Planning commission recommends approval of Lifetime development despite fencing disagreement

The Herriman Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of a master development agreement (MDA) with Lifetime (LTF) for a 102,000-square-foot indoor recreation and fitness center and related subdivision and permits, but commissioners split 3-2 on the MDA recommendation after a lengthy discussion of fencing, lighting and signage.

The project, proposed for 126 South Mountain View Corridor, includes a two-story, roughly 102,000-square-foot facility with indoor amenities, two pools, a wet spa, four indoor and six outdoor pickleball courts, and a resort-style outdoor pool deck. Commissioners recommended approval of the MDA to the City Council and separately approved a preliminary subdivision plat and conditional-use permit related to the same Lifetime Herriman development.

Why it matters: The project converts five existing parcels into two commercial lots, proposes a high parking count and raises neighborhood quality-of-life questions. If the City Council accepts the commission’s recommendation and other negotiations (notably with UDOT over road widening) proceed, the site would advance toward final approvals and construction.

Commissioners and staff described the core requests in the MDA. Planning staff said the developer asked three main exceptions: (1) use of a landscaped berm in lieu of the code-required precast fence along the northern property line, (2) permission to build a major-corridor sign despite the site being under the 20-acre threshold in the overlay, and (3) a reduction in the code requirement for brick and stone cladding and allowance for more than 20% EIFS/stucco on facades.

Applicant Dan Beavers, representing Lifetime, said the club will provide a mix of programming and spaces. "We're really excited about the variety of uses and the overall offering we can bring to the community here," Beavers said, and described the intent to concentrate higher-end materials at the main entrance and to use glazing, signage and lighting to add visual interest.

One resident who spoke at the public hearing, Glenn Larson of 12157 South Alabaster Circle, objected to the proposal to remove the precast fence at the location where the site borders a park. "There’s a fence that backs up to the park there," Larson said. "That park gets or that fence gets abused where teens jump through it all the time ... I don't see any reason why that shouldn't be under the normal cast iron or masonry fence." Larson also raised concerns about potential noise and lighting from outdoor pool and activity areas.

City staff and the applicant responded that the berm and extra setback provide additional buffering in much of the project area, and that the existing fence at the northern boundary would remain in place. "The intent would be to keep that existing fence along the entirety of that northern boundary," a developer representative said. On lighting and audio, the applicant said it would comply with city requirements and design lighting and speakers to limit spill toward residences.

The commission pressed the applicant on sign sizing and lighting. Staff and the applicant explained the sign proposal would be a single, triangular/v-shaped structure with three faces; two faces would carry digital displays and one face would be nonlit and oriented toward the residences. The applicant said the proposed faces are roughly 400 square feet on two sides and smaller on the third, and characterized the total sign area as fitting under the major-corridor overlay allowance for combined signage and the overlay’s spacing controls.

Staff also presented site-plan details: the subdivision proposes Lot 1 at about 12.6 acres and Lot 2 at 0.96 acres; parking proposed is 603 stalls though code requires 340 for the use; required right-of-way improvements along 126 South are being deferred pending negotiations with UDOT; and the site includes an on-site stormwater detention basin. City staff noted the building’s measured roof height is about 42 feet with parapet elements reaching about 46–52 feet; parapets are allowed under code when not creating usable rooftop space.

Votes and formal actions: The commission recommended approval of the MDA (item 4.1) and approved related project items: preliminary subdivision plat (item 5.1) and a conditional-use permit/site plan (item 5.2). The MDA recommendation passed 3–2: Commissioners Preston, Heather and Andy voted yes; Commissioners Adam and Forrest voted no. The preliminary subdivision plat and the CUP/site plan each passed on unanimous votes in subsequent roll calls.

Key numbers and conditions captured in staff recommendations: the developer will submit final landscaping and photometric plans after UDOT and city negotiations over the widening of 126 South; city code requires a 6-foot precast fence where commercial development abuts residential unless an exception is granted by council; and any lighting must be shielded and directed downward with photometric evidence showing no trespass at property lines.

Next steps: The commission’s recommendation on the MDA goes to the City Council for final action; the subdivision plat and conditional-use permit approvals include conditions and will move toward final engineering and landscape plan submittals. The project’s implementation is contingent on City Council action and an agreement with UDOT regarding right-of-way improvements along 126 South.

The commission’s discussion recorded repeated concern about long-term maintenance and coordination with adjacent property owners and HOAs; several commissioners said future subdivisions should require precast or compatible boundary treatments to avoid coordination problems when commercial uses follow residential development.

Votes at a glance: - Item 4.1 (recommendation of MDA with Lifetime): motion to recommend approval to City Council. Vote: Preston — yes; Heather — yes; Adam — no; Forrest — no; Andy — yes. Outcome: recommended to City Council, 3–2. - Item 5.1 (preliminary subdivision plat, Lifetime Herriman Subdivision): motion to approve with staff recommendations. Vote (roll call): Preston — yes; Heather — yes; Adam — yes; Forrest — yes; Andy — yes. Outcome: approved (unanimous). - Item 5.2 (conditional use permit/site plan for indoor recreation use known as Lifetime): motion to approve with staff recommendations. Vote (roll call): Andy — yes; Forrest — yes; Adam — yes; Heather — yes; Preston — yes. Outcome: approved (unanimous).

"We will focus all audio and all lighting towards ourselves and towards our pool deck," the applicant said in response to neighbor concerns; staff reminded the commission that noise complaints are enforced under Salt Lake County regulations and lighting must meet the city's photometric and downward-directed requirements.

The Planning Commission record shows one public speaker during the Lifetime hearings, several written comments submitted and multiple commissioner requests that the Council consider the fencing exception carefully given adjacent residential impacts.