Recording in progress.

All right, well welcome everybody to tonight's meeting.

It's our um March 19th uh planning commission meeting.

Um we'll do a quick pledge of allegiance and then some introductions and go from there.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to republic for which it stands one nation under liberty and justice for all.

We'll do a quick round of introductions of the planning commission and then staff.

Lenny Stappenport, Craig Kitcherman, Jennifer George, Danny Schoenfeld, Dave Bromley, Steve Wrigley.

And James, you want to do interduction of staff?

Yeah, thank you.

My name is James Swanson.

I'm the community development director tonight with us.

We have here uh Darien Alcorn, the senior city attorney, Mike Wilcox is the planning director, Brian McCuston, assistant community development director.

Let's see.

I think we have Clinton Spencer, Development Services Manager for the City.

Sarah Stringham's a planner, to my item on tonight.

Britney Ward, assistant public works director, Ivan Hooper, transportation engineer, and Aisha over here is the planning secretary.

I think that's it for our staff.

Thanks.

Okay, we have um a pretty big agenda tonight.

Um we'll try to get through that as um timely as possible.

Our first item on the agenda is the pink box arcade use and extended hours of operation.

I think Sarah, you've got that one.

Mike, are you doing the introduction first?

All right.

So this item is a as as you stated, a conditional use request submitted uh by the property owner, pink box donuts.

They are seeking to um operate an arcade use from this location in addition to the retail sales business of the donut shop.

They're also seeking to operate a little bit earlier than typical, uh, before 6 a.m.

is required to have a conditional use permit as well.

Uh this item is located at 10235 South State Street, and the applicant is attending online.

Uh Mr.

Mike Kurz, I believe, is speaking for on behalf of the applicant.

Mr.

Kurz, I'm going to allow you to unmute yourself and uh present to the planning commission.

Good evening.

Can you guys hear me?

Yes.

Great.

Thank thank you, guys.

Uh, as Mike mentioned, my name is Mike Kurz.

I'm the VP of construction and facilities for Pink Box Donuts.

I wanted to thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight.

Additionally, we're we at Pink Box.

We're really excited to come join the Sandy community this summer and open our pink box donut shop there on State Street.

Tonight we're requesting approval, like Mike mentioned, for a conditional use permit at our property located at 10235 South State Street.

We're currently renovating that property to a pink box donut shop.

The request uh tonight is for arcade use and extended hours of operation.

The property, the subject property was built in 1996.

It's approximately 4,000 square feet set on approximately 0.68 acres, and it's located in the CBD zone.

We're proposing an arcade as an accessory use within the pink box donut shop.

The arcade is proposed to operate under the same business hours as the donut shop, and it will occupy the former play place area of the restaurant and is about uh 1,105 square feet in total.

So it's that that area in pink on the on the screen.

The the building prior was a feast box restaurant, and prior to that was a was a Burger King where the play place was in the total building size is 4,000 square feet, so the arcade spot is is just over 1,100 square feet.

We're proposing to have no more than 20 arcade games uh in the designated arcade area, and it will be accessed through the restaurant space.

We're not proposing any uh seating uh in the uh arcade, however, we will allow our customers to take food and drink purchase from the donut shop into the arcade area.

Our pink box team members will will maintain that that arcade area of the of the uh shop.

Additionally, as Mike mentioned, we're we're proposing uh to operate a little bit early than earlier than what's currently allowed.

Uh currently allowed open at 6 a.m.

We're proposing open at 5 a.m.

Uh just a little bit earlier.

Uh primarily the uh to sell our donuts uh at the at the location being a being a good early morning food.

But that's that's about the the the um scope of our or what we're proposing here and and please let me know if you have any questions.

Any commission or commissioner questions?

Okay, that one.

Oh, Steve.

So my question on five o'clock uh in the morning.

You have run several of these stores.

Is that the typical time that you open?

Correct.

That's the typical time that we open um our our shops.

Uh we've just located we just opened a uh shop in American Fork, Utah, and we're proposing to operate the same the same hours that we're we're uh currently doing at American Fork.

Is that answer your question, Steve?

Yeah, okay.

Sorry, did you have any other additional?

Uh I don't think I have anything to add if you guys have any questions for me.

Um, but just that uh I guess one thing we did receive a comment, a phone call earlier this week.

Um and so that was those comments were sent to the planning commission as well as um to the applicant.

Um so I'll mention that, and then staff doesn't have concerns.

Um we are recommending approval of the arcade and then approval um to amend the existing conditioning use permit with the for the extended hours.

Thank you.

I think this item has been noticed to the public.

Is there anybody here tonight would like to speak on this item?

No.

Anybody online, Mike?

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

I'm seeing no hands.

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

Go ahead, Steve.

Yeah, question on parking is there to be sufficient parking for a donut shop and an arcade.

There'll probably be the same thing, I would guess as far as customers, but yes, yeah.

We looked at the parking uses, and we don't consider what's required for the restaurant use is what we would look at.

We were not gonna say like double park them to say they need like the arcade use and the restaurant use.

The restaurant use um it's a square footage.

Yeah, the eye looks at the square footage.

So yes.

Yeah, the other question I have is as far as it says no city means no tables.

Will it be able to have chairs and stuff for parents who take their kids to this arcade or they're gonna have to stand?

I don't think there's any seating.

I don't know if Mike wants to uh comment online on that, but I believe that there's no tables or seating.

Not currently in good great question.

Not not currently in the in the in the plan to have any tables or seating.

Um generally we're we're pretty limited on our seating.

If we do offer might be a small bench to sit down on uh but but nothing permanently affixed to the to the floor.

Okay, yeah, small benches.

And I'm just trying to think I'm gonna take my parent my kids there to do the arcade after that.

I'd want some place to sit down while they're playing their games.

Correct.

Nothing permanently affixed to the to the to the to the ground.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Um with that, is there any other further deliberation questions or possible action?

I'm ready for a motion unless there's other go ahead.

All right, I'll make a motion that the planning commission approve a conditional use permit for arcade use in the CBD zone and amending an existing conditional use permit for extended hours as described in a staff report uh for the property located at 10235 South State Street based on the four findings and the seven conditions detailed in the staff report.

Is there a second?

I'll second it.

Steve Dave Romley, yes, Steve Wrigley, yes, Lenise Davenport, yes, Craig Kitterman, yes, Jennifer George, yes, Danny Schoenfeld, yes.

This motion carries thank you, and good luck with your project.

Okay.

Next on the agenda are a series of annexations.

Just gonna do a quick kind of just general process for how we're gonna hear those tonight and then how we're going to handle each of those.

So thank you for everybody that's attended tonight.

We have a lot of items on the account.

We want to make sure that you understand the role of the planning commission.

And we also want you to everyone here to speak on the public hearing item that you have the opportunity for and to be open to the public hearing to just take a minute to do a couple of uh housekeeping items.

So for the tonight's hearing, the public um these items are for the city council's ultimate decision, both decision um ultimately for the annexation and the ultimate planning or the zoning.

The planning commission's role is to make a recommendation to the city council.

Utah code requires that the city council hold a public hearing for annexations, and um the public hearing is currently scheduled for April 7th.

Utah Code also requires the planning commission um hold a public hearing for this zoning as the noticed to the public.

We are also holding um this public hearing this evening.

Because the planning commission is tasked with forwarding recommendations both on annexation and zoning, it is most efficient to consider both the annexation and zoning together for each of these uh proposed annexation area.

We will hold one public hearing for uh with which each item when uh when a person is called on and when you have an opportunity to speak.

If you'd like to speak as the individual, you'll have two minutes to do so.

To help the planning commission understand and track the comments, I will announce each annexation in order as it appears on the agenda.

I will invite owners of the property to speak on those at one at a time.

After we have gone through all the annexation areas and the property owners have had a chance to speak, I will invite other members of the public to speak one at a time.

If you are one of these final speakers, um please relate your comments to the specific annexation area and please specify which annexation area you are commenting on.

Please specify excuse me.

When there are no more speakers remaining, I will close the public hearing and the public uh the planning commission will then deliberate and vote.

Again, this vote will be for the purposes of vote forwarding a recommendation to the city council, which Utah Code identifies as the decision maker body both both for the annexation and final zoning of the property.

Just a couple of reminders.

Um if you're here and speaking one here in person, please state your name and address and speak clearly into one of the two mics.

Um your comments will be timed to and limited to two minutes.

