Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Subdivision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission approves Hawk Hollow preliminary plat, recommends council OK land-swap agreement
Summary
The Nibley City Planning Commission approved the Hawk Hollow preliminary plat and recommended City Council approve a linked land-adjustment and development agreement that would swap land to expand park space and enable stormwater routing to a regional pond.
Get email alerts on the Land Use Subdivision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Nibley City Planning Commission approved the preliminary plat for the Hawk Hollow subdivision and recommended that City Council approve the related land-adjustment and development agreement that would enable an adjacent park expansion.
Levi, a city planner, told the commission the preliminary plat proposes 23 residential lots at about 1150 West and 32100 South and that the approval is contingent on a land swap that would trade a portion of the developer'owned parcel for city-owned property to expand the Nibley Meadows park. He said the subdivision generally meets the R2A lot-size and frontage requirements but that several technical matters must be resolved at final plat, including the precise locations of water and sewer mains.
The nut of the staff recommendation centered on utilities, stormwater and wetlands. Staff and the applicant intend to route stormwater to regional facilities west of 1200 West and to pipe an existing Blacksmith Fork canal along 32100 South; Levi said acceptance of the stormwater design is contingent on the land-swap agreement and that cost responsibilities will be determined by City Council. He also told commissioners that a wetland delineation and any Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) permits will be required before final plat approval if the National Wetland Inventory mapping is confirmed on the southeast corner of the site.
Tom, city engineering/public-works staff, explained coordination details for water and sewer and said a water model and sewer model will be updated at final plat to ensure adequate flows; model updates and any infrastructure cost will be the developer's responsibility per standard practice. Staff also recommended a plat note clarifying that adjacent property owners must install and maintain landscaping and clear sidewalks along 32100 South and 1200 West.
Commissioners asked about pedestrian connectivity, curb cuts, canal easements and maintenance. Staff noted that city code requires pedestrian connections at least every 660 feet; the proposed layout creates a roughly 700-foot gap between neighborhoods and the adjacent park trail. Levi said the developer included a code exception to place the pedestrian connection adjacent to the park, and that staff supports the approach because it places the access in the most functional location for users.
A summary of staff'recommended conditions made part of the commission record: the land-adjustment ordinance must be approved by City Council; a plat note on landscaping and sidewalk maintenance must be added; the developer must coordinate with the Nibley Blacksmith Fork Irrigation company on canal piping and operations; water and sewer models must be updated and any required improvements funded by development fees; stormwater design acceptance is contingent on the land swap and regional pond; Army Corps of Engineers wetland delineation and permit approval are required prior to final plat; and final locations for waterlines and storm drains must be coordinated with city staff at final plat.
Commissioner Schenck moved to approve the preliminary plat with the conditions identified by staff; Commissioner Rubal seconded. The motion passed by voice vote with a 5-0 tally recorded by the commission.
The commission also took up Ordinance 255, the development and land-adjustment agreement that establishes the land swap and includes the exception to Nibley City code 21.160.F.3 regarding pedestrian connectivity. Staff reiterated that the singular code exception is a legislative decision for City Council but asked for a planning commission recommendation; no members of the public spoke on the item. The commission voted to recommend approval of Ordinance 255 to City Council (vote recorded 5-0).

