 | |
rather than the applicant originally was thinking like an R115. | 00:04:23 | |
Which works for the property but isn't necessarily in line with what the the Highland Dr. master plan. Can we zoom out on the? | 00:04:32 | |
Map a little bit here. | 00:04:42 | |
Yeah, you can see a lot of the. | 00:04:45 | |
So across the street is the Great Orthodox Church. And then you have neighborhood commercial slightly to the north. There is | 00:04:49 | |
another commercial property slightly to the South. So this is just this little pocket of properties that are a little bit larger | 00:04:56 | |
in size. So this whole section, I'm sorry to interrupt this whole section from basically the nursing home all the way to the R18 | 00:05:03 | |
PUD right there, that's all. | 00:05:11 | |
One right now, right, right. So we're going to carve out just one little square of R120 in there and then the other. | 00:05:19 | |
Homes strategy is to catch up because it's planned that way for the Highland corridor, right? So any properties that do have | 00:05:32 | |
frontage on Highland Dr. they could rezone in accordance with the Highland Dr. master plan. | 00:05:39 | |
And rezoning typically is done at the discretion of the property owner when they request that, when they apply for that, the city | 00:05:47 | |
generally does not just come in and rezone properties. So it's the property owner would request it. We go to the general plan that | 00:05:54 | |
gives us the guidance and that's how zone recommendation is made. And if I remember the HDMP said something and I can't remember | 00:06:02 | |
the exact language of the HDMP, but it was something to the effect of. | 00:06:09 | |
Not disrupting existing neighborhoods and. | 00:06:17 | |
I can't remember the exact. Anybody else recently look at the HDMP just for grins and giggles and read over that? Remember what | 00:06:23 | |
I'm talking about? I haven't pulled up in a tab too. John can click over to it. It's that specific section in. | 00:06:29 | |
The general plan that refers to the Highland Dr. Master plan and then the Highland Dr. Master plan as well, so. | 00:06:37 | |
Both of those are there. The guidance for rezoning is just that, not any new room. | 00:06:43 | |
Zones be established in that section. | 00:06:51 | |
A lot of things that we're seeing now with redevelopment too is that there's either townhomes or kind of a single family style | 00:06:55 | |
home that could have a second unit behind it. There's there are ways to create that, but with the square footage of the property, | 00:07:04 | |
you can see on the second page where to best utilize all of the the land that would be on that front portion. | 00:07:12 | |
At the most ideal is three single family homes. | 00:07:22 | |
Of course, whoever owns that property can develop it in accordance with the RT zone, but I. | 00:07:26 | |
The three single family units is the best use of all the. | 00:07:34 | |
And to be clear, in R210. | 00:07:40 | |
Allows for two units for every 10,000 square feet. | 00:07:43 | |
Right, two attached unit or two attached units for 10,000 square feet or it allows for single family detached as well and each | 00:07:48 | |
unit that's detached is 6250 square feet. | 00:07:55 | |
So you don't have to do attached units, they don't have to be duplexes, you can still do single family homes there. | 00:08:03 | |
But just trying to do math in my head because it's been a day 2 * 2 to 10, and then there's four 10s in an acre, right? So we're | 00:08:11 | |
talking about 8 in an acre of property, 8 potential attached homes if R210 was extended to the house next door on either side. And | 00:08:19 | |
they bought all those up and said here we want to put a row along Kentucky Ave. or whatever, you know what I'm saying? | 00:08:27 | |
Just making sure I understand the zoning math for me right? If if a if there was more than. | 00:08:36 | |
A acre there, or if there is an acre, then that is. | 00:08:43 | |
Or. | 00:08:51 | |
Yeah. And then going back to the HDMP language that John just had up, didn't it say something about 5 per acre in there? | 00:08:54 | |
Right, no more than 5 per acre. So this would be? | 00:09:02 | |
By that three more units than that if in my hypothetical scenario the neighbors on either side decided to go R210 and someone came | 00:09:07 | |
in and said I want to build this here. | 00:09:13 | |
Right, there's. | 00:09:20 | |
The. | 00:09:24 | |
What I was looking at the area with the Highland Dr. master plan versus the properties, most of those properties front on the | 00:09:27 | |
other, they would have to do a similar kind of scheme where they'd subdivide, keep half an acre in the protected zone and then | 00:09:34 | |
whatever is remaining would be on the front. So it would require then somebody purchasing some of those fronting parcels on | 00:09:41 | |
Highland Drive and then combining enough of them to get up. | 00:09:49 | |
An acre. | 00:09:56 | |
I'm just, like I said, trying to make sure I understand the future vision of 20 years from now. What does it look like when three | 00:10:00 | |
homes potentially are built on this plot and the neighbors say, well, I lost my view and Highlands a mess anyway. And then they | 00:10:06 | |
say, hey, how much do you want to give me for this? And they sell and they say, great, now we can put six or seven or we'll buy | 00:10:11 | |
you and the neighbors and put, you know, eight more in there. You know what I'm saying? | 00:10:17 | |
I'm sorry, I'm just trying again, just looking in the looking in the crystal ball. I'm not saying that's going to happen. What I'm | 00:10:25 | |
more concerned about this is an aside, as you know. | 00:10:31 | |
If you put all that on Highland Dr. here's a road that's just going to get busier and busier, and to have cars trying to pull off | 00:10:36 | |
of Highland drive into residential is a nightmare already. And this is just going to exacerbate that issue. But it is consistent | 00:10:43 | |
with the zoning that the city. | 00:10:49 | |
Wants there. | 00:10:56 | |
And then I just hope when we get no one, I don't think anyone's using the driveway now because they're accessing it off Baywood | 00:10:58 | |
through the back. Now she's going to have to access it off island, which I think she's going to learn to hate real quickly. But I | 00:11:05 | |
don't know. It's up to her. But then if you rezone and at some point they put two or three or whatever they can put in there. | 00:11:11 | |
Getting those people on and off a Highland Drive at that particular point is going to be very, very disruptive to traffic, right? | 00:11:19 | |
And it's likely then if you're looking at that kind of access typically. | 00:11:26 | |
We'd a lot of development that I've seen is a shared driveway. So you have a single access point that three houses are sharing and | 00:11:33 | |
that's pretty typical of some of those new developments off of Highland is having a sequel driveway. | 00:11:41 | |
Who owns Highland Drive at that point? | 00:11:49 | |
You don't or the state? No, it's the city owned. City owned. OK, all right. | 00:11:54 | |
And it is. Is that 2 lanes John? | 00:12:00 | |
One line in your direction. | 00:12:04 | |
At this location, I think no, there's two lanes, there's two. | 00:12:08 | |
Yeah, 2 with no sidewalk. | 00:12:13 | |
Did the. | 00:12:17 | |