Please direct your comments to the planning commission, uh, not the staff or audience.

Comments to the um audience are not appropriate.

Um please respect and recognize the planning commission and will listen intently to each one of your um concerns or items as we speak to them.

Um and just as a matter of business for tonight, two of the items that were noticed for tonight, items 25 and 26, the Alta approach annexation, um, and that's and also the L CR annexation number two, are uh both tabled for tonight.

So those will not be heard, but we they were noticed, and we wanted to make sure that we noticed that, and we will take action just as a tabling for a future um meeting.

Do a tabling at this point, I guess.

Yes.

Okay.

So I'll make a motion that we uh planning commission table ALTA approach annexation and the L CR2 annexation to a uh uncertain date uncertain.

Is there a second?

Oh, hold on, sorry.

As the item was noticed to the public, but we should be able to take comment.

Oh, sure.

Okay.

Is there anybody here tonight that would like to speak on either of those two?

Please come down and state your name and address, please.

Sorry, I process question where I wasn't sure if you heard it gonna do comment.

Yeah, so please go ahead.

We'll have two minutes.

Um and I saw something in the procedures that I get a little more than two minutes if I represent the whole HOA that's part of that or no.

Just two minutes.

Two minutes, okay.

I'll stop, I'll start fast.

Uh my name is Josh Cantor.

I'm the member of the granite community council president of the Altair Approach Homeowners Association and homeowner and resident at 3972 Alta Perchover.

Thank you for the opportunity.

I'm gonna go really quickly.

Uh to begin, I'll I'll note that given the limited timing and information available.

I personally, and as president of our HOA strongly object to the proposed annexation by Sandy City of the four homes that are located within our HOA, as well as the condominium development and single family homes also proposed for annexation to our east.

That those are the properties that make up 25 and 26 on today's agenda.

Uh I hope to articulate our reasons for that fairly quickly.

First and foremost, these annexations run directly contrary to the wishes of the very property owners who would be subject to them.

In the absence of any demonstra hardship to Sandy City, and none has been identified.

The clear and unified position of the homeowners should be decisive.

Property owners overwhelmingly do not want this annexation.

It's important to clarify that both the Alta Approach and Quarry Drive are private streets, meaning Sandy will have no current or future obligation to maintain them with or without annexation.

The process itself appears to be driven almost exclusively by old water service or annexation letters rather than by any coherent planning principles or the goal of keeping communities intact.

The result is quite frankly nonsensical.

In the Alta Approach PUD, the result is that Sandy would annex the westernmost and easternmost homes in our community while leaving the rest of our neighborhood in unincorporated Salt Lake County.

This would literally split our community into two jurisdictions and essentially split our community into three sections.

Sandy has also not articulated how it stated interest in serving the public good is met by annexing only selected parcels within a larger peninsula area.

If Sandy believed that entire peninsula area should be within Sandy, we would expect to see that presented.

Instead, the patchwork approach suggests that Sandy may know it cannot lawfully annex the entire peninsula under current city initiated annexation law and is relying solely on those old water letter water service letters to justify this partial and factured expansion.

Compounding this, several of the targeted properties do not appear to be contiguous with Sandy's existing borders, while other properties with contiguous borders have been left out.

The proposed annexation of the easternmost home in Alta approach, the condominium development and the homes east of it would create non-contiguous islands of jurisdiction.

It's difficult to see how that serves anyone's municipal interests.

HB 330 also bears mention under that legislation, as you well know, the entire peninsula at the canyon entrance, including every property in the area now subject to Sandy's annexation effort was explicitly excluded from the granite city incorporation proposal so the area could remain intact within unincorporated Salt Lake County.

That preserved the status quo that we as property owners prefer and are asking you to respect.

So your two minutes are off.

Thank you.

The rules on line, say five minutes for somebody representing a group, which I represent.

If you finish what you would like to finish if you'd allow me to.

Yes, please please.

Thank you.

Finally, it's far from clear that these water letters and annexation letters are legally enforceable.

Many are unrecorded, which would we would assume is customary and legally required process vis-a-vis the legality of covenants that run with the land and are proposed to be binding on successor owners in some instances decades after the original agreements were executed.

Building a city initiated annexation on such a foundation, particularly if there's no contiguity with the city raises serious procedural concerns.

Beyond all these technical issues, I want to emphasize a more personal note.

This annexation effort is breaking up our community.

I've been a member in any number of meetings over the past decades wherein Sandy City officials have explicitly said they would not do this and would respect the wishes of the constituents they annex.

Yet that is exactly what is happening here.

Until Sandy initiated this process, I had never imagined the city would attempt to divide an established neighborhood without conversation, collaboration, or demonstrated benefit.

It makes us feel less like constituents and more like pawns in a strategy that has not been explained.

That alone has shifted community sentiment dramatically.

Similarly, it's also probably worth noting that it seems grossly unfair, if not negligent, to surprise neighbors and neighborhoods like ours without reasonable notice, discussion, or opportunity to consult with each other, let alone professionals.

Perhaps none of you have ever lived in an HOA, though I doubt that.

If you do, then you know that getting the timing and the difficulty and the cost that this is causing us is significant.

That is not what I would say is an encouraging welcome to Sandy atmosphere.

Without foreclosing our willingness to continue collaborative collaborative conversations about what is and is not in the interest of the homeowners, Sandy City and Salt Lake County, for all these reasons, we respectfully request that Sandy discontinue its efforts to annex the Alta approach and canyon entrance properties and allow our neighborhood to remain what it already is, a cohesive, contiguous part of unincorporated Salt Lake County.

Thank you for the additional time.

I appreciate it.

Thank you for the opportunities.

Is there anybody else here tonight on those two items?

Anybody online, Mike?

Oh, I'm sorry.

Go ahead, please come down.

You'll have two minutes.

Please just state your name and address, please.

Uh my name is John Bonfato.

I live at 4086 East Quarry Drive in the condominium complex.

Uh I'm here representing the board.

I'm a board member.

Is this part of items 24 and 20 or 25 and 26?

Yes, it's the LC2.

Thank you.

So thank you.

Okay.

So first of all, I just want to thank Josh for presenting so much information so quickly.

Um we submitted a letter to Brian this afternoon basically stating that we had no idea that Sandy was going to try this or attempt this, and we just need more time.

And we were not aware of the agreements that were shown to us that were from the 1980s.

We need time to evaluate this and make a decision as a community.

Uh we need time to evaluate this and make a decision as a community, and uh we're thankful that it appears you guys are gonna table it for for further consideration.

Uh and we welcome a conversation with Sandy.

If if Sandy wants to sit down and talk to us about the benefits of annexation, you know, we have a community that it's uh uh you know, we have HOA meetings, we have the the owners are engaged, you know.

We welcome the opportunity to discuss the pros and cons of annexation with Sandy, but but right now you we just feel like we were very surprised with what happened, and and we would request that that the process stop until we can kind of get time to evaluate the options.

So thank you very much.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Mike, anybody online if you are joining us via Zoom webinar and would like to speak on items 25 and 26, you may use the raise your hand feature now, and we'll address you one at a time.

And please note that uh the QA feature on Zoom is not for public comment.

Uh public comment has to be taken during the public comment period using the raise your hand feature.

I'm seeing no hands raised.

Okay, we'll close that to public comment and bring that back to the commission uh for the underlying motion.

Okay, so my motion stands.

Do I need a repeat it or are we good?

Sorry, second.

And there was a oh second, and Jennifer seconded.

Dave Bromley?

Yes, Jennifer George, yes, Steve Wrigley, yes, Lenny Stavenport, yes, Craig Kitterman, yes, Danny Schoenfeld, yes.

This motion carries.

Thank you.

The first item going back to the original order was the Walters annexation.

Brain, you want to take that one first.

Thank you, Chair.

Uh the Walter's annexation is located at 2587 East Low Cottonwood Road.

You can see that on the map here.

So the property owner signed a consent to annex into Sandy City uh in June of 2024.

This property currently is zoned A1 in the county, uh, which is historically been similar to our R110 zone in the in Sandy City.

Uh just to make a quick note that this is a legal non-conforming lot.

I included a little snippet of the plat in the staff report that uh the county approved this with a note that this would be a legal nonconforming lot.

So we would recommend the planning commission forward a recommendation at the appropriate time.

Thank you.

Is there the is the property owner here for this item item?

Okay.

We'll close that to public comment, or excuse me, is there anybody online, Mike?

