All right.

Oh no.

I don't know.

There's something wrong.

I try exiting and rejoining.

So there's a lot of other things that would like to address or changes what you know as well.

But that's it was basically that one.

I mean, if it captured it, it basically sells whatever discussion was now extended.

I mean, we have this guest houses.

But there is a fee only on a very large lot.

You know, this is what we have right now for X.

Shares and stuff like that.

Yeah, but you would bring that up.

So like oh wait, well there's kind of five.

Yeah, who is trying to give it in terms of just uh like a furry on hot average and outlet size those like isn't it?

So relevant first are already those same things for accessories.

That's what that's it.

That's what it was pulling up.

But like my lot they said, my office is 10,000 square feet, so I could set them up square feet.

Exactly.

Or yeah, and that would make it a lot possible, but so yeah, so it seems like there already is something to work on.

Yeah, that's just the nature of the documents for the accessory buildings that I created.

There's I mean there's nothing uh I think that it's for a sensory but seven hundred and fifty square feet, that's bigger than six hundred and fifty.

I don't know.

So that would be a place to start.

Well, the six six fifty um is just in relative to the parking requirements in terms of state law.

It's a statewide shooter.

Then they have 650 uh or F2 or is just what you could require the parking space up to 650, it was beyond that and require to a parking space.

Uh but they don't require it to be you know at least six fifty aggregations, but it serves the state law.

I was born in work on base, so I throw my house.

I drove my office, which I don't see how big of a detached do I think it's not basically I mean, kind of I think that concern I had about everybody coming in and popping up with this patch square in the laws.

The way the house is fulfilled by the setback, there's just a lot of back if you have that one foot setback for two-story school.

Yeah.

Or yeah, or attach it and that way it would be more efficient to patch it.

Yeah, yes.

And then I have already met.

And then I'll print it off for an expedition.

I have a co-worker who wants to put a little one in his backyard or his parents.

So I kind of thought, well, that's kind of nice to actually see a floor by an elevation.

I could write that off.

During our last discussion, I think we we all generally had some pretty cohesive box uh around where I think that really one of the areas will uh maybe very good.

I should understand this one.

Uh certainly uh we want to subprint out that we have circulated around and have a discussion on it.

Yeah, yeah.

Um but I don't know, I just my memory of that last meeting is that uh you really were pretty implied for me part of the box on things.

There might be and that's why I think that's fitting to uh be going through something, you know, like that alignment so that we can really on what it is.

We do not forward and that would be nice.

Do we so we do know where the council things what they're doing is to all know if they're possible?

Would we be able to know what that is as we're going through our discussion?

That will be part of our presentation uh when when we present our recognition, because what what we're attempting to do is spread the needle between everybody, right?

Because it is true, council has a more conservative approach to this.

Um you I think are a little bit more uh liberal and and wanting to allow these and allow a lot more than what the council would want to be.

Um I think there's some sentiment to start at a certain point and progressively add more as they get comfort.

Like you're much more comfortable out the out the gate, so to speak, um, then your council.

Um but as a planning commission, do you have the prerogative to make your own recommendation?

That that may exceed what our recommendation is.

Right.

Um then the council can then decide if they want to go with um staff's recommendations, if they like your changes.

Um ultimately there's a legislative body, they're the ones that get to decide these things for uh for the city based on recommendations for staff, based on recommendations for you as a planning commission, and then decide how to move forward from there and get paid so that's so.

I think what Cameron was saying, I think one of the concerns that a lot of people have is that they think this is just uh open to the monuments.

Um that there's it's gonna be just this massive brush of the open ordinance because we've got a lot of management like so many uh gas being used.

Um and so I think I think it'd be great to see more stuff here.

I think that if there was our last discussion, uh staff was also going to look at basically a lot of smaller size lots within the city.

So we say out we have our systems.

Again, if you're doing a new subdivision, you can actually have a small lot that is designed to have a home and asking you in a way better manner than existing all like way better.

Um but um the fact matter is uh I think there's a lot of fear around it.

This is going too quite in five days.

Um the ability to get these on a lot of losses of it, is it cost is fine?

So those two factors, I think we can pull things back a lot.

And we don't go through something that is um what you might need to be a little more progressive.

Um I think what are you missing out of these opportunities to go by um people being screened stay or come in to get the city?

