Yeah, yeah, yeah.

No, I'm gonna pull off.

Yeah, yeah.

How do you like tomorrow?

Yeah, don't worry about it.

Yeah, for video.

I uh partner just fall.

Yeah.

Best things over all.

That's actually my two.

He's uh he's an old Toyota guy.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Like you ready to make it.

Do they uh agree?

Yeah, I think I've only seen white ones, or they make other colors.

Yeah.

Several.

Uh-huh.

Well, he spends a lot of time like you do out now.

Yeah.

He lives down.

He lives in Sterling.

Uh six mile can.

So he's constantly going so far.

Um I should help that's right.

Yeah.

So we can talk more about BDUs tonight.

Yeah, in just a couple minutes, I'm gonna start some more slides because I'd like to get some more feedback from you in general about detached ADs.

Uh so that then I can take that into account when crafting some graph code.

Okay.

And I won't I won't push the start at this time.

I apologize if I'm like we obviously needed more time, and we don't we have until October first.

We don't have to take that you know much time, but we do have time.

So I shifted down down here.

Okay.

Did you know we were just so passionate about it?

No, the the hard part is ultimately in C council gets fine.

So yeah, but I think it's it's it's great.

You know, you're all all interested in the topic, and it is a topic customers talk about all the time.

Yeah.

And so customer please customer about customer to wonder if so as uh we build calls about that all.

So we've got another three or four meetings we could do this in.

Oh I know you got five.

As many as you need, I guess, but let's see if we can get through it today.

Yeah.

I already went down to close the comment.

Just fall one half.

You'll be able to fall asleep in two.

I don't know if anybody has at this point.

Recording in progress.

Well, before we get started, uh sorry.

Um before we get started, we're gonna discuss um a part two of our accessory dwelling unit discussion that we started our last planning commission meeting during our executive session, and Melissa's gonna lead us in that discussion.

Um we do have uh a new planner that is joined our staff uh that's sitting behind me here, Grant Hancock.

We'll introduce you to him formally um later on in the meeting at the end, but wanted to introduce you all to him.

Joins us from the Uh University of Utah.

He's a recent graduate there.

Right.

That's right.

We're doing our best job that we can this weekend.

Trying to somehow talk on.

Yeah.

We've been making drink through a fire hose all week.

Um so it's a lot to take on and we can learn and do, but it's done a great job, and I think it'll be a great fit for our team.

So with that, we're back to fully staffed, which is great.

That's a good program if you are that true.

For getting my architecture on great.

So um, yeah, we're excited to be back to full staff.

I've got a lot of new staff members with CAF fancy.

Um you guys have met before, but it'll be presenting tonight and quit uh a few months ago.

Um a lot of change, but changes sometimes is good.

And um I think we've got some great staff members that have joined our theme.

Glad that we have them before we uh jump in with Melissa's presentation.

Are there any um follow-up comments or things that you guys wanted to that you can kind of chomping at since our last discussion on the topic that you wanted to dive in, or do you want to let Melissa kind of jump in with her presentation and ask those questions?

Would you prefer Melissa?

Oh, I can't bring up sort of something Bernie.

I think otherwise we could just one of the things that I've been thinking about, I don't have any answer to it, is the idea of percent coverage.

You know, we talked last time about the if you had a small lot like 8,000 square feet that it would depend on how much coverage is on the lot, and if it's a larger lot, it would still depend on the percent.

And if it's a bigger lot and like a couple acres, it's I think we need to have well.

I don't remember if we talked about percentages.

We did a little bit, uh, just in the fact that they are accessory buildings and would fall under existing accessory standards as far as total size, at least that's the way we're thinking of framing that.

Or it's a basis at least of comparison, whether we want to have it less the same or more, or maybe in addition to or something like that.

But that that there's that's still up for discussion and and how we do that, but just to give a framework, yes, we currently allow for 25% of the rear yard, but we could look at overall lot coverage when it comes to ADUs.

What I was thinking we were thinking about is have some percentage so long as they're not exceeding both the total lot coverage and not exceeding maybe the rear yard accessory structure, then they could still be back.

So, anyway, there's some there's some ways that we can address that.

Yeah, and lot coverage, I think if uh detached ADUs were allowed in all residential zones, not just the larger ones, then I think a lot coverage standard is very important.

That's a very key tool that we would use because then that takes big ones and small ones.

Um and some of the comparisons just to think about for lot coverage is that uh detached uh accessory structures that are just like a shed, it's not an ADU, but we have this maximum of a square footage or 25% of the rear yard, whichever is less.

So we have a combination of a size and a uh rear yard lot, whichever's less.

So that ultimately not to exceed your rear yard of 25%, and then but that's just for those.

Uh doesn't have to be that way for detached A use, but also in the larger lot areas, if you're in the sensitivity overlay, or lots that are uh 15,000 square feet or less is a maximum of 50% overall lot.

Currently, we don't have an overall lot coverage all over the city in residence, but in the sensitive very overlay, there's a 50% max.

So when we're doing building permits, we're we're looking at that, and that's hard scape buildings, uh yeah, so your driveway hard scale.

Anything that's yeah, and then if it is greater than an R1, like R120s and above, it's a 40% max lot coverage in the system very overlay.

So that's another kind of just relative standard that we apply now.

So as we had started to discuss um last week, is uh these detached ADUs, and um we had uh we're able to collect feedback on various standards that could be considered because uh where we pose these kind of narrow ideas to get feedback, then I can take it all into account and craft something that I can bring that back to you, and uh so that this new state law requires us to uh allow for detached ADUs on at least lot size the less house.

So we went all through that last time about what the state law says, common themes in our region, some standards that we use now that we'd like to see carry forward, and there was uh from what I gathered last time is there was strong support for allowing detached ADUs in all residential zones, but we may have like a maximum lot coverage standard or and/or other standards that as long as they can meet all those, then why limit it to only the larger lines?

Um to allow the uh two detached two detached uh eight ADUs uh on a lot, but it does depend on lot size and maybe even more depending on the site and the size of the lot.

Uh but limiting it to just one detect ADU or what uh internal versus detached is not so strong support for wanting to you know liberalize or well pump detached AUs, and uh in terms of the parking, we also were looking to go ahead and use the state standard, which allows us to require additional park, like one we can allow one additional parking for a detached ADU if it was 650 square feet or less, and two if it's more than 650 square feet.

Currently, we already require four on-site parking spaces, and at one two in a two-car garage and two of the driveway, and that if you uh have an internal ADU, we don't require any more parking spaces currently.

Uh we actually cannot require any more because the state law says for internal ADUs, if you already require four, you can't require any more.

So we have the four, and that but we're allowed to do this one or two, depending on the size of the detaching.

There was support is what I believe I've heard from you for that.

Support and I think support would be understanding it would be uh false be parking.

Oh, yes.

That yeah, that's the basic uh uh assumption.

Um you're talking about number of max of how many you use I think I'm fine, but 300 foot mini holes.

If I could put a whole community back there and still probably give the same percentage, well, it's still a lot coverage.

It's a lot of coverage, but if you have four or five of those and stuff, it's still if it meets a lot cover, which we're okay.

Yeah, you that would probably start each one.

We have to have a part of it.

Yeah, if they're each 300 square feet, then like that one shoots the showings, and you're allowed additional square uh lot coverage of say 800 square feet based on the existing will you could with tool.

Yeah, but then you have to provide two additional parking schools.

Yeah, if we adopted that code.

Remember, she's saying the lot coverage includes your hardscape, so that includes your driveway, sidewalk.

It it you know, it can uh I mean our in the detached accessory structures, it doesn't necessarily cover the like a hard scale patio, but is the structures uh covers.

But when you're in sensitivity overlay, it's uh just a total lot coverage, not just growing up there, max it includes hardscape driveways, rear patio hard scape patios, structures uh how tall the um oh oh this we're gonna get to that.

Okay, so uh the other one we went through is how tall should we do ADUs, and there was general support for two stories, but it does depend on the size of the law and the setbacks, setbacks are I think the setbacks are really critical.

Yeah, and we can get into or I can work on the you know the height measurement, but just the general idea one story versus two story.

So you're in historic sand, and you have little single-story house.

You could go in the backyard with two-story accessory calling.

Well, that's where the next one comes in, but go back a couple of slides where it says no higher than the primary rule.

Oh yeah, well, that would be another um solution.

I don't think that's anything that ought to be across the board on the house.

Really?

Oh yeah.

Yeah, because some of those primaries has an underground house.

Well, there is one there is one.

It's not weird, see it's a good thing.

Then you can't have an AD right now.

So we don't know how much lot coverage he's got.

Right.

Or these all property line of property line.

That's a whole home.

My opinion is on the two-story, if you meet your existing setbacks, then things should be able to work out.

Um so if you have a smaller lot, there's no way you're gonna be able to get a setback of a two-story structure within the existing no way, almost almost no way where that's gonna work.

But if you've got something that's a larger lot, there are things that will work and things that will look good.

And so why limit that so what to what you're saying is if somebody has a 1961 story rambler on a half acre, they should be able to build a two-story ADU in their backyard if they meet the setup.

Yes, if they meet the extent setbacks, that should not matter.

Meaning that they don't get a reduction down to the you know, the lower setbacks if you're doing a single story.

When you have a square foot limitations, I I guess where I'm I I guess one of the things I'm wondering is could it ever be possible that the detached ADU winds up in the primary or the primary becomes the detached AD.

And I think that's okay.

I think that's okay as long as one of as long as one of them is an owner off.

Exactly, right?

Yes.

One has to be owner office.

So it doesn't matter which one it is.

Yeah, right.

You could move into the small one if your kiddos can move any other house.

No, I thought about that.

We don't like the I mean that also if it's the issue about you know, this being the front line of the home.

I mean, there are very good situations that will say, hey, you know, you can't build up front, you have it'll be just fine.

So existing setbacks and things like that.

How do we monitor the owner occupy?

Because there are a lot of neighborhoods.

Same way you do now.

I know renting the map.

Yeah, a complaint that's only you know, the menace and say something.

When they don't police have a when they apply originally, I mean it's not perfect.

Uh we can we don't have code police run it all around looking for this.

And so, yes, complaint driven is that's how we operate code enforcement here, but that's pretty much ubiquitous all the not just Utah.

Um but when they apply, if they apply for renting a um uh accessory apartment or internal ADO, uh opposed to just having that there, a little unit with a mini kitchen and stuff where the their extra family and printed it and they're not renting it out.

Well, we have an affidavit for that, but that we don't have an additional permit.

But if they do want to rent it out, we uh require a special use permit for that with a business license, and at that time we check for um their I believe their tax records is one method to check that that is their primary rep residence.

Um so that that's a way that when they're first doing it that we see that uh that that's their it can be owner occupied uh and uh that that that's our primary residence, and they're not just uh renting out the whole thing.

Um on short-term rentals, we have some software that really helps us to find out about players that might be renting out on a short-term rental basis.

That is a valuable tool.

Um yeah, just question for uh building pretty small little homes.

It's the same it would be for a regular home.

Yeah, we're not gonna get trash homes in the backyard because they're smaller and they're secondary homes.

Well, they still meet the same buildings to protect trash homes that are standard homes.

Well, I know, but the fashion initially initially met the standard.

I'm just wondering if we get some really cheap cheap homes building the regular building standards.

Oh yeah.

And then you put it in from the colour.

I know we want it, especially if you're doing four square foot lightning through something.

And they do apply for is that wasn't that part of the legislation?

I don't know that they have well, they have to get a building for it.

They have to comply with minimum building and fire code and how say that's perfect.

For a detached ADU.

I'm speaking specifically about that special use permit or that uh building or not building permit.

What's the other permit?

But I guess a place has a permit if they rent it out.

Um I do believe state law allows us to that, but I don't believe they dictate the cities to you must get a land use permit with that.

It's just you you can do these things, and the minimum requirements are that it meets building health safety, etc.

I would say I would say it makes a lot of sense for the city to require a building.

For these as a way to better track them.

Yes, yeah.

I think that that would be the assumption.

Um because um they're supposed to whether they rented out or not, and they're doing an internal one and they need to uh remodeling for that, get a building permit, and at that time we're vetting all that stuff.

And we put on like you need an appidative for la la la.

If you want to rent it out, you need a special use permit with business license.

Uh you could try just building a lot of things.

And then if they're yeah, if they were to do detached ADU, they're gonna have to apply.