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'm seeing no hands raised.

Okay, we'll close that to public comment then.

Um next is the uh Ketzel Annexation.

Yeah, the Cassell annexation.

This includes three different properties.

Uh two of them are off of a subdivision called the Larkin Mini subdivision.

That's 2802 East and 2798 East Cassell Drive.

And then the third one is south of those two properties located at 9538 Deer Run Place.

And the county zoning is R110, and Sandy City would be R110 as well.

Thank you.

Is the property owner here tonight that would like to speak to this?

If you could please come down and state your name and address for the record, you'll have two minutes.

Yeah, my name's uh Rod Glover.

I own the property at 2802 East Cassell Drive.

Uh Brian's correct that we are off of Cassell as far as access to our lane on the property map.

It shows that we're hooked up to dear run play, so it's just not the case.

Basically at our property line.

Um I can there's two concerns.

One is, of course, the pending or not pending uh anticipation of getting incorporated into Granite City.

Uh if that does happen, then I get annexed into Sandy City prior to that being resolved.

I will then be an island of Sandy City in the middle of granite uh incorporation.

So uh the reverse will happen to me.

So right now I everything's through the through the county, my sewer, my garbage, and everything goes that way.

Sandy City stops at the west side of Casell Drive, and I guess Sandy's down below there.

I'm not really sure.

But I would I would propose or like that anything on my property and my neighbors not be uh acted upon as far as zoning until there is the permanent items are in place for either incorporation of granite city or if Sandy City uh ends up annexing the rest of the property around me, then I I guess I'd be going into it.

I do support the granite uh incorporation.

I donated to it and I signed the deal, so I am involved in it through that manner.

So I would like to see that carried forward first before anything action is done on my property.

Thank you.

Anyone online, Mike?

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'm seeing no other hands.

Okay, we'll close that to public comment.

We'll do the next one, Clerk Annexation.

So the Clark annexation is just further east up the road, 2875 east, 9460 south.

Uh the property owner signed a consent back in 2017.

The county zoning is R110, proposed to be R110 and Sandy as well.

Is the property owner here and would like to speak to this item tonight?

Please come down and state your name and address for the record, please.

You'll have two minutes.

Okay.

My name is Carolyn Clark.

I live at 2875 East Cassell, or 9460.

I I really just don't know enough information.

And so I don't know exactly.

Um can I just ask questions or is that is this how this works?

Staff would be able to help you after this public meeting to answer any of those additional questions.

Okay, sure.

So um, do I just call them or is that yeah, Brian?

I can talk to you.

I can call me tomorrow.

Okay.

Okay, I'll talk to them then.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Um anybody else to this item, property owner spoken.

Um, anybody online?

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

I am seeing no other hands raised.

Okay, we'll close that to public comments.

Uh next item is the hidden pine annexation.

Yeah, these properties 9516, 9535 South, hidden pine lane.

Uh, property owners signed an annexation letter back in uh 2025 and 2023.

The county zoning is R115, Sandy City would be R115 as well.

And if possible, I'd like to do the next one as well because it's the neighbor at 9516 South, the Smith annexation.

Uh once he saw the other signs for the two other properties, he called and request to be annexed in as well.

So he signed a consent on March 9th, 2026.

Okay, thank you.

Um, on these two items of six and seven, are is there anybody here in the audience would like to speak on this topic?

Mike, anybody online?

If you are joining us via Zoom webinar and would like to speak on the Smith annexation or the hidden pine annexation, please use the raise your hand feature now, and we'll address you one at a time.

I am seeing no hands raised.

We'll close that to public comment and uh go on to the next one, the Pingri annexation.

Yeah, Pingree Annexation located at 9620 South 3100 east.

Uh property owner signed the consent back in 2020.

The current property or current zoning in the county is R121.

Uh Sandy does not have an R121.

The closest thing is R120, so we would propose the R120 zone.

Is the property owner here tonight that would like to speak on this topic?

Please come down.

And if you'll just state your name and address for the record, please.

You'll have two minutes.

Yes, I'm Duffy Pingry.

I live at 9620 South, 3100 East.

Uh, my uh question, I guess, is my wife Joan too as well.

So it says that we consented to it, but I was uh when we rebuilt our house on that property, we were told we had no choice.

Uh we had to sign that document in order to connect the house up to the exact same pipe that we had connected to the prior house.

So I I guess that's my number one question.

And uh also we're interested in this granite city uh development that they're creating, and so I want to know if this uh annexation overrides that if I have the possibility of still being in the granite city.

Um staff would be able to answer the questions offline for you.

Absolutely question.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mike, anybody online on this top item?

If you're joining us via uh Zoom webinar, I would like to speak to this particular item on the Pingree annexation.

Please use the raise your hand feature now, and we'll address you one at a time.

I'm seeing no other hands raised.

Okay, we'll close that to public comment.

Uh item number 10 is the Anderson annexation.

Yeah, just down the road at 9635 South 3100 East.

Signed the petition back in 2005.

County zoning is R115 proposal and Sandy's R115.

I will mention that Mrs.

Anderson did call me and email me, and she expressed an interest to stay within.

She would like to be part of the granite community if that incorporates.

So just wanted to make a record of that.

Thank you.

Is the property owner here tonight that would like to speak on this item?

Anyone online, Mike?

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

I am seeing no hands raised.

Thank you.

Next item on the agenda is the Miller annexation number 10.

Uh this one's located at 3017 East Granite Meadow Lane.

Uh, property understanding the consent back in 2020.

Uh the county zone is R121, so we would propose R120 here in Sandy City.

Is the property owner here tonight and would like to speak on this item?

Anyone online, Mike?

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

I'm seeing no hands raised.

Thank you.

We'll close that to public comment.

And the next item number 11 is the parish annexation.

Located at 2995 East Mount Jordan Road.

Property owner signed the consent back in 2018.

Current zoning in the county is R115.

Proposed to be R115 in Sandy City.

This item has been noticed to the public.

Is there the property owner here tonight that would like to speak to this item?

Mike, anybody online?

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

I am seeing no hands.

Thank you.

We'll close that to public comment.

The next item number 12 is the Sieverts annexation.

Located at 9876 South 2700 East.

Uh signed a consent back in 2020.

County zoning is R143.

We don't have an R143, but we do have an R140.

So that would be our recommendation.

And included in your packet, we did get an email from Anna Sieverts asking for withdrawal letter from the from this annexation.

Thank you.

Um is the pro this item has been noticed to the public.

Is there anybody here that would like to speak on this item?

Please come down and state your name and address for the record, please.

You'll have two minutes.

Excuse me.

My name is Vaughn Cox.

My address is 9906 South 2700 East.

I'm the parcel that is just south of the Sieverts property.

And I have to comment on several annexations, and I've written them up in a letter that I could hopefully.

That's my first objection.

The second objection is this parcel used to be serviced for culinary water by the North Dry Creek irrigation culinary system, which Sandy City purchased in 1992.

In the contract, there's a clause that says Sandy agrees not to use culinary water to uh justify any annexations of any of the properties that were on the North Dry Creek system prior to Sandy's purchase of the water system.

So based on that contract, if Sandy would annex the case this uh property, they would be in violation of that covenant of the contract.

Um so those are the two reasons why I object to this.

There's another parcel.

Um, the uh Evanson property.

If you go to the second page of my letter, uh that's also under the uh under the uh North Dry Creek water purchase agreement that it should not be annexed because the that contract said that Sandy would not annex uh that parcel uh where it would use water for the justification for that annexation.

And that's all I have to say about those two.

I have comments on some others that I'll be back up later on.

Okay, thank you.

If you if and uh if it's if you're not directly to the property owner, I I would say that you would need to wait till after all of the um annexation.

So we'll when you mention that the property, I'll come up at that time.

Right, but if you're if you're not directly the property owner itself, we're asking just the property owner to make comment on that, and then if you have general comments for all of these other related ones, you can wait till after the very end.

Yes, yeah, please.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else related to that property online?

If you're joining us via Zoom webinar and would like to speak on the Seabert's annexation, please use the raise your hand feature now.

One will we'll address you one at a time.

I am seeing no hands raised.

Okay, we'll close that to the public comment.

We'll go on to item number 13, the Jenkin annexation.

I probably mispronounced that.

Yeah, this one's located at 26, 270, 10,000 south.

Uh former property owner signed the letter and consent back in uh April of 2024.

