Recording in progress.

So what is the open and public meetings act?

It's the state law that ensures government actions and deliberations are openly conducted.

Before we continue, keep in mind that this video is an overview, and exceptions may exist based on your entity type.

When in doubt, read the law and consult with your legal counsel.

So what's considered an open and public meeting?

Open and public meetings don't include chance or social meetings.

Public hearings happen when a government adopts a budget, imposes or increases taxes or fees, or transfers money from an enterprise fund.

These meetings have extra notice and posting requirements and won't be addressed in this video.

An electronic meeting is a type of open and public meeting that's convened electronically, such as via phone or the internet.

Remember, the governing body must adopt a resolution, rule, or ordinance allowing and governing electronic meetings.

OTMA adds additional requirements too.

An emergency meeting may be held to discuss an urgent matter due to unforeseen circumstances.

In order to hold the meeting, the best notice that's feasible is provided of the time, location, and topics to be considered.

An attempt is made to contact all governing body members, and a governing body majority approves the meeting.

An open and public meeting may be closed to discuss any of the following: a person's character, competence, or health, collective bargaining, litigation, certain real property transactions, including any form of a water right or water shares with specific restrictions, security personnel, devices or systems deployment, investigations of criminal misconduct, and private or protected information for the Utah Procurement Code, including trade secrets.

A closed meeting may be held only if a quorum is present and the meeting was properly noticed.

Two-thirds of the governing body present at the meeting need to vote yes to close a meeting.

Quick math lesson.

Two divided by three equals 66.7%.

Let's say your governing body has five members present at the meeting.

If three out of five members vote yes, that equals 60%, which is not equal or greater than 66.7%, which means you are one member short and would need four out of five members to vote yes.

During a closed meeting, a governing body can't interview someone applying to fill an elected position, discuss filling a midterm vacancy or temporary absence, discuss the character, competence, or health of a person whose name was submitted for consideration to fill of midterm vacancy or temporary absence, approve any ordinance, resolution, rule, regulation, contract, or appointment, or take a vote, unless it's a vote on a motion to end the closed portion of the meeting and return to an open meeting.

When a governing body closes a meeting, the following must be publicly announced and entered into the minutes of the open meeting at which the closed meeting was approved.

The reason or reasons for holding the closed meeting, the location where the closed meeting will be held, and the vote of each member of the governing body either for or against the motion to close the meeting.

If a closed meeting is discussing a person's character, competence or health, or security personnel, devices or systems deployment, or several other exceptions, mostly related to state bodies or project entities, no recording or minutes are required.

However, the presiding member needs to sign a sworn written statement stating such.

If the closed meeting is held for any other reason, the recording must be made, which includes date, time and place of the meeting, names of members present and absent, and names of all others, except where disclosure would infringe on the confidentiality necessary to fulfill the original purpose of closing the meeting.

Regular open and public meetings require 24 hours notice.

The public notice includes the meeting, agenda, date, time, and place.

Public meeting agendas need to include reasonably specified topics to be considered, with each topic listed under a separate agenda item on the meeting agenda.

The governing body may not consider a topic in an open meeting that wasn't on the agenda.

If a new topic not on the agenda is raised by the public during an open meeting, the governing body may discuss the topic.

However, final action may not be taken on the new topic during that meeting.

Additionally, entities holding regular meetings scheduled in advance over the course of the year need to provide annual notice of the entire year's meeting schedule.

The notice must include date, time, and place for each meeting.

Notice is posted on the public body's website in a public location, such as the location where the meeting will be held, and on Utah's public notice website in accordance with Utah Code 63G-30-102.

Typically, posting on the public notice website is done by the records officer, recorder, or clerk.

However, it's the governing body's responsibility to ensure notice is provided.

State Archives has prepared a training manual and quick guide for owners and posters, as well as training videos that can be accessed at their website, archives.gov.

Written minutes and a recording are kept of all open meetings, with few exceptions.

Written minutes include the date, time and place of the meeting, the names of members present and absent, the substance of all matters, names of citizens providing comments, the substance of the comments provided, any information a body member requests be entered into the minutes or recording, and a record by individual member of each vote taken.

