Well, we'd like to welcome everybody out to uh the planning commission um this evening, and uh do we do the pledge first or introductions?

We'll we'll begin with the uh pledge of allegiance.

Okay, so we'll begin with some introductions now.

Uh my name is Dave Bromley, and I'll be uh chairing the meeting this evening, and then we'll begin over here to my left with Jennifer on introductions.

I'm Jennifer George.

Craig Kitterman, Danny Schoenfeld, Ron Mortimer, Steve Brickley, Cameron Duncan.

Thank you, and then James, uh, if you'd introduce staff.

Um, I'm James Sornson, I'm the community development director, Sandy City.

Here we have uh Darren Alcorn is a senior city attorney, Mike Wilcox is the planning director, Jake Warner, long-range planning manager, Melissa Anderson over here as a zoning administrator.

Sarah Stringer, the planner at the office, Ivan Hooper.

I think he's yes, transportation engineer, um, Travis Ackerman is the city engineer, and Aisha is the planning secretary.

Someday I'll try the rest of that.

Malaya Talua.

Did I say it right?

I wonder if James will say that.

Okay, thank you.

Um to kind of communicate what will happen through the evening this evening, uh, as for each of the items that's on the that are on the agenda, we'll have a staff member that will introduce the item that will then have the opportunity for the uh developer or the applicant to be able to uh provide any input that they would like to provide.

Um, and then if the staff has anything else they'd like to uh add to that after the applicant and developer has uh uh discussed the item, then they would come back and up and do that.

Afterwards, we would then open the item up for public comment, and uh, we would invite those of members of uh of the audience to be able to come up, or if you are online to be able to uh address the item and as you do that, if you could uh state your name and address, and then we will uh provide two minutes per individual for their for your comments.

And if you do have comments, if you we're really interested in those.

And so if but if you could also make sure you focus them on items that are new or have not been addressed already, that would be appreciated.

And uh we would then close the item for public comment and then uh bring it back for any discussion or deliberation of the planning commission, and um uh have a motion as well from the planning commission.

So we will now begin with the uh first item on there with the agenda, which is the uh public hearing for the creek road rezon.

Good evening, planning commission.

Uh good to be with you again for the public.

My name is Jay Corner, Long Range Planning Manager for the city, and I will be presenting a rezone application submitted by Joe Goot, titled the Creek Road Rezone for property located at 2140 east Creek Road.

The uh property is about 1.5 acres.

Um property is currently zoned as R140.

The property was annexed into the city with some surrounding properties about five years ago, at which time it was given the R140 zone.

Properties around it are zoned R115, R140, R120.

The applicant is requesting that the property be rezoned to the R115A zone.

So that is a single family residential zone that requires a minimum of 15,000 square feet, and the A designation would allow farm animals on the property.

The uh staff did hold a neighborhood meeting, and uh this item has been noticed for a public hearing.

The applicant is in attendance.

This is a legislative item, so it is coming before the planning commission for recommendation to the city council, and as a legis legislative item, the city council will be the final decision maker on the application.

Um with that staff is will be available for questions.

Thank you.

Okay, so do we have uh the applicant uh did you say the applicant is here?

Okay.

Do you have anything that you would like to add?

The well, if you do, you come up and state your name and address and I'm uh Joe Goot, the owner of the house you see in the picture there.

And uh when I purchased the property many years ago, probably 93, I believe it was, uh, it was under the county, in which at that time there were sheep on it.

In fact, if you just looked up about a hundred yards up, there's a home there with goats now, and and it's been horse property for so many years.

I don't have any animals.

I'm not necessarily intending to turn this into a farm at all.

Uh I wouldn't say uh I don't want to commit to that because I I've thought about keeping bees and I know people keep some chickens and that.

I'm not gonna turn it into a farm by no means.

I'm trying to bring it into compliance.

That's the main reason for the R15 zoning.

As uh I've met with with the city I've come down, and uh there's some concerns.

I think some of my neighbors one might even be in attendance tonight about how much I'm gonna do on the property.

It's pretty much all built the way I like it.

I used my property for my father or originally the back house was built for my father.

He passed away many years ago.

He never did live there.

That yes, and so that was built originally with the main house.

The county gave me two additional uh structures for uh uh being annexed into the city of Sandy.

They uh it was understood that you can have those I did it under the county, and the city I believe agreed to go ahead and annex me in with those structures in place, so it's I haven't added them under the city of Sandy.

So they were all there before I ever entered.

Before I got annexed.

Um I don't know what exact concerns any uh neighbors might have.

I've tried to we had a meeting on the street Ross at Green.

I tried to address to make sure is anybody is anybody concerned what specifically am I doing that might concern somebody at that time.

Everybody seemed quite fine with it, and and nobody could give me any uh actual concerns, any specific concerns as to you doing this.

So I think everybody's fine.