Properties on R143 in the county, proposed to be R140 on Sandy City.

Thank you.

Is there is the property owner here present that would like to speak on this item?

Seeing none, uh Mike is the property owner possibly online.

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

I am seeing no hands.

We'll close that to public comment.

Autumn item number 14, the night annexation.

Yeah, located at 10116 South Alpha Villa Drive.

Uh property owner sign back in 2004.

R143 is the current zoning property, uh, current zoning in the county.

We would propose R140 in Sandy City.

Thank you.

Is the property owner here tonight that would like to speak on this?

Please come down.

Please come down.

You'll have two minutes.

Yes, my name is Douglas Knight.

I live at 10116 Alta Villa Drive in Sandy, so Salt Lake County.

Whatever.

Um couple comments.

First, that uh your slide should be amended to say property owner was forced to sign a consent petition back in 2004.

22 years ago, we signed that because the only way, the only way we could get culinary water was to sign that petition.

It was very vague, didn't really spell out things, there was no inbound date.

That's 22 years ago.

And now all of a sudden it's coming up because the granite initiative is like coming back with their little information here.

So change that because I was forced.

And I'm gonna have I'm gonna petition to have my name removed from that petition as well.

Second of all, your map is also inaccurate.

You show all that red is contiguous.

If you look at the real properties on that street that are being for you know being asked to annex, it is not one big continuous block of red there like you have on your diagram.

In fact, it breaks it up into islands.

So the question starts coming around municipal services and how they're gonna be delivered to us.

You know, it's like myself and my neighbor across the street, we get annexed, it's gonna create an island to the other properties.

So is the snowplow gonna lift its plow up when it comes to my street, and then also drop it in front of my house and then lift it up when it gets to the Burgess's house and continue down the street, then drop in front of Taylor's house, then pick up and then drop in front of Miller's house.

You know, it's not contiguous.

So thank you for your time.

I appreciate you listening to me.

Thank you.

Mike, anybody else online to speak to this item?

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

I am seeing no hands raised.

Thank you.

Item number 15, the Alta Villa number one annexing annexation.

This is property located at 10093 South Alta Villa Drive, as well as 1005 South and 1008 South, Grass Creek Circle.

Um you've got the information on when the consent were signed.

Some were back in 1982, others were in 2018.

Current zoning in the county is R143, Sandy would propose to be R140 and R140A.

So the R140A stands for animal rights, so they would be allowed to have large farm animals, and that would be at 10093 South Alta Villa Drive.

Thank you.

Are any of the property owners here that would like to speak on this item?

Anyone online, Mike?

If you're joining us via Zoom webinar, we would like to speak on this particular annexation.

Please use the raise your hand feature now, and we'll address you one at a time.

Thank you.

Next item number 16, Altaville Villa number two annexation.

Yeah, so this includes two properties.

Uh one owner sign uh the address is 10149 and 10181 south Alta Villa Drive.

Property owner signed the consent back in 2015.

Uh zoning in the counties R143, proposal to be R140 in Sandy City.

Thank you.

This item has been noticed to the public.

Is there any of the property owner that here to tonight to speak to this item?

Anyone online, Mike?

This item has been noticed.

Um, and uh for anyone attending via Zoom webinar and would like to speak on the Alta Villa 2 annexation.

Please use your uh the raise your hand feature now, and we'll address you one at a time.

I'm seeing no hands.

Thank you.

We'll close that to public comment.

Uh item number 17, Alta Villa number three annexation.

We'll do 17 and 18 together.

Thank you.

Since there's similar situations.

Alta Villa 3 is 10184 South Alta Villa Drive.

And uh Alta Villa 4 is 10274 and 10302 South Alta Villa Drive.

So on both situations, both property owners saw the signs out there, called me and expressed an interest in annexing into Sandy, so they signed a consent just in on March 9th.

Uh again, the zoning is the same, R143 in the county.

Proposed R140 here in Sandy.

Thank you.

Are any any property owners here for item number 17 or 18 tonight?

Anyone online, Mike?

If you're joining us via Zoom webinar on these items, 17 and 18, please use the raise your hand feature now, and we'll address you one at a time.

I am not seeing any hands.

Thank you.

We'll close that to public comment.

Number 19, South Miller Annexation.

Number 19.

So this is located at 10345 South Alta Villa Drive.

Property owner signed the consent in 2016.

Uh similar zoning R143 in the county, I140 in Sandy City.

Thank you.

This item has been noticed to the public.

Is there anybody here tonight would like to speak on this item?

Anyone online, Mike?

If you're joining us via Zoom webinar and would like to speak on 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.

Thank you.

We'll close that to public comment.

Number 20, the Fricks annexation.

Located at 10364 South Alta Villa Drive.

Uh, sign the consent back in 2013.

R143 in the county, and R1 proposed to be R140 in Sandy City.

Is there anybody here tonight on this item that would like to speak to this item?

Anybody online, Mike?

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.

Thank you.

We'll close that to public comment and item number 21, Brown Annexation.

Located at 3149 East 9800 South.

Current zoning in the county is R115.

Proposed Sandy R115 as well.

Thank you.

This item has been noticed to the public.

Anyone here would like to speak on this item?

The property owner?

Anybody online, Mike?

If you're joining us via Zoom webinar on the Brown annexation, please use the raise your hand feature, and we'll address you one at a time.

I am seeing no hands.

Thank you.

We'll close that to public comment.

Item number 22, LCR1 annexation.

Yeah, this includes three different properties, 3249, 3251, and 3269.

Right now the county's uh zoning is R121, proposed to be R120 in Sandy City.

I did talk with the property owner at 3251 and she requested the animal rights.

So we would request to include the R12A for 3251 East Little Color.

Thank you.

This item has been noticed to the public.

Anybody here that'd like to speak on this item?

Mike, anybody online.

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

I'm seeing no hands.

We'll close that to public comment.

Item number 23, the MSMR annexation.

Located at 9682 South Oakwood Lane.

Uh former owner of property, former property owner signed the annexation.

Um I did not put the date, so I don't remember off the top of my head.

But this was zoned R121 in the county and proposed to be R120 in Sandy City.

Thank you.

This item has been noticed to the public.

Anyone here tonight, the property owner, please come down.

You'll have two minutes.

State your name and address.

Yeah, I unfortunately that's just part of the process.

9682 South Oakwood Lane.

Um I have no problem being in Sandy, but as you can see from that map, all of my neighbors are not.

And they were all part of the same development.

So I would like to know how we just have one letter from a former from the former developer, and we don't have the rest of them.

Uh, like the previous person said, I'm a little concerned about services.

Uh one of my neighbors there, they saw a house on fire across the lane.

You know, the wasatch goes down, there's kind of a gully there, and on the other side you can see the houses.

And they called Sandy City Fire Department, they called you, you know, then they said, no, no, we we don't handle that.

It's united or unified, then unified.

They came to the house.

They said, how do how the hell do we get across that gully?

And it's like we're supposed to tell you that, and by the time they figured it all out, the house had burned down.

And so I'm a little concerned that if something happens, all my neighbors are in a different city.

Like I said, I I have no problem being in Sandy, but I'd kind of like all the neighbors around me to be in the same city.

If you know for services and whatever, if they call, who do they call?

Anyway, that's my comments.

Thank you very much.

Yeah.

And how do I find out how come the rest of Mark being?

Um Brian McCush can okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um, anybody um online life that would like to speak to this item.

Yeah, if you're joining us via Zoom webinar and would like to speak on 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 on this one.

Thank you.

We'll close that to public comment.

Item number 24, the Lakai annexation.

This is located at 9565 South Wasatz Boulevard.

Uh we have a consent back by back signed in 2021.

This property currently has two zonings in the county, R143 is C and C2.

And then there's another little box C2 slash Z C, which is a zoning condition, which allowed them to sell wine.

And so Sandy is proposing to zone this to R140 and the CC, which is our community commercial zone.

Thank you.

Anyone is the property here.

Please come down and state your name and address for the record.

You'll have two minutes.

The address of the property is 9565 South Wasatch Boulevard.

And your neighbor and your name.

Sir, could you speak right into one of the two mics?

If you could pick one of the two mics to speak, pull up closer to your either or which one?

You can pick either or okay.

Just one or the other.

First of all, I should note that that the consent that was referred to.

Sir you could just speak real closely into that mic.

Yeah.

Like it's your best friend.

That was referred to has already been withdrawn.