A body with elected members must record each vote in list format by category for each action taken by a member, including yes votes, no votes, and absent members next to each member's name.

Approved minutes means written minutes of an open meeting approved by the public body that helped open meeting.

My problem is I wasn't going to do any of our reports.

So uh you're well have Sharon recessed.

Yeah.

Yeah, dude.

Uh yeah.

Yeah.

Well the internet.

Recording stopped.

Can we do that when it's our nine five?

But everyone has to be unanimous.

Yeah, yeah, forwards.

Which is a problem.

Okay, welcome to tonight's meeting for the Sandy City Planning Commission.

We'll do a quick round of introductions and pledge, and then we'll get into our business.

My name is Danny Schoenfeld, and we'll do a quick inter intro for the Planning Commission and then staff.

Jennifer George.

Craig Kittraman.

Lenny Stavenport.

David Hart and Steve Rigley.

And then James, do you want to do a quick intro?

Great.

I'm James Swanson, the community development director.

We have Darren Alcorn, a senior attorney with the city.

Mike Wilcox Planning Director.

Brian McCuston is here with us tonight.

He's assistant to community development director.

Thomas Irvin with us tonight.

He is a senior planner and Ivan Hooper, transportation engineer.

And we have good Aisha over here.

She is the planning secretary.

Awesome.

All right, we'll do a quick pledge and go from there.

I pledge allegiance to the flag on the United States of America and Republic for which it stands one nation under God.

I think our first item on the agenda tonight is the Summer Hayes annexation.

And I think oh, excuse me, Mike, you've got that.

Sorry.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I'll just do a brief introduction of the item and then we'll have a presentation by the applicant, and then uh Brian will follow up any details on his report.

Uh this is an annexation request.

Um it's been filed by um the property owners, the Summerhay family.

Um, and uh they're represented by uh Grace Acosta, and they'll be able to present on this request.

But they were requesting to annex approximately 5.77 acres of this property located on this map on the south end of Dimpledel Road.

And um the applicant is here if they're want wanting to speak to that particular request.

Thank you.

Hello.

Um you could speak into one or two of the mics and just identify your name and address, please.

Thank you.

Um Sylvia Grace Acosta attorney.

I live at 2204 East Dimpledale Road, and I'm representing the Summerhayes family who are the owners of this parcel of land.

As you know, there's lots of pockets throughout Sandy.

They'd like to be annexed into the city in order to have uniformity of with all their neighbors, and in order to have a clear tax base, and in order to subdivide the property for a family member to build a home on one of a corner of the land.

That is their long-term goal, and that's why we're here.

Unless you have any questions, that's that's the basis for our request today.

Are there any questions from the commission?

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right, good evening, everybody.

As they mentioned, this is uh the properties up here on the map.

This is one parcel right now, and it has two homes on one lot.

So um Arlene May Summerhays is the property owner.

She's the one who signed the consent form to bring this property into Sandy City.

Sandy does about the property on the west, south, and the east sides.

And the council did approve resolution resolution 25-52C on December 16th and set a public hearing date for January 20th, which is next Tuesday with the city council.

Uh the existing zoning in Salt Lake County.

If I just advance this slide.

Oh, I'm not sure where that went.

Um thought I had the zoning map in there.

Is R143?

So in the county, it requires 43,000 square feet per lot.

And Sandy does not have an R143, but our closest zone is R140, so 40,000 square foot minimums.

We're also requesting to have animal rights, as they do have farm animals on this property.

So our proposed zoning is R140A, and we would recommend the planning commission forward a positive recommendation on both the annexation and the zoning.

And here to answer any questions.

Any questions for staff?

Yeah, just one.

There are four findings.

Does the applicant know and understand those?

Yes, we do.

We understand.

Okay.

Anything else?

Okay.

This item has been noticed for public.

Um, if there's anybody here that would like to come down, please state your name and address, and we'll give you a two minutes.

Thank you.

My name is Michael Giles.