Traffic engineer Yeah, there's a sidewalk there. | 00:12:19 | |
Did Jared take a look at this? Is he part of the TRC? Yes. | 00:12:23 | |
So what you're not seeing now is I don't know if you remember last year or the year before, we have a grant to improve Highland | 00:12:27 | |
Dr. dramatically. That hasn't happened yet. | 00:12:31 | |
Because we didn't get the grant or because we're changing, some of the grant aspects have changed. | 00:12:37 | |
It's still in process, but that holds this whole stretch of Highland Drive. The cross section will will change. | 00:12:43 | |
That's right. Is this the area that's slated for one lane and bike lanes and sidewalks? I don't think that's going to happen. | 00:12:50 | |
OK. Mm-hmm. | 00:12:58 | |
Isn't the whole point of the General Plan and the Highland Dr. Master plan? | 00:13:00 | |
To ultimately increase density along that corridor. | 00:13:06 | |
To a point, yes. That's why you have 55 units an acre maximum. | 00:13:10 | |
For long. | 00:13:15 | |
Other questions on this one? | 00:13:20 | |
All right, look forward to that. | 00:13:23 | |
Discussion and what the applicant has to say. And then on the next one on here we have action item number 2, the 1740 E. | 00:13:25 | |
Holiday townhomes. | 00:13:34 | |
Site plan. | 00:13:38 | |
Hey, so on this one, we initially saw the conceptual plan for this in July, July 16th. | 00:13:42 | |
The applicant came back with a revised site plan that has a central access with a hammerhead to facilitate turnaround in order to | 00:13:52 | |
have that central. | 00:13:56 | |
Access that was recommended by the fire Marshall and the city engineer pushed the setbacks a little bit smaller on all sides of | 00:14:03 | |
the property. | 00:14:08 | |
So moving it away from Big Cottonwood Creek closer to the multifamily on the north side, the South side is largely a road access. | 00:14:13 | |
There's another multi family property that's stuck back behind that kind of tucked in and then I don't remember what was on the | 00:14:20 | |
east side it's. | 00:14:27 | |
Kind of a smaller board property border there. | 00:14:35 | |
But I think it may be a single family property. So moved it back. The there is an allowance referenced in our code for site plan | 00:14:39 | |
modifications for public safety and for environmental concerns. So where we have the Creek that's there and public safety access, | 00:14:48 | |
making sure that EMS and fire services can reach all of those units, that's where those setbacks were reduced. | 00:14:57 | |
Did we resolve Weather 1740 as a public or private road? | 00:15:09 | |
It is public, but it is a smaller access because all these documents show this as a private route again. | 00:15:14 | |
It's still on there as a private road, but in the narrative it's as. | 00:15:23 | |
Public, but in the in the. | 00:15:28 | |
It all says private, so it's very confusing. | 00:15:32 | |
Yeah. And that's what we would make sure is clear on the final site plan. The Planning Commission can make sure that that's noted | 00:15:35 | |
in the findings is that for the final that that road needs to be clarified. It does have a green street sign on it. So that's | 00:15:44 | |
where it's public, but it's largely an access Rd. for the multi family development and this property. | 00:15:53 | |
And also I had a question about. | 00:16:07 | |
When we do the calculations for the density there, that includes 100 year floodplain, even though you can't build on top of it. | 00:16:09 | |
Right. | 00:16:18 | |
Kind of seems silly, but. | 00:16:21 | |
The ordinance allows it, right? So that right, the number is still correct, even though there's a big chunk of that South side | 00:16:23 | |
that could not be built on because it kind of looked like. | 00:16:29 | |
The new plan. | 00:16:34 | |
What we thought we were seeing in the old plan look much nicer than what we're seeing in this plan, because now there's no open | 00:16:36 | |
space. Essentially, it's just. | 00:16:40 | |
The floodplain, right? And that would be expected since you can't build into floodplain anyway. You'd see a similar situation with | 00:16:45 | |
any type of development near a floodplain. That is a common situation for a variance where you'd have a variance for setbacks. So | 00:16:53 | |
things get pushed away because your land and the area that you can build on is limited by a natural feature. | 00:17:01 | |
Can I just clarify to make sure I understand this? So we saw the preliminary was the preliminary we saw back in July concept, | 00:17:12 | |
conceptual? | 00:17:16 | |
But now the setbacks are smaller. So we're tonight we're deciding if that's. | 00:17:23 | |
Fine. Is there a point where we say sorry, 9 units don't fit, we don't want to change that. I mean is that an option? We can | 00:17:29 | |
either say this new sub X are fine, it seems like public safety, environmental blah blah. Or it's 9 units don't fit, don't change | 00:17:35 | |
the setbacks, do fewer units. Is that the other option? | 00:17:41 | |
Not with the entitled right of how many units are allowed for the amount of land. | 00:17:47 | |
So the total amount of units is entitled, right and we have allowances within our code to reduce that backs for public safety and | 00:17:54 | |
environmental concerns. So you do have the capability to reduce this. | 00:18:02 | |
So where is the leeway? | 00:18:14 | |
On our part, So what I think, let me clarify just a little bit. You're at odds with the TRC. | 00:18:17 | |
Right now, TRC. | 00:18:23 | |
Representation from the safety coordination side. Engineering and fire. | 00:18:26 | |
Was not going to recommend your previous concept layout. | 00:18:32 | |
Access was a concern, too many turns for fire trucks getting around the corners in there, and so in order to get a plan that could | 00:18:37 | |
be recommended by emergency access, this is the layout that they came to or derived to from with the developer. | 00:18:45 | |
What that requires is a reduction in set back on that north side. | 00:18:54 | |
Of what the RM zone requires. | 00:18:59 | |
In the ordinance, it stays that the Planning Commission can reduce setbacks if there's something that's in conflict. It has to do | 00:19:02 | |
with safety and health, health, safety and welfare for the site development site. | 00:19:08 | |
To not approve a reduction of setbacks in lieu of reducing the number of units. | 00:19:16 | |
That would put the city at odds for the allowance for density because they could just go back to the original plan. | 00:19:22 | |
You would have to consider an A recommendation from the TRC that doesn't. | 00:19:29 | |
Recommend that layout and. | 00:19:35 | |
Oh boy. | 00:19:38 | |
So right now this is. | 00:19:39 | |
The layout here doesn't isn't look as nice and does it's not as attractive as what you previously saw. But as far as safety and | 00:19:42 | |
access for a very deep lot getting all the way down there with an emergency access for another. | 00:19:48 | |
Who knows how many individuals, fire and emergency access emergency services were concerned, even with just a minor slip and fall, | 00:19:57 | |
getting in there quickly. | 00:20:01 | |
And apart from other some other things, snow storage and such. | 00:20:08 | |
But we the meeting which this was presented as said in the minutes that we're reviewing for tonight. So I. | 00:20:13 | |
