Planning commission tables preliminary approval for Legends mixed-use subdivision; developers to supply revisions and engineer sign-off

The Planning Commission voted to table preliminary approval of the Legends Mixed Use subdivision (approximately 2350 West / 1300 North) after commissioners said they had insufficient time to review a detailed engineering review submitted shortly before the meeting.

Developer representatives presented a revised layout that shifts the main internal road to parallel an existing power-line corridor and reconfigures multifamily buildings. The staff packet showed a change from the concept plan’s contiguous row of four-plex buildings to a mix of four-plex and five-plex townhouse-style buildings. Developers said the change chiefly accommodates utility-clearance setbacks and improves the number of units that front onto shared green space and trails.

Commissioners and staff discussed three categories of outstanding work: engineering memo items from the city engineer, clarifications to the development agreement to reflect the revised concept (including whether five-plex buildings conform to the approved development concept), and technical coordination on irrigation/secondary-water impacts and the stormwater/detention design. Staff noted the engineers had supplied comments and the applicant provided written responses; commissioners requested a confirmation memo from the city engineer verifying that responses resolve outstanding engineering concerns.

Traffic and public-safety questions also figured in the discussion. Commissioners asked about a previously proposed roundabout and other traffic-calming measures on the shared internal roadway. The developer said the revised alignment, constrained by the power corridor, reduces the land available for a full roundabout and that staff and the city engineer would work with the applicant on alternate calming measures and the traffic-improvement schedule. Developers also agreed to coordinate secondary-water connections and irrigation timing with city public works so that construction and seasonal irrigation schedules align.

The motion to table the preliminary approval was made and seconded; commissioners requested the applicant deliver the updated development agreement and a revised city-engineer memo for consideration at the next meeting. The applicant indicated they intend to begin construction in spring but accepted the commission’s request for a short additional review window.

Ending: The applicant will return with a clean engineer sign-off and an updated development agreement; the commission will reconsider preliminary approval once those documents are submitted.