[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[0:00] This meeting is now in order, and we will jump right into the regular agenda.
[0:09] All right, item 3.1, public hearing and recommendation of Perry commercial's request for review of an amendment to the Traverse Mountain Area Plan,
[0:17] changing approximately five acres located at Tipano's Highway Mountain View Road from high-density residential to highway commercial.
[0:24] This was previously tabled at the August 13 meeting.
[0:28] So the proposal is on approximately five acres next to the existing sunrise office building and central bank.
[0:44] Yeah, I don't want to display my.
[0:48] Sorry.
[0:49] Sorry.
[0:51] Right.
[0:55] So just be an extension of the existing commercial that's in this area, they're not proposing any other changes to the Traverse On Area Plan at this time would just change this to Highway Commercial.
[1:10] just a few things to be aware of from some of the public comment we got.
[1:17] Both of these were previously changed.
[1:20] There was an amendment in 2013.
[1:24] And when they first came through, it was a little bit ambiguous.
[1:27] How big of a property they wanted to change.
[1:31] And so planning commission had actually recommended going up to six acres.
[1:35] and then City Council approved it for three acres.
[1:40] And right now it's like 2.6 acres.
[1:43] So in theory, maybe there is a little bit
[1:45] that could be still, but not the full, what they're wanting.
[1:51] Also that doesn't have to impact your decision on,
[1:54] but just it has been considered in the past.
[1:58] And I think they, since at least 2013 saw
[2:01] that there was some commercial by opportunities
[2:04] in this area and you know I guess a planning principle to keep in mind is can be good to separate
[2:14] residential from busy roads. I look at the view apartment in question why we allowed them to
[2:20] build a little pocket park right next to a really high busy road. I don't know if that's great
[2:25] for safety and quality of life. So it's the most things to keep in mind of course there's also
[2:32] impact from commercial it can increase traffic and you know if it's a large traffic generator
[2:40] they would have to do a traffic study and make improvements based off of that but that does also have
[2:46] impact yeah just some things to consider and with that I'll turn it back to the commission for
[2:51] decision. Thank you Brittany as the applicant president that
[3:03] evening commissioner so I met Swain
[3:04] representing the Perry companies that is the applicant for this property,
[3:11] just a few points
[3:14] to reiterate what Britain is already stated and what's in the staff report. All we're
[3:18] asking is for a continuation of the commercial zoning that we feel like is consistent
[3:24] with the rest of the frontage that's heading really from this property to the east and being
[3:31] complement and echoing reasonable land use and planning to put commercial down toward the
[3:39] commercial corridor for traffic circulation purposes for noise purposes just from a land
[3:45] use perspective. We feel like this is long-term is the appropriate use for this piece of property.
[3:52] I think that is outlined in frankly we probably should have just brought this through
[3:56] at the same time the central Utah bank was doing their use amendment within the area plan
[4:04] back in 2013 because the commission at that time was also just considering, you know, in
[4:11] approving a larger parcel for commercially used in the same area that would be contiguous
[4:17] with the existing central Utah bank. So it's really pretty straightforward, we're just asking for
[4:25] amendment. I would hope that we could just focus on this. I know that we've been here on other
[4:33] applications recently.
[4:36] We've, we understand where the council stands on that application.
[4:42] And we have a lot of interests within Trevor's Mountain, right? And in previous
[4:51] dialogue, there's been a lot of other things brought into whatever it is that Perry
[4:57] brings forward that are unrelated to the current app.
[5:00] I would just hope tonight that we can have a discussion based upon what is the appropriate land use on this particular application and able to move forward one way or another.
[5:13] But we feel like it's an addition to the city. It creates a new commercial property that will obviously produce tax revenue aside from what's already entitled for the property.
[5:26] And we feel like it long-term was just the appropriate use for the for the piece of ground.
[5:31] So, happy to answer any questions. Any questions for the applicant?
[5:37] I have a question.
[5:39] So, what does this do with your density cap? Like if this is no longer?
[5:46] The density in the Sarah, I think, in the staff reports outline it's flexible as it is.
[5:53] So, when do anything to the density cap?
[5:54] there's property where that density can be moved around to. So it wouldn't apply
[6:01] to any density cap. It would just be a result of this, of the land use for this
[6:05] parcel. All the other land uses outside of this would remain the same.
[6:11] Okay. So when you residential opportunities that currently exist for this property
[6:16] would you moved to some other parcels?
[6:22] I'm sorry, Claire.
[6:23] So you have the overall general plan for the area.
[6:28] It does call for certain rights for the amount of units in each different pod.
[6:33] Are you saying that if this were to be resowned as commercial,
[6:37] the residential units that are assigned to this pod or this area of the plan
[6:42] would be distributed elsewhere?
[6:44] Well, they would remain essentially here, so right now, this parcel is continues with the
[6:49] parcel above this in the HDR zone and that density would remain.
[6:55] So it wouldn't, and maybe Britain, you guys could put gifts and clarity to this as well,
[7:01] but it's going to just push that density or those rooftops, it's not as though those
[7:08] then so he's going to go away under the application.
[7:14] Okay. Any other questions for the applicant?
[7:19] We will probably have more questions later. Great. I'll stand by. Thank you.
[7:22] I failed to give us an opportunity to ask questions to staff,
[7:26] did anybody have questions for staff? I'll just reiterate, I think, the same question,
[7:32] so we do have a particularity. So I'm understanding this, if this has changed to commercial,
[7:37] I'm just going to grab a number out of thin air so we're just using something concrete.
[7:41] Let's say 150 units were currently planned for what is there.
[7:46] We would still have 150 units.
[7:48] It would now be squeezed into the smaller space above while we then have commercial
[7:53] builds on what is being proposed.
[7:54] Is that correct?
[7:57] Okay.
[7:59] That's a whole other application or do they just get it?
[8:05] So the way this area, currently as I guess I could pull it up in the area plan, it's designated by the areas is how many units there are.
