I wouldn't think they would like to go back to that for those campaigns.

No.

I know you can't shoot right at it, even if it's charging up in it.

Really?

Yeah.

It's all protected that people invent you can't.

There's a obvious right now.

Yeah.

Humans are not endangered.

No, we are.

I see you in there.

Eight point West Williams.

Someone else is sharing the hostess and allowing multiple percenter sharing.

Who should it be?

All right, now try.

But we have four five taxations.

More to come.

You are in it active session.

I'm assuming there's a lot more by time.

Well, is it July first to that night?

Of next year.

I don't know.

And then everybody who doesn't have July not up next year automatically got so you're not deep.

Yes.

Is that right?

Oh, that's also you can either determine it or be underpolar.

Yeah.

And it's determined by the city that's not uncertainty.

Only one name.

The folks in Granada.

And then train on it.

I have two things in the case.

All right.

Go for it.

Please.

Recording in progress.

All right, everybody.

Welcome, welcome.

Uh today for our executive session, we have our city attorney Darion Alcorn, who will be presenting to us on recent state land use changes that will affect this uh body as well as the city and other stations around us.

But we're gonna get an overview of some of those things and uh some of the code amendments that will be coming to a planning commission meeting near you as well.

Wow.

Oh, Darren.

So I tried to start with what I thought would be the most interesting for you.

It's a really really long bill.

And uh hopefully I have enough to fill all the plan we need to fill.

There this is no way.

Sorry, A I'm not that creative, and B, it's you know, I'm really long on the best land bill.

Okay.

Um but I did try to put like the most fun stuff first, so they uh the state legislature decided that we need in our code a uh organs that establishes the planning commission procedures for removing a planning commission member, which I don't think we have in there right now.

Okay, yeah, and then there and then also requirements for when a planning commissioner recuses the uh recuses themselves, and we do already have that in your bylaws.

I think we adopted that not that long ago.

Um, but they wanted the planning commissioner removal to include some specific reasons, and those reasons are using public funds for political purpose, so I'm thinking that means like maybe if you're campaigning uptown in another city.

Public funds, yeah.

Um, violating the municipal officers and employees ethics act, which you guys already get training on and know about and are aware of, and I don't know that we've ever we've always thought that it applied, but I guess now if you don't follow it, you can actually get removed.

Cool.

Um, yes.

But you can also voluntarily so you don't have to ethic violation just because you want to be, right?

It'd be fun though.

Um, and then if you're acting with the intent to influence a land use decision, and then this is a quote because I'm not really entirely sure what it means, or did I think anyone who I've talked about it with exactly new in a manner that creates actual impermissible bias or an unacceptable risk of impermissible bias.

Um, I would think any bias would be impermissible, but it's not biased based on like your knowledge and your expertise and your experience, right?

It's that you predetermine in advance that there's some reason why you need to make a certain decision a certain way, and you're biased against that application for some different reason other than yes, that would be if you if you bought a broad, that would be the information bias.

So I'm not entirely sure what that means, but uh you shouldn't act in a manner that creates actual impermissible bias.

So maybe it's that you probably shouldn't be lobbying your other members of the commission before the meeting, telling them how bad the project is and those sorts of things.

Um, and then if you are acting in your administrative or your place judicial role, both of those functions are functions you might be doing and where the impermissible bias isn't allowed.

So our next one is so then I went second and to I maybe I did.

Oh no, the second one I did was train me because I knew how much you loved training.

And so I wanted to tell you that they did not change your annual annual training requirement.

It's still four hours.

Great, yes, very overcess and training.

Right.

So next year we have like another annually now in your word annually actually is in there.

Um you can still get one hour credit for attending as an appointed member 12 public meetings of the planning commission within a calendar year that wasn't revised.

And now that the other requirement for the general powers and duties was fine-tuned to include the role of the planning commission and administrative, legislative, and quasi judicial functions.

So before I think we were just doing a general powers, just kind of a broad one.

Now that general powers has to talk about the role of the planning commission and these three uh functions, and then the other three hours now have two new topics that could be included.

One is exparte communication and one is conflict of interest as potential topics.

There's a pretty long list of topics, and so now there are two new exciting topics because you know before ex parte communication was allowed, it was just a SAP.

Um this was the big chunk of what was done in SB 284 was detached accessory dwelling units, and it actually is gonna be effective in October of this year.

So the city doesn't have a really long time to do its new ordinances that are required for this legislation because they have to be done by October 1st.

It applies to Sandy because Sandy's a moderate income housing plan city.

I'm not sure where the cutoff of those cities are, but we're a first-class city, so most of the time everything applies to us, and we are required to adopt the land use regulation under the statute, and so we will have to adopt something before October 1st.

And it has to include allowing detached accessory dwelling units.

So right now we do allow accessory dwelling units inside of the primary dwelling, but we don't have any code for a detached accessory dwelling unit.

And we need to allow those on any lot that's 11,000 square feet or larger in a residential zone and have a single family dwelling.

So they it can't be like a vacant lot and they just apply for the detached accessory structure, although then it wouldn't that hold it.

But um, I guess they couldn't be zoned residential and have an office building on it and qualify, and then the single family dwelling has to be a permitted use on that lot.

So we'll um if you have somebody developing raw land, and they create let's say they have enough land to create 10, 11,000 square foot logs, but they want to kind of double their income and they develop it with a detached accessory dwelling unit.

Yes, yes, but the owner would have to live in one of them, yes, the owner of that lot to live in one, and then the other one out, they can do whatever they want with the other yes, what about long-term short-term rental?

So we can prohibit, and this will come up on the next slide, but we can prohibit uh a lease term less than 90 days in a detached accessory dwelling unit.

We don't even right now we uh long-term rental is 30 days or more, but we can actually require a detached to be 90 days or more if we wanted to do that.

So, and now there will be a lot of policy decisions that will need to be made by the city council to steer what kind of code will adopt because they do have some discretion in what they'll do.