I am possibly gonna, I'm not saying for certain I may have to enlarge my house to join the roof lines and become compliant.

Only for that reason.

If roof lines, you know, have to be brought in.

If that's required, I'm just trying to become compliant.

My house is uh I think around 4,000 square feet.

My square footage on the total property, which is an acre and a half, is far less than the five homes you see on Rossett Green.

That was all a part of one piece of land, and I bought half of it.

The gentleman who owned it when I purchased it, he was living at the back of that land.

And uh since then he sold it to the street there on Rossett Green, the five homes that went in.

Well, I'm on the same size acreage, same size.

My square footage is far less.

And where when you look at the house, you can barely see it too over.

Uh if you went to the left of my property.

You've probably all seen it.

If when you drive down Creek Road, it's massive, it's gotta be 20,000 square feet or more, you know.

So I'm not trying to build out much at all from this point forward.

I'm just trying to come into compliance with what I have at this point.

So that was the suggestion of the R 15.

That would best suit my setbacks, the way things are set up right now.

That would give me the setbacks, bring me into compliance, and that's all.

Nothing's new.

Okay, thank you.

Is there any more I can say?

Okay.

Any any questions of the applicant?

Um, I think one of the concerns is uh the potential of using these as short-term rental units.

Can you address that?

Yes, I I'll let me address that.

Uh originally I was hoping to be able to do that.

To be honest with you, I don't do that at all.

My kids live in them.

And uh, and uh I don't even want to do short-term rental anyway.

I do short-term rental in California, and I have I don't do it anymore anywhere.

I have a home.

I I maybe long term I've done before because that's less headache.

People become anchored in the community, and it's really actually I've had a US senator's day with me before.

I've had uh when it f first got completed, I've had major league baseball players, they're really nice, really nice and really nice people.

You know, but any more it's not worth it.

Doing short term is too much work for the for the land.

So I can assure you no short term short-term rental.

I wouldn't do it if it was allowed.

Any other questions?

The applicant.

Okay, thank you.

Appreciate your comments.

Thank you.

Jake.

Sorry to come back up.

I failed to mention that uh I did receive an email after um sending out notices.

I've attached the email to the digital um packet, um, but it came after the packet was delivered to you.

If it's okay, I'd like to get hand out a hard copy to each of you.

Okay.

And do you have any other comments after?

Okay, so we we will now um open this item for public comment.

So if you do have a comment, if you come up to the podium and if you could state your name and address, and then again uh focus your comments to uh two minutes, please.

Hi, I'm Susan Updike, and I live at 8253 South Rossett Green.

So we are directly east of this property.

And I can speak for at least three of the homes on that street that we're just concerned as to why this needs to be changed.

He he just told me out in the waiting room that you requested him to change the zoning, and I said, who is they?

Anyone here suggest it to me.

So if you can uh focus any comments and then if there are things that we can address, we'll address all questions after um all comments have been made.

Perfect.

Okay, so we are concerned that they were short-term rentals because they were listed on VRBL, Airbnb, Renters.com, and there have been multiple people who have stayed there.

My understanding now is that he's supposedly taken them down.

You can still find them on the internet, but it says not available, so I don't know why they don't disappear, but they're still there.

Um we're concerned about the parking, we're concerned about the dogs because he's opened it up for dogs.

There were dogs urinating on my yard that were staying when I asked, they said they were staying there.

Um obviously the extra noise, the parking on the street, there was a garbage can that was left out for over a month because it was one of the blue pans filled with garbage and not recyclable stuff, so it stayed out.

The goods are lovely people, but they only spend a portion of the year there.

They're usually gone for all of the winter months.

So then, and then they had one year where the water thing exploded, and you could see it from our thing, and it was just all frozen.

So I actually emailed them and said we've got some problems here.

I don't know who's taking care of your property, but it's um not in a good situation.

So our concern is that it just doesn't become a rental area.

We just don't want it, and he's got the two in front and then his house, and then the two.

Well, I guess the one in back he's saying is now connected by the roof.

It doesn't look like it, but maybe it is.

I don't know.

I don't know.

I just I think there's enough building on there, and when I originally saw the zoning change, I was like, and now he's gonna add animals.

I don't know.

I don't know why the change needs to be made.

I guess that's what our question is.

But he's saying that you requested it of him, whoever you are.

Thank you.

Are there any other comments?

David Updike of 8253 South Ross at Green Lane.

Um I couldn't hear all that was being said by my wife, but um I get real concerned with the amount of people that come in and out of there, and sometimes park on Creek Road, which makes it impossible to pull out of our stro our little road to be able to see traffic that's coming from the west to the east.

Um that's a big thing.

Um I think that she probably said that there's been rentals over there.

We know that because we've actually talked to the neighbors that were there a few times, and it's listed on the it's been listed as a rental property on VRBO on Airbnb on rentals.com several times, and I don't I don't understand that because I thought that was not uh doable on a single piece of property.