Well we have people on either side are we to come out and one other side and not just do what we just come back and say okay with some of these at least like our foundation.

We agree on these things, these are these things we need to agree on.

These things would be would be our next recommendation.

I think it's a far out of the case.

So that's so that they don't think look at where they are they're way far out of cut.

No agree with these.

We would think these here are a little bit further outstretched, which we agree with maybe with the ideal.

We don't have a lot of time, so what if we just might regress and see if people for people to kind of land on that?

Did everybody feel comfortable about all the fancy?

So AB and C underneath that's your commentary question.

Yes, so basically I think that is yes.

Well I figured that's what makes sure.

And I don't and I don't want to put that on the spot, but it would be helpful to know, like for example, does council agree that it should be policy and that the residents closed it off?

Like that's like a guess or like their recommendation helpful.

Yeah, the recommendation to us uh just not allow this.

They want to go with the state's minimum where that's what we have.

We can help my that's what makes their decision a lot easier because if you choose to go with 11,000 percent.

Right.

Right.

And there's a lot of good ideas that are now cut out just by the factor.

And I think that's a lost opportunity for the community to really be in the benefit to have a lot of horse property in our neighborhood, but not any parcels.

So I'm gonna be more so that would be perfect for people that do.

But there just aren't that many 11 delta plus five compared to the number of less than that.

But I mean, so if you decide on something like this, would it be wise to say why we'd be able to bet with absolute all and they're going down to this idea?

This is why we're saying this this is our logic behind it.

Uh that might say research justice.

We just need to give our things why we still need that.

Yeah, what are the benefits of the city?

Oh city council was like this now.

No.

Okay.

So we've got a list a lot about why we have to be controlled why.

So I think basically should we get two years, I like the I think the like speed loud of like one BL like one eighth.

Yes.

With blocks.

With white.

Why would we closing this first level?

How many ADUs should be allowed on a lot?

A at least two A's on a lot, but 20 for all detached.

I think people would choose.

Okay, and then B is considered allowing one internal and two detached areas are I will say this one is the one that we have.

So we skip this.

Well, I call it A, we only skip B.

Uh-huh.

And my path A is an internal and an external.

That we seem to have consensus at the time on still.

I'm good with that.

Yes.

Two.

Two B we're speaking.

We're eliminating, yeah.

Yeah, it's three that'd be three perhole.

So let's be just gonna run this.

Okay, you have square to see.

Three, so three is an additional parking space if you require a one for EAD units less than six hundred square B two for D is greater or equals to six methods for C is there a lot of these parking spaces.

If we're then a quarter mileage station.

Yeah.

So uh what I heard you guys last time was the uh uh per se.

Your acid to for uh over six fifth each um I uh and the analysis that Eleanor had prepared on the mapping showing where these eligible blocks would be and when it comes to stations are it just there's not a lot of blocks now that are uh average if this probably often seems like I think C just seems like a well sure success.

But I'm okay with that.

So okay, A through C through C.

Or unless I'm just gonna keep going like how large should be allowed to use A smaller than the curriculum given considering a reasonable percent location to have been followed size one establishing an additional size restriction.

Oh, so we're gonna yes.

Right.

We move table for D use A, do not use the existing accessory structure size table.

This would be too limiting if there are type structures containing living space or increase the accessory structure size table to something similar to the following a lot of those, but so basically I think that if you're doing local instead of just these right now, the table of detached accessory structures is true.

And so having a different table, not the same table.

Just to clarify, the table is talking about footprint.

Yeah, total square footage of space itself.

Like meaning that within that footprint, you could have more square footage for the basement or side.

Which we don't account for in the in an accessory building scheme.

We only account for footprint.

Yeah.

So there's that probably so yeah.

Okay.

Does that make sense?

So say for example, say you have a 500 square foot details accessories only.

Okay.

Within that accessory building, you can have a thousand square feet with a basement and then upgrade.

Okay.

I agree.

That's that's helpful.

That is helpful.

And with the the other aspect of possibility if you have a base on a bar and site like that right now, uh, you're already very baseline is the side of the bar.

So I think you need to increase that, how have some kind of sub deal if you are in H zone and have a bar or whatever?

I think we can't we need to accommodate more of these items that are that are somewhat easy, but not really.

This is this is where we stand.

Did this did these square footage?

Okay.

So make it easy if you vetted these sizes and these were just saying, hey, consider something bigger.

