Okay, all right.

Welcome to our planning commission meeting, our Draper City Planning Commission tonight.

Um, our chair is out of town, and I'm the co-chair.

I'm Lisa Fowler, so I'll be conducting the meeting this evening.

Um, it is Thursday, July 9th, 2026.

I'd like to thank our staff for preparing the reports and working with our applicants so closely.

And um thank you for the commissioners to be here tonight, and also we appreciate the public and the applicants showing up.

Um we'll get started with our first action item, item 1A to approve the planning commission meeting minutes for June 11, 2026.

Um, do I have an uh uh motion on this from anyone?

Yep, I'll make a motion.

Do we approve the minutes of June 11th, 2026 is submitted?

Thanks, Susan.

Um, a second?

I'll second.

Thanks, Mary.

We'll put it to a vote.

Susan, how do you vote?

Yes, Mary.

Yes, Kendra?

Yes, Gary?

Yes.

And Christine?

Yes.

And I'm also um going to vote because I'm a member of the committee, right?

Or should I not vote tonight?

You get to vote.

The rules are weird, you get to vote.

I get to vote.

Yep.

Okay, so I also vote yes.

Okay.

Yeah.

Should we only have five of us?

If you want to not vote, you can make a motion to suspend that rule, and then we can have five votes if that's what we want.

So then we have no no need for a tiebreaker.

Yeah, you vote if you wanted to make a motion for that, you could do that.

Um the planning commission rules are follow what I call the Captain Barbosa strategy, and that is uh if you recall in Pirates of the Caribbean, Captain Barbosa says the rules of parlay are not hard and fast rules, they're more like guidelines.

That's kind of what your planning commission rules are like.

So if you want a five vote instead of a six vote, you can vote make somebody can make a motion to suspend the rule that you vote.

Okay, and that you'll vote only in the event of a tiebreaker.

Okay, well, I voted, and so we'll just assume that passes for now.

But commissioners, do you want to um create the the five-person vote for tonight?

Anyone want to make a motion for that?

Do we have a rule number we can cite?

Or can we just state what the rule is?

Spencer can alert the number.

I have to look it up though, because and I'm glad I brought my book.

While you're looking, why don't we go on to the next item?

Mary Ann could do her presentation and yeah, if somebody wants to invoke the Barbosa rule, we'll just call it that.

I move we invoke the Barbosa rule.

I'll second that.

Okay.

So you now do not get to vote.

Okay, except I have to put it to a vote, I think.

Yes, okay.

Oh, you're right.

Sorry.

Kendra, how do you Mary?

Yes, Gary.

Yes.

And um Christine.

Yes.

And I guess I'll vote yes, because I'm voting at this point, right?

Still.

All right, we're having fun.

Okay, this is a fun night.

All right.

All right, well, let's go on then to the one B, the public meeting for the Vista 11 South Subdivision Platte Amendment request.

This is administrative item on the request of Eric Winters representing watch Wasatch Residential Group, a subdivision plat amendment for 2.36 acres located at approximately 13657 south, 600 west.

It's known as application 2026-0093-SUB.

Our staff contact is Mary Ann Pickering.

Mary Ann?

Thank you.

This is a vicinity map showing the highlighted area for reference.

This is Banget or Highway, and then this is the 600 West exit.

This is a detailed view of the property again outlined in red.

It is an already already developed site.

The land use is TSD or Transit Station District, and the zoning is also transit station district.

What this request is is to take that one existing lot from today and split it into three lots.

The commercial buildings are already built as you saw, and the lots may be sold in the future by the developer.

All of the buildings do meet the standards for the zone.

For reference, this is the current plat.

It is this property right here.

And then you can see they're just adding the lines to create the three lots, and they've included all applicable easements.

And this one is just a public meeting tonight.

There's no hearing.

Thanks for the reminder.

Um, so are the lots the appropriate size then?

Yes, there are no size requirements in the TSG zone.

Great.

Thank you for rowing us.

All right, Commissioners.

Do we have the applicant here want to come up and share anything?

Please first state your name.

Adam Langford Wasatch Residential Group, 620 South State Street, Salt Lake City.

No comments.

Yeah, we're just carving into smaller lots.

It helps us with financing and the ability to sell them off in the future.

Just house cleaning, really.

Yeah, great.

Hold on a second.

Yeah, happy to answer any questions.

Yeah, Commissioners, any questions?

No.

Oh, okay.

Okay, thank you.

Um, okay.

Um comments, commissioners, discussion, or does someone want to make a motion?

I'll go ahead and I'll make a motion.

Okay, Gary, go ahead.

Um, I move that we approve the plot amendment as requested by Eric Winners of Wasatch Residential Group application 2023-4659-SUB based on the findings and conditions for approval listed in the staff report dated April 20th, 2024.

Thank you.

Can I have a second?

I'll second that.

Thanks, Kendra.

Okay, we'll put this to a vote.

Gary?

Yes.

Kendra?

Yes.

Susan.

Yes.

And Mary?

Yes.

And then Christine?

Yes.

Okay, thank you all.

And that's so that's approved.

Appreciate it.

Thanks for coming in.

Lisa, can I jump in for a second?

Of course.

Just so we can get this on the record.

The Barbosa rule is 1.3 of the Planning Commission rules and bylaws.

And the vote was to suspend for this evening rule 2.2.3 of the Planning Commission's rules and bylaws.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Okay.

Our next item is one C.

This is a public hearing for CleanCrum.co home occupation conditional use permit request.

This is an administrative item on the request of Jolie Larson representing cleancrum.co, a home occupational condition conditional use permit for approximately 0.47 acres, located at approximately 12983 South Fox Crossing Lane.

It's known as application 2026-0119-USE.

Our staff contact is Nick Whittaker.

Nick.

Thank you.

So yes, this is the cleancrum.co uh home occupation conditional use permit.

Here's a vicinity map.

Um here is the aerial map.

And land use, it is residential, low medium density, and the zoning designation is RA2.

So an overview of the request is it's a home occupation.

Uh the applicant is requesting to operate a cottage business that produces baked goods from the home.

Hoarders are placed online and delivered to the customer.

Uh the baked goods are sold at events and ordered online and delivered to customers.

Sorry, that was redundant.

Um, and no customers come to the home, uh, no additional employees.

Hours of operation are Monday through Friday from noon to 3 p.m.

All business is conducted within the applicant's home.

Here is a site plan that the applicant provided, and just a little note here uh applicant was here a couple of years ago almost exactly for another home occupation.

Uh Joko jewelry.

Um just a side note there.

Uh here is the site plan.

Um they utilize the kitchen.

Uh the number that they gave me was 150 square feet.

The impact analysis and mitigation is uh potential impacts would be customers coming to the home and associated traffic and customer vehicles parked on the street.

However, there are no customers coming to the home.

Um so that kind of takes care of that.

Um the proposed mitigation, of course, is um doing all the proper uh permitting uh through the various divisions, and the Draper City business license will be obtained, and that no customers come to the home.

And then a staff recommendation is uh staff recommends approval as the applicant's proposal does not negatively impact the neighborhood or the city.

The applicant's proposal will contribute tax revenue to the city, and the applicant's proposal supports the economic vitality goals found in the city goals and policies chapter of the city's general plan.

Here's a site photo.

And any questions or comments?

Nick, do you know if the applicant's still operating the other business at the same time?

Um I do not know, but I you can operate more than one business.

Oh, you can.

Yes, you can.

There's there's nothing in our code that prevents that.

Okay.

Great.

Any other questions for Nick?

Um, I do have a question.

If there are two businesses simultaneously running, does the square footage used, is that counted together?