I don't know.

So if we could address that, uh we've been told by him that time that he said that we met him on our street.

I didn't realize it was so friendly.

But uh if it was I guess we're pretty good neighbors, but we were we were real concerned that it's been a rental property numbers of times, and there's not just one but two, three, maybe even four pieces of property that are being rented out to this on the VRBO and the other rental units that I'm talking about.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other comments?

Or any online mic?

If you're joining us via Zoom webinar and would like to speak to this particular item, please use the raise your hand feature now, and we'll address you one at a time.

We do have one hand raised.

Uh Adam Rita, you may unmute yourself.

Okay, can you guys hear me?

Yes, go ahead.

State your name and address the mic, the mic is working or not, because I don't see any, you know, unmute or mute for my end.

So I was just concerned.

Yes, we can hear you.

State your name and address for the record.

My name is Rita Adam, and the address is 918700 East.

And I'm the owner of McGreen Convenience.

We're not yet to that item.

We're on the Creek Road rezone request right now.

Okay.

Yes, I just want to check if the mic is working or not.

That's why I raise the hand.

Thank you.

Okay.

We'll we'll bring you back up when it's during your item.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

I'm seeing no other hands raised.

Okay, so we'll close this item to public comment at this time and uh open it up to the planning commission for any deliberation motions.

Would it would it be worth having Jake maybe explain the risk?

And the reason yeah, yeah, the the necessary for the rezone and kind of not that the city is requiring that, but the the challenges are or what you're trying to resolve with the annexation from the county to the city and the city setbacks.

Um let me start with the maybe the short-term rental side of it.

The city does have an ordinance in place where property owners can apply for a permit to uh have a short-term rental if if the property is their primary dwelling.

Um Mr.

Goot does not have a permit currently, but that is a possibility that he could apply for that.

Um the city is divided into communities, there are caps.

City is aware that there are concerns around short-term rentals, so it is um somewhat restrictive.

Um I don't know if the cap has been met in this area particularly, but uh um and then uh with with the growing concern um the city has invested in some additional tools that are available for us to monitor those situations and and uh help with compliance.

So there are some things there that the city can do as far as short-term rentals.

In addition, um Mr.

Goot, as you mentioned, did have um a rental on the property, uh a long-term rental on the property prior to annexing into the city, and so it's likely that he has some grandfathered rights for a detached for an ADU long-term rental um the property.

Uh that would be one.

Uh the two additional structures uh were approved through the county prior to the annexation, and then the city honored those approvals and and permitted uh the building issued the building permits for those units, and then there were some additional uh accessory structures built after that.

And um when Mr.

Guda approached the city, um, he wanted to know what could be done to bring the property into compliance.

The existing accessory structures currently exceed what would be allowed as far as the number of accessory structures and the total square footage of extra accessory structures.

So staff met with him and and laid out a path that he could pursue to come into compliance.

Uh this being the first step along that pathway.

It was not staff's recommendation, it was uh simply laying out a pathway within the uh code that would be available to Mr.

Goot.

And so, as I mentioned, this is would be the first step.

There would be additional steps if um if the rezone were to be approved, there would still be additional steps that would need to be taken uh afterwards.

Um the R 115A, the A designation does give a property on our farm animal rights, but with that it also allows for additional total square footage of accessory structures, additional numbers of accessory structures, and then um there's a possibility that um that one of those accessory structures would still need to become part of the home, and uh that accessory structure, if attached to the house, would not meet the setback for the house uh under the R140 zone, it would meet the setback for the primary dwelling in the house under the R115 zone.

So R115 is to potentially allow him to attach one of the accessory structures to the house and still comply with the setbacks of the zone, and then the a designation is more towards the number of accessory structures and the total combined square footage of the accessory structures.

Okay, that makes sense.

Thank you.

I think that gives you a lot of good flavor as to what uh the issues are there.

So thank you.

Um so yeah, I think that you address the items that uh were brought up as questions.

So um any other questions or deliberation.

I have a question.

So in regards to the rental property, that's almost some separate, it'd have to be permitted for to use it for rental.

So he had one existing structure that he was using as a rental prior to being annexed, so that was likely that we would honor that.

The county gave him approvals to build the two structures in the front, and the city honored that approval.

So he has the right to keep those two front buildings and the existing ADU.

Um he has sent added on to one of those structures, built a shed, maybe you know, maybe an additional detached structure.

Um so those units are beyond what the city was honoring with the annexation, and that's where the non-compliance issues comes in.

So the rezone has nothing to do with uh compliance for an STR.

Um you know, again, that would be a separate code issue or a separate permit that he would need to pursue.

Um it's he would only the current code only allows him to have one str if he were to get that permit, requires owner occupancy as a primary dwelling.