So, like for instance, you could allow them on smaller lots than 11,000 square, so yes, yeah, but you can have other restrictions, and so I think one of the things you could do is you could say only if you have this much coverage or only right of your whole lot is only covered by this much.

So it's detached like they've got to have setbacks from the other house for what's so we get to set setbacks, and that's a great feet.

Um, so they put in the definition, so the state did not set the setbacks, they left the setbacks for the local jurisdiction.

So every city's got a different set.

Yes.

Can I just say something?

Until the legislature changes that.

So we're taking our first draft of our from our staff on what this could look like to the city council on Tuesday night.

So we're not waiting till October.

You're gonna see these drafts once we get done with the city council, as far as they're gonna say, okay, you're heading in the right direction policy-wise, we'll draft an ordinance in the next month or so, and we'll have that before the planning commission.

We want to just get this done, so in place.

So, what setbacks are you guys?

We'll see.

After Tuesday night.

Oh, and you know, but you're not telling.

So these are the definitions that um were adopted.

I think maybe they also are in some other sections, but a detached accessory dwelling unit means an accessory dwelling unit that is not attached to or within a primary detached single family dwelling and located on the same lot or parcel as the primary detached single family dwelling.

So they have to be on the same lot or parcel, and it has to contain uh people gonna convert a lot of detached uh garages into residences.

There is a component in the law that requires us to look at conversion and allowing it.

Yeah, yes, and I'm I'm hoping I included that in here, so we'll see when I when we get to that.

So it has so within this um where they're saying what we have to include in our ordinance.

There are some shells, some shell knots, some maids, and really the shell knots are called maynots in the code, but I like shell knots better.

So on the shells, uh, we must require compliance with building help and fire codes, which we would want to anyway, and then we must include a process for the owner of a legally constructed accessory structure to convert the accessory structure to a detached accessory dwelling unit.

I also don't know what that means, and I actually was on a Zoom call with a lot of other municipal attorneys, and I asked the question about what that means, probably three different ways until I was kind of maybe irritating the League of Cities and Towns person who is on.

Um because it says that if it meets the setbacks and it meets building codes, then they can convert it.

Um but in my mind, I would think the plain meaning of the word convert means you make some sorts of changes to it.

Uh I'm not sure how much of those changes we can regulate when it's an existing.

Yes.

Yes.

But when you see the other things we can require for a new unit, uh, that will leave it open to why would you or would you not be able to require that on a converted unit?

Well, if you have something on top of a garage, put that into a dwelling.

Because we over the years we've had people to put places on top of their garages.

That would be determined on a restriction when we look at that, whether we're going to allow on top of garages to be able to do that.

So if it's already there, it's probably an internal because it's not changing the primary tool, right?

So that's an internal ATU when it's within the primary dwelling structure.

Well, I mean, this is detachable garages if we put a business on top of it.

We always tell them about you can't use it for rentals and so our shall not is we can't require conditional use permit if it's in a primarily residential zone.

We can't require more than two on-site parking spaces if it's 650 square feet or larger.

We can't require more than one parking space if it's smaller than 650, and we can't include any design standards that conflict with uh section 102618, which I didn't put in here because I didn't think we would have time.

But that those are the design standards that we can't regulate for a single family detached house, and they include some things like color, um materials, what about if the windows location areas that's restricted then follow those restrictions?

So then the property owner has a contractual obligation, a private contractual obligation, but Sandy City doesn't enforce uh restrictive covenants.

We might I think with applications have them represent to us that they're in compliance, just say yeah, but um, but here are all the things we can do.

So it's a pretty we can require conformance to land use regulations for structure size, dimension, height, and maximum lot coverage.

So that kind of goes to the question you asked that if you were going to allow them a smaller lot, you might want to dictate some maximum lot coverage, even on an 11,000 square foot lot.

You can require conformance to setbacks, and I think this is pretty it looks to me like this statute allows us to set the setbacks for a detached accessory drawing unit, even if it's different than what the primary structure would follow, or what another type of accessory structure would follow.

And you can take into consideration when you set when you consider those setbacks, the proximity to property lines and other structures, easements, window orientation, massing, or and this is also quoted because not quite sure what it means, other elements.

So you can evaluate what the sub ac should be based on some objective criteria and set what those are.

You can require design also quoted from exactly what it says in the code, consistent with the design of the single family dwelling.

So we can have an ordinance that says it has to be consistent with the single family dwelling.

We can prohibit it from being larger than the primary dwelling, we can prohibit it from being in a PV or another recorded easement, we can prohibit it from being in the front yard, and we can prohibit it from being rented for less than like it wants to not.

So I think they get to choose where they want to live, but they have to live in one of them.

So that means if they have an internal ADU, we can prohibit them from having a detached E.

Because that would put that's a basement apartment generally.

On that parcels.

What about taxes?

Does the tax follow the primary presidents?

Yeah, I'm assuming the taxes are going to go up.

It's not a separate problem.

Right.

So the tax, but the value would be there, you have a greater asset.

Yeah.

I guess this is all because we have such little housing available.

Yes.

And they think this is going to solve it.

Yes.

I I and part of it is probably sort of a thing.

But it's in part.

It's a part of the overall objective and solution to that.

Right.

And part of it is that I think the lack of housing also prevents people who already have housing from having other housing.

Right.

And so there are big houses on big lots that they don't need a giant yard because they're maybe a little bit older and their kids are gone and can't mow anymore or don't mow anymore or whatever.

Um I think that can be two hours.

Now they could make their tenant mow.

Exactly.

Um could have water conservative.

Never mind.

I'm gonna assign that it could have water conservation too, right?

If you have more structures, then you're doing less watering and but so uh using more water, but the other it will use more water for that and there's less permanent bill surface on the law.

Yeah.

Um that was all on detached ADUs, and this is on planning commission recommendations and how planning commission recommendations to the city council work, and they changed it just a tiny bit.

