Madam Chair, we're ready when you're ready.

He said he would be here any minute.

And Councilmember Nickel is joining virtually.

Welcome everyone.

This is a Sandy City Council meeting for Tuesday, July 7th, 2026.

Is that me, Dustin?

I know.

Okay.

Um we start all our meetings with a prayer.

Do I have any volunteers to give us to lead us in the prayer this evening?

Ms.

Houseman, would you like to do that?

Go ahead.

Our dear Father in Heaven, we come before thee in gratitude for the opportunity to consult with one another, learn from one another, and serve the people of Sandy.

We are grateful for our employees who serve so diligently and quietly behind the scenes and providing the services that uplift and elevate the experiences of those who live within our community.

We pray for thy guiding hand to be with us.

Bless us as we deliberate.

Bless us as we consider new team members who will be joining us, and bless us to remember that all who serve are are doing it from a place of engagement within the city and seeking to make the best decisions possible.

We are grateful again for the opportunity to serve.

We pray that thy guiding hand will be with us, that we will feel thy spirit and thy presence, and that we will deliberate knowing that thou art mindful of our efforts.

We say these things in the name of our Savior, Jesus Christ.

Amen.

Will everyone please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance?

I Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands.

Mr.

Fratter.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My name is Dustin Fratto.

I'm with the City Council Office.

Hi, my name is Tracy.

I'm counsel for the council.

Chris Edwards with the Council Office.

Brooke Christensen, District One.

Cindy Sharkey at large.

Alison Stroud, District Two.

Brooke D'Souza at large.

Erin DeKaiser at large.

I'm Mayor Monica Zoltansky.

Martin Jensen, Chief Administrative Officer.

Linpace, City Attorney.

Ms.

Nickel, go ahead.

Chris Nickel, District Three.

All right.

We've got everyone here with us this evening.

So here's what everyone can expect out of tonight's meeting.

We have on our agenda an election.

We have seven in for eight information items.

We've got a short consent calendar.

We've got a public hearing, and we've got a council voting item.

We take um public comment on voting items.

So I'll be calling for public comment on the voting item, which is item number 14.

We also have a general citizen comment period at or as close to six o'clock as we can manage.

It won't be before six o'clock.

It could very well be after.

Anyone who would like to speak, either at General Citizen Comment or our on our voting item, if you'd please fill out a blue card in the back of the room.

Tell us which you're going to speak on.

And I'll make sure you have that opportunity to speak when the time comes.

All right.

First item on our agenda tonight is our twice-a-year election of City Council Chair and Vice Chair.

Madam Chair, may I?

Please.

Thank you.

Okay, so we will hold our election in the same format that we've done in the past.

Justin's gonna go ahead and pass out our paper ballots.

If you could uh just mark your selection on the paper ballot.

Uh at the end, I will count uh the votes, and if we have an election, I'll let you know.

And then we'll move on to the uh vice chair.

Uh council member Nichols virtually, so she is going to send me uh her election.

I will mark it on a ballot for her, and we'll make sure it gets counted.

We do have an election.

Uh, next chair will be council member Houseman.

And so council now we'll move on to the vice chair election.

We do have an election for vice chair.

It'll be council member Christensen.

And so council now, if uh somebody could make a motion to uh appoint Councilmember Houseman as the chair and council member Christensen as the vice chair and then vote on that motion.

That would be appreciated.

Madam Chair, I'd like to move that we approve the adoption of the chair and vice chair as noted for council member Kausman being the chair and council member Christensen as vice chair.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed.

Congratulations, you two.

Looking forward to that.

Marcy, I'm ready to give up my seat if you would like to.

You prepared for the meeting.

You have a plan.

If you're willing, please remain.

All right.

I'll pick it up next week.

All right.

Thank you.

Okay.

Uh moving on to item number two on our agenda, the first informational item.

This is advice and consent of City Treasurer, Mayor Zoltanski.

Thank you, Council Sandy Residents.

I'm proud to nominate Mindy Finlandson to serve as Sandy City's treasurer.

Mindy is an accomplished financial leader whose career reflects technical expertise, sound judgment, and a commitment to responsible stewardship of public funds.

As a certified public accountant with more than 15 years of experience, she brings a unique combination of municipal finance leadership and private sector advisory expertise.

She currently advises government agencies on complex accounting standards, financial reporting, and operational improvements.

Mindy spent nearly a decade with Park City Municipal Corporation, including service serving as finance director and treasurer, where she managed Treasury operations, investments, debt, financial reporting, and other responsibilities that closely mirror those of Sandy City's Treasury role.

Throughout her career, Mindy has earned a reputation for collaborative leadership, attention to detail, and careful financial management.

I'm confident she will serve Sandy City with distinction, and I'm pleased to present her for your consideration and advice and consent as Sandy City Treasurer.

Mindy, if you'll come to the dais, please.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Welcome, Mindy.

It's nice to have you here with us tonight.

Thank you.

I'm happy to be here.

Any comments that you want to add?

Maybe you could give us a brief overview of your experience and your qualifications for this position.

Would you mind doing that?

Sure.

I just really want to thank Mayor Zoltanski and Brian Kelly.

Getting to know Brian and the team a little bit more over the past few weeks has been really great.

As the mayor has mentioned, I started my career in public accounting as an auditor, so I really got to see kind of how a lot of different organizations work doing that work and then made the jump to government and have spent almost the last 10 years at Park City.

Really enjoyed my time there and just think that I've really found what makes sense for me and where I kind of like to contribute.

All right, this is the opportunity for sorry, swallowed wrong council members to ask questions.

Do council members have questions for Ms.

Finlinson.

Ms.

Houseman, go ahead.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I appreciate the time that you've spent.

I know with more than just me.

I know you've had many, many conversations.

So thank you for setting aside the time.

During our conversation, I mentioned outcomes-based budgeting, priority-based budgeting, and I feel like we had a great discussion on that.

I'd love to just hear a little bit more about what that might look like in terms of celebrating things we're already doing, perhaps that align, and I know not yet on the job, but but I'm sure you've studied us.

And then maybe what it could look like.

What are some additional pieces that we could consider to move a little closer to priority-based budgeting or outcome-space budgeting, whichever you want to call it?

Yeah, sure.

And um, like you mentioned, we spoke a little bit over the phone about it already.

So I might repeat a few of the things that we chatted about.

Um, but we talked a lot about how outcomes-based budgeting um can really help an organization understand where they are and maybe what challenges they're currently facing and what their priorities are and how we're gonna get there.

Um so I think one of the key things is also breaking down that information into data that everyone can understand.

So I think visuals and graphs and charts and things that people can go and look at and really break down the information.

I don't know very many people that want to go read a hundred-page budget plus budget book or not.

Um so really being able to disseminate that information to the public and internally to the city staff as well.

Um, and then also uh, you know, for internal staff communicating that to the council.

Thank you.

Um I'm gonna hold off.

I think that's the only one I have for now if I think of another one, but I want to make sure we have time for everyone to ask.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Ms.

Christensen.

I just wanted to say hello.

We didn't get a chance to talk before.

I'm sorry, I didn't know that was you in the hallway when I walked by.

No worries.

But um great, your resume looks great, and you've got impressive recommendations, and so I appreciate you being here tonight.

Thank you.

I appreciate that.

Do you go ahead?

Ms.

Straud.

Um tell us a little bit about uh your experience with so Sandy and Mr.

Kelly have year over year received awards with uh putting together our our budget, um, you know, just the entire department.

He does an excellent job.

Um, and you know, and that's that's well recognized within the council, uh, within the community and within you know the financial world as well.

Um, you know, what's your experience preparing, you know, annual comprehensive financial reports?

Yeah, uh so at Park City, I prepared the entire report.

Um, so that was something that I took on as the finance director.

Um, we apply for the GFOA award every year as well, and that's something that we strive to obtain.

Um, so very familiar with the preparation of the statements, and then currently, as my role as a consultant, um, just helping multiple governments kind of get ready for those reports as well.

Thank you.

I thought I could ask you a question.

You want to go ahead?

No, I already asked one.

Come back to me.

We have a uh two-page job description that's in pretty small font.

There are a lot of things on here.

Are there any of the duties or responsibilities in this job description that you have not previously done?

Yeah, uh I think one of the things that my past experience I haven't directly done is supervise utility billing staff.

Um so I haven't managed the utility billing function in at Park City.

However, I will say um we worked very closely with that team.

The finance department did all the receiving for the utility billing um cash receipts, and then you know, working through any general ledger issues or billing issues.

Um so we were caught in constant kind of coordination and contact.

So I certainly understand how that function um works into the overall picture for the city's financial operations.

Okay, thank you.

Ms.

Houseman, go ahead.

I I I really liked what you shared about reports, and so um in response to Councilman Strauss's question, so I wanted to just unpack a little bit more.

So, of all the reports, you know, over the years you've prepared reports, you presented reports.

Is there a question that you've always hoped the body receiving the report from you would ask that was never asked, but had it been asked, you would have had an opportunity to really educate and and and and stretch the learning um of the body that's receiving that report.

Yeah, that's a great question.

Um so I uh uh really enjoyed my time as an auditor.

So preparing the um financial statements was one of my is one of my favorite things to do, actually.

Um and I really think the statistical section in the ACVER is super interesting and can tell you a lot about a city, and it actually has a lot of key metrics that I think citizens would be interested about as well.

Um so I think that's um a section that kind of gets overlooked but is certainly very interesting.

Oh, okay.

Note to self.

Ask about that.

Thank you.

What are the questions, Council?

Do we have more?

I don't see any more questions for you.

Thank you for joining us tonight.

We appreciate it.

And I think you know the way this is gonna work tonight was informational for us, and we expect to put it on next week's agenda for a vote.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you all.

All right.

Mayor Zoltanski, the next thing we've got is advice and consent for uh city engineer.

Back to you.

Thank you.

I'm proud to pronominate Richard Benham to serve as Sandy City's next city engineer.

Through my interactions with Richard, I've come to know him as a reliable and respected leader.

He leads with professionalism, integrity, and sound judgment, and has earned the trust of his colleagues across our organization and statewide.

Richard brings more than 30 years of civil engineering experience to the position, including the past 16 years serving Sandy City in several key leadership roles within public utilities.

His extensive knowledge of our infrastructure and our organization makes him exceptionally well prepared for this position.

He has successfully managed more than 120 million dollars in infrastructure projects while overseeing engineering operations, regulatory compliance, water rights, development review, and long-range capital planning.

Besides being a problem solver, Richard is a licensed professional engineer, a recipient of Sandy City's public utilities quality service award, and someone who consistently demonstrates a collaborative approach to serving our community.

And I have every confidence that Richard Benham will serve Sandy with distinction as our next city engineer and pleased to present his nomination for your consideration.

Good evening.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor, for your confidence in the council.

I appreciate this opportunity to take a moment to answer any questions.

And um I I've look forward to uh continuing my service at Sandy.

And it's been a wonderful 16 years, and for those of you who saw the little little tidbit in the video to Shane, I I'm much appreciative of him of taking a chance on me 16 years ago to hire me in public utilities, and then it's been a wonderful experience.

I really appreciate that and all those that I've worked with.

So thank you.

Council, what questions do we have?

Ms.

Houseman, go ahead.

You look this way, so I'm gonna nod.

Um Richard, I thank you.

I like we we know your your quote work product so well, and I would I couldn't agree more with the descriptive words that were used.

Um truly a man of integrity and honesty and collaborative and and and a mind to problem solve.

I love I love all that you brought to our city, so I'm excited for for this kind of new definition of your role.

Um so my question comes from I recently read a book, uh Think Again by Adam Grant, and it it really caused me to think about leadership and the role leaders have to perhaps slow down and sometimes pivot or change trajectory when the the decision warrants it.

And so my question would be as you as you reflect on your years with Sandy City and you look ahead to the years that are coming.

Um could you share an example of where you either did think again, like you hit pause and you you thought I think we need to pivot to to elevate what we are providing to residents.

So yes, we're on this path, but I think there's an opportunity to think again and pivot and and do this instead.

That would be in the best interest of of residents.

So either a time you did do it or or a time you maybe wish you would have and what you learned from that.

Boy, there's a there's a lot there.

I I I can think of um structurally uh on ways that we've set up the engineering department and public utilities as my service there, uh, how we've done things and how um we we changed some things, some responsibilities and how that's worked, how over the last uh few years we've really focused on asset management.

We took a position and created another um um GIS person to help us to gather today data and analyze it.

Um Sandy is is at a point um where um growth is not exponential, right?

Um it's not like the West Side or Northern Utah County.

Um our biggest problems lie in our aging infrastructure moving forward.

And so looking at at that need, um, as you've heard me say in other presentations, um we don't need to build any new more tanks.

We that wells are in a good place, we're gonna continue to maintain those.

It's really about us switching to to looking at our our uh replacing our pipes that uh both water and stormwater pipes that are aging.

Of course, that will that will move forward as my new role in public works to to look at at the transportation needs of the city and and and that part of it too.

So structurally we've made that that change.

Um and I I do want to say and it might come up with another question.

I I certainly don't have all the answers.

I really appreciate working with some great engineers, uh, great other professionals in other departments and and gathering that information and and and then making a data-driven decision on which project is the most important one right now.

I hope that answers your absolutely thank you.

Ms.

Christensen.

So I love working with you, Richard.

The first time we really worked together was when we had a minor water issue in Santa Lee.

And um you were really remarkable in the way you organized it and the way you handled the situation and worked with the federal groups and internally and everyone else, and I just I've been really impressed with um the way you work and how you do your job here in the city, all of all of the different ones I've seen you do, and so I appreciate that, and I'm excited for you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um I feel like you are uniquely positioned to be in this position that we're being asked to provide consent for.

Um because we are merging the public utilities and public works departments, and because your background and experience includes both.

I'm feeling like you are the right person.

Do I have that right, Richard?

Tell me.

You you you sounded a little too humble about things to learn, but you have both of those experiences.

I I do, um, but I will not um I I'll give you an example.

We have a traffic engineer in Ivan Hooper, who has 30 plus in experience in that.

I will not pretend that I know uh what he knows about traffic engineering or or transportation.

I I sometimes say tra traffic engineer, but his job title is transportation engineer.

Um but I do.

I'm I started out my career at the Alabama Department of Transportation years ago, and my first uh two consultant jobs were my only two jobs as a in private consulting were with firms that did the the entire gamut of of civil engineering.

So I do have that experience.

Um and so that's important to know, but uh of course over the last 16 years it's been focused in on water, water resources, stormwater, and and those things.

But that encompasses when we do those projects, we do them in roads, right?

We we have to deal with that and working closely with we try to to to get that synergy of a project where we where we can take care of all the issues on that road at one time.

So I do have a lot to learn, but I do have a lot of experience.

I do have experience in all of those aspects.

One of the things that we are hoping or expecting to see in the merger of the departments are efficiencies.

So I'm thinking that you at your position could understand logistically and tact tactically how to make the two different disparate departments efficient and effective.

And I know that's playing I I must I'm making big assumptions about your abilities, but I do think that your that combination of experience is going to be really helpful.

And so I'm looking forward to your expertise helping make this transition easier for all of us.

And I know we're I'm sure there'll be rough patches, but I think you're well qualified.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anybody?

Ms.

Stroud?

What do you see as the biggest challenge or the first thing that you'll be taking on as you learn the so when we sat down and talked about this, you know, it you know everything beneath the road, you know, beneath our surface, the back of your hand, but as you're learning the road, you know, and that top surface.

What what do you see as the biggest challenge?

Um, and how do you plan to go about learning the top side of the road?

That's a certainly a loaded question.

The first part about the biggest challenge, of course, there's there's the challenge of merging the two departments, and and I I I wouldn't want to create um a misconception that there is work to be done, um, and it is essentially the same work, right?

Um there are projects that need to be done, and there will be efficiencies in fleet as as been talked about with personnel that can cross-train those kinds of things.

Um but there are the the same work that needs to be done, but we will be working so much closer together that when uh when a road will needs a new water line, and we know there's deficiencies in the storm drain, we can say, look, it's ready to be repaved, resurfacing, and we can work so much closer together, and with our inspectors and and and and so forth, and even on the asset management side, understanding uh all those systems work together so much uh better when when we're in one department.

Um we have those coordination meetings now, but uh it physically we'll be together in one place, um, and that will also help with that.

Um so structurally um it'll be a challenge at first.

You know, there are some engineers that have spent their entire career doing water and doing this and having them work together and and merge those responsibilities.

We're going to help our inspectors be able to inspect many things uh you know together.

Uh there's a lot of cross-training that needs to happen there and and understanding strengths and weaknesses of the various um you know people in in the in the div engineering division.

Um one of the biggest problems overall, um, I was just talking to Brian about this a few minutes ago, is ours our city is at a at a stage where the um mid-70s, early 80s when a lot of that infrastructure was put in, a lot of that pipe, and that's coming due.

Um that's coming due on whether it's um storm drainage pipe on some of the corregated metal pipe, whether it's water, that that pipe has a lifespan.

Um, and it's uh and we've seen breaks right now.

We're at 57 breaks, well, mainline breaks for the year.

Um the highest number we recorded in breaks is 81 for the entire year.

Now, if you do the math and you think about it halfway through, and that's typically most years we're around the mid-30s.

This year we're at 57.

So we anticipate if things go like they normally do, that we'll be well over 100 breaks for the year, and that'll be a record.

Um, so there as we continue to study the whole system, the whole road, whether with everything and knowing those four of those projects to go, we'll we'll probably want to put a priority over knowing that water line is le reached the end of its lifespan.

And when it breaks, it causes problems.

We we don't like making the news with those if we can help it, right?

Um, but it happens sometimes.

Go ahead.

Um talking about that, and this is something that we've discussed as a council in the past within the last year.

Um, what is your philosophy of when we when we're seeing the deterioration of these of these main lines uh of either replacing just in sections or looking to say, you know what, let's go ahead and replace from 13th East down to State Street or you know, an entire section.

Right.

Um what what is kind of your well there's there's there's two things there.

There's there's the the the critic criticality of the pipe.

How important is that pipe in the system and the condition of the pipe?

Um if it's a pipe, Sunburn Lane project is a classic example.

We replaced those pipes down there not because they were costing a lot of money when they were breaking, it's because they were breaking so often and they were causing the residents to be out of water, and and and a real a real problem.

You don't like being in the shower and the water turns off because there was a mainline break.

And so we realized we needed to replace that pipe.

But the cost the pipe, the brakes were only costing order of magnitude very low, four to five thousand dollars apiece.

We have a break on Little Cotton Road, and it's six figures.

Um and so that criticality is much higher.

So we take that into account, and we do look at the age of the pipe and when it was installed, the vintage.

We have some pipes in the system that are put in in the in the 1950s for whatever reason, they built the pipe really good then.

And and there's some pipes that are that old that are not breaking that are in really good shape.

Um, but you get to the 70s, and there's some of those pipes that are falling apart, and uh for and so we look at that that vintage of pipe, we look at when a neighborhood was constructed, phasing of subdivisions, we try to replace pipe and those sections.

We have on CEMA Drive up but near Flat Iron Park, um we just had a bad break um a couple of weeks ago, week and a half ago, and we're looking to to replace that section because we we've seen how bad it looks, and we know that whole piece that that contractor put in with that the that subdivision is bad, and we don't need any more evidence to know we need to do it.

And thanks to Google Fiber, when the break happened, it unzipped the road all the way down the hill.

And so we know that it's gonna cost us extra to have to re to repair the pavement because of that because of that break.

So there's a lot of things going in there.

There's not one, you know, there's there's the analysis of knowing multiple breaks in a location versus the cost of the break versus the criticality.

Rut breaks in U Dot Roads, 9400 south, a lot uh it causes a huge problem.

Uh traffic-wise, uh, you know, we it's it's a really the road is very expensive to replace, and so we try not to have multiple breaks there when we know the pipe is in bad condition.

Ms.

Nickel, go ahead.

Thank you, Richard.

I want to tell you you have my full support.

You are the consummate professional.

Um whether you're dealing with a resident or city council or other employees, uh, you're just phenomenal.

And I think that you I've seen your leadership style, and I'm proud that you're moving into this position and and good luck.

Thank you.

Ms.

DeSouza.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um I too have enjoyed the opportunity to get to know you professionally through my time here on the council and your time in public utilities, and um I do find you very capable and qualified for the role that you've been put up for appointment for.

Uh I guess one of the questions that I have for you is being that we are merging the two departments and you've spent the last 16 years in public utilities.

What do you think and and put the the city engineer has primarily been in the public works department?

Right.

What do you see as maybe the most important you know factor or a couple of factors to get right out of the gate with this merge as it pertains to you know your new um scope of work?

Well organizationally, I um I hope I'm not divulging anything is is the plan is is to have a very flat organization structure where I will have too many direct reports.

I'll I'll just say it, uh at least nine.

Um and I want to get to know all of the engineers uh you know what their strengths are, what their weaknesses are, and then we're gonna make re we're gonna reorganize uh accordingly from there and and be able to get that that cross-training because it's very important.

We've we've worked we've been all these years, we have these monthly meetings and and we'll have a project going where we'll interact some, but but the but there really has been kind of silos there, and we really want to, you know, um you know not have that and and be able to to be interactive together very much so and it will it will take looking at those projects together uh way more than we have done in the past and working collaborative together.

Um and and there's you know I I'm not an illusion that there's there's going to be some friction, there's gonna be some struggles about I do this better, you know, uh who's doing what and kind of organized and uh or or figuring out those kinds of things.

But as I've looked at it over the really ever since this was proposed, I understood, and I thought I don't I need to figure out the best way to organize this to be able to to get it right and and be able to be the most uh effective um way to run the the engineering division.

So I don't did I kind of answer your question, maybe you did.

I I think that I understand, and I I would agree that that sounds pretty important right out of the gate to get right.

Thank you.

Any more questions for Richard?

Thank you.

We were easy on yeah.

Thank you, Richard.

All right, Mary Zeltansky.

The next item on our agenda is uh advice and consent for our uh new communications director.

