Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council hears rezone request for Riverside Drive parcel amid access, safety concerns
Summary
An applicant asked Sandy City to rezone a Riverside Drive parcel from CBC (convenience commercial) to PUD-12 for a 19-unit residential plan; staff and council focused questions on access, shared easements, the future Ninetieth South median and pedestrian safety. Planning Commission recommendation split before forwarding a positive recommendation.
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Sandy City Council received a presentation and public comment April 22 on a rezone application for property generally addressed as 9016 South Riverside Drive (approximate parcel at 784 West 9000 South). The applicant, Adam Nash, requested rezoning the parcel from Convenience Commercial (CBC) to PUD-12 to allow a proposed 19-unit residential concept.
Jake Warner, Sandy City long-range planning manager, said the application was first submitted about 18 months ago and had returned to the planning commission after revisions. “The application first came in about a year and a half ago…staff had some concerns primarily around access and the applicant’s been working on…addressing those,” Warner said. The planning commission originally recommended denial on May 16 of last year, then after revisions issued a split vote that forwarded a positive recommendation on Jan. 16 this year.
Councilmembers pressed staff and the applicant on access, emergency response, and pedestrian safety. Councilmember Marcy Hausman asked what changes led to the planning commission’s revised position; Warner said the major change was a concept that showed an access point moved onto the subject property from an access that currently sits on an adjoining office property, and noted outstanding items including cross-access agreements and a Utah Department of Transportation permit.
Councilmember Cindy Sharkey and others raised detailed concerns about how commercial access points, shared easements and a planned raised median on Ninetieth South would affect traffic patterns. Sharkey asked whether the project’s secondary access would be an actual road or a parking-lot drive aisle; staff said the intended access behind the buildings would be a drive aisle but might qualify as an access connection depending on final design. Councilmember Zach Robinson said he had “significant concern with the access points” and emergency response access given existing traffic and the upcoming Ninetieth South configuration. Jake Swanson (city staff) and Warner reiterated that the original subdivision and road standards were designed for commercial development and converting a lot to residential creates complications around access and safety.
Applicant Adam Nash told the council the property has sat undeveloped for three decades and that the ownership has worked through multiple revisions and safety studies. Nash said the private road behind the buildings is an easement his ownership controls and that “it goes to our property from 700 West. It’s a 27 foot wide road…It’s our road…there’s not 1 parking spot on that road.” Nash asserted the proposed residential project would generate less traffic demand than a commercial use.
Neighbors made public comments opposing the rezoning based on safety, lights and noise, and pedestrian concerns. Resident Robert Archuleta said a 27-foot easement near his yard exposes his backyard to vehicle sight lines and that traffic studies cited by the applicant rely on out-of-area data and are dated. Jen Archuleta described past efforts with the property owner to shift development and said she had successfully petitioned the planning commission previously regarding the adjacent 7-Eleven conditional use permit. Another neighbor, Raju Pussupali, said nighttime light and noise and service-vehicle activity could degrade quality of life for properties abutting the easement.
No vote was taken. Warner said the rezone will return to council as a voting item at a later date after remaining access, cross-easement, and UDOT-permitting issues are addressed. Councilmembers asked for more detail on the planning commission record and additional information on the final street and sidewalk configurations before taking action.
Why it matters: the requested PUD rezoning would change a parcel currently envisioned for convenience commercial use under the city’s plan to residential, changing traffic, pedestrian and service access expectations. Council discussion focused on legal easements, cross-access agreements, and how the Ninetieth South roadway project will affect left-turn access and emergency response.
