Planning Commission

Minutes of the Mincreek Planning Commission April 16, 2025 5:00 p.m. Regular Meeting The Planning Coinrnission of Millcreek, Utah, met in a regular public meeting on Wednesday, April 16, 2025, at City Hall, located at 1330 E. Chambers Avenue, Millcreek, Utah 84106. The meeting was conducted electronically and live streamed via the City's website with an option for online public corni'nent. PRESENT: Commissioners City Staff Shawn LaMar, Chair Elyse Sullivan, City Recorder Victoria Reid, Vice Chair Francis Lilly, Plani'iing Director Steven Anderson Carlos Estudillo, Planner Christian Larsen Brad Sanderson, Current Planning Manager Nils Per Lofgren Sean Murray, Plaru'ier Jacob Richardson Diane Soule (excused) Dwayne Vance (excused) Ian Wrigl'it Attendees: Miles Mayne (electronic), Rocky Schutjer, Russ Platt, Steven Thompson REGULAR MEETING - 5:00 p.m. TIME COMMENCED - 5:01 p.m. Chair LaMar called the meeting to order and briefly described the duties of the Planning Coinmission. 1. Public Hearings 1.1 Consideration of ZM-25-001, Request to Rezone Property from the R-1-8 (Residential Single Family) Zone to the R-M (Residential Multi-Family) Zone to Accommodate a Residential Complex Consisting of Four (4) Townhomes Location: 4261 S 700 E Applicant: Miles Mayne Planner: Carlos Estudnlo Carlos Estudillo said this proposal is a revised version of a similar application (ZM-22-007) presented in June 2022, which was continued by the Planning Corni'nission at that time. Since then, there have been discussions and reassessments regarding the definition and intent of the "Mixed Use I " designation in the city's future land use map. The original proposal included five units with insufficient open space; the revised plan reduces the density to four units, improves access, and now meets the 40% landscaping requirement. The 14,700-square-foot parcel, currently occupied by a single-family liome to be demolished if approved, is adjacent to other recent rezoning approvals and lies in an evolving neighborhood transitioning toward mixed use. Although the parcel is designated as Mixed Use 1, which supports a blend of Millcreek Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 16 April 2025 Page 2 of 6 Neighborhood 2 or 3 designations. A future land use map amendment is not currently part of the application but may be considered by the city council in future planning updates. Estudillo showed the coinmission aerials of the area, including the surrounding zones of R-1- 8 and R-1-5. The existing zone would allow for two units, but the R-M would allow for seven. The proposed development features four townhome units accessed from 700 East, each with a two-car garage and additional guest parking. The buildings comply with height, parking, and fire access requirements, and the applicant intends the units to be for sale, necessitating a subdivision application for final approval. Estudillo showed the commission the proposed floor plans and building elevations. Francis Lilly mentioned the city council has recently been deed restricting developments for owner occupancy for several years. Estudillo said the applicant is proposing a four-unit townhome development with buildings approximately 32 feet tall and primarily brick in design. The development is oriented north- facing and is intended to complement the surrounding neighborhood's character while providing medium-density, for-sale housing options. It aligns with two general plan goals: preserving neighborhood character through compatible infill development and offering diverse housing types and price points. The units are expected to be more affordable than traditional single-family homes in Millcreek. A development agreement has been drafted to ensure key aspects such as use, ownership, building height (35 feet max), high-quality materials, site layout, parking (10 stalls, including two guest spaces), and individual unit ownership are secured. Ownership will be further regulated through restrictive use declarations to encourage owner occupancy and discourage institutional purchases. While the project meets the design, landscape, and parking requirements of the RM zone and is generally compatible with the goals of the "Mixed Use 1" future land use designation, staff does not support a land use amendment at this time. Instead, the city plans a broader analysis of the 700 East corridor, potentially leading to future updates in 2025 or 2026. The neighborhood meeting in 2022 was held and there were concerns about increased traffic, neighborhood safety, parking spilling onto 730 E and neighborhood compatibility. The Millcreek Community Council recommended approving the rezone on April 1, 2025, and recommended the applicant hold another neighborhood meeting to show the neighborhood the updated site plan. The applicant did hold an additional neighborhood meeting on April 14, 2025, and four neighbors showed up and commented on improvements to the site plan and unit count, acceptable neighborhood compatibility, relative affordability of units, and construction mitigations for neighbors on 730 E. However, based on the lack of a staff- supported land use amendment, the Planning Commission is advised to consider public input but ultimately recommend denial of the rezone and associated development agreement. Lilly noted staff's recoinmendation was based on the policy framework the city adopted. There are elements of the General Plan that could support this project, too. Miles Mayne said the project was scaled down and felt the project fit the property. Chair LaMar opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Millcreek Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 