Yeah, two down two to go here, folks.

Uh Rachel Van Cleve.

Um welcome.

It's my pleasure to nominate Rachel Van Cleve to serve as Sandy City's communication director throughout Utah's municipal communications professional profession, Rachel is widely respected as one of the best in the field.

She has earned the admiration of her communications colleagues, including including our own Susan Wood, and the confidence of mayors, city managers, and elected officials across the state through her professionalism, skill and integrity.

Rachel brings 17 years of communications and leadership experience to the position, including the past eight years serving as communications manager and public information officer for the city of South Jordan.

She has successfully guided communications through periods of tremendous growth, major economic development projects, emergency incidents, and some of the most challenging issues local governments face.

She believes success is more than delivering a message, it is understanding whether that message reaches the right audience and achieves the intended outcome.

She relies on analytics, performance metrics, and meaningful community engagement to continuously improve the way government communicates with its residents.

Rachel is president of the Utah Public Information Officer Association and demonstrates a commitment to advancing communications profession statewide.

Her MBA accreditation in public relations and advanced public information officer certification reflect her dedication to continuously learning and excelling in her field.

Rachel combines strategic vision, technical expertise, and a collaborative leadership strike style with a genuine passion for public service.

It is my honor to present her nomination for your consideration.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor, and thank you, Council.

I'm excited to be here.

Quick summary of that long spiel is I'm a data nerd.

I love my numbers.

I think we were talking about that on the phone.

So yes, that's that's that's me.

I I love my data and I love making things happen, looking at the numbers.

Souncil members.

Oh, just heard that.

No one there.

Ms.

Houseman.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um I enjoyed our conversation.

Thank you for carving that time out.

Um I probably took more of your time than you were planning to give me, but I appreciate it.

And uh one of the things we talked about is kind of what I'm hoping for for you to build upon with everyone tonight.

So I'd love for you to think think through a scenario where as a city, we have determined that a video is needed.

Um if you could walk us through the steps you would take to bring together our our are soon at some point to have communications, you know, director for our exec for our um city council and Susan from the mayor's office.

And what would that look like where you would you would bring them together and and co-create this uh video that would truly reflect the city as a whole communicating with its residents?

I appreciate that question.

Thank you, Councilmember Houseman.

Uh so I want to take a quick step back because where a lot of these things come when you're building on a project, it starts with relationships and building relationships with you all, building relationships with the mayor and staff and building relationships with the communications director um that the council will have.

So my goal is to make sure I have those in place and those really good workflows together.

But um I think the important thing is to see what those priorities are from both the uh mayor's administration, from the legislative branch, working with those people, working with Susan and whoever that communications director will be, and bringing all of that together to come up with a message that will most benefit the residents of Sandy.

That's all of our North Star.

That's why we are all here, is to make sure our residents have a uh the best understanding possible of whatever we're working through.

And I have to do the plug for data again.

I'm always looking at data.

There is so much of the time that I found in my experience in government that we may have a perception that something is one way, but when we look at the data, it is amazing how much it is not.

We all know that there's some of us that have that tendency, the half uh the glass half full mentality and the glass half empty.

And somewhere, usually reality is in between.

And when we have an idea of what that reality is, then we can communicate appropriately to our residents.

Can I add to that?

Sure.

So in a similar um, I'll do it's not exactly in the same lane, but you spark something else in my in my in my thinking.

Um so even though this department is is small, it is really a collaborative, like you just described.

I I appreciate you staying.

I'm gonna start with relationships, and then this will be a shared experience.

Um I'd love to hear a little bit about your your approach to leadership, even though again it's a it's a small team, it's it's a team that impacts the entire city.

And and so that is why this position is critical.

Um I'd love to hear your thoughts in terms of leadership growing the people around you, multiplying um their opportunities and their ability to have an impact, and doing so by understanding flow, which I bet you know about, but I'm just gonna like clarify my description or my definition.

So flow is that that excellent state that a leader will help both individuals and teams operate in where um there's just enough stretch and and pull to grow and learn without topping out at uh ultra anxiety, and it's not so simple and easy that people are bored, and especially in the world of communications, creativity is so valuable.

So making sure that we are sparking creativity so that things are not so boring.

We're bringing people in that lovely place in the middle, but also keeping them from the kind of pressure that actually squashes creativity and flow.

So talk to me a little bit or to us, sorry, talk to us.

Um we're all here.

Um what that looks like, how do you as a leader get to under understand the people that are helping you do the work and help them operate in flow?

I love that description.

Um preach it.

I uh I uh as far as my leadership philosophy, it's uh I there's kind of two different aspects of it.

I believe in I have high expectations, but I also believe in high support.

I'm a very hands-on person, but also believe in autonomy and empowering people.

I don't hold on to information, I believe in spreading information and sharing that information and sharing and my knowledge and skill sets.

I don't believe I should be the only one who knows how to do any number of things.

One, if I were hit by a bus tomorrow, that scenario, I want to make sure that everybody that I work with can do my job.

And that's that's that's what I that's what I believe in.

I also have experience working with the small team, probably smaller than the one here at Sandy, actually.

So I definitely appreciate that dynamic as well.

Uh so that high support, also very essential in a smaller team in terms of being hands-on.

Um when one of the things that I have learned as a people manager is having immensely clear expectations.

I don't believe in holding out the carrot in front of them and just they never reach it.

That's not something that I enjoy, and I don't think anybody who's employed enjoys.

What I believe is here's the expectation, how do you want to reach that, and then how can I help you get there.

Um she's read multipliers by Liz Wiseman.

I read way too many leadership books.

It's true.

That was excellent.

Thank you so much.

I will be quiet now.

So good, thank you.

So I have a question for you.

I I spoke to Mindy about her job description.

Well, yours is even meatier, three pages of this Chinese plant.

So are there any duties or responsibilities in the job description that you have not tackled in the past?

Anything new?

I was looking through it after you and I talked, and not really.

A lot of it is are things I've done at different points uh during my service in municipal government or before.

The only thing that was in the miscellaneous duties, there are some committees and uh types of organizations that I haven't been involved with before.

So the Sister Cities program and various things like that.

So those will be interesting and unique for me.

Okay.

All right.

You do?

Ms.

Stroud, go ahead.

Uh, you have a you know very glowing resume, and our comms team is you know speaks very highly of you, you know, and they're excited to work with you.

Um how did we how do we get you from South Jordan?

I appreciate it.

I mean, other than the obvious, but I no, I really appreciate that question.

And that is the question I've gotten every step of the way.

When Susan called me to say, uh, are you serious?

You know, um, and I am serious.

I've worked, I've had eight wonderful years working for the city of South Jordan and the amazing a lot of you know and have worked on committees with the various council members and and mayors and know them very well.

It is a great group of people and a great staff there.

Um, any time you're looking at a move, you're looking at a change in opportunity.

And I am at that point in my career and looking at I don't want to leave municipal government.

It's what I love.

It's the part where we're closest to the people with these passionate people sitting in here who obviously care about the city that they live in.

That is something that I still want to do.

And uh the dynamic in Sandy is different.

South Jordan has been one of the fastest growing cities in the nation.

Uh Sandy is a mature city.

It the the dynamic and the issues are different.

We talked about Richard talked about replacing water pipe, you know, in South Jordan, it's building that infrastructure to begin with.

So it's just a different story, a different dynamic, different opportunities.

And I um just ready for that next stage, and I hope to do it here and serve the people of Sandy City.

Thank you.

Mr.

Sousa.

Thank you.

Um I just have a couple of questions.

And so I'm trying to, I'd like to understand a little bit more about your approach to the role that that you are interviewing for right now, as opposed to the role that you held at South Jordan.

And like how did you approach the role with South Jordan?

I it is a different form of government than what we have, right?

But still in this role as a as a city, you know, department leader, um, you are tasked with communications largely for the entire city.

And so, how what how do you approach the differences?

What do you see as a differences?

How do you intend to approach that?

Yes, great question.

So uh Councilmember Sharkey asked, like in terms of the actual job description, individual duties, not different.

The position itself is different.

It is an appointed position uh in a different form of government, like you mentioned, and uh it's officially reports to the administrative branch.

And um that is very different from South Jordan.

South Jordan um it is a merited position that I'm coming from that is kind of under is not as close to the administration or even the council.

There's a little bit of a buffer there.

However, um I do have extensive experience working with the council in South Jordan and with the mayor there and building those relationships and uh coordinating uh between the two groups.

Uh this is this is a different dynamic.

I'm very aware of how this position is different.

Um and it'll be a unique opportunity for me to learn about a new type of government, honestly, and to work with all of you, and I'm I'm I'm grateful for that and I'm looking forward to it.

Um I hope that answer your question.

I'm happy to expand on it if you have a follow-up.

No, that was good, thank you.

I appreciate the you know thoughtful approach and your response.

Uh, you know, I do agree.

I think that we are kind of at a moment of um fresh starts in a way because we've created this new department, you know, separate from an already existing department to stand on its own.

And in the council, you know, as we've talked about, we are also hiring a communications director.

And so I do think from a relationship standpoint, you know.

I look at my role as a council member and and my role in you know, some of my um private life work as like a relationship.

This is a relationships business, you know, and relationships are important with each other, um, with with the employees, with the residents, you know, um, um and other stakeholders, and so I appreciate your your um importance, the importance that you've placed on acknowledging that relationships are important.

And so again, I do think that there's a good opportunity here for this fresh start for it to be um what what we all hope that it is, right, with this department.

Uh I guess I have another question, and that would be you talked about being data-driven.

Um how do you approach, and as a council member, you know, I'm I'm always kind of looking for data to help uh inform the decisions that I'm making.

And so from a budgeting standpoint, uh data is really important because we want to make sure that the money that's being allocated for the various things serve the residents in some you know meaningful way, and especially when the the budget is large and there's always more need than there is money, and sometimes there's less money than you know, even the little bit that we had last year, or you know, the need that we were trying to cover last year.

Um we need to be able to prioritize where we spend that money, and so data is really helpful.

And I guess my question for you is what experience do you have in creating or or setting campaigns up to elicit the data that is necessary to determine you know success measures, for example, and you know, was this successful and and uh and and not just a I had this many views, you know, from a social media standpoint, but but meaningful uh types of data.

What experience do you have with that and how do you see that fitting into your role on a day-to-day basis?

Is it kind of a you know, here and there where you can, or do you have experience baking it into all of the communications?

I love this question.

I do.

Uh this is data.

I when I say I'm a data nerd, it is an everyday all the time kind of thing.

I don't think you can know where you need to go unless you establish the baseline and you know where you've come from.

Uh I in terms of experience uh with this uh you'll notice kind of some of those little letters after my my name, right?

Those accreditations, various things, degrees.

One of those is the accreditation of public relations, which is essentially a strategy and dated accreditation related specifically to public relations, working with the public.

And uh what that uh has taught me and what I've used ever since I got that accreditation is understanding that when we're working with the public, when we're interacting with the public, there are a few things that we were looking for in terms of outcomes, and that is either uh knowledge change, a behavior change, um, or um a sentiment change.

So understanding our public, what their desires are to begin with is an essential data point for that.

So when you know where you start, then you can see where you go, and you use you build your campaigns around those goals, those objectives.

So in terms of experience, like I said, I do it in just about every campaign.

There's smaller things that I I still try to do an objective that with the number, you know, the smart objectives every time, but uh there are smaller ones where maybe here and there I don't.

Uh in general, I am a long-term thinker and I build campaigns around that.

Um just to like I said, it's my it's my guidebook.

It helps me get from point A to point B and to determine whether I'm successful or not.

And if I'm not successful, I have numbers that I can use for the next campaign to determine okay, what do I need to change and to inform the decisions of the next one?

Thank you.

Um that is really helpful.

I um communications is different than marketing.

I absolutely acknowledge that.

Um, I have a background in marketing, and there was a lot of uh data that had to be included in all of our pieces to be able to determine you know where money should be spent, you know, obviously um defining success success criteria is really important, but at the same time, there are some differences, some some similarities and overlap in terms of you know where budget dollars should be spent, right?

And so it's helpful to know that that's important to you.

Um you know, one of the things that I think about from a conversation that's um come up recently is just as an example is a you know a printed newsletter and the duplication of the printed newsletter versus online versus email versus you know um a text that links you to it and determining whether or not the dollars spent on the printed newsletter, which can be costly, right?

Because you know, printing is expensive, postage is expensive, um, and and things like that.

And I think that sometimes it can be difficult to ascertain the engagement with you know some of those print pieces.

Um, and so I uh um I don't know I don't really quite know off the top of my head how that would be done, but I would challenge you, you know, should you be consented to to kind of think through some of those things to help us provide or to help provide us with information that may be really useful as we deliberate um you know future budget conversations.

Thank you.

Totally reasonable.

There were some questions asked that made me think of another one.

You cited that you were kind of ready for a change, looking for a change.

You talked about um Sandy being a mature city where South Jordan is a younger and more growing city.

You also talked about our different forms of government.

So what what are the biggest challenges that you're expecting in stepping into this job?

In terms of challenges, I think I don't know what I don't know.

I feel like I know municipal government and the functions and the purpose of it.

When you're talking about a different type of government structure, that is a huge learning curve for me.

So I also am not so uh cocky that I think I'm gonna know it all right off the bat.

Uh I definitely come with a uh learning ear.

I ask a lot of questions, and um I I love to listen, and a lot of you probably learned that on the phone calls that I had with you is that I I like to hear what you have to say and to learn um kind of what dynamics you see.

And that's kind of I'm gonna be a sponge.

That's that's kind of how I'm gonna absorb things.

So really it comes down to I don't know what I don't know.

Uh and so uh that remains to be seen.

Hopefully you don't that's kind of where I'm at.

Any more questions, Council members?

I'm seeing nothing.

Thank you.

Appreciate your joining us.

Same thing applies.

We'll you'll probably appear on our agenda for next week.

Okay.

Thank you for joining us tonight.

All right, one more, Mary Zoltanski.

We are looking now at your um candidate for our new economic development director.

Back to you.

Thanks.

This is uh Carlton Christensen.

It's my pleasure to introduce Carlton Christensen, a public servant whose career has been defined by collaboration, integrity, leadership, and a remarkable commitment to building Utah communities.

For more than 30 years, Carlton has helped shape our region through in transportation, economic development, finance, and public policy.

Most recently, Carlton served as chair of the Utah Transit Authority Board of Trustees.

Under his leadership, UTA earned the 2025 Outstanding Public Transportation System Award and became a national leader in innovative governance.

He previously served on the Salt Lake in Salt Lake County as the director of regional transportation, housing and economic development.

He oversaw an impressive portfolio portfolio that included economic development, housing, transportation planning, the Salt Palace Convention Center, Sandy's Mountain American Expo Center, and visit Salt Lake.

Carleton's public service is strengthened by a solid foundation in the private sector, spending 15 years with Science Securities and Science Bank working in commercial development, financial analysis, and community development financing across Utah.

Many might know Carlton from his four years, uh four terms on the Salt Lake City Council during one of the city's most transformational eras, including the 2002 Winter Olympics, the City Creek redevelopment, uh building of Eccles Theater, and significant expansion of the region's transit system.

Whether in public office or the private sector, Carlton distinguishes himself and has a reputation, he's well deserved as someone who brings together people, builds consensus, and always puts community first.

It's my pleasure to nominate Carlton for advice and consent for the city's economic development director position.

Is there anything you'd like to add, Mr.

Christensen?

Yeah.

First of all, thank you for the uh privilege of being before you excuse me this evening.

Uh I'm here with my wife Kathy, and Kathy and I uh this uh in about a week we'll celebrate our 36th uh anniversary.

Um but our public service really has almost originated uh just a few years after we were married in uh some community involvement later as I ran for public office at age 31.

And um, but in uh and this was a course I didn't anticipate uh ever remaining in, but uh public service is a privilege.

Uh you know, we serve the public, uh you all have been elected uh to represent and in this role uh want to do a job that is reflective of the trust that the uh public will place uh upon me and other colleagues uh that serve Sandy City.

So thank you for the privilege of being considered today.

Ms.

Christensen.

Thank you for being here.

We all know you're very smart and you're very good at your job.

So what do you see the direction for Sandy being?

Yeah.

I I I'm very uh bullish on the direction for Sandy for a number of reasons.

And I've shared with many of you during my tenure on the Salt Lake City Council Sandy was our arch enemy because we were always competing really at the ends of the valley at what was once the end of the valley.

But as the as the Wased Front has continued to grow and melt together, what it really reflects is Sandy is well positioned, probably more central to the Wasatch Front than almost any other community.

It has a great transportation infrastructure, both in roads and in transit.

And so it allows for increased growth in the community.

And then last but not least, it's at a I would say it's at a prime place for what I would call uh thoughtful redevelopment.

You know, the days of of just scraping and starting over again, I think are mostly gone, but there is a strategic uh placement of infrastructure and development, working with uh the plans that you have adopted and or may adopt and uh implementing those and taking advantage of uh a very diverse city from uh both the housing and um economic uh commercial side and and being able to magnify that and to take advantage of a lot of those attributes, I think uh Sandy's well positioned uh to be successful.

Thank you.

Ms.

Houseman.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um excuse me, a couple of questions.

Um I'm gonna borrow the one I asked earlier because I would love to hear your thoughts on that as well.

So even though this again is a small team, it is a team that affects a citywide impact here.

Um thinking about flow and your approach to leadership and how do you stretch people enough that they are excited about the work they are doing, and yet um it's doesn't cause anxiety, and prevent absolute boredom.

So what what do you do as a leader to keep people in flow?

Well, I'm a believer in empowering and then also uh providing whatever tools uh somebody needs to be successful.

I think one of the most uh telling things for me over the last few weeks is um to have hundreds of employees as they were going uh from mechanics to operators to individuals that worked in the UTA's administrative staff who quietly came up.

Now I was handing out soft serve ice cream, so that probably helped.

But they all said uh you've made a big difference uh in the environment here.

Had somebody who was retiring who had been with UTA for 35 years, who stopped by my office one time, he didn't want to party, uh, and he said um, you know, we were skeptical of this uh new governance, uh but you changed uh you helped change, and I say uh we because really uh it was all 3,000 employees uh helped change that environment.

And I I don't ever really want it to be about myself because if you do it right, that reflection is just a natural outcome of that effort.

I I think you you do have to hold people accountable, but you also uh utilize the resources.

You know, we belong to chambers of commerce, there's larger economic development organizations that uh we interact with.

Uh certainly there's wonderful departments here within the city that we're gonna work with, and so if we're ever an island by ourselves, we're doing it wrong.

So I hope that helps a little bit.

It does.

I I've got one more question.

Um as you reflect on all of the different ways you've served, um, I'd love to hear about a truly out-of-the-box project that you were a part of, you know, transformative, broke there there was no plan.

You broke the plan, whatever.

Yeah.

Truly out of the box.

Um and what went well and what maybe didn't that you've learned from.

Well, I I would uh I'll use uh the example, and it may uh not seem um may seem like an obvious, but the Eccles Theater uh for four years I was on the pre-development committee of the Eccles Theater, uh traveled around the country, looked at uh different um uh locations and attributes and what made for a balanced theater between sound and and uh you know live productions uh uh and what might make the best combination.

I my wife can attest, uh she had a list of attributes uh that she was looking for in a husband after we got married, she showed me the list and she crossed off as a good singer.

And and uh so but I love I love uh the arts and I love music and I love to listen to it.

And uh that was important, and I also felt like it was important for it to be comfortable if you talk to any of the development team.

Every time we sat in a theater, I said, you know, people are getting larger, maybe physically, but certainly taller, and they need to be comfortable in these seats, and they need to be in a way that uh you know, going to the theater is not a torturous experience.

And uh yet we were fighting uh through that uh combination of seat placement and having the right number of uh places, but I think in Eccles ultimately we got to a place in such a way that uh you know, a year so after I left the council, uh they brought me back and they put me in what they called Roe Carlton.

It was it was an emergency aisle in front of us.

It was the role in front of the ecclesi but they just wanted me to be assured that that uh legroom existed, and um many friends who have talked about the experience they have when they go to a Broadway production there uh have complimented on that, and it seems trivial, but um working to have uh those kinds of involvements and to make a theater that uh had the ability to have small little productions out on the main street was an important piece of that.

Thank you.

So Ms.

Stroud?

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um couple questions.

What what do you see right now that um the type of economic development that you would be going after first?

You know, what is Sandy lacking?

That's a great question.

I I um my familiarity is not enough to give you a concrete answer.

I will say uh as I look at it, and I uh you know, just looking uh collectively there that you know, really for the first time in five or six years, uh there's a real question of uh Mark about where the future of office is going.

And I think uh corporations in and of themselves uh you know are facing the same issue.

Uh when we were when I was at UTA, we were looking at a new headquarters office because in the case of a severe seismic event, the office was basically toast, and we needed a place to go.

But as we were looking at how do you make that work and and how do you use uh the uh private sector to create maybe an office space that is shared by others?

I I think what it drove home to me is that uh people are utilizing or or taking in office in a different way, and even companies are still figuring that out.

So figuring out what that balance is.

Uh I think retail itself is um you know, it's changed really.

And but uh having uh enough of an eclectic kind of uh retail in and particular notes within the community are pr is really important.

It's what attracts people to live in neighborhoods, it's it's why people uh will locate their businesses nearby because they can go and have that experience for their employees.

Uh in my UTA experience uh, you know, which still has a defined retirement plan, but uh our newest hires, uh we had to change uh considerably the dynamics of how do you meet that younger workforce.

They uh unlike myself, they're unwork unwilling to work long hours of overtime.

Uh they want a more interface kind of experience.

Uh UTA's average uh writer was 34 uh years of age.

And so uh that generational change, we we have to look at that and see whether or not how that community and how some of those focal points fit into that.

And I think uh as we look at new opportunities uh and particular opportunities that we're going to incentivize, we'd want to take a look at that.

So how would you bring that here to Sandy?

What's your plan?

Uh I I obviously I'm gonna work with uh both our the planning department and uh and our staff uh look at that, look at uh bring in uh some private consultants to uh make some recommendations and then uh have a discussion uh collectively about what that direction uh should look like.

