Good evening.

Welcome to our Draper City Planning Commission meeting.

I'm Andrew Adams up here with all our faithful planning commissioners.

We appreciate you being here tonight.

So thank you to the staff for getting everything prepared throughout the week, posting notices and staying late.

We uh appreciate the applicants that are on the uh agenda tonight, and then also appreciate all our fellow neighbors and uh anyone attending.

So uh the agenda should roll forward as we've got posted online as well as the uh paper agenda copy in the back, so there won't be any changes to that.

Uh we'll go ahead and kick things off.

We've got a couple action items here just to approve planning commission meeting minutes.

Uh there's three of those.

Uh are you guys okay if we just combine those dates together just for the sake of time?

Okay, so why don't we uh hit our approve our planning commission meeting minutes for March 12th, March 26th, and April 23rd, 2026.

Is there anyone that would uh would like to make a motion on that, or is there anything we need to edit, Susan?

I think they were wonderful.

I'd make a motion that we approve all three, March 12th, March 26th, and April 23rd, 2026.

Perfect.

Who will second that motion?

I'll second.

Thanks, Lisa.

Let's go ahead and put that to a vote.

Laura.

Well, sorry, let me go start over here.

Susan.

Yes.

Lisa.

Yes.

Now Laura.

Yes.

Welcome, Josh.

Yes.

And Kendra.

Yes.

All right.

So those action uh items are now set in stone.

Planning uh commission meeting minutes are approved.

Uh next one is we've got uh the Johnson internal ADU deviation request.

This is on the request of City Point Real Estate LLC representing Melissa and Scott Johnson, a deviation from strict compliance with the geographical restrictions for an internal ADU or IADU for approximately 0.63 acres located on approximately 13164 south, City Point Cove.

This is known as application 2026-0095-BAR.

Nick Whittaker is our staff contact, so go ahead, Nick.

Thank you.

So yes, this is the Johnson IADU deviation request.

Here's a vicinity map.

Here's an aerial map of the property.

So as you can see, there is no structure on the lot yet.

The home is still being built.

The IADU that they are proposing will be included in inside of the uh will is included in the building plans.

Um here is the land use map, it's residential low medium density, and the zoning designation is RA2.

As you can see by this purple box, it is an if the property is within an IADU prohibited area, which they are seeking a deviation for this evening.

Here is a site plan.

Um the where it's a city point home, that's north.

Um so the area that is in green that has the green highlight around it, that is the part of the uh primary structure that will be designated as the IADU.

It's on the main floor, it has its own garage, uh its own entrance.

Um the floor plans.

So again, it has its own garage.

Uh it can fit two vehicles.

Um everything is completely accessible without going through the main structure.

Here are the elevations that were submitted, and they're uh they were also included in their building plan set as well.

So this isn't just the the IADU, this is the home all together.

Um as you can see on the uh uh bottom right, that garage, that's the the garage that they would uh pull their vehicles into and have that side of the home as their IADU.

So the criteria for approval uh to get the deviation uh to allow for an IADU and an IADU prohibited area, the planning commission may approve a deviation from strict compliance with geographical restrictions of the IADU map and exhibit A of this chapter upon finding that one, the lot or parcel on which the primary dwelling is located is at least six thousand square feet.

It meets the requirement.

That meets the requirement.

The proposed IADU meets all of the requirements of sections 9-31-030 and 9-31-045, including other applicable requirements of the chapter.

It meets that requirement.

And finally, at least two parking stalls meeting the requirements of 931045B2 are uh provided for uh for use by occupants of the IADU.

They meet the requirement.

And altogether, as I have illustrated here, they meet the criteria, at least from the staff review.

That is my presentation.

Uh any questions?

I do have a question, Nick.

Sure.

Do you know why this area was designated as a no or is a prohibited area?

I'll have to defer to my colleagues on this one because I yeah, so that prohibited areas map, it was based on street width.

So we looked at private streets as well as public streets that were deficient in width, with the thought that if a road was narrow enough that it didn't allow for on street parking, that maybe an ADU won't be appropriate.

But we've proven, well, Nick has proven with this great graphics that yes, that it will that there's parking, so that's not really an issue for this.

Yes, so it with the deviation process, we're requiring a second parking space, so that helps alleviate the concern about there not being on street parking.

Yeah.

That was my question too.

It's like I was just surprised that we have any areas that are restricting internal ADUs, but that's why.

And this is why, so that you can come in and give a deviation and control it, correct?

That's kind of the thought behind that.

Perfect.

All right, well done, Nick.

Thank you.

Appreciate that.

Any questions for staff?

I have a question.

Can you pull up this site plan?

Of course.

Yeah.

So is the rear yard setback?

I'm assuming is 20 feet.

Um the rear setback.

Yeah, is that the minimum?

20 feet.

I believe so for that.

I I'm not quite sure.

Uh, off the top of my head, um, I believe that is what the setback is for that.

Uh yeah, they're showing a 20 foot.

But I'm curious the one that's the tr measured from the triangular piece for the ADU.

They've got 20 feet measured on an angle.

Um how do you measure setbacks as an angle or can more 9 degrees?

90 degrees.

You want to go back to the site plan?

Yeah, so let's see if I can't get that to work.

So we would measure so at 20 feet is the rear setback.

We would measure basically 20 feet from that entire property line there.

And then these would these would be side uh property lines here.

So it's the closest point, I guess, 20 feet for that.

Yeah, okay.

All right, thank you.

And they will be required to uh and actually they have submitted building plans that will be reviewed to make sure that they comply.

Okay, thank you.

Anything else?

All right.

Thanks again, Nick.

Is the applicant here?

Yeah, yeah.

You want to come on down and add anything to that presentation?

No, I think Nick's and as you come down Nick's unicorn's doing a pretty good job covering it.

Perfect.

Will you just state your name?

Yeah, Van Norman City Point Homes.

Hi, nice to meet you.

Um, yeah, anything you want to add?

Is that it?

Uh no, I don't think so.

They don't plan to rent it out, which obviously you guys are not approving or disapproving at this time.

It's just for family, but I think they're covering it pretty well.

Perfect, great.

Well, thank you for being here tonight.

Appreciate that.

Absolutely appreciate that.

And this one's not a public hearing, right?

That's correct.

Correct.

Good.

So all right, we're good.

So we'll just excuse you.

Yep, thank you.

All right, commissioner is pretty straightforward.

It's a four smiley and two unicorn presentation.

So what are your thoughts?

Doves or yeah, don't forget the doves.

Hummingbirds, it looks like, yes.

Don't forget those.

I'll I'll make a motion unless the commissioners have any other comments.

Okay.

I move that we approve the deviation request from strict compliance with the geographical restrictions for IADUs as requested by City Point Real Estate LLC representing Melissa and Scott Johnson application 2026-0095-VAR based on the following findings and the criteria for approval is listed in the staff report dated June 2nd, 2026.

Um, that it um is on a properly sized parcel.

There's no DADU on the property.

It meets all the requirements of the code of the city code, and it's has at least two parking stalls.

Thanks for that motion, Lisa.

Who will second that?

I'll second that.

Thanks, Kendra.

Okay, let's go ahead and put this to a vote for approval of the deviation request.

Lisa, how do you vote?

Yes.

Kendra?

Yes.

Laura?

Yes.

Susan?

Yes.

And Josh.

Yes.

All right.

Congrats on that.

Thanks for coming in tonight.

All right, let's move on to our first public hearing tonight.

It's the Skaggs Catholic Center Farm to Table Site Plan and Conditional Use Permit Request.

It's on the request of Joe Colossamo representing Skaggs Catholic Center, a site plan and conditional use permit requests to develop a property as a garden slash farm that is ancillary to the schools that are part of the Skags Catholic Center for approximately 0.91 acres, located at approximately 235 East Kimballs Lane.