[8:19] And so if it, it wouldn't change the fact that that area has that many units if that makes sense.
[8:25] I'll pull it up.
[8:35] If it were a four gallon juggle water and there were three gallons of water and we now make it a three gallon juggle the fact is the water remains the same
[8:44] Yes,
[8:48] okay. Thank you. Yeah, so it's part of
[8:55] this peridee
[8:57] planning district and
[8:59] there's 260 dwelling units here and I think
[9:03] 260 units yeah, and so
[9:06] But really, this hasn't developed as shown, the road doesn't come through like this, and so the line between Perry C&D is a little bit less clear,
[9:22] so it probably does incorporate more of both of these, and obviously some of these units have already been used.
[9:28] the view is in here and is used up some of these so yeah so they have to keep
[9:37] there density in this unit they can't now say well we have 150 that we don't
[9:43] have anymore because we made it highway commercial so we get to use that 150
[9:48] somewhere else so I mean it has to stay in this area it just would be a
[9:58] even more light dancing.
[10:00] So, north of the sunrise way is where we'd have to fit the rest of the halt.
[10:06] Yeah. Okay. Why wouldn't the commercial development cut into their units allowed?
[10:13] So, I wouldn't be essentially, they're asking for a commercial instead of residential.
[10:17] I guess, you know, you could propose that that it is.
[10:21] be taken out for the ERUs, commercial wouldn't be very many
[10:28] ERUs, equivalent residential units, right? It's looking at number of
[10:33] fixture units, unless it's a hotel or something like that, I mean Gary could
[10:36] speak more to that, but most commercials pretty low on the number of
[10:48] ERUs, right. And then also, where might be the
[10:52] that the bank went in, or did we did this for the bank?
[10:57] So 2013 was when that hit plan was amended.
[11:01] And at that point, the planning commission recommended a larger parcel, the city council
[11:05] elected to go a smaller parcel. Can you give a history on that?
[11:10] Yeah, I just reviewed this. I think they were looking into it, so
[11:20] Yeah, I,
[11:24] sorry, let's see if I can find what they had actually proposed.
[11:34] That's from what I remember, it was just a little bit vague on what they were actually wanting
[11:38] there, just saying like, let's amend some of the area along.
[11:47] So I guess they show this smaller area, but they're narrative,
[11:59] oh yeah, so I mean they were
[12:00] saying 2.3 to 5 acres was their quest,
[12:06] yeah.
[12:07] So I mean, I don't know, it wasn't here.
[12:09] So I couldn't tell you from memory what happened.
[12:12] But it sounds like that was kind of what it was.
[12:14] It was just maybe not a totally clear quest of,
[12:18] we're looking for this acreage clarity
[12:22] and planning commission was more like, yeah, let's go.
[12:26] Big, let's go up.
[12:28] Maybe beyond what you think you might need.
[12:29] Maybe they were like, we need up to 5 acres
[12:31] I said, okay, let's go to six acres in case you need that and maybe they knew more by
[12:34] city council and so that's why city council it was three. I don't know. It's not very clear
[12:38] in the minutes either. Okay. Any other questions for staff?
[12:48] All right. This is a public hearing.
[12:53] We did have some public comments online that we probably want to read first and then we will have
[12:57] the public come up and speak. We will open the public hearing at this point.
[13:02] So there was 19 people who left public comments online, and they were all against making
[13:11] the change, so they talked to our wanting to leave at high density residential, feeling
[13:20] like it was just a benefit for Perry and not benefiting this surrounding neighborhood,
[13:29] let's see
[13:37] Some people were asking if it could be a part instead, and I tried to respond, I think it mostly came through emails, I tried to respond to them and let them know that that's not a consideration for it to become a part.
[13:52] We'd have to buy the land from Paris and they'd have to be a willing seller of the land.
[13:58] We couldn't just require that at this point, either that will give them more density,
[14:04] some sort of compensation for the land,
[14:09] and, yeah, again, just kind of overall opposition,
[14:14] feeling like there's been a lot of growth, concerns about traffic, and feeling like should
[14:21] to say what it is and that periods used all of their density and just in order to that.
[14:35] No, she's going through this quickly.
[14:37] We did receive these ahead of time when we have read them.
[14:40] But we do want to make sure that they get into the public record.
[14:46] How many comments did you say they were?
[14:48] Nineteen people.
[14:49] We loved comments.
[14:52] I think there's one that a person that had two comments.
[14:54] But yeah, so maybe 20-20-
[14:56] Oh, don't mess your 18 separate people.
[14:59] All against.
[15:00] Okay,
[15:11] thank you, Brittany. We will invite the public at this point to come forward in their comment.
[15:26] My name is Rob Ludlow, and I've been a 20-year resident of Traverse Mountain, and unlike Perry,
[15:35] who has had a significant turnover, I was in the room when this 2012 area plan was negotiated.
[15:42] and when you negotiated an area plan, what we were doing was rationalizing mountain home
[15:51] developments proposal of 8,400 units, because they pulled out an option that the city gave
[15:58] them to maximize the density inside of Travers Mountain, an exchange for giving Cabela
[16:07] free land. And back in the day, that slipped through the city council and was approved. And then the city began to realize that we don't have room for
[16:15] 8,400 units. And so a negotiation of vested development rights then ensued. And so let's be very clear about what's happening today. At the end, a freeway compromises broker between the city,
[16:32] Traverse Mountain residents who were sold and promised and bought into a 3,500 unit plan.
[16:40] And, you know, the developer kind of hid in their back pockets, their ultimate plans.
[16:44] And we're delighted to charge lot premiums for a community that they knew would never materialize.
[16:52] So, Lehigh City came in, Mark Johnson came in, we broke her to three-way compromise.
[16:57] everyone gave up something and we ended at 5,812 units and a very specific allocation of commercial.