You wouldn't notice it because uh in Sandy, everything is always finely sent to the planning commission, and the planning commission always makes a decision, and there's not ever a delay.

So it has been for quite some time that the city council could go ahead without a recommendation if the planning commission took too long to make one.

It's just before this change, it was uh presumed that the recommendation was negative if the planning commission hadn't made a recommendation.

Um now it's not considered as a negative recommendation, and the city council can just determine if it took too long and evaluate the application and make a decision.

Oh well, it's too long.

Or does every city council decide that's a week, we so and I don't think we have a time limit, nor did this legislation ever require us to put one.

So I think it just says city council would make the determination.

So there is a provision for, and I didn't look it up, but it's referenced, and it's a provision for applicants to uh make a claim to the city council that it's been too long.

I just didn't look at the provisions, so I don't know how that's finding code.

I can just see each city council.

This is taking a long way to five months.

I don't think it's gives a definition of how long I I don't know how to answer that, and I don't think Darren does because it doesn't give it no, it doesn't work and someone will decide, I guess.

Yeah, it doesn't require us to have it, and actually been in state code for a while.

Yeah, uh so I don't know how it would be determined, and we haven't had the problem, so it hasn't come up.

Yeah, this planning commission does.

I mean, this is coming from somewhere else, and then you guys pass things along very promptly and quick.

No, I know, but can they leverage that against you?

So I could take if you're sitting down with people trying to work something out.

Yeah, they could get frustrated and write a letter to the city council saying gym's taking a long time.

They could.

Yep.

Because I met with him twice.

Yeah, it would be interesting.

It would be nicer if they were more um not so vague on it because I mean, what if we do have well, we can really go down a rabbit hole on it and we won't, yeah.

We don't but it is that's what they put, so it is hard for us to manage that with no data or anything, you know.

It's it's tough.

You can get a guy in there meet with you, and you say, Well, let's think about it.

He goes right to the letter saying yeah, Jim's being non-response.

So I have a field option.

They have already an existing report provision for applications that are pinning with staff.

So I really think the recommendation provision is for the planning commission.

It would be consistently tabled items, and then would bring them back.

Oh, so it's it's if we are, yeah, no, yeah, we already have we already have a range.

And he won't let us know on making the recommendation, and like I said, it it's never come up here because our planning commission does not do that.

Um, this is another October 1st deadline that's online with posting.

It's just interesting, it's not anything that you guys would be working on, but we do have a requirement now that we have an application checklist for each land use application type.

And that checklist is posted on our website by October 1st.

And it has they did add a little bit of a description of what the checklist would have on it, and it's all required plans of documents that make a application.

We have pretty thorough uh checklists now for our applicants if you've never seen them or weren't aware of that.

So it's probably just a matter of making sure that they can get to them on our website, which I think they also already can.

So some of them are needed overhaul, but we'll have our applications updated.

Uh to make sure that they're complying by that.

So I did be a recommendation to have those go to the city council for adoption on checklists if you wanted them to be substantive, but I'm not sure if they are substantive or if they're just a reiteration of what's already.

And that's only a recommendation, that's not a must.

No, I it wasn't in the state statute, it was someone interpreting the state statute.

Um, appeals of land use decision.

So you you also don't hear appeals, but we have uh recently had a couple of appeals of planning commission decisions, and the state did change some stuff about appeals.

They uh said after I think it's July 1st of this year, a legislative body, so that would be our city council and our government cannot be the appeal authority.

I've been here for nine years, and I don't think in a full nine years the city council has ever been the appeal authority, so I think Sandy got rid of that a long time ago and isn't going to be affected.

Um, and then they changed the standard of review depending on the appellant is of the land use decision.

So if it is an adversely affected party who's not the applicant, their standard they have to prove that the land use decision is illegal or the factual findings are clearly erroneous if they're not the land if they're not the landowner.

That's pretty heavy.

It's pretty big.

Yes, yeah.

Well, it should be.

I mean, if it's just some guy wants to complain about something.

Yes.

And and we we do have someone who I who would have been affected by that new standard, except they've already filed.

So the leasey one is that yeah, I think yeah, yeah.

That was um oh, and they already completed the appeal even to this report.

Yeah, yeah.

But so we won't get to the city.

But that would provide better clarity on what they can appeal and the grounds that they can make an appeal, correct?

Than what is currently in statute.

Correct.

Um, and they did argue that the decision was illegal, so they didn't not attempt to make that argument.

And then the the standard if they are the applicant, is that they have to prove the land use decision is illegal or it's not supported by substantial evidence.

So they have a lower burden.

And then um the other thing they changed was, and I really think this might have been related to a Sandy City appeal.

I'm not entirely sure, but they added that an appeal authority may only allow speakers at the hearing who represent the appellant, land use applicant, or municipality.

So no one else can be given an opportunity to speak at uh an appeal here.

No public comment.

No public comment.

Really?

Yeah, so appeals if and we probably haven't done a lot of appeal training because you guys don't hear the panel is is directed at an individual or an individual project, not at the group in general.

So appeals are on the record.

So at the planning commission, you create the record.

And and at the staff level.

So the records created by the staff report, the application and everything that you see when you make the decision.

If someone appeals that to the board of adjustment, then the board of adjustment should only be looking at what you looked at.

They can't collect new evidence.

So the first thing they do is they determine the record is complete.

And then they make a decision based on the record.

If they determined the record was not complete, they would remand it to the planning commission to create the record.

So that's why I think where this came from is that they're reviewing the record and you the applicant has is making representations about the city's making representations about the and so they all can speak at the hearing and do a presentation at the hearing.

But if it's just the general public, then they are not allowed to speak.

Probably ought to.

Oh done.

That was the end.

How great was that?

Thank you.

I'll believe you.

No, they were not changing use of that.

Oh my god.

Yeah.

So we can use the code.

Okay.

Well Robert sit here.

Is that why these are all no?

I normally sit over there.

Aren't you the one that gets together?

