Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Site Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission approves Hazel townhomes at Sandridge Drive; Commissioner Tanner dissents
Summary
The Royce City Planning Commission approved site‑plan and architectural review for the Hazel project, a 17‑unit townhome development at approximately 4060 South Sandridge Drive, but Commissioner Tanner voted no on both items citing parking and design concerns.
Get email alerts on the Site Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Royce City Planning Commission on May 13 approved site‑plan and architectural review for the Hazel project, a proposed 17‑unit townhome development at approximately 4060 South Sandridge Drive. Both the site plan and the architectural motion passed with a single dissent from Commissioner Tanner.
Taylor Anderson of Cole West, the project applicant, reviewed revisions to the site plan prompted by staff comments, saying the plan was updated to shift two parking stalls to a more central location, add visitor stalls and provide bicycle parking. Anderson summarized the project as 17 three‑story townhomes with two‑car garages and said of parking, “From my understanding with the code, we need, 2 unit 2 parking stalls per unit, which I think, already is in that just by having a 2 car garage.”
Staff told the commission the project is in the Station South zone and meets the zone’s allowances for up to 18 units per acre. Staff recommended approval of site plan and architecture subject to the conditions listed in the staff report and noted outstanding technical comments remain from the building and fire departments.
Commissioner Tanner opposed both approvals and gave a detailed explanation of his concerns, focusing on parking and on‑street impacts. Tanner argued that residents often do not use garages for vehicle parking, that many households have multiple vehicles or recreational equipment, and that this design would push parking demand onto city streets and nearby UTA parking. He said, “I can't just sit back and say, oh, let's just keep doing it and make it somebody else's problem,” and registered a formal “nay” on both votes.
A roll call on the site‑plan motion recorded one no (Tanner) and six ayes; the architectural approval vote recorded the same tally. The commission instructed staff to continue coordinating outstanding reviews with building and fire departments before final permits are issued.