Just handily looked at them. We did say that whatever was went forward. Had to meet with the fire marshals. | 00:20:21 | |
Requirements and the engineering items that would come up so. | 00:20:30 | |
Are we really not in agreement? But in order to do that they had to shift so all the units so far north it encroaches into that | 00:20:37 | |
set back area. So yes, they did meet with the with the engineer and the fire department to get a layout that's acceptable. | 00:20:45 | |
But that forced him to move into a set back. That's not required. That's required of the room zone. | 00:20:53 | |
That makes sense. | 00:21:00 | |
So it was a catch 22, Yeah, before the roadway access being on the north side and on the east side was essentially their set back | 00:21:02 | |
because I think it's is it 15? | 00:21:09 | |
So they went down from 15 to 10 and some of those points are a little bit further. The closest points are 10 feet. There's a | 00:21:19 | |
little bit of variation on the on the building designs. But because that road was not is no longer on the perimeter serving as | 00:21:26 | |
their set back and it had to be moved into the area where their buildings were going to be. They had to then move the buildings | 00:21:34 | |
out to the north and a little to the east for that hammerhead. | 00:21:41 | |
So are we then? | 00:21:49 | |
Said are we suggesting this change to the setbacks or were approving that we're being asked for that I'm now I've now I've gotten | 00:21:53 | |
lost in the weeds of what in the world we're doing. Yeah. So you are approved. This is their preliminary site plan and you are | 00:22:01 | |
being asked to approve or not approve this type. Thank you. | 00:22:09 | |
Is this already approved for APUD? | 00:22:17 | |
It's not a beauty. This is not a beauty, OK? It's just a permitted site plan in the room zone. | 00:22:20 | |
I'm just not clear on what basis we would not approve it. | 00:22:27 | |
We can't say this is too many homes on this site. We can't say that, right? We can't say you have to increase your setbacks | 00:22:33 | |
because then they won't get approval from the TRC, right? So it, it just feels like our hands are tied here. | 00:22:41 | |
And after all, the set back that we're worried about. | 00:22:54 | |
Mainly on the north is a chunky park parking lot, right? It's not a house or grass or backyard. It's a junky parking lot. | 00:22:56 | |
And a pretty large piece of parking lot. Yeah, yeah. | 00:23:05 | |
Yeah. And then in an ideal world, there could have been some easement agreements with that property owner for access, but you | 00:23:17 | |
know, that does not always work out. | 00:23:21 | |
But a lash? | 00:23:27 | |
And sprinklers are an option for fire suppression, but not for emergency paramedics or something. It doesn't. And that was another | 00:23:29 | |
concern that the Fire Marshall had. There's also garbage concerns. And because it is a public St. having a space where the public | 00:23:37 | |
can turn around on a narrow Rd. So having all those pieces incorporated into this development. | 00:23:46 | |
Was important for both. | 00:23:55 | |
Public safety and emergency, yeah. Considering there is the heat island just north of that on that side of the property, would it | 00:23:58 | |
be appropriate to request more or require more? | 00:24:04 | |
Free landscaping. Along that I think you could suggest it. | 00:24:12 | |
I don't know where you put any landscaping on this plan. There's no landscaping on this, right? Yeah, it's. | 00:24:18 | |
Yeah, all the stuff we heard about in the 1st. | 00:24:25 | |
Right. Yeah, it's all yeah, in the floodplain. | 00:24:30 | |
Legally required ones by the. | 00:24:33 | |
Any other questions on #2? | 00:24:40 | |
This is not specific to their plan but just in general with 100 year flood plan. | 00:24:42 | |
Can it not be disturbed agree during construction either or it can be they just have to restore it in some way or what? It just | 00:24:49 | |
has to be there. Well you you can disturb within banks of the floodplain with special permitting from the state, which they | 00:24:55 | |
probably aren't really interested in pursuing. So they would be they would. | 00:25:01 | |
Be careful to stay up on the front. | 00:25:07 | |
I mean, ideally if you really wanted to, if you had unlimited amounts of funds, yes, you would disrupt that bank side, increase | 00:25:11 | |
the floodway elevation, and then go apply to FEMA for a flood map letter of amendment so you're no longer in the floodplain. | 00:25:19 | |
I also I mean. | 00:25:29 | |
Based on recent changes, is 100 year flood really still 100 year flood on this? | 00:25:31 | |
We think. | 00:25:38 | |
I don't know if it's entirely accurate, but we still have to go buy the FEMA floodplain maps. | 00:25:40 | |
Yeah. | 00:25:46 | |
Thank you. | 00:25:50 | |
Right. And then the last item on there is just minute meeting minutes for four meetings. So we'll go through those. | 00:25:52 | |
All right. So if there's no other questions at this time on the agenda items, I think we can go ahead and close the work meeting. | 00:26:05 | |
And then do any commissioners need a quick recess before we jump right into the official meeting? A quick recess has been called | 00:26:11 | |
for. We will be back in 2 minutes. | 00:26:17 | |
And. | 00:27:06 | |
Just want some sugar down there. I got some caramels in here, they're delicious. | 00:28:23 | |
Yeah, she knows what's up. | 00:28:27 | |
Digging. | 00:28:32 | |
Bless you. | 00:28:39 | |
We're in trouble after Halloween. | 00:28:45 | |
I don't have any little kids anymore. We're gonna have to steal Angela's. | 00:28:49 | |
All right, John, we set. | 00:29:07 | |
All right. | 00:29:12 | |
Good evening everyone. Welcome to the Holiday City Planning Commission, October 1st, 2024. In attendance we have all commissioners | 00:29:14 | |
except Commissioner Barrant and Legal Counsel and both city staff. And we have 3 items on our agenda. The 1st is a public hearing | 00:29:21 | |
and then two action items. And before we get started with any of these meetings, we do have an opening statement that we read to | 00:29:28 | |
the public and I've asked Commissioner Gong if she will do that for us. | 00:29:34 | |
The City of Holiday Planning Commission is a volunteer citizen board whose function is to review land use plans and other special | 00:29:43 | |
studies. Make recommendations to the City Council on proposed zoning map and ordinance changes. | 00:29:48 | |
And improve conditional uses into subdivisions. | 00:29:54 | |
The Planning Commission does not initiate land use applications, rather acts on applications as they are submitted. | 00:29:57 | |
Commissioners do not meet with applicants except that publicly noticed meetings. | 00:30:03 | |
Commissioners attempt to visit each property on the agenda where the location, the nature of the neighborhood, existing structures | 00:30:07 | |
and uses related to the proposed change are noted. | 00:30:11 | |
Decisions are based on observations, recommendations from the professional planning staff. | 00:30:16 | |
The City's general plan, zoning ordinance and other reports by all verbal and written comments and by evidence submitted, all of | 00:30:21 | |
which are part of the public record. | 00:30:25 | |
All right. Thank you very much. | 00:30:31 | |