Uh I am an attorney that represents Heather and Brad Oakison.

Um, my address or their address.

Um Place of Business.

Yeah, 3165 East Mill Rock Drive, suite 500 in uh Salt Lake City, Utah.

Um so the Oakisons live in one of the homes, the one the home that's closer to the to the uh road there.

And I think they had previously reached out with some concerns about the annexation.

They they found out by seeing the sign uh that was posted uh on the road.

And uh just to be clear, they're they're not opposed to the annexation, but they wanted me to come by and raise the issue that there is uh potentially a title issue.

Title of this is in actually a uh the name of Summer Oaks Farms, which is um uh not an LLC or a corporation, it's just a name.

And there's a there's a deed that went to Summer Oaks Farms, and there's a subsequent deed that was from the Summer Hays to a trust, but that has not been recognized by the recorder's office.

We're talking with with the Summer Hays family.

Our goal is to re resolve that title issue.

They wanted me to come and raise that just so it didn't affect the annexation.

Um just to raise it as a as an issue that that the commission should consider.

So thank you.

Oh, question, Dave.

Are the Okinsons in Sandy?

No, they're they're part of this part.

They live in the no, I understand where they live.

I'm saying are they part of Sandy or are they part of the county?

They would be part of the county right now.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Is there anybody else in?

I don't see um anybody online, Mike, that would like to speak to this item.

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 see one hand raised.

Uh Mr.

Van Marin, you may unmute yourself.

Please state your name and address for the record.

Thank you, uh, Commission.

Steve Van Maron.

Uh address is uh 14178 South Vanguarder.

Parkway, Draper.

Um I my question is uh concern is the width of the final right-of-way with this annexation.

It should be easy to widen Dimpledel Road in that area.

It's very constraining, limiting the traffic speed.

Which may be good, but it's still very constraining.

Uh just want to be sure that's part of the plan.

Thank you, everyone.

Thank you.

Anyone else online?

I'm seeing no other hands raised.

Okay.

We'll go ahead and close that to public comment and bring that back to staff if there's any questions on or maybe just that issue about the title or what Mr.

Van Meren had brought up.

If there's any follow-up on those two items.

Yeah, I um the title, I think that's something they'll work out amongst themselves as far as the annexation.

That's not going to affect anything.

And the comment to Vr Mr.

Van Maren, the road widening is not gonna happen during the annexation either.

That will be a topic of discussion if they further subdivide the property.

Okay.

Any follow-up?

Thank you.

All right.

We'll bring that back to the council then, or excuse me, the commission for further deliberation and possible action.

I'm ready for a motion if you want.

Okay, I make a motion that uh the planning commission send a positive recommendation to the city council that the Summer Hayes annexation be approved and zoned R1-40A based upon the following uh four findings.

Is there a second?

I'll second that.

Steve seconded.

Okay.

David Hart.

Yes, Steve Brigley.

Yes, Craig Kitterman.

Yes.

Lenise Davenport.

Yes.

Jennifer George?

Yes.

Danny Schoenfeld?

Yes.

This motion carries.

Okay, thank you.

Next on our agenda is the architectural components for uh headquarters site site plan review for 9352 South 670 West.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh, this item um is being requested by the applicant Josh Maylor with architectural components.

They are seeking a site plan review by the planning commission uh due to its uh proximity to a residential district.

Uh they're also seeking a um reduction in their overall parking requirement that um is associated with this request.

Uh I believe the applicant is attending via uh Zoom.

Uh Michelle Schaefer is representing the uh applicant, and they can begin their presentation.

Ms.

Schaefer, you may unmute yourself.

Okay, can you hear me now?

Yes, go ahead.

Perfect.

Well, good evening, everyone.

Um, my name is Michelle Schaefer.

I am the project manager for architectural components on this project.

Josh Gaylor is also on this call.

He's the president of Architectural Components, and today we are here to present our project.

Uh it's the architectural components headquarters building.

It's a new building located at 9352 South, 670 West Sandy, Utah.