Yeah, I'm not sorry.

Whatever it is, I like to change the well this one was higher than well if these were up then I would go down.

Yeah, actually it's just the legislation that's not a little bit right there.

So we both have a time.

Yeah.

Yeah, we can go on that.

Recording stop.

Yeah, whatever you are.

Recording in progress.

All right, good evening.

Um welcome to tonight.

Uh April sixteenth planning commission.

Um we'll do a quick run of um introductions and then a pledge of allegiance and we'll get into our agenda.

Cameron Duncan.

Danny Schoenfeld, Dave Bromley, David Hart, Steve Wrigley.

And then James, do you want to do introduction of staff?

Yeah.

James Swanson, I'm the community development director.

I have Darren Alcorn here.

This senior city attorney.

We have Mike Wilcox is the planning director.

Brian McCouston, assistant director in the department.

Um Ivan here, Ivan Purse here, he's a transportation engineer, Brittany Ward, Public Works.

Um Sarah Stringham.

Senior planner.

As of today.

Um Clint Spencer, development services manager.

And um man, I am looking right at you.

Thomas.

He's only been here three years.

And we're we're happy for the years we've had him.

But uh appreciate uh Thomas.

Um Aisha, planning secretary.

And she does all the minutes and so forth for the planning commission.

All right, we'll do a quick pledge of allegiance and get into the agenda.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands.

One nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Our first public hearing item tonight is the Wilcox annexation.

All right, good evening, everybody.

This is the Wilcox annexation.

Uh by just by way of announcement, we have five annexations on the agenda tonight.

All of these are uh annexations that have signed the consent form where they've expressed interest in coming into Sandy.

So a little bit different than the ones we've had on the agenda in the recent past.

You as the planning commission are the recommending body to the city council on the annexation as well as the zoning.

And so tonight we'll go through these uh different annexations, and you'll provide a recommendation to the city council.

So the first one is the Wilcox annexation located at 10275 South Alta Villa Drive.

They signed a consent form on March 25th of this year.

So this entire Alta Villa area zoned R143 in the county, which is similar to our R140, which is residential single family homes on 40,000 square foot lots.

And in this area, we're also proposing the A designation for animal rights.

So I'm happy to answer any questions you may have or any questions from the cushion.

This item has been noticed to the public.

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

Anyone online, Mike?

If you are 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.

I will close that to public comment and bring that back to the commission for discussion and deliberation.

Ready for a motion, please.

Second.

Dave Bromley?

Yes.

David Hart?

Yes.

Cameron Duncan?

Yes.

Ron Mortimer.

Yes.

Steve Wrigley?

Yes.

Danny Schoenfeld?

Yes.

This motion carries.

Thank you.

Next item on the agenda is the Cassell II annexation.

Yeah, this is uh located up off of Cassell Drive.

We have three different properties, 2811, 2813, and 2815 East Cassell Drive.

Uh again, property owner signed the consent either on March 25th or March 26th of this year.

In the county, there's owned R110, and the city rules on the MR110 as well.

Any questions?

Are any of the property owners 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 this particular item, please use the raise your hand feature now, and we'll address you one at a time.

I see one there's one hand raised.

Uh Ms.

Jane Santoro, you may unmute yourself.

You'll have if you could please state your name and address, and you'll have two minutes.

You want to talk?

Cool.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Okay.

We live across the street almost directly across from a building.

Is going.

No, no.

You're not in the mattress yet.

Is this in relation to the annexation item?

Oh no.

When would you discuss the new the use for the mattress of that's later on the agenda?

All right, thank you.

Sorry.

Thank you.

Anybody else online?

I am seeing no other hands raised.

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

I'm ready for a motion, please.

Make a motion that we recommend or that we that the planning commission send a positive recommendation to the city council that the Kessel 2 annexation be approved and zoned R110 based on the four findings as outlined in the staff report.

Is there a second?

Second.

Cameron Duncan?

Yes.

Dave Bromley?

Yes.

David Hart?

Yes.

Ron Mortimer?

Yes.

Steve Wrigley?

Yes.

Danny Schoenfeld?

Yes.

This motion carries.

Thank you.

The next item on the agenda is the Apple Hollow Cove annexation.

Yeah, so these are properties located off Dimpledale on Apple Hollow Cove, which is a private street.

If you remember, we've had additional annexations on the same street.

We've had Scrub Oak, which is the property furthest on the west, adjacent to Dimple Dell Park, and the G.

Miller annexation, which is just south of the orchards development.

Those are already in the process.

These folks signed their consent on March 25th and 26th.

They're zoned R121 in the county and proposed to be R120A here in Sandy.

Any questions?

This item has been noticed as public.

Anybody here tonight would like to speak to this item?

Anyone online, Mike?

If you are 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.

Close that to public comment and bring that back to the commission.

Okay.

I'm ready for a motion.

Please.

I move that the planning commission send a positive recommendation to the city council that the Apple Hollow Cove amendment, right?

Annexation be approved and zoned R120A based upon the following four findings.

Is there a second?

I'll second it.

David Hart?

Yes.

Steve Wrigley?

Yes.

Dave Bromley?

Yes.

Cameron Duncan?

Yes.

Ron Mortimer?

Yes.

Danny Schoenfeld?

Yes.

This motion carries.

Next is the Dimpledel Circle annexation.

Yeah, so this is uh just across the street from Apple Hollow Cove.

We have three property owners within Dimple Dell Circle.

There are a total of six properties within the Cul de SAC, but we're only doing three at this time.

So those are thirty forty-six, thirty-forty-seven, and thirty-seventy-two East Dimple Dale Circle.

We're also including the road in this particular area.

So these property owners signed a consent on March 26th.

They are zoned R121 in the county, and they are so we're proposing to match that in the city, which is R120, not with the animal designation.

However, these lots are currently legal non-conforming lots in the in the county, so they will remain legal non-conforming lots in the city.

Any questions?

Okay.