It's known as applications 2025-0208-sp and 2025-027-CUP.

Mary Ann Pickering's our staff contact.

So go ahead, Mary Ann.

Thank you.

This is a vicinity map showing the property.

It's highlighted here in red.

And for reference, this is the Skaggs Catholic Center across the street.

This is a detailed view of the property.

The land use on this one is residential high density.

And the zoning is R3.

The request before you tonight is two applications.

It's a conditional use to operate a private school in the R3 zone.

And if you'll recall, there was recently a text amendment that you went through to allow the private schools in the R3 zones.

Initially it was for all residential, but ultimately city council decided to just put it in this R3 zone.

So that's the reason for the conditional use permit request tonight for it to operate the farm/slash agricultural use.

It is on the vacant lot that they own directly across the street.

And then the site plan application for you to consider is to develop the site for planting boxes, trees, crops, and flowers.

There will be a small greenhouse added in the future, and then all of the crops, flowers, everything that's raised or grown on this land will be used as part of the school lunch program.

This is the site plan for the site.

This is Kimball's Lane for reference.

There is an existing fence here that will remain, and so all of these planner boxes, crops, trees, everything will be behind that.

This would be the location of the greenhouse when they decide to do that.

And there is a condition of approval on this one tonight about the hours of operation for the lighting, just so there isn't any nuisance to the neighbors.

The applicant is aware of that.

And I did not receive any public comments or phone calls about this item once it was noticed.

And I'd be happy to answer any questions you have.

Thanks, Marianne.

What questions we have for staff?

Okay, well done.

Is the applicant here?

Would you like to come down and state your name and add anything you like?

Uh Joe Colossumo.

We're okay with the condition with the lights being off at 9 to 7.

Um, we're excited to get some crop calls.

Perfect.

Well, this is a fun little project, so thanks for coming in again.

See it take shape.

All right, this is a public hearing, so we'll go ahead and open this up for public comment.

Is there anyone that would like to address this agenda item?

If so, I'll give you the rules, and then these rules will apply for all the public hearings tonight.

So we've got this nice little timer up there for three minutes.

Uh anyone addressing a public comment uh on an agenda item will get up to three minutes.

You don't need to take the whole time.

We just ask that you don't go over.

So with that, again, I'll ask anyone who'd like to address this one.

All right, I don't see anyone, so we'll go ahead and close the public hearing.

Commissioners, straightforward again.

We've seen this one before.

Now it's just taking shape.

What are your thoughts?

I love this use.

Yeah, I do too.

I just had a comment.

I'm really disappointed that the cute little students aren't here to speak tonight.

Summer break.

Little Sal.

That was great.

Darn we're very cute.

Yeah, I know.

I thought the same thing.

It's like no disrespect.

Oh, yeah.

Students were on the teacher.

Anyway, yeah, that was that one does stand out, doesn't it?

That was a good night.

I do have a question now.

It does say the students, you know, they'll all be enrolled in agricultural classes and whatever, and that does say something about summer.

Well, there'll be well, there'll be summer classes during a couple summer camps trying to teach transplant tomatoes and those kind of things.

Oh, okay, great.

So when schools recessed out for summer vacation, they're still gonna have classes.

Oh, okay.

We'll have summer camps and those kind of things.

Great.

So the students are cheating.

That is the time to learn how to do that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We appreciate that again.

Um, first uh just a point of order.

Can we is that microphone working, Jennifer?

I don't think that's on.

We can hear them, but I don't know how it's gonna do for the recording.

We'll let you work on we'll let you work on that while we deliberate.

All right, commissioners, while they're fixing that.

Um, what are your thoughts on this?

I think it's pretty straightforward.

So unless anyone has any other comments, I'm happy to make uh the motions.

Yeah, go ahead, Kendra.

Um, I move that we approve the conditional use permit as requested by Joe Colossamo representing the Skags Catholic Center LLC application 2026 0070-USE based on the findings and conditions of approval listed in the staff report dated June 2nd, 2026, and that would include the findings, the seven findings for approval listed um there in the report.

Great.

Thanks, Kendra.

Who will second that motion?

I'll second.

We'll give that one to Susan.

There'll be another one, so get ready.

All right, so let's go ahead and put that uh up for a vote.

So Kendra, how do you vote?

Yes, Susan?

Yes, Laura?

Yes, Josh?

Yes.

And Lisa.

Yes.

All right.

Now, next one.

I can go ahead and make that or Susan if you want to.

Oh, sure.

Um I move that we approve the site plan as requested by Joe Colossumo representing Skag's Catholic Center LLC.

Application 2026-0040 SP based on the findings of approval and conditions of approval listed in the staff report dated June 2, 2026.

Thanks, Susan.

Who will second?

I'll second it.

Thanks, Laura.

Let's put this one to a vote.

This is for site plan approval.

Susan.

Yes.

Laura.

Yes.

Lisa.

Yes.

Josh?

Yes.

And Kendra.

Yes.

All right.

Congrats on that.

Good to see you again.

Tell the tell all the kids hi.

Tell them we missed them.

All right.

So let's go ahead and now move on to our next public hearing tonight.

There's the steeplechase phase two amended subdivision plat request.

It's on the request of Danish Hoda and Saba Hoda and the Steeplechase HOA, an amended subdivision plat for approximately 0.86 acres, located at approximately 13229 South Springdale Way, known as application 2025-0295-SUB.

Todd Draper's our contacts.

Go ahead, Todd.

Sorry, they're trying to get a mouse over here so we can get this one to work.

So this, as you mentioned, is a steeple tape steeplechase phase two amendment subdivision plat.

It is a little more complicated than it might look on the surface, but I can kind of explain it.

So this is the vicinity map.

There are two properties here that this uh involves, and it's kind of the lot line adjustment between them.

This is the aerial map.

Uh so the north property here is owned by the HOA.

It's their open space, and then Danish Hoda uh owns the property here to the south.

So this is the land use map, and it is in that low uh medium density residential, and then again in the zoning map, RA2, uh residential agricultural zone, and also in that hillside uh sensitive overlay.

So I've tried to blow these up a little bit so they can be seen.

This is the uh current steeple chase phase two uh subdivision plat.

You can see those two properties here, parcel D and proper uh uh lot 44.

Uh just a couple of things.

This, of course, you'll see this is all open space public utility easement uh and draper irrigation company easement.

And then uh you'll note uh on the current plat, this is the buildable area uh that is platted as well.

So this is the proposed change.

Uh in doing this, they want to kind of straighten this line out.

So this piece of property will be uh moving over to the HOA with this piece uh moving over to Danish.

Um that's and and with that we have all of the easements, uh public utility, grading, drainage that have to be kind of relocated on the plat as well.

Uh there's one additional easement uh that Brian might be able to talk to better if you have questions, but it it basically is an easement along the uh upper edge of the channel that is there, uh, and that protects that drainage channel as well from encroachment.

One other change that we'll make is this buildable area will then also be changed uh to kind of what you're seeing here on on the plat or on the on the lot.

The lot does get a new number.

Uh it's a little bit different uh based on our our rules for renumbering lots in an amended plat.

And part of this is uh you'll see there uh they did do a geotechnical a while back and did discover a fault line, and this is the setback from that fault.

So that'll be outside of uh of the area there uh with the new construction that they would like to do.

And this is just a couple of site photos uh pulled off online, so you can kind of I think it shows it better.

You can kind of see who that drainage channel is.

There will still be an easement protecting that.

Uh and then this is the property over here, and then just another one up here.

Uh so you know, I know that we sent you a couple of uh public comments that uh were emailed in earlier in the week, and then I emailed out one more that came in today, and then provided a copy there.