And with that, we will roll into our first item on the agenda. We will ask city staff to come up and walk us through this zone | 00:30:35 | |
zone map amendment before us at 5428 Highland. | 00:30:42 | |
OK. | 00:30:59 | |
All right, first item on the agenda. This is a zone map amendment requested from the existing zone of R121 to R210. The property | 00:31:01 | |
is located at 5428 S Highland Drive. | 00:31:09 | |
The unique feature on this request is that the applicant is requesting to only rezone the front portion on Highland Dr. of this | 00:31:19 | |
property. | 00:31:23 | |
History for the property is that it was 2 parcels prior to 2013. Those two parcels were purchased by the owner of the parcel of | 00:31:31 | |
the Baywood parcel on the back. They bought the front one and then combined them into one single parcel. | 00:31:39 | |
The current owner wants to now divide them back how they were and then assign the appropriate zoning for each parcel. So the | 00:31:49 | |
Baywood property that has access off of Baywood Dr. | 00:31:55 | |
Would retain an R121 zone and then the front portion which is I believe it was .4. | 00:32:02 | |
.43 acres would be rezoned to R210. That zone was selected based off of the Highland Dr. master plan Which. | 00:32:11 | |
Calls for density that is no more than 5 units per acre, so about .25 or sorry, 2.5 units per half acre. | 00:32:24 | |
The. | 00:32:36 | |
Total square footage on that portion is. | 00:32:39 | |
I have this highlighted on here. | 00:32:45 | |
Maybe not. | 00:32:52 | |
The square footage on the R2 zone could be divided up in a couple of different ways. | 00:32:55 | |
If the property owner in the future would like to redevelop that as is, they. | 00:33:01 | |
Just want to leave the house that's existing there, but potentially the R2 zone would enable either. | 00:33:07 | |
Attached unit with two units in it and a single family detached house or would have could enable 3 detached single family homes on | 00:33:16 | |
it. At the point in time that any future redevelopment would occur, there would be a. | 00:33:24 | |
Building permit and access, all those kinds of issues that are addressed off of Highland Drive. The reason for higher densities on | 00:33:32 | |
Highland Drive is because of it serving as an arterial Rd. It has two lanes on it and. | 00:33:39 | |
With the uses around there on the north, there are some higher densities and the South also has higher densities. This is kind of | 00:33:48 | |
a unique pocket of lower density in segment B of the Highland Dr. master plan. | 00:33:54 | |
The Highland Dr. master plan does state that our M zones are not appropriate, but other zones are are open for rezoning in that | 00:34:02 | |
segment. | 00:34:07 | |
And just a little context on the zone that Mister Chairlink has pulled up there is the Greek Orthodox Church is directly across | 00:34:14 | |
the street. There's commercial properties on each side of the Greek Orthodox Church and then a pocket of those single family homes | 00:34:21 | |
all zoned as R121. | 00:34:28 | |
Majority of those have frontage on other properties or other kind of that interior neighborhood with the back up to Highland | 00:34:36 | |
Drive. I think there's probably two or three of those that front onto Highland Dr. directly, not very many that have frontage on | 00:34:43 | |
Highland Drive. | 00:34:50 | |
I outlined a scenario in the staff report about kind of the how many properties could potentially do something similar where they | 00:34:59 | |
portion off a portion onto Highland Drive. I think it's 3 or 4 properties could do a similar type of thing, but just because of | 00:35:07 | |
how those the size of the existing properties, how they're laid out. | 00:35:15 | |
Would require some coordination between property owners if they were ever to. | 00:35:24 | |
Expand to a larger size. | 00:35:29 | |
Highland Drive is also a transit route, UTA 220. I'm not sure where those transit stop locations are, but that does serve as a | 00:35:32 | |
main transit arterial. | 00:35:38 | |
So if there's any questions for me, I can answer those and otherwise I can have the applicant come up and present. | 00:35:45 | |
Their their application. | 00:35:55 | |
When this parcel was two separate properties, what was the zoning? | 00:35:57 | |
When it was 2 separate ones, I think it was still all under our 121 because there wasn't a rezone process that that happened to | 00:36:04 | |
when those were subdivided. | 00:36:09 | |
OK. And just while we've got the zone map up before we switch gears on it, could we just zoom out? I'm just curious how many other | 00:36:16 | |
R2 zones? | 00:36:20 | |
There are within. | 00:36:24 | |
Scope of this location along Highland there, so it looks like there's the ones that were built down on the corner. | 00:36:28 | |
So that's the corner of 5600. There's R210 directly across. There are some on the front of that. That's kind of a unique | 00:36:36 | |
development where some of those were R2 and then some are RM. The ones that are on Highland Dr. are zoned as RM. Is that correct, | 00:36:42 | |
John? | 00:36:49 | |
So the ones their backyard faces Highland Drive, but they retained an RM zone and then part of that development was R210. | 00:36:58 | |
RM for the property that's on the north. There's some more S that our R210. | 00:37:08 | |
And then? | 00:37:14 | |
On the Northside of those subject property. | 00:37:16 | |
I think there's some R1. | 00:37:19 | |
And RM. | 00:37:22 | |
So kind of a mix room there. | 00:37:24 | |
On both sides. | 00:37:30 | |
There's a neighborhood commercial that's. | 00:37:35 | |
On the corner. | 00:37:39 | |
And then a little pocket of R18. | 00:37:42 | |
So aside from that grouping of room, there's really not any R2 S along Highland until you get down to the intersection. | 00:37:45 | |
Right, OK. | 00:37:52 | |
All right. Thank you. | 00:37:56 | |
With that, we'll invite the applicant up. | 00:37:58 | |
My name is Ashley Wooley, I live at 4010 S Cumberland Dr. in holiday First. I want to thank Harry Marsh and the other staff for | 00:38:07 | |
guiding me through this process and preparing the staff report for this evening. And thank you to each one of you for volunteering | 00:38:14 | |
your time to be involved in our city government. | 00:38:21 | |
I am applying to rezone the front half of a property at 5428 S Highland Drive to bring it into compliance with the Highland Dr. | 00:38:28 | |
master plan. | 00:38:32 | |
This property has two complete residences sitting back-to-back on a single parcel, one facing east toward Highland Drive and one | 00:38:37 | |
facing West toward Baywood Dr. This is because a decade ago, the former owner consolidated the two parcels into a single parcel. I | 00:38:44 | |
purchased the property four years ago and lived in the Baywood house and used the home on Highland Drive as an accessory dwelling | 00:38:51 | |
unit. | 00:38:57 | |
I would now like to so our family has recently moved to a different part of holiday and I would like to undo that consolidation so | 00:39:06 | |
that I can sell the Baywood house. | 00:39:11 | |
But keep the Highland Dr. House. And the reason for wanting to keep it is because it is a beautiful, well preserved 1900 and 20s | 00:39:16 | |
Arts and Crafts style home and I've put significant resources into restoring and preserving it. | 00:39:23 | |