And so that would be part of the protest that I understand we can file sometime before the council meeting on the 7th, not tonight.

We don't need to protest tonight.

That is not part of this process.

That is correct.

Correct.

Good.

My understanding is is that the process tonight is primarily to consider zoning, assuming that Lakai is annexed in to Sandy.

My message is pretty short.

We've been working on that.

We've been talking to uh to staff.

We are not yet ready.

We need a little bit more time, and and our recommendation and hope is that you will defer it long enough to let us complete that process.

There are a number of activities, as I'm sure you understand, that take place at LaCai and that are allowed now.

We don't want to find ourselves out of compliance should the annexation occur.

We have a number of liquor licenses, for example, that need to be addressed.

Significantly for you is that the notice that includes that parcel up there with the crosshatch is not a parcel.

It was before, it looks like, but it's not now.

It only takes part of some parcels which are outside of that area.

And so I don't think that you can do this particular annexation anyway.

That'll be addressed if we need to, hopefully, just with cat with staff, but if if not with staff, excuse me, then we would certainly address that in our protests too.

Unless you have questions of me.

Any questions?

No.

Thank you.

I will just mention that his questions that he um brought up obviously are for the city council to decide as far as when it gets to them on April 7th.

Sure.

Thank you for your time.

Anyone else online, Mike?

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

Thank you.

We'll close that to public comment.

Again, items 25 and 26 were tabled.

Um item number 27, the TP real estate annexation.

Yeah, this one's located at 10209 South Dimpledale Road.

Consent was fine signed back in 2004.

The zoning is R121, proposed to be R120 and Sandy.

Thank you.

This item has been noticed to the public.

Is there the property owner here tonight in person that would like to speak to this item?

Mike, anybody online?

If you're joining us via Zoom webinar on the TP real estate annexation, please use the raise your hand feature now, and we'll address you one at a time.

I am seeing no hands.

Thank you.

We'll close that to public comment.

The next item number 28, the G Miller annexation.

Yeah, this is located at 10324 South Timpledale.

Uh Timpledale Road.

Uh property owner signed this consent back in 2024.

County County zone is R121, proposed to be R120 and Sandy.

Thank you.

As uh this item's been noticed to the public.

Anybody here that tonight that would like to speak on this item?

Thank you.

Anyone online mic?

If you're joining joining us via Zoom webinar and would like to speak on 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.

Thank you.

We'll close that to public comment.

Item number 29, the scrub oak annexation.

Located at 2998 East Apple Hollow Cove.

Uh property owner can sign the consent in 2002.

Zoning is R121 in the county proposed to be R120 in Sandy.

This item has been noticed to the public.

Is there anybody here tonight?

The property owner would like to speak on this item.

Mike, anybody online?

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

I am seeing no hands.

Thank you.

We'll close that to public comment.

Next one is the Janke Flats annexation.

Yeah, this is for a four-lot subdivision.

Um 32 or 3020, 3023, 3030, and 3033 East Janky Flats Lane.

The developer signed the consent for these for this subdivision in 2014.

Current zoning in the county is R121.

Uh we would propose them to be R120 and Sandy City.

Two of those lots would be legal non-conforming because they are under 20,000 square feet currently.

This item has been noticed to the public.

Is anybody here tonight that would like to speak on this item?

Please come down and state your name and address for the record.

And just speak really into one of those two mics.

Okay.

Yeah, I'll be brief.

So uh my name's David Sheffings.

I live at 3033 East Yankee Flats Lane, so one of those non-conforming uh lots.

Um myself, I actually have no problems.

Actually, I'm in full support of the annexation.

Um I've actually sent questions to Brian, he's answered all those questions.

And talking with the neighbors, I know I can't really represent the neighbors, but we've discussed uh this proposal, and nobody actually has any issues with it.

The only two things that really came up, which I think Brian has actually answered.

One was about the Bell Canyon irrigation rights, and it sounds like there's no change to that, those will continue.

Another question that we had, um, all the uh homeowners would really like to see the road taken over by Sandy City.

Been talking with Brian that was not possible because of the size of the lots would be reduced.

So if that was ever a consideration in the future, we would like to that to be considered.

Um, just more for snow plowing than anything else.

The only other last question I have is I'm a little unsure why the crosshatch goes down um Dimpledell Road.

I didn't actually get a chance to ask Brian about that.

Sorry, please.

Yeah, he can answer that afterwards.

Yeah, we will as homeowners we will aware of that zone going down the the road there.

So other than that, uh no no other issues.

Thank you for your time.

All right, thank you.

Uh anybody else online, Mike.

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

I am seeing no hands.

We'll close that to public comment.

Item number 31, the Hilton annexation.

This is located at 104 24 South Templedale Road.

Property owner signed a consent in 2015.

Current zoning is R121, proposed to be R120 in Sandy City.

Thank you.

Is the property owner here that would like to speak on this item?

Anyone online?

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

I am seeing no hands.

Thank you.

We'll close that to public comment.

Item number 32, the Southwick annexation.

Located at 10524 South Temple Dale Road.

Uh property owner signed the consent in 2016.

Current zoning is R143.

Proposed to be R140A in Sandy, because he does have barge animals on site.

Thank you.

Is the property owner here tonight would like to speak to this item?

Anyone online, Mike?

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

Thank you.

We'll close that to public comment.

Item number 33, the turning point annexation.

So this is a subdivision with five lots.

You see the addresses on the screen.

The developer signed a consent back in 2016.

Current zoning is R143 proposed to be R140 and Sandy.

Thank you.

Is the I is the property owner here tonight would like to speak to this item?

Anybody online, Mike?

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

I am seeing no hands.

We'll close that to public comment.

Item number 34, Newman Annexation.

So this uh annexation includes four properties located on 20th East.

This is a group of individuals that wanted to annex in.

Uh we gave their consent forms back in January.

So just as the timing went, we included this as part of all the others.

Uh they signed their consent, like I said, in January of this year.

Current zoning is R12821, proposed to be R120 and Sandy.

Is any of the property owners here that would like to speak to this item tonight?

Anyone online, Mike?

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 Linda Newman.

You may unmute, unmute yourself.

Linda, if you could state your name and address for the record, you'll have two minutes.

My name is Linda Newman, and I may address one else 715 South 2000 is in Sandy.

I'm thinking about our question is we have pasture and price for large animals.

We don't have any right now, but we've had that zoning, and I want to keep that.

Is there I noticed one of them had an A at the end?

Is that something that we can request or yes?

That um we will include that as part of the motion for tonight.

Okay.

Thank you.

Anyone else online, Mike?

I am seeing no other hands raised.

Thank you.

We'll close that to public comment.

And the last one is the Finley Mini Annexation.

Located at 2030 and 2060 East.

Uh the developer of this two lot subdivision can signed the consent back in 1999.

Proposed zoning in or it is currently zone R121 in the county, proposed to be R120 in Sandy City.

Thank you.

Is the property owner here tonight that would like to speak to this item?

Anybody online, Mike?

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

I am seeing no hands raised.

Thank you.

We'll close that to public comment.

Um, and we'll bring that back to just general public comment.

Um, if there's anybody else that would like to speak tonight to this item, you're welcome.

Please come down.

You'll have two minutes again.

Please just state your name and address for the record, please.

My name is Vaughn Cox.

My address is 9906 South 2700 East.

You have a copy of the letter that I have given you before.

Um I want to make just a couple of comments.

First, has anyone really considered how these annexations are going to break up the current islands?

I look at the island I live in, it's about three quarters of a mile long.

From the top to the bottom, it changes from unincorporated county to Sandy back to unincorporated county nine times.

Nine times.

And I as I talk with people at Sandy, I I feel like that those kind of common sense things fall on deaf ears.

So I want to ask the question what is the real motivation for these annexations?

It's probably above the pay grade of everybody in this room.

But the message delivered by Sandy City is that the city is a contractual right to complete these annexations.

Perhaps they do, perhaps they don't.

While there are many legal arguments that the annexation clauses are not enforceable, no one knows how a court would rule in this case issue.

But in all candor, these 29 annexation rule resolutions, these actions that would annex 53 parcels of land within the granite community are not really about annexation at all.

They are about Sandy City's efforts to stop the incorporation of the city of granite.

If these annexations go through, the map of granite will change, and those that are trying to incorporate granite will have to start over.

The deadline is July of 2027, and there's not enough time to start over and complete it.

So this is an effort to stop that effort.