If you have any questions there, I know one of the concerns that came up was uh trail access, and if I kind of roll back here, um again, this is where that channel is, and the trail is all to the north of that channel, so this has no impact on the trail.

And if you have any other questions, uh I'd be happy to answer them.

No, not yet.

Any questions for staff?

Okay, perfect.

All right, is the applicant here?

And you want to come on down and you know the drill now, just state your name and add anything you like.

I'm Don Showder, thank you very much.

Um for inching this.

Um, I just wanted to point out that we've had the lot for about four years now, and we've taken a lot of our own really slow methodical time to make sure that everything is done right.

We've paid money to geotech engineering to review everything.

Uh Draper uh water draper pro has looked at this and said it doesn't affect the draper the water channel at all.

They've actually submitted a letter as part of the application saying that they've reviewed this and have no concerns.

Um again, no trail access is being um being affected.

It was just the reason we wanted to do this is because of that weird triangular shape was kind of affecting how we would be able to put in the retaining wall because we were putting retaining wall there in the HOA space.

And so we just wanted to basically square that off because it was a kind of a weird triangular jut in there, and that way we can then put a retaining wall kind of the way that works best for the house.

And that was the main reason we did this.

Almost two years when working with Todd and Jen on going through this methodically, you know, line by line, and um we're here, so I appreciate your time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, this is a public hearing, so we'll go ahead and open this up for public comment, the same uh instructions as before.

So you'll get up to three minutes.

Uh you just come up and we just ask also that you state your name.

So proposed instructions, who would like to address this agenda item.

You can also, yeah, you and and yeah, just come on up.

Don't have to be too polite.

And just a little note here, sometimes when you do have questions, you'll ask those to us.

We won't answer, we'll look at you and just blink.

Uh so it won't be a back and forth, but you just uh state whatever you want, and we'll always take notes up here and make sure that if you do have questions, we'll address those after public comment.

Sure.

My name's Victor Wells.

I live uh uh just right directly across the street from this the reference property.

So I have to state right off the bat the the information that was provided in the letter to us prior was not clear as to I mean the yellow line shows clear around all of partial D, etc.

So part of what I'm asking for is I think we need more time to review and look at the impacted areas and how this does affect us.

So one of the key things that I want to talk about too is the I think there needs to be demonstrated public benefit towards um the the getting rid of the easement and also the allocation of the HO HOA property towards a single private property owner that goes against the public interest of all of this.

Also, the HOA property belongs to everyone.

I don't know that there's been any clearer documented um HOA meetings or anything else where this has been presented and allowed other community HOA members to address this particular issue.

Also, easements exist for a reason.

They exist to protect the the utilities, drainage, maintenance, and public safety.

We've we have not had any clear um public or other communication as to how that culvert and the easement changes will affect that.

I don't know how many um the public planning commission remember but but back in the early 2000s there was a major storm that blew boulders down the street, and that's why that infrastructure exists today.

That's why that easement exists, and some of those other uh components.

Finally, um precedent matters.

So the HOA open space and easements can be incorporated should not be incorporated into a private lot without compelling public interest.

It establishes a precedent that could encourage similar requests throughout the subdivision.

The commission should consider not only this application, but also the standard that sets for further cases.

And the burden of proof should be on the applicant, not on the other homeowners.

The question is not whether the res residents can prove harm.

The question is whether the applicant has demonstrated the proposed changes, creates no adverse impact on HOA assets, drainage systems, trails, easements, and neighboring properties, or the public interest.

I respectfully submit that the commission should not approve the transfer or relocation of HOA open space and earnest protected land for the primary benefit of a single homeowner unless there's clearly demonstrated public benefit, full transparency regarding the HOA approval and convincing evidence that the drainage, troll access, maintenance access, and community interests will not be adversely affected.

The burden of proof should be demonstrated by why these common assets should be not be all should be altered, not on the residents to prove why they should remain protected.

Any questions?

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, next.

Come on down.

So I guess I had a question.

Is that okay?

Oh, Lance Conrad.

Sorry.

Hi.

Um what was submitted to us as homeowners affected all of that parcel D.

My lot, by the way, is basically the white lot.

So it surrounds my lot, parcel D.

What I understood that was proposed today does not affect anything beyond the wash or the culvert.

Is that correct?

So we'll go ahead and again just take your comments and we'll answer them afterwards.

That was my question.

I didn't know if I could ask a question.

Perfect.

I know what that's.

Yeah, so I would I would agree with um our neighbor Victor here.

I this was kind of a shock to us.

It affects our property.

Um, some of the comments that I have might not be appropriate because it might not affect my property as much as I thought it did.

But yet still, I just think that we need to um, as an HOA, have a vote, have a say, um be proposed why the benefits are, what what we're doing with open lands, not changing precedent.

There's several families that would be here today.

One is uh on the lot on the other side of this below, and they're in uh uh the ER for an emergency surgery today, and then many other families that might be interested are at a youth conference.

I just think that this came to us really suddenly.

It looked much more egregious than it seems on the on the surface here, but I do think it states it creates a precedent that um would be inappropriate for an HOA situation where we should be um voting on this kind of use of our lands.

I guess would be my amended statement.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Okay.

I don't see anyone, so we'll go ahead and close the public hearing portion.

I guess I'm let me reopen that in the same breath, just really quick.

Sorry, we just rushed down here.

We were up in the canyon.

State your name.

Heather Polee, and I live just a few houses down from this lot.

I think part of the information is that it's so limited on what the homeowners are received.

I just found out about this today.

There's other homeowners that are up at this camp.

That's why we're wearing stupid shirts.

But um we uh we would like to have more information provided us.

As I said, this is HOA land, some of it, and we don't understand how that would go to a single homeowner and how it's in the best interest of anybody in our area to have that assigned to one participant when it was it's across the board.

Also, concerns with the easement.

So we're we're basically showing opposition and also asking for more information.

Great, thank you.

Yeah, all right.

So, with that now, we'll go ahead and close the public hearing.

All right, commissioners and staff.

So, a couple quick questions were asked there.

Um is this what what effect does this have?

So, engineering, do you want to kind of talk a little bit on that?

And then we'll talk also about um it was brought up that that the other question, the way I understood it was brought up that we've got some land exchange here.

So we'll talk about that too.

But we kind of address Brian the the safety and how that easement is or is not affected.

Because again, as was mentioned, that you guys have been working on this for two years.

What have you guys looked at in that time?

So just a brief history.

In 2008, we did have a fire up that area, corner canyon fire.

Um it did um burn a lot of the vegetation off.

And then following that, we did have a significant storm that came and it did result in some significant erosion events and debris flows and some other um issues in that area.

The channel that's constructed there is to protect both the subdivision and to convey the water that may run off from that area down into the streets where it can be you know flooding managed as possible.

Um so that's the purpose of the channel.

And we have reviewed their proposal, and as long as that channel it's it is a grounded channel, so it does have some structure to it that just doesn't, it's just not boulders placed on the hillside.

So as long as that uh channel isn't undermined or damaged or encroached into that that'll function as designed.

And we did look at that as through this process and proposal.

I have a follow-up question, Brian.

Um, if the homeowner builds and does the retaining walls and all the things that the things that he's described, is that going to benefit the neighborhood as far as runoff if there's a runoff event?

Um the channel and his lot improvements are separate.

I don't know what you mean by will it benefit the subdivision.

Well, you talked about building some retaining walls.

Um that that would make his lot more buildable.

That isn't something that's proposed for a benefit to the city in the mainly.

I was just curious if it would if there would be a benefit.

If you want to go back to that picture with the with the actual channel there that Brian's describing, so I guess you call that a grouted channel.

So those are those are firmly put in place.

Uh it almost looks like in some spots cemented in.

Is that kind of a accurate statement?