Um so there is a possibility that he could get an STR on the property if he wanted to, but he he does likely have grandfathered rights to a long-term rental as an ADU on the property for one okay.

So the SGR would basically mean Airbnb.

You could have one Airbnb if he put in for if he got the permit through the city under our current regulation, it would require that.

Okay.

Yeah, I was just gonna mention, but that's an important point that Jake made because he would have to this doesn't grant him that, he would have to apply for that, and there would have to be one available for him to have that.

No, which one would go thank you?

Okay, uh, as far as the animals go, once it's rezoned for R115A, does he need any additional permit for animals?

Or is it no, no?

He would have rights uh per the regulations in the code to farm animals.

I didn't have a clear feeling whether the neighbors were opposed to that or not, having animals there.

I think one interesting point on that is that it did have animal rights um on the property when it was annexed, before it was annexed, rather.

And so when it was annexed, it didn't carry that A designation over, and that was I don't know how long ago, how long was the annex?

Five years ago.

So five years ago.

Um and then I did ask the question beforehand about you know where's the closest to our you know A zoning, and and then you can see that it's a couple homes to the east there, that larger piece, yeah.

I have a question as well.

What do you have like a gut fill for like how many animals would be allowed?

I should have looked that up in the orange.

Um I might need some help.

The property is 1.5 acres, which would be uh 65,000 70,000 square feet.

Um around three horses, I think.

Mike, can you help me with the is it 20,000 square feet per large animal?

Yeah, so yeah, it breaks down by ratio.

Um each large animal requires 10,000 square feet, um each medium animal requires 4,000 square feet, and each small animal requires at least 400 square feet.

So in a 20,000 square foot lot, for an example, two large animals or no more than five medium animals or no more than 50 small animals or a combination thereof.

Thank you.

Any other questions or discussion motion?

I'll make a motion that the planning commission for depositive recommendation that the city council approve the application for a zone change of the subject property from R 140 zone to the R115 A zone.

We have a second all second.

Also we have a motion and second.

Ron Mortimer.

Yes.

Steve Wrigley?

Yes.

Cameron Duncan.

I was hoping you're gonna ask me last.

No.

Danny Schoenfeld?

Yes.

Craig Kitterman?

No.

Jennifer George?

Yes.

Dave Bromley?

Yes.

Okay.

So motion carries passes.

So good luck.

As you move forward.

And uh we also do rec recognize you know the issues that got brought up, and thank you for bringing those up as well for the neighbors.

Sorry, Chair, but um these items this item is 10 will be sold for city council on November 11th or November 18th.

That's right.

That that is a rezone, so the the uh city council is the decision making body associated with this.

So those that that will be held during that meeting that uh Jake just mentioned okay.

So the next item the uh amendment to Title 21 of the land development code and more security.

Okay, thank you very much.

Yeah, so um tonight I'm presenting proposed code amendments to our land development code, and this is in response to new legislation that was adopted uh during this year's legislative session related to boundary adjustments or otherwise known as lot line adjustments.

It's uh gonna affect uh three chapters, chapter three, uh chapter 30, which is the subdivision review, and then also 37 definitions.

So uh the bill that was passed it was Senate Bill 140, and it has new and revised Utah code relating to boundary adjustments, and uh the proposal will bring our code in line with those state requirements.

So property line adjustments now will be known as a boundary adjustment, and that is defined as an agreement between adjoining property owners to relocate a common boundary that results in conveyance of property between those adjoining lots or the adjoining parcels or adjoining lots and parcels, but only if it does not create an additional lot or parcel, because then we're talking about a subdivision.

And so the significance of this for us is that we're returning back to what was previous code that we had, and it allows us to have a simplified process to adjust shared property lines, uh, and it does not require us to have a public meeting.

So it and when we're talking about these really simple adjustments, um it it's really helpful for our customers as well as staff to have a very efficient process.

It it speeds things up a bit.

However, the documentation, the requirements and all that are still you know rigorous, so um the new law defines uh simple boundary adjustment and then a full boundary adjustment.

So a simple boundary adjustment uh may not affect a public right-of-way, a municipal utility easement or other public property, and it also cannot affect an existing easement on site wastewater system or an internal lot restriction, or result in a lot or parcel out of conformity with our land use regulation.

So if it doesn't qualify as a simple boundary adjustment, then it is termed a full boundary adjustment.

And so uh now I'll just uh go through some of the changes that we're doing in our code to meet the new state law requirements.

So the decisions that are related to the planning commission as well as uh decisions for our community development direct director, those are just as slightly or corrected, and that is in chapter three, and then in chapter 30 for property line adjustments section that's updated to be consistent with the state law, terms their processes for the simple boundary adjustments, and it specifies qualifications for the simple boundary adjustment.