Okay, and a way to get bigger than screens.

I think that rather than going through a C V would you still have to put the parameter the rest.

So if I'm doing a C U V put parameters around it that uh it allowed a reasonable increase beyond that.

Beyond what our existing C UP allows the increase to be if it's livable it needs to be bigger than what the C U P allow it to say on the E here by B that you can a C should also get there should be a C process where it is.

That's what we're talking about right now.

Yes.

Okay.

And then C the property A generation exists, it's a very structured size for the PC.

Oh, but yeah, okay.

Okay, so I'm so sorry.

I didn't actually pressure to know if we all agree then on TLC.

Or is it A or B or C or is it A and B S?

It's it's really probably it's all to me.

I'm gonna use one.

Yeah.

I mean, how to table?

It's a thousand feet for a single score, you could be 1600 score.

So we're just we like all three we're still looking at this numbers.

Okay.

Okay, six.

How tall should we allow D's A of two stories if adhering to the setbacks?

Now we're getting any setback for that properties existing.

Um let's go through the rest of these just to see.

Should be allowed for eight uses.

That's pretty well.

So it's smaller than so basically my overall philosophy on this is the just to buy by the existing uh setbacks, unless you're going lower that then, and if you're inside the existing building model, but if you're going lower in height, then you could possibly sort of rear set back.

So that's that I don't know what we've ended there's uh probably gonna create one feet whole.

Skip this and go on the rest of that.

Okay.

Yeah, well, we are at six.

Should we should we wrap this up for a point?

I'd say five more minutes and then take the break before we go on through the range.

Okay, so we're gonna skip six number seven should basements be allowed.

Okay, yes.

Do we all agree?

Yeah, five.

Again, you just could existing existing zoning.

I do like that.

I have a seven systems.

Uh a best setbacks for the use AHSU set I square property zone.

We do not require setbacks that are dead or property zone just because the phone is already like structured, therefore requiring the D U to be set back for the five percent.

It's basically just use the existing setbacks for that lock.

Okay.

Yeah, the setback as well as the word attached.

That'll be your thing.

Or following the setbacks of an accessory building.

Following the setbacks as though it's the primary classified side yards.

I don't think we can do that, but I think we have majority that says that would say that we build it.

If you allow the house to be there, yeah, I don't see a problem with allowing the and Mike's concern earlier was that okay, we have a lot of accessory structures.

Do not allow that for accessment.

Only if it's public.

Because we're talking about it could be done in front of them.

Right.

Or do you could maybe just put an addition on it?

Yes.

So I think I'm 80% of the lots of the city don't qualify.

Yeah.

Where do we roll on that?

Sorry.

Yeah, I think I don't know.

A B C what the side do we need to skip this one?

Let's skip this one too.

I think we're we're close, but okay.

Should open these and a yes, if we're the original setbacks associated with the hashtag.

So I've heard of we have no control.

Okay, so uh the latest on that because there's conflict in state law where they say well, you cannot regulate uh any of these design elements as they're stipulated in the state law.

Uh however we can um bring setbacks taking into account a variety of patterns.

So that's kind of a tool that can be used in terms of a setback.

If you're here, then you could have a window there.

Anyway, but then later in the state law, it says uh you could require um the EADU to be consistently design of the single family cloud.

It's like, well, wait a minute, what so it's a conflict and it's definitely okay, but we I don't think we can't, because I asked them that and they didn't give us a straight answer, and I asked them that the training of yesterday.

Okay.

And um I I asked them the intent of it because they were saying basically no, you can't do that, but it says consistent main topic.

So and uh I I said, well, well then what's the intent of that?

Let's just do the domain out.

What they were trying to do was to allow for existing development agreements that had let's say a PD with uh a nice aesthetic key and to allow those to still remain those development agreements where you can still require that, but they are going because if uh using this conflict, they're gonna go back and address this issue very widely.

They're going to take out that we will not be able to require uh consistency with the design of the house, but right now it's you know it's open and so if we do that, we incorporate design regulations, those may get clawed back.

Correct, I think it's old message of interpretation right now.

Yeah, but it may not be the intent of the legislature to allow that.

So it takes we would like it to be consistent with in the next legislative session.

That's what we can we can't think.

We have to build something next to it.

We want to do that with right now with because that's the accessory building.

There's a building requirement.