In the four years that I've owned it. | 00:39:31 | |
The reason I'm here this evening is because that original Highland Dr. parcel is slightly too small for the current zone of R121, | 00:39:33 | |
so with the advice of the planning office, I'm requesting that it be rezoned to R210IN accordance with the Highland Dr. master | 00:39:41 | |
plan. To be clear, I'm not proposing any new development or changes to the use of any property. | 00:39:48 | |
To answer a few questions that I heard raised during the work session, several commissioners were wondering if this was a historic | 00:39:56 | |
home. It is not designated as such, as far as I know. I looked into it when we purchased the property four years ago. As far as I | 00:40:02 | |
understand it, it would be eligible for that designation, but nobody has ever applied for it. And when we purchased the property | 00:40:07 | |
as a family with young kids, the cost benefit analysis just didn't work for us at that point to go through all of the process of | 00:40:13 | |
getting historic. | 00:40:19 | |
Nation, it didn't seem that there would be sufficient benefit for us at that time. That's something that we can look into in the | 00:40:25 | |
future and would be interested in doing. If anyone would like to know more about that property, I put together a little photo | 00:40:29 | |
album. | 00:40:33 | |
Since the agenda is short tonight and I don't want to take too much time, but I just want to point out it's only 5 pages. I don't | 00:40:39 | |
know what the appropriate procedure would be. I'll give it to Kerry and if anybody wants to look at it, they can. One highlight of | 00:40:44 | |
the home is the living room. It's got it used. It's it's a, it's a time machine. | 00:40:50 | |
Back to the 1920s, you step into the living room and has original windows with original glass, original woodwork, original | 00:40:55 | |
hardwood floor, original hardware lath and plaster walls with original paint and stenciling that's appropriate to the time period, | 00:41:01 | |
and you just get this beautiful doorknob that's on the front door. It's just stunning. | 00:41:07 | |
So that's that's an answer to that question about the the nature of the property. It is not on a designation, but in my view it | 00:41:15 | |
has architectural and aesthetic value and could be on a designation if we were to pursue that. | 00:41:23 | |
There were Commissioner Cunningham was expressing a truth which is that access from Highland Drive to that property is difficult. | 00:41:32 | |
We have never had, well at one point we had someone living there full time for a short period of time, but it's been used as an | 00:41:37 | |
Adu. | 00:41:41 | |
There is no one currently living there. We are going to be renovating the bathroom this fall. We don't have any plans for anyone | 00:41:46 | |
to live there full time anytime in the future. It could happen, but that's not our that's not how we've been using it and that's | 00:41:52 | |
not how we intend to use it right now. | 00:41:58 | |
So. | 00:42:06 | |
Again, we we don't intend to develop this property. If we did, we would have to get site plan approval and go through all those | 00:42:10 | |
other procedures and that would be the time to talk about increased density and things. We have no intention of going down that | 00:42:17 | |
road right now. In fact, the reason that we are doing this is to. | 00:42:24 | |
Preserve that special little place. | 00:42:31 | |
Rather than selling the property as it is, as one property where someone else might come in and tear it down and build a bunch of | 00:42:36 | |
homes, we're wanting to preserve that little piece of our history. | 00:42:41 | |
So that's it for me. I'm happy to answer any other questions that you might have. | 00:42:47 | |
I have just one quick question. So the decision to go to R210, was that on the advice of city staff or was that OK? | 00:42:52 | |
I had originally talked to them and in our initial conversations they had said maybe it are 110 or 115. So I had originally | 00:43:02 | |
submitted the application with that. But then after they looked into it more, they came back to me and said we actually think that | 00:43:08 | |
our 210 would be more consistent with the master plan. So that's what we'd recommend. So yes. | 00:43:14 | |
I appreciate that, Commissioners, any other questions for the applicant at this time? | 00:43:22 | |
All right. We'll go ahead and have you sit down for us for a few minutes here and then we will open our public hearing up. | 00:43:25 | |
Looks like we have some people here tonight that want to, might want to speak on this before you come up to the podium. We would | 00:43:32 | |
ask or when you come up to the podium, we would ask that you state your name and address for the record. And also try and keep | 00:43:39 | |
your remarks to roughly 3 minutes or less and try to avoid restating any comments made by other members of the public that might | 00:43:45 | |
have gone before you. And with that, we'll go ahead and open it up to anyone that would like to come up and speak on this now. | 00:43:52 | |
Once. Twice. | 00:44:04 | |
Nobody's here, nobody wants. OK, fair enough. Well then with that, we'll go ahead and close the public hearing. And since there's | 00:44:06 | |
no additional comments to work through, we'll turn to commissioners. And I've asked Commissioner Prince if she'd kind of lead us | 00:44:12 | |
in the discussion on this one. Just before you start, actually, Commissioner Cunningham, you're on the next one. Sorry, throwing | 00:44:18 | |
you on the spot there. But. And Commissioner Gong, just before we start, we've got a family connection, so I'm going to recuse | 00:44:24 | |
myself from this vote. So. | 00:44:30 | |
Good luck. | 00:44:36 | |
Ashley, I love you. | 00:44:38 | |
Fair enough, Commissioner Cunningham, I think we talked about everything there is to talk about. | 00:44:43 | |
Go ahead and make a motion if no one's supposed to doing that. | 00:44:51 | |
Try and make a motion out of what staff gave us here and then. So I make a motion. We forward recommendation of the City Council | 00:44:56 | |
to approve. | 00:45:01 | |
An application by Ashley Wooley to amend the holiday zoning map for .45. Is that correct .45? | 00:45:06 | |
4-5 or .43. | 00:45:15 | |
Yeah. So it's .43, correct? | 00:45:19 | |
So .43. | 00:45:24 | |
4/4 OK .443 acres of land located at 5428 S Highland Drive from R121 to R210 based on the following findings. A. The proposed | 00:45:26 | |
amendment is consistent with the goals, injectors and policies of the General Plan BE. The proposed amendment is harmonious with | 00:45:35 | |
the overall character of existing development of the vicinity. | 00:45:45 | |
See that there's been no public. | 00:45:55 | |
Identification of adverse effect of abutting properties. | 00:45:58 | |
And indeed, there's an adequacy of facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, including roadways, Parks and | 00:46:04 | |
Recreation facilities, police and Fire Protection, school storm drain drainage systems, environmental hazard mitigation measures, | 00:46:10 | |
water supply and wastewater and refuge collection. | 00:46:16 | |
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. | 00:46:24 | |
Commissioner Prince Aye. Commissioner Vaughn Aye. Commissioner Cunningham, Aye. And Chair Roach. | 00:46:31 | |