Um, because there is a maximum percentage, I believe, of square footage that can be used for business purposes.

You are you are correct in in uh that there is a maximum square footage or that there is a certain square footage that you can have before needing a conditional use permit or but there's nothing that in our code that says that uh those numbers have to be added together if it's a separate business.

Okay, thanks.

I think this one was only two percent, right?

Yeah.

In fact, I can even show you here on the site plan.

The breakfast nook area by that bay window is where the other business uh operated.

I'm not sure if it's still in operation or not.

And so it would be a very negligible amount of space, regardless.

And did you say no employees?

No employees.

Okay.

That's what I thought.

Thanks.

Okay, well, thanks, Nick.

Appreciate your work to on this.

And um, we can invite the nap the applicant up.

Is um Julie Larson here.

Come on up and tell us say your name, please, and then tell us what you'd like to say about your business.

Okay, I'm Joey Larson.

Um, not really any other comments.

I had a jewelry business that's just like at my desk in our house.

That was my other um conditional use permit.

And then this one's just to sell baked goods at like the Draper Farmers Market and Draper Days.

Fun.

All right.

Um, any any questions for Jolie?

Okay, we'll call you back up if we need you to.

Come.

All right.

So let's open this up to public comment.

Um, I'll explain how public comment works at the planning commission.

Um, we have a timer over here, it's a three-minute timer.

And so if you want to make a comment, you'll have three minutes to speak.

Um, when the timer goes off, um, we ask you to stop, please.

Um, also um we this isn't a discussion time, your comment time.

We will listen to your comment, we'll take notes, and then we we will after the end of the comment period, we will answer or discuss uh the things that you've said.

So no back and forth though with the commission.

All right, so um, we'll open this up to public hearing.

Um anyone like to make comments on this item.

Okay, seeing none, we'll end the comment period.

Thank you.

And um does any commissioners you want to discuss the topic and or the item or put it to a vote?

I'm happy to make a motion if there's no other discussion again.

Okay, okay, Mary, go ahead.

I move it.

We approve the home occupation conditional use permit as requested by Julie Larson representing clean crumb.co application 2026-0119 dot USE based on the following findings for approval and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report dated June 26, 2026.

Finding for approval being the the proposal complies with the standards for approval found in Draper City Code Section 9-5-080E, and potential impacts are mitigated through the imposition of reasonable conditions.

Thanks, Mary.

Do we have a second?

I'll second that.

Kendra, thank you.

Okay, we'll put it to a vote.

Mary?

Yes.

Kendra?

Yes, Susan.

Yes.

Gary?

Yes.

And Christine?

Yes.

Okay.

You're approved.

Thank you.

Uh wait, that yes, we do approve that.

Okay, very good.

Okay, we'll move on to um item one D.

This is a public hearing titled 12430 South 700 East Zoning Map Amendment Request.

It's a legislative action.

On the request of Peter Gambrulis of Ivory Homes representing J Dawes Rentals LLC, a zoning map amendment for approximately 1.67 acres, located at approximately 12430 South 700 East.

It's known as application 2026-0103-MA.

And Mary Ann Pickering is our staff contact.

Mary Ann, thank you.

This is a vicinity map showing the properties highlighted in red for reference.

This is Pioneer Road right out front, and then 700 east.

This is a detailed aerial of the site.

You can see there is some development, but there is some vacant area in the back already.

The land use on this is existing residential medium density, and then the zoning as of today is RA1 and RA2.

The applicant is requesting to rezone from those RA1 and RA2 designations to R4.

And the corresponding land use of residential medium density is the one that corresponds with the proposed R4 zoning.

The applicant has indicated their desire to build a five-lot single family subdivision with a private road if this is approved.

And then they will have to meet all the minimum requirements for any future subdivision.

This one is a recommendation to the city council from you, and I did not receive any phone calls or emails about as a result of the public notice for this.

We've seen this plot, this site of land before, haven't we?

There was a senior living probably five years ago, four or five years ago.

And this is just plain single family.

R4 is the quarter acre lot minimum.

Will the will this lot um connect to the lot behind to the west of it?

No, the plan they've submitted that the concept is off 700 east.

Okay.

Any other questions for staff?

Okay, let's invite up the applicant.

Hi.

You you know the drill.

Please say your name and then share anything you'd like to.

Sure, thank you.

Um my name is actually Skylar Tobert.

Peter is in Francis tonight, so we divided and conquered.

Um, but I'm very impressed, Chair, that you pronounced his last name correct, because most don't get it right.

Um I I don't really have any further comment.

I read the staff report.

We're happy to comply with everything.

Um happy to answer any questions, or after the public hearing, I can answer other questions, but we do appreciate our relationship with Draper City.

We've got quite a few subdivisions in the city actively being built as we speak.

We love Draper, we've been here for for decades, and we appreciate our relationship.

So commissioners, any questions?

Um, yeah, are so you're planning on bulldozing the old houses?

Correct.

Okay.

So how is like is the 1887 home just too old to save, or it's just in the way?

Is it like I'm just wondering if we have anything in our policy about historic saving a really old house like that, yeah.

Yeah, which one is the oldest home?

Um, to be honest, I am not sure which is the oldest home.

Um the landowner's not here tonight, but I don't know if anyone on staff knows the Google and it was.

I don't know the dates, but I can answer your your question.

Um none of these homes are on the national register or anything like that.

The uh big red uh house to the directly the south of that, that's actually being added to the register right now.

We're going through the paperwork for that, but the homes on this property aren't on a national register.

There's nothing that would prevent a property owner from tearing down a historic structure just because of the age.

Okay.

Anything else?

No.

All right, thanks.

We'll call you up if we need you.

Thank you.

Can I ask a quick staff question before we do public hearing?

So the current zone is that conforming with the land use?

The R1?

It does not conform today.

No, this would make it conforming.

That's what I was thinking.

Okay, good catch.

Could you bring up the zoning map again for me?

The current zoning use.

So we've got some R 4 nearby.

And then it's a circle, right?

That the um then delay lane ends in a circle.

That's known as street cottages if you remember if you were on the planning commission back then.

That's that development.

Okay, thank you.

All right, thanks, Mary Ann.

Um, we'll um open this up to public hearing now.

So if any of you would like to comment again, please say your name first, and then we'll time you watch the timer for your um comment time.

Let me just ask a few questions.

Okay, so we'll we'll take note of your questions and then we'll discuss them.

Okay, sure.

So please go ahead.

So we're the house just your name.

Mark Beener.

Thank you.

We're the house just to the south of that, the historic home.

And um, question one of the questions is uh the property line, because when they did the development in the back, they actually moved it over a little to the north.

And I just wondered if that's a continuation of that, if it would continue.

I mean, so the fence line is there, but I don't know if because it's been there a certain amount of time, if it wouldn't be taken into account that it would be moved a little further to the north is uh one of the questions I have.

And then um I'm just kind of curious how the houses would be placed.

I'm guessing there'd be two houses on our side, and then the back lots would be butting up against our property, I'm guessing.

But I guess I don't know if that's if there's any of those details that could be answered right now, would that be helpful?

Okay, thanks.

We'll make note.

Other comments, Keith Short.

I think what Mark was saying is we would like to see a plot plan of what they're actually planning to the subdivision to look like.

We really don't want a wall going up along seventh east to eliminate them out of our subdivision.

And if they're gonna put a road down the middle of it, their private road, that could end up with the houses to the root back, so that they the backs were at 7th east.

So that's I think that's what he was trying to say.

Would it be appreciated if we could see a plot plan to know to be able to make a decision on how we feel about it?

Okay.

Thank you.