If these annexations go through, the incorporation effort will likely die, or be on life support.

Through these annexation actions, the Sandy City is actually working to number one, silence the voice of the granite community and its residents.

Number two, stop a valid and legally authorized election where the residents of granite can voice make their own decision.

And number three, deny the residents of granite their right of self-determination.

It's hard for me to find an example in Utah government of anything more undemocratic and unameric uh un American than using tech now tech technicalities and trickery to silence the voice of an entire community.

And that's what's happening here.

Two minutes are up.

You know, I don't know what to say.

But it's unconscionable what's happening here.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else that would like to speak tonight that hasn't already?

Please come down if you state your name and address for the record, please.

I'm Rob Alston.

I live at 10575 Dimpledell Road.

Uh currently a resident of Sandy City.

Was it always that?

So I lived in Sandy City for 20 years over on Sega Lilly.

Uh moved to Dimpledale about 20 years ago.

So I was a member of the granite community.

Joined the Granite Community Board for about four or five years.

Really didn't think that Granite Community was particularly well run, and there was a lot of people who had hostility to Sandy City for what I thought were really good reasons.

So 15 years ago I voluntarily left Granite City or Granite community and annexed into Sandy.

They've been nothing but positive.

I love the people that I've worked with, whether it's been in public utilities, planning, development, uh I built added onto my house, I did an ADU, all kinds of things where I've had to deal with Sandy City, including police.

Quick response for police as opposed to being in the county.

Um I'm really happy with being in Sandy City, and I support these annexations because I think it makes no sense whatsoever to have the current checker board of county and Sandy City that we have on Dimpledale.

And it only makes sense to you create one city, and I think Sandy City is the right city for that.

Thank you for your time.

Anyone else that would like to speak tonight?

Anybody online, Mike?

If you're joining us via Zoom webinar and would like to speak on any of the annexation items, please use the raise your hand feature now, and we'll address you one at a time.

You have one um raised hand, Mr.

Steve Van Marin.

You may unmute yourself.

Steve, you'll have two minutes.

Thank you.

Steve Van Maron, 14178 South Bangar Parkway.

I am totally impressed with the chair's getting through this agenda so quickly.

I totally understand what you're trying to do.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Steve.

Anybody else online or in person that would like to speak to these items tonight?

I'm seeing no other hands.

Okay, we're gonna close that to public comment and we're gonna bring that back to the commission for action.

Um let's see, going back to the Walters annexation, that would be number two.

Is this anything or sure?

Absolutely.

Sorry.

Deliberation.

Um, do we are there specific questions on any of the annexations or process, or what would you like to discuss?

It appears as though we're creating all these islands, but can you speak into your mic?

It appears as though we're creating all these islands, but can uh can the state lobby uh explain why what the motivation is for these annexations that we're doing.

Darien, did you want to take that one?

Um can you hear me okay?

Sorry, I'm a little under the weather.

Um so the state law allows annexation of uh contiguous property that's within an island or a peninsula in Sandy.

So if it's already an island and there's uh property within the island that's contiguous to Sandy, Sandy is allowed under state law to annex that.

Um it's the city council that makes the determination that it's in the best interest of the city to annex only a portion of that island or peninsula when they annex the property or you know, multiple properties.

Um they're not creating the island because it already exists as an island today.

They adopted that intent to annex resolution previously, and within that resolution they made the determination that it was in the best interest of Sandy City to only annex a portion.

I'm not sure I understood that answer actually.

So did you say that there was not these annexations wouldn't create any instances where that property does not touch a Sandy City after it's annexed?

Is that I thought that was the intention is as far as islands go.

And do do any of these annexations not meet that, or is my understanding not correct?

So that each property that's being annexed is contiguous to Sandy City.

It just isn't the entire island that's being annexed.

Okay, I I think it's a portion of an island that's being annexed.

Okay.

Craig, does that answer your question?

Um, is there not a deadline that the state has given us?

So there is it.

The state has adopted an on an automatic annexation date in 2027.

That these properties have annexation agreements of various forms that are already in place, and so Sandy City is annexing them in advance of that automatic annexation time frame based on the water service that we're providing and that promise of future annexation.

So it appears like there's a lot more annexations coming, yeah that will fill in these areas by the state's deadline.

I'm not sure if the audience understands that.

And by what Brennan had mentioned, there were a few that aren't that are coming in just as a consent, correct?

And not as part of a water letter as well.

There were several there were several of those too.

I I believe that one when the state adopted the automatic annexation, there actually were quite a few properties that began to just request annexation in advance of that date.

And we have done some of those already as part of several of those already.

One last question about the granite situation.

Um in the granite area.

So uh uh the granite area performed a feasibility study, and they that feasibility study included some of these properties, so that feasibility study would be would need to be amended if the city council determines to annex these properties, but that determination is going to be made by the city council city council.

Mr.

Chair, I have a question regarding the there was a lot of questions on services, and so if we could just put on record how services will be tackled in these in these new annexed areas, that would be helpful.

Do you want to yeah, Brian?

You want to talk about that for a minute?

Yeah, and talking with our public works folks, um they are already current agreements with the county on some of these areas because this isn't unfortunately not a new thing.

I mean, we have areas that are part, you know, you could have portions of the same street that are part in Sandy and partly in the county, and so there are agreements in some of those locations where either Sandy performs the service on the snow plow or the county does, and so we would have similar agreements in place in some of these areas.

We've had a lot regarding the water from my understanding the people that had the water letters or whatever they sent us something saying that there are they would like to move forward with this, but now someone wanted to draw out of that.

Is that what we heard?

So there are uh a couple of properties that have signed a consent, and there was language on former consents that uh had language on being able to withdraw from the annexation, and so on the Seabridge property we did get one of those letters where they formally requested to withdraw from the annexation.

Okay, because I heard a couple of people say they may be submitting that withdrawal, even though they said that would be okay.

And there's a couple up here that said hey, yes, we need to go forward on that.

Like I said, it was on certain or a certain time period that that language is on the consent.

We'll have to look at each one of those individually.

There was also a question if if if Sandy annexes them in and granite goes through, can granite annex them back into granite, or is that once it's in the Sandy?

Do you can't go back to the city?

Yeah, once it's in the Sandy, it's in Sandy.

Because I sort of heard some of that concern going on there.

Um I understanding we're making a recommendation basically just to move forward with these to the city council and the city council make a decision basically answer all the concerns that this audience had today.

Same location.

Okay.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions?

Yeah, right.

Maybe stay there.

Uh so on Mr.

Cox's uh document here.

It uh these items here were it's talked about the water uh annexation contractually forbidden documentation.

So do we have any of these items on here tonight that are still on the agenda?

I haven't seen his letter, so I don't know what properties referring to, and I don't know enough information on that contract.

We would have to have our legal okay.

So if that's if if we went ahead and and had provided a recommendation, obviously this is the city council makes the final call on this.

That's correct.

Anything on these would be so we would just make her city council at this point, yeah, and then all that would be figured out afterwards.

So that's correct.

Yeah, it's going to our attorneys before it came to the city council probably.

Okay.

Um then uh there was that question about the Dimpleto Road quack cross hatch.

Maybe if you could uh provide some additional clarity on that.

Was that part of the map, the plat previously?

Yeah, yeah, and a number of annexations we've done since the state passed that bill.

You know, others have expressed interest.

Um they have to be contiguous, and we have included sections of Dimpledel Road on the past, and so we just did that same same process on this one.

Okay, um, and then um we had some general discussion uh prior like we we all visited these properties as a planning commission on the bus uh on a bus and and we had some general discussion about R140A versus R140, and um these R140A recommendation sorry sorry the R140 recommendations they'll have an R143 designation in the county and that can and that designation also offered animal rights correct and I think as a planning commission we talked about particularly those properties that were uh near the granite park and and Dimple Dell recreational park areas that that were zoned R140A or sorry R1 recommended to be R140 to I think to come in at R140A is the how we generally discuss that.

So I think we'll see that in some of the uh motions.

So did that complete your yeah, okay.

Lenise, did you have some questions?

No, I don't have any questions.

Okay, um are we ready to kind of make some motions or okay?

Um to item three, which is the Walters annexation.

Mr.

Cherrell, make that motion.

Okay.

I recommend that the planning commission send a positive recommendation to the city council that the Walters annexation be approved and zoned R110 based on the five findings in the staff report.

Is there a second?