Yeah, well um a legal approach to that is just use the same language of the state law and then and then just administer it, and then someone gets uh pushback.

We'd say, well, do you can tell us here's the state law?

You tell us what it you know, and so I think it would have answered the question about decks if the house doesn't have top deck, they'll not then help.

So I just put it well, the rope.

So there's a note that says if allowable to be consistent with that person.

Yeah.

Whatever the word state Yeah, yeah.

We we can we can extend credit so there, and then now I get changing next year and that's not we did have some discussion about rooftops all you know.

It would be some type of design requirements.

So now there's because we have that discussion that we have two stories of other stuff.

So I would use step back.

But we are gonna talk again at the next question, right?

And the next one's maybe two more executive sessions.

We'll have it queued up so that it could be before at our after our next week.

Should you feel like it's read or not?

Uh if you're not ready to make that beyond it, we'll be on the agenda for a month.

And make any changes to it and your deliberation.

Or take all it or further further consideration.

If you're not ready for a motion that I think we're gonna do that, we don't need to speak.

So we can so we can see it when we get the packet and then discuss it at another next one session or table as well.

And that's what I said.

Well, how about work session starting the system?

Um response crowd to our motion.

And I would say let's wait until you see the recommendation.

You may be okay with that.

Or do you just want to draw a hero?

Um right to the motion.

I'll agree with the following.

Yeah, you need to do that.

Right.

Uh just report.

Oh, it's done.

Um proceeding is we have to start pointing for COVID.

Hey, Richard.

An assistant director.

Yes.

That's why the two names.

We need to start attending those executive sessions, James.

It got squirrely.

We didn't have to touch the tree.

It shut me down.

We don't want to watch this.

They just wanted to talk about what they don't want to recommend.

Oh, yes.

Yeah, search first.

And then we just reduce it.

Well, you're gonna pretty much say the beginning is only that hard.

Correct.

I just want to make sure we're not concerned.

Yep, yep, yep, things on all like some.

I think we're about ready to get started.

Okay.

Do we need to wait for a recording before we begin?

Okay.

Okay.

All right, well, um good afternoon.

We welcome you to tonight's planning commission meeting.

I am the current chair of the planning commission, Lenny Stappenport, and I'm joined by my fellow commissioners.

Uh will each commissioner please introduce themselves, starting with Danny at the end.

Danny Shawnew.

Ron Mortimer.

Cameron Duncan.

Steve Rigley.

Great, thank you.

We're also joined by city staff members.

Uh James, can you please introduce your staff?

Yeah, we're having a little um this issue with that, yeah.

You can go well we'll we'll hit staff a little later.

That's not a biggie.

Let's let's start.

Do you want me to keep all right?

The planning commission, as a reminder, the planning commission is a non-elected body who makes recommendations on land use decisions to the city council and the mayor.

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

Our duty is to uphold the laws and ordinances as established and adopted by the Sandy City Council.

We meet at the call of the chairperson, normally the first and third Wednesday, Thursday, excuse me, of every month at 6 15 here in Sandy City Council Chambers.

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

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

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

And then with that, we will go ahead and move forward with the Pledge of Allegiance.

Cameron's gonna lead us in the two.

All right.

Tonight's planning commission meeting will follow the agenda that has been published.

It's made available at the entry to the room and digitally on the city's website.

Each item on the agenda will proceed as follows, unless it is on the consent calendar.

Mike Wilcox, the Sandy City's planning director will introduce the item.

The project applicant will present the item, and staff will make a presentation.

We'll open it up for public comment.

We'll close public comment and then the planning commission will deliberate and then take action.

Alright.

With that said, we will move on to our public hearing and public meeting items.

Mike, will you please introduce the first item?

The first item on our agenda is a proposal.

Okay.

Sorry about that.

For the 106 church property, this is being presented by Matt Snade of the Move Group.

They're representing the property owners of the Mountainside Baptist Church.

They're requesting the approval for a modified site plan located at 166 East 10600 South.

And they're proposing to shrink the size of that parcel and reconfigure some of their parking lot improvements.

And I believe the applicant is here to present on their request.

Yes, please come to the podium and state your name and address.

Yeah, my name is Matt Snade.

My address is 5143 South Shinock Way, Murray, Utah.

So this project from my understanding, we're going to talk about the site plan.

There's three related items tonight.

We'll start with the site plan.