That's the difference between the internal APU and the external view, right?

It's like I when I worked at Home and A, we had a we did we had a hard time tracking the use.

And and because they, you know, it was internal.

So like a lot of people will make it building ADUs or or create renovating their homes for an ADU because we have no idea.

You know, they want to be in the beat.

Um but if it's an external ADU and they will have to get a filling permit anyway, absolutely that that makes sense.

Yeah, yeah.

That'll actually be easier to track that way.

Yeah, because they won't be able to do that um how to build a permit.

Uh yeah, um another way of that we enforce that is someone wants to sell their home and we get calls or if they want a zoning letter, or they're asking about you know this basement apartment, they say, well, you know, um, they may have that, but I do not see any building permits or any affidavit, anything, so therefore uh they apply and bring it into conformance.

Um one of the questions is uh should basements be allowed, and uh so this is just an illustration.

We you know, you could have a fully one-story underground uh basement, walkout basement or half basement.

Is there any uh like right now our guest cottage that cannot be rented out, very small for this provision that we do allow?

Um it does not allow basement period.

So that's the and so I was just wondering if there's any thoughts on pros or cons or support for sure.

Allow the the basement.

What would it hurt putting a basement since it's not affecting the neighborhood if it's going down you don't see me if it's going up two stories I would probably complain more than if we went down one?

Well, that's a good point.

That's a good point.

And if you want a second story, and if you couldn't go up, can you go down?

Yeah, um I think it just it does add more square footage, so there's more intensity, but at the same time, um, you know, we regardless of whether there's a basement or not, we are gonna be calculating the interior area uh of the home for well the perimeter for the home for I mean stairs take all the stores stairs take quite a bit of space.

Yeah, they do.

So if somebody can come up with a design that still gives them the space they want with a basement, I don't see the problems, nor do I see what the second story is.

But stairs are tiny.

No, they don't, yeah.

Yeah, I mean, as far as a landowner sitting here, and I don't need PUDs around.

And this guy's got a two-story, this guy's got a two-story, it's gonna really seem crowded for me in my neighborhood because I I'm I mean people like to have a little space other than some of the homes.

But I mean sometimes it's so like when I came here, I had these 8,000 square foot lots and whatever.

And so I had a little space between me and my neighbor, and that's why I bought this versus flying the athlete acres or whatever.

So are you assuming that a two-story could be built 10 feet from your air property?

No.

Even if it isn't, I mean I'm kind of sealed.

These two story when I look at my backyard, I'm sitting there looking at it.

It's gonna I'll see all these roofs everywhere.

What I would say it looks like there's like your backyards around there and see how many could actually have a two-story structure built and still beat their the setbacks.

My bet is there's necessarily setbacks are 10 feet from the side, very feet from the back.

Well, in terms of a detached detached ADU that's yet to be determined, but we do have current standards where if you're gonna do this guest cottage thing currently in our code allows it, you cannot rent it out, no more than 400 square feet in the guest cottage, no basement, mini kitchen, you don't get a full kitchen, etc.

Um that provision is there, and uh it is what I was getting at is that is that requires a minimum of 10 foot setback for the site in the rear.

In the rear, but that's what we have now.

Yeah, I think I think it's reasonable.

But you look at look at your rear yard and map out where you could build something and have 10 foot setbacks.

I think you'll find on an 8,000 square foot lot, that's gonna be pretty small.

Yeah, and then to go two stories stair takes about 150 to almost 200 square feet.

What's the rear yard setback for an 8,000 square foot lot?

20.

See, that's the point is it's not we're not talking.

We're talking 20 feet on that.

Oh you're talking 10 on the sides and a journey on the back on the back.

And so the fact is is that most of those homes don't allow for another structure to be built within those existing setbacks, and also be I would guess.

We have a 30 foot a lot of talk about not a lot of opportunity to on a smaller lot.

So the basement would fit with the things that people are thinking about.

So it basically doesn't require the 20-foot setback, it's still part of the no, yeah, that's correct.

No, it's the one story, the set height height.

Oh, the one story with the one story without yes, all you could do the potentially, yeah.

I mean, and if that's what you want to go with, that's that's great.

I think it's in a reasonable comparison with our uh, you know, like a detached structure could come as close as two feet to a property lot, but uh, you know, I'm not sure that you want a detached ADU to be that close to um but in terms of basement is you know just not a strong uh opinion to you know either way, or you know, go ahead and yes, that's the that's what I thought.

The only thing I'd say it doesn't matter, and I'm sort of talking about this is if I have one or two little small homes or a two-story, it's the number of homes that I'm gonna have in a square area or how many homes are we having that because it gives you a feeling right now, like I've got a little bit of distance away from my neighbors, and that's why I bought this particular lab because I have religious all of a sudden everybody's now putting all these other homes on.

I don't know that was way basically not.

Yeah, I everybody's not doing it.

Yeah, you're gonna cost of this is gonna be so high, still, even though the the what we're trying to do is provide um a lower cost avenue.

Which it does, it does do that, but still the cost is way higher than the average homeowners can be able to throw that kind of money in that direction.

Plus the other restrictions that are gonna be on there are gonna be such that there are protections of existing residents that relative to setbacks and heights and parking and other things like that.

So that's also gonna limit things in a way that this is not gonna be um I don't think you're the smallest, particularly the smaller lots are not are not gonna have much activity working.

Yeah, I just worried about changing the nature of the neighborhoods.

I don't think there's gonna be a landbrush.

I don't think that's gonna happen.

I don't think I I don't if you if you sit down and draw it out, you're probably looking at you know, if you're I don't you can do the math, uh, how deep's your lot.

I don't know.

Say it's 50 feet, and divide that into 8,000, you're gonna be what 30 feet, 40 feet wide, an inch.

Yeah, somewhere in there.

So then you put your house on there, and your house is probably 10 feet from your side, it's probably 20 feet deep.

So you're already used up 20 feet or 30 feet, you've got a setback in the front that's what 10, 15 feet, 20 feet.

Yeah, so that means you've only got a 20-foot backyard.

So if you want to go two stories, it's your house.

You know, you can you've no way you can do anything.

You know, an attached internal ADU would probably be more feasible for a smaller lot.

Exactly.

That's on the books now, all around in all of our residential zones.

But I but there's a lot of people that do uh think you know of the detached ADU, even though you can have privacy between your um internal ADU and the other one.

You don't have to have doorways through.

Um but a lot of people think that way.

And I think um perhaps construction costs are way uh depending on if you get some kind of a pre-fab thing, maybe cheaper to do the detached, because you're gonna have to uh add to the roof line, and depending on the the type of roof line and which direction it's going, it may be kind of costly to do that add-on, but so many different variables of the situation on the lot, whether it's one story, two story, where their windows are uh but just keep in mind, you know, those swallow lots, maybe to pull it off is max out that building footprint with an attached ADU, and then um if you have more room, is it detached?

So the basements we uh that's and the other thing, unless if it's detached, they're gonna require a certain distance to you from the house.

Yeah, probably is it six feet six six feet, just the minimum you'd build to eight houses.

Uh that's what I heard.

Yeah, it's building it's pretty tight.

Yeah, there's not much envelope level.

So you're you're you're chewing stuff up at their risk.

Um let's see.

The next one is Dave's favorite topic.

We're gonna talk about some setbacks, and one of the first aspects of a setback is in the front yard.

Now, this illustration I was trying to show where you have a front yard setback of let's say minimum of 20 feet.

Um well, our code, let's say 30 feet, minimum front yard setback, and uh but your house maybe is actually set back 40 feet.

You know, they didn't go all the way to the front.

And so uh the question is what are your feelings or preferences on a detached ADU?

Should it be no further than the front of that existing house?

Or should uh it just meet your standard front yard setback just a quarterback?

Is this a yeah?

I thought you were gonna say, is this a trick question?

There are always a trick question.

That's corner losses.

So there's a lot of homes like in other markets that have like that is in the front yard and whatever and in the flows great, looks great.

Um, but again, it's it's secondary.

Uh also you can choose which, as we discussed before, because primaries are very limited.

So I mean to put it on a hard and fast rule on that, um, I think is extremely limited.

So you're thinking as long as it meets the setbacks of the primary anywhere on the lawn, you're okay with that.

Yes, just the uh that's correct.

Okay.

I would prefer it back yard, but that's from a designer's stand.

It could be like it could be.

I don't think I'm having a hard time saying oh to when we did it or of day break, uh, what's it with the city council?

Um there are some new homes that are being built in daybreak that have what they would call kind of a carriage house.

Yes, where the garage is out front, the house is back, and above that garage is a casino, a little house out in front of it.

Yeah.

Um one of them was a side load, which would be right, side load.

Um so we have seen the examples, even in new construction where that is happening.

Within an existing fabric of a neighborhood, there may be situations that that's appropriate, maybe not.

Um, but some houses are setbacks, say 80 to 100 feet.

Um and they're penned all the way back in the lot.

If if we don't allow them in the front, then they're fine to being in the side or the rear, potentially.

So there are some situations like that.

They're rare, but we do have those.

Well, that's what I was saying.

I have a hard time saying no to allowing them to fill to the lot lines or to the setback homes.

Even though I may not personally like, I think I have a hard time telling somebody that they can't put it out.

My setback is 400.

I mean, 30 year on two.

I I had an idea that's 400.

That's a lot.

Your property's all on the front.

You don't have to think of that, right?

Some typically right.

My point is that not all properties are the same.

And if you've set conditions up, you're gonna be able to cover things to meet things, circumstances that to allow those circumstances to do something that is tasteful and not all that there's a circumstance where it should be any farther than the front plane.

Let's let's you're your your situation's unique, but there are a lot of situations on bigger lots where they're setback and bought.

But let's say the uh smaller lots, 10,000 or less.

You think there's a their situation for where it's like no, I I have I think it should be no further than the front of that house.

Can you show me an instance of a 10,000 or 8,000 square foot block that actually is built and has enough room to um front in front of the front plane?

There's not so my point is is that there's very all the other relatives around this are gonna limit out those smaller lots from being able to meet this function or that ability to get there.

So I I think we when we start going down these paths, we think about circumstances that don't exist.

But if that gets the left out for 12,000, it's still proves blah blah.

Okay, so then I think that you go with like what Mike was talking about, where you have these garages that you know where you're L-shaped and you've got a garage with a casita above, and that is awesome.

It's there's no no concern no issues out of that.

You know, the the reality is if we thought 20 feet was fine when they built the primary house, why would 20 feet be fine when they built the second?

I mean it's still 20 feet.

Well, I think that the general preference is that it would just meet your minimum front yard setbacks.

If that means that it's a little bit forward of the main house, that would be okay.

It really comes down to whether you want these to be more visible from the public street, or want them to be more hidden and not as obvious from the front.

I think that's maybe the design uh choice that you're making.

I don't think it matters as long as it's in in good taste.

My goodness is that new construction has less constraints associated with that.

And so you you're gonna be able to get some new construction that has some great design that has it more of the front.

The existing homes have not been designed in a way that is really gonna facilitate this very often.

So I think I think that not allowing a new construction to be able to have this type of uh opportunity will further limit possible.

I think if the neighborhood looks like that, that all of them have that, that's good.

But if it doesn't, I wonder if it'll pick real estate value if you have one or two thousand of that.

No, you don't think so at all.

We don't really allow accessory structures except for designated in the front yard, except for a designated properties of over 40,000 square feet.

So this would be different than what we would allow currently for any other accessory structure, just for context.

And I think that the tables we have for accessory structures all be completely different than if there's gonna be living specs.

So there's gonna be different parameters, different sizes.

I mean, there are gonna be a lot, there should be a lot of different things that come into play when there's uh people living in the structure versus when it's just a detached excessive.

That's right, that should have stream.

So you'd be okay with a living area built in the front, but not necessarily a shed.

Do not put shed.

Absolutely do not put shed.

Okay.

That's when you can work around some ship.

Yeah, but what about blocking people's views too?

Someone bought a lot with their protected years and now the neighbor is two-story.

Legally cannot regulate views in Utah.

Yeah, if you're not protected, that's why if you go with existing setbacks, if you do two-story, then you have no harm, no problem.

We can regulate mass size, scale, setback.

We cannot regulate viewers.

Yeah.

So if you're saying that it's a detached detached two-story need to move the setbacks of the primary call.

Yes.