Anyone else thank you for this opportunity.

My name is uh Reed Gibby.

Uh uh, I live with my wife at seven, you know, six, six, seven Mandalay Lane.

Um, those three squares towards the top in a row, uh, were the ones on the right, about 50 feet from this uh property.

Um in general, uh philosophically from my profession of transportation engineering, I do get a little bit concerned uh to increasing density.

Uh I don't know if the city has a uh impact fee for schools for roads, um, because uh uh quite frankly, Pioneer Road is not the most smooth street in the neighbor in the uh world.

Um so that's just one little question.

Uh what my wife and I we're not really overly concerned about that being developed.

Uh it's kind of rustic.

There's a couple of old abandoned vehicles and an old uh shed that's probably historic.

Um when it first moved in, I was a little concerned about lightning hitting one of those cars and causing a fire.

Uh but being 50 feet away uh wasn't really concerned about that.

Um but uh the three homes that are gonna be removed, I guess.

Uh typically at least two of them are eyesores and an open field there with the abandoned vehicles, you know, kind of look kind of crummy.

In fact, when we looked at it uh first time in December of uh 24, we moved down from Suncrest from a uh lot that was uh about over 20,000 square feet.

Our current lot is under 4,000 square feet.

Our age, we gave away our snow machine and our lawnmower.

Uh so we're happy about that.

Anyway, so we we basically think that this could be an improvement with the neighborhood.

Thank you for your time, and thank you for your service.

Thank you.

Anyone else like to make a comment?

Okay, we'll end the public comment period then, and it looks like we have some questions to ask um the applicant.

Would you like to come back up?

Well, he's coming up.

Um I heard mention of a concept plan.

Was that submitted as part of the application?

It was not part of this application.

We saw it as part of the DRC.

Okay, but I will say also for the residents, this will go through a subdivision plat, and there will be a public hearing when they do propose the subdivision, should the rezone be approved.

Right.

Are the DRC documents publicly requestable?

Um, like Grammar request.

If I mean if they wanted to see them, I I don't know how the applicant feels about just sharing, but um since that was the answer to that, we'd have to research that.

Um I will say that um uh concept plan's not a requirement with uh a rezone application, right?

Yeah, understood.

Thanks.

Okay, thanks for coming up.

Um so um they wanted some wanted to ask um how would the houses be placed?

Do you have some idea of or can you describe that?

Sure.

That mouse next to you might work for pointing.

Yep, very touchy though.

This is good.

Um yeah, we've done a concept plan.

Um I've got a small one on my my phone right here, but that'd be hard to share with everybody.

But essentially, um, our smallest lot on today's concept plan is 11,600 square feet.

Largest is almost 13,000 square feet.

And the road, um, if you picture, you know, basically the middle, it comes in right here with a hammerhead here.

And I forget the gentleman, it may have been Mr.

Beener.

Um thought there'd be two lots on the south side, which is accurate, and then three on the north.

So the backyards of the south side homes would face south, backyards of the north side homes would face north.

Um happy to discuss the property line and fence line.

I don't know what happened previously, but happy to have those conversations.

Um seems like everything we buy in Salt Lake County that's been developed has something like this, so we're used to this and deal with it on almost every project we we do.

Um so happy to have that conversation.

We do have an alta survey that that uh we can get with, so I'm happy to get with you after an exchange information.

Um how many homes would go in this piece?

Five you said okay.

So it's essentially we're going from three homes to five homes.

Um there was one other question on traffic, um, and it's actually safer to have one point of ingress and egress on seventh east versus three driveways that people are backing in and out of.

So it actually improves the traffic flow and and safety of the uh community there.

Okay.

Um property line change.

That was another question.

Do you know about that?

Yeah, I'll get with uh Mr.

Beener after and discuss that.

If there's a concern there, we'll we'll work together on that, but we don't intend to necessarily do anything.

I don't have my Alta survey with me.

I know there were a few discrepancies on all three sides.

So oftentimes we agree to boundary or fence lines that have been there.

Um but we'll we'll have those conversations and that will get resolved before a plat gets recorded.

And if we need to record some boundary line agreements, we'll do that.

You know that too.

So but we'll see the plat and look at it eventually.

So along with those things, okay, those details.

All right, any other questions, commissioners.

No?

Okay, well, thanks for coming up.

Thank you.

Appreciate you working with the neighbors, though there it's of concern to them.

And I appreciate it.

Yeah, thank you.

Um other question about um Mr.

Gibby asked about any impact fees um for roads that would go to schools and so forth.

Um, yeah, and I did look those up as as you were asking the applicant questions.

Um, so the city uh takes in impact fees with the actual building permits for the homes.

So we take uh fire, uh parks and recreation, police transportation, um water if it's what well if it's in Draper City Water, they go to water pro for their water impact fee if it's in water prospect, and then um our stormwater impact fees currently suspended, um, so we're not collecting that one specifically.

Um so transportation impact fees.

Let me just look at that real quick because I know that's the one uh reed mentioned.

It's um 1152 per unit, and they pay those when we issue the building permit.

Great.

Okay, thanks.

Appreciate you looking that up.

All right, um, commissioners, any comments or discussion you'd like to have on this motion on this uh applicant.

I think it's a reasonable request, and I think it's um fits in well with the area, especially when there's R4 just to the west.

Um I like the idea of one access instead of the existing three.

I think it's an improvement.

We'll improve, you know, remove some older dilapidated homes and freshen up the area.

So I think it's a good proposal.

I I'm pleased to see instead of a commercial building or a commercial residence, resident type building, um homes, actual homes going in instead.

Me too.

Yeah, and there, you know, we've seen along pioneer lots of well, we've seen requests that I haven't loved.

And so I like that this stays residential.

I like it much better than the last application we saw, and I I think it's a I agree it's a really reasonable request.

So I like okay.

Do you have a motion then?

I'll make a motion.

Thanks, Susan.

I move the way forward a positive recommendation to the city council for the zoning map amendment as requested by Peter Gambralis of Library Homes representing J Dog's rentals LLC application 2026-010103-MA based on the findings of approval listed in the staff report dated June 30th, 2026.

And there are five findings for approval.

Thanks, Susan.

Any any second?

Could I ask a quick question before we second?

And I am sorry, but it just the name J DOS rentals occurred, it just occurred to me.

These will be single family home sites, correct?

Yes, that they will be.

Okay.

Being sold, presumably individually.

Correct.

Okay.

J Dog's rental is the name of the existing property owner.

Um it's a local family that owns several several pieces of property, but they rent them out.

Okay.

And that's the current landowner.

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you for that clarification.

Just hit me.

Can I?

I'm just, I'm sorry, before I I mean, I like I like the idea and everything.

I'm just really concerned about the historical factor of the house.

Like, can we have somebody look at the house and see if it's worth saving or not?

So I do actually, the historic preservation commission has been working on a reconnaissance level survey.

That survey looks at um really just quickly looks at each home that's 50 years or older in the city to determine if it's contributing um architecturally, that kind of thing.

Um we're currently reviewing that draft.

I can look to see what it calls out for these homes.

If I had to take a guess, I would say they're not contributing.

Um to be considered historic as far as being on a national register or something like that.

I think there's like five factors, but uh architectural integrity uh specific to a time period or a building that's attached to like a person or an event, something like that.

Um it's been a minute since I've I've really driven past and looked at these homes, but I'm I'm guessing they're they probably aren't worth saving, unfortunately.

Um that said, even if they were, there's nothing the city can really do.

Um for property, say a property that's on the national register that could very well be very much worth uh saving.

The code allows um well, all the demolition permits go to our historic preservation commission for review to determine whether it has this significant historical value.