[17:07] And so to say well there's there's really nothing going on here is a fundamental misunderstanding
[17:13] and misrepresentation of this. What when we look up here we see highway residential,
[17:19] high density residential. And if you look and see what's really happened, Perry had 260 units
[17:27] in this whole area, Perry V. They decided to build the view of apartments, 300 and 4 units,
[17:36] or 300 and 8 units. And so they didn't have enough units inside of Perry planning D. And so they
[17:41] borrowed 48 units from Perry C in order to put this ultra high density complex together.
[17:49] So, what's really happened here is Perry has maxed out all of their vested development rights.
[17:57] So, I disagree with Brittany when she says, well, we'd have to buy it.
[18:00] No, there's no more permitted use for this five acres.
[18:05] They've shot the moon, they're done.
[18:09] Yes, there is potentially some fluidity between density, which they've already exercised,
[18:15] but you don't have to approve anything today.
[18:19] So they maximized, they've gotten all of the commercial value that they were promised in 2012.
[18:25] They've maxed out all their belt and rights.
[18:28] And so what are they doing now?
[18:30] They're saying, well, I would like to get something for nothing.
[18:35] And we've done it twice before.
[18:37] So let's see if we can do it a third time and snicker the community into buying it.
[18:45] And so the simple answer to that is no.
[18:47] It's pretty if there are no best at development rights on that land, it's vacant.
[18:54] So what is part of going to do with it?
[18:56] Their option is to headed over to the city, or they can continue to maintain it and pay taxes
[19:00] on it and get nothing no value from it.
[19:02] But you're in no obligation.
[19:04] And so when you look at the planned community ordinance, it says that there may be special circumstances
[19:10] where there are extraordinary contributions made, or the applicant proposes to go beyond
[19:15] the standard required to achieve any given density bonus.
[19:17] Well, essentially, that's what they're asking for.
[19:19] They're asking for new vested development rights.
[19:23] And so my question is, well, what is the extraordinary contribution they've made?
[19:27] I've heard one argument from them.
[19:30] And that is, hey, we're going to bring in more taxes.
[19:34] Well, if you look at the other two units that they brought in,
[19:39] all of those are services businesses that don't get tax.
[19:42] So what we're really talking about for the commercial that Perry has brought this corner of Traverse Mountain is $14,000 in property taxes that come to the high city.
[19:54] And so I would say, you know, that's entirely underwhelming.
[19:57] and and and is is not
[20:00] Not worth approving a brand new bestie development right, that they're asking you to come up and authorize from thin air. There is no more, they're done with this land.
[20:15] Now, let's also look at the responsibility of a developer and a plan community, as opposed to talk about and look at the community and the plan as a whole. That's what the ordinance requires.
[20:26] And what did you hear today from the developer, ignore all of the other pieces.
[20:31] We like this planning by exception piece.
[20:34] We want to carve another little chunk out and not look at the community as a whole that
[20:40] we have a fiduciary duty and to help operate within and oversee as the declarant of the
[20:46] Master Association.
[20:47] They have a duty to look out and deliver an elevated product, better architecture, better design, better traffic, better integration,
[21:00] and you didn't hear one of those arguments today for why this is good for Traverse Mountain.
[21:07] What you hear, though, is, we'll kind of chunk away an app commercial and get on the road
[21:14] where they are taking away residential and, you know,
[21:20] and, and, um, and filling it with commercial.
[21:22] So, anyway, they can kind of squeeze density in to make it higher and higher density and go beyond it.
[21:27] And then, then they'll come and say, hey, you know that 20, you, you know, unit per acre density cap, going to ignore that.
[21:33] We deserve an exception, and so that what they're trying to do is maximize their return.
[21:40] They're trying to monetize every single last bit of development right that you give them.
[21:47] And so let's be very clear.
[21:49] They have no development right on this land, on this property.
[21:53] So I disagree with Britain's assessment that this is a continuation of an existing commercial area.
[22:00] No, they're asking for a planning by exception to happen, yet a third time, where we carve off another little chunk,
[22:08] talk about ethereal property taxes or taxes, which predominantly would be service based,
[22:13] and there's no tax really revenue coming into the United States for that.
[22:19] And then it's like, okay, well, let's look at Perry C.
[22:22] Do you see that if you bring up the map, there's a half an acre, why is there a half an acre?
[22:27] Well, contrary to the plan community ordinance, they decided that they would move around their
[22:33] park space, that they were obligated to deliver five acres.
[22:36] The plan community order specifically says you're not allowed to lay out a lot of peace
[22:39] meal.
[22:40] What did they do?
[22:42] Well, they gave four and a half acres almost, you know, one point three, you know, one
[22:47] one point two miles away, your Fire Station 8083, which is not walkable from all the density
[22:55] that they built. What is the high city's neighborhood park standard? I believe this is 0.25
[23:02] to a half a mile. So we're well beyond. We're two and a half times beyond where the open space
[23:09] should be. And then they say, well, we didn't have it a plan there. So we're going to just Jerry Man,
[23:16] we're going to ignore the code, which says we can't piecemeal it. And we're going to tack on an
[23:27] commercial development rights and convince the plan of commission and convince the developer
[23:32] or the city council to just give it to us because it's the right thing to do.
[23:38] Well, no, the right thing to do, as somebody who's benefited immensely economically from
[23:44] Traverse Mountain is somebody who is running the mining operation in West Canyon and totally
[23:50] making incredible amount of money, these guys are doing incredibly well.
[23:54] We don't need to create any more mouserodies for Bill Perry.
[23:58] He's got plenty of mouserodies.
[24:01] What we need to do is say, look, you have to show that the change, the vested right that
[24:07] you're requesting is exceeding the standard.