Correct.

Yeah.

So and how's that how's that fared?

Is that taking care of the problem?

I haven't heard of anything.

Any muds?

I mean, it was a big mud slide, it was a big deal.

We remember that.

And and the vegetation has regrown, so you know you never can predict a natural disaster, but since 2008, this the channels that were constructed and built have handled the the flows that have come through them.

Okay.

And and just for and Todd, can you flip over in the report?

You can see a picture.

It's the aerial, it's got the uh red line on the there you go, that satellite view.

This one helped me understand exactly what's being impacted here and what's not.

So unlike so the second qu well, second question or second point is that um the HOA hasn't been able to give notice or give enough information on this that now if we were just saying, hey, the landowner or or the the individual owner is just saying, hey, give me some HOA land.

It looks like a swap.

So that's the first thing that I'm looking at here.

It looks like we've got a pie slice for a pie slice, not just hey, give me some land.

Is that would that be an accurate statement?

Um very close.

Is it is it like for life, or is there almost like for like there is about 90 square feet difference?

In whose favor in the favor of the property owner.

So they get 90 square feet.

So okay, so the the homeowners that's that's an accurate statement from the homeowners.

So that we're the next the next thing if you go back to that slide though, it looks like this helped me understand what's going on here.

So that right now, it looks like that that the homeowner has some of that channel on his property, and he's rather saying, hey, instead of that being on my property, let me give that to the HOA, and at the same time, um, you know, just give me this square it off lot, which we've seen that.

I mean, it's usually between two private owners and they agree, right?

They take some weird pie slice.

In fact, we just did it city to city, did we not?

Yeah.

With Highland or Alpine or whoever we were doing that with, just because we had a weird pie slice.

So that we we do we do see this from time to time.

Um, what is the I mean HOAs and cities, where do those clash and where what's what's how do we address that?

I mean, I know the answer, but why don't you tell us?

Excuse me.

Yeah, so in this case, HOA is uh basically a party to the application.

They did sign the affidavit, uh and and so it is uh on them to then eventually sign the plot if the amendments are approved.

And then yes.

Sorry, go ahead.

I I was gonna ask if you'd also tell the public about noticing and access to the the report and everything that you've prepared.

Yeah, so notices were mailed uh well, I guess we prepare them about 14 days before, but they probably got mailed about 12 days before they have to be mailed 10 days before.

Uh it was posted on the website as well.

Uh, and then the staff report and all the supporting documentation was posted with the agenda.

And that was done, I believe, Monday.

I don't think signs are required, but was there a sign in front of the lot?

Sign was posted as well, yes.

How far of a radius for the mailings do you do?

What's the what's the radius for the mailings?

For the mailing mainland, sorry, I couldn't quite hear you.

300 feet, five.

Yeah, 300 feet.

300 feet.

So not the whole division.

Yeah, so uh and I don't have a scale here that'll tell me exactly where that would be, but it it was probably 30 or so mailings is my recollection.

And one question on one of the issues that has come up repeatedly in public comment was uh HOA notices to members of the HOA.

That's the thing.

Yeah, that's the HOA's thing that is not something that the city does for them.

And we don't look at HOA requirements or anything that happens internally to the HOA, correct?

Yep.

Okay, I just wanted to address that.

Good point, Kendra.

I I agree, that was a question of mine too.

Second thing was just to reiterate, there is nothing that changes in access to any trails with this.

And we're basically exchanging.

I mean, on paper, it kind of seems like why is the HOA?

I mean, I hear the neighbors' comments about an HOA giving a private landowner land, but it seems like it's a swap, yeah like for like almost without taking away any public access easement, the easement issues in the call.

It seems like it's much more benign than what it sounds like what maybe the neighbors were even led to believe.

And and here on the aerial you can see the trail.

That's a couple of switchbacks in there, and you can see that it's completely on the on the north side of that wash uh and and not uh really affected in any way.

Can you show us on the um site the uh the map, the um drawing map where those easements are more specifically?

Yes, so this darker shaded area is is uh I guess if I go back to this one, so this shaded area is where all the easements is or is there they exist over the entire parcel of the HOA property, and that includes open space, public utility, and irrigation.

Um on this one, they did it in a more solid color.

Uh they will be adding that same exact easement to this area.

They'll be subtracting that easement from this area that would then uh be incorporated into the lot.

So in the swap, there the the easements are just moving.

Um and then with that, there was also on the original plat some other public utility easements that were along uh the property line, and then they use they're just being relocated to follow the new property line.

And Todd, did I hear correctly that that whole swath right there is fault line non-buildable, so the back of lot 172, not that one, the other line.

No where where's the fault line?

This this is the fault line right here.

It was would not have been on the original plat.

This was this was discovered through a geotechnical investigation that the uh homeowner did for this property.

So the location was discovered, and then uh based on that, they the the report recommended a setback from the fault, uh and that's where they've placed the buildable line.

How far is that set back?

I do not know often.

I mean it's way it's way further than our 20 foot, 30 foot building envelope set by, is it not?

I mean, it looks like it's way further.

Yeah, it's pretty blurry.

I'd like to talk to the applicant some more.

Maybe we can bring that thing back up, yeah.

Come on down.

Hi Danish, thanks for coming back up.

Um can you tell us um my gosh, I completely forgot what I was going to ask you.

Oh, yes, sorry.

Um how have you worked with the HOA and who have you talked with?

Can you tell the public?

Yeah, it's a great question.

So um, well, to Andrew's point initially, part of that drainage actually was in our lot.

And so that's part actually we gave back to the HOA, because then who's taking care of that and managing that and all that stuff.

So that was part of the swap was to hey, take part of that drainage easement out of my lot and give it to the HOA where it belongs.

That's the first part.

So the history with the HOA happened was when we were kind of doing our house lot, um, it was kind of coming up into that triangle jetted area, and the retaining wall was.

And so I started out by asking the HOA if they would give me um like I don't know if right of access is the right word, but some sort of like ability to say, hey, use this lot.

And the HOA said, no, we can't do that, you know, because you know, we we don't want to allow that, but let's see what we can do about you know changing lots.

So then I went to the city, asked Jen and Todd in a meeting.

Hey, what are the things that maybe we could do?

And Jen rightfully said the amount of open space that's there needs to be there because of the way the subdivision was plotted, so we can't really do anything with that.

And then we started talking about hey, what if we swap part of this, you know, the stuff that's on our lot to the HOA and just take equal for equal.

So the amount of open space doesn't change at all.

Um and stays the way the way it was intended by the subdivision and by the city when it was originally um designed.

And so that's kind of how we got with the HOA about that.

And so then, you know, had the discussions with HOA about it, and they agreed that it seemed fair.

Um, and that's how we got here.

So you you talked with them and they agreed.

Yes, yeah, perfect.

They're a party to the other side of this whole deal.

So great.

Thank you for explaining that.

I have a question then too.

I isn't uh just out of curiosity.

So did you own the lot before the channel was put in?

No, I did not, I bought it afterwards.

Okay.

Any other questions for the applicant while we got them up here?

Okay, all right.

We'll let you take a break.

We'll keep deliberating.

Thank you.

Well, what are your thoughts on this?

I think it's chair.

I do have an answer to your question on what that uh just set back distance from the fault is and it's 50 feet.

50, so it's in X, it's in that's that's well above what our regular setbacks are there.

So yes, this great so in essence making that, yeah.

That's that the building envelope is pushed way up because of that.

And and to point out, if you go if well, I guess the the plat shows a little bit better because it shows what what would be.

So if you look at that, that's that parcel, that piece right there is just that is not adding to a building envelope, if that makes sense, because look, the building envelope is pushed up 50 feet instead of the standard 20 or 30 setback.