Yes, so this location is in an existing building lot that does not currently have any structures or buildings.

Somewhere prior to 2011, a building caught fire that was on that lot burned down.

And since then there hasn't been anything else.

The proposed project will remove all existing hardscape and any unused utilities and construct a new 6,023 square foot building with an accompanying 16,000 square feet of parking, sidewalk curb and gutter.

Part of this construction, the existing approaches and sidewalk will be replaced along with some curb and gutter.

All of this along 670 West.

And like I said, this new building will serve as the headquarters building for architectural components and supplies.

Please continue if you complete your presentation.

I'm not sure what we're seeing right now the architecture.

Would you like to present?

Yes.

Yeah, just talk through the building and what your um the plan is and the conceptual design and and maybe just some of a little high points of what you're looking at wanting to build there.

Absolutely.

Right now we can see the architectural components in the site plan or some of the the elevations of the building.

Or if that completes it, okay.

I mean that basically completes it.

Okay, Josh, do you want to touch on anything?

Would you like to add?

You might have to raise your hand.

Yeah, the construction is tilt up construction.

It's uh split between warehouse and office.

Um it's just a good sold type company, so materials coming in and out, and they come from back east tax exempt.

So there's sales tax that will be paid to Sandy City for everything that comes in and out of this building.

Okay.

Okay, is there um have you had an opportunity to read the um the staff report and the findings and conditions that were listed in there?

Yes, we've received those.

Okay.

And um, any questions from the commission?

You're um yes, I do.

Okay, Dave.

Um, yes, this is David Hart.

I have a question about the parking.

You're asking for a reduction of three parking stalls.

I understand.

How many employees do you have?

No more than I'd say 25, correct, Josh?

Yeah, the warehouses for 25 office building.

Okay.

So that only leaves a couple of stalls for visitors.

Correct.

And typically we're more of an installation warehouse storage, and we wouldn't receive a lot of visitors in general.

The reason I'm asking the question is when we were out there this afternoon, it was clear that the area is uh under parked because there are cars on both sides of the street, and so that's just something you're gonna have to uh keep an eye on uh that you don't contribute to that um situation.

Yes, and we're aware of the north neighbor, and he did have concerns on the parking, and we've you know spoke with him.

We've had our public, you know, community meetings and listen to some of their concerns, and you know, we we agree that there is a parking issue, but it shouldn't we shouldn't add to that or not, we won't it won't be necessary.

Okay.

Lenise.

Um I have a question regarding are you asking for a reduction in parking so that um you don't have to reduce the size or the square footage of the building?

The reciprocal access is what uh cramped some of the the parking to really ask for the reduction in three spots.

We have reciprocal on south and north that aid up a lot of uh real estate basically that was originally for parking.

Is that your question?

Yes, okay thank you.

Any other questions from the commission?

Okay, um Thomas.

Did you have some additional information that you would like to present?

Yes, I do.

So staff's reviewed this at length.

Um see if I can get back to the beginning.

So, as was said before, this is a site plan review for this commercial building in the uh ID zoning district.

Um, as you've noticed when we're out there to the west side is residential, which is why we brought it before you.

Um of our first concerns was our our zoning map shows sensitive areas on the west side, which is adjacent to the residential.

But as this was preliminarily developed many years ago prior to the fire that consumed the last building, there are no great issues.

Those improvements are going to remain on that west side, so staff doesn't feel that there's any impact to the sensitive areas.

Um as far as circulation patterns on the site, it's like has been said before, it's circular in nature.

Um that's what's limited the space for parking.

They have that warehouse functioning, they want to be able to drive trucks through the back end and wrap around the building.

Their primary employee parking is on the south.

Um, and they do have pedestrian pathways that give direct access to the building itself as well.

The majority of the parking is on the south side.

Um, we really struggled making this work.

This is three or four iterations down the road.

As you might notice up on the north side, there's three parallel stalls that got them to the 27 they need.

They couldn't qualify for any more reduction than the 10%.

To qualify for the 10% reduction, they've had to provide uh parking demand analysis study, which if you've read through, it's part of the staff report.