[24:13] The code specifically says that they need to convince you that the additional rights that they
[24:20] asking for are our beneficial to that area. Hey Rob, I'm gonna take off a little bit. I love the
[24:29] data you bring, you bring data, you bring code. I need you to be more concise. I can't give
[24:35] everybody as much time as you're taking. Just by asking it to be more concise. Say your piece,
[24:40] I do want to hear it, I'm not trying to say, I don't want to hear what you have to say, but I need
[24:45] you to be more concise because I cannot give everybody this amount of time enough. So please be concise.
[24:50] So my request is a simple, no.
[24:55] No more planning by exceptions.
[24:58] The code specific.
[25:00] Typically requires them to take into entirety their planning district. And so if it's very, where to come up here and do that, let's talk about where the location of trying to park is.
[25:12] If they were really thinking about the community, they would even think about, well, what's happening in the adjacent master plan community, and because of the location of the temple, it's sucked up all of the open space.
[25:23] There's not a close-by park of significance.
[25:28] And so, you know what?
[25:30] We can have a bi-biker park.
[25:31] We don't need to buy it.
[25:33] Perry can contribute it where they can maintain it
[25:35] into perpetuity.
[25:36] They don't deserve to have additional rights because they need
[25:42] to do something significant.
[25:44] And what's an example of that?
[25:45] And then I'll close.
[25:47] Ripper Bend wanted to relocate 317 units out of the Ripper
[25:53] down behind Harman's into a commercial area.
[25:58] They wanted to chain and encode specifically
[26:01] in the private-front area plan specifically prohibited that.
[26:06] So they did something extraordinary.
[26:08] They offered 47 acres of open space to the high city
[26:12] in exchange for delivering the exception.
[26:17] And there was a win-win that happened there.
[26:20] And there was a strong argument that said,
[26:22] having that higher density closer to S or 92 and minimizing the traffic inside of the canyon
[26:28] actually was was in the best interest of the community. We actually looked at the hole
[26:34] and made that judgment as a whole and they also agreed to enhance hillside reclamation and
[26:40] building out the connector for the Bonneville shoreline trail. That is what an area plan amendment
[26:48] not to be. When you're asking for increase in your rights, you've then come with an increased
[26:56] product that you're packaging that for the community. Perry has not done that. They've
[27:02] not done that for any of the two times before, and they certainly have not done that today.
[27:05] And so I would have strongly encourage you to deny the application and say no more planning
[27:11] by exception. Let's look into the entirety. Let's be accountable for where you put shoehorn
[27:15] open space far away from any density that you built and do the right thing and act like a
[27:21] master developer should and put in the park that's been missing for all the density that
[27:25] they've been bringing in to Traverse Mountain. And I thank you for for for considering that.
[27:30] Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
[27:41] My name is Erin. I think Tinn and I live in the crossing.
[27:44] The residential neighborhood that's adjacent to the area and will be negatively affected by
[27:50] this proposed change. And so I'm here to ask you to deny this proposed area of
[27:54] amendment. When I tried to understand what was happening here, you know, the
[27:58] Prairie D parcel, I found the exact same thing that everyone was talking about. They're
[28:01] allocated 260. They used all of that plus more to build the view, cramming all their
[28:07] density into only a part of the designated area. So as a direct result of their own strategy,
[28:14] Prairie has deliberately left themselves zero dwelling units on this property and zero
[28:19] So having successfully pocketed the profits and they're coming back and asking for a nice gift from the high city brand new commercial entitlements on the mt5 acres.
[28:30] They're asking the city to create valuable new property rights out of thin air.
[28:35] New development rights are a, I think, a valuable, you know, thing that the city is
[28:41] can grant. And so giving that away for free to an, to a developer who deliberately
[28:47] exhausted their rights should not be done lightly. Allowing this amendment could set
[28:53] a bad precedent. It tells developers that they can cram their density into smaller areas
[28:57] and then come, and leave open parts and come back and ask for more if they already used up
[29:02] all their rights and, you know, it's just not, it's a subverts the intent of the
[29:11] Traverse Mountain Area Plan to have a planned development to just change things like
[29:16] Rob talked about. We just think Lee High City should hold Perry to the standard of
[29:20] developing their existing rights across the entirety of their property, not allow them
[29:24] to cram it all into one corner and do whatever they want in the next section. So how does
[29:29] get fixed since Perry was already allowed to use up all their rights.
[29:34] So, like Rob mentioned, we sure they could do a park, or they could just simply be required
[29:39] to use the C rights to cover D also.
[29:43] By the calculations that we have from the high city, they have 75 units remaining to develop
[29:47] across that, it's about 16 acres and developing that for homes would result in lot
[29:53] sizes comparable to the surrounding community.
[29:55] It would go right along with what's already there.
[29:58] And for anyone worried about
[30:00] Our residential being close to the highway there. The home's closest to the highway would still be around 200 feet from the highway, which is similar to what's on the south side of the highway in those successful neighborhoods.
[30:11] It's not anything that Lehigh hasn't done before. And then even better, those lots that back up to the highway would be above the retention base, then they'd all be view lots and have no back neighbors ever.
[30:22] So, they'd be desirable lots, so that's not like an onerous thing for them to just develop it as it's currently zoned.
[30:33] And I have other stuff to talk about how kind of about the parts that moved and the road,
[30:38] the traffic that they'll add is already on a road that they've already impacted,
[30:43] and allowing them to squeeze the density rights into the smaller thing,
[30:46] we get the double impact of not only an unknown commercial impact,
[30:50] adding even more traffic, but also even denser. Just spread the density, they have the rights,
[30:55] they don't need a special gift of any additional rights. So please deny it. Thank you. Thank you.
[31:05] Anyone else would like to speak to this item?
[31:10] Seeing none, we will close the public hearing
[31:13] and invite the applicant to address anything if you would like to. Thank
[31:21] you, first in time.
[31:24] And we
[31:29] recognize there's a lot of history here with the Perry entities on Traverse Mountain.
[31:38] Rob Lotto is his voice as a pinion bridge strongly,
[31:44] he's well-spoken, he's here every
[31:48] time anything from the Perry companies is coming forward before the city.