Stephens Lenny Stavenport, yes, Craig Kitterman, yes, Dave Bromley?

Yes, Steve Wrigley, yes, Jennifer George, yes, Danny Schoenfeld, yes.

This motion carries.

Thank you.

Next item is the Cassell annexation number four.

Mr.

Cheryl, make the motion on that.

Go ahead.

Realizing that the council will take the final action on this.

Um I recommend that the planning commission send a positive recommendation to the city council that the Cassell annexation be approved and zoned R110 based on the five findings of the staff report.

Is there a second?

I'll second it.

Lenise Davenport, yes.

Steve Wrigley?

Yes.

Dave Bromley?

Yes, Craig Kitterman?

Yes.

Jennifer George?

Yes.

Danny Schoenfeld?

Yes.

This motion carries.

Next is the clerk annexation.

Mr.

Cheryl, make a motion that the planning commission send a positive recommendation to the city council that the Clark annexation be approved and zoned R110 based on the five findings in the staff report.

Is there a second?

Second.

Lenny Stappenport, yes.

Craig Kitterman?

Yes.

Dave Bromley?

Yes.

Steve Rigley?

Yes.

Jennifer George?

Yes.

Danny Schoenfeld?

Yes.

This motion carries.

Number six, the hidden pine annexation.

Mr.

Cherrell, make a motion that the planning commission send a positive recommendation to the city council that the hidden pine annexation be approved in zoned R115 based on the five findings of the staff report.

Is there a second?

Yes.

I'll be second that.

Sorry, who was the second?

Steve.

I did it.

Thank you.

Lenny Stappenport.

Yes.

Steve Wrigley?

Yes.

Dave Bromley?

Yes.

Craig Kitterman?

Yes.

Jennifer George?

Yes.

Danny Schoenfeld?

Yes.

This motion carries.

Number seven, the Smith annexation.

Mr.

Charry recommend that the planning commission send a positive recommendation to the city council that the Smith annexation be approved in zoned R115 based on the four findings of the staff report.

Is there a second?

I'll second.

Lenny Stavenport?

Yes.

Jennifer George?

Yes.

Dave Bromley?

Yes.

Steve Wrigley?

Yes.

Craig Kitterman?

Yes.

Danny Schoenfeld?

Yes.

This motion carries.

Number eight, Pingree annexation.

Mr.

Chair, this is my final motion of the evening.

Okay.

I recommend that the planning commission send a positive recommendation to the city council that the Pin Gree annexation be approved in zoned R120 based on the five findings of the staff report.

Is there a second?

Second.

Lenny Stavenport, yes.

Craig Kitterman?

Yes.

Dave Bromley?

Yes.

Steve Wrigley?

Yes.

Jennifer George?

Yes.

Danny Schoenfeld?

Yes.

This motion carries.

Anderson and annexation number nine.

I'm not quite ready to make a motion on that.

Does someone else want to do that one?

Number nine.

I don't have it in front of me.

I'm conflicted.

I'd like to make a motion that the planning commission send a positive recommendation to city.

Ms.

George, is your microphone on?

Yeah.

Okay.

Closer.

Yeah, close.

I'd like to make a recommendation that the planning commission send a positive recommendation to city council that the Anderson annexation be approved in zoned R115 based on the five recommendations.

Is there a second?

Second.

Jennifer George?

Yes.

Dave Bromley?

Yes.

Steve Wrigley?

Yes.

Lenny Stavenport?

Yes.

Craig Kitterman?

No.

Danny Schoenfeld?

Yes.

This motion carries.

Number 10, the Anderson annexation.

Miller.

Excuse me, I'm sorry, number 10, Miller annexation.

Sorry.

I'd like to make a recommendation there.

Okay.

I move that the planning commission send a positive recommendation to the city council at the Miller annexation be approved and zoned R120 based upon the five findings in the staff report.

Is there a second?

I'll second.

Craig Kitterman?

Yes.

Steve Wrigley?

Yes.

Dave Bromley?

Yes.

Lenise Stavenport.

Yes.

Jennifer George?

Yes.

Danny Schoenfeld?

Yes.

This motion carries.

Number 11, the parish annexation.

Like to make a motion.

Okay.

I recommend that the planning commission send a positive recommendation to the city council at the Paris annexation be approved.

And zone R115 based upon the five findings.

Sir a second.

I'll second it.

Craig Kitterman?

Yes.

Steve Wrigley?

Yes.

Dave Bromley?

Yes.

Lennie Stavenport.

Yes.

Jennifer George?

Yes.

Danny Schoenfeld?

Yes.

This motion carries.

The Sievert annexation number 12.

I move that the planning commission send a positive recommendation to the city council that the Sievers annexation be approved and zone R140A best upon based upon four of the findings with number four being uh altered instead of R140 to be R 140A.

Is there a second?

Second.

Craig Kitterman?

Yes.

Lennie Stavenport.

Yes.

Dave Bromley?

Yes.

Steve Wrigley?

Yes.

Jennifer George?

Yes.

Danny Schoenfeld?

Yes.

This motion carries.

Number 13, the Jacken annexation.

I recommend that the Planning Commission send a positive recommendation to the City Council that the Jinkin annexation be approved and zoned R140A.

Best upon based upon the findings, except altering item number four to be R140A.

Is there a second?

I'll second.

Craig Kitterman?

Yes.

Lennie Stavenport.

Yes.

Dave Bromley?

Yes.

Steve Wrigley?

Yes.

Jennifer George?

Yes.

Danny Schoenfeld?

Yes.

This motion carries.

Number 14, night annexation.

I recommend that the planning commission send a positive recommendation to the city council at the night annexation be approved and zoned R140A.

Based upon the four findings with the fifth finding R140 be amended to be R140A.

Is there a second?

I'll second that.

Craig Kitterman?

Yes.

Steve Wrigley?

Yes.

Dave Bromley?

Yes.

Lenny Stavenport?

Yes.

Jennifer George?

Yes.

Danny Schoenfeld?

Yes.

This motion carries.

Number 15.

Alta Villa number one annexation.

I'd like to make a recommendation that the planning commission send a positive recommendation to the city council that the Alta Villa 1 annexation be approved and zoned R140A based on the five findings with changing item number four to R 148.

Is there a second?

Second.

Jennifer George?

Yes.

Dave Bromley?

Yes.

Steve Wrigley?

Yes.

Lennie Stavenport.

Yes.

Craig Kitterman?

Yes.

Danny Schoenfeld?

Yes.

This motion carries.

Number 16, Alta View number two, Alta Villa number two annexation.

I'd like to recommend that the planning commission send a positive recommendation to City Council that Alta Villa 2 annexation be approved and zoned for R140A based on the five findings, changing item number four to R14A.

Is there a second?

Second.

Jennifer George?

Yes.

Dave Bromley?

Yes.

Steve Wrigley?

Yes.

Lenise Davenport.

Yes.

Craig Kitterman?

Yes.

Danny Schoenfeld?

Yes.

This motion carries.

Number 17, Alta Villa number three annexation.

I'd like to recommend that the planning commission send a positive recommendation to City Council and the Alta Villa 3 annexation be approved and zoned for R140A based on the four findings changing item four to R140A.

Is there a second?

Second.

Jennifer George?

Yes.

Dave Bromley?

Yes.

Steve Wrigley?

Yes.

Lenise Davenport.

Yes.

Craig Kitterman.

Yes.

Danny Schoenfeld?

Yes.

This motion carries.

Number 18, Alta Villa number four annexation.

I'd like to recommend that the planning commission send a positive recommendation to City Council that the Alta Villa 4 annexation be approved and zoned R140A based on the four findings, changing the fourth item to R140A.

Is there a second?

Second.

Jennifer George?

Yes.

Dave Bromley?

Yes.

Steve Wrigley?

Yes.

Lenny Stavenport?

Yes.

Craig Kitterman?

Yes.

Danny Schoenfeld?

Yes.

This motion carries.

Um number 19, South Miller annexation.

I'd like to recommend that the planning commission send a positive recommendation to City Council that the S.

Miller annexation be approved and zoned R140A based on the five findings, changing item four to R140A.

Second.

Jennifer George?

Yes.

Craig Kitterman?

Yes.

Dave Bromley?

Yes.

Steve Wrigley?

Yes.

Lenise Davenport.

Yes.

Danny Schoenfeld?

Yes.

This motion carries.

Number 20, uh, the Fricks annexation.