Will vote aye. | 00:46:40 | |
And therefore it does pass to the applicant. I would advise getting in touch with the Holiday Historical Commission. | 00:46:44 | |
I don't know if she heard me. She's she's she's off. That's OK. If city staff will make that recommendation and provide her with | 00:46:54 | |
who she could contact, that would be great. And pass the book up. Yes, yes. | 00:47:00 | |
Do you want me to pass that up now? Do you want to after? OK. | 00:47:08 | |
All right. And with that, we have an action item Next up on the agenda here for 1740 E Holiday Townhomes. And this is for the | 00:47:12 | |
permitted use preliminary and final review. And we'll invite city staff to come back up and walk us through this one. | 00:47:22 | |
OK. Second item here is for a permitted use site plan in the room zone at a preliminary level. Address is 4821 S, 1740 E This is a | 00:47:37 | |
site that we reviewed for conceptual site plan July 16th and they have now come back. | 00:47:48 | |
For preliminary receiving feedback from the Fire Marshall, from the city engineer, and from planning staff. | 00:48:01 | |
So. | 00:48:09 | |
The size of their property allows for 9 units and two parking spaces for their proposed use of three bedroom units. So those | 00:48:11 | |
require 2 spaces. Those will be in garage parking spaces. The original site plan had access going around the perimeter on the | 00:48:19 | |
north side and east side of the property. | 00:48:26 | |
The fire Marshall and city engineer both had concerns with how that access was. | 00:48:36 | |
Was shown on there concerns with public safety and environmental with the Big Cottonwood Creek that is there and how much pavement | 00:48:42 | |
there was. So there's different aspects with both the amount of payment garbage access, public works access, having a turn around | 00:48:50 | |
for public since 1740 E as a public road and. | 00:48:58 | |
Then also emergency services. The original concept plan had two units that were going to be on fire sprinklers which would have | 00:49:06 | |
met. | 00:49:10 | |
The requirement for fire, but with other emergency services getting back in there to access some of those units that were a little | 00:49:15 | |
bit further away and not being able to make turning radius with fire trucks or other emergency vehicles, that is where the fire | 00:49:21 | |
Marshall. | 00:49:27 | |
Worked with the developer to create an access that is central on the site because of the floodplain. | 00:49:35 | |
With Big Cottonwood Creek, the the property is pretty limited in where development can take place where structures can be built. | 00:49:44 | |
For that central access with a hammerhead turn around in it, the buildings had to be readjusted in their placement. With adjusting | 00:49:53 | |
their placement and putting that access down the middle of the property, it pushed those buildings out to the. | 00:50:01 | |
Northside and slightly to the east side as well. | 00:50:09 | |
Neighboring property on the north is ARM multifamily development. Also their parking and their dumpsters are right there on that | 00:50:14 | |
side of the parking lot. | 00:50:19 | |
The previous concept development was, I mean, the developers preferred it, he said. You know, it's a little bit nicer having all | 00:50:26 | |
of those units that were facing the Creek in kind of a central court, but when it comes to a public safety issue, then that's | 00:50:32 | |
where it had to be readjusted So that preliminary plan is presented. | 00:50:38 | |
With that central access that you can see pushing those units and now all of the garages will be off of that central access. It | 00:50:45 | |
then puts the front doors of the units on. | 00:50:52 | |
Five of those units on the larger building on the Northside. | 00:51:00 | |
And. | 00:51:05 | |
But there is adequate turn around there space for public turn around and for emergency service turn around. | 00:51:07 | |
The Planning Commission does have the ability to approve those kinds of adjustments on setbacks with your on a site plan when | 00:51:14 | |
there are issues with environmental concerns or public safety concerns. So that's what's being brought before the Planning | 00:51:23 | |
Commission today for preliminary review and approval. Any questions for staff before we have the applicant come up? | 00:51:31 | |
To help me just understand on the South side of this property that's up against the canal, with the change of the layout from what | 00:51:41 | |
was originally approved, is this going to require additional? | 00:51:47 | |
Birmingham and Earth to be brought in to keep everything high enough and level up out of that. Like I mean, it is basically going | 00:51:55 | |
to make the canal jut up to a wall to accommodate this this change versus what there would have been before. | 00:52:02 | |
I don't believe so. | 00:52:11 | |
So you have a retaining wall which is 4 inches tall. It's a curb. | 00:52:15 | |
OK. | 00:52:22 | |
So no, there's not going to be a wall. | 00:52:23 | |
I'm just curious whether that was going to look like on the Creek side. So 4 inches. So you can see here. I'll try to highlight it | 00:52:26 | |
4343.2 top back of curve at the bottom here and 4330434324 which is the middle of this turn around parking area, which is not much | 00:52:33 | |
of a difference. | 00:52:39 | |
OK. | 00:52:47 | |
I have a question for when we. | 00:52:49 | |
Go ahead and and, and act on this. Whatever form our motion takes. Do we have to specifically address the set back or can we | 00:52:53 | |
simply say we approve? | 00:53:00 | |
Don't approve. Suggest continuing this plan. | 00:53:07 | |
You can reference the staff report if you want to be specific. The section of code that's outlined in that is 13.08 point 08/01 | 00:53:12 | |
A&C and then 3D. It's in the third paragraph here. | 00:53:19 | |
If you want to reference it specifically, I mean does it need you can just say following staff. | 00:53:27 | |
Recommendation or the TRC recommendation as presented? OK, All right. Thank you. | 00:53:33 | |
As far as parking spaces are met with garage parking. So is there no visitor parking in this plan from what I'm saying, OK. | 00:53:39 | |
So park down the street, walk on the sidewalk all the way around to get to where you're going. Got it? OK. | 00:53:50 | |
They plan on maybe we can ask that to the applicant, but I think they planned on a couple. | 00:53:56 | |
And these being stalls, these pavers. | 00:54:02 | |
I'm not sure if that changed. Yeah, OK, well then I probably should get the applicant up here. | 00:54:06 | |
Oh, I have one more question for city staff. I apologize. | 00:54:15 | |
I'm remembering that this street 1740 E what other private or public with. | 00:54:21 | |
Public signage but listed as private on our documents. | 00:54:28 | |
I'm I don't remember if you can do parking along the side of that street or not because there's a wall at one point. | 00:54:32 | |
Yeah, we looked at this in our TRC meeting. It's it has green signage. It's a public St. It's been maintained as a public street. | 00:54:40 | |
Is that right? So, but I think that there's no parking on one side of it. In fact, I would be surprised if. | 00:54:49 | |
Fire Marshall recommends painting some of that curb red because you're right, there is a wall that's built into the asphalt pretty | 00:54:59 | |