That's what keeps it back among the papers.

So probably impact the original primary phone should be rationale.

Yes.

So make the front yard setbacks.

Yeah.

But and when we're looking at these smaller lots that well, any lot, but particularly small lots, there's very few inch instances where this actually's going to be able to apply, you know, that you're so it's very few as opposed to trying to regulate every single thing.

That's right.

Yeah.

I've just been sitting here thinking about like my neighborhood where the lots are basically half acreed with an eight.

And I can only think of one lot where the guy that owns it is set back like 70 feet in the street.

That's it.

He's the only one who could do something like talking about everybody else is probably somewhere between 20 and 30 feet back of the street.

But they've gone they've gone all the way to your two side yards.

So everybody has like a 10-foot side yard unless they've already put a parking area.

And so for them to build something within that 10-foot strip is going to be relatively difficult.

They might be able to add under the house, but then they're allowed to do that.

Um so I I can only think of one situation in our my neighborhood where there is a constructed home far enough back that somebody could build in front where it would be a problem, maybe two blocks.

Okay.

So I just I have a hard time if we tell people that 20 feet is the front yard setback.

Theoretically, every single home could be 20 feet back and you create a wall down the street.

That's the street I live on of every of every single home.

And so if somebody within that walled neighborhood decided to build their house a little further back and then came back later and said, I want to do an addition and bring it out to 20 foot.

We have no problem.

No problem.

But if somebody comes in now and says I want to put a detached unit there, why would we have a problem?

Well, that's another rationale form.

And that's what I'm saying is while I personally, as an architect, would not suggest putting that out front.

I haven't been to day break, but it's also not my favorite place.

Um it uh it would be hard pressed for me to recommend that, but I can see where somebody would do it, and I think that if everybody else had the right to build to within 20 feet, I think they ought to have the right to so I don't think we should make extra criteria for just an ADU that doesn't comply with the criteria that everybody else is that's my only thing.

We're gonna have to leave your favorite slide.

Or I've got more.

No, I just kind of easy.

Um I've got a couple more uh loving this discussion related to uh I mean there's a lot of other variables, but for these slides, uh a couple more related to rear uh side mirror yard setbacks depending on height and conversions of existing as well as balconies and rooftop stuff.

So anyway, let's do this.

So these two slides relate to uh, you know, depending on the height of an ADU, and for simplicity, I'm just using it's a one-story, you know, not very, but right now we will.

Um one or one and a half story where you have like a bonus space uh versus uh full two-storey.

So I've got these two slides.

So the first one, um you know, and I'm asking, I'm not dictating here, uh, but this ten foot setback, um that uh that applies, we have that now, so that's one option.

Some other cities they allow them to go closer.

But if you had a one to possibly even a one and a half uh story with bonus area in the rooftop, uh story detached ADU, how what kind of setbacks do you think would be uh appropriate for that?

You know, two-story will be the next slide.

We can look at that next.

But if it was you know that tall, I mean that makes a difference for the neighbors in terms of the height.

Um what kind of a yeah, and right now, as I mentioned, just as a comparison, the uh guest cottage thing is a ten-foot setback.

One story only, no basement, uh ten foot setback minimum, as opposed to like shed, you can come as close as two.

Any feedback on that, like, yeah, that looks reasonable, or no, I want to.

I think that's appropriate.

Well, I'm I'm just debating.

For now, context.

Well, yeah, we'll replace that with height for that.

Yeah, what yeah, and we can even define building height by the stories and the height combined.

Uh to a certain numerical value.

The state actually just added that in this year that we get that building I can be defined with both.

Uh, which I think is good because yeah, there's things that can happen.

Um would you ever want to split the difference to say 15 feet for one and a half as far as setbacks?

As far as setbacks.

No, I my thing is one and a half is so close to one, it really just your height isn't much different.

It's just so without the laws.

It is your dorm.

Yeah, dormers coming out on that one and a half.

Yeah, you don't essentially.

I mean, I don't know.

I don't have sovereignty.

You're not expanding the roof other than a door.

Yeah, you could do a hybrid thing, type of dynamic setback that changes things up the height start ten feet and tell me.

Oh, we'll have yeah, we there'll be different setbacks.

What I was thinking, there's a big difference from when you have full two stories versus you have one story or a little bonus living area and uh uh in a one and a half, and uh and also we can uh regulate wind with windows depending on the set.

It's they're gonna be a height.

So on a on a one story, what is the maximum height?

Oh, the the numerical dimension?

Yeah, we will we'll we'll figure that out, and I'm gonna put right now, just for discussion purposes.

Um I think one and a half.

I think for me, it depends on the height.

Okay.

If it's the same height as a two-story, then I'd say that.

Okay, no, it will not be the same height as a two-story, and we'll also have to look at any you know, windows that might be looking at that uh uh neighbors uh property.

I also think that there's I mean we had uh garage that came in a couple meetings ago.

We could have easily had a unit on comma, right?

So is that considered two stones, right?

Yeah, and if you build that into the side hill and you use the bath wall and baby hall, then what is that?

Because we have problematic.

Shall not be named, right?

A lot of whole lots you mean.

What was this crazy idea?

We have a lot of lots of apps to this is my point, right?

So I this is this is real easy on a flat block to say for one and a half, but we have a lot of slope.

That that is a really good point.

I hadn't even occurred to me, so you brought it up of the situation where you'd have one detached accessory structure, and you want to come really close to that property line, but guess what?

There, I don't have a neighbor there.

I just have a hill, and it's you know, and so maybe they can come closer to the thanks for the example.

You know, you know, rare and I don't know, developing duplicated.

Right, but I I can yeah, I mean, yeah, everybody on your street has slope on their backyard.

Yeah, yeah.

So depending, I think uh I knew too with everybody is think about well, what if you don't have a neighbor, or the neighbor is uh up the slope and way over there, because this is always at least in my mind, I um disclosing, always thinking of there's a neighboring property behind you, and so the impacts to the neighbors is the top of mine, but in fact you're gonna have situations.

I think you have to be a little careful.

I think you have to be a little careful with that, and I think we need to have a standard that kind of applies to everybody because yeah, you can dig into the hill and be a little closer.

Then the next guy comes in and he wants to do it with this person back there, and you say, Well, you can't do it because there's a person back there.

And that's not personal because that doesn't have anything to do with his problem with that person, just happened to be there.

So I think we have to be consistent, is what I'm saying.

Right, and it could be if there's some deviation that um unless or for except for, and we have specific criteria, and if it's so dramatic, it could be we need to push it to a conditional use permit under these certain conditions.

In general, your standard is we have to allow some sort of these on 11,000 square foot lots of greater.

I would just caution also that you can think through all of these minutiae.

Oh, yes.

And then if when it comes actually administrating those little edge cases, it becomes a very convoluted and very long code that's hard to read, understand, and interpretation.

Like the code of the code.

It's the where they we try to get into too many problems.

That's why I'm saying we ought to just pick a number.

Think of that in context, though.

Yeah, I the 10 feet I think is a great number.

Yeah, I think it is.

But say for two stories, do we we're gonna go to that right in the next slide?

We're going that next slide.

So in general, a 10-foot, even if it's just a one-story, is a reasonable amount.

We could start with that.

I think so.

Well, now that I understand what one and a half stories is, yeah.

And you're saying that uh the one and a half stories would not have windows to their neighbors bigger.

We can build that in.

I mean, that would give more privacy if you're out speed in that.

It's tricky with the state laws, Darren knows of what we can do and how we do it.

But using a setback and how we write the language, we can then say, like, you know, when uh window is allowed if you're 20 feet back, you know, facing your neighborhood.

Uh if we can't protect views, how can we protect privacy?

Design regulation.

So why should we protect protect privacy for not protecting prices?

Seems like a contradiction.

Seems like they should be able to put windows anywhere they want.

Again, you can you can regulate that type of thing.

You can't regulate a view.

That's so that state law.

Yes.

We are preempted from being able to regulate view corridors by state law.

That's not our choice to ask about the privacy.

I said, a view corridor versus looking at your neighbor's backyard, very, very different.

And that is one of the primary things to not allow these.

That has been the pushback, but that is the big concern, and about even allowing these is uh you know the impact to the neighbors.

There's a lot of people that don't uh they're really concerned, don't like getting it.

Even just sheds, we have issues.

I think the windows not me.

I'm just worried about privacy of the bedroom of the next door neighbor.

And that's a different view.

It is but that they need to have that privacy if you go two stories.

Because your other house is far enough back, you probably won't see.

Right.

And so height, uh, whether you have uh upper stories or not, whether you allow a balcony or not, lighting, windows, those all come into play.

I have one slide about uh balconies to just see your preferences, but I'm aware of that we want to do what we can to regulate negative impacts on the immediate neighbor, because yeah, your light blaring, you know, when you're really close to the property line, that could be a real nuisance for the neighbor.

Okay.

Um ultimately as you just put a shield flash.

Let's talk about the two everything.

Yeah, two-story.

So on a two-story, that's a different case.

And so what I've illustrated here was if you met the setbacks for the main structure, just like this primary dwelling, that if it and for most of the lots, if we're talking about ones that are 11,000 square feet or greater, these are your setbacks.

A minimum of 10 feet on the side, and then on the rear, it's anywhere from 20 to 30 feet from your rear property line.

It it depends on the zone.

Well, I think that's exactly what you ought to do.

So if you're trying to I don't think you should I if you're going two stories, you should be treated just as we did the front yard.

You should be treated just like everybody else.

If somebody wants to build a big house on that whole dotted area, yeah.

That's two stories high, they should be able to do that.

If they come in with a little house there, a big house there, that's fine.

Yeah, existing lot setbacks wherever it's there.

Yes, okay.

And that's why we presented this as it's logical if you can build a main house there and all the way out to those things.

Why does it matter if there's a light separation?

Okay.

And you're saying that six feet is the allowable distance between house?

Um we have in our code right now uh six-foot separation between the detached structure and the primary structure.

You can come closer, like let's say you've got just a three-foot setback between your shed in the rear yard and the house.

You then can do it, but you have to meet the primary structure uh setbacks.

So it can't be two feet.

Five feet, yeah.

Building code is five steps.

I'm old.

I thought it used to be ten feet.

No, uh yeah, and that's totally correct.

Now building code is five feet.

Our our zoning code is six feet.

We might want to rectify those in the near future.

Uh but you have five feet that they have to do anything with bustability.

So otherwise they have a foot or something that is non-combustible in a five foot area.

But yeah, building code has evolved recently about us.

Okay, so I got that.

How about these fun things?

Wouldn't this be fun to have your neighbor in the backyard?

Party begin.

Um should we allow balconies and rooftop decks?

Do you allow balconies and rooftop decks on the primary home in the setback?

Uh in the setback.

No.

It's complicated.

Within 20 feet of the fence?

No, no, I'm saying just within the within the building envelope.

If it's covered, we treat it like the primary pressure.

If it's not covered, we have it, we have a range of setbacks based on how high it is off the ground.

Well, if that's the case, we ought to treat it just like every other setback.

So if this is a two-story and you put a balcony on your two-story, and it's 20 feet away, and the balcony is 10 feet away, then you're now 10 feet away from the property one.

Yeah, but it's not a good thing.

But if my primary home is a two-story home, yeah, and I'm 20 feet away from the property, and they allow me to put a balcony on my primary home and it goes into the 10-foot setback, there's no difference.

So you're so there isn't, but it was a right to do it the first place.

But is that that's the boat allowed?

She was saying that the uh the setback is from the foundation.

So yeah, if they did have a balcony, then that would that could be easily extended that setback area.

I mean, I personally I don't think balconies should go in that setback here.

But if your code allows it already, then I think you have to stay in a total out.

Yes.

Well, okay, it's not gonna be.

Well, we've got to draw the line someplace, I'll say you have to draw the line someplace distinguishing them from the primary, the primary room.

Yeah, yeah.

So I think we we were in general had support for if you want two stories, well, then you're gonna have to make the main setbacks.

You don't get to have reduced setbacks.

So then, like you said, the the question is, well, now where are you measuring from?

Where's that there that if they're two story they could allow it, but they have to be within that footprint.

Is that balcony going in?

Like now it's 10 feet, or does it have to be here?

I think there's a balcony after 20 feet.

But I I think you I think you have to again, I think you have to be consistent.

If your primary residence could be 20 feet away, and they could put a balcony on it and that could protrude 10 feet in.