So the site plan is a modified site plan for the existing church that is related to the subdivision, which will be next.

And it's basically cleaning up and re uh laying out the parking lot.

The parking ratio will meet the sermon how many patrons are in the church and how much is allowed there as far as what's required for code for the parking ratio.

We have a landscape buffer along the exterior of the property as you guys require.

We have our ADA spots there.

There will be regarding how this will be split.

There's a couple of things as far as utilities will remain the same, but the drainage and grading will change.

We also did a geotech report on the property that because it was pretty clear with the current parking lots all cracked and settling, that it needs to kind of be redone and also a new layer of foundational base.

I forget what it's called exactly, but uh base gravel putt underneath it so that it's more sturdy and steady and doesn't crack down the road.

Um so the entire exterior for the most part will be redone, new irrigation, new asphalt, uh, the landscape offer around the edge, um, and drainage.

Right now, currently um it hasn't really been changed for many many years.

This has been existing.

Um, but the uh drainage for this site, uh, we worked with Mason at the city, and um that'll be uh I believe most of it will drain to the west, and in that landscape buffer, there's some inlets, and then that will drain to the front of the property where you see that hatched area.

Um, and that will be a um a basin that will then release to 106 uh at the certified CFM that you guys have acquired.

Um so that's all been passed off with Mason at the city.

Um trying to think of what else high level stuff we need to go over.

Um I think that is most of it.

Let me kind of go over my notes here.

Yeah, utilities are running uh power through the just through the front of the property, so that doesn't have to change.

Um for for this work.

I know that some of the comments and concerns from our meetings and some that have come in uh is just concerns about construction.

The heaviest lift on the construction will be this exterior.

But as you'll see with the two lots or the gravel area on the west, that's just those two white squares.

That's going to act as our staging area for the church.

The church will go first, and all the construction, everything will stay off the roads off 106 and off hollow bend.

And then we will move on to the house and and and utilities for those lots afterwards to stub those lots.

So that there'll be pretty minimal disturbance for the neighborhood and the street as as far as construction is concerned for this.

And we intend to start that you know pretty much immediately after closing.

Yeah, we've got our SWIP done, so that's all good.

So yeah, I think that covers high level, so happy to answer any questions and concerns regarding anything that comes up for you guys.

Okay.

Um, go ahead.

Yeah, I'll just say so.

I've I've noticed there's a dark line here between the houses and the church.

Will there be a fence and what type will that be that will separate these properties?

Yeah, so the plan here is there actually is a pretty good vinyl fence.

Everything around this property has been well kept.

Um there's a vinyl fence on Hollow Bend that's on the current property line on the west on Hollow Bend Drive, and the intent is to move that fence to this new property line, um, and then there'll be new fences for those homes when they're built for those individual home lots.

So, yes.

Okay, so that would be a vinyl.

It'll separate the properties now.

Exactly.

Yeah, and that current vinyl fence basically runs the whole 300 feet on that west border, so it'll just move right over.

Okay, yeah.

Nice.

All right.

Seeing no other questions from commissioners, thank you.

We will turn it to Sarah Stringham, who is the senior planner for Sandy City.

Um, and Sarah, if you can provide some more information on the project.

Yeah, um, just a couple concerns that staff had on this.

Um, there's some existing nonconformities on the landscaping on the front and the east side.

Um, what they're proposing isn't making anything more non-conforming, so staff has recommended that those um landscaping areas will be okay to remain um as they are.

So is there any other questions on this on the subdivision or sorry, the site plan?

No, it doesn't look like it.

Thank you.

All right, we will open this item for public comment.

If anybody from the public wishes to speak to this item, please come to the podium and state your name and address, and you'll have about three minutes.

Thank you.

Hey guys, um I own the property with my family just to the south.

Sir, can you state your name and address for the record?

My name is Ken Gould, 160 163 East Holobend Drive.

Um, I want to thank you for the communication.

Lots of my concerns have been resolved, but I do have a couple that I wanted to just double check.

First off, I know you've done the study on the widening of the road.

Um you've given an exemption to that for various reasons.

One of those being ensuring there's gonna be no parking on the street right now.

That street is very narrow, and coming into that area would be a concern if you've allowed it.

It sounds like you've addressed it.

Our concern is not only I have a concern just to if you could address this.

The construction and work that'll happen on the church, um, fine.

You got it all staged, great.