[31:54] There's many things that are being said tonight that are not factual.
[31:58] that are based upon hearsay and based upon vendetta's and personal feelings from past events.
[32:10] Why, why Paul or excuse me, why Rob is given essentially a sea of the table as a day facto council member
[32:18] and the day facto commission members is lost on me.
[32:24] But the peri companies just need to be able to work through a rational application, which is
[32:32] our right as a private property owner, to talk about something that is a reasonable
[32:37] land use, long-term, if you're an alien from out of space, and you come to Travers Mountain,
[32:46] and you have all the information of proper land use, you would look at this property and
[32:51] That's the appropriate use for this piece of property.
[32:56] It is consistent with the corridor, it's consistent with appropriate land use policies,
[33:02] it's consistent with the j's and land uses.
[33:05] If you look all the way up and down the corridor, it's consistent with that use.
[33:10] We do have vested rights that remain on this property.
[33:14] The concept that this is an unusable piece of ground is just simply false.
[33:21] We have residential rights we can still put on this property as vested entitled rights under the HDR's own.
[33:29] We can do that and we will do that.
[33:33] We just don't believe that that is the appropriate use for this piece of property.
[33:37] To say that the Perry companies have done nothing but profit-eared off of Traverse Mountain is also false.
[33:46] We have been extremely workable with the city of Lehigh.
[33:52] We have sold property for fire stations, for substations, for well rights, for easements.
[33:59] We have brought enormous job of creation into the city through the Traverse Ridge Office Park.
[34:04] The Stabler Chotelle, the development of the charter school next to the park, the view apartments, and also the whole food anchor shopping center.
[34:16] I'm not sure how Rob forgot that that was part of that's our development.
[34:21] We have partnered with Senator Cal and have worked tirelessly for years to bring that to fruition, which will bring significant tax base to the city.
[34:32] That was something that was approved by the Council, and was also looked at as a significant
[34:39] value add to the city as it relates to some tax increment that was necessary to make that
[34:47] project work.
[34:48] The city approved and was willing to recognize the long-term benefit of that project for the
[34:54] city and participate in that with some tax increment that will help us set the massive infrastructure
[34:59] Thank you for your call.
[35:00] So that project. We have been working at Traverse Mountain for a couple of decades, pouring enormous
[35:07] amounts of money into this project that has built the hillside that has brought commercial tax
[35:16] space that has brought jobs. Have we done it for profit? Of course we have. The concept of
[35:25] going to design our city and go through land use policy based upon some type of profit margins
[35:31] that should be acceptable to a city into the residence is poor planning. That shouldn't
[35:39] be brought up as a part of the discussion in land use policy. It's irrelevant. It's indicative
[35:45] of a personal vendetta that Mr. Leldo has had for years and it needs to be taken in the
[35:52] situation put on public record that there are personal vendetta that are irrational, that
[35:58] are not directly related to land use policy, and should not be considered solely as the
[36:06] guiding principle for how your city is going to be developed.
[36:11] We recognize that there are impacts every time a piece of property is developed.
[36:16] We understand that.
[36:18] There are residents that will be impacted.
[36:20] And we all live in homes, maybe some of you live next to undeveloped property.
[36:26] You may have some concerns about what's going to be developed there.
[36:30] There are appropriate uses in each case that are reasonable, that are justifiable, that
[36:38] there are analogs throughout the entire country that would outline proper land use policy.
[36:44] We feel like this is right down the fairway to use a golf analogy.
[36:51] The staff agrees there was no comment back from any of the staff.
[36:59] Based upon utility usage, traffic use, creation, there was no comment.
[37:07] Even if there is approval tonight and there is an approval to City Council level.
[37:12] based upon, again, what we've deemed to be appropriate land use policy and decision-making.
[37:19] That does not devoid the city and I'm saying this for the residents benefit.
[37:26] The city to go through it's approval process.
[37:31] There will be traffic analyses down based upon whatever it is that comes down the line for the commercial use of this property.
[37:36] You will have the cyclone approval rights to deny or approve that based upon sound policy.
[37:45] Based upon third party engineers, traffic studies, assessments of the utility impact, et cetera, et cetera.
[37:55] All of that obviously remains intact.
[37:58] It will be a legislative action.
[37:59] The residents will have the ability to speak their mind and voice their concerns at that time as well as now.
[38:09] We believe bottom line that this is the appropriate use.
[38:16] It's consistent with the area plan or that excuse me with the general plan of this corridor.
[38:24] We are not spot zoning anything because of those things I just outlined.
[38:30] A park would be spot zoning, and to assume that we are just obligated to dedicate this to the city for a park.
[38:41] Again, is simply not true.
[38:45] It's no more true than Mr. Lello dedicating his front yard for public use.
[38:50] It's a private piece of property, we have entitled rights to it.
[38:53] They are vested, and will either use those vested rights as they're currently constituted, or if you approve this tonight, the Council approves it, will use something else.
[39:07] We, to fully understand, this is a legislative action.
[39:09] It's completely up to you and the Council to approve and deny this.
[39:14] We recognize and respect that.
[39:17] We're grateful for the ability to go through this process.
[39:19] It's our right, has a private property on it to do this.
[39:27] Are we perfect? Absolutely not.
[39:31] I'm not involved with the residential side of the Perry companies.
[39:35] I wasn't in the room as Mr. Lello outlined.
[39:40] Is there water under the bridge between that point and now? Certainly.
[39:46] Is there any perfect development or developer out there that doesn't get crossways with people,
[39:52] based upon what other of the circumstances might have been?
[39:56] No.
[39:58] We try to do things.
[40:00] Right away, I certainly personally do. I have been the commercial developer of everything else I just outlined, the Traverse Ridge Center is mine, the hotel mine, the charter school is mine, the view apartments, those were the commercial sites projects.
[40:22] We believe that this is the appropriate use for this property, whether it's now or whether it's in 20 years.