We don't think you can't.

No, I don't know.

I mean, whatever whatever it is, I think you auto-apply it.

It has to be the balcony have to be a certain distance from the property.

Yeah, we measure from the the foundation, so as sometimes they can can lever a little bit over, but um uh if they have a foundation post for measuring front, those foundations.

Okay, well then that push anybody other way.

David's saying just keep I think you have to treat it the same way what I think on that's like you don't look at a different primary red.

It's not a primary.

It's not, but if you were to build your primary red is that's as big as you could build it, you would have that kind of a situation in the primary residence.

In the primary residence, an ADU is a privilege, it's not I don't think it's a the state says it's a right.

I understand that, but I'm saying that as far as the neighbors go, your your primary residence and your ADU is no difference.

Somebody's living the primary residence and they're XYZ distance away, and you're in a in an ADU, your X-Y distance away, so differently.

What?

Is that the building code with alpha that's considered part of the sand doesn't need an alternation?

And so would that be part of a calculation against that right now?

Yeah.

So I guess we're gonna do that.

Yeah, so I mean I think that in itself is gonna limit.

Yeah, we're counting accounting back the yeah.

Are you saying they say that whether you can allow them at all or what's up allowed what we're trying to ask?

So I'm just honest.

I know these guys are having sessions, but if you have a detached garage, because they're only allowed to build so many scrolls.

That's true.

Then you're probably gonna have potential an exterior stair.

If you potentially have I wouldn't want to bring that access to get to that second, the other thing is we are required to allow the address, so they are allowed regardless of what we think.

You know, whatever we establish the setback at, they are allowed to have a landing on the substairs if they have a land or exterior to the that that's a definition.

If you wanted to make it a little bit bigger, so you can put part queue up there.

I wouldn't have to have a landing and stairs because you can have a landing and stairs.

But I could also put landing and stairs on the side where you don't have setbacks.

I'm I'm talking about putting my landing and stairs on the outpost.

Yeah, or you need to have stairs to get there.

But you don't have to put your stairs setbacks, they go somewhere else.

But what Jacob is saying is we don't get safe.

Yeah.

We don't get a safe.

They want a landing computer.

The landing and stairs are out, so I think the state code doesn't.

State code doesn't allow the city to regulate that.

So so they're the ones that get to say that's where they want them and we don't get to so I could build a house and put a bunch of landings stairs to set back with the broader line of the balcony.

Just because that's when they get there with the landing, not about it.

It's not about me, it's just the landing.

And the state code says how much it can represent.

It's about five more minutes.

That's basically.

If I'm remembering it because it's pretty much that's stupid.

The uh table.

I agree.

So that's what I think important.

That's a fire problem.

You don't use the existing access executive existing structure.

Uh you know, table that that needs to be different.

Three four or it needs to be modified if there are if you're looking so that existing structure or table is or accessories structure.

Is extremely limiting if you're gonna have properties that have bubble on their local units versus sheds versus sheds and also in the A designation if you've got a barn.

If you have a barn, it's huge already, and you can't really do Jack on this.

So um I think that that table I would propose like the 1499 or smaller to be instead of 750 through a thousand.

15 to 99 instead of a thousand go fifteen hundred.

Two thousand four thousand three ninety nine is two thousand instead of fifteen hundred two thousand, four thousand larger instead of two thousand go three.

I just want to make sure I uh that I'll either copy that or write it down.

But another suggestion I would say overall would be um I think this stuff is pretty important, and um I think it would make sense to have like staff do bullet points of what rather than write every the whole code out, do bullet points and then have another meeting, then I would suggest yes it'd be planning well, I don't know when, but I think there might be one planning commission and city council so that there can be a joint discussion and so that there can be um hopefully a little more um knowledge on their part on really what I think a good majority of planning commissioners are thinking.

I would agree with that.

I think if if it's possible, we'll check with James is coming back from Hub Five E.

Uh, and he'll be with us.

We'll talk with him and see about I had intended and we're we're not in a big rush like I was last time.

And um uh see uh uh about doing that.

I think because you know the they're very conservative, they're very you know, about this because like I said, that this is uh a big issue for people, you know.

I mean people feel strongly you know to allow lots of things versus other people that are very nervous about it, and so there is a discussion.

Otherwise, it'll come out of the planning commission.

We can present our planning commission recommends this, and if they're way far here, then yeah.

I I think it could be effective, but I'd really like to hear from the else should be good for us to be there to answer the question.

So and have that dialogue as a group.

Yeah, having the dialogue's a group, and I think what the side is is not having code that's written out, but having bullet points.

With illustrations, yes.

Before I've written everything out.

So, yeah, bullet points.

Yeah, that's why I'm talking about just broad issues, just to get a feeling.

It is.

Especially because I the feeling that I'm getting is we have a council that is very uh reluctant to make this very broad.

And I think the planning commission is much more liberal in the application of this.

So it is true that if it just worked really followed your direction, it's very likely it would have been.

Yeah, I like the back of the schedule.

Right.

It may be better to have that discussion before we get into it.

I'm glad you you spoke out because I think it's a good successful.

Obviously, James needs to wipe it on that.

I don't think we have time for this, but it's okay.

We'll come back.

This actually is the hardest.

You have an existing structure, and you want to convert it.

Well, it's already built.

You know, are you gonna use all of it?

Can you use a portion of it?

What portion?

Um, you say you've got the existing uh as a bunch for accessory dwelling.

So I think it would be helpful as part of that for this.

What is the goal to help us understand what it's part of the structure?

So I think as as tonight's chair, I'm gonna call this conversation complete.

Yes.

I have to ask one question.

Oh, we do and when we come back to talk about this, I think it's important as to whether it's conforming or non-conform.

Because we have a lot of these existing utilities that are not informing that people are gonna want to do that.

Yeah, that's a and that means we don't have to remote or modify substantially.

Well, then they got five feet for the property nine.

Or less recording stopped.

Like, yeah, I you're absolutely right.

I think that's very is it conforming or not conforming?

Right.

I don't know.

Okay.

Yeah, we can actually see the planning.

Recording in progress.

All right, I think those are the magic words.

I think um Mike and Aisha, are we okay to go ahead and get going?

Amazing, thank you.

All right.

I'm going to call this meeting to order, the planning commission.

We welcome you to tonight's planning commission meeting.

I am the current chair of the planning commission, Winnie Stavenport, and I'm joined by my fellow planning commissioners, and I'll have each commissioner introduce themselves, starting with Jennifer.

Jennifer George.

Ron Mortimer, David Hart, Cameron Duncan, Dave Bromley, Steve Wrigley.

All right, thank you, Commissioners.

And Mike, will you please introduce yourself and the rest of the Sandy City staff?

Yes, I'm Mike Wilcox.

I'm the city's planning director.

Uh to my left is Darren Alcorn, our senior uh city attorney.

We have in the audience uh Clinton Spencer, if you can raise your hand when I call your name.

He's our development services manager.

We have Jake Warner with our uh long-range planning manager.

Uh we have Melissa Anderson, who's our zoning administrator.

We have Cash Hansey, senior planner.

We also have uh Grant Hancock, a planner in our office.

Uh we also have Brittany Ward, city engineer, and Ivan Hooper, transportation engineer.

And then we also have Aisha Malia Tulua, who's our uh administrative assistant in the community development department and secretary secretary to the planning commission.

I think that's everyone.

All right, thank you, sir.

Yep, he introduced he introduced Darren.

Um Mike, just to confirm, did you want me to do you want me to read what we as a planning commission are responsible for doing?

You may or you may not, it's up to you.

I would love to.

As you may know, the planning commission is a non-elected body consisting of citizens who live in Sandy and who have been appointed to this commission by the mayor with the advice and consent of the city council.

We are a land use authority for Sandy City and charged with certain responsibilities as outlined in the land development code of Sandy City.

We are asked to make recommendations on land use decisions to the city council and the mayor.

We are also the decision making body for various land use reviews and applications as required in the land development code.

Our duty is to uphold the laws and ordinances as established and adopted by the city council.

So we meet at the call of the chairman, normally on the first and third Thursday of every month at 6 15 p.m.

here in the city council chambers.

Our meetings are typically preceded by a field trip of the agenda items and an executive session, which consists of training by our staff and legal council.

These are part of the open meeting, and the public may attend.

The training and regular portion of the meetings can be attended virtually through Zoom through Zoom webinar as well.

All right, we'll go ahead and begin tonight's meeting with a recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance.

One nation under God, individual with liberty and justice.

Okay, tonight's planning commission meeting will follow the agenda that has been published.

This is made available at the entry to this room and digitally on the city's website.

Each item on that agenda will proceed as will proceed uh based on the agenda.

So we do not have any consent calendar items.

We do have three public hearing items and three public meeting items on the agenda, and then we'll proceed in order shown on the agenda.

So all right, we will move to the public hearing items beginning with um the Canyon Gate General Plan Amendment.

And Mike Wilcox, will you please introduce that item?

Yes, thank you, uh Madam Chair.

Uh the first item is the Kenyon Gate General Plan Amendment.

Um we're gonna do a joint uh presentation for both the Canyon Gate General Plan Amendment and the rezone.

Uh this is a request that's being presented by um uh Nathan Boyer on behalf of the Boyer group uh who is uh the applicant in this uh particular instance.

They're representing the property owners of the Canyon School District for a property located at 825 East 9085 South.

They are seeking to change the future land use designation in the general plan, as well as seeking a rezone uh for this property.

And I believe the applicant is here in the audience and can come up and make their presentation.

Do they need to introduce themselves with name and address, or did you already do that for them?

Please introduce yourself with your name and address.

Yeah, my name is Spencer Moffat with the Boyer Company, and our address is 101 South 200 East, uh suite 200 in Salt Lake City, Utah.

Um I'm gonna spare the long introduction.

They I think staff did a really good job in in the packet, and I'm assuming that that was handed out and read.

I'll just give kind of a general overview of the project, and then um happy to answer questions or whatever the process you would like to follow.

Uh but we were approached a while back by the Canyon School District to ascertain our interest in purchasing the property.

Um we did have interest, unfortunately, we don't operate schools or anything of that sort, so uh we we approached the city and and asked about a zone change, and uh that is why we're here today.

Uh we've been back and forth with staff, talk kind of about different options and different possibilities, and uh what we have settled on is what you see kind of before you.

Uh it's the rezone of the 7 uh point two acres from R18 to the PUD 12 zone.

Um, in conjunction with that rezone, we presented this concept plan.

Um, I'll remind you this is conceptual only, but we did spend quite a bit going through this with staff and different members of the community.

Um we did have a community meeting and kind of discussed this with some of the residents in the area, um, and we're able to share some of our thoughts and objectives.

But you can see that before you'll just kind of hit a couple of the highlights.

Um we've learned um a lot over the last well, I've done this for 25 years.

Um Boer's been around doing this for a long time.

Uh we've made some mistakes and we're hoping not to make mistakes.

Um, the same mistakes, at least again.

One of the things we've learned is parking is very important, especially in smaller communities.

Um, and so we've got full driveways, full driveways in all of these uh on all of these units.

Uh 20-foot drives can fit two vehicles.

We've often found that when we build townhomes and we don't put driveways in, um, the garages become storage sheds, and there's nowhere to put a car, and it becomes a mess for most of the residents.

So one of the features that that we incorporate in most our communities is the full-length driveway.

Uh we also have adequate guest parking.

We try to park beyond the standard city standard.

Um, so you can see we also try to spread it throughout the community.

So parking is a big one, and then also a mix of units.

We've got a couple different unit types in the product, just so in the community.

Not we don't want it to look homogeneous, so you're looking at the same thing over and over and over again.

Uh out on 90th South, you'll have some three-story units, kind of some taller units that are rear load face onto 90th South, give some uh you know architectural look for as you come down 90 south, you'll see the front of homes.

What we uh, as we talk to staff, what we don't want is people driving down 90th looking into the back of homes and seeing you know, maybe people's things out there are garbage, debris, um those type of things.

So the the homes along 90th will front onto 90th south, they'll have the the garages in the back of the home in the center of the community in what I'll call the lighter orange, those are rear load units, so the garages will be in the back, um, and then the front doors will front onto a paseo or a guard uh landscaped area where those front doors will be facing front doors, and it'll activate those space in between the homes.

That's the space kind of that the residents can utilize with kids, animals, um, just to be outside.