far. | 00:55:03 | |
Which makes me wonder if that's something that we should consider as part of our recommendations. | 00:55:07 | |
Sure, yes, yeah. If you have a consideration of maybe no parking along that first section because it's off of this drawing, maybe | 00:55:14 | |
I'll bring up the Salt Lake County assessor signed up too, if you want to go to their map where you can see the property lines. | 00:55:22 | |
Well, let's see, I can just bring this aerial up. | 00:55:33 | |
Looking at this photo, it might help. | 00:55:37 | |
It's going to get grainy. | 00:55:40 | |
But it would be. You can see where this driveway for Linden Apartments is located between the driveway and their entrance. | 00:55:42 | |
Likely should be recommended that that is no parking painted red. Mm-hmm. | 00:55:51 | |
Further north I think they all use it currently as on street parking. | 00:55:56 | |
All of these residents do. | 00:56:02 | |
But the West side, where there's the wall? | 00:56:04 | |
That's working. That's a no parking currently. OK, thank you. I don't think there's enough space for people to park there. Well, | 00:56:09 | |
that doesn't mean people won't park. It doesn't mean that people won't park in your situation because I don't there's not a curb | 00:56:13 | |
there. | 00:56:17 | |
It's just a the end of asphalt and the ball. | 00:56:23 | |
Thank you. | 00:56:27 | |
OK. | 00:56:29 | |
All right, now we'll have the applicant come up. | 00:56:30 | |
Good evening. Brad Reynolds, 2500 E Haven Lane in Holladay, UT. | 00:56:36 | |
I am the applicant for the proposed project at 1740 E. | 00:56:43 | |
We has been stated by staff, we originally had submitted a little different site plan and as we got to meet with some of the staff | 00:56:50 | |
and engineer and particularly the Fire Marshall, there was a strong recommendation that we change our site plan. So we went back | 00:56:58 | |
and reworked it. It's a challenging site because there's certain. | 00:57:06 | |
Restrictions with FEMA and the flood control in the stream where you have to have a minimum of 50 feet. | 00:57:16 | |
That you cannot encroach upon that 50 foot set back. So we reworked the site plan and I think. | 00:57:24 | |
Everyone was quite pleased, including the Fire Marshall and the engineer, because it has easy accessibility and it seems to flow | 00:57:32 | |
well for all emergency vehicles. | 00:57:38 | |
And we are certainly planning on at least 2 parking stalls. Uh. | 00:57:45 | |
And then we hope depending on how our FEMA flood maps and different things go or we could potentially on that little center turn | 00:57:50 | |
around, maybe add to that at a future date. But for right now, we do have two additional stalls. | 00:57:58 | |
We feel like this is a very nice plan and we've tried to open a lot of green space open to the Creek where everybody that's living | 00:58:06 | |
there can have that. | 00:58:11 | |
Available to them to go use and enjoy. It's a relatively flat as what would brought up so there's not a steep bank or anything off | 00:58:18 | |
the Creek and all that will be grass going down to the Creek. | 00:58:24 | |
Any questions I could answer for you? | 00:58:31 | |
So I'm I'm remembering when we saw this before the units faced. | 00:58:35 | |
Seems like they all faced the Creek for a view. | 00:58:42 | |
What is your current plan? This is on your screen. I put up the original concept. | 00:58:45 | |
OK. So you can see they all kind of faced each other. There was a center court, OK, that you would. And then we'd have balconies | 00:58:52 | |
and decks that you could look out towards the Creek. And we tried to keep the center portion open so everybody could see the Creek | 00:59:00 | |
or most could have a accessible route to go use that open area by the Creek. | 00:59:08 | |
And now with our new one, it's pretty similar. We've opened up the center. We just have more units that face directly to the | 00:59:18 | |
north. So the the five that are in one building, their front door will be on the north side and they'll face out. Yeah, the front | 00:59:26 | |
door will be on the north, but they'll have upper balconies that will look back towards the Creek and towards the mountains if. | 00:59:35 | |
When the view will allow. | 00:59:44 | |
OK. | 00:59:47 | |
And if memory serves, there's a wall currently running along that N into the property. | 00:59:48 | |
There's not a wall, but there's a fence from the Linden Apartments and a little bit of a just a slight lip of asphalt there where | 00:59:53 | |
it connects to our property, but very minimal, no wall. | 00:59:59 | |
Will you put a wall up? We're not planning to. We're hoping to just transition off that fence to our grade and we think it should | 01:00:07 | |
should work well without a wall. So there's no wall planned. There is a four foot sidewalk that kind of connects and goes around | 01:00:12 | |
the perimeter of the project. | 01:00:18 | |
OK. Is there any? | 01:00:25 | |
Arbor scape in your landscape plan that doesn't involve the Creekside? | 01:00:28 | |
Yeah, No, when you say arborscape trees, trees, yeah, we, we will definitely as we finalize the landscape plan and that will | 01:00:37 | |
certainly have some trees and different things that will try to soften some of the hard surface and that around there. And I think | 01:00:43 | |
with this central and surprisingly on that back against the Creek, there are huge pine trees that they're just absolutely | 01:00:50 | |
beautiful trees. So we're trying to make sure. | 01:00:57 | |
Try to stay away from those and take good care of them. | 01:01:06 | |
I'm just thinking the heat island and noise island that will be created in the middle if you don't have, because I'm based on what | 01:01:09 | |
you have on here, I can't see the dimensions of the space between the drives for the garages. But I mean, I can't imagine that | 01:01:16 | |
that's going to be a Maple tree that's going to fit in there. No, unfortunately in the center there. I I seriously doubt we might | 01:01:22 | |
have a few shrubs that are in between the driveways by the aprons that go into the garage. | 01:01:29 | |
But there won't be much landscape in that center area there. | 01:01:36 | |
There's just no room. It's all. It's like a 20 foot wide drive approach coming in. | 01:01:41 | |
Any other questions for the applicant So the. | 01:01:49 | |
The public Rd. would end at your property line. | 01:01:52 | |
Correct. And that what were we doing for garbage collection, This will all be private. So we'd have like waste Management, | 01:01:57 | |
everybody would have an individual garbage can and they'd come in once a week and pick up those garbage cans. So whether that's | 01:02:04 | |
placed right at the entrance where it typically would be, we haven't totally. That's most likely everybody would cart that out to | 01:02:11 | |
that center approach area right there as you come into the project. | 01:02:18 | |
But it won't be any dumpster pads or anything like that. | 01:02:26 | |
And back to the visitor parking issue. | 01:02:31 | |
So how many visitor parking? | 01:02:36 | |
Stalls are they're going to be. | 01:02:38 | |
Right now there's just two designated ones, and code requires 0, so we're actually 2 above what the city requires. | 01:02:40 | |
And where would they be? It'd be right now you can see there's kind of a little brick paver area next to that little. | 01:02:49 | |