[40:29] It puts the traffic down toward the corridor.
[40:33] It creates a buffer between the corridor and residential uses.
[40:38] It produces something that won't be produced from an HDR's own, which is tax base.
[40:45] And we have produced far more than $14,000 of tax base.
[40:51] That is just false.
[40:57] I'm happy to answer any questions.
[40:59] I appreciate you hearing me out.
[41:01] I'm sorry for the emotion, but we have felt like we have been singled out in a lot of ways.
[41:09] And not these applications we feel like we would hope that there would be an objective
[41:17] land use policy perspective when considering these applications.
[41:24] We recognize that the neighbors are impacted.
[41:31] Growth comes with impact on all of us.
[41:35] I'm a full-time uton.
[41:37] I've lived here in my whole life.
[41:39] I've seen it grow.
[41:40] I've seen the impacts on traffic.
[41:44] I don't love it either.
[41:45] I love mountain biking and skiing and hiking.
[41:47] And I hold the above.
[41:48] And it just seems like wherever you go.
[41:50] Now there's a lot more people.
[41:51] The fair market directs that.
[41:55] The fair market happens.
[41:59] It's our job as policymakers and developers to do the very best we can to accommodate the
[42:07] market within objective, wise, land use policy.
[42:16] So not just today, not just these neighbors, but those people that will be living in the
[42:22] and drivers mountain in 2030 years, we'll drive into their homes and fill like it's a well-planned
[42:29] community where land uses are where they're supposed to be, where they have access to amenities,
[42:37] where the traffic is where it's supposed to be. That's our hope. We are a legacy developer.
[42:44] We don't just come and go. We've been here for 20 years. I mean, coming to these meetings for 20 years.
[42:50] We've been here for the long haul.
[42:52] We're going to be here for the long haul.
[42:53] We want to do it the right way.
[42:56] And we would appreciate any consideration as a relates to this application.
[43:04] And I'm happy to answer any further questions if you have any at this time.
[43:09] Any questions for the applicant?
[43:13] We've heard the number 75 is left to develop as far as you are using that.
[43:18] piece of property. Is there any validity to that from your side and then is there a fact
[43:24] check from the city side as far as negotiation between Mayor Johnson and Perry Holmes
[43:31] and the city.
[43:35] So yeah I think 75 is the understanding of we have a number of units. I'm not sure what
[43:41] I know that this mentioned was I robbed a little about it but I'm not sure exactly what that
[43:51] agreement is.
[43:53] So you're asking, we're talking about.
[43:57] Yeah, what?
[43:58] Are you just talking about what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, how, how, how many more densities and titles to go on that property?
[44:05] My understanding is about 75.
[44:07] You did that whole spreadsheet.
[44:09] I don't know if you have access to that.
[44:11] I'm happy to share that because, again, it's just entitled rights.
[44:15] It is.
[44:15] What it is.
[44:24] So, we've been looking at this too, so, well, a couple of things.
[44:29] The park location is conceptual is what the document says, and then also, there's a total number for the perihome properties and in the written, it also has total numbers for medium density and the high density.
[44:48] So DNC are both in the high-density and they have the total of 718, but there's no written densities
[44:55] There are for A and B, but not for C and D
[45:00] And so we would, you know, we treat those as they were kind of the estimate, like this is what we're going off of, but not a firm, like this is the number of those doing again, especially because the road has an aligned exactly as it was shown in stuff. It's just a little bit more ambiguous.
[45:16] And the way the area comes right in it allows for that flexibility.
[45:21] Well, I think I was going to mention at the beginning of the land use section of the area plan as it mentions density can be transferred within districts
[45:28] So this is all very district those two parcels or whatever medium density and they have a not to exceed which is A and B
[45:35] Here there's separate
[45:36] but C and D are part of the same district and density can be transferred between the two
[45:41] But there is an underlying zoning that says no one in 20 is per acre
[45:45] So yeah, the few apartments, it's right at 20, it's per acre,
[45:49] so that's a sense of safety.
[45:50] I've got that.
[45:51] It's in the zone, but the area plan does say,
[45:54] since he can't be transferred within the district,
[45:57] we just can't exceed the underlying zoning district,
[46:00] which is a max of 20 years per acre for the high-pensive area.
[46:03] That's correct.
[46:04] Now, not that we should be considering
[46:07] profits or anything like that, but if you look at,
[46:10] you know, development rights here,
[46:12] have more acreage for 75 units.
[46:14] You can make more money per home if you're building larger homes or larger lots.
[46:19] So if they're decreasing some home sizes or commercial, there's a tray out there as well.
[46:24] And again, not that we should be getting into their profitability.
[46:28] This is all really the area of climate management is we have an existing agreement within the area of climate.
[46:34] The applicant hears proposing a new agreement to the area of climate, and it's up to you is the commission decide
[46:39] It was a good rationale to work with the proposed changes and obviously taking the public input and how that's for your consideration of the application.
[46:49] So for clarity, if nothing changed, if the city council denied this, how many units can they put on D?
[47:01] So yeah, yeah, I think we're understanding 75.
[47:04] 75.
[47:08] Yeah, and that the C is built.
[47:13] Please keep your comments down on the public.
[47:16] Thank you.
[47:17] So to clarify, there's a piece of property next to
[47:20] Western Central Bank in the office building that's
[47:23] undeveloped that when you look at the area planning app,
[47:26] follow the thing that's called C.
[47:29] But because the area planning allows density transfer
[47:31] to districts, there's 75 units left between the
[47:35] districts, but those units can be transferred anywhere within those districts, as long as they don't
[47:39] exceed the 20-inch breaker. That's me. So why can they transfer those 75 units elsewhere and still
[47:47] build something here? Why isn't there some eating of those quantity of units for what they're trying to
[47:55] build here? And I guess you could, I mean. I know we can, but why wasn't that part of
[48:00] staff. I mean that seems natural. They're asking for something more. They say, hey, we
[48:08] want these 75 units as well, but we also want to build something else here. Why
[48:13] was in that part of the discussion from staff at a staff level?