Um we attached to as an addendum.

Um they looked at the two prior buildings that are being consolidated into this one building, calculated their parking requirements there, and then presume that's similar pattern here.

And based upon that demand analysis, staff feels that that they will meet those requirements and be able to reduce their parking by three.

Okay.

Um as far as the building design, that was mentioned before.

We've analyzed that uh according to our architect architectural design guidelines.

We did make them provide some changes to that, up screening the rooftop units, making sure that the the roof drains are not visible from the public right-of-way, some different things that are required in our diet design guidelines.

Um, as far as landscaping goes, um, because it is residential, there needs to be a 10-foot buffer on that west side as well as the eight-foot masonry wall, which is existing, as you can see by their landscaping plan, that is exactly what they're proposing to do.

And they also have uh various preliminary parking areas, they have landscaping islands there as well.

I should mention one other thing on this site plan uh for circulation.

They have provided easements and potential connectivity on the north and south side to adjoining properties so that when they develop there'll be cross access for vehicles.

Um that is a standard requirement that we we make them doing these type of developments.

Um I did provide an addendum uh to the initial staff report um on this street frontage when this property was initially developed, there was only a five-foot sidewalk provided.

I think I need to go back this way, and that's existing throughout the neighborhood.

Um they are proposing to dedicate one foot and increase that to a six-foot sidewalk.

Um, our standard detail would require five foot sidewalks and five foot park strips, um, but we feel that based upon the the conditions listed in the code that um they they would be able to just accomplish the proper improvements by just adding the one foot.

And I did speak to the city engineer who couldn't make it this evening, and she's in an agreement that this is a good solution.

So when you look at the uh findings and conditions, there's one each added associated with those improvements on the site.

That complete your yes, it does.

Any questions?

I have a good question on the north side here.

It looks like before the trash can area, there may be some more space for parking or not.

Yeah, they couldn't do that.

That wouldn't be a parking stall.

You gotta be able to get the truck in the street.

Yeah, to get a truck in and out there.

It's got to be able to back out.

So you're you're going in a circle, don't you come in one direction and go out?

It's possible to go in a circle and and and come out.

Um, I think that's part of what they won want to use the warehouse function for.

They're gonna have larger trucks that come to that warehouse side.

But I don't think that's intended for the dumpster to go through.

But that's that's definitely not a proposed stop.

I mean, not the dumpster, but right to the right of the dumpster.

It looks like there's enough place to park a car, maybe.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

We'd have one would do that.

All right.

Just look like there's an extra space for one more space.

I I doubt the north saws will be will be used very often, but they do meet their the 27 that we require.

Any other questions?

Okay.

Um this item has been noticed to the public.

Um anybody here?

I don't see anybody but staff.

Um anybody online that wanted to speak to this.

If you are 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'm not seeing any hands.

Okay, we'll close that and bring it back to the uh commission for any further deliberation and action.

Oh okay.

Not really yet, but I can say all right, Mr.

Chair.

I'll make the motion.

Um staff recommends that the planning commission determine preliminary site plan review is complete for the proposed architectural components headquarters located at 9352 south, 670 west, based on the four findings and the five conditions in the staff report.

And with do we need to make an addendum just um with the addition from those that motion included those okay because you originally only had four findings three findings and four conditions and from the additional document that came, or do we just need to clarify that Mike?

Numerically she's correct.

Right.

I just didn't know if we needed to reference that since it was after the fact.

I would just uh include reference to the additional memor memorandum that was received uh earlier today by said by staff to the planning commission.

So be it.

Is there a second?

I'll second Lenise Stappenport.

Yes, Jennifer George, yes, David Hart?

Yes, Craig Kitterman, yes, Steve Wrigley, yes, Danny Schoenfeld, yes.

This motion carries.

Awesome.

Okay, that brings us to approval of the December 4th minute meeting minutes.

Do I have a motion to approve?

I'll make a motion to approve.

All those in favor?

I motion passes.

Uh development report, James.

We have a couple uh on director's report, a couple issues.