Turn around area in the center of the project. There's kind of brick pavers there. | 01:02:56 | |
So that that's really hard skate parking, right? Not it's not even decorative. Well, it's like it's paver. So it is decorative. | 01:03:03 | |
Was possibly a small rubber tree. Make it in there. There you go. | 01:03:16 | |
I've got to say, I mean I know the code doesn't require any, but it just shares the mind that you have 9 residences. | 01:03:23 | |
Only two visitor stalls, and then you're going to impinge on the public roadway, which is already impinged on by the big apartment | 01:03:31 | |
complex where all those cars parked because they don't want to park in the parking lot every time I go by there. | 01:03:39 | |
It's full. Is it because it's surprising if you drive into their very entrance that's closest to us, they have a lot of excess | 01:03:48 | |
parking whenever we go by that side of it is empty. Now, whether some choose to park on the street, I don't know, but there are | 01:03:56 | |
several stalls that are very seldom used that are just open stalls. So I don't know how many use the street. But did you enter | 01:04:03 | |
into an agreement with them? So we've actually been talking to them and, and. | 01:04:10 | |
Looking to perhaps even purchase a little more property to the north, but we have not finalized any negotiations to do that. | 01:04:18 | |
We might be able to workout a parking arrangement. | 01:04:28 | |
We know him a little bit, so we'll continue to work on that. | 01:04:32 | |
And as a developer, do you have any objection if the city says? | 01:04:36 | |
Parking one side only. | 01:04:41 | |
I don't have an issue with that. I really don't. I, I do not as a developer and we do a lot of big projects throughout the valley. | 01:04:43 | |
I do not like painting the curb red, to be honest with you. I'd rather see a sign because after a year and a half it looks | 01:04:50 | |
horrible. And so somebody to keep it looking nice, it's got to repaint that like every year. And what happens, it never gets done. | 01:04:56 | |
So in my opinion. | 01:05:03 | |
I think that's not the way to go. I think you'd be better off to put a sign. No parking. | 01:05:10 | |
Or parking, you know, something on this side only. Or whatever was signage. | 01:05:16 | |
Problem. I guess the problem there is the sign that the side that you want to put the no parking doesn't have anything to put the | 01:05:22 | |
no parking on except that. | 01:05:25 | |
Wall. Well, no, you've got see if you look right there where his arrow is, See right there, you've got a little bit right there. | 01:05:30 | |
But other than that you don't 'cause it's all approached going into Linden Apartments. | 01:05:34 | |
But there is a small area right there. | 01:05:40 | |
Between the sidewalk and that fence. | 01:05:43 | |
And that curve that you could put a sign there. | 01:05:46 | |
I mean, and if it had to be painted, it does. It's just typically we do not like how they look after a year or two. | 01:05:49 | |
So we typically try to stay away from that. | 01:05:59 | |
But if the council feels like it should be painted, we'll certainly do it. | 01:06:04 | |
I think for those types of things, the city actually will go in and paint them and sign them. | 01:06:10 | |
Paint is cheap. | 01:06:19 | |
That's Holiday is on top of that as well as. | 01:06:22 | |
Keeping the weeds cleaned up, they do a great job so. | 01:06:25 | |
After my public safety days, I would tell you that I. | 01:06:29 | |
Prefer that there not be any parking on that at all. It isn't a regular sized road and if you need to bring a fire truck or | 01:06:33 | |
something in I. | 01:06:37 | |
I would just stop all the parking on that road on both sides, yeah. | 01:06:42 | |
Well, if I might, if I may, it's definitely been brought to the attention of our emergency services as they look at this in more | 01:06:48 | |
detail and understanding where the city is coming from, from public service, from public works department. | 01:06:54 | |
Acknowledging that this is a public St. even though you've got a fence that's relatively new been built a good 5 feet into the | 01:07:01 | |
right of way. | 01:07:05 | |
Access is at the top. | 01:07:11 | |
Top of the list, so on street parking it might be, is something that they can definitely look, start looking at and how that's | 01:07:13 | |
being treated. | 01:07:18 | |
At the risk of making Mr. Reynolds stand here longer, how in the world? | 01:07:23 | |
How does somebody just build a fence into the cities right away that the city hasn't come through with a bulldozer and taken it | 01:07:30 | |
out? The problem is that it wasn't right of way. But when we incorporated this area in 2014. | 01:07:37 | |
It was a private drive to who lived back here? What was their names? | 01:07:45 | |
Yeah, Van der Linden. Yeah. Anyway, so over time, the city starts plowing it and maintaining it, and they decide to put up a green | 01:07:52 | |
sign. So we have a lot of these substandard streets that were started out as private and then morphed into a public situation, as | 01:07:59 | |
you know, as intensity goes on, but their property line goes to the middle of the road. | 01:08:06 | |
So we're lucky the fence isn't in the middle of the road. True. | 01:08:15 | |
So at some point, when and if this development starts to morph. | 01:08:19 | |
Change get raised, we will address that and bring that fence back to the proper width of the right of way. | 01:08:25 | |
Can I? Can I ask a question? Certainly. | 01:08:34 | |
I I. | 01:08:39 | |
I think this plan actually lost a lot in the change and I understand that there are public safety. | 01:08:41 | |
Concerns, but. | 01:08:47 | |
The feel of the the plan changed from a neighborhood feel where you could walk out your door down to the Creek you would see your | 01:08:49 | |
neighbours, to one where you're gonna drive in your garage. You never see anybody. So I I think. | 01:08:54 | |
The plan is. | 01:09:00 | |
Materially different in how it will feel to live here, um. | 01:09:02 | |
So I'm just wondering, did you consider building fewer buildings? Did you consider making them smaller? I just, I actually think | 01:09:07 | |
this is it sort of changed from a place where I was like, oh, I could picture living there to be like, I don't, I don't know, | 01:09:13 | |
because the, the nature of the neighborhood, this little 9 house neighborhood is quite different than it was. | 01:09:19 | |
I think there's advantages and disadvantages too. And obviously we've talked about how the Fire Marshall emergency vehicles and | 01:09:27 | |
the engineer feel about it. And I honestly feel with the amount of hard surface that was on the other site plan where you had a | 01:09:36 | |
big U-shaped driveway that was going around the entire project, there was a tremendous amount of hard surface. | 01:09:45 | |
And I think with what we've done, that has been. | 01:09:54 | |
Greatly reduced and so you'll definitely have a lot more green space and opening it up to the back, it is my opinion there will be | 01:09:57 | |
much more of that will actually enhance the community. | 01:10:04 | |
And when you get that much hard surface, we were a little reluctant at first, but as we looked at all the different factors, I | 01:10:11 | |