It also updates a standard, so if you qualify for that, you can apply, and then there's clear standards that are required that have been updated, and it removes our current requirement for a public meeting for these simple property line adjustments.

And it removes our current requirement for a public meeting for these simple property line adjustments.

And then it also if a request does not qualify for that simple boundary adjustment, it's going to be uh considered a full boundary adjustment.

And in those situations, it's basically going to be a situation where you have a lot that's associated with a subdivision.

So then we're just deferring to our subdivision plat amendment process, and so uh they would just follow that um process.

And lastly, um our definitions are updated in our code uh to either add or update our definitions relating to these boundary adjustments, uh, our subdivision of platision amendment that's more consistent or adds the new new terms.

So uh the proposal included the red line and clean copy in your packet, and uh this is going to city council, and so we're looking for your recommendation to council on the proposed amendments, and that's it.

Any questions for me at this time?

Yeah, thanks, Melissa.

Um, I actually I have a question.

So a clarification with regard to the documentation on the simple boundary adjustment.

Uh I think one of them items in there mentioned there was going to be a document that would be attached to that that would be recorded that that would show it would basically depict the radiuses and property lengths and things like that.

Is that correct?

So it's basically similar to what you have on a subdivision plat, but it's not a formal subdivision plat.

Is that correct?

No, well, the map exhibit is stays the same, and so um our property line adjustment section is now a boundary adjustment, and uh it basically lays out for simple boundary adjustments because you're gonna be kicked over if it's a full boundary adjustment.

And so in that we already have a fair amount of existing code, and in that there's application requirements, and among that uh for the application, it requires a map exhibit.

Yeah, and so uh that in our existing code that hasn't been changed as yet, anyway, unless you have something that we need to address, is a visual uh depiction reflecting the proposed parcel configuration upon completion of the adjustment.

It shall show a north arrow, standard engineering scale bearings and distances, curve tables, locate.

Oh, I see that's what you're talking about, curve location of existing structure easements, setback lines, or other information as requested by the city curve tables, yeah.

Yeah, so it's basically all the information that you would normally include on a subdivision plot that would actually describe both properties.

That's basically what it provides, right?

Yeah, basically, yeah.

I mean it's a simplified, but a survey nonetheless, survey description, legal descriptions per are provided, both graphically and written.

Okay, and I think that's great.

Yes, could that be as simple as like an eight and a half by eleven?

Yeah, since it's just a simple property line adjustment and then the recording document that goes with it.

Yeah.

In fact, in fact, we specify that it has to be on a and half by eleven.

So that is not formatted to a full size sheet.

Right with all the signals.

I'm just thinking of all the details that we have on a plab with all of the signature lines and everything.

I was said it doesn't have all that stuff, but it has the boundary description as to you know the boundary lot configuration issues, yes.

So that's gonna be a legal description with visual depiction of what that is.

Yeah, it's important to note that these would no longer be lots in a subdivision as referenced by that because they're they're changing that description, so they'd be known under that legal description and no longer referenced by the the lot in a subdivision.

Oh if that makes sense it does because our previous ordinance required them to actually amend the subdivision because it's part of it.

And because it's in that plat, and the only thing that can amend a plat is another plat, an amended plat.

But this by state code basically does away with that process and says that we have to allow for this alternative, which is granted a much more simple process and easier for an applicant to do and probably cheaper and and more efficient.

Faster.

Yes, it is much more efficient, but also provides, I think everybody visually and legally what needs to be done.

So that's good.

Okay, all right, thank you.

Any other questions?

Okay, thanks, Melissa.

Okay, so this uh has been notified to uh the public.

So do we have any uhybody that would like to comment on this?

Nobody here, anybody online?

If you're joining us via Zoom webinar and would like to speak to this particular item, please use the raise your hand feature now and we'll address you one at a time.

Looks like we have one hand raised, Mr.

Van Maren.

You may unmute yourself.

Thank you, Mike.

Uh good evening, Steve Van Marin.

One one one four one seven eight south.

Banger parkway.

Draper, unfortunately.

Um glad this came forward because I think I know the something that happened without city involvement.

When my property was sold, I sold a piece of it to the neighbor, and it's we recorded as a new block number, but uh couldn't find anything in the city's records saying that this had happened.

Thank you for your time.

Okay, thanks, Steve.

Anyone else?

I'm seeing no other hands raised.

Um we'll close this to public comment and open it up for planning commission deliberation and uh motion.

I'm ready for a motion.

Um I make the motion that the planning commission forward a positive recommendation to the city council to amend title 21 of the Sandy Municipal Code relating to boundary adjustments as shown in exhibit A based on the four findings as outlined in the staff report.

Do we have a second?

Sorry, who was that second?

No, do we have one?

I'll second it.

Cameron Duncan.

Yes, Danny Schoenfeld, yes, Ron Mortimer.

I don't know.

Yes.

Steve Rickley.

