Developers present 409‑unit Marketplace at Silver Creek concept; commissioners ask for view‑corridor and parking analysis

Developers representing Marketplace at Silver Creek LLC presented an introductory work session to the Snyderville Basin Planning Commission on a 10‑building mixed‑use project at 1500 Fendlesh Road that would combine ground‑level retail with stacked residential and centralized structured parking.

The applicant, Henry Sieg, said the current concept includes roughly 409 residential units and about 22,000 square feet of commercial space anchored by a grocery store, with an internal plaza, two transit pullouts and a strategy to subdivide parcels for financing. Sieg described the site as organized in two tiers — a street level facing Silver Creek Drive and a higher plaza level that includes the grocery store and much of the surface parking — and said the design ties existing county benchmarks and a recent land‑trade to the new configuration.

Commissioners asked focused questions about building heights, parking management, transit access and neighborhood impacts. Several commissioners expressed general comfort with taller buildings where they are sited if facades and step‑backs are handled well. "I don't really have a problem with the height," Commissioner McKenna said, while urging attractive facades and protection of view corridors. Commissioner Diane supported the transit stops and asked that at least one stop be closer to the grocery store to encourage transit ridership.

The applicant said the proposal seeks flexibility under the jurisdiction's new mixed‑use rules to allow building heights up to 60 feet for portions of the site that provide workforce housing, transit initiatives and structured parking. He described a parking management approach to offset a requested parking reduction, including peak‑hour/off‑peak sharing and centralized structured parking. The applicant also said the project would not allow short‑term nightly rentals and would aim for long‑term occupancy.

Commissioners requested several follow‑up items to be provided in future packets: a clear parking study and management plan showing how reductions would be handled operationally; a formal view‑corridor (view‑quarters) study to confirm visual impacts on nearby residences; refined façade and materials boards; and clearer breakdowns showing the unit mix and the exact counts of market versus workforce units. Several numeric items in the presentation were unclear in the packet (applicant‑stated unit and unit‑equivalent counts were read aloud in a way that the commission asked staff to clarify in writing).

The commission treated the session as an introductory, non‑action work session; staff (Amir, Senior Planner) said the materials would be revised per the comments and returned to the commission for formal review.

Next steps include the applicant submitting the requested parking study, a formal view‑corridor analysis and detailed unit‑mix documentation for staff review and future hearings.