[48:20] Well, idea this is they're posing a change to plan and that we use our flexible
[48:27] like what it's saying beforehand, not that we should be concerned with their profitability, but from their
[48:33] side of things, if you can spread those 75 units out on more area, you can build larger units,
[48:39] which is more profitable for them. They still keep those 75 units, but they're smaller, smaller
[48:44] lots, they're less money that they get out of it, but they're making that up with the commercial
[48:50] So my land is going to be the reason that we as staff would like to change more.
[48:56] Like this is putting housing along that is highway, like S192 is not ideal.
[49:01] I've heard complaints from the view of apartments being so close to the highway there and it's just not good planning practice.
[49:06] You know, I've been done in a lot of places, it's not good planning practice, but housing is so close to highway.
[49:13] Personally, I had piner crossing my back here and I can tell you it really does affect your quality of life and my solution does a lot more to us.
[49:20] It's a commercial axis, kind of a buffer between the highway and we're housing is over there.
[49:25] It's 2A on the view of departments that are already built up next to the highway,
[49:29] but there's some of it, at least the land use practice there would.
[49:36] I'm getting into my opinion here.
[49:40] From a straight land use perspective, I agree.
[49:43] I mean, land use, commercial land use versus residential.
[49:47] If I were to actually weigh those out and say which one makes more sense right next to the highway,
[49:51] I agree commercial makes more sense. I don't love the way that we're going about this. I mean we've heard several
[50:01] At these proposals of wanting to move things around in this area, I know we are not thinking about or talking about the other proposals that have come forward recently or in the past, but this seems to be a trend, particularly with one developer, right, that has brought these forward several times.
[50:24] I also take a fence to your comment that someone from the public coming up here is a
[50:30] de facto member of our commission or our council is actually incorrect and every member
[50:36] of the district is actually incorrect.
[50:38] Every member of the public is welcome to come, of course, harm a public comment.
[50:44] So that was not great to hear from you.
[50:48] We invite anyone to give their public comment and we encourage the public to come and comment
[50:55] This individual, but you have mentioned multiple times. Yes, has come and spoken a lot
[51:00] But we welcome that as well as anybody that would like to come and speak to this to the items that are on
[51:07] And so I did not love hearing that for me
[51:11] Tonight
[51:12] It did put me a little bit on the fence to be ice. It's okay
[51:17] I don't need you to read, but it's okay, I understand what you're saying as well, for the same reason.
[51:23] So I just don't want to be one-sided in this presentation.
[51:27] I just want to keep it to the facts of land use policy.
[51:32] That's all we're asking.
[51:34] There was that individual as well as 19 others as well as another woman that came for understanding.
[51:40] And we welcome the public comment, I do not want that to ever be discouraged.
[51:44] And I'm not discouraging in meeting.
[51:46] I just wanted to set the record state straight that there were numerous things that were just
[51:52] not true.
[51:53] And that's the word.
[51:54] Thanks, Russ.
[51:55] Thank you.
[51:57] Thank you.
[51:58] Any other questions for staff?
[52:00] Comments?
[52:04] Laboration?
[52:12] Sure.
[52:12] I'll just go ahead and drop my thoughts at this point.
[52:16] I am very sensitive to the fact that there are strong emotions on both sides of this
[52:24] matter.
[52:27] I want both of you to both sides to understand that. And Perry Holmes has every
[52:36] to make requests.
[52:41] Also, we do have a standing agreement and moving the
[52:47] needle, changing it. It does require demonstrating that the high
[52:51] city stands to benefit a meaningful significant way, or that the change
[52:59] in plans in and of itself. I whether it's the high city getting or it's a
[53:06] was bad, a bad concept, and we have a demonstrably better plan.
[53:14] Considered on its own, I don't
[53:15] know that I would look at this change and say that it is worse. But if from what I can see,
[53:26] I see a very neutral, potentially, minimally positive, and to change an agreement for me as a
[53:36] I need to see something more than an abstract sense of an increased tax revenue that that comes in.
[53:46] Certainly not against a developer making money.
[53:50] That is sometimes built on a piece.
[53:54] In an incorrect way, it is how toppings move forward.
[54:01] But for me, I would need, and I would suggest Mr. Swain, as you go to the City Council,
[54:15] that there be a strong redemonstration of how this is going to really be a significantly better situation.
[54:23] I'm not seeing that currently and when I see a resolute opposition from all the citizens in this area to it
[54:34] I'm disinclined to
[54:36] to alter the agreement as currently stands.
[54:40] Okay. Thank you.
[54:48] Further input or identity motion?
[54:52] I'll make a motion.
[54:52] That's
[54:55] your point one.
[54:56] Public hand recommendation of Perry Karnsel Perry.
[55:00] Commercials request review of an amendment, trevers, mountain area plan, changed approximately 5 to 8.
[55:07] Here's a tip of notice highway, mountain view, road from high-density residential, highway commercial.
[55:13] I move that we send a negative recommendation to city council with the findings that this proposal.
[55:25] I does not significantly demonstrably create a better scenario of a situation for the city than what currently stands and that the current plan does reflect the sentiment of the citizen.
[55:50] And as this is a legislative action and not entitled to write, it behooves us to reflect the
[56:01] world of people.
[56:06] You all second up.
[56:08] Most of them in the second.
[56:09] All in favor.
[56:10] Aye.
[56:11] Any opposed?
[56:13] Aye.
[56:13] Would you repeat who was the second?
[56:15] Aye.
[56:16] Thank you.
[56:19] Okay, this goes forward.
[56:20] City Council, when does it get there?
[56:30] The 22nd, September 26th.
[56:32] September 22nd.
[56:37] 3.2 has been withdrawn, so if you were here for item 3.2, we're still welcome you to stay,
[56:45] but we will move forward to 3.3.