Yes, Craig Kitterman.

Yes.

Jennifer George, yes.

Dave Bromley.

Yes.

This motion carries.

Okay.

Thanks.

Uh so the next item.

Um Sarah, looks like you're up for the uh uh conditional use permit that you trera accessory structure.

Yes, thank you.

Um Jeff Knighton is our applicant on behalf of the property owner, our Ivan Utrera.

Um the address is 11075 south, 1700 east.

Uh and the request is for uh increased size of an accessory structure.

So they will have one 1500 square foot structure, so the conditional use permit is for a second uh 1500 square foot structure.

Um that would be a 50 percent increase in total accessory structure um square footage for the property.

I believe the applicants uh should be online if they'd like to add anything else.

Mr.

Knighton, you may unmute unmute yourself.

Yes, thank you.

Um yeah, with this is uh we're we're wanting to just build a an additional uh garage structure just like the identical to one that we've already submitted for a building permit, and intended use is to store vehicles, um, you know, maybe a boat or a trailer, the the owner um also collects the uh cars, and so the purpose is just to store it's just for storage, and uh we've kept it at 20 feet, you know, below 20 feet, you know, try to buy by all the the code requirements is 20 feet from the property line on the east side and um position the building so that it's you know as far back within that twenty you know outside of that 20-foot buffer on the backside, it's set for pretty far back from the street, um so it won't really be noticeable from the street.

There's quite a bit of space between that and the existing home and um yeah, no accessory dwelling or other uses other than just for storage.

Okay, thank you, Mr.

Knighton.

Anything else or um I the only one thing to maybe know is I think the elevations that I I provided, we were originally thinking like the metal siding.

I think the applic I think the owner wants to go with possibly stucco, you know, on the outside.

Um I'm not sure if that makes a huge difference or not, but um yeah, I don't it's pretty a pretty simple request, it seems so.

I think that's that's pretty much it.

Okay, thanks.

And I think it was stuck as documented in the in the staff report.

Okay, great.

Okay.

Uh anything else you'd like to add?

Uh no.

Uh no, just noted um as the applicant noted, um, no uh business use or accessory structure use would be allowed.

Um we did add some conditions uh to that effect as well.

So thank you.

Uh so this has been noticed uh to the public and we'll open it up for public comment.

If so, if you have um item if you would like to address this item, please come forward.

Seeing none here, Mike, any online?

If you're joining us via Zoom webinar and would like to speak to this particular item, please use the raise your hand feature now and we'll address you one at a time.

I am seeing no hands raised.

Okay, so we'll close uh public comment and open up to planning commission for deliberation and motion.

Any discussion or are we ready for motion?

I think we're ready for a motion.

Um I move that the planning commission approve the conditional use permit for the additional size and and as described in the staff report for the property located at 11075 south, 1700 east, based on the following two findings and six conditions.

Okay, do we have a second?

Second, Danny Schoenfeld, yes, Ron Mortimer, yes, Cameron Duncan, yes, Steve Rigley, yes, Craig Kitterman.

No, Jennifer George?

Yes, Dave Romley, yes.

This motion carries.

Okay, Sarah, you're up again.

This is the midway convenience conditional use permit.

Yes.

Um for this conditional use permit.

Um Rita Adam is the applicant and uh addresses 9187 south uh 700 east, and the request is for an off-premise uh beer retail license, and I believe our applicant uh is online, Mr.

Adam.

You may unmute yourself.

Okay, uh good evening, everybody.

Um first I just want to apologize for not being there in person today.

Um I'm the only one who running my business at the moment, so it's hard to step away from it.

Uh my name is Rita Adam, as Sarah said.

I'm the owner of Midway Convenience here in Sandy, uh located at 9187 South 700 East.

Um I'm here to request an off-premises beer license, and the reason um I'm asking for this license because many of my regular customers have been requesting it, and I believe adding beer would be uh would give the store a better variety of product and make it more convenient for our customer.

Now, in terms safety, I personally handle since I'm the only one who's working there, I personally handle everything in the store, and I take uh that responsibility very seriously.

I take every ID carefully and I have security camera throughout the store, and I plan to designate a separate area for the beer to keep things organized and responsible.

And if I hire somebody in the future, an employee in the future, I'd make sure they are probably um you know, trained and follow the follow the city and the state regulation.

I really care about this community and I want to continue working with it, not against it, of course, to make and also to make sure the store remained positive and responsible part of Sandy.

Uh thank you so much for your time and consideration.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Adam.

And and just a quick question.

I would assume you've had a chance to review the staff report in full, including the findings and conditions associated with uh what staff has presented.

Yes.

Uh did you say yes?

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay.

Uh Sarah, do you have anything else?

Um, yeah, just wanted to point out in the staff report we discuss uh the definitions of the alcohol and tobacco specialty store.