Um if it does, they can delay the demolition of the permit in order to document the structure, take pictures, that kind of thing.

Um or they can delay it to try to come up with an alternative solution, whether that's uh relocating the home, that kind of thing, but they can't prohibit it from being demolished.

So we if we approve as the motion was then the the historic commission will still look at it, right?

Yes, so when we get that demo permit, they'll they'll look at it.

Um at a minimum, we'll get pictures of the homes so that we can actually document and have proof of what what was there.

Christine, how do you feel about that?

Yeah, yeah.

I'm I'm alright, I'm okay with that.

I'm also like kind of worried, like once if it if it is deemed unsavable, like what are we gonna find around it too?

There's gonna be like old artifacts that maybe Draper would be interested in.

Like I don't know the process for that either, but I'm just concerned about yeah, and that may come down to the property owner and their willingness to work with us.

I know at the roundabout the property on the northwest corner there on the roundabout on 13th, they just took down several of those those well, all of those buildings.

Um, the historical society and historic preservation commission had actually walked through that barn and a couple of the other buildings beforehand, um, took quite a few things that they found.

Um, so it really kind of depends on the individual property owner and what they're willing to do.

Sure, sure.

Okay.

Yeah, good questions.

Um do we do we want anyone want to make a second then to the Susan's motion?

I'll second.

Okay, Mary, thanks.

Well, since I derailed it, I'll do it.

Let's put this to a vote then.

Um, Susan, how do you vote?

Yes.

And Mary?

Yes, Gary?

Yes, Christine?

Yes.

And Kendra?

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

It passed.

So it'll go on.

Does that go on to the city or the city council?

It does, doesn't it?

Okay.

Great.

Okay.

Um our next item is item one e it's a public hearing for the boat right fence conditional use permit request.

On the request of Kristen and Joshua Boat Wright, a conditional use permit for a six-foot fence in the front yard area on approximately 0.23 acres, located at approximately 12474 south, Rollins Lane, known as application 2026-0123-USE.

Our staff contact is Nick Whitaker.

So Nick, take it away.

Thank you very much.

So yes, this is the Boat Right Fence Conditional Use Permit Request.

This area over here is where the Smiths is located, or as I always will remember it, where the Greywell CD Exchange was.

So an overview of the request.

Anything above six feet in height cannot be permitted in the front yard area.

So here's the purpose of the request.

It's a very unique purpose.

Again, the materials would be uh the white vinyl to match the existing fence.

Um impact analysis and mitigation would be um potential impacts to pedestrian safety and visibility at the northeast corner of the property.

Um that's the uh proposed mitigation is that all the requirements of Draper City Engineering Building and Planning Divisions are satisfied.

Um that uh the fencing shall not exceed six feet in height and shall be constructed only in the locations indicated on the approved site plan, so including that clear view triangle.

Um staff recommendation is uh the staff would recommend staff recommends to approve um based on the applicant's proposal uh that it does not negatively impact their neighborhood or the city.

Here is an ex uh site photo, and here is a uh another photo of the proposed or where the fence will be replaced and expanded.

Is that what the fence looks like currently?

Yes, okay.

It certainly would give them more yard to use.

Yeah.

I think I drove by this right after probably the day after the accident happened, and I thought, whoa, I hope nobody got hurt.

So I'm glad to hear that.

That's good.

Um I'm I'm in favor of this proposal.

I'm my only concern was that it meets the clear vision area, which it does.

So I think this is a great proposal for them, and we'll help them with their security, etc.

for their rear yard.

Security and using the lot.

Yeah.

Um let's have the applicant come up then.

Are you done, Nick?

Sorry, we kind of stopped you.

No, you're fine, you're totally fine.

Uh yeah, that's back to the presentation.

Thanks.

Thanks.

We'll have the applicant come up if you would say your name and then tell us what you'd like to share.

Um I'm Kristen Boat Wright.

Josh Boatright.

We're the property owners.

Um, we're just hoping to make our yard a little bit more secure and bring you know with a little bit more of it to utilize.

We'll make sure the fence stays within out out of the clear view triangle to make sure that there's still the visual for anybody who is turning, because I get it.

We pull out every day and the traffic coming by, you need to be able to see it.

Um if anything, I think it'll make neighborhood look better because it provides a little bit more privacy and it will look a little better, I think.

I think we need the block just down, so uh I guess west of us is the same vinyl on the corner, and so it would match the area uh perfectly, so it's nothing that would stand out significantly different than what's currently in the neighborhood and using the same similar materials so that way it is uh cohesive throughout their the neighborhood.

And we've made sure to not encroach like all the utilities that will still need to be accessed by the city, they'll be able to to get to them.

Yeah, it's a bit of a unique lot.

It is because like all the other forms are facing into the neighborhood.

Yeah whereas ours faces like north the side that yeah, or east.

I mean, yeah, yes, east parking and the front door.

Yeah, yeah.

It's unique.

It is.

I think it's good use.

I like it.

Great.

Any other questions for the applicants?

No.

Okay, thanks.

We'll call you up if we need to.

Um, it is a public hearing, so we'll open it up to public comment.

Um, if anyone has um any anything they'd like to include add or let us know, please come up.

Hello, I'm Peggy Stringfellow.

We live to the west, and they did come and touch our our fence in between the two properties.

So I'm really all for this, a reinforced fence.

The precedent for this type of triangle was set.

If you go further to the west, I don't know if you have a map of that.

There's a property that has that uses the same type of triangle clearance for for safety reasons.

And the difference is that that and ends up being more of the side yard where that triangle is.

So I look at it as well.

This is just semantics, or we're just talking about the exact same construction.

The house was facing their house, faces east, that other house faces south.

Same triangle.

I don't have any issues with it.

I think it's perfectly good use of the property.

Great, thank you.

Appreciate your comment.

Thank you.

Anyone else like to make a comment?

All right.

Um we'll close the public hearing portion.

Commissioners, any comment, any other comments or discussion?

I think this is pretty straightforward, and if nobody else has any comments, I can make a motion.

Okay, thanks, Kendra.

Go ahead.

I move that we approve the conditional use permit as requested by Kristen and Joshua Boatwright application 2026-0123-USE based on the following findings for approval and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report, dated June 26, 2026, and the findings for approval.

Is that the proposal complies with the standards for approval found in the Draper City Code section 9-5-080E and the potential negative impacts are mitigated through the imposition of reasonable conditions?

Thank you.

Do we have a second?

I think Susan.

Okay, let's vote.

Kendra?

Yes, Susan.

Yes, Mary.

Yes, Gary.

Yes.

And Christine.

Yes.

Thank you.

Okay.

It's it's a um we've approved that, but that will also no.

Does that that doesn't continue on because it's conditional use?

So it's approved.

Okay.

Good luck to you.

No more cars going through fences.

Good.

All right.

Did Mary make a motion to adjourn?

Not yet.

We have.

I thought she was.

Well, I mean, I'll I'll give Spencer some opportunity to speak before I do, but he's not paying us.

We're gonna adjourn.

I just think I'm not paying attention.

I'm paying attention.

If you want to adjourn, you can adjourn and skip the training, but we'll have to do more later.

No, let's do that.

I know.

Go ahead.

This is a good meeting to do this.

This is a good plenty early.

Yeah, go ahead.

That one went fast.

Fine.

All right.

So is it me now?

Is this up or no?

All right.

Well, I guess I have to pull mine up because I didn't pull mine up earlier.

Now I can't wait to hear what our topic is.

No.

And I just want to withdraw my statement that you weren't paying attention because I don't really believe that.

Okay.

Yeah.

