Uh, let's see.

We've got maybe what half hour discussion.

Yeah.

No, no video.

Uh just uh discussion.

Updates information.

Yeah, let's do that.

Recording in progress.

Recording in progress.

Okay.

Mr.

Chair, we're ready to what?

Okay.

Darren.

Darren Alcorn has our training time.

So I was gonna pull this up really quick so that I can tell you that official being I just have to remember where um well in that.

Um so Sandy City got sued on a land use decision.

So we actually had a claim filed in district court as an appeal, and they filed it in federal district court, so it was Utah Federal Court.

It was pretty recently, and it was um it was Magnet Investment and Development versus Sandy City.

Yes, and it was for a developer who had brought in some information on 1300 East and single, and the if you remember what happened at the beginning was that they brought in a conditional use application for a project that staff questioned whether or not it was actually an authorized conditional use on the property because in order to be able to qualify for a conditional use permit, they had to be proposing a mixed use development, and so the staff did uh went through some iterations with them trying to get something that the staff agreed was a mixed use development, and they weren't successful in getting any changes, and so the planning commission is authorized under our city ordinances to do an interpretation of the Sandy City Code, and so Sandy City staff sent the item to the planning commission to do an interpretation of the Sandy City Code, look at the definitions of mixed-use development, um, look at some substantive provisions of the Sandy City Code and make a determination and interpretation of whether or not what they were proposing was actually a mixed use development.

And the planning commission determined that it was not a mixed use development under those definitions and the substance provisions, and in order to move on from that decision, they're actually required to use their administrative skill process, and so they did filed an administrative appeal to the board of adjustment, and the board of adjustment affirmed the planning commission interpretation.

So the Board of Adjustment agreed with the findings and the conclusions of the Planning Commission, and they said that it was not a mixed use development, and didn't qualify as a memory stall, and so the next step in that process after they've exhausted their administrative appeal is that they appeal that to the court, and they had some other federal claims, some due process and constitutional type claims that they added to their appeal, and so they appealed it into the federal district court because a federal court would have the jurisdiction over those constitutional claims, and they received this other land use appeal as an additional point that is lumped in with those other ones, and so the court had um the case and the we filed Sandy City filed a motion for partial summary judgment, and um, so we used Spencer Fain, and our attorney is with Danny Severnich.

And so we used Spencer Fain, and our attorney is was Danny Severnich.

She did a fantastic job.

I think mixed use commercial and residential.

And we said all of those definitions applied, and we wanted the judge to make a determination that all of those definitions were correctly applied.

They filed a motion for summary judgment on all of their claims and their attorney's case.

I thought he did a very good job.

Federal courts don't typically do land use law.

So I thought he really was very well informed, having read all of the pleadings before he went into the oral argument.

I thought he asked very intelligent and on point questions.

I felt like he really understood Sandy City's position.

And then he issued the decision.

So that's the background, and then I wrote up a summary of a decision.

It was, I think, 37 pages or something.

So it's kind of lengthy.

And they did go into a lot of detail, but I think I have a pretty good summary of what the decision was based on.

And so I will kind of go through that, and then you guys can ask any questions that you have, and hopefully I will be able to answer that.

So the code section that the planning commission made their decision was 21 1 6, and that was what we called the interpretation section that just authorized either the director of the planning commission to do interpretations.

And they relied upon three different um provisions to make that decision.

And so one of the things that they relied on was the definitions that I told you, and so it was 21-37-14, 10 through 14.

So those were all the different definitions of mixed use that I mentioned.

The other support for that decision was Sandy City Code Section 21-23-24, and that code section is called mixed use development standards.

And then the third thing that the planning commission relied on was the definition of neighborhood commercial district in the CN zone.

And that was found in 21-4-11 subsection six.

And not that you guys are gonna remember those, but in case you are wondering and wanting to let them up if you want the same credit, there will be fitness.

So only if it's a project being developed in a mixed use zone, can you apply 2123-24?

And then they said the definition of neighborhood commercial district is a preamble and therefore is not substantive and cannot be applied at the substantive provision, and that was following Utah case law on preambles and not substantive provisions.

And that under that definition, that what they were proposing did meet that definition for a mixed use development.

The applicant was invited to contact Sandy City Planning Department when they're ready to proceed with submitting the additional information needed to proceed with processing and conditional use permit.

So we have some of the information that's required in our code formit, but not all of it, because we sort of put a pause on the whole process to do the interpretation.

Under A, when they said that mixed use development was the only definition, they basically said mixed use development had a standalone definition that does not need any interpretation.

And what we had argued was that there were sub-definitions that were referenced within that broader definition, the court disagreed.

Danny did a great job of arguing it.

So they rejected our argument that because that general definition used words like commercial office vertically and horizontally, that those were subsidiary definitions, and they said for a couple of different reasons.

So that was one of the things they said.

There was also some introductory language in the introductions of the definitions in Title 21 29-07-1.

I didn't copy down that introductory language here, so I can't remember right now why they said that that introductory language I think said these definitions are standalone definitions, and you know, so they looked at our documents.

Um so that was the reason they think one definition of mixed use adult applied.

The reason that they said section 212324 didn't apply was because it says the following standards are to be considered as applying specifically to development in the mixed use district, in addition to general standards provided elsewhere in the title, and they thought that was a clear indication that anything in 2123 24 didn't apply to a use permit if and it applied to a mixed use.