16 April 2025 Page 3 of 6 Chair LaMar closed the public hearing. Chair LaMar asked if the project would come back for a conditional use pernnit. Estudillo confirmed. The commission felt the General Plan arguments to approve were compelling. Commissioner Larsen felt Neighborhood 2 made 'inore sense that Mixed Use on midblock 700 E. Commissioner Lofgren asked about an update to the General Plan. Lilly anticipated it would happen by the end of the year. Commissioner Larsen, regarding ZM-25-001, a request to rezone from R-1-8 to R-M at 4261 South 700 East, moved that the planning commission recommend approval of the application, including a development agreement as outlined by staff specifying design standards as well as deed restriction ensuring owner occupancy. The supporting causes are based on the General Plan goals for mixed housing types, for affordable housing, for owner-occupied housing, and for neighborhood compatibility, based on the design presented by staff. Comtnissioner Reid seconded. Chair LaMar called for the vote. Commissioner Anderson voted yes, Chair LaMar voted yes, Commissioner Larsen voted yes, Commissioner Lofgren voted yes, Commissioner Reid voted yes, Commissioner Richardson voted yes, and Commissioner Wright voted yes. The motion passed unanimously 1.2 Consideration of CU-25-001, Request for a Conditional Use Permit to Expand the Site Area and Width and Relocate an Existing 60 Foot Monopole Location: Evergreen Junior High School, 3401 South 2000 East Applicant: Britton Knaphus, on behalf of T- Mobile and Granite School District Planner: Brad Sanderson Brad Sanderson said this application requires the Planning Coinmission to act in an administrative capacity, rather than a legislative one, as it involves evaluating a proposal for compliance with existing code rather than making or amending policy. The request concerns Evergreen Junior High, located near 2200 East and 7330 South, where there is an existing utility pole and adjacent mechanical equipment building. The applicant proposes replacing tlie current wooden pole, which lacks structural capacity, with a new, sturdier 60-foot-tall pole located approximately 10 feet north and slightly east of the current location. The new pole will maintain the same height but will feature an expanded antenna array using ari'n mounts that extend antennas up to five feet from tlie pole, resulting in a total diameter of approximately 11 to 12 feet. All mechanical equipment will remain housed in the existing building. The proposal complies with current zoning regulations, including the height restriction (60 feet maximum), required setbacks from residential properties (twice the pole's height), and general design standards, even though a stealth design is not required. Since the application was submitted before the new ordinance takes effect, it is evaluated under existing rules, under which it fully qualifies. Commissioner Anderson asked if the pole was only for one carrier, T-Mobile. Sanderson said another carrier could be added but it was not ideal due to the height of the pole. Rocky Schutjer, representing the applicant, said the current wood pole was owned by Rocky Mountain Power. The site had been there for almost 25 years. The applicant was trying to put in a better structure to meet the demands of current technologies. The pole would shift about mnstly in hnilrl the new pole formdation Millcreek Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 16 April 2025 Page 4 of 6 and not impact the existing service. Once the new pole is in the air, the existing pole will be removed. Sanderson noted the coinrnunity councils recommended approval. Staff recoinmended the condition that the existing pole be removed upon completion of the new pole. Chair LaMar opened the public hearing. Elyse Sullivan read a cominent received from the city's website from Kerrie Leavitt, "I object to replacing and relocating the monopole. Moving the monopole will increase the rislcs of RM and EMF exposure to the residents that already live too close to the monopole. Someresearch suggeststhat there shordd be a minimum distance of 1300 feet! The current monopole location is already a hazard. Increasing health risks to residerxts so someone can build townhomesfor profit is tmacceptable. Move it awayfrom a location wherepeople don't live and children dorx't play." Sanderson commented that he had spoken with Leavitt on the phone and there was confiision about the application. He said the FCC [Federal Communications Commission] does not allow cities to regulate safety issues. Chair LaMar closed the public hearing. Commissioner Lofgren moved, based on the proposed plans as well as findings and conclusions listed in the staff report, for approval of application CU-25-001 subject to the existing pole being removed upon completion of the new pole, as presented. Commissioner Richardson seconded. Chair LaMar called for the vote. Commissioner Anderson voted yes, Chair LaMar voted yes, Commissioner Larsen voted yes, Commissioner Lofgren voted yes, Commissioner Reid voted yes, Commissioner Richardson voted yes, and Commissioner Wright voted yes. The motion passed unanimously. 