Um and one of the things that we found was that some of the signage um mentions that smoking products are available.

Uh and so that's um his request needs to fall outside of those parameters for the tobacco and specialty store.

So that is something that would need to be changed.

Um, and if there's any discussion, um but just as you go along in the conditions, we did notice um a typo in the number one condition, it uh should say that the business does not operate as an alcohol and tobacco specialty store.

So um just as you're making that uh that will need to be amended.

Okay, pretty important uh adjustment to number one then okay, thank you.

Uh was there any questions of staff or applicant?

Um, so this uh has been noticed as well, and uh we will open up uh this item for public comment if there's any public comment.

Um Mark Mason Taylor, 8790 South, 120 east.

Um so I encourage you to vote no on the conditional permit for midway convenience.

To be frank, they are not telling the truth.

Midway convenience is a vape shop.

Half of their store is tobacco, hookah, and drug paraphernalia.

It's not a convenience store.

I have visited the store multiple times this week.

In 2020, an article in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health found that the higher amounts of vape shots in an area, the more a neighborhood was disadvantaged.

In other words, in urban planning terms, vape shops are broken windows.

There are three in the area of historic sandy.

They destroy social capital, they prey on the poor, and they prey on the communities that look them in.

I consume alcohol and am a small business owner.

This is not about alcohol access.

Consumers can buy beer from 7-Eleven or the Maverick or the Holiday or Fabulous Freddy's or Walmart or the liquor store, all less than half a mile away.

There is no economic benefit to the neighborhood.

The market is already dominated.

This is about irresponsible business.

The largest advertisements are for Kratom and slushies, and we all know the slushies are for kids.

It's about getting people hooked.

Historic Sandy's residents have gone to the city council and complained about vape shops multiple times.

And you can see it in the minutes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mike, anybody online?

If you're joining us via Zoom webinar and would like to speak to this particular item, please use the raise your hand feature now, and we'll address you one at a time.

I don't see any other hands except for the applicant has raised his hand.

Okay.

Um do you think we need to okay?

Uh I would say maybe we have uh Sarah come up and maybe address the um what was communicated to us previously about what audits occur and you know the basically kind of the parameters of this type of business and what they are required to do.

Um do you want to close the meeting?

The public part of it.

Yeah, let's close the meeting public and thank you.

Um yes, so this the city we have our guidelines for um the tobacco and alcohol specialty store and how much you're allowed to sell the sell.

Um the state also has um their guidelines and specifically for tobacco products stores like this have to stay under 20% of tobacco sales and they do yearly inspections to that uh to ensure that they are below 20% and we are notified in the city uh if those businesses are over those um thresholds that are allowed by the state.

Okay, so and what what occurs at that point if you get notified?

Um I'm assuming we would send out code enforcement to look into that if a business license violation has occurred.

Yeah, they they'd have the opportunity to bring their business into conformity first, and if they do not, then they would be revoked of their business license if they do not conform with those regulations.

Essentially, if they become an alcohol and tobacco specialty store by exceeding those limits that are defined under that, they would no longer be operating as a convenience store and would not be uh eligible to operate in this location.

There's only a few areas in the city where uh alcohol or tobacco specialty store are allowed and they are not allowed in this location.

Okay.

Okay, thank you.

So does vaping fall within the alcohol and tobacco?

Where's where is vaping fall within this?

Does vaping fall under the tobacco?

It's a tobacco related product.

So it falls under that.

So in fact, if it is a vape shop, it'd fall under this exclusion we have on one to not be sort of specific.

Right.

So in the staff report that we do have the definition, and if it meets any one of those criteria, not just one or two, it just any one of those criteria, it's considered a smoke shop or a tobacco specialty store.

Do you know what those other products that Mr.

Taylor mentioned uh Kratom and Slushies, what they fall within?

Kratom does not um fall under a tobacco product.

Um and we did discuss with the window signage um that some of those things did need to be removed.

Um and their permanent wall signs advertise smoking.

Um so that would need to be changed, and then the window signs um, which we had called out, he has already after reading the staff report, it has removed um those signs that were in the windows advertising for the smoking products.

Okay, so if anybody goes and sees signage that are advertising for for tobacco, then they could notify code enforcement yes, yes, great.

So it sounds like by passing this we may actually be making more a convenience store and not a tobacco specialty store if somebody's worried about that.

Correct.

So yeah, this is just the convenience store.

So the um we just wanted to make sure that you were all aware of the alcohol and tobacco specialty store and that he was he needed to be below or under all these things.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Well, I just made your point that this adds out in there, it will not be there.

Correct, yes.

I have a question about when the last inspection was made by the state.

Did you say there's an inspection required?

They do, yes, they do inspections.

I am not sure of that information.

I don't know if um the applicant could speak to that.

My suggestion is that we have it inspected to make sure he's still in compliance before we act on this.