And do I have a completed plan today?

No, I you know that would be I would be inaccurate, but it would be one of the early focuses to try to work on.

Okay.

Another question.

I had a chance last week to uh bump into Nick Dirksen and he's working on things with the point.

You know, they're they're turning dirt.

And you know, and he was explaining how you know there's kind of I guess you you count that as the epicenter and how it can uh bring things to the surrounding areas.

Uh he talked of uh a hotel that they had signed, um, you know, some some housing, some mixed use, and that's you know, that they're working in, you know, from the inside working out.

Um, you know, how do you anticipate that will impact Sandy?

Uh, and how can we capitalize on their development and growth, you know, to to ensure that that we are still a vibrant, you know, economic epicenter.

I hope I answer this uh diplomatically.

Uh the point is that a great geographical location, it doesn't really have the infrastructure yet.

I mean they're turning dirt, but they don't have it yet.

And uh even on the transportation side, uh, you know, there are plans, but they're not yet implemented.

And so uh, and I've watched both there and and at daybreak uh um UTA opened up a new station at the uh South Jordan downtown um uh location.

All those developers are uh struggling, frankly, to find a strong office tenant.

Uh and that's why if you look at their what they're um under construction with, it's residential.

And it's residential is better than not having any uh thing, but it what it tells you is that that market is so unpredictable.

So I think uh how do you maximize that in Sandy is looking at the uh people that are currently there?

How do you enhance their ability to stay here?

Uh what are the barriers uh if any uh for them uh to be able to remain to stay here, and then uh look at what opportunities that might augment not only their growth, but maybe a lot of times affiliated growth companies like to be nearby other companies that they work with just because there is a synergy there for them, and so I I would like to take a hard look at that.

Ms.

D'Souza.

Thank you.

Um so we we talk about being able to um go out and attract the development that we want, but realistically, you know, the land is privately owned, and there are you know um various things that that landowner may do with it that may not align with maybe what we would like to see.

But at the same time, you know, I think that they I'd like to think that there are opportunities to uh maybe guide that growth or incentivize or or bring people to us in some way and and have even if they don't own land, you know, partner with somebody who does to develop something that would benefit our community.

How do you um how do you see yourself in that role?

How do you see the city's role in trying to guide what is developed as opposed to just letting the market role?

Well, uh first I would say is that if there's uh any public money and in um tax increment is really public money uh involved in it, that you take uh those attributes that you're looking for, help them, and I think we're at a a very um poignant and uh realistic time frame because um one of the reasons people have sort of been hesitant or waiting back is that uh the private lending market has been kind of tough.

And um, and so uh having uh an incentive or an ability to help them uh in in what those overall cost um you should use that as leverage.

Uh you know, you're not forcing them into it, but you can certainly invite them into it and uh and trying to implement the the attributes that you'd like to have in that project and in that particular area, and I think how you uh utilize that uh can be very advantageous to them and certainly um uh to the community at large.

And I I also think um uh you also go looking uh for developers.

Sometimes somebody who owns it, you know, they're not quite sure what to do with it, the timing is not right for them, but if you can find somebody who sees that vision or shares that vision, uh one of the places that I think uh I believe the economic development could be is to introduce those parties together and see if they'd be willing to have that conversation and uh somebody might have uh you know private equity money or something that they are in a better position to, and the cost of those funds are uh more advantageous to them.

uh to the community at large and I I also think um uh you also go looking uh for developers sometimes somebody who owns it you know they're not quite sure what to do with it the timing is not right for them but if you can find somebody who sees that vision or shares that vision uh one of the places that I think uh I believe the economic development could be is to introduce those parties together and see if they'd be willing to have that conversation and uh somebody might have uh you know private equity money or something that they are in a better position to and the costs of those funds are uh more advantageous to them and I I think trying to be a catalyst in that uh component might uh also uh keep you from having to put any public funds in or at least very minimal thank you for that um my next question um has to do with the uh the RDA so in your role you know there's economic development and there's RDA and I know that when you and I spoke we touched on that a little bit but I was hoping that in this conversation you could um explain um your experience with that um and maybe some of the similarities and differences with your previous experience versus now and how you'll approach that.

Sure uh I'd probably put that uh put it into two uh aspects um um when during my service on the Salt Lake City Council obviously the council was the RDA board uh they structure uh their leadership a little bit different and the RDA board actually has its own chair and vice chair and because of the uh complexities uh you you served for two years I served probably half of my uh 16 years in RDA leadership it was actually more fun the council side was uh more uh public but it tended to be uh a little more of a pain and so I enjoyed it I also enjoyed uh working with staff and trying to bring projects along and that and and um and in fact in many cases I was pushing staff to move property that we'd acquired uh you know if you if you're an agency and uh your RDA property should be the first one that gets developed and that's why you set the tone for what you want to come around it.

And sadly in the in some of the cases still um as I've observed them you know their property is still undeveloped and it's developed all around them and and if you've done that then you've really failed um and that's why you you take a little more risk uh on the you know first project or two uh on the when I at the county um nearly every city that wanted to do a redevelopment district had to come to the county uh looking for um their participation uh in the old uh CRA uh scenarios you know it required voluntary participation from the taxing entities so I I evaluated uh with my staff uh every um uh econom uh uh redevelopment project that came in to us from the county including pushing back uh ironically on a data center in West Jordan uh with Facebook that just didn't make economic sense uh and for a lot of the reasons we've heard uh recently and uh we we fought that uh particular one um and it since move went somewhere else and I look back I think we may have done West Jordan a favor but I but you know you on the other hand we there were a lot of projects that moved forward in a productive way and and we're in and those uh communities have implemented them and they've done exactly you know for the most part what was intended so thank you and I think it went to Eagle Mountain and I think Eagle Mountain would agree that you did West Jordan a favor.

Yeah um the other thing I don't have any other questions I just I appreciate your responses and I um align philosophically with the responses that you've given um and I also appreciate how you kind of began with uh public service as a privilege and I couldn't agree more so thank you for the years that you've dedicated to public service in the various venues that you have and I appreciate you in this position as well.

Well I I want you to know that I welcome the critique and um and uh you know it's together that we make these things successful so thank you.

Thanks.

And Ms Nickel has a question.

Go ahead Chris.

Hi Carlton thank you for the conversation that we had a couple days ago and I a question popped into my mind so much of what econom economic development does is uh market and how are you going to keep up on the thousands of different markets retail real estate um because you need to know a lot of it and some of the things you said um quite frankly are a little bit out of date with regards to market so um how are you gonna get yourself up to speed well well I I look forward to working with the new communications department as well I I don't profess to be an expert on the marketing marketing side but markets in general office market that type of thing yeah I I think um uh what being an uh avid um um reader and evaluator of uh taking advantage of uh some great resources here uh locally not only in ADC Utah but uh more uh importantly the Kimsey Gardner uh policy institute I think

Uh but markets in general, markets in general market office market, that type of thing.

Yeah.

I think um uh what being an uh uh avid um um reader and evaluator of uh uh taking advantage of uh some great resources here uh locally, not only in ADC Utah, but uh more uh importantly the Kim C.

Gardner uh policy institute.

I think also the Utah Foundation, uh which I currently chairing, uh does some work uh along that line.

I also think there's a lot of great uh commercial firms out here uh that are well known and have a good handle on it, CBRE and and um some others, and and I'm not sure what's under contract here at Sandy, but I think uh taking advantage of some of those uh resources would be helpful.

Okay, thank you.

And I've known you for years, you're a stellar individual and a great man.

I'm gonna support this.

So thank thank you.

I had posed the same question to you and told you to be prepared to answer it.

Um you do have pretty vast experience, so the question is too is there anything in the job description that you haven't done?

Is there an answer for that?

Uh yeah, there is.

I I mean, as I looked through that job description, uh there are some uh reporting aspects that I wasn't the one that filed the report.

I knew the reports were due, and uh we have a great resource in Rob uh Santa, and and some of that I I'm going to uh need to brush up on uh because it just hasn't been a more recent thing.

Uh but I did think about one aspect as you posed that question to me in our phone call uh that isn't actually on the job description, but I think is part of economic development, and that is uh what uh we're pretty fortunate in Utah that we uh fundamentally don't have huge natural disasters.

But one of the and we often when we talk about um uh emergency preparedness or or um um natural disasters, we we talk about uh the media see of life safety.

Uh but what most communities don't think about, and I've been through some FEMA training along this route is how do you restore businesses after a disaster because uh it's they're the suppliers for your public works.

Uh the you know they're the small retailer who doesn't have the financial resources to float uh business very long.

And uh, you know, uh heavens, I hope that never is an occurrence here in Sandy.

Uh but I've not but I uh as I went through those trainings and other communities, people ended up uh leaving, you know, six months later because it was just overwhelming uh to them and trying to get uh the community back because those are the things that are make uh bring the vibrancy back to the community that could be decimated.

And I think there's a component to that, it's not what you do on a normal daily basis, but I think uh from an economic development standpoint, it's a resource that you at least would want to think about and have a plan uh to put in place that you do, you know, a few weeks after the disaster because a lot of those businesses, uh especially the medium to small size businesses, they don't have the ability to just uh you know do something else with corporate headquarters.

In uh reading the job description, I highlighted something that's in here.

It's just the second bullet point, which is uh one of the essential duties is to maintain constant communication with the mayor and the city council in order to keep them informed of current economic development matters.

We will look forward to that.

Yeah, I look forward to doing that and and having those conversations.

I'm also gonna look forward to these projects you alluded to that don't take any incentives to get them in.

So bring us some of those, okay?

Yeah, I'll I um I I'm a hard nose uh I'm not unreasonable, but uh the project really does need to justify why you have some uh involvement in it that brings an added value to the community.

Anything else, council members?

Chris, is your hand okay?

Is your hand back up or up again?

It is back up, but it's not a question for Carlton.

So is it a question for me?

No, it's a it's a um so the about this job position.

I wonder what it created it, um, because there was a we have uh we had an economic development director in there, so there wasn't an open position, and I was looking at the pay range for this.

The economic development director wasn't even making what what is proposed in in uh Mr.

Carlton with Mr.

Christensen's contract.

So there was a person fired and he was put in the position.

So I'm just I kind of want to know the the the thought process around that.

Is that a question for administration then?

Yeah, I guess so.

Martin.

We're happy to talk about personnel matters offline.

Okay.

I think you just got your answer.

Yeah.

All righty.

Thank you, Carlton.

Appreciate that.

I don't see any more questions.

Thank you and Kathy for being here this evening.

Thank you for your time.

Yeah.

All right, it is well past six o'clock, so we will go to general citizen comment.

Do I have some cards for that?

Okay, and I do.

So Patricia Jones.

Thank you.

Good evening, everybody.

Um I just want to congratulate Councilmember Brooke Christensen for putting forward her first reading on her proposal to initiate redistricting and council restructuring.

This is definitely for me, it's a step forward for the city if her proposal is adopted by the city council.

The advantages in the proposal are well thought out, and without disparaging at-large council members, I want to add that one of the disadvantages of having at-large representatives is they may be pulled to focus more on citywide or business interests and spend less time on constituent services in individual neighborhoods.

At large and at large system may dilute local concerns.

Seven distinct district representation can better protect minority and local interests.

For me personally, the one stated disadvantage, transitioning from status quo can easily be overcome if clear dialogue is initiated with residents, and the change is advantages are clearly laid out.

For me, I understand when I'm in a less populated district, I will have a closer connection with my new district representative, therefore overriding not having a secondary at-large council member to look to for help.

I'm excited to see how this proposal will move ahead and there much hope the council, the city council will support this proposal.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Don Sidwell, the first thing I want to address, who puts the agenda together?

Could you maybe minimize it or put stretch it out so that people can all sit through the whole meeting?

I'm here and I wanted to listen to about your vote on the veto, which I probably won't be able to stay for.

I came to address Cindy Sharkey's comment regarding up the newsletter.

Where do you think you're gonna save money on stamps?

It is put in an envelope along with my water bill.

I don't think that's costing you an extra stamp.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but when I went to school, you're not gonna save any money by not putting it in the water bill.

No difference in postage.

So I'd like to hear a better explanation on that.

The other thing that bothers me and why I'm here is also on Cindy Sharkey's comment in the budget period, referencing the historic Sandy Barbecue.

And you made the comment that you have citizens saying, Well, we would like to have a barbecue in our neighborhood paid for.

Well, I want you to tell your citizens or ask me when they have the crime that we have.

I have to sit on my front porch and watch drug deals go by, homeless people.

I had to walk over somebody at 10 o'clock in the morning to take my dog for a walk.

So when those people have to live on their those conditions, instead of having to go to the El Torec center to have their kids play tennis and swim and communicate and meet under those circumstances before you consider getting rid of the historic barbecue next year.

And also, when I retired 12 years ago, it was not my plan to have to sit and watch drug dealers and crime right in front of my nose.

I retire to sit and watch my plants grow and not be the historic Sandy Gestapo.

I want to continue with better representation and accurate information coming out of our city council.

Thank you.

All right, that's all the blue cards I have for this comment period.

Dustin, would you invite our online participants if they would care to do so?

Of course, thank you, Madam Chair.

Uh, if you're joining us virtually this evening via Zoom and you'd like to comment on any city business, uh, now's the time.

Go ahead and click the raise hand button on your screen.

I'll call your name in the order in which you raised your hand, and you'll have three minutes.

Madam Chair, first up is Rebecca Collie.

Rebecca, I'm going to allow you to begin speaking.

Please remember to unmute yourself, and you'll have three minutes.

Thank you, and thank you very much, City Council.

I just um wanted to jump on tonight and let you know that I support the council's vote to lead the Central Wasatch Commission.

Um, in ten years of membership, it does not appear that there are any indications CWC has made any headway.

So please override the mayor's veto.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, I don't see any other hands raised.

Oh, there is one more.

Uh Steve Van Marin.

Steve, I'm gonna allow you to begin speaking.

Please remember to unmute yourself and you'll have three minutes.

Thank you, Dustin.

Good evening, Council.

Steve Van Maren, resident of Draper.

I apologize.

I need housing and Sandy that I could enjoy.

Um I want to speak in favor of the Wallace Commission.

They were formed as a result of the mountain accord.

When the Mountain Accord failed to get the approval of the uh district, recreational district, because of transportation in Cottonwood Canyon was insufficient.

They have been trying to work through that in part, the UTA took it over.

Yes, I who we can blame for that.

Sorry, not entirely.

And there needs to be a solution in place before that can be approved.

Running from the CWC isn't going to help.

On the second item, I've known Mr.

Christianson since he joined the county.

I've always found it very level headed.

I don't know how he does it.

I'm sorry, he's even more level-headed than Martin.

Martin does a good job.

Glad he's on the city, but please hire Carlton.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, I don't see any other hands raised.

All right.

Well, there is one more.

Good.

Uh next up is Lindsay Nielsen.

Lindsay, I'm going to allow you to begin speaking.

Please remember to unmute yourself and you'll have three minutes.

Um, good evening, counsel.

My name's Lindsay Nielsen.

You know me.

I'm the executive director of the Central Wasatch Commission.

Um I am here to speak in support of the mayor's veto and to thank Mayor Zeltanski for issuing her first veto of her tenure as mayor.

Um I can't say anything that hasn't been said already.

There have been many, many comments in support of uh Sandy City remaining a member of the CWC.

I will emphasize that all of the good faith requests that I heard from council members in my many conversations.

I have offered to meet those requests.

Presumptive candidate for the congressional district one, Ben Nick Adams has even sent you all a letter expressing his support for the Central Lash Commission and the importance of Sandy's continued membership and partnership with the CD or with the CWC and the other member jurisdictions on the CWC.

So yes, I I am not sure again, what else I can say other than to please vote to sustain Mayor Zeltansky's veto of this budget amendment and please vote to remain a member, uh a paying member of the CWC.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Okay, this time I do not see any additional hands raised.

I will close general citizen comment period and we will return to the agenda.

And our next information item this evening, it's agenda item number six, and that is a land development code proposed amendment.

So Melissa Anderson.

Yes, sir.

Thank you very much.

Um Council Chair, City Council.

Um tonight is a proposal by an applicant to amend the uh land development code.

The applicant is Jeff Knighton of Knighton Architecture.

He represents Dave Hunt is uh property owner that this uh proposal would affect.

Their proposal is to allow for a 35-foot maximum height limit where you have uh sloped lots and w when measuring from the natural grade to the peak of the roof rather than the finish grade.

Um currently we measure from the finish grade as opposed to the natural grade up to 35 feet, but their proposal would be from the natural uh grade measured to 35 feet maximum.

Now I have more to the the staff presentation, but the applicant uh or the property owner is here, and so I'd like to invite them to come up and present their proposal, and then I'd like to resume with my presentation.

Okay, thank you.

Madam Chair, the property owner also provided us with some images.

Are you okay if I pass those around?

This is a set of city.

So we don't have a sense of the question.

We've also sent it to your to your email as well.

If anybody would like to pull it up virtually, including uh council member nickel online.

All right, ready?

Um, my name's David Hunt.

This is my wife Melanie Morris.

Um there's some background which you may be aware of as far as why we're asking for this code modernization.

Um we sent our our direct rep is Ms.

Houseman and uh we sent an email to her last week, and my understanding is that she forwarded it to members of the council.

Um I assume it was it was kind of recent, so it's possible that many of you haven't read it.

I don't want to rehash the whole thing, but it is important context as to what we're trying to accomplish and why.

Um first of all, just by way of background, um section 21.

We're we're we are proposing a change to section 2120-2 of the Sandy City Code.

Uh this is residential building setbacks, heights, etc.

etc.

It's actually on page 306 of 660 pages, which is section 21.

So it's a lot.

And on the page, I'm sorry you can't see this, but it's a big matrix, and across the bottom of the matrix, it says it doesn't matter what area you're in, the height limitation is 35 feet for uh residents.

And then down below it says that there can be exceptions and there can be additional building height due to an unusual architecture, roof designs, can be granted by the planning commission at the request of the community of development director.

Okay, so right now, as you know, in Sandy City, there's this odd thing that happens.

Sandy City doesn't go by original grade, it goes by finish grade.

So we live near Wasatch, and if you drive around up there, you see 50 foot tall houses with a bunch of dirt pushed up against them.

And so from where the dirt ends up being pushed up, as long as it on average measures 35 feet, they're good to go.

They're within the building height.

Um just like from a view of our house, and and that's the code, and we're not complaining, uh, but that's just the current state of affairs.

So just from our house, um, we're looking at a lot that we almost bought, or we didn't almost buy it, but we considered it.

And it's basically a cross on the other side of Wasatch, and what they did is on it's a little subdivision where a street goes in, there's houses above, and there's houses below.

Well, the houses above are built on the existing grade.

The houses below, the only way they could build those houses was to build um a nearly 20-foot retaining wall, and then they backfilled it, basically like backfilling the Bingham copper mine.

Um that's of course hyperbole, but they filled backfilled it with tons and tons and dump truck loads worth of dirt to build it up, and then they built their large edifice.

So that house sits.

I just talked with a neighbor today, actually, who uh is on the other side of that project, and he understands that they were allowed to do that by law.

Um, but now he's got a 20-foot retaining wall, and the neighbors were nice enough to build two step-up retaining walls, so the wall only goes at 10 feet from the two uh step-up walls, so it looks a little bit closer to natural, but then he looks up at the edifice of that house.

So that's what the code is right now.

It's not atypical.

Um, in neighboring Cottonwood Heights and in Park City, and I think in Salt Lake City as well, on hills, you can build under the code based on the original grade.

So, what this allows you to do on hills, and if you think of Old Town Park City, everyone's been to Main Street, and you look up and these houses kind of stair step up the side of the mountain.

Um, and and the idea there is that the houses fit more naturally in with the land.

You're not fighting the land, you're not getting these massive towering houses that then have dirt pushed up against them to make them legal.

And so that's what we are presenting.

Now, we presented that, and I'll back up even more.

So the reason all this happened is we uh started building our house.

It was kind of during COVID type thing, and we broke ground in 2024.

Um, and we had gone through several iterations of the plan.

We actually bought it off of a guy who was a kind of aggressive guy who was pushing all kinds of changes and he replatted it and was doing all kinds of things.

We didn't know the guy.

We bought it from him.

He decided he was gonna build something in Florida.

Um we bought it from him, and we inherited his architect because the architect had already done a bunch of work.

I have a very close business colleague, he's a personal friend who knew that architect.

The guy checked out, he's a great guy, Jeff Knighton.

He's the official applicant on this.

So I inherit him, pay him a bunch more money to finish the plans to our liking.

They had had a problem before we bought the lot, they had a problem with the city because they were kind of fighting over elevation, and so there is a whole history on this lot that we had no idea was happening.

So we inherit a lot of that history uh with the staff, didn't know it was happening or had happened.

Um we finally get uh plans that are approved by the city.

Um we found a contractor who was uh who's been doing this for decades.

Um it was through a person we know who had just finished building a house in Draper that was very similar to ours.

It was a custom home on the side of the hill.

They had to deal with retaining walls, excavation, windows.

It was like our house.

And they're like, this guy was great, he got it done, um, he was on budget, and the guy's building a parade of homes house, like he's the man.

So we hired him to build.

And somehow, and the contract that we have with the contract, and he's here by the way, uh, Prat Diamond in the back.

Great guy, good contractor.

Um, we signed a contract with him, and the exhibit was the permitted plans.

We initialed every page, so we have a contract, you know, he's gonna build it to code, um, he's gonna build it to plan, and that's what we all agreed to.

And so we paid a bunch of money to our architect, a bunch of money to our contractor, a bunch of money to the city, um, you know, for inspections and whatnot.

And somehow, it wasn't don't know how it happened, but these plans that were sitting there during every city inspection, the city was there inspecting the framing, I don't know, dozen times.

Sometimes they said, This isn't a code, and then they fixed it.

Sometimes they said, Oh, you need another shear wall here, you need more tie-downs.