Topic is uh topic is not exciting or interesting or good.

Uh and neither is the training, to be honest.

Um, I have a law school buddy who texted me that he's at the Pines, and I invited him if he finishes dinner early to come and see it.

Um this is Todd asked me to do 45 minutes, a half an hour because we're kind of behind on training, but we're not doing that.

Um we're doing like maybe a half an hour tops.

So you have a lot of files.

My goodness.

So we are doing our planning commission legislative update.

Yes, okay.

Simpsons.

And it's you know, it's not Simpsons themed.

Oh, okay.

But this is themed.

Well, you'll see.

Um we're gonna talk about our our legislative update, or as I like to call it our land use bill extravaganza.

Um HB 284.

Hang on, I gotta pull my notes out here.

HB 284 was the bill, or no, SB 284, Senate Bill 284, was the bill that um that made major revisions to our land use um law.

And and we're gonna talk about the parts that are uh specifically relevant to the planning commission tonight.

Um this bill is brought to you by Senator Lincoln Fillmore.

And um, so we'll get to it to see what we have here.

So first we have the planning commission ordinance, and this meme adequately represents how I feel about our planning commission ordinance right now.

Um our planning commission ordinance uh needs to change as a result.

Now I've got an ordinance draft ready to go.

We're probably gonna be submitting it to council on the 21st that changes our planning commission ordinance to update it and make it consistent with uh what state law will now require.

So our current current ordinance is uh 35030.

It talks about appointment, removal, and recusal, and we will talk about those things tonight.

Appointment, removal, and recusal.

Um, out of curiosity, does anybody know how we get removed from the planning commission?

I assume you all know how you got appointed.

If you're if you're here and you don't know how you got appointed, raise your hand, please.

Because I would like to have words with Troy about uh his selection process.

Um removal's just tire.

That's that's retirement.

That's a voluntary removal.

Don't show up.

That's one way that you can, according to our ordinance, yes.

I'm talking about like expulsion.

Yeah, basically.

Does anybody know how you get the boot right now?

I think I think someone can make a motion, right?

And have you removed at least from a meeting?

From the meeting.

From the meeting.

From a meeting.

I think I read that because I looked at the rules relatively recently.

What the no, no, I'm talking about removed permanently from the planning commission.

Not we're kicking you out of the meeting because you're you're being terrible.

And not just an expiration then of a or a non-renewal of a term.

Right, and not just a non-renewal of a term because we've seen that recently.

Like you're in the middle of your term and you are no longer on the planning commission.

We serve at the pleasure of the mayor, right?

So I'm assuming uh city council.

Don't they have to vote on that?

Yeah, probably if it if we were having ex parte conversations, I would throw out 10 per tantrum.

I kick it on grounds for getting the remove.

Yeah.

Yeah, so our ordinance does say that uh that the mayor can remove, but he's got to have the votes of the council.

So it's kind of a combination.

Yes, serve at the pleasure of the mayor, but the council has to ratify everything.

Um there is a need for revision amongst our amongst our code.

And this is kind of how I feel when we talk about revisions needed to our code, no matter what they are, because when I started preparing this presentation, we had just barely implemented some very important land use code uh amendments that were required by state statute in 2025, and the legislative session for 2026 was almost over.

So it's like a never-ending cycle.

This is how we all feel when we see the legislative updates.

I track the legislative updates for the city for all of the departments, not just land use, and it's kind of a nightmare every year.

And you see the stupidest bills, and you think what are they thinking, and you can't believe that some of these people get elected by who you would hope are reasonably well informed uh people in the public.

I need you to change the slide, it's giving me anxiety.

Okay.

So our current removal, as I mentioned, mayor removes council consent.

Here's our new removal process.

The legislative body will remove, and it's no longer an exercise of mayoral authority, and the removal must include a list of at least one of the statutory reasons.

Now, previously the mayor could be like uh, you know, you took your dog on a walk and your dog pooped on my lawn, you're out.

Um mayor can't do that anymore.

That's not a reason.

So why can you be removed?

Does anybody want to take a stab at reasons why you could be removed from planning commission?

If you're just taking a guess at it, what would you think?

For cause.

For cause.

I have cause, David, it's because I hate him.

Does anybody know what that's from?

The office.

Yes.

And I that's actually the slide that I was looking for.

I couldn't write that meme.

So I was like, no, this one's good too.

This is good.

So yeah, it's because I hate them.

No, four cause.

Yeah, there's got to be four cause, but the statute actually identifies which one of those things are.

Oh.

All right.

So this shouldn't be too much of a problem because our planning commission does not have public funds.

Okay.

That's good.

But I got to imagine that there are planning commissions out there that do have public funds.

Any time any city employee uses public funds or public resources or assets for a political purpose, it's a huge no-no.

It's a it's very verbotan.

And it can get you fired, it can get you removed from office, it can um it can really mess up your day.

So is this new law specific to planning commissions?

This is very specific to planning commission.

Wow.

Yeah, that is an interesting.

So Senator Fillmore is I I don't know what he's got against planning commissions, but he's taking a shot at everybody.

Um is he a developer?

Yeah, that's what I was saying.

Check LinkedIn.

We should have this conversation.

Should we Google it?

No, let's go on.

Please go on.

Well, isn't that like kind of one of the reasons how we would get kicked off is for like conflict of interest like that?

Like if we were a developer or something, and we're kind of I don't know.

I'm that's yeah.

Yeah, so Christine, you mentioned a conflict of interest.

That's actually on the list.

But let's so good job.

Um here's a second one violating the municipal officers and employees ethics act.

Um we'll do a training on that next time.

Next time it's my turn to train, we'll do the ethics training because you should be having the ethics training fairly regularly, and it's been a minute since you got the ethics training.

Um the interesting thing about the state ethics law and the corresponding city ethics law, which follows the state uh municipal officers and employees ethics act is there's not a whole lot that's unethical under the law.

It's a lot less than what you would think it is.

When I was in law school, we had to take this class called professional responsibilities, and we had to pass a class or pass a test that basically said you were gonna be an ethical lawyer, it's part of the bar exam.

And um the stupid thing about that class was it wasn't designed to teach you how to be ethical.

It was designed to teach you how unethical you could be without crossing the line.

And our municipal officers and employees ethics act kind of mirrors that, you know.

Um there's a lot that's not unethical under the act, but it's like icky.

Um if you act with the intent to influence a land use, this is directly from the statute.

I'm gonna just quote it here, with the intent to influence a land use decision or an appeal of a pending land use application in a manner that creates actual impermissible bias or unacceptable risk of impermissible bias in your administrative or quasi-judicial duties.

That's the biggest word salad I've seen in a long time.

It is it is a it is a big word, Sally.

Quasi judicial.

You're not judges, you're not sworn as judges, you're making decisions.

Yeah, but I don't think you're tasked with making any judgment calls.

We kind of have an appeals and variance officer for that.

Um in theory, you could be the appellate body for some decisions like that Jen makes.

And then somebody's got to come to planning commission because Jen makes Jen's our zoning administrator.

So I when Jen makes a decision as the zoning administrator, if the recipient of the zoning administrator's opinion does not like what the zoning administrator has said, uh, then they can appeal to the appeals and variance officer.

And then I will argue before the appeals and variance officer why Jen got it right.

Now, sometimes if you make a decision, that appeal can go to the appeals and variance officer as well.

And then I argue to the appeals and variance officer why that decision is right.

So you're not a quasi-judicial body in our city ordinance, but if our ordinance were ever to change and you were given that appellate authority, then you would be acting in a quasi-judicial capacity.

You are more in an administrative capacity.