2. Commission Business 2.1 Approval of March 19, 2025 Regular Meeting Minutes Commissioner LaMar moved to approve the minutes from March 19 as presented in the packet. Commissioner Reid seconded. Chair LaMar called for the vote. Commissioner Anderson voted yes, Chair LaMar voted yes, Commissioner Larsen voted yes, Commissioner Lofgren voted yes, Commissioner Reid voted yes, Commissioner Richardson voted yes, and Commissioner Wright voted yes. The motion passed unanimously 2.2 Updates from the Planning and Zoning Director Francis Lilly said the city is in the final stages of implementing a significant code update, with formal adoption by the City Council scheduled for April 28 and an effective date of May 19. This timeline allows for updates to forms and the launch of a customized online portal tailored to the new application types. In preparation, city staff have already been informing developers of upcoming changes through Development Review Committee (DRC) meetings, helping applicants prepare for the transition. A brief surge in planning activity is expected following the code's implementation, as several applicants have been waiting for the new standards. Millcreek Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 16 April 2025 Page 5 of 6 The City Council is also addressing supporting elements such as Title 14 engineering standards, updates to the consolidated fee schedule, and revised application checklists. Regarding recent discussions on stepbacks in the CCOZ area, the Planning Commission previously recommended more flexibility, potentially through development agreements. The City Council supported this concept, favoring a system that balances flexibility with clear eligibility criteria-such as requirements for open space, parking, and affordable housing- while excluding particularly sensitive areas from eligibility (e.g., properties north of Chambers Avenue on Highland Drive and certain residential-adjacent streets). The Council agreed that development agreements offer a discretionary tool to evaluate project-specific exceptions without making the overall code too complex or arbitrary. To support this, a set of 24 design criteria was proposed, with the flexibility to add more based on context (e.g., lighter fagades for north-facing buildings to reduce visual massing). The final approach retains structured criteria while allowing for creative proposals, ensuring public oversight through an enhanced review process involving neighborhood meetings, joint City Council and Planning Commission sessions, and full legislative approval. Staff encouraged commissioners to submit any remaining input by April 23, ahead of the final code submission. Chair LaMar asked if Miller Avenue would connect at the streetlight on Richrnond. Lilly said it depended on the current occupant of the site redeveloping. Lilly continued with the Utah State Legislature recently enacted new laws impacting local planning and zoning, requiring cities to implement several procedural changes. One significant update involves the introduction of "classification requests," a process allowing business license applicants to seek a deterinination on whether their proposed use fits within existing zoning definitions. If the planning director denies the request, applicants can appeal directly to the city council, and, if denied again, to a land use hearing officer-a highly unusual step since zoning text amendments have traditionally been considered legislative and not subject to appeal. This process emerged from state legislation influenced by groups like the Libertas Institute, aiming to reduce regulatory barriers, though ironically, it requires municipalities to create entirely new code provisions and administrative frameworks. While cities already apply broad and flexible use definitions and have existing mechanisms-like mediation through the Utah Property Rights Ombudsman-to resolve ambiguity, they must now implement this classification process. Staff has noted concerns about the precedent this sets, particularly in terms of separating legislative authority and administrative procedure, and how appeals could challenge city council decisions to deny certain land use requests, which is unprecedented in Utah law. hi addition to classification requests, the legislature mandated other procedural changes: cities must simplify the process for boundary line adjustments, particularly distinguishing between lots in recorded subdivisions and unplatted parcels. This change is expected to improve customer service by reducing the need for costly and time-consuming subdivision amendments. Additional updates include clearer rules for releasing construction bonds for public improvements (e.g., landscaping, storinwater), and standardized measurements for parking spaces-now legally set at 9xl8 feet. Although this new size standard may conflict with rural communities' preferences for larger vehicle spaces, most urban jurisdictions, including this one, are already in compliance. Staff remains corni'nitted to compliance but anticipates the need for future clarification or legislative revision to these changes. Millcreek Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 16 April 2025 Page 6 of 6 Sullivan reminded the commission to take the online Open and Public Meetings Act training she emailed them about a couple weeks prior. 3. Calendar of Upcoming Meetings * City Council Mtg. 4/28/25 7:00 p.m. * East Mill Creek Coinmunity Council Mtg., 5/1/25, 6:30 p.m. * Mt. Olympus Community Council Mtg., 5/5/25, 6:00 p.m. * Millcreek Community Council Mtg., 5/6/25, 6:30 p.m. * Canyon Rim Citizens Association Mtg., 5/7/25, 7:00 p.m. * Historic Preservation Commission Mtg., 5/8/25, 6:00 p.m. * City Council Mtg. 5/12/25 7:00 p.m. * Plaru'iing Commission Mtg. 5/21/25, 5:00 p.m. ADJOURNED: Commissioner Wright moved to adjourn the meeting at 6:11 p.m. Commissioner Lofgren seconded. Chair LaMar called for the vote. Commissioner Anderson voted yes, Chair LaMar voted yes, Commissioner Larsen voted yes, Commissioner Lofgren voted yes, Commissioner Reid voted yes, Commissioner Richardson voted yes, and Commissioner Wright voted yes. The motion passed unanimously. Shawn LaMar. Chair Attest: Ely Recorder