These are the plans, they're nice and dirty, they weren't kept in the clean room, but right there, so in the city's there.

I imagine they're looking at these plans, going through everything, looking at the house.

So I was putting these right here.

So these plans are the second to last plans.

Somehow, the framer got the second to last plans, not the final permitted plans, but the second to last plans.

The problem with these plans is these put the house several feet too tall, these plans.

So the city comes and they inspect the framing repeatedly, sometimes red tag it, sometimes approve it, and eventually they give us a final inspection on framing, the exact elevation that we are today.

Then, as you guys know, with construction, after you frame a house, then you start spending the real money.

That's when you put in the floors, the walls, the drywall, the electrical, the HVAC, the plumbing, the roof, and so on.

That's when all the money's spent.

And so after the city approved our framing, after going there over and over and over, these plans sitting there getting dirty the whole time, looking at them, going through them, etc.

Um, we put a ton of money in.

Now, we've never built a house, we have lived below our means, and you know, finally you build this thing, and we're all happy about it, and uh then it's it's Christmas last year, and one of the requirements and in the the permit was that we had to do an elevation survey at the beginning and an elevation survey at the end.

And so it's uh it's almost Christmas, we're ready to move in, the house is done, we get our elevation survey, and the surveyor says, your house is too tall.

We're like, what are you talking about?

How could it be too tall?

It's not possible.

And he's like, it's too tall.

Well, so we come down to the city, uh, got people coming into town.

We come down to the city and we meet with the assistant building official, Willie Chittester, great guy, and he's like, that's impossible.

I inspected this house.

I inspected your framing.

There's got to be a break.

I'd never heard the word break, but he said, There's got to be a break here.

So I'm like, okay.

I'd never heard the word break used that way.

So this guy gets in his car, meets us at the house, like just drops everything he's doing.

It's like two days, three days before Christmas, drives up there to figure out where our surveyor got it wrong and why the house is compliant, and he can issue us an occup occupancy and we can move in.

He goes and drops a tape measure and does some things and looks at us and says, This is too tall.

And there's nothing I can do about it.

I mean, I'm just a staffer, I there's nothing I can do.

Um go to the city council.

I, you know, I don't know.

And he was kind of coming up with some clever ideas, and um none of them seemed to be working.

He spent, he went down and spent an hour on the phone with Mr.

Sorensen, head of community development, who was on vacation and took the time to speak about this from his vacation during the holidays.

Then we met during the holidays with a staff who made time to meet with us with the architect and sat down and did the whole thing, and then eventually, so we couldn't move into the house.

And you know, the bank's like, you know, we're gonna foreclose on you, you know, what's going on, you're way past the loans way late, you know, what are you doing?

And eventually the city staff took some mercy on us, and we entered into an agreement on February 5th after weeks of iterations signed by the mayor, um, where it was a it was it's attached to the email that Ms.

Houseman circulated, and this is an agreement to issue a turp uh temporary certificate of occupancy.

So the main paragraph of interest to us uh was that you can occupy this place.

You have till July 1st to figure this out, as in six days of seven days ago, July 1st.

Um, and you got to bring this thing into compliance, either with chainsaws or whatever it takes to get the elevation of the house down, or um you can you know you can try to get the law changed, you can try to get the zoning change, you go to the city council and try to get something figured out.

So we chose after we'd kind of exhausted everything we could do with the staff, we chose fairly quickly to propose this Section 21 change.

Um it's it's not atypical.

Um I will admit that um Cottonwood Heights, who does this, they have a 30-foot limit when you're going against the original grade, not 35 feet.

Um, but it's not out of the ordinary to do this.

Um, and that's why we did it.

And the staff said we're not gonna get behind that.

Now I understand, I don't know what the staff's reasons were exactly.

Um, Miss Anderson will probably go through some of those.

I have heard some of them since.

Um, but I do understand that the council or the city is considering a code overhaul, so maybe this is not a great time to do a code amendment when there might be an overhaul coming.

I don't know if that's correct or not.

Um, and then we didn't get a red line copy back from the staff.

We thought that we were gonna be able to work with the staff to get it in a condition that you know maybe alleviated some concerns.

Um the staffs, and I'm not gonna speak for the staff, but their opinion seems to be that this thing is not ready for prime time, maybe never will be.

Um, and we understand that they have those objections, but we don't think it's a bad idea.

This is not abnormal to have a code that gives this alternative chance.

We think it will result in better houses.

It's more expensive to build houses this way, but it looks better.

Um, there's not a ton of remaining non-grandfathered lots where this will even be applicable, but to the extent it is, we think it is a better and more modern code change.

And I I so that's the context as to what we're trying to accomplish.

Just for additional context on our actual house.

So, where we are now with the council is that if the council is inclined to think, you know, for any number of reasons, we don't want to get behind this code change.

We had asked the staff, well, if you can't get behind a citywide code change, would you get behind a zoning change that just applies to our subdivision, which is basically just our house, we're a subdivision of one.

Could you get behind basically this code section just just being a zoning change for us?

And we were told no, no.

So we didn't resubmit a zoning change.

I we didn't want to waste the staff's time with something they already told us in advance they wouldn't get behind.

So we've exhausted everything we can do with the staff.

Um we've tried law changes, they didn't support it, and therefore the planning commission didn't support it, you know, you know, pre-written um motion, and then you know, we have already been told no on the zoning change.

So if you if these pictures that uh Justin was kind enough to get printed for us, um it just it gives you some pictures of the house if you want to look at that real quickly.

Um these pictures, there's five pages, and they're actually labeled at the bottom uh the numbers.

So picture number one.

So this is the east side of the house, and you can see that the house, this is built on a one-acre lot, but it's in the corner.

The only place we could build per the city because of 30% grade was right in the corner of this thing.

So it's very far away from the neighbor to the east, but we're kind of on top of the neighbor to the west, you know, typical suburban type situation.

Um, but you can see there was always this retaining wall.

You can see the foliage in there.

There's always this retaining wall, and we actually cut away the retaining wall continued to the west, as you can see on the left side of the picture, but we cut that away to put a garage there.

And that is the problem.

So if we had not cut that retaining wall away, and that retaining wall continued where it was before, this house without changing a single thing is completely legal as far as height goes.

And I'll say another thing the things that you can see in the picture, none of this is out of compliance.

The thing that is out of compliance is there is if you can see at the top of this picture, this right here, it's a 685 uh square foot loft.

It's an office.

It's my office as I'm getting older now.

As I'm getting older now, I like not commuting downtown.

And so I built this house around an office where I'm kind of separated from the rest of the house.

And then there's a roof deck, a really unique roof.

So the only way you can get to this roof deck is through that 685-foot little structure that is in the back of the house back toward the hill.

That's why this, what we proposed with the code, it would work because it's not like that that tall story comes to the very front of the house.

It goes with the land as you go up the hill.

And so in this picture, you can see that the current natural grade is 23 feet.

I mean, I'm sorry, from the current grade, which was actually lower than the original grade.

So this is actually lower.

It was actually higher than this, up to the roof there is 23 feet.

So we have a long ways to go to the 35 feet.

Page two, that is the front of the house from the neighbor's yard.

So I jumped into the neighbor's yard.

This was taken today.

You can only see that loft if you look right in the middle of the picture.

There's a chimney that goes up that that dark brick.

Just to the right of that, you can see it looks like a beam going across.

That's the top of a loft.

So you can barely see it from the neighbor's house from basically in front of our house.

And there's a bunch of Austrian pines covering their view anyway.

If you look at picture number three, that's our neighbor to the west.

You can't see the loft from their house.

That's from their driveway.

You can't see it from the door front door because you can't even see our house from their front door, but that's just from their driveway.

So I'm trying to illustrate that the loft isn't really that visible, and it's not really blocking much.

I will admit that from the east side, our neighbor who is very far away, they can see it from their house.

They have a decent view of it.

Picture number four.

Um, this is the exact east side of the house.

And if you look at the roof line, it looks like three triangles.

Um the second two triangles are the loft.

That are that's the part that is out of compliance.

And then if you look at the final picture, number five, that's another picture of that same area.

And this is measuring from the cement up to, you see that wall keeps going up.

Part of that's a pony wall.

Around where those the horizontal line goes, that's where the roof deck is.

Um, and then you can see up behind it is the loft.

So that goes up another 10 and a half feet.

So you can see that from this grade, which is actually lower than the natural grade, it never breaches 35 feet from there.

And if we go from the old natural grade, the roof deck is at 17 feet, and then another 10, it's like 27, 28 feet from the original grade.

So the point that I'm trying to illustrate here is that it is not like this house is like something that has never existed in the city of Sandy.

Where this thing gets messed up is the very front of the house, and I think that that's in picture number two, the front of the house from the driveway on up, um, that up to where the where the roof starts up there is a full 35 feet.

And then if you go to the back, then that loft goes up.

That, according to how the city calculates, takes it out of compliance.

Um I deal in my job, I deal with a lot of codes and stuff like that.

When Mr.

Chittister, who knows his stuff, tried to explain how they calculate average height, elevations.

I was so confused.

And it's not because he didn't understand it, it's because it's complex.

Um it's a little hard to understand.

So we were trying to modernize and simplify.

But I I will say here's the situation we're in right now, um, and the reason we're not we didn't get this done before July 1st is we were before the planning commission the first week of June.

We thought we were going to be before you in your first June meeting, but it turns out that because of all the budget uh meetings, we weren't able to get in front of you until today.

So right now we're in breach of the agreement, and we had no idea.

I mean, it took a while to get through all this stuff, and and you know, we had no idea that we were going to push back into July already.

So where we sit right now is without a code change or a zoning change or some decision from the council, um, we're in a world of hurt because just construction costs of that 685 feet is like a quarter of a million dollars.

Plus tearing it down is going to be pricey.

Plus the loss, we can't use the roof deck anymore, the office is gone, the whole point to how the house was designed is gone.

So it is massive economic waste.

And when you compare the height at any given point from the ground looking up to the house, it actually never ever, when you're standing there looking straight up, it never exceeds 35 feet anywhere.

You know, they the way they calculate it, it's just off.

So we believe if there was ever a time for the council to take pity on somebody, it would be a situation where we had no idea this was happening.

The city didn't know it was happening, our contractor didn't know, our architect didn't know.

Nobody knew.

And until two days before or three days before Christmas, when they're like, you're there's something wrong here.

To everybody's shock.

So we proposed in our letter some potential fixes.

Um one thing that could be done is the council could say, well, we we well, the council could if this if this code change isn't ready for prime time, and Miss Anderson's probably ready to tell you why it's not.

Perhaps the council could table the vote, because this is an information session, maybe table the vote and instruct uh the the um planning people or the development people um to deal with us to come up with something um that maybe would make sense short of a full code change.

Um you do have the power to um give us a concession here, but we don't want to necessarily get special treatment and then have other constituents come in and say, well, he got that, so we want something, you know.

But I think it's gonna be rare very rare that you find a situation like this where the contractor missed it, the homeowner missed it, the framer missed it, the city missed it, the architect missed it.

Like, when's that ever gonna happen again?

Um but if you if the council feels like it's prudent to take a pound of flesh out of us, we could remove the roof of the 685 uh square foot area.

There is room to cut um the top of the building down and not cut into the windows.

It would lower it, we could lower it maybe two feet, then put a thinner roof in.

Um, and so then if a constituent comes and says, hey, we want the hunt treatment, it'd be like, well, if you can prove that you didn't know the city didn't know, architect didn't know contract didn't know, etc.

etc.

And you tear off your roof and you cut the house down a foot or two, then maybe we'll consider giving you the hunt treatment.

So that um we would propose considering that we would propose uh us working with um the staff to get um a uh uh you know game time ready uh code provision change or work that into just a zoning change for our subdivision.

So we've laid out many different solutions.

We're not just here complaining or breaking down in front of you asking for mercy.

Well, we kind of are doing that, but we're also um you know trying to provide some um options.

So and I will say one more thing that um when the framer was framing the house, they discovered that to make it work, and I don't understand exactly what was going on.

Our contractor could maybe explain it if you wanted to hear it, but to make each level work with the windows, because we have big windows and to make the the floor boards or the trusses or joys or something work, they had to build um headers on two floors that were about a foot and a half tall.

Um and they had to do that to make it work.

And uh, according to Mr.

Chitterson, he's like, yeah, that happens all the time.

The architect draws it up and the framers like the only way this is gonna work if you you can put this extra piece in or whatever.

So thank goodness they submitted it to the city, both of those additional headers, which raised the it raised the uh elevation of the house by over two feet.

So that alone, approved by the staff, that raised the elevation, as far as I understand it, that raised the elevation under the 35 feet.

And then you take the fact that the the other plans are being used, then it's like ridiculously high.

That loft is six feet above how they calculate grade.

So that's um that's where we are with this thing.

So it's it's kind of it's obviously a nightmare for us.

It's shocking, it's like unbelievable that this happened.

Um the financial impact on us is obviously major, the economic waste is significant, it's obviously dramatic, it's embarrassing.

Um you name it.

But um if anyone has any questions, happy to answer.

Sorry if I bloviated, I'm it's hard to be objective when it's your own deal.

And uh sorry if I went on too long.

But are there any questions?

Would you like to say anything, Melanie?

And Pratt, would you like to add anything?

Or you're good?

Do you mind if uh our contractor just spends a couple of minutes or if you guys madam chair?

Would you like to hear from him real quick?

If you have anything to add, if if it's a repetition of what's already been said, we probably don't need that.

But if you have anything to add, feel free.

Well, and thank you so much for letting us come up here.

Thank you.

Pratt Diamond, I don't know if you want to know where I live or not, but a D ends with an R, it's over there.

Uh you might be wondering how could this happen?

Never I've been billing for 38 years.

Uh so I've been building for for a long time.

Uh I've never ran into this situation where in the end, and and let's take it back a little bit.

I actually took over at the footing stage, so there was a bunch of back and forth and and and so forth, however, the plans got the way they did.

I didn't have access to the sandy system.

So we went with some plans that were provided, and that's how it all started.

Never looked back.

Uh going to your point about the book of think again.

I'm not a reader.

Uh luckily my wife has a book club of one, that's her, and uh, she reads a lot of books.

So I text her when you mentioned that book, and I said, hey, here's another one.

I get my cliff notes from her, so she reads it and she breaks it down for me.

I can't even fathom even sitting there on a on a uh audio book, so I just I just uh can't focus.

But the unfortunate thing is we don't want any homeowners to have to go through this.

Yeah, I didn't I didn't mean to come up here and do that.

But I um I go on a journey with people for nine, twelve, fifteen, twenty-four months.

Uh I build about seven to twelve homes a year.

And none of them are on an ivory homes type stage where it's just flat land, they're all on very difficult lots.

I've built in about 20 to 22 cities.

Uh there's some cities I really like building in, and some are really tough to build in.

But every single one has a different type of ordinance to enforce different code, they're always changing, updating.

We try to do our best to keep up with them.

The great thing about Sandy and your building department, what they have done after this was discovered, which was a a survey was required before final C of O, along with Gerald coming out, making sure the fire is okay and all that other stuff.

So we passed Gerald.

There was a situation with some retaining walls.

Uh so we got hold of CMT to come back out and approve those retaining walls, and then lo and behold, hey, we can finally have our our survey done.

So we got the survey done, and oh you know.

Not something we wanted, especially around that time of year.

And that journey with homeowners, you become family.

Sometimes you have arguments, sometimes you disagree, but in the end, you become that family.

And I have so many homeowners that I continue to reach out to and vice versa.

So this home, how did this happen?

Uh I call it a stack effect, very very simply.

It started out with a 30% slope, and I'm going to share a little story about a home I'm building in Pepperwood on the on the on the east side about that very thing.

It's how that the finish grade is determined.

Draper, it's determined off of how you start, not the finish grade.

Okay.

Other cities, it's different.

You have a one-size fits all for how these 30% slopes.

So I hope you do uh uh uh reach that, get out to your planning department.

You have some very good folks in there that can look at it and maybe reassess how that's done.

One size fits all does not fit every single lot in this city, especially ones that you have limited.

Uh the next thing was the roof is recessed 15 feet off the front.

And if I understand it right after reading it, if if if if that roof office, as he calls it, identified as a mech room, it's approved.

We could also go up with another 10 feet with a with a uh chimney, and that's fine.

You can't even see it.

You saw the pictures.

That's irrelevant because it is built over a certain finished grade height.

The next one was a structural revision.

So back to your point on think again.

Well, there were some red flags in this thing, both my framer and myself and some other guys along with David, and then reaching out to the architect, just didn't have it's like at that moment we needed to think again and break that down, and we didn't at that time.

So one one was what what he mentioned.

We couldn't get the windows to fit because of certain situations with and it happens, architects aren't perfect, structural people aren't perfect.

We try to put it all together.

Uh so we got the fixes, we had to add uh uh one foot or two-foot uh floor truss and and in opposition of a TGI and another foot and a half on top of his.

So it raised the house two and a half feet.

We did our diligence, we submitted to the city.

The building department is not at fault, they just review it.

Hey, yeah, this looks good, go.

So that in of itself put it over two and a half feet.

Uh and that was a structural change that was needed.

We couldn't avoid it.

We could have stopped and and and like, hey, we can't build this house anymore, we got to do something different.

And then lastly, or some con construction tolerances that always happens, you know, three to four inches in a house, wood expands and so on and so forth.

So that's that's how all that that came to pass.

Now, uh and I'll get this to a close.

So I'm building a home.

This is I'm getting very familiar with your code, so if you change it, I'll get very familiar with it.

But it's on another 30 percent, uh, it's on bent hollow, 30 percent lot, uh beautiful home, couples out of Texas.

Uh they have some 1412 roofs, so that's pretty steep roof.

Okay.

Well, we couldn't get it through the planning because it was over the height, and it's only 28 feet above the road, but because of the way that the finished grade is, so it's also on a slope about nine feet down, nine to ten feet because the way the way it workaround around it was to put a rock wall in front of their West Foundation, and we were able to get it on their height because now that is considered finished grade.

But again, it's only 28 feet above the road.

So the the grade it should be 35 feet is allowable height.

Well, you walk out that house, go 15 feet down the road, there's a home that's they stare out that's 52 feet in the air.

I talked to the builder, I said, How did you get that through?

And he goes, Oh, we put a bunch of fill on there, and on this section, you can tell it's all fill in order to get it to the finished grade, and they were able to get it.

But it's 52 feet in the air.

So my point is uh I bear responsibility for them.

I'll do whatever I can to help them.

I'm not asking for a code change or ordinance or interpretation because that is what it is.

But there's no fire danger, doesn't really you can't even see it from the road.

It is built taller than what it is, but the finished grade thing does have to be looked at going forward for anybody here.

Any questions?

I have a question for you.

This is a very very sad situation, and I appreciate getting all this detail from you.

Mr.

Hunt said something in the in the beginning that I thought was so important that I wrote it down word for word, and he said somehow the builder got the wrong plans.

Who handed you the wrong plans?

Boy, man, if I could only turn back time.

Uh I believe they were emailed to me, and so that's what we started.

I could not get into the Sandy City system.

We changed my I I did some uh you know, life, you know.

I have three kids, so we're starting to prepare for end of life, whenever hopefully another 30, 40 years.

But so we changed the name of our company, so that changed in your guys' system.

My son's company was in there, mine was not, so I couldn't get in the system, get the right set of plans.

I didn't even have a contractual arrangement at the time.

So that's what I believe what happened, and then we were off and running.

Again, I took this over at a footing stage.

Luckily, the for the whole state, the contractor that was originally.

So who emailed you the wrong plans?

Uh I I believe the homeowner, yeah.

And it I don't he didn't do anything egregious uh at that time.

There were there was a whole bunch of changes uh happening with what there he was going through a contractor change, financial instability of this guy.

Luckily, this contractor, I won't mention any names, is now finally out of business.

He took a lot of people for a lot of money, and uh there was a lot of people out there, but there's a lot of good contractors out there either.

But so we rolled with that, but back to her think again and the red flags.

There were red flags inside those plans.

Um the best thing that I think the city did, and and you didn't require a survey until before CO the uh kudos to Willie, whoever changed in the building department now, which happened on the Pepperwood home.

Uh before you can pass go, you poured your footings and foundation, you need a survey, and then you also after that, you gotta go meet with Gerald.

So Gerald comes out on site the fire marshes.

But and so I I appreciate that change because we as builders we need fail-safes, we need checks and balances out there.

We can't think of it all.

There's a lot of moving parts in homes, a lot of things you can think of.

So we hope never that this kind of a mistake ever can happen again to anybody.

Okay.

Uh community development wanted us to go back to them.

Are there any questions at this point?

Um before we go back to Melissa.

No.

I have one more comment.

Uh Mr.

Christianson brought something up, none of you caught it, but I did.

I'm like, holy cow, his wife's here, and he knew how many years he was married, and that made me start thinking, well, geez almighty.

I'm not gonna ask my wife how many but it's 36.

So you had some great candidates come up here.

I hope they they go through.

So thank you.

Ms.

Sherky, can I address that real quick on that email just because you wanted to ask?

So I had I had another contractor, and they ended up going out of business.

And I had Mr.

Diamond, I was talking to him before because of the people that had referred.

So in the fall of 2023, I had sent, I emailed those plans to uh Mr.

Diamond, and you know, in my email I said these still aren't approved.

And so he had those plans, and then we didn't start with with the other contractor, we didn't actually start until the following March.

So that was March of 2024.

And so he had those plans that were unapproved.

We entered into our contract, you know, the house was already started, and I had to let the other contractor go because they you know they weren't, nobody was showing up.

I had given them a quarter of a million dollars up front, they weren't showing up, and everybody was saying they weren't getting paid.

It was a big disaster.

Again, they eventually went out of business.

So Mr.

Diamond had had those plans, the unapproved plans for like eight months.

And then somehow, I won't speak for him, but somehow he forwarded those plans to the framer.

Now the he may have forwarded those to the framer six months prior, and the framer had them, and the framer just printed off the wrong plans, but nobody noticed that.

It was astonishing that you saw those dirty plans that are just sitting there.