Um, all your authority is administrative, and it's been delegated to you by um the city.

Anything that you hear that is a legislative issue is just a recommendation anyway.

So can you give us an example of that one?

I mean, like if I'm talking to people outside of the meeting.

Yeah.

Okay.

Yeah.

So if you're an applicant, you mean touching an example.

I'll give you an example.

If I'm on the planning commission in the city where I live in West Jordan, Utah, and I find out that David Dobbins, after he moved over to West Jordan for a short time, was going to get a Trader Joe's installed uh three minutes away from my house.

And I find out ahead of time before Trader Joe's is announces it, before West Jordan City announces it, and then I go to the other planning commissioners and I say, Hey, I really need this Trader Joe's.

I gotta get my snack fixed, and I don't want to drive to Draper to get it.

Um that would be acting with the intent to influence a land use decision that creates an impermissible bias.

I mean, but is that an impermissible bias?

That just because I mean you like it, but you're not benefiting, it's not I mean impermissible bias is pretty strong language, I think.

And an actual, these are all like legal words that have a lot of weight.

Well, yes, but we haven't tested this in the in the arena of planning commissions with land use.

Well, that's why I think it's a word.

So impermissible.

It's why we don't talk about it in our in our dinner time.

Right.

Right?

Right.

We don't want to be discussing well, I I would say that it does create I mean it's impermissible in the sense that it violates the open public meetings act provisions.

But not if you speak individually, only if you're speaking in a quorum.

Right.

But if I'm lobbying votes or if I'm if I'm or how about how about if I were to go and tell all my neighbors, hey, this is coming, go and speak in in favor of the Trader Joe's when it gets to planning commission.

You know, that's kind of lobbying.

That's that's probably not on behalf of an applicant.

On behalf of an applicant, that's probably not permissible.

Or here's here's an interesting one that's a little bit more applicable.

If in your capacity as planning commissioners, um you get a say in items that come before you before they go to council.

So do all of your lobbying from the dais when those items come before you, and then we I would recommend that we not say anything after that to council members, especially, right?

Because they'll read your report and they'll see what it says.

I don't know what that what like you said, Mary, it's a word salad.

We don't really know what this means.

Well, and I don't I mean, I I take issue with the last thing you said, because that is an absolutely not impermissible according to our rules or state law.

And I can tell you that definitively.

So I do take issue with that.

Okay.

I don't think that is any sort of violation to this or our rules.

But you can move on.

This this hasn't this hasn't been this hasn't been tested yet.

And so Well, but that's in our capacity.

We're not allowed to create bias in the proceeding that we are voting in.

That most certainly does not exclude us from participating in our own city and lobbying our city council members after we have heard something.

Absolutely, that's not what that says.

So that's that's what I take issue with.

Okay.

So uh here's this next one.

Deliberating about specific pending land use applications in a planning commission meeting with staff or with an elected official is not cause for removal.

So not cause for removal about that's that's the next one.

So you're right, Mary, um, on that one.

But impermissible bias, I still don't know.

Umflict of interest.

I don't know.

That's a legal standard.

That is a legal standard, but that's a stupid legal standard.

I know, that's why I still like I don't know what we're gonna get to.

Um conflict of interest.

Anybody want to give some examples of conflicts of interest?

When we have a financial relationship with the applicant.

Correct.

What else?

Well, an application on that is ours.

Like if I were to apply for an conditional use permit, I could not sit on that panel.

Correct.

What else?

We've recused ourselves if a a close neighbor or friend is making is an applicant.

Oh, that's a good one, but we're gonna get to it's not uh but we've done it anyway.

If if there's a lot of people, but you shouldn't.

If you have to feel it.

But if you if they're a client of yours, if they're a client, yes.

That's a totally different situation.

But just a friend or somebody you know, you don't necessarily have to refuse your so how about levels of consanguinity?

Do we know what that means?

No.

Consanguinity means blood relations.

Spouse or parent.

Spouse or parent, what about what else?

Child, child, child, child, sibling, cousin, cousin, and uncle.

Uh another one is an adult living at your house who's unrelated by blood.

So if you have a tenant.

You're saying it's a conflict if it's a blood relative.

Yeah.

Where's the line then on the Well, if it's a tenant, you're in a financial relationship with that person.

Yeah, like someone.

Yeah.

The state ethics law says something about it.

I can't remember where it says, but I think it's like three levels of consanguinity or something like that.

Like grandparents, aunts, uncles, like you're that that level of orbit of your family.

So my cousin would be a conflict.

Yeah.

Because I did recuse myself when my cousin was here, but that was the main reason I did was because I had financial ties.

So I did recuse myself.

But when I talked to the attorney prior to the meeting, the fact that I was a relative, I was told was not an issue.

But I recuse myself anyway because there was the financial in addition to the relative.

Yeah.

So that's that's a reason to recuse.

The level of consanguinity is also a reason to recuse.

If and go getting back to this, if it's going to a reasonable person would look at it, okay.

Let's say I have a cousin who I haven't seen in forever, and I don't recognize when they come to the dais.

Uh you laugh, but that actually happened to my brother.

My brother, my brother was a missionary in San Diego, and he was at somebody's house, and this person that whose house he was at was uh was a um a child care person, and somebody came in to pick up their kid, and um my brother was sitting there taught waiting for this person to pick up their kid and leave, and this person looked at him and he's like, Duchesne, are you my cousin?

My brother is like, I don't know, who are you?

First were they first cousins?

Yeah, it was my first cousin.

And he said his name, and he was like, Oh, are you are you Aunt Mary Ellen's kid?

And he's like, Yeah.

He's like, Yeah, you're my cousin.

No, thanks.

Maybe they'd recognize pass.

So like if you that if if it's something like that, like you're you're probably not gonna be influenced.

But I think that there is there is an ethics law on the books that says this level of consanguinity.

Um, so we're gonna do an example.

A planning commissioner sits on the board of a charter school and the charter school is looking to add a campus in Draper.

Uh the parking deviation study says a deviation is permitted.

The planning commissioner votes to grant the parking deviation.

And does this act action constitute a removable action?

Why or why not?

On the board of a charter school and on the planning commitment.

I mean there's a conflict for sure.

Yeah.

Yes.

Okay, why?

There's a benefit to the commissioner in their capacity as a board member.

Well, they're on the board.

Yeah, they're on the board.

They are the applicant in the a party to the applicant.

Could the could the parking study be legit?

And it's not a problem.

Sure.

Doesn't mean that there's not a conflict of interest.

Just because the outcome, the outcome doesn't dictate whether or not there's a conflict.

Right.

It's not outcome determinative at all.

If you have a position where with a pecuniary interests in a in a different capacity, and then you also on the planning commission, you don't vote on those things.

All right.

So reasons for excuse me, I'm being distracted by the cookies in the other room.

Todd, will you go get them for us?

You know, snacks.

Bring some napkins, please.

It's snack time.

I want one of the chocolate ones.

Okay, go ahead.

Yeah, let's talk about reasons for recusal.

And this is my meme.

I don't always recuse myself, but when I do, it's for more than being just neighbors.

Um that's not a reason necessarily for recusal.

Again, if you have a pecary relationship with your neighbor, probably should recuse.

All right, so our reasons for recusal, the state statute now requires that we codify them.

Uh DCMC 1910, or 1910, and the others are our states, or no, I mean excuse me, our city ordinance re regarding our ethics laws.

And our amendment to the planning commission section that we're going to be implementing soon is kind of a belt and spit suspenders approach because Draper City Municipal Code 191010, which you're all already bound by, spells these things out as well.