Do you do want to allow the applicant to speak and and address when the last audit is occurred?

Um no inspection have been occurred since I opened, and you are more than welcome to do an inspection and check it yourself.

I'm sure I'm below the 20% threshold of the tobacco uh displays, and whatever the previous gentleman says it's false.

We're not advertising for smoke or specialty.

Um we are not a smoke shop, it's a convenience store.

We have a variety of snacks, we have a variety of uh drinks, we're trying to be like bring international snacks and stuff.

Of course, we have a you know a designated area for the smoke, but that would not um you know even hit that the 25 or I'm sure it's below the the 19th percent.

Okay, how long have you been open for business?

Uh about 11 months since November 25th, I believe.

Okay.

I have a question.

Um, is he required to report his sales to the city to ensure that he is below?

We don't require that um for business licensing, um, but we do have that as one of the conditions that the city could request an audit of the tobacco and alcohol products to make sure that they were below 35 percent one one thing I wanted to add, he could have 90 percent of his display be tobacco, and as long as his sales aren't more than 20 percent, that's okay.

No, the the display can't be more than 20 percent as well.

Correct, yeah.

That's in the definition that um even the display and the total shelf space has to be under 20 percent.

I like that.

Okay, so again, if if somebody came by and saw that there was more, they could report that to code enforcement then.

Correct.

And it's a it's a 3D, it's not only wall space, vertical wall space as well as floor space of of the store.

So all of that has to be limited.

Okay, and he's required to remove the sign right now on the building that says smoke.

That will have to be changed, yes.

Shouldn't we require those things to happen before we trust it?

That is part of the condition of approval.

It's part of the conditions.

So I guess it's up to the city council.

No.

This is our approval.

Yeah.

And this so it's up basically.

Yeah.

He has to make sure.

Yeah.

Before we issue a permit or so forth, he has to meet the conditions that you approve.

So you have to approve conditions first so we can make sure that he meets them and give him any type of license for that.

Will he be inspected then?

He'll have to meet those conditions to get anything that he needs.

Yes.

We can't enforce a condition if it's not a if it's not made.

Correct.

And then let's see.

This is yeah, so as a conditional use permit again.

This is this is a conditional use permit, which means that it can be revoked.

Um so if there are if they are not meeting these conditions, that could go that conditional use permit can be revoked.

So basically anybody uh can bring that to code enforcement that could then you know escalate up through a revocation process.

And just note that the conditional use permit is only for off-site off-premise beer license.

And so that the tobacco is separate.

Okay.

Um meaning that if if they are out of compliance with the tobacco sales, and and if they meet any one of those um six criteria, then they're already out of compliance.

And they would have to amend that, and that's why we mentioned the sign that's out of compliance.

They'd have to bring that into conformity.

And our policy is as long as they are working towards compliance, that's what we're after.

If they are out of compliance and they do not bring it into conformity, then we are left with a remedy to uh revocation of business license and things of that nature.

Okay.

Okay, any other thoughts or questions are ready for motion?

Motion I'll make the motion.

A motion make a motion that the planning commission approve a conditional use permit for an off-site for an off-premise beer retail licenses described in the staff report for the property located at 9187 South 700 East, based on the five findings and the nine conditions with an amendment to condition number one that reads it does not operate as an alcohol and tobacco specialty store.

Okay, do we have a second?

I'll say it.

Cameron Duncan?

Yes, Ron Mortimer?

Yes.

Danny Schoenfeld.

Uh no.

Steve Rigley?

Yes.

Craig Kitterman?

No.

Jennifer George?

No.

Dave Romley?

Yes.

This motion carries.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you for your time.

All right.

So we will move on to some administrative business.

So we first have the minutes of September 18th, uh, 2025.

Uh we have a motion to on those minutes.

Motion to approve the minutes.

All in favor?

I aye.

And then uh James, report you have anything that you want to add.

We we had some discussion previously.

Uh thank you for the um uh kind acceptance of doing our our uh little get together again on the the Mortimer family, and we'll send something out on that to make sure that works for everybody.

Um but that will be what we'll plan for.

Um I don't have anything to add that we discussed previously, Mike.

Do you have anything you want to bring up?

Just by way of note, uh there's five Thursdays in the month of October, so we won't have an uh our next meeting until November 6th.

Uh following that would be November 20th, which would be the week before Thanksgiving.

Um so just keep those items or those dates in mind.

And uh I think we will have um items ready to go for the sixth for sure.

Okay, and is that uh sheet that ISHA keeps?

Is it am I the only one still that can't update anything?

I'm the only one.

All right, you're welcome to come sit down and we can work through that with you and see if we can problem solve that.

All right, thanks.

Uh do we have a motion to adjourn?

Motion to adjourn.

All in favor.

Uh did you approve the minutes?

Yes.

Yes, we did.

We're very good, very efficient.