So that that was the history of it.

And I I don't know how the framer or the contractor um took plans that had been sent eight months prior and printed them off.

Uh you know how that happened, but you know, like Mr.

Diamond said he didn't have access to the city at first.

Um we entered into our formal contract after the framer was already on site, and so we signed the correct permitted plans, but I think the framer already had those original plans.

So that was I mean, that was I don't I don't know whose fault that was.

Um but that anyway, just to be clear, that's what happened.

And I and again I don't know what happened between the framer and Mr.

Diamond.

So thank you.

All right, Melissa, back to you.

So um okay, thank you very much.

So I wanted to review what our current current code says and what the proposal, the basic language of the proposal.

Not sure why this is not forwarding.

It does tend to be slow.

It's not going at all.

I'll try.

Hold on, Melissa.

Okay.

Thank you.

Should I try again?

Okay.

There we go.

All right.

We're on a roll.

So our existing code uh states that the maximum building height for the primary dwelling is a maximum of 35 feet, and that height is in all of our residential zones.

Um building height is defined as the vertical distance between the average finished grade, surface of the building to the highest point of the coping of a flat roof, or the top of a mansard roof, top of the ridge for a gable, hip or gamble roof.

The illustration shows how that's measured.

So another word for that is from the midpoint to the peak of the roof.

So that's the way we measure it.

We review plans according to that, and uh we've administered that for many years.

Um the proposal in sum is to change the code so that um the applicable residential properties uh where you could apply this is where the predominant slope within the building envelope is 30 percent or greater.

That's the actual language that's proposed.

Um this would be an alternative method for measuring building height, but is optional for an applicant if they're in a sloped, steep sloped area.

Uh the maximum building height as proposed would be for the habitable portions of a dwelling to be no higher than 35 feet and measured from the existing or natural grade as opposed to the finished grade.

This is just an illustration showing where that portion of the home is exceeding the building height.

This comes in a little closer.

And staff had proposed that or had a negative recommendation to the Planning Commission.

Recommendation was unanimous.

The reasons in the staff report, you know, you could go into lots of deep detail, but the basic fundamental, I would say, policy reasons why you would or would not want to propose an amendment of this nature of the specific code change, is that one it would allow for taller homes.

The proposed method of measuring building height would enable taller homes to be constructed in steep sloped areas than is currently allowed because the result of as proposed up to 35 feet measured for the national grade is allowing for taller building.

Another is equity or lack thereof.

If proposed or if adopted, the applicant would be able to have a taller building while existing homeowners have not been allowed to use the same methodology for measuring the building height and have complied with the code.

Also another reason is enforcement and inconsistent enforcement because the previous cases there have been new homes that were constructed taller than the code allows, but they were required to physically correct the situation to meet the code.

Lastly, another fundamental reason is that several revisions would be required for it to actually be able to work within our code to be integrated to make sure we're touching all other related sections, how we define building height.

For example, one of the some of the language in the proposal is to measure habitable portion, but we uh don't measure from the habitable portion, we measure from the physical top of the physical structure, and we it's we can't really enforce in areas that we can't verify, meaning is it habitable or is it not habitable?

Um there's other reasons too of the various things that would need to be changed, but that's another basic reason.

So those four fundamental reasons, because you could I think you could go down a lot of rabbit holes of analyzing you know this or that, but I think these basics are fundamental to why one would or would not want to have a policy change to amend the code as proposed.

This would allow taller homes, equity issues or inequity for related to other homeowners that have complied enforcement and the inconsistency of enforcement, and then we would need to make some several changes for this to actually work to amend the code correctly.

And so both staff and the planning commission are forwarding a negative recommendation to the proposal as presented by the applicant to change the building height to measuring from the natural or existing grade to 35 feet.

And so that that's the basic presentation that I have.

Did you have any questions for staff?

Questions.

Ms.

Houseman.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Uh thank you for that explanation.

I I'm wanting to go back in time a little bit and clarify one thing and ask a question.

The clarification is relative to the framing.

So the applicant indicated that there were multiple visits around framing and ultimately approval given, and that's when all of the significant cost of building occurred.

So was the framing of the home approved.

Go ahead.

So you're you're referring to when the inspectors go out and inspect the framing?

Correct.

So let me go back just a little bit further on the set of plans because I've had some questions from other on a set of plans.

So when we do a set of plans, yes, the set of plans is stamped as the approved plans from the city.

If they're not using those plans, they're not using the right plans.

Whatever they did to mess that up, I do not know.

But they always have a correct set of plans from the city that are signed.

On this particular home, we did require this is something we've started adding.

Because a hillside development is dealt is difficult, and it's gives it getting more difficult to determine heights and keeping the heights in the correct limits because everybody is trying to max out the height.

It used to not be that way.

People would build within that limit.

Everybody's trying to max out their setbacks, they're trying to max out the height and go as high as they can.

So one way that we've looked at that, trying to correct that, the building official has is to do surveys.

There is an issue with the surveys, they're pretty expensive.

So we are requiring a survey, and on this home we required a footing and foundation survey.

That's to make sure that the homes are placed in place and that the footings and foundations are not too high out of the ground, which automatically will start the home in a bad position to be too high.

After that, they'll build through the process, and we are also starting to correct.

We didn't want to do this because every one of them, you know, by the time you get through that, you can add 10,000 to the cost of a home for requirements to verify the height restrictions because it's very different.

Not a lot of people are wanting to build within the 35 feet.

They all want to go higher.

Um and so when we go out and do our inspections, yes, they can go out and say, yeah, that works for now when we're doing a four-way or when I say a four-way electrical plumbing, heating, and framing.

When we go out and look at that, they say, yes, that works for now.

But if you ask Willie, who has told me they gave a specific warning on this that this is looking like it could exceed your 35 foot limit.

They give a warning at that time, and if it's going to do that, then they need to come up with something to fix the roof line, do something to bring it down to meet.

We've done this on many homes.

In fact, not more than three weeks ago, there was a home within the roadshow that was getting ready for that.

They overbuilt by two and a half feet.

Well, they came in, it didn't meet the survey at the end, they were required to scrape two and a half feet.

They re-angled the roof to meet that requirement, and they brought it down and and within a couple weeks they were in compliance.

So it's nothing that we haven't done before.

It's something that is we look at consistently.

But yes, we will give a warning, but we cannot sit there and hold their hand through an entire project.

They have a set of plans, they are expected to look at it and they are expected to follow it.

We go out when we're called out to do surveys, when we do a footing and foundation, we go out and we do a four-way, which includes framing, and we can say yes, this looks good, we can't stop the home because you're in compliance right now with the framing.

Um if the home looks like it's going to have a problem, we'll warn them that it's going to have a problem.

Then we rely on the final survey by their own engineer to tell us whether it is within the requirements or not.

But if we had an inspector for every home that we build in the city, yes, we could do a 24-7 compliance and look at everything they do.

But we have four inspectors to cover the entire city.

So obviously that's not possible.

Um we'll tell them that it's that way and they are expected to fix it, and they are expected to follow the approved plans.

The approved plans on this one were at 35 feet.

They are expected to follow and to make sure their home is 35 feet.

So my second question is the applicant indicated they brought forward a lot of potential solutions, which I think is something to be appreciated.

I try to I like solutions first thinking.

Um or ran by staff was a zoning change that would in essence be applicable to a one house subdivision, but they were told no.

Um they were told that's something we would probably recommend if that's a spot zone and then for one home on a thing that would be very difficult to do.

Everybody else in the city who did not meet this code would ask for the same thing.

And if we resonate to another residential zone, all the residential zones have the same high level.

They all still have thirty-five feet.

The other thing that we looked at with them, it wasn't that we weren't trying to help them.

I mean, we were trying to look at alternatives and they asked for a variant.

They asked for to go, and that would require them to go to the Board of Adjustment.

The problem with that, when we looked at that, that would be very difficult to do because the Board of Adjustment has five criteria that is set by state law, not by us.

One of those criteria is that it cannot be self-imposed.

And if it's self-imposed, they will not approve it.

So it's highly unlikely that if this went to the Board of Adjustment to get a variance, which sounds like a very easy thing to do.

Let's just get a variance for this one and call it good.

It's not an easy thing to do because state law doesn't allow the Board of Adjustment to approve a variance unless the applicant can show that it wasn't self-imposed.

So that would be a very difficult to to do in this case.

They have every right to try and go to the board, but it's highly unlikely that they would be able to approve that.

But if they wanted to try that mechanism, they are free to try.

I I think those are all my questions.

I've got comments, but it's more to share with my colleagues, Madam Chair, than questions here, but I do have more to say.

But I'll wait for further questions.

SUSE.

Thank you.

I um I had a question, uh I have a couple of questions, but one of the ones that popped up was when um Melissa was explaining that you couldn't calculate off of habitable because you don't know, but don't the building plans tell you the areas that are habitable?

Like, but what what Melissa was discussing is um how the home is built.

It may have been buried on the interior, meaning they may have used a different trust, they may have used a different system at the actual construction.

Um so defining a height based on a habitable space, I don't think is a good uh regulation.

It's not easily enforceable uh because it our observance is based on exterior observance.

That's what you're administering in a height.

You could have a home that didn't have you could have almost unlimited space of a roof structure that's uninhabitable then if your building height is based on habitable space.

Okay.

That that's the unintended consequence, I think, of of doing that.

I don't know if they meant to only exclude um a chimney or something like that, or an architectural apptance of a cupola or or something like that, but that's already addressed in our code.

Um but to finish parapet, finished uh pitch of or peak of roof is is what's observable.

Because that's what you're regulating, right?

You're regulating the structure of the home, the impact of that home to the surrounding property owners.

Sure.

And I was just mentioning that as an example of something that would need to be addressed in terms of correcting code that could actually work.

Sure.

I just wanted to understand, and you've you've given me more information, so thank you.

Um okay, so how long has the code in its current form existed?

Decades.

Okay.

And what was the was anybody around James, were you around when this was done decades ago?

So my question is gonna be does anybody understand maybe what the goal of the code, what they were trying to accomplish or prevent or mitigate against, help me understand that.

Sure, it's it's about building form and urban design.

Um limiting the impacts of what one property owner can do on their property that does not create undue burden on their neighboring property owners.

That's why we have building height limitations, so that it's not um someone can enjoy their property up to a certain point.

They can't can build up to a certain size, they can build up to a certain height and have setbacks that are appropriately uh distance from one another.

Um, and that's the purpose of zoning in in general.

Sure, okay.

Well that that's helpful because I guess you know, in those decades it sounds like there are um people have have found loopholes um in terms of retaining walls and and things of that nature to build up the grade over a greater portion to get a different average, right?

And so, you know, is it so I guess that's what I'm asking is are we are was the intent maybe to prevent these, you know, seven story monstrous apartment houses, you know, or whatever in a neighborhood, but at the same time be because I can't imagine that that would be very desirable by you know the surrounding neighbors if not everybody were similar in that way.

Um but it but on the issue of the retaining wall, I don't know that looking at a 20-foot retaining wall is necessarily my idea of an of enjoying you know my backyard and and the potential view.

And so I guess you know, and I understand where the staff is coming from with this because this is what the code says, and there isn't a lot of leeway.

You don't have a lot of tools to address the situation with with how it's written.

And so, you know, I I don't fault anybody for you know how we've gotten to this point.

Um, you know, comment-wise, like wow, this is a nightmare for the homeowners, I'm sure, you know, and and the builders and you know the city and everybody trying to figure out how to accomplish, I think everybody ultimately has the same goal in in resolving this issue in a way that works for you know all parties given the code that we have.

And so I don't know that I have any more questions right now, so I'll I'll save more for discussion, but thank you for answering those.

Ms.

Nickel.

Go ahead.

Thank you, madam chair.

I wanted to um explore a little bit of the the um zoning portion of the request, and I think this is a limp pace question.

Now forget please correct me if I'm wrong, but spot zoning is illegal.

Not necessarily anymore.

The state doesn't make sense.

Uh no, it's not.

Okay.

It used to be illegal, it's generally a bad practice.

I will say that.

It's not a good practice.

Okay.

And to the height issue, I feel for you, and this is such a tough situation.

But we do have to think of other people.

And um when people want to come in and build homes, they are gonna they are going to know that you built higher, and they are going to want that.

And that does affect the people around them.

I doesn't sound like you have neighbors that are affected necessarily now.

But it it's a big it's a big ask.

And uh it's a tough situation.

I just want to share that for now.

Yes.

Is there a situation in which we have allowed this increased height?

Or in every case that you know of, have we required a re a modification to come into compliance?

That explains.

I can I can only speak since I've been the director, and in every case since I've been the director, we've required a modification.

Can I ask one of the one?

Only because that's what the code reads, not from any interpretation or anything like that.

We've simply just followed the code.

Okay.

I don't have a question.

Okay.

Ms.

D'Souza.

Thank you.

Sorry about that.

Um so James, just to follow up.

Has it occurred in a similar state of completion where somebody has had to cut off and deconstruct?

Yes.

Because usually if they're really close, it'll be determined completely through the survey at the end.

And the survey at the end will show what it is and and if it meets or if it does if it does not meet.

I mean, it's a different story to be six inches off because that can be a natural mistake from an arch or something like that, or foot even.

But eight and a half feet is pretty far.

So the can I just oh, sorry, I I've I have some more questions as I've been thinking.

The total height of the house from garage to top.

Huh?

So you're you're meaning if if okay, what is the average finished grade height?

Oh, on this one?

Currently or as approved?

No, currently, like what how far out of compliance is it?

It's about 43 feet roughly.

And that's okay.

I I I do I will say that I'm average finished height.

In a way, the highest one I've dealt with outside of this one, as far as it's come through the depart on my department on heights has been about uh three and a half feet over.

Can I chime in real quick just for clarity?

If that's 43 is the height from the average of the slope.

So driveway to top is like 50.

Yeah.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

Brooke, they told me to think of like it's in whole extra story of a house.

On top.

Okay.

That helped me.

On the one on the one side.

And you know, you know, and I I think it does matter because it is on a slope, you know.

And um I'm thinking about the context of my grandparents bought a lot on a V lot in Cottonwood Heights above Wasat, John, like the Kings Hill area, and they developed that and from the roadside, it's one story, it looks like a rambler, but it's actually three stories that you know tears down the slope there and exposed that way.

And so in terms of of when the surveys are done, is there maybe a better uh process or timing of the surveys to help prevent something like this?

Because this is this is pretty pretty incredible.

I I can't imagine, you know, an honest mistake happening and thinking, oh my gosh, I've just spent, you know, X amount of dollars and now I have to rip it off and and do more.

And we we can't, you can't you can't just eye it and make sure you're correct as one of the inspectors.

We have to have documentation and we want it filed on paper through a survey.

And that's the most accurate and the most sound way that cities are using to verify the only thing we're can we can do more is we can add another survey and we can add it at four uh and we have and we can add it at four way.

And so that's just one more cost to the overall.

So we hate to do that too because it raises the cost of the home, but if it provides further protection for the height and and for compliance, um that is what we've required.

So now we have three surveys on a home.

So so the first survey, what's the purpose of doing it at the point that it's initially done?

The first say first survey would be footing if would be foundation.

That's to make sure that they've correctly placed the foundation.

Because a lot of foundations, if they bring them up too high, I see that automatically puts the home at a disadvantage for too high of a home in the end.

Because they're coming out of the ground too high and it's above already the grade which they've measured from on the 35 feet on their plans.

Awesome for steep driveways.

And for steep driveways is yeah, that can only be 12%.

That's another reason.

Okay.

I may have more, but I'm I'm okay for now.

And and just to clarify, I wouldn't say it's probably 50 feet, it's probably a little bit less than that as far as the overall height from base of uh driveway to the top of the parapet of that fourth story.

But I think that, and I will also clarify from the very beginning our code isn't designed to allow for four stories on a home in general.

Uh because they use the flat roof and they reduce their floor to ceiling heights, that's how it they ultimately got an approval on their plans.

Because the initial plans as they were drawn was always too tall.

And that was our initial conversation with the art the architect and the designer of the plan that they could not make this work and and get this four-story on there, uh, this bonus level at the very top.

Um their creative solution to that was to reduce the four-day ceiling height amongst all of the floors.

That's where I think this, you know, going off the older plan the another version of the plans led to this issue of not meeting the floor to ceiling heights and then pushing everything up higher.

So as James said, it is on the owner and the developer and the builder to follow those plans, and that is their responsibility.

We go and check and make sure that those things are eventually going to be in compliance, but it's their job to ensure that they are following those.

Ms.

Houseman.

I don't have any more questions.

You're welcome to stay at the mic or not, but more I'd like to share some thoughts with my colleagues.

Um thank you.

Thank you, everyone, for all that's been presented.

I um I add to what's already been said, this is such a difficult uh situation.

So here are some thoughts in response to kind of what I've heard tonight.

I really liked the description of the cascade effect.

Um I think that's an appropriate and descriptive um language, I guess, around what has happened to bring us to where we are.

I think it's appropriate to sort of understand the history and and the cascade effect of this happened and then this happened, but the reality is we this is where we are, and this is a really really difficult situation.

Um I also appreciate the reference to the book I mentioned earlier, think again.

Um I hope that we I know what I know what staff has shared, and they are absolutely doing their job, which is interpret the code and share um their recommendations which have been negative.

Um Planning Commission has done the same thing.

I get that.

They took the recommendation, negative recommendation from staff and sort of upheld that.

I would like us to give this some time.

Um I I would like to think about spot zoning.

I understand we clarified it is not illegal to do so.

I also hear clearly that staff has said it's not best practice.

Um this whole experience is certainly not best practice, and I I don't believe that a a cookie-cutter approach to what is before us is right.

Um I don't know that we have fully asked the questions we could ask, and that's the value of think again.

What have we not yet thought?

And thank you, James, for spelling out things you have thought about.

But you said it, you are interpreting the code.

I don't know that the way the code currently reads, because it's decades old, is necessarily worth us just turning this uh uh uh away.

Um the the the need for building in Sandy is critical, and yet there is there is so little opportunity to build in Sandy, and when people build, it's likely going to be on very challenging lots, often with slope.

And I think part of thinking again is what does that look like?

Why is it why have we not more or if we have maybe it's time to revisit?

But this this argument that's been brought to us, I think is worthy of consideration.

Um is it natural grade or is it finished grade?

Like I I think that's a a worthwhile question.

Um let me see what else I had here.

I okay.

So I I understand, and I'm just referring to my notes, make sure I don't miss anything.

I understand the concerns that have been raised.

I'm not I'm not saying they're not.

But as I think about where we where this homeowner finds themselves and and what a difficult situation it is, I can't help but rem and I shared this with all of you, but I'm I'm now sharing it publicly as well.

I I can't help but remember our discussions around Kohara.

Um those discussions were intense, and those business owners slash homeowners, because it was such a really odd situation, um, they were woefully out of compliance.

And this is after a lot of collaborative support from the city and a lot of hand holding.

And what they were out of compliance with was actually quite dangerous.

Um I remember vividly conversations around equity, which is at the heart of some of this conversation.

Um what would other businesses think?

They had to be in compliance, they had to fire, they had to follow fire safety code, um, and yet we were sort of not requiring that of this one business.

Um so I believe this is reminiscent of that.

And we worked extremely hard with Koahara.

Umy, many, many meetings and a lot of conversation.

And I don't know that we've given this particular challenge the same due process that we gave Koahara.

I would like to invite us to think about stretching this process and thinking again, and really asking what questions have we not asked, and if we have asked them and they've been answered, do we do we like the answer?

Um is there a different way of thinking about the answer?

I want to I want to really wrestle with this to the degree that we did with Koahara.

We found a way to help Koahara keep stay in business.

And and I understand they may still not be fully in compliance, but we wrestled and we found a way to help them navigate this, and I believe that this issue deserves the same due process, the same wrestle, the same really get outside the box and think.

So that's what I'm asking is that we ask staff to come back with more than just we don't agree that this amendment should be made.

And we all might agree with that.

We might all agree this code amendment is far too it would have far too much of an impact to actually change the code.

So what does a spot zone look like?

Even if it's not best practice, is there an opportunity to think about a very intentional effort to support this particular challenge?

Um I I don't think we have wrestled with this enough to have this come back and and and vote on it.

And because of that, I would ask that we extend um the the and it's been very merciful.

I want to acknowledge that there's been grace extended.

But this is the first time it's coming to us.

And so as a council body, I would I would like us to think about extending that that grace uh for for occupancy for for longer and give us time to wrestle, give us time to really think again.

Ms.

DeSouza.

Thank you.

I I have another question for the planning staff, you know.

Um I'm thinking about I'm thinking about this in terms of of the rule and the exception, right?

And to me, this this aligns with this is kind of an exceptional situation.

This isn't something that probably happens on a regular basis.

You know, I think that we do a good job of of putting systems in place and checks and balances to prevent um these situations from happening.

And you know regardless of the best efforts, you know, sometimes stuff happens.

And I'm I'm thinking about the exceptional aspect of it, and is it am I correct to think that like variances are built into kind of help in these and not in maybe in this particular situation, just in general, with exceptions to the the base rule?

Is that what a variance kind of does?

Well, you want to speak to it if you want me to.

Well, it's a it's a deviation from it.

Yeah, but there's specific criteria for a variance.

Um it's established in the state law, and it's very specific.

You have to meet all of the criteria.

So even if you met 95% of those, but you couldn't meet one of them, you can't approve it, or it, you know, the Board of Adjustment is likely not to approve it.

And so one of those criteria is self-imposed.

Um it has to be inherently, you know, uh uh part of the land as to why you need this this adjustment to the code.

So uh variance does um address unique circumstances to the land.

You know, maybe there's a big boulder uh that you know is just really dramatically large, and so you can't be a setback, you know, on one side, so you needed a reduction of maybe two feet.

So speaking about variances, uh are variances something that the state defines?

Yes.

The city cannot, does not?

That is correct.

Okay, well that's the no.

Those are those five criteria that we've mentioned, so it's an unreasonable hardship, special circumstance, uh an essential property right uh is being preserved through that, and there's no substantial impact on the public interest or general plan and that substantial justices of help.