So he's really not getting anything, not able to build a bigger house or build into his law further because of that.

So again, that's a land swap that we've seen before, just to when there's a good I mean and I hate to use the word goofy, but when there's a goofy lot line.

Yeah, the buildable area does increase.

Does it give you a bigger building envelope?

Yeah, so Todd Scott got it here with uh lot 44.

So it does show a pretty restrictive buildable area.

So with this application, um, the applicant did a geotechnical report, geohazard report to analyze the lot specifically determined where that fault is and where that buildable area can be based on that fault.

So that one's not the actual building envelope.

This is before yeah, so that's before, and then so that's before you have one that shows after.

Yeah, so this is the before.

This is the after, and it's probably easier to show it on this one.

So they are losing a little bit of buildable area here, and then they're kind of squaring it off, and it does go a little bit up here.

So it is a little just a little pass there, and then kind of squares it off here.

Yeah, understand.

So if you were to overlay one over this lot 44 here, I get it.

Yeah, okay.

Thank you.

That's that's about where that area would be.

Well, I I feel um good about the exchange.

I think it makes the lot um more buildable and it protects that channel um for the community to um allow the drainage when needed.

Um does any any other commissioners do you have a comment or anything you'd like to add?

I'm I'm gonna make a positive um or uh uh approval motion.

I move that we approve the amended subdivision plat as requested by Danish Hoda and Saba Hota and the steeplechase HOA for the steeplechase phase two amended subdivision plat application 2025-0295-SUB based on the following findings for approval and the requirements and conditions listed in the staff report dated June 2nd, 2026.

Um that um all the requirements of Draper City Engineering Public Works Building Planning and Fire are satisfied.

Um the geotech report um supported that and um I think there's good cause to vacate um uh for the vacation or amendment, and there's no public street or municipal utilities that's been vacated or amended.

Great, thank you, Lisa, for that motion.

Who'll second her motion?

I'll second that.

Thanks, Kendra.

Okay, let's put this one to a vote uh to approve the uh uh as proposed.

Lisa, how do you vote?

Yes, Kendra?

Yes, Josh?

Yes, Susan?

Yes, and Laura.

Yes.

All right, thanks, guys.

We appreciate you coming in, and uh we'll go ahead and watch how that takes uh how that shakes out.

Best of luck.

Um all right.

Now we're gonna head on to our next public hearing.

This one is the Fox Landing phase three subdivision plat amendment and full boundary line adjustment request.

It's on the request of Tom Spencer of Wright Homes representing Wright Homes and Peter and Kimberly Huber.

A subdivision plat amendment and full boundary line adjustment to add one lot and reconfigure two adjacent and newly created lot and boundary line adjustment with the property to the east for approximately 1.18 acres located at 773 West, Osborne Vista Way.

It's known as applications 2025-0042-SUB and 2025-0180-SUB.

Uh Mary Ann Pickering staff contact.

Go ahead.

Thank you.

This is a vicinity map showing the subject properties.

They are highlighted in red for reference.

This is 700 west, and up here is 114 south.

This is a detailed aerial view showing those properties.

And the land use or on this one is residential medium density, and then the zoning for the two parts we're discussing is R3 and RA1.

These are two applications that are to be reviewed together.

The first is a full boundary adjustment between the Huber property and right homes, and the intent is the hubers will sell land to Wright homes.

The remaining parcel that the hubers have will not be part of the Fox Landing 3 subdivision.

They will remain outside of that.

The newly acquired land from the Huber's by Wright Homes will be added in as a lot into Fox Landing 3 as part of a plat amendment.

The new lot with the lots to the north and the west, they will be adjusted with this plat amendment so that all of the lots meet the minimum standards for frontage size, lot width, and lot depth.

And so this here, this is the current subdivision plot for Fox Landing 3.

This is the Huber property, this large rectangle.

And what has happened is they are going to sell, they're gonna put a line right here, lining up with the one to the north, sell this part to Wright Homes, and that will be incorporated into Fox Landing 3.

This is the proposed plot, so this shows the Huber property that's remaining, the new lot, and then the two lots on either side will be adjusted so that we can get that minimum frontage for this lot here.

And that's what it is.

The boundary line agreement will have to be recorded first by state law, and then they can record the plat amendment to get this one going.

And I didn't I did receive one phone call from a neighbor who was just questioning what was happening at the public hearing tonight.

And I'd be happy to answer any questions you have.

I have a question.

So the new lot, I'd take the minimum lot width for this zone is 80 feet.

Correct.

And so the curve as shown on the plat.

Um curve five is 56.11 feet.

Right.

We have lot frontage in the code, which is 50.

It meets there, and then our definition of lot width is either at the front or the rear of the property, and they do have the adequate um width at the rear of the property.

But not the front then.

It does meet the code.

Okay, that's what I was wondering.

Okay, it does.

Thank you.

Yes, those are the rules that give us flag lots, right?

That give us the we checked that before they went through this.

And I would assume so.

I just wanted to this is the shortest leg flag lot, Britt Draper as yet to see.

So no.

Thank you.

Perfect.

Well, thanks, Mary Ann.

Any other questions for staff?

Okay.

All right.

Is the applicant here?

Hi, would you like to come down and state your name and add anything you'd like?

Just want to make sure you get your money's worth on coming down.

Tom Spencer representing uh it's actually right associates uh DBA Fox Landing LLC.

Um essentially, it's just adding one lot to Fox Landing.

It was actually a piece of uh property, a parcel that tried to acquire six, seven years ago when Fox Landing was first being put together at that time.

The seller didn't want to sell, but now they did, so we've gone through all these hoops to try and add it in.

Any questions for the applicant?

I do have one other quick comment on 138.

I believe there is a typo.

Maybe it's under the bottom paragraph subdivision plat.

It talks about acquired from the property to the west.

I believe that should be east.

The parcel we're buying is the western third.

We were so we're requ uh acquiring it from the remaining parcel that sits to the east of us.

That's correct.

Okay.

So mainly good catch.

And we're fine with the staff report.

Great, thank you.

So it's a public hearing.

We'll invite you back up if we need you, so stay close.

All right.

This is a public hearing.

We'll open it up for public comment.

Who would like to address this agenda item?

All right, we don't see anyone else in the room, so we'll go ahead and close the public hearing.

All right, commissioners.

What are your thoughts?

It's pretty straightforward.

Super straightforward.

So nobody has any questions or comments.

I can make a motion.

Do it, Kendra.

Okay.

I move that we approve the full boundary line adjustment as requested by Tom Spencer of Wright Homes for the Fox Landing Phase 3 subdivision.

Plat amendment application 2025-0180-SUB based on the following findings for approval and subject to the requirements as listed in the staff report dated June 2nd, 2026.

And the findings for approval are that the proposal that was submitted to the city includes all necessary information.

And the plat amendment corresponding with the proposed full boundary adjustment has been approved in accordance with the Draper code.

Thanks, Kendra.

Who will second that motion?

I'll second.

Thanks, Lisa.

Okay, let's go ahead and put that one to the to a vote.

This is for the uh boundary line adjustment.

Kendra?

Yes.

Lisa.

Yes.

Susan?

Yes.

Josh?

Yes.

And Laura.

Yes.

All right.

And Susan was a yes, correct?

Yes.

Got it.

Okay.

All right.

Next one.

Do you want to make that one?

Please.

I move that we approve the subdivision plat amendment as requested by Tom Spencer of right homes for the Fox Landing Phase 3 subdivision plat amendment.

Application 2025-0042-SUB based on the following findings for approval and subject to the requirements as listed in the staff report dated June 2nd, 2026.

And the findings for approval is that there is good cause for the amendment and no public street or municipal utility easement will be vacated or amended.

Great.

Thank you, Kendra.

Who will second that one?

I'll second it.