If you put that fence up on the east side of the new properties, how do we ensure that there's no parking during that construction of the houses that are going on there?

Because we're gonna have obviously lots of stuff that's going on.

So just making sure you've taken that into consideration.

Um in addition, that property in front of those houses is currently, and I'm not on the HOA committee, I'm just I've been there.

Um the lots in front or the park strip in front of that is now managed and maintained by the HOA.

I know there's been I'd say some loose conversation that the developer will meet with the HOA.

I just want to make sure that they do get together and there is resolution because I think the plat actually shows that as part of the HOA, and at some point in time that may be a concern that should be resolved.

And then the the last open question that I have is the um storm sewer on the west side that a decision was made not to widen the road because of the cost and you know other things going on, which is fine, but I believe that the HOA is still responsible to maintain that if just from the trees and weeds and stuff like that.

If that is incorrect, then ignore what I'm about to say.

But if it is the responsibility of the HOA, I'd also like to ensure that the developer gets with the HOA, and that's also thought about with these new properties that are gonna be there, at least sharing some of that cost.

Okay, thank you for your comments.

Um I do think many of those will be handled at the staff level and not necessarily here through the planning commission.

But um where appropriate, we will make sure that we have staff response.

Sarah, do you want to do you want to answer some of those?

So a lot of those questions are concerning the subdivision and the special exception, which will be up next.

So if we could put those were all great, we could put those on hold.

Is that yes?

Just put those on hold for events.

Perfect.

Thank you, Sarah.

Okay.

Um do we have any anybody else from the public who would like to speak?

Great, thank you.

Just when you get to the podium, state your name and address, please.

You'll have about three minutes.

My name is Roger Brown.

I live at uh just directly behind it in the Colte Sag at 1070 South Hollow Cove.

I am on the committee for the HOA from our initial meetings.

We've been here a couple of times.

The information that I had at that particular time was that the that the church was willing to assume the responsibility of moving the road three yards to the east to allow for bigger access, larger access, since those homes would be there.

Now I don't know where that all got diluted or tossed out or whatever.

I don't know how that happened.

Um I'm still at a little bit of a loss as to in this case, we're saying the church will not have to worry about assuming responsibility for taking a portion of the HOA.

And that's what's throwing me off a little bit is that we've been responsible, we take care of it.

We had a zero scape, we have you know, we have it all up there, including the fence, and and now there's this idea that we're gonna bring these houses in there, we're gonna put driveways into it that'll cover that'll that'll go into our HOA.

And I'm not sure, does that mean that they would want to become a part of the HOA?

That they'd be required to become a part of the HOA.

And our initial assumption was that with all this taking place that in fact it might it might create a situation where we would be doing away with the HOA, which was very happy for most of the people that are in that community of about 150 or not that many, but but uh the houses that surround it.

So I'm still I'm still at a loss, and so I'm here just trying to to better understand how the decision was made not to widen the road, because we're saying if we widened it to the east, then the church would take responsibility for ensuring that road would be widened.

If we take it from the west where the where the drainage is, then I guess the city would assume responsibility since the drainage area is the city's responsibility.

And so I'm I'm I'm kind of torn.

I'm I'm going, how is this happening?

And does it in fact mean that we will just have to have a narrower road?

And if there isn't something, if it if it's not redlined, so that no one can ever park on that piece of strip, that 150 east, which is again for those who've been there, it's not a very wide road.

So when you pull a car into that, especially when it's close to 106, you know, and somebody's turning in there at night, they could turn right into and hit a car that would be parked right on that corner, even if it was 50 feet in.

It just looks like a potential uh accident waiting to happen.

So that's my only hope in sharing my feelings is that you guys know that it's a narrow road, it should be widened, and as for the decisions made as to why it's not going to be widened is throwing me off quite a bit.

But I I mean I welcome the the growth, but I'm at a loss as to why the change is taking place the way it has.

Okay, thank you, sir.

Anyone else?

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Matt Amadi.

Uh address.

Yes, please.

11555 South Country Crossing Road, South Jordan.

Um, I'm actually one of the pastors of the church, and uh we have several of our members here.

We just wanted to come uh show support uh for the sale of the property.

Uh we've loved being in this location.

I think 30 plus years now, the church has been there.

I actually used to live on the property for four years, so it has a soft spot in my heart.