Those are the centrally the five criteria.

Okay, well that helps me clarify because in my mind I'm thinking that the the state actually defines what the variances can be, but you're describing the reasons that the way that somebody could um apply for a variance.

And so the it's left to the city planning department, I assume, to interpret whether or not those conditions exist.

It's the board of adjustments.

Yeah, so the planning commission doesn't ever do variances?

No, that's the that's the board of adjustments rule.

Okay.

Yeah, we do analyze it.

Okay.

And we we analyze it, present findings to those criteria, present a recommendation, and then the board of adjustment has a public hearing and and reviews all the information presented by the applicant and the staff analysis and then makes a determination, that determination is based on that state criteria.

Okay, that's fine.

And I'll clarify that the unreasonable hardship that's being complained of is uh specific to not being self-imposed or primarily economic in nature.

So just because it's going to be expensive or because I made a boo-boo or I I screwed up somehow, that's not a reason to grant a variance.

No, I I agree.

Those are express expressly excluded from the criteria.

It's defined that way.

It's very specific on it.

Okay.

Um thank you.

Uh and I guess I'm I'm just trying to think through and ask the questions to really understand you know the situation, and you know, I can't imagine that you guys are all able to regurgitate every single conversation or thought that anybody's ever had, and so this is my opportunity to, you know, do that with you now.

So thank you for allowing me the time and answering my questions.

Um Councilmember Houseman brought up Kuwahara.

I also think of Red Feather.

Is that red feather in the decks?

Okay.

So this to me feels similar.

Um we are rewriting code, you know, and maybe it maybe there is an opportunity to more fully consider what our height requirements are in this and the way that it's calculated, not what they are, but maybe the way that it's calculated, because that seems to be inconsistent among you know various cities to consider whether or not it warrants a change that the council would be interested in making.

Um like council member houseman.

Um now I'm in the comments, I'm done with questions if you want to sit, you're more than welcome.

Um like I I I I get where everybody's at, and I get where the staff is at.

Like there's no I I get it.

I I get where the homeowner's at, you know, and how do we come to some amicable resolution that that overall works, you know.

And I hear that we have been in these situations in the past, and the applic, the homeowner or whomever, right, chose a different path.

They chose to um comply.

One of the options is to come before the council and you know, and that in the planning commission, and this process is um is an option, right?

And other people maybe haven't exercised that option um first.

Um that's that's a decision that they made, and I don't know, I'm sitting on the council now, and I I wasn't then, and so I feel like now I have an opportunity to review the situation.

It does seem like an honest mistake, regardless of whose mistake it was.

Um I can't imagine that the homeowner would intentionally put themselves the homeowners, you know, intentionally put themselves in the situation that they're currently in.

You know, I don't necessarily I don't think that I need to get into it, but I imagine that there's um financial hardship and not just the cost, but maybe um the the current financing and some of the issues pertaining to being able to move forward.

Um I've I as a real estate agent I've I've um I have been hired to help clients with very difficult situations, such as not quite this, you know, by any means, but um that that their financial situation would have put them in complete ruin um and they would have lost everything over you know $15,000 in one circumstance, you know.

Um so I I do believe that there is maybe more conversation to have in some way to figure out and resolve this issue with without saying that we have to be super sharp and cookie-cutter and you know, one size fits all in black and white.

Um I am definitely open to exploring what other options may reasonably exist.

Okay, those are my comments right now.

Thanks.

Ms.

Christensen.

Okay, I just want to like sure that I'm hearing everything I'm supposed to hear, and I'm looking at you three.

So our options, so basically, a variance won't be approved because the code is it doesn't meet the requirements, so that's not an option.

Um we come to the point where we can enforce the current code.

We can spot zone it, even though we know that is the hated option.

And does it openness to legal issues with other people if we don't agree to spot zone them?

It's a question I got.

The council has discretion for making this decision to rezone or not to rezone, and you create the district so that your district can be broad, it can be narrow, but you define the district.

And once you create the rules, just because you create one set of rules for this district doesn't mean that you can't create a different set of rules for another district.

So I think there's very little risk if the council very risk of uh legal action against the city if you decided you want to do that.

Even if the district's one house.

Right.

Okay.

So that's an option or another solution, but my understanding is that staff does not have any other solutions.

They've given their solutions.

It's not a bad thing, I'm just saying it out loud to make sure that there's not other solutions would have to come from us, the council.

Right?

Yeah, please.

I think what we're saying is we've looked through this and we have gone through it, and we're trying to stick with the code and applying the code.

What the code requires us to do is follow it, and that's what we're trying to do to the best of our abilities.

So the the recommendation we've given you are our recommendations.

I can't come back with a you know a different recommendation every time that we review this because our recommendations are based on the code.

Yeah, so hold on to a next second.

So would have solution would have to come from us.

So those are our three options.

And then like unintended consequences.

I we've talked a little bit about this, but this if we don't spot zone it and we change the code, which I do not want to change the city code.

I'm not a fan of four-story houses in Sandy, especially since this would apply to our sensitive overlay zone.

And could I just mention something about the sensitive area overlay zone?

So I mean, it for me, and I I don't know how others feel, but if we're going to do something, I would rather be extremely limited than I would clear across because this could have great effect for everywhere along, including Pepperwood Hill.

Any undeveloped piece of property, what you do in this situation could affect all that.

And I would hate to see higher homes be allowed across our whole east side.

Yeah.

That's I I'm very concerned about that.

So given throughout the process that they were that from staff that there was concern about the heights.

And it's their responsibility to make sure they meet them in the end.

And they happened at the four-way.

Well, you can you can talk with our chief building official.

No, I'm just asking.

So someone who said there wasn't one.

But you can you could we give warnings the whole time that you have to meet the 35 feet.

If you're following the plan, the plan says 35 feet, you know what it is if you have the correct plans.

So like the four-way and at the beginning, those.

I mean, we're saying we have a survey of the beginning, and we have a survey at the end as well.

Where they were ready.

I mean, it's just it's a crappy situation.

There's no getting around it.

But okay.

So I just wanted to make sure I'm understanding the options and what's happened so far correctly.

That's correct.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

Any more comments?

This is an information item.

No action is required tonight.

May I rebut just a couple of things?

Like one minute.

I I think we're ready to move on.

Okay.

So thank you.

I just it was a a couple of in my letter, there are a couple of other solutions.

Sir she said she said no.

Okay.

Thank you.

If I could, Madam Chair.

Um so Mr.

Cadell, uh Councilwoman D'Souza uh mentioned Red Feather, and she and I work together um with residents in that community.

And Mr.

Cadell was super helpful with that.

Um so he he's had some experience helping us think through difficult situations, how we've gotten there, what we can do, and and I would love just your thoughts on tonight's discussion and um and and thank you for spelling out like where we are is where we are, and likely uh a resolution will have to come here because they're simply interpreting code.

So um I'd I'd love your thoughts on this.

I'm happy to offer my thoughts.

I I have the advantage of actually being a member of the Board of Adjustment.

I don't know if you knew that.

I was on the board of adjustment here.

Um, you know, we're we're guessing as to how the Board of Adjustment might handle this particular situation.

I mean, we we don't know.

Uh but when you look at the code, um, most of the people just come into the Board of Adjustment and they say they basically do what the applicants did today.

They talk about the parade of horribles and everything that's going on and how difficult the situation is.

Therefore, I need a variance.

Um it's really complicated because not only do they have to check all these boxes, um they also have they also bear the burden.

They have to prove to the board of adjustment that they meet all the criteria.

So most properties do not meet the criteria, um, especially if it's a situation that you've created.

And it can't be economic, right?

So it could be a crazy amount of money.

But that's not a factor we can consider.

It's usually something like there's an odd parcel of property that perhaps does it might not meet a setback perfectly because it's just an odd piece of property that is difficult to develop, for example.

Person who bought that didn't create that problem, for example.

Um so I mean they're welcome to go through that process.

I think the planning staff's probably saved them some time there.

I I know you don't want the planning commission throwing cold buckets of water on creative ideas, but I think they were really honest with about what would happen in that environment.

Secondly, I think the I think it's really we put the planning staff in a little bit of a uh precarious situation when the applicant uh as a matter of law has a right to come in and petition you, which I like.

It's a good obviously it's excellent public policy to come in and seek redressability in front of you on how to fix it.

The problem is the planning staff stuck with two things.

A, what you've already told them to do, and it wasn't you, it was your you know your predecessors, but you've told them what the rules are, and then they came in with a set of rules that they didn't help craft.

So what are they gonna say?

Well, we're gonna we're following your rules, and number two is this the way that the uh the way that this has been proposed by the applicant doesn't really fit.

So I I would say um if if if you're serious about looking at this, I think you ought to ask the professionals to look at it.

Ask them to be creative and ask them to come back and say, does this still make sense?

It did 20 years ago.

Does it make sense now?

Uh Councilmember Housman brought up a really good point, and that is that we're increasingly limited on where homes can be built.

So does forward thinking people still believe that the rules that were imposed by somebody like my dad 30 years ago, do they still is it still relevant?

That's a good question.

I don't know that you ought to decide that from the dais without asking the professionals to look at it for you.

And come back and see if they can give you something that might work.

If they can't, well then you can look at other options.

But I don't think you've you've unshackled them to be creative yet.

And perhaps you ought to do that and see if they can come back with something that could work.

Now maybe they won't.

Maybe James and his team will look and say, look, there's darn good reason.

We think it ought to be this way, and here's why.

It's worked for 25 or 30 years.

But maybe they'll come back and say, look, it was a good time to do a review.

We put our best people on it, and here's maybe some new or a fresher way of looking at it.

Perhaps they could look at some of the modern literature and see how it really works.

That's what that's my recommendation.

And let the professionals do their job and see if they can come back and propose something that could work.

And not just for this property.

I think the question that you have, council member, is our policy good public policy, or just because we've always done it, is that good enough?

And to me that isn't good enough, right?

So we ought to at least review it.

And maybe that this is a time to do that, and then table this matter and see what they can bring you back.

And I think that we could probably, I mean, look, I think the administration's been kind to work with with this with uh the couple on their home.

It's an unfortunate situation.

But the council has at times worked with people who've been in a difficult situation.

Councilmember Christensen worked with a pretty difficult business owner not too long ago and was patient.

And of course, my father worked with the same people ten years before that.

They're still not compliant, but that's not necessarily relevant for the discussion.

So that's my best thinking.

Uh I think you ought to task James and his team to go back and have them commit to you that they'll take a fresh look at it.

If they come back and say it doesn't work, well then you can go from there.

It seems to me that that was what the planning commission was asked to do.

They weren't asked to decide whether this homeowner was or builder was compliant.

They were asked whether the code ought to be changed, and their recommendation to us was no.

Now it was specific in the code change request.

It came from the property owner.

Yes.

Um, but you know, I did watch the meeting, I did listen to it.

They did talk about other scenarios.

They too shared concerns, um, sensitivity about what happened and asked the question is there anything else that could be done?

The only question that came up was so we have a horrible situation.

Because of a horrible situation, should we change the law?

I think what what I'm saying and what they said is no.

Um should we change the law for this one property only?

Because we don't want to change it citywide.

Should we change it for this one property only?

I don't think you should do that, Madam Chair.

I think that would be Okay.

Well, thank you for that.

I think that would be a dumpster fire.

I'm thinking we have if on a situational basis, we're gonna make a decision that says we'll change the law in your case under your circumstances, but not in yours, and okay in yours.

And I I kind of don't want to get into that, right?

What I was looking to do in my questioning was to try to dig in on fault, and if any of the fault was ours, that might change my point of view.

Um but I'm I'm convinced that it wasn't.

Um we take it back now.

We also here's the question too.

We were already told that there's a timeline and there we're already out of compliance and there's a problem, and so does the applic it's the applicant who's asked us to do this.

And now and for a yes or no.

So does the applicant want to change the timeline?

Does the applicant want to withdraw it?

Does the applicant want to start all over?

These are questions that I don't want to seize it out of their hands and say we're gonna handle this now.

It's it's up to them.

What do they see as a solution?

What would they like to do?

Um Madam Chair, may I just offer one other point of view?

Um you've been on the planning commission, I haven't been.

I also know that the planning commission has a tendency to lean heavily into the professional advice they're given in real time.

Disagree.

Well, you you've been a member of the PC.

I haven't.

I disagree.

Okay.

That that assertion I disagree with.

Yeah, I was on the planning commission for three years.

We did not rubber stamp the staff.

I didn't say rubber stamp.

I said, Oh, I always agreed with you, Mike, didn't I?

Like a hundred percent of the time.

He knows that's a joke.

My suggestion to you is it isn't certainly it my suggestion is to say, look, it doesn't really necessarily matter why it's in front of you.

Is look, it's in front of you, right?

Is it do you think that the policy is good in of itself?

Or if you do, great.

And if you don't, then have the staff go look at it and come back and give you some recommendations.

That's all I'm suggesting.

I'll shut up.

Ms.

D'Souza.

I I'll try to be quick.

I know this has been a long item and I know we have more to go.

Um this is an information item, and I do think that we need to maybe I don't know.

I I I know that I as a council member I'd like to kind of understand what to expect going forward.

You know, I I under the current situation, this is slated to come back and we're gonna make a decision on the code that was proposed.

The planning I I want to I want to kind of rebut a little bit of what you said because I understand it a little differently.

And I the the planning commission um didn't make a decision on whether or not we should you know change the code you know unlimited.

It was based very specifically on what was put forward by the yeah, yeah, right?

Like they're not they're not trying to determine whether or not we should change code that wasn't presented by the applicant.

And so and to um Mr.

Cadell's point, um, you know, staff didn't write this um update of the code.

And so maybe there is an opportunity to ask staff to go back and look at what to to review on whether or not there may be appropriate changes.

I don't know that I think I I'm not somebody who thinks that just because it was done 30 years ago that this is the way that it always should work, and I think that it's these types of situations, and this isn't the first.

We were told that there's been a few in the past, they've just chosen different paths potentially than what this applicant has that raise the situation to a level of maybe reconsideration.

I don't necessarily know that that's where we are, but I don't.

I don't know that that we aren't there.

Um and personally, you know, I would be open to um an SD zone for this one house to solve this problem in the absence of having staff maybe provide um feedback on other on whether or not we should look at the the code in general.

We are in the process of changing of updating all of our code because sometimes it needs to be updated.

Thank you.

Ms.

Nicholas had her hand up.

Go ahead, Chris.

Thank you.

Um I didn't know who brought this forward?

Was it you, Marcy?

The applicant.

Oh, the applicant brought this forward.

Um Lynn, what if if at anything, do we have to uh uh act on this or hear this again?

What is what is the uh proper sorry, Madam Chairman?

Sorry, Chris, I didn't mean to cut you off there.

The um this you you can't make a decision tonight because it's just listed as an informational item.

I think as a general matter, you don't have to vote on it, but you should at least uh let the applicant know whether or not you're going to vote on it or not, so that they know how to proceed.

Um so they they just need some kind of direction as to whether or not the council is interested in pursuing or exploring a solution for them.

Okay.

Thank you.

I also want to, I mean, and this I hope I'm not sounding too uh constitutional, but we are charged with obeying and defending the laws of Sandy City, and that can't be forgotten either.

So it's it's um it's definitely a tricky situation, but I just didn't want to forget that we we have a responsibility to adhere to the law.

Mr.

De Keiser.

Um Yeah, I I just want to share that it's uh obviously unfortunate that the applicants in this situation so definitely feel for you.

Um it's not great to be in this situation as a council member because we want to help them, but we have our responsibilities.

I I just want to uh let the council know my perspective.

I seemingly agree with most of what the chair has said, and I just wanted to to disagree with the cascade effect framing because I think from the beginning this place this home was an issue.

It was constantly pushing the limit of what was acceptable, the fourth story, everything wasn't to the correct plans.

The question about who is at fault, I think is important.

And so I think the true cascade effect would be a spot zoning decision or a special district and what's to come in future development in Pepperwood Hills phase three, et cetera.

So yeah, as unfortunate this situation is I didn't have much sympathy for the guy who had extra sheds, and uh this is just a really sad situation, but I think uh I would um yeah be reluctant to make a specific change.

So the question as to whether we're gonna vote on it is up to the applicant.

It's on the agenda for a vote next week.

If they want to remove it from the agenda, they have the right to do that.

If they want to move forward with the proposal as is and receive a council vote, it's on the docket for next week.

Ms.

Trapp.

Uh thank you.

I put in my um input as well on this.

Um, you know, and that it is this is an unfortunate situation.

You know, the house was built.

I I am reluctant.

You know, I I think staff has brought forward what you know, they've they've kind of provided some information, you know.

Uh Ms.

Christianson, you gave us you know those those possibilities as well.

Um, I did a very superficial search, you know, throughout the the county.

And uh, you know, I mean it's Salt Lake City has a cap of 30 feet.

West Jordan, Draper, Cottonwood Heights, Holiday, Murray, South Jordan, Riverton, Harriman, West Valley, and Magna all have 35 feet as well.

Mill Creek has a height of 32 feet.

Um, you know, so Sandy fits right in, and that is very superficial.

I could be, you know, inaccurate.

I I then extended down a little bit into Utah County.

Looked like your Facebook page said you were based on in Utah County.

I could be uncorrect on that, or uh Knighton.

Um and Provo is 35 feet.

American Fork is 36 feet, orum is 35 feet.

Lehigh is 40 feet or two stories, so not even four.

Uh and Provo, let me make that correction, 35 feet or two stories as well.

Um, you know, so looking at, I think that we are right, you know, that that's there are a lot of cities, a lot of uh municipal governments that have looked at this in the past.

Um if this is something that we wanted to look at, I think it would be something that would come, you know, with a code rewrite.

Uh but I do think you know, throughout the city, 35 feet, you know, that seems to be very common throughout the county.

Um, you know, making an exception for one home at a time.

I can't imagine doing this on a regular basis.

You know, for somebody that comes forward and says, you know what, we missed the mark by eight and a half feet.

That's a that's a a pretty big mark to miss.

Um, I I don't want to assign fault or blame to somebody.

Um, you know, I it does not sound like you know that it falls on on the city.

You know, that was a concern that I had as well.

You know, if this was something that that we messed up on, um, you know, that I would have you know some more struggles with with what to do.

But um, you know, I I think that if we are we we've we've requested well, we haven't requested, but staff has provided the alternatives.

Um, you know, this is it is very unfortunate, but I I don't think I would be open to looking at something to say, well, on a one-on-one basis, you know, every time somebody has an issue that they can bring it forward, we can look at this and to discuss that every single time.

That would be uh cumbersome uh for staff.

Uh that would be very time consuming for us to look at for homes, for businesses, for anything to be able to bring that forward.

So I'm you know, I I am less likely, you know, and and not leaning towards the point that we need to look at something other than you know, it it doesn't meet our building requirements.

Um, you know, and that's and once again eight, eight, eight and a half feet, that is a significant difference at some point.

I think even for me, I would be looking going, I think this house is getting a little too tall.

You know, maybe we should be looking at this and understanding that all the other houses in the area are also a certain height, and we are adding a complete additional story to it.

You know, at what point do you stop and say, let's make sure that we are doing what we're supposed to do.

Um, you know, an experienced builder doing some, you know, homes seven to ten or seven to twelve, I think is is what you had said a year.

Um, you know, and that's and looking at the pictures here, they look like very high-end, high quality homes.

So I think that you have that experience that I'm I'm surprised that somebody didn't stop and say, let's just double check.

So I I'm sympathetic to the position, but not you know, looking at at moving to making an exception.

So that's where I saw.

Thank you.

Ms.

Houseman.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um I understand you said to the applicant.

I was telling you.

No, no, you're good.

Um so you said to the applicant that the ball is kind of in their court in terms of uh the agenda.

We can pull it up.

They can okay, because I I'd like I under I understand I'm sounds like I'm a little outnumbered here, but um uh I think this deserves the same support that councilman Christensen gave to the to the business we mentioned earlier, and I'd like to I'd like to take that on and perhaps work with Mr.

Cadell.

Um I understand that we may not come back with something that you all could get behind, but I believe due diligence is is required here.

This is a really difficult situation.

We have worked through difficult situations before.

Um I'm not ready to just let it let it go.

So uh uh given that if if the council would would be willing, I'd be willing to take that on.

Mr.

Cadell, if you'd be willing, we could um explore.

I understand it sounds like you're not willing to ask staff to do that because you're not sure they would come back with anything different.

I think there are things that um we could do that have not yet been explored, and I'd like to just at least unpack them.

So um I know it's in in the applicant's court, but I'll offer that if if we are able to remove this from next week's I don't think a week is enough time to to have what we need to in my opinion take it and make an educative vote.

Um I also recognize though that that is asking for something that we cannot do.

That would be administration needs to approve the extension.

Um the the what was given was July 1st.

Um so I know that is something that I would need to ask administration and staff to consider working with the applicant on if we are going to um sort of table to use Mr.

Cadell's word this vote for a bit and and and see if we can do a little bit of of out of the box thinking.

So I offer that uh even though I know I'm a little outnumbered based on what has been shared tonight.

Can I see that is up to them?

They have the right to move forward on their application, but if they choose to take another route, we can definitely remove it and you'll be in charge of the agenda so you can you can find out from them when they're happy to bring it back.

So anything else?

We have a lot more.

Um I'm gonna keep going, you guys.

If anyone needs to take a health break, grab a snack, what a drink, whatever, do it while we are rolling.

So we're on to another information item.

Um Jake Warner, we're looking at a general plan amendment application.

Jake, are you going to handle seven and eight together or are you going to handle them separately?

Madam Chair, I was gonna just recommend that we do that that we handle those two items together.

They're closely aligned, and and I could do the same presentation twice, but uh I think I can do it all in one.

I don't think we've notice.

Go ahead.

Let's go ahead and combine them.

So I'm excited to be here.

This is historic.

You guys might not be as excited as I am about this, but this is the first general plan amendment to revise the future land use map of Sandy City that has ever occurred.