Um, and you can see we we tried to get you know decent size so it's usable and there's some breathing air, breathing room in between those units, and then as you go south and bump up against the adjacent community to the south, we've gone to a front load community, so it's back door to back door with the existing community, and we've got um those units.

Uh well, I should mention the units in the light orange in the middle are two story, and then the rear, the units on the south of the property are also two stories so as to not uh encumber the property to the south and views.

Um, just a general overview of some of the salient points that we talked to staff about, and we've heard um from various residents.

So I thought I would just highlight those.

Um I know this is a conceptual plan, and we're talking about a rezone, but I um obviously those are a few items that we feel that are important and we intend to to incorporate into our community.

So uh that's a general overview of what we're trying to accomplish with the community.

Um happy to address any uh questions about it when the time is right.

Thank you.

Um expensive information.

Madam Chair, make sure your microphones on.

Oh, thank you, sir.

Any questions to the applicant?

All right.

Well, I've got one.

Okay, yes.

So your density on this is 86 units, but that's less than what it could be for this property.

Yeah, well, less in for in what regard?

Well, I mean, you this property 7.2 acres could have more units and you could decide to go with this.

I think it was 16 event with 12 or something.

Yes, yes.

So you're actually giving more space than you can do.

Yes, to meet that, and we're we're compliant and uh to the uh with the 40 percent open space that's required per that zone.

Um so there's a couple of things that yes, we we self-regulated on the zoning to get to that 86 number.

Is there any play areas in here for kids and stuff?

Yeah, there is if you go back to that concept plan.

We uh on the northeast corner, we've got a tot lot there, and then we do have a pickleball court.

Um then also on the southeast end of the community.

We're showing a spot for a dog park.

That's a kind of the three ammunity uh community community amenities we found to be uh well utilized in other communities that we have built.

Find generally 50 to 60 percent of the the homeowners in these areas are dog owners as well, and so you know, not having a private yard, they do need a place for their dog, and then you know, small children as well, a taut lot, um, something to that effect, and then yeah, again.

So the selling price of these units will be about what to give us.

I wish I could I great question.

Um you know construction costs and land costs.

I I I don't know the construction costs.

We don't have architectural drawings, we haven't bid them out, so I I don't know that they're not to be moderate income or whatever.

No, no, I I would I would I think it's pretty safe to say based on what we're paying to the school district, uh they won't be um affordable or moderate income.

All right, thank you.

Um I think with that, thank you so much for coming up.

Mr.

Warner, would you like to provide additional information?

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair.

Um just a couple of things.

So the focus is on the rezone.

The rezone I guess it's arguable as to whether or not the rezone is consistent with our future land use map in our general plan currently.

90th South does have the transition corridor overlay on it.

However, the underlying land use designation is institutional.

It was designated institutional because of the school facilities on the property.

The transition corridor overlay does open the door for consideration of support for some infill medium density.

Supporting an argument that that be applied to the entire property because it's along 90 of South.

So we felt like it was a better, uh more transparent process to also do a general plan amendment to amend the underlying land use designation from institutional to medium density, which the applicant has submitted an application for that general plan amendment as well.

And that plays in to Mr.

Wrigley's questions about whether or not they're meeting the density or under.

If they have 7.2 acres, they would be maximizing the density at 12 units per acre.

But again, the transition corridor land use designation potentially would support up to 16 units along the front edge of 90th South.

So they would be maximizing the density of the zone.

But the land use designation itself potentially would support something higher depending on the context along the frontage of 90th South.

So with that, this is a legislative item.

And you do have two items in front of you.

We've we've handled them as one item, one presentation, but you do have two applications in front of you, both need separate decisions.

Okay.

Members of the commission, do you have any questions for Jake before we move to the public?

I just have one comment.

I think this is a great use of that transition zone.

So I think that was a good discussion when we went over the general plan.

And it maybe should be said that they are if the general plan amendment were to be approved, changing the underlying designation from institutional to medium density, the medium density designation supports a density of up to 12 units per acre, which is what they're asking for, but they are then pushing more of the intense units, the taller units up towards 90th South, and the transition corridor land use designation would support maybe a little bit more tensity intensity right along the corridor itself.

So that would be consistent with the general plan amendment that they're requesting.

Great.

Nice.

All right.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you, sir.

We will now open the meeting for the public comment on this item, and we'll begin with those attending in person.

If you would like to speak to this item, please come to the podium one at a time.

We want to hear from all that desire to speak.

Therefore, we will give you approximately three minutes for each person.

If you're representing a group, we we may be able to give you some more time.

Just let us know when you come up to the podium.

Um, and then please state your name and address for the record.

Do we have any members of the public?

All right.

Well, oh, yes, please come up.

Thank you.

I guess we have questions.

So wait, will you please start with your name and address?

Absolutely.

My name is Zoe Millard.

Um, I live at 826 Gatel Drive, so right around the corner from this.

Okay.

Um, and my question was more so I have more so a question.

Um, is this designated for owned units or rented units?

So we typically don't answer questions from the public, but I think but we can maybe get to that once we get back to the deliberation process.

Okay, but I think we caught your question.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other public comment?

All right.

Mike, do we have anybody online?

If you are joining us via Zoom webinar and would like to speak on this particular item for the rezone and the general plan amendment of this subject property, please use the raise your hand feature and we'll address you one at a time.

I'm seeing no hands.

All right, thank you.

So with that, we'll close the public comment on this item and turn it back to the commission for any deliberation and next steps.

We should probably address her question.

Maybe you could thank you, Jake.

So the applicant has portrayed to staff that they do intend to subdivide this property, this project into individual town home owner occupiable units.

However, that's their stated intent, and there's no uh there would be no requirement currently on the table that would bind them to that.

So they could do either or or a mix.

If if the rezone is approved and no other measures are taken, uh then yeah, that would that would be up to them.

Great.

I guess there would be another process through a side plan process where that would come up and we'd talk about that, right?

With the applicant that could be talked about through the site plan process, but once they have the zone in place, they have an entitlement based on what the zoning allows.

Correct.

Yep.

I just could say I I feel this this proposal fits the neighborhood much better than a high-rise apartment complex that could be probably possibly put in there.

So I'm in favor of this.

This is a good idea.

Nice.

Thank you.

Any other comments?

Are we ready for a motion?

I guess I'm ready for a motion.

Um so I'd like to make the motion that we forward a positive recommendation to the city council to approve the application for a change of the future land use designation of the subject property from the institutional designation to the medium density neighborhood designate.

Excuse me, designation.

Second, sorry, that second was Dave.

Oh, Dave.

Cameron Duncan?

Yes.

David Hart.

Yes.

Dave Bromley?

Yes.

Ron Mortimer.

Yes.

Steve Wrigley?

Yes.

Jennifer George?

Yes.

Lenise Davenport.

Yes.

This motion carries.

Great.

Thank you.

I'm ready for a second motion.

Amazing.

Thank you.

I'd like to make the motion that we forward a positive recommendation to the city council to approve the approve the application for a zone change of the subject property from the R18 zone to the PUD-12 zone.

Second.

Cameron Duncan?

Yes.

David Hart.

Yes.

Dave Bromley.

Yes.

Ron Mortimer.

Yes.

Steve Wrigley.

Yes.

Jennifer George?

Yes.

Lenny Stappenport.

Yes.

This motion carries.

Great.

Thank you.

All right.

Congratulations.

With that, we are going to continue to the next item on the agenda, which is the amendments to the Title 21 of the land development code related to building height.

And Mr.

Wilcox, if we can start with you to introduce the item again.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

This next item is a code amendment request being sought by a property owner in Sanny, Dave Hunt, who is being represented by Jeff Nighton, who is the applicant on file.

They've applied to amend uh Title 21 of the land development code to revise residential building height standards.

In particular, this uh proposal would allow for heights in residential zone districts where the predominant slope on the lot is 30% or greater to be measured from natural grade rather than the average finish grade.

Uh I believe the applicant is here and can present on their request.

So we'll start with that first.

Okay.

Thank you.

Please come to the podium and then just state your name and address.

Thank you.

My name is uh Jeff Knighton.

I am a resident of Mapleton, Utah.

I used to be resident of Sandy City and love my time here.

Um I'm with Knighton Architecture, and um yeah, we we did uh make this application and we sent in some slides um that so I can kind of walk you through uh what we're trying to propose here and um really what what um what we're trying to do is is on sites where there is a a lot of slope um the the way that the the current city standard is written for measuring building height is based on finished grade and it allows for potentially some manipulation of those grades and we think that especially with lots that have a lot of slope on it using the existing grade as kind of how you measure your your building envelope to stay within on your building heights is is probably a more effective way for for lots on steep slopes and it's something that that's that's commonly how um a lot of the jurisdictions around here that they're in the mountain areas or have a lot of slopes, that's how they measure their building height requirements.

And so that's kind of what we've proposed.

Um do I move the slide or do you guys tell you?

Is there a button?

This one.

Awesome.

This button.

This button.

That button.

And there you go.

Oh, you got too many buttons.

You got it.

All right, it was just delayed.

There we go.

All right, so yeah.

Um problem is um, and yeah, this that you know, what would what brought this to our attention is um as was you know introduced.

Um, there was you know, uh David Hunt, who's a resident here, um, and ran into some issues with with his home, and so that's kind of what's prompted this conversation.

Um, but the the current high standard, if if it's I'll just actually just go show you this this next slide here.

So when when it building height is measured off finished grade on a on a slope, essentially you can bring in fill at the end of the project and and bring in a bunch of dirt around the edge of the house, which then brings the way that that height is measured, you know, because you measure off that finished line, you can bring that line up, and so you can get a taller house by just putting more dirt up against it, uh, which doesn't solve that that house is still visually very tall to the surrounding areas, right?

Um so you can kind of manipulate that finished grade when it's on a steep slope.

And there are um, you know, we've we've seen some homes like that in Sandy where where, and not just Sandy, but in a lot of places where you can kind of bring in a lot of extra fill at the end, bring in finished grade to satisfy this type of requirement, as opposed to this.

Um so if you go off of existing grade, essentially what we do when we're designing a home on a steep slope, we we have a model of our topography that we get from our surveyor, and then we copy that up to the building height, so 35 feet, and then that gives us an envelope that we have to stay within from the design standpoint.

So your home, as this as the lot goes up, the home has to terrace and kind of step up with the grade.

Um, and it's based on the existing natural grade as it's been surveyed.

So there's there's less opportunities to manipulate the grade because I think the intent of a building height would be preserving views for neighboring properties.

There's a life safety component from you know a firefighting, fire marshal access kind of standpoint.

Um and this kind of approach we feel like is actually a better way again on a on a slope.

Um so what we're proposing is you know the 35 foot height limit that's required instead of just measuring off those two points that finished grade, that then it depends on where you set it, that we just use the existing surveys, you know, before the project starts, and then have that be the uh be the measuring stick, which we think aligns with the intent in the general plan with Sandy City.

You end up with less scarring, you don't see the home at the end that's got all that dirt, you know, just put up against it, you're or carving deeply into the hill or those types of things.

Um it it is it is more land responsive.

We you know you have to design with the land and the contours and the topography.

As a designer as an architect, it is more challenging to do it this way, but we believe in it, and um and that's why we're proponent of it in uh this setting.

Um yeah, so we're still protect the views.

Um and it feels like a lot.

I know that there's you know, when you look at a lot of the available lots to build still for for custom homes, especially in Sandy, they're in the hills, you know, there's a lot of slope on a lot of those properties.

Um of the things we actually presented too and discussed is maybe there's an it's an alternative to in the code.

And I don't know.

Um, I'm sure Mike and Melissa will share some of their thoughts too, but it doesn't have to be that everybody now has to follow the standard, it could apply to lots with steep slopes.

It could be it, you know, a lot of code has you this is the standard, but you there's an alternate method that you can apply for.

Um, and it again it puts more it puts more responsibility on the design team to demonstrate the compliance.

We have to provide more exhibits, more uh more information.

We have to model it in 3D and provide those documents.

Um so it could just be that it's a it's an alternate in the code that doesn't have to vary um from what is what is in there now if you are comfortable with what's there now.

Um but I did want to get to this image, and especially the one on the right, you can kind of see it it's it's a pretty uh direct interpretation of this this type of approach where the the roof literally slopes with the slope of the ground, and that's kind of what we're getting at.