This item's been noticed to the public.

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

Anyone online?

If you are 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.

We'll close that to public comment and bring that back to the commission.

So did this talk about the what you say non-conforming in the recommendations?

It's in the analysis.

Okay, all right.

That's where I'll say.

I'm ready for a motion.

Please.

I'll uh move that the planning commission send a positive recommendation to the city council that the Dimpledell Circle Annexation be approved and zoned R120 based upon the four following findings.

Is there a second?

I'll second.

David Hart?

Yes.

Cameron Duncan?

Yes.

Dave Bromley?

Yes.

Ron Mortimer?

Yes.

Steve Wrigley?

Yes.

Danny Schoenfeld?

Yes.

This motion carries.

Thank you.

The next item on the agenda is the Van Lewen annexation.

So yeah, this is located at 9520 South Cassell Drive.

Um they signed a consent on March 29th of this year.

So they're zoned R110 in the county.

We'll propose to zone them R110 here in Sandy.

It was brought to my attention in the staff report that I put their acreage being 0.29, but they're actually 0.50.

They're still gonna be legal as far as the R110 zoning goes.

So staff would recommend positive recommendation.

Uh any questions?

Um this item has been noticed to the public.

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

Anyone online, Mike?

If you are 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.

We'll close that to public comment and bring that back to the commission.

Sir ready for motion.

Please make a motion that the planning commission send a positive recommendation to the city council that the Van Lewen annexation be approved and zoned R110 based on the four findings detailed in staff report.

Is there a second?

Second.

Dave Bromley?

Yes.

David Hart?

Yes.

Cameron Duncan?

Yes.

Ron Mortimer?

Yes.

Steve Wrigley?

Yes.

Danny Schoenfeld?

Yes.

This motion carries.

Thank you.

Next item on the agenda is the 9854 South LLC commercial condo preliminary subdivision review.

And then Chair, if I can recuse myself involved with the application.

Thank you.

I think is that you're going to do the in thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

I'll introduce this item.

This is a request for a subdivision plat review for a condominium plat, subdividing a commercial building into two uh separate condominium units.

Um this is presented by Kenneth Chapman, representing the property owner Kiko Investments.

Uh as I explained, this would uh split the existing building into two individual condominium units and the rest of the site would be common area to those two units within the that existing building.

There's no proposed um additions to the building or any new development associated with the request.

I believe the applicant is here and can present on their item, followed by Thomas Irvin, the staff planner.

If you could just state your name and address for the or business uh address for the record, please and pick one or the other, just be directly into one or the other.

Great, thanks.

My name is David Jenkins.

I'm with Enzyme Engineering, and uh we've been hired by the applicant to represent him for the approval process.

And uh because Mr.

Mr.

Chapman is out of the country.

So I'm here today just to say that we've read through the staff report.

Uh we accept we agree with everything that uh we have and uh here to answer any questions you may have.

Are there any questions for the applicant?

Okay, thank you.

Okay, you're welcome.

Okay, as was said before, this is just a commercial condominium, subdividing existing building.

This uh building's been here since the early 70s.

It's been a gym, it's been a grocery store, it's gone through a lot of different life cycle uses over time.

Um, this current review is just to basically subdivide the interior of the building into two privately owned spaces.

Let's see if I got an image of that.

So you've got your unit A and your unit B.

Um there's limited common area available on the north and south side that serve those two two units.

The parking will be common area for both units as well.

Um during the review process, we do send the head building official out and have them have a look and do an inspection of the building.

One of our primary concerns under these kind of reviews is that the building's in good repair.

There's been a reserve set study set up to make sure that the future owners do have some funds if they do need to do replacement lifecycle things.

Um there was a list that was developed that the applicant will need to complete prior to the recording of this subdivision plat.

Other than that, everything looks good for us, and we think it should be recommended for approval.

Any questions?

Questions can they sub-leash these two units?

I mean, if they they have what four they'll have all they'll have the full rights of ownership for each unit.

So if they wanted to rent unit B to three or four different tenants, they could do so.

They could do that.

Ownership would be designated the unit B.

So are there two different uh owners of unit A and unit B owners?

Correct.

Okay.

That's why it's wondering.

Any other questions?

Thank you.

Okay.

This item has been noticed to the public.

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

Mike, anybody online?

If you are 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.

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

Any other questions or ready to make a motion?

No, I can make a motion.

Okay.

Uh I will make a motion to the planning commission to determine the preliminary review is substantially complete for the 9854 South Building LLC commercial condominium located at located at 9854 South 700 East.

Is there a second?

I'll second it.

Dave Bromley?

Yes.

Steve Wrigley?

Yes.

Cameron Duncan.

Oh, sorry.

David Hart.

Yes.

Ron Mortimer.

Yes.

Danny Schoenfeld?

Yes.

This motion carries.

Thank you.

Can we grab camera?

Oh, sorry.

Okay, the next item on the agenda is the Hartman Estate subdivision.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

This next item is the Hartman States.

This is for preliminary subdivision subdivision review by the planning commission.

It's located at 3853 East Little Cottonwood Lane.

This is being presented by David Jenkins with Enzyme Engineering representing the property owner Taylor Hartman.

They're proposing to split this in uh existing one lot into two.

I believe uh Mr.

Jenkins is here and you present on behalf of the applicant.

Followed by Thomas Irvin, who's the staff planner.

Good evening.

David Jenkins here with Enzyme Engineering.

I'm obviously the applicant representing the property owner, but uh Mr.

Tyler Hartman.

And uh we're just excited to finally be at this stage of the process.

It's been a long time that we've been working on this and trying to get to this point.

So Mr.

Hartman and his wife team have owned this property for many, many years since the 80s, and uh it's a nice big piece of property with a big home on it, and they would like to stay in the area and uh wanted to be able to uh see if they could carve off the piece of the property, create a a lot that still meets all the zoning requirements to be able to build a smaller home that's more comfortable for them now.