This is a common occurrence in other cities, but it is the first for Sandy City, as Sandy City did not have a future land use map until it was adopted as part of the general plan a year and a half ago.

So let me give you some context.

Um the Boyer Company has submitted applications for a general plan amendment and a rezone affecting property at 825 east, 9085 south, approximately seven 7.5 acres.

Uh the property is better known as the CTEC facility for the Canyon School District.

And the Canyon School District has found other property, another location for the that program for those facilities, and they have put the property for sale.

The Boyer Company has the property under contract, and they have come forward with a proposal.

The um the applicant has um met with staff over a significant significant period of time, going back um approximately a year to come to this point.

Um the uh property is currently designated as institutional in the future land use map of the general plan.

Institutional because of the school facilities.

Um if you recall, we have residential designations low, medium, very low, high density neighborhood designations.

Within those, we do count um small school facilities, small religious facilities as part of a neighborhood.

But for larger properties, um whether they be educational or religious in nature or other institutional types, um, we do we did designate them separately on the future land use map of the general plan.

And um anyway, this property is designates designated as institutional on three sides.

It does have a medium density neighborhood designation, and then it also has um some high uh density and some um uh limited commercial designation as well, adjacent to it.

The property is currently zoned R18.

Um educational facilities are allowed in residential zones, so it is consistent with the R18 zone, even though that is a residential uh zone district.

Uh the property is surrounded by PUD 10, PUD 7, PUD6, RM12, and then a convenience commercial uh zone as well.

Um the applicant is proposing a housing project of approximately well, as per their concept plan 86 units.

Uh again, that's 7.2 acres, so that does equate to 12 approximately 12 units per acre.

So the I failed to mention that on the future land use map, it's hard to see in this image, but the transition corridor overlay designation is also applied to 90th South.

If you recall that overlay designation is to open the door to introduce alternative housing types, kind of missing middle uh type housing.

So the frontage of that property does have that transitional corridor designation.

So there is an argument through the general plan that it already supports some type of medium density residential in that area.

It was staff's position that just because the frontage, there may be an argument for some of that housing along the frontage, that we did not want to assume that that automatically applied 500 feet deep across the full depth of that property.

So in discussions with the applicant, we felt like it would be a more open, transparent public process to also amend the underlying land use designation, that institutional land use designation.

And again, that provides a clear record.

If approved, that would um that would be that would align more directly the general plan, specifically the future land use map with the proposed project if you were to approve the um rezone as well.

So the rezone would be more aligned with the um with the um general plan in the transition corridor overlay and also the underlying land use designation.

And um the applicant's concept plan would be consistent.

Um sorry, it's struggling again.

The transition corridor overlay does allow for up to 16 units per acre.

The medium density designation that they're requesting allows for up to 12 units per acre.

Again, over the entirety of their project, it averages out to about 12 units per acre as proposed.

They do anticipate um having some bigger units, some more intention along the frontage, and again, that would be consistent still with the general plan in that the transition corridor is applied to that frontage.

Okay.

So uh with that, uh as mentioned, the applicant is requesting the medium density neighborhood um future land future land use designation as the general plan amendment, and they are requesting the PUD 12 as the re as the zoning with the rezone.

Uh this did go to a neighborhood meeting, and uh has been presented to the planning commission in a public hearing.

Um the planning commission forwarded uh positive recommendations on both the general plan amendment and the rezone, and as a legislative item, the uh planning commission is mandated by state code to hold that public hearing, and then it is required to come before you for a final decision, and it is before you tonight as in both applications are before you tonight as informational items, and it is scheduled to come back to you uh next week on the 14th for um action on these two applications.

Uh the applicant is represented here tonight, and staff is available for questions.

Ms.

Christensen.

So I know CTEC had some issues, and the neighbors seem happy to have a different development there instead of CTEC from the neighborhood meeting, right?

From both the neighborhood meeting and the uh planning commission public hearing, uh I did not hear anything but positive comments from the neighbors about this proposal.

Again, we've it was limited uh the number of people that spoke in both the neighborhood meeting and the planning commission, so I don't want to assume that that um you know that that represents everybody's feelings, but from those that spoke they were uh in favor of of the proposal.

Okay.

I the only way I personally am okay with this, which it's not a bad plan, but is if we have uh an agreement where these are owner occupied and we put there they're required to live there x amount of years, like we've talked about in our other missing middle developments.

Deed restrictions.

Thank you.

I couldn't think of it right that second.

So that's that's otherwise.

I s if that's not an option for me, then they might as well just make a Mar 18.

So that's my opinion.

We had a similar discussion around that with the Fortner uh rezone.

Um if you recall um developers usually see uh those deed restrictions as a little more um uh burdensome on them than requiring uh a for sale product on the Fortner um rezone.

There was a development agreement that required uh the units to be subdividable so that they could be individually sold, and so that was what was imposed on the Fortner rezone, just as a refresh of how that was handled.

I want I want um the applicant speak to that they have to be owner occupied for X amount of years like we've discussed if we really do want to address the missing middle piece of our city, then we and we want to grow our residents, we need people who have to stay here for a while.

And so and I will say that uh um staff is aware of of the council's fillings.

Um the applicant originally came to staff with um a more dense project proposal as a for-rent product.

Um they have stated that their intent is um to make these a for sale product.

And there has been some movement there.

But again, they can speak to their position.

And I appreciate that.

So just my opinion.

Thank you.

Okay, so I have a question kind of following up from um Councilmember Christensen's question.

Is this plan to is this going to have an HOA?

Is there a plan for an HOA?

I was well, it would have to.

There's common area usually that has to be uh managed by an HOA.

So and who who writes the C C and Rs for the HOA?

Um the applicant or the developer typically would do that.

Okay, so I have that done.

I'm trying to like creatively think through other alternatives outside of just deed restricting because that's a very specific mechanism that you know has other implications.

And you know, if there if there is an opportunity to consider for sale um and to maybe not put the the restrictions on the deed, but to put them in the C C and Rs, which you know again goes to the deed that that says that they can't be um rented for like a couple of years.

I'm just thinking of daybreak, like daybreak's master HOA has rental prohibitions for a period of at least 24 months that um you like an investor can't come in and purchase it, but it can be you maybe rented out in the future by like the homeowner has a different situation kind of a thing, but there's a there's maybe a few different ways to address that depending on tolerance and willingness, I suppose.

Um, one thing to that and I'm not a totally opposed to that.

I just um Farnsworth Farms just like jumps into my brain, and that's what we were agreed to, and then it never happened.

And so I I that's the only hesitation.

If we can find a way to make it stick, then I'm all for a different way.

Okay, and I I don't necessarily have any comments.

I just wanted to provide like maybe another way to think about how to accomplish the same thing that may not be as burdensome, maybe more palatable.

I don't know, but just wanted to throw that out there.

Um I do have a question about the transit corridor from what uh remind me what the intended future use of those transit corridors was.

Was it was it just housing?

So transition corridors, thank you.

Again, the idea was to open the door to alternative housing types along infrastructure where additional traffic and so forth could better accommodate um more traffic, more density.

Um, I was thinking about this as you were speaking with um Carlton Christensen earlier.

Um this is going deep into the general plan, but part of the purpose of the general of updating the general plan was to look at uh revitalization of some of our older commercial areas.

Some of our consultants told us that Sandy City has done a great job of developing commercial space, but some consultants have said it's almost overdeveloped.

We have a lot more commercial space than some of our surrounding cities relative to some of our surrounding cities.

And um and some of um sometimes um you know the the new up and coming commercial area can cannibalize existing older commercial areas.

Um there's also the transit supportive approach that um you know Carlton mentioned um focusing more on the on specific nodes in the city, and um so the idea is to open the door to all alternative housing types and maybe encourage encourage more commercial to go to those nodes to not be in the mid-block span of some of our corridors to encourage more commercial development redevelopment in those specific nodes that we've identified in the general plan.

So the transition corridor doesn't prohibit or discourage necessarily commercial explicitly.

It it if you look at the dashboard for it, it does say a a certain percentage will probably still be commercial, but it definitely encourages some of that missing middle development along those mid-block corridors.

Okay.

I love that you read my mind.

You're really good at that in this initiative.

I don't know if you're gonna do that.

I was just, yeah, I don't know where you were going, but I was just expressing.

And I get that that's kind of where you know where the need is and and in some ways where the money is, because you know, as Carlton just you know was saying, I understand that office space and retail is kind of difficult, but at the same time, you know, like that's where mixed use development comes in.

And I personally um really like the idea of mixed use development um in these areas, and I just want to make sure that we are not you know giving away all of our opportunities for those types of development, which I think personally are you know future looking.

I think that is ultimately what this valley will potentially look like largely in some period of decades down the road, and so you know, let's be thoughtful about that as opportunities come up.

And so my only you know hesitation, but at the same time I recognize I know where this is, you know, it is mid-block, and and trying to think about what maybe would fit and whatnot.

I don't know, but I felt like it needed to be said.

Thanks.

Ms.

Nickel.

Chris, go ahead.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Hey Brooke, I thought when you said long-term stability, I thought of another idea along with it, it's not necessarily a deed restriction, it would be in the CCNRs that a certain percentage, maybe say five or ten percent can be rented, can be rentals.

That's a good indicator.

That would prohibit it be it becoming all rentals as well.

I yeah, something like that would be great, or that way or a legislative um development agreement with the council, like any of those options, yeah, would be I think I'm just one you know I want to make these projects viable too.

And when you have um a deed restriction, like right off the bat, it sometimes affects the market.

And I and that affects of the market affect the project too.

So just another thing to look at.

I'm I'm all on board with a development agreement as well.

One other thing that I'd like to mention is I'd like the um exterior units that back existing residential to be single level.

Right now they're two level.

That's just a little note for the developer.

I finished, thank you.

Thank you.

Ms.

Housman.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um I stepped away for a bit, so I might have missed this.

Um I missed some great comments by myself, but maybe well, you'll have to repeat yourself.

Good thing it's recorded.

Yes, maybe.

Um in in explaining the surrounding properties and everything we've been doing with the master planning, we're we're talking about um transitions, we're talking about all of that.

Um but if I understood correctly, uh the surrounding area is certainly already PUDs, but this would be the most intensive version of a PUD as compared to around, right?

They're asking for PUD 12.

And is it the most the next most intense PUD 10?

Yeah, there's some PUD 10, PV6, PD7 around there, um, some RM12.

Um I do think that the homes to the south may be two stories.

They are small lot single family, but I think they are two stories.

Okay.

Um but this would be uh I guess from the general plan perspective, this would be that next step in the transition.

Okay.

You've got some R18 further to the south, you've got some RM12s, some PUD6, and then this would be the next step.

And then within their proposal, um you've got bigger units, larger setbacks around the south and east perimeter.

So that is a step in that transition, and then as you move move further to the north, their um little bit tighter units, and then right along the corridor there would be um they're proposing three-story units along the corridor and and a little tighter there as well.

So it it does transition within the project, but it also transitions you know naturally from what is existing.

So thank you for that.

Um and then I also want to echo what Councilwoman D'Souza said.

Uh love the idea of mixed use.

I I understand that that's not necessarily what's being presented to us tonight.

This is straight housing, which of course is needed.

Um and and to add upon what Councilwoman Christensen said around um owner occupied, uh you read that right, you've communicated that well on our behalf that that is definitely a priority is owner occupied.

But I want to add that I recognize and I think this is what councilwoman Nicole was sort of getting at as well.

I recognize that in order to get that I if if if that is our priority and and James Ms.

Sorenson has said this very clear as well in if we're going to make that our priority we we are going to have to think about incentives that we might allow to enable that to be attractive.

And so I I I felt like there's an opportunity to bring in that piece of the conversation we've been having because I am interested in you know perhaps I know maybe there's some other things we can explore but but if we look at deed restrictions and that does make it of of a more chal you know more of a challenge what incentives might we consider to sort of equalize that.

Do you have any thoughts on that?

Well I mean maybe the most straightforward is uh is density um you know the applicant had been looking at a few more units maybe a for rent product along the um along the frontage there I mean so there's some things there that they had desired and expressed a desire for some additional units some additional intensity along the corridor um but uh other than other than density um you know it's a lot of times it comes down to financial incentives um which is tough as well um you know there are situations you know RDA housing funds and stuff have been used in situations like this I can think of a project in South Jordan where that was done um where you know the there was a certain amount of funding given to um restrict a certain number of units uh indeed restrict a certain number of units um I think in that case um I think it was a f an affordability component along with the owner occupied component but um so um those are my thoughts off the top of my head that's helpful I I just sort of want to I want to make sure that all of the tools that you have taken the time to teach us about fold into the conversations we're having as these things come before us and so I had not yet heard incentives brought up and I I wanted to to bring that up because I agree with so much of what's been said is is we need to use the tools we have available to encourage home ownership but we also need to recognize um the burden that could come with that so what and these are discussions we're also having with our consultant on the code rewrite too how do we introduce how do we codify some of these things in the code so we're not having to reinvent the wheel every time a project comes forward.

The incentives are there if they meet certain triggers you know they get the anyway so we're we're having those conversations we'll see where that goes.

Yes and we can have them here too right like but but I appreciate I hope we have better tools in the future yes right as staff I mean we saw that with the last application right the better tools better outcomes we we hope that's that's the outcome of the code rewrite is we have some better tools for stuff like this.

Perfect perfect I think that's all I just sort of wanted to make sure you I added upon other things I'd heard.

So Jake the change in the future land use map from institutional is it well did we only designate it institutional because the school was there and we didn't want to create a noncompliance not being able to foresee every change.

It's a we anticipated that there would be revisions to the future land use map and we we actually encourage that again as part of the open transparent process of making this these decisions.

So I'm totally fine with the change on that part of it.

So um to the density um you know I did do a drive through all the housing developments adjacent to it are all two story they're all they're PUDs PUD6 and PUD7 we're proposing PUD12 here.

You know the only PU D12 that we have in Sandy right now is a development off 78 that I refer to as slot canyon of garages.

Yeah.

It just very dense.

It's very narrow.

All you see are garages.

There are there's a carve out where two doors are right next to each other, so there's like this little indent.

It is not hospitable.

It is not nice.

I remember at one time someone in planning saying we made a mistake on that one.

I'm looking at this one, and what I'd like to hear from the developer is how I can concede that maybe the layout m could potentially alleviate that problem.

And so I'll be looking for signs that that won't be the case here.

But you know, it's R18 now, which is basically maybe you could get five units per acre out of an R18, and this is more than double that.

Um I don't begrudge the ask.

I'm a little concerned about the density and what we're creating, and so I want to get more comfortable with that aspect of it.

Like I said, we only have that one, and it is it's not good.

The the sh the common areas are kind of between the buildings, so you don't really see them.

It's just not a great development.

It is not the it is not the building of a community.

I think the people that live there do not get together.

There's just not a way to do that.

And so anyway, I I'm hoping that this development creates a little self-contained community and has all the amenities needed for it to produce that.

And I'm worried about a PUD-12.

So I'll be looking to gain some more comfort in that.

Go ahead.

Random question.

The development behind the DI.

How dense is that I think it's a fairly dense.

I uh calculated that it at one time.

Um I think I think a couple of his projects are fairly fairly dense.

Because I I consider that a pretty dense neighborhood, but I don't it's not 12.

I I that's what I'm wondering.

I don't think it's what is it, mind bearing mics on it.

I don't I'm not even sure.

Because I think that's a really well done neighborhood that creates the more inviting atmosphere of neighbors, and so I can tell you that the PUD zone is the only residential zone that we allows for rear-loaded units, and if you do that, they have to front on what we call a pedestrian mew, a 23 uh a minimum of a 23 foot wide green space.

So on this particular concept that they've provided, we've worked with them quite a bit.

Um the main road there running east and west.

Um those would have front-loaded units on it, the yellow ones would be front-loaded.

All the rest in there are alleyways that would be rear-loaded.

A lot of that gives um you know the aesthetic from 90 south.

Is it Sherlene?

Like, I'm not sure how it does give a better aesthetic because they would be fronting onto 90 south and the other road there.

Um and then internally they they would be fronting onto green courts, but if you're driving through the alleyways, you would be seeing the rear of the units.

So it doesn't give that neighborhood feel.

From a car it doesn't.

If you're walking through the neighborhood, you would be walking through those green courts.

That's where the pedestrian access is is focused is on the green courts.

Yeah.

So um to answer your question about the Brad Reynolds uh development behind the DI, it's zone to NU, which doesn't have a density limit.

It's more based on design.

Um their proposal considered uh 10.4 units per acre based on the total acreage, but there is some additional land area dedicated to roads that don't have any units fronting it, so it has some other pieces, so it's actually a little bit more dense when you look at it just within the the box of the development, not the roads extending out.

So uh it's probably closer to 11 or 12.

Okay.

And and I will say um, Ms.

Sharkey, that uh there are several other developments that are PUD12 in the city, not just the one on 78th.

I think she was referencing it that they've that the council was approved in the last several years.

Okay.

Sorry.

There's been some RMR 12s approved.

There's only been one PUD 12.

What other PU D 12s are there?

There's several others.

Uh the Riverside um over by the golf course has areas of PUD 12.

Um older developments along 78th.

Um, but there are other areas of PD PUD 12 that have a variety of different design outcomes because the PUD allows a lot of variability.

It doesn't have a predicted, you know, development outcome.

It allows for a lot of creativity and flexibility.

Um that is why you get a variety of different housing types out of that.

So I will say I appre I appreciate the fact that it's proposed as a PUD rather than an RM.

To me, that would be a problem.

There are more design controls in a PewDiePie than there are an RM.

Okay.

Mr.

Souza.

Thank you.

I have a question.

It it just kind of dawned on me.

I I think I interpreted the picture wrong.

On 90 South, the darker orange where their rear load, the the 90th south facing.

That's the front, right?

Like a front door would be.

As they are proposing here, yes.

Okay.

Okay, so here's my thought.

The speed limit on 90th.

Do you know what the speed limit is?

Anybody else have 40?

And is that the same on um seventh?

Yeah.

Yeah.

It's 45 on seventh.

Okay.

I was gonna say because you wouldn't want your kids coming out of that.

Well, when the orchard was built, I I I remember being a little taken aback by how close the front door seemed to the you know, to the main road.

And just from like a safety and speed standpoint, um, I don't know.

I just wanted to make sure to call that out.

And I am assuming that the plans are going to be drawn to the you know, minimum setback, but I would really if this is approved, consider the safety of those units and their occupants along that main road.

It is a pretty like main thoroughfare fare through the entire city and is probably more heavily trafficked than seventh.

So just to point out the city does own a sliver of property between the sidewalk and officially the canyon school district property, so there is a little bit of air kind of uh it's technically not right of way, but there would be some additional property there that they would not be able to build into unless the city were to sell or relinquish that property.

Okay, I just remember thinking when when Orchard was done.

Maybe that considers a relook at what those setbacks are in these situations.

So I that was my my thought going, oh my gosh, those are you know really close.

I still feel that they're pretty gosh darn close to a more heavily trafficked higher speed road.

That's those are my comments.

Does the applicant want a chance to speak tonight?

Thank you, Council.

I'm Spencer Moffat with the Boyer Company.

Um this is Jim Wright, he's our consultant and legal representation.

Um I won't take much time.

Uh I know it's been a long meeting, it's been an interesting meeting, and I appreciate the the thoughtfulness and and thoroughness of uh the council.

Um just to to maybe address a couple of the questions.

I know this is more of a fact-finding um mission.

It's fact-finding for both of us.

It's helpful to get some of this feedback and understand uh some of the the directional guidance.

Uh as uh was alluded to, we did spend some time on this plan.

It's certainly not set in stone.

This is a concept plan.

We're obviously asking for a you know general plan amendment and a rezone.

So you know, there's there's some flexibility here.

Uh I do want to say we we did spend a uh quite a bit of time and a couple of things to highlight.

Um you asked what does this look like.

We just completed a project very similar to this uh on the old RC Willie site in Murray across from Wheeler Farm.

Um that would give you a good comparable.

That's 12 units to the acre.

Um it would be similar to this, although not exactly.

It will give you a sense of what that density looks like, um, kind of how that lives and how that feels.

So that may be a good comparable for you to drive through.

It also will give you a feel for what type of work uh we have done recently.

Um, you know, and and just one thing that is very important.

We we made a lot of mistakes along the way, and we hope to, you know, we we've talked about things that you've learned in lessons.

One of those is parking.

Parking is always a big issue, especially when you get in these townhome communities.

We know that, like any other homeowner, a lot of these residents will have visitors, family members, friends come over, they'll fill their garage with stuff and need somewhere else to park.

So we we plan for driveways in each one of these, a two-car driveway, in addition to a two-car garage.

So our intent is to have these feel and live very much like a single family home, and I think you'll see that in Murray.

They're larger units that feel you know more spacious, and these are places where people can settle in and feel like you know they don't have to move out the second they move in.

And then just amenitization is really important.

We found it doesn't have to be big, but it has to be thoughtful.

We found, and I think uh you know, I forget his name was it Carlton Christensen talked about the changing demographic of this younger um their younger homeowners and and and users of these properties.

Um, our number one amenity, believe it or not, is one gig internet.

It's they that's the first question they'll ask is how fast is the internet up and down.

Um, number two is do you have a pickleball court and can I bring my animal?

Um you know, they want a community where they can have animals, dog parks, and different things.

So we've learned these lessons, we've tried to incorporate it.

By no means is this plan perfect, but it's something that we you know we'll we'll refine it and get better.

Um as far as mixed use, I appreciate that.

Uh Scott, who is here with me, that's all Scott does is retail.

Uh, I think he still has battle scars from Cory Bend 20 years ago, so he's reticent to come up here.

Um, but I don't, you know, we we would love it to be a mixed use community.

We would love to have a retail component.

That is one of our core businesses and perhaps our core business above and beyond residential.

We looked at it initially for that use.

Um it just doesn't work for that use.