That same home, if you use the standard or the current standard, where you see on the far right of that image where that deck is the way this current sandy code is written, uh you know the homeowner could bring in 10 feet of dirt instead of that walkout basement and then measure from that where that dirt stopped the new fill and then measure the building height off of that, right?

So you would end up with this piled up dirt mound around the house, and then it would comply.

And so the same thing in in some cases apply to uh David Hunt, who's here.

You know, if his house, if he just piled up a bunch of dirt around it, then he his house would be in compliance the way it is now.

Um it unfortunately in that case there was uh miscommunication, and it was the it was framed off of an older set of plans, not the approved set of plans, and then that wasn't discovered until final inspection.

So now he's in a in a tough situation, uh no fault of his own.

And um, and not because the plans that were approved by the city, but just because there was a miscommunication which drawings to be used for the framing.

But if again, if you just brought in a bunch of dirt, then you measured that finished grade, then all of a sudden it's it's kind of it goes away.

The problem is bringing that finished dirt in his case covers the garage, covers some functionality in the home.

Um so not only is it yes, is there a case specific example that is being discussed, and he's currently trying to work through with the city.

Um, you know, as we we got into this, you know, to help him out.

We we really do we see this in other communities where in mountains communities, and we think it is a it is an appropriate way to measure building height when you have a lot of slopes.

It is more sensitive to land, it is more sensitive to the views.

It is harder as a designer to um demonstrate compliance, but I do think it is it is the right way to approach it.

And um I think that's for the most part what I had to share with you.

I can answer questions.

Okay, yeah, thank you for the presentation.

The information is helpful.

Having the visuals is helpful.

Um before we turn it to staff, Miss Anderson.

Uh looks like we do have some questions from the commission.

So what would um what would stop somebody from over excavating and then wanting to go from the natural grade that was there originally building a taller home.

So I mean, if they over excavate, they they could potentially bury more of like the basement into the home, I guess.

But I'm just saying that if they lower the grade.

It's off existing.

It's off existing if we're existing so off the survey before they start construction.

Yeah, but if they lower the grade, it then they would still be off the existing grades.

Right, but that would be taller because they'd be adding additional square footage and additional heights down below.

Right.

So they could build a taller house by over-excavating.

Taller as measured, you know, in the end, but it's in terms of the visual impact to the neighbors, they're not exceeding what would have been built, if I'm understanding correctly.

I'm just it would it would be measured from the existing grade.

So if they lowered the grade, yeah, their building would have to be shorter.

No, no, he's saying from the original grade.

Original grade.

If the original grade's here, I lower it and I build from here to here, I can go from here up.

So you can build a taller house if you over excavate, is what I'm saying.

And to an existing neighbor, it doesn't matter.

He's still going to be looking at a three to four story house if you do it that way.

That there would be that would be.

Yeah, and you I mean, maybe to address that concern, you can still say that there's still uh you know a maximum height.

I mean, there is there's still building code maximum heights, they're still what the fire marshal would require for the height requirements.

So it's off the finish off of grade.

Correct.

And it's off of finished grade because that's what the fire marshal uses to determine how high they have to go.

Yeah, I think the I mean the building code would be the building code would look at the the height just off the home, and then that you know, planning looks at the height as at a different through different lens, you know.

So what we're talking about would be from the planning side.

But yeah, and maybe you put maybe you put in some provision that prevents all that over excavation if that's a concern.

Great.

Other questions?

So the current home that's somewhat in discussion here is how tall.

It is it exceeds the height by five feet.

It's five feet, so it's 40 feet.

So on one point of it, yeah.

Uh the back side of it is well within if we were to measure it this you know, this standard, it's it's on the one front corner where the garage is that it's it's tall.

Okay, and this originally came with approved plans, but the actual building of it didn't beat the approved plan so you're now coming for that is correct.

A change in the zone.

That's correct.

All right.

Seeing no other questions from the commission, thank you so much.

You bet, thank you.

We'll turn it to Miss Anderson to provide more information.

Thank you.

Okay.

So Mike already went through our introduction slide, and that was a good presentation of the proposal by the applicant.

And it's delayed, but I'm going to try one more time, hopefully.

There we go.

So just to make sure everyone understands what our existing code is.

I just wanted to outline that.

In the existing code, the maximum building height for a primary dwelling in residential zones is 35 feet.

And the building height is measured as the vertical distance from the average finished grade.

And that illustration kind of shows you when you are on a slope, you're measuring from a midpoint to the peak to the surface of the building, to the highest point of the coping of a flat roof, top of a mansard roof, or the top of a ridge for a gable hip or gamble roof.

So that's what we've been using.

We've been applying that standard methodology for decades here in Sandy.

And this was just some points about the proposal.

That's what the proposed language was, among others.

But optional, and that the maximum building height for habitable portions of the dwelling would be 35 feet measured from the existing or natural grade.

And this illustrates what precipitated this code amendment.

This is from a distance showing the home, and it's the top portion of that home that is exceeding the building height limit.

It took over a year to get the plans reviewed and approved.

Building height and consistency with the rest of the plans took quite a bit of time to finally get an approved set of plans.

There were other issues as well, but there was an approved set of plans and stipulations that it needs to follow the approved plans.

But it was cited that uh when they were you know getting the elevation checked, that it exceeded the building height, and so apparently there was some miscommunication with the plans that the approved plans versus the previous plans and what was used.

So anyway, that that's just a good illustration of what precipitated this.

Now staff uh as proposed does not recommend approval of this.

Um I'm gonna go through four basic issues.

There's others as well, but uh some of the very meaningful uh issues are that this would allow taller homes.

The proposed method of measuring building height uh would enable a taller home, as you just saw on the illustration, to be constructed in steeper sloped areas uh than is otherwise currently allowed.

And so the methodology has some merit in terms of trying to follow the existing slopes, but as proposed and with the 35 foot height limit, um you're basically allowing a taller home because that's what it resulted as.

Umity is another issue that staff is concerned about.

Uh the applicant would be able to have a taller building with this code amendment, while existing homeowners have not been allowed to use the same methodology for using uh for measuring building height, as well as inconsistent enforcement.

Uh previous cases where a new home was being constructed taller than the code allowed, have been required to physically correct the situation to meet the code.

As well as there would be significant revisions required to the text as proposed for it to be implemented and consistent with the rest of the code.

There are a number of either ambiguities or other areas of the code that have not been addressed or defined that significant changes to the language as proposed would be required.

Application requirements will have to be defined if this type of a methodology is used, because it requires 3D modeling, and staff will have to have appropriate information to be able to accurately assess it using this methodology at the time of building permit and then for surveys done throughout the construction process.

So yeah, there's other reasons too, but those are fundamental reasons.

So staff is recommending to the planning commission that you forward a negative recommendation to the city council to amend Title 21 of the municipal code retaining pertaining to building height based on the analysis and the findings in the staff report that goes into further detail.

So any questions?

Any questions?

I have a question, I guess.

So if we approve the amendment, is it retroactive to this home since it's already approved?

It's already built.

Well, that's a good question.

Would this be retroactive?

Which we usually don't typically do.

That's a good question.

I asked that myself.

They would have to apply for another build building permit, but whether it is physically change to reduce the height, or whether there's an administrative change that would allow the existing structure.

Either way, they have to apply for a building permit.

And we'd have to review that review that so it's not necessarily retroactive, but if a code amendment was passed, we would uh we uh we'd have to uh they'd have to submit another building permit and we'd review it at that time with the with any new code applied.

So you're saying that it's not just one thing was presented, there's a several things possibly that would have to be changed in the code that modifying the language, uh perhaps additional definitions for clarity, uh for example a predominant lot that has a predominant slope of 30 percent.

I'm not sure what the predominant is.

Um there's uh habitable space that is it's proposed to measure where the building where you have the habitable space, and we generally do not uh measure the height based on the land use because we can't go in and check and verify and or consistently check.

We're measuring the structure of the outside of structure in the top of the plate.

That those are just some examples, but there's more, definitely more of more comprehensive changes to the code, as well as it's proposed at 35 feet.

That's one of the big things at 35 feet, measuring from natural grade, because that is what is allowing the building to be taller than what we normally would allow it, because it's not met the code now.

This new methodology and code would allow a taller building.

That's that's the the outcome.

So this would be difficult for me to vote on because I'm not really sure what I'm voting on because you haven't presented all the policy changes, so I know what it meant.

Is that correct?

I mean, I I'd say modify, yes, modify this, but I don't know what I'm saying yes to because we'd have to have several policy changes.

Yeah, I think it would have to be revised, and uh the applicant could you know revise it.

Okay.

Uh we are unsure whether this code amendment is actually gonna do what they think it's going to do.

To we haven't seen evidence that it really meets will meet the code.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh, if that it would actually meet the new proposed uh code language.

So that's that's we're just uncertain about that.

I think the applicant is, but but the what the evidence or the proposal that was submitted, we're a little unsure about that.

Okay, what you were saying lastly.

Uh, but but the thing is is that as proposed, because this is from a citizen uh that were it's not necessarily staff's job to rewrite their whole code for them.

Yeah, that's but that would need to be done.

Someone would need to be doing look at all other sections of the code that this might touch in effect.

Um and uh after looking at other codes where they are trying to apply this type of method methodology from the existing grade.

Um the building height is lower.

Anywhere from you know 25 to 30 feet is common.

There's some that have a bit higher, but some of the examples that were cited in the proposal, they're not 35 feet measured from existing uh grade.

So this would be basically everybody else in the city to do 35 maps, but if you have a hill 30 grades, you could have 50 feet, 40 feet based upon your grade.

Depends on what you do with it.

Yeah, that's what you were saying.

Is if you change it, you could actually have a 50-foot home.

Well, I don't know about that.

40 foot.

That you could include it.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

That's my question.

I have I have a question.

It it seems kind of strange to me that we're going through and doing a rewrite for one problem.

And so I'm opposed to it from that standpoint.

Isn't there some kind of variance that Mr.

Hunt could apply for or some type of waiver that he could demonstrate why he's had this situation occur rather than going through and rewriting all of this?

We've had we've had trouble with 30% slopes forever or greater in a lot of areas.

And I just I think that this is just kind of a way of trying to get that one approved, but you know, a lot of other people have had to deal with the code as it is, and they've had to build on steep slopes with the way it is.

So I'm hesitant.

In fact, I'm against voting for it.

Um I I think that there may be a need to be another administrative way of dealing with his situation rather than changing the code to allow it.

That's that's my comment.

Thank you.

Jennifer.

No, I I had the same question.

Are these the only two options to either spend the money to renovate or change the code?

Yes, um, get an exception or something.

Um I I don't believe that this would meet the criteria for um a variance.

We have administrative variances, but those are for very small, you know, less than a foot difference.

Um so that's that's the only option.

We've had other cases where there was a misstep, and they had to physically change it to comply.

So that's not uh just that it has happened before and it's happened a few times.

We it's always unfortunate.

We never want this to happen.

Um that's why the you know reviewing and finally approving that building permit, it um it took a long time for us to get you know measured according to our building height uh per the code, and that the other plan set sheets were also in line with that because you don't want just one plan sheet that says this with the rest of the plans, the grading plan and the the rest of the building plans don't match.

All right, what I'm here oh, did we have another comment?

Well, I was just gonna so you're saying there's not a third option at all, making that an absolute no, and there's all there's also uh a contract and agreement with the the applicant because our attorney's office and the the city administration had worked with the I know, but there's there's no authority that the planning commission has to look at um any kind of variance or change or anything like that.

Um the planning commission doesn't have any authority to grant an exception for height.

Um they have an option to apply for a variance that would go to the board of adjustment.

However, there are statutes that have been established by the state that set minimum criteria, and one of those criteria is that it can't be a self-imposed hardship.

And it's hard to argue that that's not a self-imposed hardship that they're dealing with in this case.

Because I don't want to get down the road and say uh a what if scenario.

So thanks.

That's what you answered my question.

Those are good questions.

Thank you.

I was gonna say it sounds like we might need more time or information on this item, but um, I'm gonna hold off and and uh until okay.

Um let's hear from let's open up, thank you, Miss Anderson.

Let's open it up for public comment.

Um beginning with those that are in person.

If you'd like to speak to this item, please come to the podium and introduce yourself.

We just need your name and address.

Yeah.

Don't fault me.

I live in Draper.