So our amendment to the planning commission section that's gonna mirror state law, it's just kind of it's redundant, but we're gonna put it in there anyway because the state law says we have to put it in our planning commission code.

So the current code where it resides, is that applicable to any city of voting member of any commission or city body?

191010?

Yeah.

Yeah, because it's a municipal officers and employees ethics act relationship.

Right.

Okay.

So you are all officers of the city.

Yeah.

So 191010 applies to you as well.

That's our ethics code.

We will be doing a training on that sometime.

Will it be identical to the current more widely applicable cult code, the update?

No, the update's gonna follow directly what the state statute says in SB 284 about the planning commission ethics specifically.

Okay.

But it is it's basically the same thing.

Yeah.

So we're we're required to put it in by statute.

It's kind of redundancy.

Um, but we're doing it because we've been told to.

All right.

So we have new training requirements.

We need to train you on the role of the planning commission in administrative, legislative, and quasi-judicial functions.

We've done a little bit of that tonight.

Legislative, you don't have any.

Quasi-judicial, you don't have any, and your role is administrative only and recommending body in the other capacity.

Um interesting thing is where the planning commission's uh code is housed, it's housed in a section of our code called subordinate bodies, and we break out our subordinate bodies into two different types of groups, commissions and committees, and the differentiation there is the commissions have administrative tasks delegated to them by the city council, which is permissible, and the committees are recommending bodies only.

The exception to that is the audit committee, which is actually should be called a commission, but we call it a committee because the state auditor wants us to call it a committee.

But they do have administrative um delegated tasks.

So we have to give you three hours training on a combination of land use and ethics topics.

So tonight's gonna count for some of that.

Our new ethics topics that are that must be included in in this is ex parte communication and conflicts of interest.

We've talked a little bit about those.

So this is uh Senator Fillmore, uh our sponsor of the bill.

Um and we're gonna talk about conflicts of interest for no particular reason at all.

With Senator Fillmore's face on the background there.

Let's say a charter school board member owns a tech solutions company.

Let's say said charter school board member uh is involved because the FCC offers grant money to help pay for tech infrastructure upgrades in schools across America.

And let's say the charter school board members tech solutions company is one of several companies that bid to do the upgrades in the charter school.

And the charter school votes to give that board members' company the contract.

Is there a conflict of interest?

Why or why not?

I'm gonna take a stab at this.

If you're on the planning commission, I'm guessing that's conflict of interest.

But if you're in the legislature, I'm guessing it's not.

Very good answer.

This guy from Mary.

If you're a planning commissioner, it's a conflict of interest.

If you're a legislator, it is not.

All right.

So here's our next uh slide for no particular reason at all.

And so the standard of proof on appeal, if something that you decide gets appealed, I think we've talked many times about this, but I like to reiterate it every single time because every single time I have to do an appeal, this is there.

Applicable standard of proof for overturning a PC's land use decision is substantial evidence.

Um this is our this is our legal definition, these three bullet points.

Um the first three, anyway.

That's not a very difficult standard to meet.

Umre scintilla.

What's a scintilla?

The weight of a feather.

The weight of a feather.

So we debate this in law school.

I know we're crazy, aren't we?

That's law school stuff.

Yeah, this is law school stuff, but it is a legal term that gets applied every single time.

And um something less than the weight of the evidence.

So the weight of the evidence is what for the lawyers.

Kenda, we're calling on you now.

Oh, now we're employing the Socratic method.

Yeah.

What's what's what's the something less?

I have no idea.

It's something less than the greater weight of the evidence or preponderance of the evidence.

What is that standard?

Right.

Yeah, it's something it's less than tipping the scale slightly one way or the other and more than putting a feather on the scale.

That's that's effectively what substantial evidence standard is.

So it's not a very difficult standard to meet.

It's not a difficult burden to meet.

It's could a reasonable mind reach the same conclusion.

That's another way that it gets defined legally.

Um and you know what?

Hats off to the planning commission because you all have great statements that you give in planning commission meetings that help me when I have to argue this standard.

Like Mary gave some great statements once with uh development that was putting in, was not putting in sidewalks.

And she pointed out hey, this doesn't meet the code because it's not reaching certain amenities.

Sidewalks aren't getting to certain amenities, so people can't walk to them.

They have to be in the road.

That was one of our uh our the thing, the examples that I can remember off the top of my head.

Good job, Mary.

Oh well.

I had love sidewalks.

I had to go back in the record and I had to listen to the entire planning commission meeting, including all of the public comments on the topic and then cite to the record in the in the number.

So and Gary also pointed a few out about why uh sidewalks were should have been required in different places.

So I appreciate it when you do that.

Um would you tell us which project?

I'm just curious.

Or should we not?

Probably shouldn't say it on the record, but if you want to find out afterwards, I'm happy to tell you.

Now I'm curious.

Okay.

Thanks for the kudos.

All right.

So who's an adversely affected party?

People who own the property, people whose property join adjoins the property uh that is the subject of a land use application.

Now, so this is that's who has standing on an appeal, right?

Right.

That's who has standing on an appeal.

So the city also has standing on an appeal.

So let's say the you, as the planning commission decide to grant a conditional use permit.

And the city council says we don't want that conditional use permit to be granted.

We want you to appeal that decision to the appeals and variance hearing officer.

Now I have to go and argue that the planning commission got that conditional use permit thing wrong because this the city could be an adversely effective party.

Um I don't think the city would do that, just to be clear.

Um we have I actually have one that came to mind.

I won't bring it up now, but I will.

I would like to chat with you about it later.

I don't think it happened, but city council was really mad about it.

So there's so this is the interesting thing.

Like we're talking about land use regulations, uh land use applications or land use decisions, and those are very that's differently defined than a land use regulation, which is in in Ludma.

Um in Ludma, a land use regulation is something that generally is strictly limited to something that's legislatively controlled.

That's the discretion of the legislature.

So we had um a lawsuit that we were defending recently where somebody had claimed that uh they were an adversely affected party, they did not have property adjoining the the project.

Um we went to court over it, and our argument was this is not a land use decision or a land use application, this is a land use regulation.

Um we had an injunction against us, and we won the injunction, and uh the the person who sued us realized they were not likely to succeed on the merits and said that they would drop out.

We have yet to see what's going to happen with that.

Um but you also must suffer, or you could suffer damage different in kind or distinct injury from that of the general community as a result of the land use decision.

And this is a weird one, and I've never seen it happen.

I can't give you an example of it.

If any of you can think of an example, I'm happy to hear it.

The second bullet point suffer damage different in kind or a distinct injury from that of the general community as a result of the land use decision.

I mean, I can see something well, and this is land use.

I mean, if we're talking about a closure of a road, maybe, or access being cut off, or you know, something like that being affected, but I don't know.

I don't think it's a high bar.

I don't think road closures are land use decisions.

Those are those are administrative decisions that the city that's city controlling its road as a property owner.

Yeah.

So would it be something then that necessarily comes through the planning commission to qualify as a land use decision or not necessarily?

Yeah, it would have to be something that's administrative because it's a land use application, it's not a land use regulation.

So it could be something that comes through the planning commission, but there are also administrative tasks related to land use that the city council does.

So could be that as well.

But it seems like one they just added as a catch-all just in case the first bullet point wasn't met, but somehow the second one was.

In the interest of justice.

Yeah, exactly.

I guess so.

I would prefer it not be there because I don't want somebody claiming that they have some kind of distinct injury, because then we got to fight about what that is.

You know, we actually had one.

It was a concrete block manufacturing business next to the humane society, which they claim and it did blow dust around.

It was right next door.

Right next door.

Okay.

So this goes back to our immediately adjacent property.

Let's see.