[56:50] Item 3.3, public hearing and recommendation of
[56:54] Jan Walker's request for review of R122 zoning for the pasture walk annexation on 4.4 acres,
[57:01] located approximately 900 North 1,000 West.
[57:05] So this is the aerial for context,
[57:10] wanting to annex in those 4.4 acres.
[57:14] So Scherminder for annexations, it first goes to City Council for Resolution of Intent
[57:21] annex, and then it comes to you for review of the zoning. So they're posing the R122 zoning
[57:30] on it, which is consistent with the general plan designation of VLDR, very low density residential
[57:37] agriculture, it'd be about half acre watts.
[57:42] And the DRC comment to be aware of is a comment
[57:47] include this UTA parcel in the annexation. You've come in as TH5, but just totally clean up
[57:54] that county island. So if you could include that in your motion, then I'll turn it back
[57:59] or in questions. Thank you, Brittany. Any questions for staff?
[58:06] Is the applicant present?
[58:10] You're welcome to come up and add anything or leave it as is.
[58:18] Okay. Okay. Thank you.
[58:22] This is a public hearing.
[58:24] We will invite anyone from the public here to speak to item 3.3 to come up and do so now.
[58:35] Just the check.
[58:35] I don't believe there were any comments online.
[58:40] See, then we will close the public hearing.
[58:42] Bring it back for further deliberation or a motion.
[58:46] I'm ready to put for a motion, right on 3.3, put the care of recommendation of
[58:51] Janay.
[58:52] I apologize if I mispronounce your name.
[58:55] Janay.
[58:55] Thank you.
[58:56] Walker's request for a view of R1.2 zoning for the pasture walk and
[59:01] taxation on 4.4 acres located approximately 900 north, 1,000 west.
[59:08] The recommendation being that we approve this particular item because it
[59:12] that it does conform with the goals and policies of the general plan and please include those
[59:16] various DRC comments.
[59:19] That's that, Ken.
[59:21] Great.
[59:22] Thank you.
[59:23] Thank you for being able to study the second.
[59:25] That would be very helpful.
[59:26] So we have a motion from Beau, any second from Greg.
[59:31] All in favor.
[59:33] Hi.
[59:34] Any opposed?
[59:36] Thank you.
[59:39] And will this fall still be on the 22nd?
[59:44] Tisha, you verify that one because it's the annexation.
[59:48] I don't know what day has to go because of the spacing.
[1:00:00] We do have to schedule public hearing, so this will not make it to the 20 second. It will have to be that first meeting in October.
[1:00:07] The first city council in October. Thank you. Item 3.4.
[1:00:17] Item 3.4. Public hearing and recommendation of Nick Nelson's request for a view of the Nelson's own change, changing the zone from CH5 to A1,
[1:00:26] located at 1193 North's 2300 West.
[1:00:30] So this is the General Plan,
[1:00:34] Mary-Low Density Residential Agriculture.
[1:00:39] So the A1 zoning is also consistent with that.
[1:00:42] One acre lot,
[1:00:46] it's approximately 1.7.
[1:00:50] Well, I think it is supposed to be 1.75 acres that
[1:00:54] be changing, but they're doing a lot line adjustment, so this lot doesn't currently reflect
[1:01:01] it, but it won't be what's shown as all of this, but yeah, it'll be that 1.75 acres,
[1:01:08] and it's like in build when single-family home on it. And with that, I'll turn it back to the commission
[1:01:13] for any questions. Thank you, Brittany. Any questions for staff?
[1:01:19] Is the applicant present?
[1:01:24] Is there
[1:01:25] If you want to talk about the public hearing, anybody here to speak to item 3.4, we'll open the public hearing now and invite you to speak to this item.
[1:01:34] Confirming there was no public comment.
[1:01:38] On line.
[1:01:39] Nope, there was.
[1:01:40] Thank you.
[1:01:41] Then we will close the public hearing to bring it back for further collaboration or emotion.
[1:01:50] Go ahead.
[1:01:50] Sorry.
[1:01:51] Sorry.
[1:01:52] I'll make a motion on item 3.4 public hearing and recommendation of Nick Nelson's request for review of the Nelson's
[1:01:59] change, changing the zone from TH5 to A1, located at 1193 North, 2300 West. I
[1:02:07] move that we give a positive recommendation with the findings that the effect of
[1:02:14] the proposed amendment on the character of the surrounding area is positive. It's
[1:02:19] consistent with the general goals and policies. Sorry, the goals and policies of
[1:02:23] general plan. And please include all the RC comets. Second, we have a, excuse me, I'm
[1:02:35] a motion by Nicole and a second, but follow my own favor. Hi. Any opposed? Thank you.
[1:02:46] Will this also be the first one in October, Tisha? No, this can be September 20th. Oh, September
[1:02:51] That annexation just has state and choir.
[1:02:54] Understood.
[1:02:58] Okay.
[1:02:59] Okay.
[1:02:59] Thank you.
[1:03:01] City business.
[1:03:07] Everything was shared.
[1:03:09] We signed it with a more discussion at all.
[1:03:12] All right.
[1:03:12] We might cancel our session next week.
[1:03:14] I know.
[1:03:15] Yes.
[1:03:15] We may.
[1:03:17] Okay.
[1:03:17] Was that in question?
[1:03:21] I will be here.
[1:03:23] I will be here.
[1:03:26] I will entertain a motion to adjourn.
[1:03:29] What's my turn?
[1:03:30] Can I make a motion to adjourn?
[1:03:32] Can I make a motion to adjourn?
[1:03:33] You may make a motion.
[1:03:37] Oh, did you make a motion to adjourn?
[1:03:41] Second string.
[1:03:42] All right, we have a motion by Polo in a second by Nicole.
[1:03:46] All in favor.
[1:03:47] All right.
[1:03:48] Any opposed?
[1:03:54] Exactly right.