And so uh we've been working with staff uh for some time and gone through several uh iterations of uh comments and uh we appreciate working with them and all the things that we've gone through at this point to uh present uh the uh plat, the primary plat for approval.

I do need to say that uh in the last few days that we've been I've been working with both uh Mr.

Hartman and his neighbor to the north, Mr.

Uh Todd Smith, and on actually what's gonna happen on their common property line.

And so um basically uh Mr.

Harman owns the property as you can see on the in red, and the home, Mr.

Smith is the house just 3825 is the address.

So there's the common line there, and there's also an easement for Mr.

Smith to access his property across the the Hartman property.

There's a fence that um is not along that property line, it's kind of at a diagonal.

Thank you.

There it is.

So I just wanted to share this with you to show you that um uh both parties have been looking at this, going back and forth and and agreeing that the uh fence, the existing fence is there, uh will stay in place, and so just a slight deviation from what you've seen on the primary plat.

The 20-foot uh fire access easement will will shift over as as shown on the drawing per uh, and we'll do that on the final plat.

So uh other than that, that's the only change, and we're excited to get this uh approved.

Thank you.

I'll answer any questions if you have any.

Any questions?

I have a question.

So on the umdivision plat.

I'm a little confused.

Uh the property line seems to be tangent with the with the gutter line.

See that and I'm trying to understand why that drawing that you're showing there is got the property line back from the gutter line.

Um, okay.

Yes.

And then you've got what looks to be probably a three-foot distance between that area and where the property line is at, correct?

That's correct.

On the plat that I'm looking at, the gutter line appears to be dashed in, and it appears as though your property line is perpendicular uh tangent to that to that gutter line.

And I'm just wondering which one's correct and which one's incorrect.

Um, I need to see the one you're referring to.

The let me look at the it's the one in the packet, Mike.

I can call it up.

It's I have a slide with the it just says produced by enzyme engineering, that's all I know.

So let me say this.

The curb the curb and gutter is not at the property line.

So there's a gap there.

No, I I I understand, but your drawing is showing it that way.

The okay if we uh I just want to be clear that when we approve this, that everybody knows what it is we're approving.

Right.

And that the Hartmans aren't gonna have a problem when this gets signed off and they try to build their home, and then all of a sudden we're showing a property line at the back of the curb.

How do I address this?

The the property line is where it's at.

The curb and gutter is where it's at is showing.

I'm I can't quite zoom in.

Let me look at the closer map that you're property equally too much about.

Let me sneak in here.

Okay.

So it's not gonna have a formal cul-de-sac kind of connection, I think is maybe what you're getting to.

No, I'm getting to the property line location.

Yeah, but usually on a knuckle lot or a lot on a cul-de-sac, you have a a wide berth of of property line connectivity.

This one kind of has more of a point, like you're seeing here.

There is a small nook right there that's a street dedication.

We're gonna require them to continue the improvements that you see at the street.

So the sidewalk, curb gutter sidewalk is gonna be maintained.

And yes, you're right, the property line is tangent, but that's not gonna create an issue for us because we measure setbacks from the we measure the lot width from the inset of that setback.

This is gonna meet all those basic requirements.

And I guess maybe what you're asking about is the fact that Mr.

Hartman doesn't own that triangular piece.

I'm asking the question that the two drawings do not match.

Yep.

Let me explain to it.

And as an architect, I deal with this every single day.

I understand.

Where civil engineering drawings and architectural drawings don't match, and someone winds up caught in the middle, and I don't want the Hartmanns caught in the middle.

Okay, I call I totally understand.

So uh since I'm the engineer on the Monte Cristo subdivision, now I understand the situation.

So when we did the Monte Cristo subdivision with the cul-de-sac, the actual property uh line goes right to and is tangent with the Hartman property.

So that gap is the sidewalk.

And so uh that's the so they own right to the right of way, and then if you look at the plat, that line uh it's not shown on that drawing, but it jogs back down.

So if you so if you look at the um what's trying to represent is on the Monte Cristo plat, the property line on the south side of the cul-de-sac is the curb and gutter.

And then as it comes around and approaches the property next to the Hartman's, it jogs to the east and hits the hits their property line.

That was what's dedicated in the Monte Cristo Plat.

And the reason for that was so the sidewalk could continue, but there was never gonna be a sidewalk on the south side of the cul de sac.

Okay.

That makes sense.

Well, the drawings aren't correct.

So I just want to noted that I brought this up, and so if there's an issue that comes up, I don't want the Hartmanns hung upside down for this.

Is that clear?

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

Okay.

I I I think they are correct.

Well, I'll sh I can show you what I'm concerned about.

Okay, that would be great.

If you want to come here.

Absolutely.

Right here.

You can see your your inside line here comes around and is tangent to the property line.

Not the outside line, not the area that you're talking about over here, but your inside line where your curb and gutter is.

So the in let me explain what you said is the inside line.

We need this conversation if you can on the record.

We can't have the conversation on a sidebar.

You need to be in the mic.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

I'll and I'll be happy to clarify it.

Thank you.

Are there any other questions?

Thomas, do you want to fill up?

Okay.

So if we if we can clarify a little bit, um this map is our um GIS map that the city has here uh that shows where the property line dedication goes to.

It's not to the back of curb, it's behind the curb, and inclusive of the sidewalk that goes through that cul-de-sac.

That property line right here where my mouse is shown, does intersect with and is tangent to the uh subject property line.

This is the Hartman parcel here that's highlighted.

Um and then this is a city owned parcel to the south.

And then this property line here is where the public right-of-way ends, and this portion along here is where the Hartman property intersects the public right-of-way.

So they do have a full connection to the public right-of-way that is at least 20 feet wide.

And their access would be off of this existing location where the driveway is at that will be modified as was shown on that uh drawing here.

Uh let's see.

Oh, I'm not sharing that screen.

So coming back to this plan where that existing dedication comes to, this is where the dedication ends.