Um being mid block, you you alluded to that, and just what's around it, and there's there's already that core residential at um Cory Bend, and so this is a little bit hard for from traffic from a traffic pattern perspective from a mid block location, and so we pivoted from that point to to the residential.

So uh just you know, kind of that thought process.

We did look at that, we did evaluate it.

We would love for that to work for us.

It I'm not saying that it wouldn't work for someone else, but for us, it wouldn't, uh it just wasn't that wasn't an option.

And then to the deed restriction point, that's something you know, we could certainly consider that would be really challenging, and I'll be candid with you.

Uh we were selected on this property because we offered the most money to the district, they needed to use these funds to relocate to their new facility, and so um you know, we were the ones who paid them the most money.

Um, and so there's some challenges economically.

That's not an excuse, it's just a challenge as a potential property owner here.

Our cost basis is extremely high.

Um, that's not your problem, but implementing a deed restriction and restricting what we can sell or or do on these would be very problematic and remove a property right for us that would be hard for us to continue just in the interest of transparency and candor.

Um, that would be something that's difficult, but we're open to have discussions about different options.

We we recognize the need for housing and and um especially that middle housing, it is a significant issue that we see not only here but across the Wasatch Front.

Um so those are kind of just to talk through some of them on the the ownership.

We we we're open to the ownership.

One thing we have said to staff along the way is you know, markets change and to restrict property use becomes very difficult for us as a developer.

We will develop it and it'll be a long-term, it'll be two to three years before you know it's finished.

When we're finished, we don't know what the market will look like.

Interest rates are at 9%, no one can buy a home.

You know, we would like to maintain some flexibility to perhaps do rentals or do other options.

I'm not saying that we're coming in to to present a rental project.

I just want to be transparent that we want to preserve options, um, and we're happy to have discussions with the council and with staff on different different things and what that would look like.

We understand the need for for sale product, and we're open to that.

We will plat these individually so that that that is an option.

I just don't want to do a bait and switch.

Um, I know there's been a bad experience with another developer, and our intent is to to about just keep our options open.

We're very early in this process.

We don't know what it will look like down the road.

Construction cost, interest rates, demand, pricing, and everything else.

Um, but we've heard the message loud and clear that the preference is for ownership opportunities, and and we're certainly open to that, and we've done that in multiple communities that were developed.

We're not coming in with it uh a set agenda of what we need to do.

So I just wanted to put that out there as well.

Everyone knows that's where we are, and I've taken enough time.

So, what form did that take in those other communities with the ownership?

Was it through the C C and Rs?

Um, yeah, well, no, just for cell product.

When we developed it, we just sold it to individuals.

So that was that was the ownership opportunities.

So that was that was the ownership opportunities we have also done for rent, and I will tell you, you know, this is calculus that we've been through in other communities.

Um the cost to buy a town home and pay a mortgage on a town home for at 6.5% for a $600,000 town home, they're at a $4,000 a month payment.

It's very, very expensive.

We have seen a pivot to the four-rent product because we're able to borrow more cheaply on institutional debt, because we get some economies of scale, and because we can manage it ourselves, we're able to get rental, you know, a thousand to fifteen hundred dollars below that.

So we provide rental opportunities that you know have a town home in a good area, and they're significantly less than an ownership opportunity.

And I think you're seeing that in several um cities across the front.

I'm not saying that's the right way to do it.

I'm just saying that's one of the things that's happening in the market.

Um, and it's it's not I'm not saying that that's what we'll do for this community, it's just a changing dynamic of the housing market across the Wasatch Front.

Um and so in some instances we've elected to go that four-rent route, and we have we are kind of meticulous about controlling.

We found often that when we sell communities to individuals that it becomes de facto rentals, and they pay a mortgage rate, so they try to rent it out at that four thousand dollar a month rate plus, you know, a little bit, and it becomes very expensive.

They don't care about it.

They own one unit in a community of however many it is, and so when we control everything, we're able to be uh more thorough on tenant evaluation, on screenings, on income verification, on on just maintenance and everything else.

So we have some of those communities, not all of our townhome communities have been for rent.

We've we've sold a lot too.

So we we have both options at our disposal.

I just you know want to be transparent on that.

Ms.

Strapp.

When did you purchase this?

Uh we have not, we're under contract.

So we're still in due diligence with the Canyon School District.

Okay.

And then you know, reinvesting into eBay.

But uh, you know, and that's and I I think a lot of the questions that have been brought up.

Um I think it was maybe December that I met with you guys, uh, you know, over.

On a zoom called during class, I think.

Yeah, at school over lunch.

Yes.

Um and and just about everything that the council has brought up, you know, I brought up at that time as well.

You know, looking at first sale units, um, you know, that the question of density on that, um, you know, and that's in and you brought up as you know, bringing back that, well, you know, here's the rental, here's for sale, you know, looking at things like that.

Um, you know, the you know, the other questions that I brought up, you know, for the the council, you know, just kind of consider you know, is looking where it looks like that corridor.

And I did bring up actually Farnsworth Farms, you know, and the concern that I had with them and them going from for sale to for rent, you know, without letting us know and just moving in that direction.

For sure.

Um, you know, and then also that those were very, very close to 7th East.

Um, and I and after after we met, I actually either that night or the following drove by Farnsworth a couple of times to look at it, and nobody was out front, nobody was on their porch.

You know, and I think it was more it's more of just aesthetics of what it is.

You know, you enter, you come from the back, you're not going to go out to 7th East where it's loud because you just you can't hear you can't, it's not a a um friendly place to have a conversation.

It's not applicable to it, you know.

So it is more of just aesthetics.

Uh you know, I a concern that I brought up is that it started to look, you know, right down 90th, which is a very busy road in Sandy, as it just started to look because we do have two very significant apartment complexes right along 90th, that it just started to look like a tunnel, and actually maybe that was Jake.

I think you and James that I brought that up with after.

Um, you know, but you know, breaking those up a little bit helps.

Um, the just to the east, you know, they have uh you know a gated community, and that community um, you know, I think a little bit of a buffer, and we talked about this on that east end up there uh where you have just the four units and then some more of that grass area, so it does give a little bit of a buffer to those homes that have that gated community.

Um, in that area, they are they're ready for C Tech to move on.

Um they've had they've had their challenges with things that are left behind.

Um, you know, walking through you know the multi-use path that they have, you know, even just east of that between the church.

You know, I I still, and I and I also I think when I brought up with you guys, you know, concerned about that density as well, you know, that it is very dense, um, you know, and having that many housing units because not only do we have uh Alpine Meadows and then Rock Ledge, which are the four-story apartment complexes, um, but then up with Cory Bent, you know, with the significant amount of townhomes that are up in there plus another smaller apartment complex.

But you know, it's I did not bring up a multi-use, primarily looking at the size of it and trying to figure out parking, additional parking that to bring in or you got commercial use on that.

But um, you know, it's a it's a tough area, I think, to make match something, you know, just busy with 90 South.

Uh, you know, I I can appreciate what you what you guys have done and brought this forward.

You know, I do like the the for sale, and I understand what you're saying, you know, the rental for sale.

Um, but that is something that we are trying to to provide, and it's I mean $4,000 a month is a lot of money.

And that is a lot of money, but looking at units that people can can say Sandy is my home.

For sure.

No, no.

No, and that's not just my, you know, well, you know, that's just my apartment or where I'm at for now, you know, but this is where I'm landing for quite a while.

So, you know, I do like looking at that, whether it's through CCNR, um, whether it's a percentage of it, but I would like to see all, you know, or at least a significant amount of them for sale, you know, and and and looking at that.

Um, you know, I know we talked about dog park, uh, and that's and you brought up internet, and I was surprised, you know, that was that was one of them in pickleball.

And I could see that you have pickleball up there, and you know, hopefully a dog friendly community.

But you know, a lot of this what was brought up, you know, and and you listened on that, and then following up a little bit with community development.

But you know, I think the the community itself in that area, we do have a bit of a buffer, you know, with the homes because they back up to it.

So you know, it's it is a little more concise, but it also is just a community in and of itself.

So I that's love the discussion of where we're at and and what we're thinking on this.

Um, you know, I think if we move forward with with adjusting general plan and then also looking at a rezone, is that we would want to I what I'm hearing with the council is want to look at something of you know ensuring you know at least a significant amount of it as for sale units.

No, I appreciate that, and that's a it's a helpful dialogue for us to have.

Just curiously on the 90 South, would you prefer that they back uh the homes back against 90 South?

No.

I uh for me, aesthetically, no.

Um I mean I I think for a homeowner, you know, then you know, possibly them looking saying, well, you know, then I'm not if I'm sitting out on my porch, but you know, for the uh the aesthetics and the and the beauty of the city, we have a lot of people coming up 90 South and to see a bunch of garages in the backyard or even trying to back onto 90th South.

If you're back on, you're just gonna see the backs of people's homes with a lot of garbage.

Well, and that's an I think whether it's yeah, yeah.

So we're we're open to I just we're open to either scenario.

I I would agree with you though, that having the front of the homes just from an aesthetic perspective would look a lot better for those coming up and down street, and that is your right of busy street, but I think the setback will be very important.

I agree with that.

Definitely, definitely, and and I wasn't sure about you know the city portion on there, but yeah.

So that's great.

You know, the really great feedback.

Thank you.

Mr.

Sousa.

Thanks.

Really quick.

I just wanted to throw out maybe one more idea.

You something that you had said, you know, about the the cost and the reality of it from a four-sale product, um, kind of made me think, and so here's just something else that I'm gonna throw out in terms of like a four-sale product, it sounds like at this point, you're planning to offer all of them for sale.

We we we candidly we have not decided.

I mean what we will build, we I mean, we're still, as you know, we have the this process, then the preliminary, then a final, then architecture, then everything else.

So we've heard that the preference is to do for sale, and we will plat them individually, and we we understand that there's strong preferences for sale.

So okay, because I was gonna say, you know, we talked about you know, like the data restriction, and we talked about you know, limiting and C C and Rs, but at the same time, from a realistic standpoint, the cost to enter like from a four-sale product is a lot more, like the the rental prices have come down, and it I hate to say this as a realtor, but it almost it costs more money to be a homeowner right now than it does to be a renter, right?

And so um so at the point of uh purchasing a home, if there is a willingness to offer them for sale, um the cost alone mitigates the risk that somebody's gonna purchase it to turn around to be a rental because you know, for the most part, you're not gonna be able to rent it out for what you owe for it unless you bought it free and clear, and even that doesn't necessarily make financial sense.

You're spot on.

I mean, even right now, rentals would be challenging because of Cory Bend.

If you go across the street, there's town homes for rent there that are significantly below what we could potentially rent this for.

So the market is going to solve a lot of these problems.

Um the challenges that the market is the land cost and the construction cost, that's what we're solving too.

And so I wish we could bring home prices down.

Me too.

I really do.

It's really challenging, but I I totally agree with you.

Well, and I I wanted to make that point just to kind of give people ideas on you know, obviously, whatever everybody's tolerance level is, and that may be different, but that's just another way to maybe naturally mitigate for some of the concerns, assuming that there's a willingness to at least offer for sale.

But that's all I had.

Thanks.

Anything else, council?

Anything else, Jake?

Thank you, Speaker.

We appreciate your feet.

I appreciate the feedback, that's really helpful.

Again, okay, where are we?

All right, Miss Christensen.

Got to you.

All right.

So we have um this item is a first reading, it's a proposal to explore whether our current representation model for our city council is fitting the needs um and the best way to serve our residents.

Um I don't want anyone to take this, especially if you're in an at large position personally, because that is not how it's meant in any way.

I'm primarily looking at this from a district one lens as I started going through this process.

Um let me pull it up, guys, so I can make sure I hit all the spots.

Um if you gave a positive recommendation to move forward with this, it would mean that we would be looking at if our districts are split evenly, I'm trying to gauge your interest in adjust possibly adjusting the number of districts we have.

Um this memo is a pro a proposition to look at a seven district model.

Um I'm open to other options if everyone needs other options to be looked at, like a five two or a six one or different things like that.

And even as I've talked to some of you, possibly just readjusting the districts boundaries, because there is a bit of an inequity at this point in time.

The current district one size is 27% of the city.

Um D2 is 24%, D3 is 25%, and D4 is 24%.

So they're not huge differences, but there is uh at least a three percent difference in sizes.

Um and I'm looking specifically at district one right now.

When you look at district one from one side of the city to the other, you have um neighborhoods that have two Title I schools, they have four or five trailer parks right there, they have a lot of apartments and rentals, they have really large roadways and intersections, they have a lot of like business and public service, and then you go to the other side of district one, and there are houses for sale over four million dollars right now in multiple neighborhoods.

It is a vastly different demographic, and that's where the first ideas about this came up in my in my mind.

Um so that's what I would like to look at.

I know you've all seen the memo.

There's pros and cons.

The biggest con in my mind is that it's a change, and changes can be a little scary or different sometimes, depending on the change.

And so, other than that, I really feel like the representation of someone directly in your like in a closer proximity to your neighborhood helps um represent those neighborhood issues that are important to you.

And I know when we have out large, and everyone on the council is really good at doing that, if representing the entire city, but I think that in general, you don't run for city council just for your neighborhood, you run for this to help the city be better, and so I think that that's something that might be a concern, but isn't a huge concern for me.

So, what questions do you guys have would be or feedback on this if it were to go forward?

Mr.

Souza, I'll start just for the sake of time too.

And you know, we've got other items, and I I appreciate your your statement that it's not meant to be personable personal or divisive, and you know, I I feel that I believe that.

I think that we can have this, you know, conversation.

Um question really quick.

In terms of like your your statement that district one is you know X amount bigger than other districts.

Are you talking about like land size?

Population.

Okay.

Okay, because we did, you know, we did do the redistricting when the census came out, and following that in early and the early 2020s.

Those are 2020 census numbers.

Yes.

That it's still that with 2020 census numbers.

Okay.

And so thank you.

Um one of the conversations that came up during uh that process was exactly what you're proposing, and a couple of different iterations of it.

Um ultimately, you know, that conversation didn't move forward, and we looked at just adjusting the boundaries.

And the boundaries that were proposed by um I think it was staff trying to, you know, be very unbiased and and create these evenly sized districts from a population standpoint, um, presented some options, and there was maybe an option that would have affected you know, district one and four more that was looked at but not heavily considered because you know, especially at the time the district what rep that was serving in district one lived in the area that would have districted that representative out of district one for the next election, right?

And so, you know, there um I think that there may be opportunities to like mid to mid-census, look at maybe redistricting or excuse me, um looking at the boundaries and do they still make sense and maybe what other options may make sense.

Um I can I can understand the argument about you know demographic and similarities and you know representations and things like that.

Um I think it's important.

I don't know that I have any interest right now to revisit the whole let's change the entire makeup of the city council districts and at larges.

I think that that would be a more appropriate conversation at a redistricting time when that's more um of a uh planned known kind of regular occurrence.

Um but for the sake of of considering some of the changes that weren't some of the some of the options that were presented that weren't selected, I think that there is an opportunity to maybe um consider what that looks like uh if if that's something that you're interested in moving forward, I could I could support looking at that.

That doesn't mean that I'm you know that what comes back makes sense ultimately, but I could support maybe looking at that.

Okay.

Um I do I do think that there is value in at-large council members.

I know I probably sound like a biased person because I'm an at-large council member, um, but thinking about the districts, every single area of the city does have district representation, right?

And so the I think the argument that is being made is maybe those districts are too large to feel that everybody is adequately represented.

Um I don't know that I agree with that if that's the you know the basis for that argument.

Um thinking about you know, I while I represent the city at large, um, I live in district four, and I'm thinking about the entire area of district four.

I know it well, I ran there once, and um, you know, I live on one end, my child goes to school at the other end and has friends kind of all around the schools, which basically encompass almost the entire district.

And so from a representation standpoint, understanding the demographic and makeup and the needs and the um challenges of the area, you know, I I I personally feel that the current district representation is adequate for um closeness, so that's one of the reasons that I'm not um feeling that the argument to create additional districts is as impactful for me right now.

Okay, um you know that the idea that an at-large council member, and I know that you're not saying that, right?

I'm but the say for the sake of the conversation and and kind of getting it all out there, um, you know, I I would say that then you know, does that mean that the mayor can't adequately represent the entire city because the same situation applies, elected official, different role, but you know, same representation.

So I do think that there could be a lot of stalemates or conflicts of interest um among only district representation that could make some decision making more challenging because sometimes people are too close to be able to see the bigger picture in those situations.

Um but anyway, those are my comments.

That's what I would be open to explore at this time.

But I think I appreciate that.

And that's why I also brought up the five-two option as well, because I mean if we're just looking at like representation, another just fact to throw out there is that um we have eight elected officials in our city, and one of them lives below 7th East.

And I'm not saying you can't represent it if you don't live there.

I'm just saying geographically, one out of eight members lives below 7th East, and that's 31% of our population lives below 7th East.

And if we look at below 13th East, then you're up to two council members that live below 13th East in our city, and we're up to 54% of the population.

And so another asset to come from uh perspective to come from as well.

But I appreciate that.

Thank you.

Ms.

Stroud.

Oh, I have lots of comments there.

Um I it's you know, and I think I think you know, having district representation, you know, one thing is you know, to consider that even with our districts, there's seven of us, but I still represent one-seventh of the vote.

So, you know, and and twenty-four percent of the population has an opportunity to to select the person that's going to make one-seventh of the vote.

Um, and and for me personally, I have done things in other districts, and I have I I mean, I have voted for things, I've gotten things moved.

I, you know, one that really comes to mind is you know, Aaron.

Uh, you know, it like a year ago or something, I remember you sending me a text and you said, Oh my gosh, you got something done, and I think it was district four.

Um, and it was something that's supposed to be done.

I know, I know.

I I knew I knew exactly what it was.

I wasn't sure if you want to, yeah.

You know, there's a sidewalk item um that was scheduled to be completed in a few months, and through um working with with public works, we got it scheduled for the next week.

Um, and that was something that you know, but then you know, there was a need for it, it was a safety issue, it was it was by a school, but that was something that then bumped it forward, and that was something I did for district four.

I think it was in four.

I don't know if you remember exactly where it was.

I think it's district four.

Um, but there's been other times that's that I have done things for other districts as well.

Um, and that's so I I do work for the entire city, um, even though district two those residents are the only ones that are voting for me.

Um so I I think you know, to say, you know, well, I I mean my heart, my home, you know, lives with district two.

I'm mostly I'm more familiar with that and the challenges of that area.

Um, but I I can see a need in another part of the city and make sound decisions for that, and I have done that multiple times.

I've done that in district one, and I've also done that in district three.

Um so you know, I it's I like the ideas of the districts, you are more in tune to it, but you know, can understand you know that that could also pose a challenge with you know, maybe it's I think actually Mike Applegarth used the term of carving people out of their districts.

Um, you know, that that's and it wouldn't necessarily be districts, but it could be creating a district that then doesn't have um an official member you know, it'd have to be a time.

Um you know, they'd have to be an at-large, but you know, looking at possibly a five-two, um something like that.

Uh you know, it's it was something before when we did this.

We had a fair amount of you know, of pop-ups, um, you know, and and doing this educational process, and that's and it and it was a little tough, you know, because everything had to twist, you know, and we had to move and realign, and I think it was one and two that were significantly higher than three and four, um, you know, but it to try to alter that.

So, you know, I I don't know, you know, we'd be doing this again in five years, you know, when it pops up, and maybe that's the time that we're looking, although it's promoting the idea of creating more districts, but realigning right now, um, maybe it is just going to five, and then we see how that's you know what what the discussion looks like here, and then possibly looking at seven in five years.

Um, I mean, there's a lot of possibilities to look at this, and I think you've done a great job of of outlining pros and cons to both.

Um, you know, as questions pop up, you know, I think we just kind of take a look at it.

But you know, I'm I'm always willing to to take a look at maps to take a look at ideas to kind of see where we're moving beyond that because I I don't have the same concern, but I've only been a district representative, so I haven't been an at-large member.

Um but uh you know I I welcome looking at something else, um, but also understand you know that maybe it is something that we're waiting that four years as well.

So if this went forward, you'd be comfortable looking at options for five and two or seven and one or boundaries.

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Always willing to look at things.

Thank you.

Ms.

Houseman.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um great discussion.

I think it's always important to to think about representation and like we said earlier, think again.

Like I I think it's it's always worth checking why we do what we do.

Um, what have we not considered?

I so I think it's worth it.

Uh the things I would add to kind of what's been already shared, I don't want to be redundant.

So I think what I've not yet heard is the public approach.

Like if we are potentially the body that then determines the districts and all of that, and we do it exclusive of voters, that like that could feel odd.

So I didn't I don't know that you saw that out.

Yeah, there is a public um input steps required by law, right?

Law.

It is actual so we have to go through a public input process, and there's like requirements for that piece of it as well.

So it would definitely have public input.

Okay, okay.

And maybe I missed that in the in the middle.

So thank you for that.

Um let's see.

Yeah, I think you can.

Yep.

So you mentioned, I think, in in the memo, a work session, or is that what this is?

Are you considering this the work session?

A work session once we actually have like if it got to the point, like if we bring this back, I would expect that I would need to have GIS work on maps with the population, and um have them do it, and then we would have to like talk through it and give feedback and see if this was something that would work for us in terms of like a second work session, like that would I would sec work session, second reading to discuss it, however we want to like couch that.

Okay.

I I I would imagine this would be a lot longer process.

I at least that would be my recommendation, not just a first reading and then come back and we're gonna do that.

I think the tentative timeline goes for like four months, five months.

Yeah, I it's like at a very aggressive pace, which is what the tentative timeline in there is, it goes through the end of September, but that's highly aggressive.

Yeah, I don't want to be highly aggressive.

No, it would be if we did something where we changed it, we would just need to make sure it's in time for before January.

January, when do we do Dustin?

Correct me.

It's when we put out the announcements of for the next election so that people understand exactly what they're it might that might be the end of this year, right?

I don't recall the deadline.

Okay, so that they know that well, like if you're going to run for an office, the two seats that are up next year, three, however many seats are up next year.

I don't know.

But that they would have four, thank you.