Thanks, Laura.

Okay, let's put this on that one to a vote.

Kendra.

Yes.

Laura.

Yes.

Lisa.

Yes.

Susan?

Yes.

And Josh.

Yes.

All right.

Congrats on that.

Thanks for coming in.

All right.

Our last public hearing for the night.

It's the Roar DADU text amendment request.

It's on the request of Ellen and Bob Rohr.

A zoning text amendment to Chapter 9-3-1 of the Draper City Municipal Code, the DCMC, to allow existing accessory structures and buildings to be converted into detached accessory dwellings, you know, dwelling units or detached ADUs.

Known as application 2026-0051-TA.

Todd Draper's or contact.

So go ahead, Todd.

Excuse me there, sorry.

So this is not a city proposed text amendment, but one that has come from a citizen.

And as that, uh there's a couple of things that they are proposing here to changes to our accessory dwelling unit ordinance and specifically to detached accessory dwellings.

What they would like to have added is something that would permit existing accessory buildings and structures to be converted into those.

Those that don't currently meet the setback requirements of the current ordinance.

So their proposed changes would put some different height and setback standards in for those DADs that are created from those excess existing accessory buildings and structures.

And it would also make some changes to clarify where they could be located on the property.

So the text here again, blue is what is being added.

Staff did put this together in this legislative format so that it's a little bit uh easier to read and more similar to some of the other ones that you'll see.

Uh as you'll see, they've they basically renumbered the first two, adding this uh in for uh existing uh accessory structures.

Uh this is the staff recommendation to them that we include a date uh and and they accepted that uh that we we put in a date of September those that were prior to September 21st, 2021.

Which should be the just before that went in the the current ordinance went into effect or the the for this.

Uh the change here would basically be to kind of uh put the both the uh setbacks and heights into two different categories.

Uh new ones would still follow the same rules for being uh within the height limits and setbacks of uh of the main home.

Any that are existing accessory buildings being converted would have to still comply with those accessory building heights and setbacks that are in uh the residential zone chapter.

And then this small change is is really to say that they could be located anywhere that wasn't the front yard.

You may have some of these existing ones that are in a side yard uh or maybe partially in the side yard and and some in the rear.

Uh so this just kind of clarifies that.

And of course, where they were adding all the height and and uh setback limits here, it they were just taking this one out at the very end.

So that is the proposed text changes.

Um if you have any questions for me and staff, I'm here, and then applicant may be better able to answer questions on what they were thinking and and what they would like.

And we are looking for recommendation to the council.

Yeah.

Do you have some examples, Todd, of what this might look be?

What kind of these, what kind of accessory building buildings these are.

Um not in this presentation.

Um these could be uh I hate to say a shed, but someone may have a shed or a garage already on the property that complies with the the setbacks for uh single single family dwelling lots for accessory buildings.

I thought about my playhouse.

Yeah, play house, uh, uh, there could be a number of different things that could be converted under this change.

Um, there's a there's a few, there's a few lots that have like an old bungalow on them, right?

And in the past, the workaround has been, hey, I'm gonna build a breezeway, so I'm just extending onto my house.

The only catch to that is that when you mentioned it's not allowed, the ADU may not sit in the front yard.

Yeah.

So for example, I'm thinking of one specific example.

Um it's the property right there on Bench Cove or whatever that's called.

There's a little bungalow there, and behind that is a home being built.

The home's huge, the bungalow's what it is, and so it's a corner lot.

So the front could be either one.

The front the front could be facing the cul-de-sac, or it could be facing out onto Carlquist.

So that would be an example of saying, hey, we're gonna have the small, instead of now having to have that breezeway that people would have used as the I hate to call it a loophole, but the workaround, you can now just say, look, it truly is what it is.

It's affordable housing and a detached ADU that now is not in the front yard because now we're gonna call the front yard facing into the cul-de-sac, which really does have more frontage.

Anyway, so that's one rare example.

Yeah, actually, that example is one that would still have to have that because of the corner lot.

That because that would needed to be an internal ADU and connected.

Yeah, so they could they I guess but with after this text amendment, you could detach or no.

Why not?

No, it would be in the front yard of the of the main home at that point.

Can you think of any risks that this change would cause the city or the planning, city planning?

Or you Andrew or Laura, you guys are real estate agents.

Well, we're more experienced than I.

Yeah, we don't know what we don't know.

Right.

Uh and part of that is that we don't know what the the what buildings are out there in in these yards, and we don't know what shape they're in.

They would still have to come in and meet building code, um, but but that could present some issues there as to how they met building code uh for that kind of a conversion.

Um it's hard to say, especially when you're rehabilitating the existing structure.

Well, there still has to be the parking.

There still has to be the same.

Yeah, there's the other aspects.

And and again, we didn't really talk with um uh our building official much on on what that might look like.

The safety catch on all this is to say that it has to still meet the required setbacks.

So, for example, if someone put some grandfathered garage in that's huge, you know, 2,000 square foot garage, but it's 10 feet away from the back of the property.

Now, if they want to change that to an ADU, that would not comply.

Well, so well, or whatever the setback is.

So, under under the proposed tax amendment, that would be allowed.

Okay.

So the um explain that one then, because that's what I can see.

So a detached garage also has to be in the rear yard, can't be in your front yard.

They have uh 10 foot side and rear setback standard.

Um and uh the heights 15 foot tall walls and 25 feet to the peak.

Okay, so lower uh a detached ADU has to meet the same setbacks as your house would.

So an acre, half acre lot, that would be a 12-foot side setback and a 20-foot rear, where again that detached garage it's 10 and 10, and then ADUs can go up to 35 feet in height, which is the same height as a house.

So you are getting a structure potentially that's closer to the property line, um, but should be less in height because our um detached structures aren't allowed to be distal.

So because it was a garage, the 10 foot would be allowed.

Correct.

Based on the way it's worded right now.

Correct.

Well, that's great to point out as you start to give a positive or negative recommendation if you think that that's cool or not, yeah, to be able to because now what you'll have is you've got a garage that's now a dwelling.

Would you would you ever allow that if someone said, hey, we're putting a detached ADU, you'd never allow it 10 feet, you'd have to go 20 because you just said it has to match the setbacks for the residents.

Correct, under our current code.

So that is that is a uh a difference or a deviation from what would normally be allowed as a uh using grandfathering in an old structure.

If you're worried is if somebody already has a huge garage and then they say put a ADU in the part of it back of it loft, whatever.

Yeah.

That's the same thing.

I mean I can think of one right now that's just got garage.

That's really close to property lines.

Yeah.

But on the other hand, we're trying to uh open up property for um low midcome, mid-income, right?

Anyway, so it's not necessarily a bad, not bad.

Now now there is one other maybe unintended consequence here.

Jennifer gave you those uh setbacks for a structure over 200 square feet.

If by some odd chance someone was able to squeeze one of these into a structure under 200 square feet, it could be up to the property line.

It would be reduced in height uh further um 12 feet to the peak.

There's no other thing.

You're gonna have a dwelling that's 200 square feet.

Yeah, yeah, you gotta have it, you still have to have all the ADU cooked up.

Yeah, yeah.

It it would it would make that a possibility, but um I think you'd have to have a George Foreman grill at the end of your bed.

That's what you'd have to do.

Yeah, you would.

Which is which is not advised.

Do they even sell those?

No.

If if I'm understanding this correct, so a new DADU as proposed, well, with the changes, would the height limitation would be the same as main dwelling.

I have a little heartburn with that.

And only because it is an accessory use to a main dwelling.

So in my mind, it needs to be less than height in height and mass, whatever.

Um I would feel better if there was some kind of a height limitation.

On in the existing for for a new oh, are we even talking about the new ones though?