And it yeah, they appealed it and it got really hairy and drunk things out for a long time.

Yeah.

But yeah.

So let's say a conditional use permit.

Okay, so here's that was a C U P.

Here's my weird example.

Let's say a conditional use permit for a mining operation.

Hypothetically.

Hypothetically.

Allegedly.

Right.

We're not talking about surface mining.

Let's say let's say it's a it's a land use application for a forjury.

No, no, no.

For a we're we're not gonna be specific to people we like or businesses we like or dislike.

Let's go to let's go to the world of oil and gas.

There's a make-believe.

I I I came from wildlife, but I get a lot of oil and gas in wildlife.

Let's say uh somebody is injecting wells with their ground their their groundwater refuse when well gets extracted.

There is groundwater that has to be dealt with and it's contaminated, and you can't just put it back into the water system because then it has these chemicals.

And so what oil and gas companies do is they'll put it back into the ground.

Now let's say somebody has a well that is five miles down the road.

If we approve the land use application, and this person that's five miles down the road because they've got a conditional use permit to mine the oil, let's call that that's what our conditional use permit is.

You have to get a conditional use permit to mine the oil.

And somebody comes in to the planning commission and says, if you allow this conditional use for mining oil, the oil company will put its wastewater back into the bedrock.

That's going to make its way into the aquifer and it's going to poison my cows that I feed out of these water rights that I have for so many acre feet for so many AMUs.

And planning commission says we don't know anything about water rights or AMUs or groundwater.

Uh, but it seems like it'd be okay because you're five miles down the road.

Well, they can make an appeal.

I suspect that they would suffer damage different in kind or a distinct injury from that of the general community as a result of the land use decision.

Um I think that that would probably be a legitimate like gripe that somebody might have, and and we should probably have that bullet point in for somebody like that.

All right.

So am I an adversely affected party?

We're gonna go to another hypothetical charter school board member owns property A.

Charter School is located at property B.

Property A, let's just say for I forgot to put this in there.

Property A and property B are adjacent.

Okay.

An applicant for a home occupation conditional use permit making custom coffee blends with one employee is granted a conditional use permit on the condition that the application that the applicant take reasonable enforcible measures to mitigate any odor the operations might emit.

We actually had this one at one point in time.

Um better building uh guy moving that.

That was crazy.

Now our charter school board member complains that he does not want to smell the coffee being made because he's a thief of joy from his house.

He speaks in his individual capacity because he's never at the school, he's just a board member of the school.

And is the charter school board member an adversely affected party?

Doesn't the adverse well, and now I'm not remembering does the adversely affected party need to own the property?

Yeah, so let's go back to our previous slide.

If we want to look at our standards.

They can't cl complain about something the entire city would the entire adversely personally adverse affected suffered community.

Okay, so no property ownership is required.

Distinct injury from that of the general community.

I would say no.

I don't think so.

Because everyone has to smell it, not I mean, gets to smell it, excuse me.

Yeah, it's really good coffee.

Okay, so there's no distinct injury.

Okay, so in this hypothetical, the board member says he doesn't want to smell the coffee being made from his house, but his house isn't on property B.

The charter school is located on property B.

So here's the other interesting thing.

If the charter school board member says I am making this statement on behalf of the charter school, and we don't want the kids to smell the coffee, you know, that's one thing.

But if he comes in and he says, I don't want to smell it from my house, but it's his property is property C and not adjacent to property A.

Uh I don't know why I have this charter school is located at property B.

I meant that the applicant.

Is the charter school A or B relevant here?

I'm not even charter school as our example because they're our target tonight.

Yes.

What's that?

They're our target tonight.

Yeah, and for very good reason.

If you want to know more when you get done with planning commission, you can Google Lincoln Fillmore, charter school board member.

Oh, I know about legal.

Um so no, there he's not an advocate.

The charter school board member in this case is not an adversely affected party.

They do not have property that's adjacent.

Because they're complaining about smelling it from their house, right?

They don't own the property.

The charter school owns the property that's adjacent.

The if the charter school board member is speaking on behalf of himself and for his house, that's not adjacent, it's not a distinct injury.

Everybody in the neighborhood gets to smell the coffee.

So it's time to pick up and move neighborhoods for charter school board member.

Do we have any questions?

Todd, were you keeping track of time?

I don't know how much time that was been like 40 ish.

Yeah, I think it was 40.

Okay.

Yeah, 713 to 751.

So yeah.

All right, not bad.

That's my that's my presentation.

If you have any questions about ethics or uh any of that, or if we want to recognize that Mary was right and I was wrong, which I'll do, we can do that.

If you want to make a motion, Mary, I'd entertain the motion.

Oh, well, I'll make that motion.

I just want I I don't want to we need to do it prematurely.

We need to clarify with you guys that there's no meeting on the 23rd.

Oh correct, right?

So this uh this month the meeting should be the 23rd, but we're skipping it because of the 24th.

Correct.

So the meetings on the 30th.

Gotcha.

Okay, we're just pushing in a week, not moving it up a week.

Correct.

Yeah.

Okay.

It gets too hard having the meetings back to back.

Yeah.

Is there any other announcements you have for?

I was I've got a couple things.

I just want to well, I want to give you an update from council, but while Spencer was doing his uh training, I did look up those houses on Seventh East.

Um, the Southern House was built in 1887, and the other two were built in 1941.

Um I'm guessing the two southern ones could be contributory, um, but not for architectural style.

So I don't think there'd be um uh a reason to to push for preservation.

Um, and then the the northern house has been substantially changed too much to be contributory in any way.

Oh, okay.

Sorry, I am an anthropology major.

No, no, you're good.

But it's a it's a real issue for Drake.

Yeah, there's not you guys don't have a whole lot of old old houses.

I mean, you do, but you kind of have to find them.

It's getting harder and harder to find them.

So yeah.

Christine, I'd be happy to discuss implication of state and national historic preservation laws afterwards if you'd like, because I am fairly well versed in those.

Oh, nice, okay.

I will I will say we do have a very active historic preservation commission.

Um, and they they do get properties put on the national register every year.

Um we can get funding from uh the state preservation office.

We do typically partner with property owners on restoration work for that funding.

Um when we can get funding from uh the state preservation office we do typically partner with property owners on restoration work for that funding um so we do have an active preservation commission uh working towards you know preserving these homes and these buildings but at the end of the day you could have a building on the national register and if the property owner wants to tear it down they can tear it down so yeah um but so real quick we had Tuesday uh council meeting this week so there were three items on the agenda um one was a text amendment for corner lots fixing um some issues with code that was approved by the city council um the other two um kuahara's uh nursery development agreement and uh zoning map amendment and land use map amendment so this is the Kuwahara property on 123rd just west of 7th West um that was denied by the city council um they had concerns about uh downzoning the property from commercial um garage size uh reductions in size resulting in reduction in parking and then access concerns um vote on that i wasn't even here on the planning commission that night but yeah that was all three of us yeah it was uh 3-0 positive recommendation oh i mean on the um oh council city council yeah um 5-0 denial wow okay i'm surprised wow cool and then um the roar uh dA du text amendment that also got denied by the city council um and that one really um the boat there so that was that text amendment was to allow for a detached structures like garages things like that to be converted to um a to use detached adus um council their their concern was the impact on potential neighbors the neighbors would not have a say or a recourse with the proposed code so they did have changes they did state in the meeting that they were open to exploring other options for the property owner on an individual basis that kind of thing but the text amendment that was brought before them was just citywide and they had some concerns on how it may affect other properties oh that's interesting because we debated that quite a bit but okay and that's all I had okay thanks I move we adjourn adjourned good work