Okay, I'll I'll make a motion that the planning commission send a positive recommendation to the city council that the FRICS annexation be approved and zoned R140A based on the five findings with the fourth modified to be R140A.

Is there a second?

I'll second.

Dave Bromley?

Yes.

Steve Wrigley?

Yes.

Lenny Stavenport?

Yes.

Craig Kitterman?

Yes.

Jennifer George?

Yes.

Danny Schoenfeld?

Yes.

This motion carries.

Number 21, Brown annexation.

Make a recommendation that the planning commission send a positive recommendation to the city council that the Brown annexation be approved and zoned R115 based on the five findings detailed in the staff report.

Is there a second?

Question.

Yeah.

Animals.

Was that the one?

No.

Second.

Sorry, was that Craig?

Dave Bromley?

Yes.

Craig Kitterman?

Yes.

Steve Wrigley?

Yes.

Lenny Stavenport?

Yes.

Jennifer George?

Yes.

Danny Schoenfeld?

Yes.

This motion carries.

Number 22, the L C R 1 annexation.

Okay, I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission send a positive recommendation to the City Council that the L C R 1 annexation be approved in zone R120A based on the five findings detailed in the staff report.

Is there a second?

I'll second it.

Steve.

Dave Bromley?

Yes.

Steve Wrigley?

Yes.

Lenny Stavenport.

Can I ask a question at this time?

It looks like on the staff report there was R120 and R120A.

Yeah, but it the recommendation is for zoning of R120A.

And it could have been appropriate for R 120 or R121A.

So the recommendation is R120A.

Okay, gotcha.

Um I okay to still vote on that Aisha?

Yes.

Jennifer George?

Yes.

Danny Schoenfeld?

Yes.

This motion carries.

Number 23, the MSMR annexation.

Okay, I'll make a motion that the planning commission send a positive recommendation to the city council that the MSMR annexation be approved and zoned R120 based on the five conditions detailed on the staff report.

Is there a second?

Second it.

Dave Bromley?

Yes.

Steve Wrigley?

Yes.

Lenny Stavenport?

Yes.

Craig Kitterman?

Yes.

Jennifer George?

Yes.

Danny Schoenfeld?

Yes.

This motion carries.

Number 24, LaCay Annexation.

Okay, I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission send a positive recommendation to the city council that the La Kyra annexation be approved and zoned R140 and CC community commercial based on the five findings detailed in the staff report.

Is there a second I'll second?

Dave Bromley?

Yes.

Jennifer George?

Yes.

Steve Wrigley?

Yes.

Lenny Stavenport?

Yes.

Craig Kitterman?

No.

Danny Schoenfeld?

Yes.

This motion carries.

Number 27, TP Real Estate Annexation.

I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission send a positive recommendation to the City Council that the TP real estate annexation be approved and zoned R120.

Uh based on the five findings detail and staff report.

Is there a second?

I'll second that.

Sorry, who was the second one?

That was Steve.

Thank you.

Dave Bromley?

Yes.

Steve Wrigley?

Yes.

Lenny Stavenport.

Yes.

Craig Kitterman?

Yes.

Jennifer George?

Yes.

Danny Schoenfeld?

Yes.

This motion carries.

Number 28, G.

Miller annexation.

I'll make a motion that the planning commission send a positive recommendation to the city council that the G Miller annexation be approved and zoned R120 based on the five findings detailed in the staff report.

Is there a second?

Second.

Dave Bromley?

Yes.

Craig Kitterman?

Yes.

Steve Wrigley?

Yes.

Lenny Stavenport?

Yes.

Jennifer George?

Yes.

Danny Schoenfeld?

Yes.

This motion carries.

Number 29, Scrub Oak Annexation.

I'll make a motion that the planning commission sent a positive recommendation to the city council that the scrub oak annexation be approved and zoned R120 based on.

Actually, that one I would I think I'm gonna make a recommendation that there be zoned R120A at a butts.

The park based on the five findings detailed in the staff report with the change to item four to be R120A.

Is there a second?

I'll second Dave Bromley?

Yes.

Steve Wrigley?

Yes.

Lenny Stavenport?

Yes.

Craig Kitterman?

Yes.

Jennifer George?

Yes.

Danny Schoenfeld?

Yes.

This motion carries.

Number 30, the Jan Key Flats annexation.

My turn.

I make a recommendation to the planning commission who send a positive recommendation to city council that the Jake Flats annexation R120 zone be approved with the five recommendations.

Is there a second?

The five findings?

Second.

Second.

Steve Wrigley?

Yes.

Dave Bromley?

Yes.

Lenny Stavenport?

Yes.

Craig Kitterman?

Yes.

Jennifer George?

Yes.

Danny Schoenfeld?

Yes.

This motion carries.

Number 31, Hilton Annexation.

Make a recommendation to the planning commission, send a positive.

I make a recommendation that the planning commission send a positive recommendation to the city council that the Hilton Annex R120 zone be approved with five findings.

Is there a second?

Second.

Steve Wrigley?

Yes.

Dave Bromley?

Yes.

Lenny Stavenport?

Yes.

Craig Kitterman?

Yes.

Jennifer George?

Yes.

Danny Schoenfeld?

Yes.

This motion carries.

Number 32, Southwick Annexation.

I make a recommendation to the planning that the planning commission send a positive recommendation to the city council that the Southwick Annex R140A zone be approved following four or five recommendations.

Is there a second?

Second.

Steve Wrigley?

Yes.

Dave Bromley?

Yes.

Lenny Stavenport?

Yes.

Craig Kitterman?

Yes.

Jennifer George?

Yes.

Danny Schoenfeld?

Yes.

This motion carries.

Number 33, turning point annexation.

Make a recommendation that the turning point act uh annexation.

Uh pardon you make a make a recommendation.

The planning commission send a positive recommendation to the city council that the turning point annexation R1A40A be approved with the five recommendations with number three being rechanged to four R140A.

Is there a second?

Item number four.

R1 to change it on item number four.

I did just R140.

Instead of three.

But yes.

Okay, you guys say the wrong number run for Steve Wrigley?

Yes, Dave Bromley?

Yes.

Lenny Stavenport?

Yes.

Craig Kitterman?

Yes.

Jennifer George?

Yes.

Danny Schoenfeld?

Yes.

This motion carries.

Number 34, Newman Annexation.

I make a recommendation that the planning commission send a positive recommendation to the city council that the Newman annexation R120A zone be approved with modifications to R of the four or five findings with modification to number four that it be changed to R120A.

Is there a second?

Second.

Steve Wrigley?

Yes.

Craig Kitterman?

Yes.

Dave Bromley?

Yes.

Lenny Stavenport?

Yes, with the four findings.

Jennifer George?

Yes.

Danny Schoenfeld?

Yes.

This motion carries.

And number 35, Finley Mini Annexation.

I make a recommendation that the planning commission send a positive recommendation to the city council that the Finley Mini Annexation R120A zone with be approved with the five findings.

I don't think that one was an A.

Where is this one?

I didn't have it down here.

Is it?

I don't think so.

No.

No A, but it's four findings.

There's five.

There's five.

Yeah, there's five.

And it's R120A, isn't it?

We're not we're not changing R 120A.

We're just R120.

I don't think this one is.

The staff recommendation is shown as it's just R120.

Yeah, that the recommendations of R120.

Okay.

So we're you suggesting a change to the A in your motion, Steve?

No.

Okay.

You would ask if it was.

No, I'm not going to be able to do that.

You said A.

You said A.

You said A in your recommend in your motion.

That's why they're questioning the question.

We didn't notice that.

So I've just go back as it says R 120.

Is there a second?

Second.

Steve Wrigley?

Yes.

Dave Bromley?

Yes.

Lenny Stavenport?

Yes.

Craig Kitterman?

Yes.

Jennifer George?

Yes.

Danny Schoenfeld?

Yes.

This motion carries.

That concludes all of our public hearing items.

We have a little bit of administrative business.

Um the March 5th meeting minutes.

Do we have a motion to approve those?

Motion to approve.

Sarah is all seconds.

I second that.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

James.

I have nothing further tonight.

Mike, anything you need to bring up tonight?

Other than our next meeting will be as scheduled on April 2nd.

Okay.

Any other business?

Take one last motion.

Motion to adjourn.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

We stand adjourned.

Thank you, everybody.

Um, if we hit calendar for a second, I am.

Oh, wait.

The seventh.