It's tangent to that property line to this point here.

And what's shown in the darker gray is where they're extending that right-of-way to they'll be adding to that right-of-way with that darker gray, which would be to the back of the proposed walk.

Does that help clarify?

I I don't have a problem with that drawing.

I have a problem with this drawing.

Which which drawing?

The plat?

The one that's in the proposed plat.

Yeah.

And we can move on if you're if everybody's telling me that I'm wrong.

I'm okay with that.

As long as we but I just want to make sure that when they go to get their building permit that they're not struggling with it.

That they have the minimum 20-foot width connectivity for vehicle access to their price card.

Okay.

Do you want to move on?

Yes, I do.

Okay.

I want to want to see my slides though.

So when we first looked at that, the Hartmanns were here first.

Everything is slowly developed around their property.

Um, primarily this has been a flag lot since inception.

Um, it was surrounded by fields for quite some time.

Let me see if I can move forward or can this go the other way.

Okay.

As you can see, it the the drawing with the blue and the red would help.

Or my back to where I can drive.

There we go.

Okay, so that their original lot, which is 1.8 acres, had and they built their home on it many, many years ago.

Um, Monte Cristo LaCai recently completed their development north of there.

They're currently working on building permits.

And Quail View Cove was extended there, and that cul de set created.

Um, that's when the Hartmanns approached us and said, Hey, is there an opportunity there to have an alternative street frontage and maybe create an additional lot so we could build a smaller home and sell off our larger home?

And so we looked at that, and the primary concern staff had was this is an existing flag lot, and it meets the general requirements we have of a 20-foot access way.

However, um, over time it has not mained the twenty maintained the 20 feet of hard surfacing or the clear space required for emergency vehicle access.

So to leave that as a flag lot scenario would probably present problems.

So we have the fire marshal go visit the site.

We've discussed various different options and have arrived at the solution of providing a fire easement on the north portion of the red lot coming off of Quailview.

Um, it has been an existing condition that is difficult to find this home coming off a little cottonwood because of the 20-foot, it is marked, but vehicles would have a hard time finding it, and there is no reasonable way an emergency vehicle could get down that that little narrow corridor.

And so to alleviate that, they've worked out an agreement with the fire marshal to have the easement on the north side, which kind of dovetails with the Yesma that exists already for that north home, and so that will be an undeveloped area that will conquer both of those issues for us.

Um, besides that, all of the general requirements meet our standard zoning requirements.

Um, we are requiring them to put an additional bit of concrete on their existing home.

So if a smaller emergency vehicle came in, it would have the ability to turn around on their lot.

Um, other than these kind of safety concerns we have long term, staff feels like it's a good development and and should be move forward.

Thank you.

Is there any other questions for the staff?

Thank you.

Anybody 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 one at a time.

I do see one hand raised.

Uh Mr.

Todd Smith, you may unmute yourself.

Hi there.

I joined the meeting a little bit late.

Uh probably none of you people in the room probably had to file your taxes later do an extension, but that's what I was doing up until a few seconds ago.

But I didn't catch the first part of it, and the plan that David Jenkins put together.

Um, which I believe both the Hartmanns and my wife and I approve of.

I just want to hear that that you know that plan is acceptable or approved by the uh city.

Can uh can you state your name and address for the record, please?

Thank you.

Yeah, nine or Todd Smith at 9705 South.

3775 East.

That's been our address for 20 plus years now.

Okay, what is at the end of the cul de sac next to and sharing the driveway by way of right-of-way easement with uh the Hartmanns?

We'll uh have that answer for you after we close public comment.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else, Mike?

I'm seeing no other hands raised.

Okay, we'll close that to public comment.

Do you want to answer that question?

I've not really answered the question, but more clarify something.

He's the property owner that does have the easement across Mr.

Hartman's property.

Um, one of the things we want to hopefully we can accomplish is to get his property re-addressed off of Quelview Cove for the same reasons I mentioned earlier, so vehicles can find it.

Um we're not gonna make that a condition of this approval.

However, we can do an address addendum with that property owner and actually have their property reflect the real street access that it currently has.

We do understand that he was there before there were streets, but at this point it's difficult to find his home.

Okay, so but it's not a condition of approval.

Okay, thank you.

Um we'll bring that back to the commission uh unless there's any further questions.

No?

Okay.

Okay.

I'll make a motion that the finding commission determine on that on that motion.

I think on condition number two.

It's prospective, not perspective.

You're correct.

So it's probably a typo.

Do you see that?

Perspective, prospective.

Do I have to say that?

It does change the meaning.

Okay, so thank you.

So I'll make a motion that the planning commission uh determines that the preliminary subdivision review is substantially complete for the Hartman Estate subdivision located at 3853 East Little Cottonwood Lane, based on the following uh six findings and subject to the following five conditions with the modification that the uh condition number two where it says perspective is changed to prospective.

Is that right?

Um second.

I'll second it.

David Hart?

Yes, Steve Rigley?

Yes, Dave Bromley?

Yes, Cameron Duncan?

Yes, Ron Mortimer?

Yes.

Danny Schoenfeld?

Yes.

This motion carries.

Thank you.

Next item on the agenda is the mattress by appointment retail use, conditional use permit.

Right?

Okay.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh the next item on our agenda is a conditional use request uh for the property located at 8392 South 700 East.

It's an existing retail uh center that's located in the BC zone.

Uh within the zone, uh the the zone requires that any retail use uh obtain a conditional use permit.

That is what they're seeking to obtain for the property um uh currently.

Um the applicant, I believe, is in attendance.

Um Michael McFall or the representatives uh for Plaza 8400 LLC, and they can speak on this particular request, uh followed by uh Sarah Stringham, who is the staff planner on the item.

If you could pick one of the two mics and just name an address, please.

Michael Romeo McFall.

McFall Bedg L C D B A mattress by movement.

Sandy 8392 South 700 East.

Sandy, you attack 840.

Sandy, you attack 8400.