Uh Pratt Diamond, 26, 27 East Canyon Edge Drive and Draper.

Uh I didn't come prepared, I didn't know this was a public meeting, but I am here, so I'm I'm the guilty one.

I built it.

Uh Mr.

Hunt went through a transition of contractors, several of them at the time, and so when I got involved, uh that's what happened with the plans.

We had a set of plans we were off and running.

So none of this was done with ill intent.

Uh obviously, if we had to do her, we do it over again.

But there were several things we call a stack effect that happened on on this particular thing, and I'll and I'll end with something that I'm building over in Pepperwood that I don't understand how the code's really being applied.

But it all started with the grade, which I came in around the footing stage, footings were already done, and then the foundation went on on top of that.

That loft sits back about 15 to 17 feet off the front of the house, which doesn't have really a visual effect as far as the code, but it does have an effect on how the code is interpreted.

Um I didn't design that, Mr.

Knighton did.

It's a beautiful home.

Uh, we did submit to the building department several structural changes to the house, which ended up adding about 2.3 to 2.7 feet to the house, which were approved.

I'm not saying the building department did anything wrong, that's not what I'm saying.

But we had to make some adjustments uh just due to some engineering changes that happened with the home with some heights of some windows and so on and so forth.

So we had some structural uh trusses that had to be built, and then on the top, it was uh where you saw that loft.

Uh there was an extra foot to 14 inches put on there because there was no slope.

Well, up there, you get a lot of snow.

So we ended up taking that about 14 inches up on that on that top portion there.

But if you look at that, I think he said it's five feet too high on the rear, we're we're way under that.

So I don't know how to interpret the code on that.

So there was a stacking effect that happened on that.

So with the site slope, the structural system changes and and so on and so forth.

So I say that.

I mean I'm not asking to change the code for this particular instance.

I do believe, Mr.

Hart, you mentioned a variance.

Hopefully, there's an option for that.

Uh I'm building a home currently in Pepperwood, and I use this as an example.

And I build on a lot of slopes.

I wish I could build on an ivory home splat piece of land.

I don't even know what that would look like.

Uh but so I'm on three bent hollow lane.

They applied the same situation, same code to this one.

This house is a rambler, it's got a 12-12 pitch, a couple 1412s, it's lowers.

It's it's just under 29 feet tall.

But we couldn't get it to apply to this code.

So the planning department, we ended up having to put a rock wall on the south side because this is a sloping lot this way.

May not be the same here.

So we had to put a rock wall in order to hide that in order to meet this particular code in order to move forward.

Well, we're we're six feet under the 35 feet.

However, directly across the street, similar to Mr.

Hunt's lot, very very similar to to the upslope like this.

They decided to keep the house there.

It's 62 feet in the air directly across the street, but they decided to keep it there.

I'm not saying it's over 35 feet, but I just think at some point that the code needs to be looked at, and maybe there's some options.

I liken it to like uh uh you have a clothing store, and you have a one-size-fits-all, and everybody goes in that clothing store, they all got to fit in the same clothes.

There are some things that need to be changed with with this code at some point in the future.

So great.

Okay.

Thank you for your comment.

Appreciate it.

Any other comments?

Yes, please.

I'm David Hunt, 3351 East, 9980 South.

I'm the homeowner.

Um I thought you should hear from me.

Um, I I do want to say that you know, now that I've been exposed to this concept of you know, running the height measurement with the original grade.

Um, I will say I I am behind that.

I think it's a good idea.

Um, I do agree there were some things that some definitions.

I think maybe it was Miss George pointed out there uh we're missing some definitions.

I I'm not pointing fingers at anybody, but we did submit the original proposed code amendment and did not receive any red lines back.

We certainly would have liked that.

We would have liked to have worked toward a workable code.

A lot of these objections that we're hearing now.

Um, we would have liked to have worked through as opposed to the blanket no.

Um, I think it was it maybe almost a month and a half ago.

Um, so that would have been helpful.

But the I it may be too late for my house, but I I think finding a way to you know run houses up the side of the hill makes a lot more sense, like Mr.

Diamond pointed out.

There are houses all around us that are 50, 60 feet in the air, um, you know, where they've just been excavated in a way and the ground pushed up.

Um, you know, they they look giant from the road.

You can't see the grade that is pushed up against them when you're driving by, you just see this monstrosity going up into the air.

So the we strongly believe that especially at 30% grades, like you see in other communities that the code should be modernized.

Uh Mr.

Hart had uh the point that well, you could just manipulate it by digging lower.

We you we could put clauses into the code that say you cannot be 35 feet from you know any point whether it was you, you know, like you couldn't dig down, it couldn't be 35 feet from a new point below the original um grade.

Um so you couldn't manipulate that, and that's you know, that's an easy one or two lines in the code.

Um so thank you for your attention to this, and thank you for your questions and uh and considering it.

Thank you.

Yeah, thank you so much.

It's a hard spot.

Um, we appreciate it.

I think any other comment from the public before we turn it.

Uh Mr.

We do have one online.

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

Uh Mr.

Van Marin, you may unmute yourself.

Thank you, Michael.

Good evening, Planning Commission.

Steve Van Merron, also a director draper resident.

I'm a little confused by a couple of things.

Uh the first was if you are required to infill back to the original grade, so it is truly a maximum from the final grade as well.

Uh, rather than the average.

And second, it should be the grade level of uh I'm sorry, third, second, not out of three, then it should be the grade level from which the measurement is made to a maximum of 35 feet.

Infill I can understand, but I don't understand how the proposal would let you excavate and just have a tall house on an excavated lot.

Second, I'm confused about the uninhabitable space as well as staff is.

I don't see why that would not interfere with uh perception of height, and I don't think that makes any sense.

Thank you for letting me speak.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

I'm seeing no other hands.

All right.

Uh seeing no other hands with that, we can close the public hearing for this item and turn it either to staff to answer any questions that might have been posed.

I'm not sure if we need to do that, or does the commission want to deliberate any more on this item?

Are we ready for a motion?

What is what does the body feel like?

Well, you've heard my opinion.

Um I think that we're rushing a code amendment that we haven't had a great deal of opportunity to think about.

I don't think we should delay it.

I think they ought to, if they're gonna work on a code amendment, they can work on a code amendment and bring it back later to us in an appropriate manner.

But I'm sorry that Mr.

Hunt is in this situation.

I fully understand the anxiety that he's going through as I'm building a house, but the the reality is is I don't think we do we don't change an amendment for one situation, and so I would recommend that we vote no, send a negative recommendation to the city council.

That sounded like a motion to me.

Do we have a second?

Well, I think he's got the motion.

Who you want to say it's a motion?

Yeah, that sounded like a motion to me.

Does that work?

Go ahead.

Yes, officially.

Yeah, having just having read the motion.

Okay, Cameron, will you please make the official motion?

Make the motion that the uh planning commission for a negative recommendation to the city council to amend title 21 of the Sandy Municipal Code relating to building height is shown in exhibit A based on the four findings is outlined in the staff report.

I'll second that.

Cameron Duncan.

Yes.

David Hart?

Yes.

Dave Bromley?

Yes.

Ron Mortimer.

Yes.

Steve Wrigley.

Yes.

Jennifer George.

Yes.

Lenny Stavenport.

Yes.

This motion carries.

Thank you.

All right.

With that, we will go ahead and turn to our next item on the agenda, item number six, which is the Silver Ridge Flats special exemption review.

And we will turn the time over to Mike, Mr.

Wilcox for an introduction.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

We'll actually be discussing the next three items, six, seven, and eight.

They're all related to the Silver Ridge Flats Estates proposed development that is being submitted by Andrew Gutierrez, the property owner.

They're requesting preliminary subdivision, site plan, and special exception review for this property located at 886 East 7800 South.

The proposal is consisting of consolidating two existing properties and then subdividing them into nine residential townhome units and seeking a special exception to require or to allow for a single point of access into this development for a private road with a varied uh profile and improvements and width.

And uh I believe the applicant is here and um can present the request of the planning commission, followed by our staff member Cash Hansy.

Great, thank you.

Please come to the podium and state your name and address.

I'm Brandon Priest from Gilson Engineering representing Andrew Gutierrez.

Um you could pull that microphone up to your close to your mouth.

There we go.

You're a little taller.

Um our address is uh 12401 south, uh 450 east in Draper.

Um as this prop project is moving forward.

What it is is we are consolidating two lots located on 7800 south.

Um the two lots are currently um allow for um uh get have enough acreage for to be able to have nine town home units uh with a private road.

We are we're asking for three special exceptions on this lot.

The first special exception, oh thank you, perfect.

Uh you can see the layout that is in front of you.

Uh it has uh four four townhome units on the east side, five town home units on the south side, uh private road coming in with an additional dedication along 7800 south uh to meet the current right-of-way required by engineering.

Um one of the special exceptions that's being requested is a modified hammerhead turnaround at the end of a cul-de-sac.

Um the standard uh standard cul-de-sac uh or a standard hammerhead turnaround is uh requires 60 feet uh from the center line of the of the private drive in each direction for the apparatus, the fire apparatus to be able to make a full turn and get out of the subdivision.

Uh we met with fire marshal and staff and have put together a special exception and an auto turn that actually shows the a full ladder uh aerial fire truck can make this turnaround in this uh offset uh hammerhead, which is a special exception from the standard hammerhead, which is in the development code.

Um the second special exception that is being um asked for is a modified private driveway access.

The modified private driveways you can see on the uh exhibit next uh includes a uh 57-foot ride-away section that 57 feet includes uh modified sidewalk only on one side of the uh of the of the project that goes in front of 92 90 degree parking stalls.

Uh we know when it comes to town home projects that parking is always the key, right?

Um these units have full garages on them, but also needed to provide additional stalls for visitors as well.

Um just it's just always a problem.

That's all we've done a whole bunch of these from the engineering side and parking is all always a challenge.

Um the modified width uh in the modified right-away would include those 90 degree stalls and a full uh a full sidewalk on the one side.

The reason it's special exception is it's is it doesn't have the standard sidewalk on both sides of the access in order to fit units uh and continue that connectivity.

We've extended a sidewalk around the exterior of the project to provide production connectivity and also uh just make it a better amenable space.

Um the last special exception that's being uh applied for is a single point of egress.

Um basically uh the single point of egress.

We have designed that the hammerhead does go all the way to the property line that allows for future connectivity development heading westerly, is there are some larger properties that could develop in the future.

Um this project does allow for a single point of egress that meets uh fire truck turnaround that meets traffic counts for nine residential town homes.

We're not apartments, these are nine families that are gonna call these their homes.

Um those are the special exceptions that we're going after.

Um as far as the project is concerned, it meets the it meets the uh requirements as far as density goes.

Um it allows for a good amount of open space.

It does have a small park.

I know amenities are always a good thing, especially for kids, right?

Young families.

Um, there is a small play area on the southeast side.

Um, and there's also some there's also open space um that are that are used for stormwater, but is planning to be uh detention to allow for uh plenty of open space to allow these families to have a have a place to live.

So that's the uh that's the special sections for this project, it's what we're going after.

Um, and uh we believe that it meets other requirements of the planning commission.

Happy to answer any questions.

Great.

Any questions?

So, yes, great.

Um, this does not have uh any type of driveways on here, right?

No, it does not have any type of driveways.

The development code, we either we either have to go to three feet off the top back of the curb or to provide a 12-foot driveway with full garages and the additional parking.

It was determined to make the actual units larger and to attract a better a better product for but for families, then to make them smaller and more long and cylindrical, which is not really the look that you're saying.

Typically, these units would have a garage and a driver, which is two cars per unit.

Correct.

You have some extra parking, but I think it's only 11 parking spaces.

So if you have two cars per unit, that gives you two cars for two spaces for visitors.

Right, so each so there's a combination of units.

Some of the units are one stall, one stall units, but most of the units are actually two stall full garages.

So the two stalls per unit for the development code is handled with the garage itself, and so all the parking required except for the the I believe it's three units that are single are handled in the additional parking provided in the 90 years.

So this was a double-wide garage most of them.

Correct.

Okay, that makes a little more sense than just 11 units for everything else.

Parking stalls for all the rest of the units.

Thank you.

All right.

Any other questions?

Okay.

Oh, yep.

I I it's pretty clever how you came up with that, but I do like the sidewalk around the perimeter of that.

I thought that was a nice addition.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Okay.