Yes, yeah, it's being addressed a newly constructed ADU or detached ADU.

Well, I'll give you an example, Susan.

Remember, Ivory came in and they wanted to uh they wanted to they change things right here, whatever it is, bar look what's it called right there by the elementary school?

Yeah, they said, yeah, people are wanting to put a garage back there with an AD up.

And yeah, I mean it looks crazy.

There's one in one in my neighborhood in Bellevue right now.

It's got a it looks it's just a garage with a and it's the same height as the house.

Well, if the front house is a rambler, you know, yeah say it's an older.

You're like 40 foot high garage door.

Yeah, detached structure that now is massive, and here's the front.

I I don't know, I don't know how you address that, but I to me an accessory is an accessory to the main dwelling, not dominating.

You know, and the the current code does allow for detached ADUs to have that same height as the uh main dwelling, as though that's currently in the code.

And and it still needs to have smaller footage than the main.

The same height, but okay.

So say the the existing home is let's just say 30 feet.

So uh where the maximum height is 35 feet, but say there is an existing home of 30 feet, an ADU could be 30 feet.

I just don't want it, so it's more than the main dwelling.

But that's not the change that we're discussing tonight necessarily.

The height restrictions.

Now allows uh detached ADU to meet the same uh setbacks and height standards that's in the code for housing.

Um so yes, uh that 35 feet, the right, and then the setbacks for the zone.

Um so this proposal doesn't change that, but it does allow for the um conversion of the existing uh accessory structures, so detached garages, that kind of thing.

Yeah.

The only thing it changed is is where it it's uh included in the text.

So they've taken it out from uh number eight here, and they've taken it out from the first part of two here, and then they combine those two together into a it's not changing it.

That's from from what it currently is.

Yes, uh a D ADU built today that's brand new, could be the 35 feet, but it does have some other restrictions, 50 uh percent of the footprint of the main dwelling, those kind of things.

So it already has to be smaller than the main home.

Perfect.

So but it yeah, but the underlying principle here when we put this forward a few years ago was the idea if you can build a house there, if like Andrew's saying, if you can extend your house there at that height and and with a detached accessory dwelling should be able to fill in that same envelope.

So you could have a lighthouse looking DA DADU.

Potentially if they had shorter if you have a ramp, if you have a rambler, yes, you could be located in the rear and may not be as uh obtrusive as you you're thinking once you get to the street.

But again, but again, if the existing house is 25 feet, it could be 35 feet, the DADU.

That's where I have heartburn.

Is that kind of a situation?

I think that's my own thing.

It would have to change that section of the city.

It would be yeah, it would be taller, and that's not what we're doing.

That's not just well, why don't we invite the applicant up and this might shed some light on an example?

Yeah.

So should we do that?

Sure.

Perfect.

Come on down, you know the drill, just state your name and tell us more.

I'm Ellen Rohr, that's my husband Bob.

And uh I'm a little disappointed that there are no unicorns or smiley faces on our application.

But it's just the luck of the planner you get, you know, it's just the luck of the no, I appreciate Todd's help and Jennifer and the team has been really helpful.

So the motivation behind this was if there is an existing garage on a property, and it would be suitable for an ADU, and I know you have to think of all different possible combinations, but attached detached garage that's already built has a different setback than the main house.

And so it would require that you take a sound building that would be perfect for an ADU or partial ADU like we're planning in our case.

But as we went through this, we thought we're not the only ones in this situation.

There are a lot of detached garages that would be really appropriate for an ADU, and that's within the spirit and the intention of Utah and Draper is to be able to make ADUs work on property.

Now, in our specific instance, it's a large shop that's already met code, it would require moving that building or significantly deconstructing the building.

And so we went the direction, you know, after visiting with the the the team, we went in the direction of maybe we could address this on a more global level for the city of Draper.

So that's really the motivation here, not to do something weird or awkward or and and those those requirements.

I think what Todd said too is that ADU has to be smaller, it could be taller, but the current you know uh code does encourage people to make a smaller version.

It could be abuse, I'm sure.

Now the other thing is as we looked into the other cities surrounding Draper, we're really kind of an anomaly.

The other cities have the same setback for the garage as for the house, or and it's 10 feet.

So the 20 feet is I don't think it's unique, or I don't know if it's unique to Draper, but it is definitely not in line with a lot of the surrounding cities.

And so this is our intention.

We hope to update this this policy because a detached ADU isn't really addressed at all in the code, and this is giving our city some clear guidelines or clearer guidelines to take a an appropriate structure, make an ADU out of it.

That sheds a lot of light on that.

So in your case, do you mind sharing your case exactly?

Sounds like you have a garage.

Yeah, we have a shop, uh and it's was built in a couple of years.

Is it a one-story, two-story shop?

What is what is it like?

Is it like how high is it?

No, my husband doesn't hear very well, so I'm reporting, but can I have him help me?

Okay.

Please do.

He can come right up.

Can you come on?

So he's the he's the man in charge of the actual the building.

So how how tall is the or what are the what is the shape of the current shop that we have?

Um it's a rectangle, and it's uh it was built what three years ago, I guess.

So it met all the requirements for the height of it.

I think it's um 15 feet on the sidewall is what it is.

And it was done by permit, inspected, and you know, uh, and just to get back to you know, somebody turning a shed or something into it.

It's a pretty strict um requirement to get a building permit here.

You have to have engineer drawings, you have to have an architecture.

People can't just go out there and get a permit and turn their pool house into an ADU.

So I think the main point is you know, that Draper being an anomaly that we looked at 10 surrounding communities here, and everybody's at 10 foot side setbacks.

We're wondering, well, what was the motivation for Draper to say, well, let's double it, you know, make it 20 feet in Draper where you could do in the Salt Lake City, actually it can be as less as little as seven feet if the height is lower.

So you know, you can go closer if you stay lower.

So we're trying to get a couple birds with one stone here, and what isn't addressed in the current um ADU is is a conversion, so it's a detached conversion.

So it the other codes call it this four letters, it's a detached conversion ADU instead of just a detached ADU.

So in other words, it's a building that's existing that we're trying to get um recognized or addressed in the code here.

Yeah, so that's a good point.

Like it doesn't address the detached already existing like like other cities have an entire different uh nomenclature for that type of ADU.

So now I'm curious, are you planning on building out the shop to be an ADU or building on top of it and keeping the shop below?

Just in your case.

No, it's our case.

Yeah, it it's a large enough shop that half they're all dead in front of the microphone.

Yeah, so there would be a garage next to it still, and then the uh ADU would just be in the picture of two-car garage, so just one side of it would be the ADU.

Interesting.

Good.

Like that.

And the intention, like many people, is for us to age in place, and then our family, all right.

We have a son and a daughter and a daughter-in-law, uh, granddaughter and a daughter-in-law, they take the big house, we move to the ADU, and we have an acre of property in the the Draper area.

So, and we know there's a lot of other draper citizens who might be in this situation.

So that's why we took this direction.

At first, we thought, well, maybe we just need a variance, but as we looked at it, like this might be a chance to to make this a reasonable change.

Perfect.

Well, thanks for all that explanation.

So any questions for these guys, regardless of no unicorn stick.

It's a see that bar was raised.

Nick really Nick really said it.

So thank you again.

Seriously, thank you.

Um I think it's an interesting issue we're facing because I've heard some uh grumblings, rumblings, however, you want to say it in my neighborhood of neighbors that have the desire to build them, not existing like you're doing, but I think the ADU process is gonna really take on a life of its own.

Yeah, part of it seems I think you have people like you who want to do an ADU for the stated reasons.

We want to age in place, we have family that'll take over.

And then like the first thing we saw today was the ADU that wasn't going to be rented out, which felt like it was really a casino with a breezeway attached to the house.