Well, I have one, and then if if Mike has any, but I want to just talk quickly about the um architectural review committee.

Um Danny has been serving on that for forever.

Forever.

A couple of years now.

A couple of years.

So we're happy to have him continue, but I don't know if he's happy to continue.

So we're gonna bring it up as an item that if anyone else would like to serve on that, we'd like to open that up.

Um we do need a planning commissioner on that committee.

Um, and we just want to open that up and see if there's any other interests in serving on that committee that would give uh Danny a break.

He's he's been on it a couple years.

When do they meet?

The fourth Wednesday of every month, typically is when that's held, and that's uh meeting that starts at 4 p.m.

typically as well.

And it's when we have it's not consistent as far as we have to have items to meet.

Sometimes we don't meet that month.

Anyone interested and not available on Wednesdays.

Oh, that's true.

That's kind of hard for us.

I mean, I I'm interested.

I'd like to know more about it though.

What more do you need to know?

How much do you make?

Uh let's talk right now.

All right.

Well, okay, let me ask are you one off?

That would be nice to have one less thing to do.

That would be nice.

What Wednesdays?

It's the fourth Wednesday, is what we ask you to kind of block out in your schedule.

And then we'll give you an a notice, usually about a week and a half, no later, um, if that meeting's gonna be canceled, uh, so that you can free that time up in your schedule.

But um the regular uh committee members uh kind of all establish that as their preferred date, and they establish that time kind of hold in their schedule.

That would fall on the 28th this month, yeah.

This month has already been canceled.

Well, no, I'm just saying it would flow on the 28th.

But yes, it would follow on the 28th.

Correct.

Yeah, I'll do that.

Excellent.

We will make note of that and include you for future notice.

We tell me what we're doing.

We have several uh and and we can have Mike staff, the person over that, Mike staff can uh get you up to speed on that.

We just need a name and who we'll work with to get up to speed on that.

We do have several members.

You have you may not be happy.

I do have opinions about our calling that looking like state capital.

Okay, and we do have uh right now we have two other architects on it that uh work for companies as well, and then a couple you might um Steve Burr.

I know Steve is on it, and um Lyle Beecher.

Lyle Beecher.

Oh those are the other ones who are on it, and we have some residents, some other people who are on it as well.

No, it's fine.

Two council people um are also Cindy Sharkey and Chris Nichols are the council representatives on that committee as well.

Okay, I'll be happy to do that.

Okay.

And if I have a problem, I'll let you know.

Okay.

Thank you.

And there'll be other opportunities for uh uh service as we get going on our code amendment uh update for land development code.

There'll be other um uh uh subcommittees that we'll be creating and and having opportunities for additional uh opportunities for you all to serve.

So thank you for that.

Um I'm not sure if you all are aware.

Um Doug Wheelwright is retiring.

He's our long serving for 15 years development services manager, and um he's having a second retirement.

He once retired from Salt Lake City after working 30 years there, and then came to work for Sandy City a few years later.

Um but uh his last day will be on February 2nd, and he won't be back at the planning commission, unfortunately, so um to present another item.

But uh we are in process of hiring uh a replacement for for that position and um hope to have that wrapped up here in the next little bit.

But just want to give that FYI out to all of you that uh Doug Doug is gonna be uh retiring here very soon.

We will send some stuff out for his retirement that you'll absolutely welcome to come in and as he send them off.

We wish him our best if we could have you not see him and thinking for all the things.

Did you say it was the fourth?

Second.

Fourth Wednesday.

Fourth Wednesday.

Yeah, fourth Wednesday, I thought sorry, I'm still jumping back.

And then we will have our next planning commission meeting on February 5th.

If I'm right on that date.

Now I'm second guessing myself.

Yeah, February 5th is our next meeting, so in three weeks.

But there's five Thursdays in in the month of January, so we all have an extra week in between there.

Uh and I think that's it by um administrative business on my end.

Okay.

Um last motion.

Motion to adjourn.

All those in favor?

Hi.

Thank you, everybody.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you.

Quickly.

Uh no.