Seeing no additional comments or questions.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

We will turn the time to Mr.

Hansi to provide any additional information on this item.

Thank you.

I do think the applicant handled uh the presentation pretty well.

Um, one thing I did want to clear up just on that parking count.

Um, there is a total of 14 uncovered parking stalls, gives it an average of three stalls per unit.

Um, but yeah, a little history.

The the property was annexed and rezoned to this back in 2024 to give you some context on this.

And so there was a neighborhood meeting held then um to discuss this, and now it's been zoned not RM10, and they're they're able to do up to nine units on the slot, and that's what they're proposing.

So I don't have anything else.

Okay.

Any questions for staff?

Okay.

All right.

All right, we will now open the meeting uh for public comment, and we'll begin with those that are attending in person.

If you'd like to speak to the item, you'll have three minutes.

Please come to the podium and state your name and address.

Yes, please please push those microphones down a little bit.

I am I am too.

I'm Susan Hardman, and I live at 870 East 7800 South Medvale to the west of this property, by the way.

But I'm not ma'am.

Please address the planning commission and not the audience.

I'm sorry, but they keep thinking that I'm going to sell them my property to extend this.

They are barking at the wrong tree.

Sorry.

But nine units on less than an acre is not safe.

I don't know how they're going to get a ladder truck in there and get it out safely.

Not to mention we have a special needs school, elementary school, and a junior high school right in the vicinity that we have kids walking back and forth to schools.

Plus, we have elderly.

One of them is my father that takes a walk every day up that road.

I have walked up that road, and you can't get out on that road anyway safely to cross the street.

If you got cars, and I know these cars are going to be parked in my front yard, not on their properties, and you can't see traffic coming this way or this way to get across safely.

Anyway, I do not want to see nine units.

That's way too many units going into a less than acre property.

There's just no room.

Period.

I mean, it's it's just they're not getting my property, so they can bark up the wrong tree on that one.

Anyway, and here's my other concern.

This concern is ever since the home and the sheds and the weeds and trees have been removed from that property.

We have seen an increase of rats and mice.

This is a health issue.

And all of my neighbors, I sat there last afternoon, last weekend, 21 rats.

I trapped, and I watched them walk along the fence line.

I want them before they start to do any construction at all to hire a professional, professional company to come in and exterminate the rats, the mice, they need to get rid of the raccoons.

We have got a family.

I'm talking huge.

I've got them on my cameras, they're now climbing up on my house, which they've never done before, of raccoons that they need to catch and get rid of before they even think about trying to build anything on that property.

I have six neighbors, the two sets of townhomes, the neighbors behind me, plus myself.

Sounds like you do have you've met your three minutes.

I'll let you finish your statement.

Um we don't want to be infested with this vermin.

I mean, it's you're talking hunt a virus.

You've got they'll come in and start eating our wires, our homes.

I've already got them eaten on my pro on my house, and I have a log home.

My I just had to put 400 more in rat poison and tracks.

I have an extermination company that just raised my bill, 45 a month to put extra stuff for this vermin.

I don't want it, they don't want it.

We've been catching these things for the last three years.

Okay.

Or more.

So anyway, thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I I'm very avid on this, by the way.

I hear that.

Thank you.

No, thank you for your comment.

I appreciate that.

Any other comments on this item from the audience?

Okay.

Mr.

Wilcox, we have anybody online.

Yes, we do.

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.

Looks like uh Mr.

Peter Warnock, you may unmute yourself.

Thank you.

Peter Warnick, 865 East, 7800 South.

So I'm basically right across the street.

Uh we have two houses there and a couple of acres.

Um my concern here is the traffic.

A couple years ago, we had these meetings where the project that's right behind Harmon's was supposed to be 60 units, and because of the public outcry, I think it's only 30 or maybe 35 because of the egress in Ingress uh didn't really support that.

Uh when the gentleman spoke about maybe extending this property into the back to the uh back side of the property and add more units.

Uh, one thing that comes up is the concern about how is that traffic going to be handled.

7800 south between 7th, east and 10th is uh a nightmare.

People speed, uh, there are kids all over the place.

There are number of uh bicyclists that use that road, and every time there is more cars parked on the street, it forces those cyclists into the drive lanes, which makes it difficult.

My wife and I bicycle there, and if there's a car parked on the side of the road, you're you're you're in the traffic zone.

Uh when we talked about and uh this other project that was behind Harman's, Sandy committed to having the police do something about the traffic because people's speed is unreal.

Uh what the it's a thoroughfare, and with the schools and everything, and Sandy never did anything.

The police never came, they didn't put up a uh trap, they didn't put up a sign that said, hey, your speed is this much slow down.

I went to the police themselves, they said they would do something they never did.

Coming out of our driveways, if there's a car parked in the street, you can't see.

You can't see beyond that car.

And because people drive so fast, it's really dangerous.

My mother-in-law, who lives next door, 92 years old, drives still, and for her to come out of her driveway, it's a threat to her safety.

And unless Andy does something about curbing uh the erratic behavior of these drivers, the speed and everything.

I don't see how you can add more density to this when already you eliminated 30 units out of that one subdivision.

Now you're adding nine more in, which is one third.

And if you fill in the back side with more units because they buy the land back there, what happens to this area between 7th and 10th?

That is so dangerous.

Thanks for hearing my comments.

Thank you so much.

Anyone else, Mr.

Wilcox?

I'm seeing no other hands.

Okay, great.

Um does the commission want to have staff answer any of those questions?

Do we want to move on?

Okay.

I've got a double first.

Sure.

Just quick.

So city code allow allows how many maximum is maximum.

Nine is correct.

And and what is the number of park installs required or minimum for that project?

Um stalls and parking with garages and all.

What's the number?

I'm trying to figure out the yeah, you'll forgive me.

I I took over the project from Thomas, so I I don't know what's Mike if you have that number off the top of your head.

Can you restate the question?

Just the minimum parking.

So there's just some requests as far as being on the ground because there's not enough parking.

So I was trying to determine in the nine home complex how many parking stalls would be needed, and is there more than they would be required by the city?

Yeah.

So each home requires two car uh off-street parking plus visitor parking.

And the way that's administered is for the first five units, there's a requirement for five off-street parking in addition to the two off-street.

And then for every additional home, um, it's 0.25 stalls per unit uh for additional guest parking when they're configured in a parking lot configuration like they're doing with this.

So the cities basically looked at and said it's the city.

It does meet our parking requirement minimums.

And is there a traffic study required on this or not?

We can have Ivan Hooper.

It's such a small project.

Speak to that on traffic.

Any concerns or questions?

As far as traffic goes, it's ridiculous on that street.

Yeah, Ivan Hooper, transportation engineer.

We did not require traffic study.

This is our recall.

Largely is as you said, that's uh nine units, it would generate approximately 70 trips a day.

So it's a from a traffic overall traffic impact, it's it's a very minor 278 or so.

Thank you.

Great.

Any other questions or comments?

Seeing none, um, are we ready for a motion?

Anybody willing?

Yeah, I'll make a motion.

Thank you.

Okay, I'll make a motion at the planning commission to approve the request of special expect exceptions described in the staff report for the Silver Ridge Flat Subdivision located at 886 East, 7800 South, uh, based on the three findings detailed in the staff report.

Great.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Dave Romley?

Yes.

Ron Mortimer?

Yes.

Cameron Duncan?

Yes.

David Hart.

Yes.

Steve Wrigley?

Yes.

Jennifer George?

Yes.

Lenny Stavenport?

Yes.

This motion carries.

All right.

Thank you.

Okay, now we're going to be able to do this.

Two additional motions that would have to be made.

Site plan.

Okay, I'll make a motion that uh planning commission determined preliminary site plan review is complete for the proposed silver ridge flat sub development located at 886 East, 7800 South, based on the five findings and five conditions detailed on staff report.

Do I have a second?

I'll second.

Go ahead.

I'll second it.

Great.

Dave Bromley?

Yes.

Steve Rigley?

Yes.

Cameron Duncan?

Yes.

Ron Mortimer.

Yes.

David Hart?

Yes.

Jennifer George?

Yes.

Lenise Davenport.

Yes.

This motion carries.

Okay.

Now for subdivision review.

Make a motion that planning commission determine their preliminary subdivision review is substantially complete for the Silver Ridge Flats subdivision at 886 East 7800 South based on the five findings and seven conditions detailed in staff report.

Thank you, sir.

Do I have a second?

I'll second.

All right.

Dave Bromley?

Yes.

Cameron Duncan?

Yes.

Ron Mortimer.

Yes.

David Hart.

Yes.

Steve Wrigley?

Yes.

Jennifer George?

Yes.

Lenise Davenport.

Yes.

This motion carries.

Right.

Thank you so much.

All right.

With that.

Um staff, Mike.

Do we just move on to administrative business?

Okay.

Yes.

Do I need to?

I guess I need a motion to approve the minutes.

Sorry.

Yeah, motion to approve, minutes.

Sorry, before we do that, I just have one correction.

And I didn't get a chance to talk to you ahead of time.

But on the very first page, it says there's 11 of us present.

With Jennifer and Lenise being here twice.

So we want to get that next time.

I moved to get double pay.

Second.

Does that mean they get two votes?

Sure.

Second, second.

I'd love for them to have two votes.

All right.

Any other comments?

Motion to prove as adjusted by Cameron.

Nice.

All in favor.

Second.

Okay.

Aye.

We're out of control.

See your chair is losing it.

Okay.

The next item on the agenda is the Sandy City Development Report.

Mike, is that you?

That is an informational report.

I don't have anything specific to address on that unless there are any questions.

Okay.

All right.

You do?

Not about the report.

Okay.

Okay.

Seeing none.

All right.

And then director's report.

Yes.

As I mentioned, as we mentioned earlier, James is not here tonight, but we'll be here the next meeting.

So I did the meeting all by myself.

He didn't think I could do it, but you know.

Good job.

Thank you for Aishin and her help.

I didn't actually do it all by myself.

James does so much up here every week, so we appreciate him.

And we miss him when he's not here.

But as far as our department, as a as I mentioned earlier in the executive session, we did make a recent hire for a planner that replaced uh Bryn Bolander in our department.

And we've got uh Grant Hancock here.

And we'll ask him to come up and just briefly introduce himself and give him a little background on himself so you get familiar with him because he'll be bringing items to you all in the near future.

Awesome.

All right, thanks for the opportunity, Mike.

Uh my name is Grant Hancock.

I'm from Austin, Texas originally.

I was uh actually raised in a small town about an hour north of uh Austin.

I had a graduating class of about 70, so pretty small little Texas town.

Uh joined the Marine Corps right out of there, uh right after I graduated high school was like three days later.

I was in boot camp.

Uh so went in that direction and spent six years, about six years in the Marines.

Uh got out, started my undergrad uh education, majored in public history, uh, and didn't actually know much of a direction from that point, but luckily uh during that uh process uh I found a passion and and just had some issues actually with planning related topics and how it impacted my life and it kind of you know planted a seed for me.

Um and so uh had the opportunity to pursue a graduate degree and came to the U to do the master's planning uh program and wonderful opportunity to join Sandy City here and start my planning career.

So very excited to be a part of the city.

Nice.

Awesome.

Do we don't we say don't we need to say like hurrah or something?

What do we do?

Hurrah.

I want to hear that every time you present now.

At least when you get something approved.

We're excited to have Grant join our team.

Um this has been his first week.

He started on Monday, so he's been drinking through a fire hose all week, and I'm sure he's exhausted.

So we're we're glad to have him, and uh he'll be a great addition to our team.

Awesome.

Other than that, I don't think I have anything to do.

Can you get him the rest of the night off then?

We definitely can.

Um definitely he's earned it.

Uh we will have a meeting, I believe, um, next uh June eighteenth.

Okay.

Plan on that.

Um we'll determine that for sure tomorrow, but I believe that we will have a another meeting then.

And uh as of right now, we might have a meeting on July second.

Barring barring uh planning commissioner availability, preventing that.

I think we might have some items that will be ready to go.

So as of right now, our availability chart is showing that we have at least four uh that would constitute a quorum for that meeting.

Okay.

So unless that changes, uh plan on that one as well.

We'll be fireworks afterwards.

Maybe during we hope not during.

Thank you all.

Is that it?

All right.

One last motion.

Yes, please.

Motion to adjourn.

I think we're done.

Thank you.

She's nice.

She's nice.