So I think we we're gonna start to see more of this that comes before us.

Yeah, that one being attached, that was like I said, I mean, that's interesting anyway, just because it was attached.

Yeah, it felt like it felt like almost like not needed.

It was just I I think we're gonna see more of it, and especially on big pieces of land, it does seem like so.

So the the uh so would this be allowed in this scenario with this proposed text amendment?

We have a a garage like they have.

Let's say it's just a real garage, right?

Which got a pitch on it and it's not 35 feet because it's just a two-car, four-car garage, let's say.

So now someone wants to keep that garage and add on top of it, which is why, like in those ivory developments, that was the idea, right?

You'd still have your awesome two-car garage in the front, then a bigger two-car garage in the back, and then capped on top of that to the 35 height would be a whole nother story.

It would that be allowed here on the new ADU.

So on the or excuse me, a converted garage, being able to add that onto the top, assuming the house footprint is two thousand square feet and the garage footprint is one thousand, which is half.

Yeah, possibly we'd have to probably look at it just a little bit.

Um because if that's not allowed, then this isn't in my opinion this isn't enough.

Yeah, the current the current ordinance say it wasn't a uh if if there was an existing structure that met the current setbacks, and they wanted to pop the top under the court and ordinance, they could.

Sure, if they if it met the 20-foot setbacks, that's not what we're talking about.

We're talking about the 10.

Yeah.

Yeah.

The 10-foot garage setback.

Now, the way this is written here, an existing building being converted would have to comply with those setbacks.

So if the existing building being converted could still fit within that, that might be a possibility.

Um the 25 feet to the peak kind of gives it a different uh in the 15-foot high walls, the sides, it might be a little bit of a challenge.

It could potentially happen.

Um, I guess I'm just asking why would that not be allowed.

It wouldn't be not allowed.

Why?

Because this would allow it to have the existing building converted.

So if that conversion is sorry, go ahead.

We might be saying the same thing.

So yeah, so it would be allowed to be converted to an ADU with a second story added, but because it's an existing structure, they're meeting the setbacks in 9104.0.

Correct.

Which is 15 foot tall walls and 25 feet to the peak rather than that 35 foot height limit.

Okay, so there's different parameters put on got it.

So what you're saying is because it has garage setbacks of 10 foot, not not dwelling setbacks of 20, it now has a different height and a different so you couldn't do it.

As to your point.

You can't you can't build a monstrosity.

But it could be done.

For new versus existing.

Yeah, we're we're talking I'm interested in the existing because this is gonna happen more and more.

Right, yes, for existing.

So my scenario would not, my concern would not fall into play.

So which is it?

Where does it where does it say that?

Is that is that in this 13.9, whatever it is?

I don't mean to belabor it, but it would is it is that what it is?

So that's that's what that's what every applicant would be told.

It's like, hey, I want to add one to stack on an ADU, because a lot of people don't want to get rid of their garage.

If we really want to tackle this for the entire city, a lot of people don't want to get rid of their garage, they're gonna want to say, hey, I just but I do want to add some affordable housing or some family housing on top.

I see this all over, like in I was just down in Mapleton.

There was a great property like this.

It's an awesome the house, it looks like a totally draper house way back, probably 60 feet to the back, it has a whole separate driveway, two-car garage, one bedroom studio apartment on top.

That is something that I can see people wanting to do here in Draper, and that did not even that had probably uh it's mapleton, so I don't know.

It's probably a 10-foot setback.

I mean, it was not very it was right almost up to the property line, but it it was brand new.

So my question is is this far going far enough to help fix Draper so that we can do what people want to do?

Well, a lot of times this sounds so easy just to add on top of a garage, but structurally engineering, I mean, when it comes down to it, it's not that easy to do.

You gotta change the whole truss system.

Yeah, so so it what sounds simple a lot of times is but but what they're able to weasel in, if you will, is the 10-foot setback, not having to raise the entire structure and start over.

True.

That's what they're able to do.

Yeah, well, yes, if this is and I think some people say that's still more cost effective than starting over.

Oh right.

Could be, yeah.

Or or it just changes like the dynamic of the law because sometimes it wouldn't even be feasible unless you've if you're requiring a 20-foot setback, can't do it anymore at that point, you know.

Anyway, so that's that's my comment is that I don't know if this goes far enough, so we can make a motion and do whatever we need to.

She's got this pulled up, she was gonna go.

Oh, yeah, sorry, you're itching this.

All right, let it rip, Jason.

Here, go ahead.

That's okay.

Um, so to clarify, and I and I'll open up the code on uh the ADUs is we'll talk about the ADUs.

So detached structured garage in the backyard.

Um these when they come in for that building permit, this is this is what's required.

10 foot setback from the property lines, and then uh 25 feet to the peak, and uh 15 foot tall walls.

Got it.

That's that's their standard.

So you can have a second story, but it's gonna look differently.

You're gonna be using dormers for your windows, you're gonna have some of the you know the the pitch in in the room, that kind of thing.

Um, but it is feasible to have a second story.

Got it.

Um so if somebody's coming in has an existing structure, predates our ADU code.

This text amendment gives them an avenue to turn that into an ADU with these standards.

Got it.

That makes sense because now that combats your concern of the monstrosity on top of an existing that's double dipping, basically getting the good garage set back and still going 35 feet, which it cannot.

I like it.

All right, great.

You're up.

I guess we're up for public hearing.

All right.

So this is a public hearing.

Go ahead and open it up for public comment.

Is there anyone that wants to address this item?

I don't see anyone, so we'll close the public comment.

Applicant had one more thing to say.

Did you want to say one more?

You're welcome to come back up.

Okay.

Just real quick, just if you've got anything additional.

So our accommodation for your concern was that the existing building met those accessory building height limitations.

That was the point.

That she said you did a really nice job to clarify.

That's why I had my done.

Okay.

Awesome.

Thank you.

Great job, everyone.

All right.

So, commissioners, just for a we're pushing it off to the city council.

What would you like to tell them?

I'll make a motion.

Go ahead, Lisa.

Um, I move that we forward a positive recommendation of the city council for the Roar ADU text amendment as requested by Ellen and Bob Rohr, application 2026-0051-TA, based on the following findings and the criteria for approval listed in the staff report dated June 2nd, 2026.

It's um very it's consistent with the goals of the city of the city's general plan, and um it's appropriate in the context of the request, and there is justification, I think, for the modification of the development codes.

Great, thanks, Lisa.

Who will second her motion?

I'll second.

Thanks, Susan.

All right, let's put that one to a vote.

Positive recommendation coming to the uh city council.

So, Lisa, how do you vote?

Yes, Susan, yes, Josh, yes, Kendra, yes, and Laura.

Yes, all right, unanimous.

Thank you.

Thanks for coming in, and thanks for tackling the whole city instead of just worrying about yourself.

So we appreciate you.

You guys are good Samaritans.

Thanks.

All right, so anything else we would like to discuss tonight.

Yeah, I just have an uh update for you from last Tuesday's council meeting.

You have two council meetings since last time we met.

Yeah, let's hear it.

One of them was just all budget, everything was budget the entire meeting, and it was a long meeting.

Um, the other one we did uh discuss a couple different uh planning items.

Um, that Nelson uh rezone there on third that brought that uh property that has the little home on it into compliance with lot size.

That got approved by council, and then the veranda west mastery plan and text amendment also got approved by council.

That was for the surf park.

Um they did have discussion about the water usage.

Um the developer did come better prepared to to talk about that as well.

Um so they they did take that uh concern into consideration and and had a discussion on that, but they did approve it.

Thanks for the update on there.

Sorry, Christine.

All right, let's go ahead and I don't see any other agenda items or any other business.

So what say you?

I move that we adjourn.

Great, Lisa.

Let's adjourn.