Thank you.

Um, and then whatever information or um additional presentation you'd like to give.

Matrix by appointment is a low traffic appointment-driven reusable concept with over 500 locations nationwide.

You know, it's it's a franchise from Florida.

It is a appointment only business model, which means there's going to be a minimal traffic impact or parking requirements.

There's zero to no five to no uh interest financing options.

We're selling middle grade mattresses, basically overstocked.

It's very low, very low price, like 50% below retail.

They're gonna be able to pick it up at this at the store or have it shipped to their home.

And I'm having the place renovated, so it looks nice.

And if you had a chance to read the um can uh findings and conditions in the staff report finance and conditions, uh, just the findings and conditions that they've got.

I did um I did read this on the you're understand all of those.

Yes, okay.

Um, any questions for the applicant?

I think we're good.

Thank you.

Sarah.

Thank you.

Um just a few comments about uh the parking is that um from the eight 1982 site plan there were 31 um parking spots, so that is currently um legal non-conforming status, and um we did find in the old site plan that the site would be allowed to have 50% retail, 50% office use.

Um this actually does bring that over into a 67%, 33% use, but because a furniture store um with showroom space that actually brings the parking that's needed down, which is why we would allow this type of use um to continue for the site.

So any questions?

So if we grant conditional use for this particular case, is it follow in the future?

Where it may change in parking issue in the future.

So it would need to continue as 50-50 with retail and office, um, but if there was a similar use with like a showroom, um that would be allowed to kind of offset to make it the 6733 percent again.

So it just sort of reverts back to what it was.

Should he leave and then have to recome again, or is it carried through?

Ask that one more time.

Is the conditional use permit carry through from now on?

Yes anybody?

Yes.

Yeah, conditional use is uh run with the land, meaning uh that they um are there as long as the the uh use is in place, and even if it's change of owner or change of occupant, this condition of approval or sorry, the conditional use permit is is in place.

Yeah, and these conditions would apply.

The reason I ask that is in the future if it goes to another business and they have more traffic, you you still have the parking to deal with that.

Well, that's where it would have to remain the 50% retail, 50% office use.

Um, and unless uh specific retail use is like a furniture or showroom, okay, is where that keeps it at a lower parking threshold, and so that would be allowed.

Okay, that is answering that correctly.

Any other questions?

Thank you.

This item has been noticed to the public.

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

Anybody online, Mike?

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

We do have one hand raised that's been patiently waiting.

Uh Santoros, you may unmute yourself.

Hello.

Yes, go ahead and state your name and address for the record, please.

Uh Jane Santoro 8386 South.

745 East.

84094.

Go ahead.

We want to know how much if there's going to be much construction going on, is the first question.

Go ahead and keep asking your questions, and we'll answer after the public comment period is over.

And our concern is that this is gonna start to turn 700 into a street that looks like state street.

Okay.

Were there any other questions or comments?

That's it.

Okay, thank you.

Sarah, do you want to answer the construction question?

Really?

So there's no construction or improvements being proposed at this time.

So the building that's there will continue as is.

So no construction, no new development happening on the site for any of the stores in the strip mall.

So it's just a tenant improvement, meaning interior space remodeling.

Thank you for that clarification.

Is there anybody else online, Mike?

I am seeing no other hands raised.

Thank you.

We will close that to public comment and bring that back to the commission for deliberation or erection.

I'll go ahead and make a motion.

Go ahead.

Is there a second?

I'll second.

Sorry.

Go ahead.

Dave Bromley.

Yes.

Cameron Duncan?

Yes.

David Hart.

Yes.

Ron Mortimer?

Yes.

Steve Wrigley?

Yes.

Danny Schoenfeld?

Yes.

This motion carries.

Thank you and good luck.

All right.

We have just two other administrative items, minutes from the March 19th meeting.

Get an approval for you.

Motion to approve.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

All right.

Mike and James, any updates.

Yes.

I gave you a few, but I'm going to turn the time over to Mike real quick to do a couple staffing, a couple of things that he wanted to talk to you about.

Okay.

So uh thank you, James.

Um so uh recently uh we've had a couple of planners that uh are going to be leaving us, unfortunately.

Uh Thomas Irvin being one of those, um, and we wanted to recognize him for his contributions to Sandy City over the last three and a half years.

Uh we're gonna be sad to miss uh miss him and having him around.

Um and uh we also had Brynn Bolender uh uh she's accepted a position elsewhere and will be leaving us as well.

So we'll have a couple of uh big shoes to fill in our department.

Um so it's seems to have come in waves here uh this this spring with uh planners leaving our department and um but we've had some good additions and Clint uh joining our team earlier this year, and what we anticipate we'll be able to fill those roles uh with some other uh really good planners as well, but they will be extremely missed.

Um and uh just wanted to recognize Thomas for for his efforts, and we're gonna miss him.

We wish him well in his next adventure.

Um wherever that takes him.

Um other uh HR news in our department.

Uh Sarah Stringham, as James alluded to earlier tonight, uh, was promoted to a senior planner position within our department.

She's been with us for over three years.

Um and uh so with these departures, uh this was a good time to make that move uh to help her out uh in progression in her career, and we wanted to grab congratulate her publicly as well tonight.

So uh when we get those uh news staffing uh figured out, we'll let you guys know and introduce those planners to you all.

Um and uh let's see, I'm trying to think if there's anything else that I'm missing, James.

Okay.

Uh the only other administrative business item would be that we'll our next planning commission meeting will be on May 7th.

There's uh five Thursdays in the month of April, so we've got an extra week in between our typical schedule.

So uh enjoy that extra Thursday off, and we'll see you all on May 7th.

Okay.

Well, thank you, and good luck, Thomas.

Um, and with that, any other items?

One last motion?

Make a motion.

We close.

Motion to adjourn.

Oh, we can close that or journal.

All in favor?

Yes, thank you.

We stand adjourned.

Thank you.

Sorry.

Uh