But we've just been growing so much as of late and needed to do something else, and uh selling the property and moving to uh a mid-vale location with a larger building is gonna accommodate our needs.

Um but we're very happy with uh Matt's group and the proposal that they have put forward because we feel like it's has a minimal impact on the property.

Uh keeping the church building up and selling it to another church is really exciting for us.

Um we have one of our members here who built uh a lot of the the buildings on the property and did a lot of the work and so um to be able to sell it to someone who's gonna you know have a minimal impact and it's gonna continue to be utilized is is uh is just real exciting.

So I just wanted to want to introduce myself and show support for it.

Appreciate you coming.

Thank you so much.

It's great.

Anyone else in the audience?

Okay, seeing nobody else in the audience, we will turn it to um anybody that's joining us online.

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

I'm seeing no hands.

Okay, thank you, sir.

All right.

Um did does the planning commission want to um did they do you have any questions on anything that was presented or any of the questions that were asked?

Okay, do we want staff to come back up?

Sarah, will you will you please come back up and address any of the questions that you heard?

I think some of the main concerns were for the subdivision and the special exception that will be handled in the next.

Yes, yeah.

So there's any questions specifically regarding the landscaping or the parking just for that church site, nothing to the east of it.

That is just this motion is just for those things.

Thank you for the clarification.

All right.

Is the planning commission ready to make a motion?

Okay, yeah, I'm good to make a motion.

I think that again, those issues that need to be addressed are in those other two items that are afterwards.

So uh I'll make a motion that uh the plan commission determine preliminary modified site plan review is complete for this 10600 church located at 166 east, 10600 south as described in the staff report.

Uh and uh based on in the three find based on the three findings and three conditions that are detailed in the staff report.

I'll second that Dave Romney.

Yes.

Cameron Duncan?

Yes, Ron Mortimer.

Yes.

Daniel Schoenfeld.

Yes.

Stephen Wrigley?

Yes.

Lenise Davenport.

Yes.

This motion carries.

All right, thank you so much.

Okay, moving on to maybe the uh the star of the show, at least for this item.

Um, is the hollow bend subdivision the special exception agenda item?

Mike, will you please introduce this?

Yes, thank you, Mr.

Madam Chair.

Uh, this item is also presented by uh Matt Snaid uh of the Move Group who's representing the property owner Mountainside Baptist Church related to the previous uh item on the agenda.

Uh this is to further subdivide the property into four lots, uh one for the church and three uh residential lots that would front onto Hollow Bend Drive.

Um along with this, we'll discuss both uh the subdivision and the proposed special exception.

They're requesting to leave the existing improvements along Hollow Bend Drive, as is uh which would require a special exception to be approved by the planning commission.

And the applicant is here to present on those two requests, and then Sarah will follow up with our staff recommendation.

All right, thank you.

I'll try to get through it, but and stay high level.

I didn't mean to disregard or you know, they wanted me to stick to the certain things as we approach them in the different submittals.

Um so we will answer a lot of those questions.

I appreciate it.

Um so for the subdivision, uh what the general premise is we're taking this uh lot in the church, we're subdividing.

There's an existing house, the pastor's old house, which will be one lot, and then two new construction lots that will be on the um northwest of the property.

Um as part of that, um, there's a lot of stuff that came up.

I'm just gonna pull up this page here.

All right, so basically, this is great.

Uh okay, so we will be taking the current house, and there is a driveway that's accessed through the church property to the east of it right there.

Right now, we're gonna basically take that existing driveway and garage that's at the south end of that hatched house.

There's that that's a shed, there's the house there.

Um the driveway will then come out onto Hollow Bend so that it's not accessing through by way of easement on the other parcel.

Um the two new lots will be designed with that'll be very conforming to the existing houses that are in the neighborhood behind in the surrounding area.

Um we haven't and won't dictate per se the design of those homes.

Um the end user will probably do that, right?

But the base level of what is allowable in that gray area for each lot is the building lot area, um the proposed area for the driveways and the curb cuts to go in for those driveways.

Um, as part of this, we've basically done a deep dive because most of the sticking point and the comments that have come up were regarding the previous approval when this HOA was created and how their uh how it was designed originally, which was long before we were ever here, right?

Um, and in general, from knowing development and just going through this process, this um any subdivision that comes through has to retain their own water or detain their own water by way of going into storm drain or a detention basin, and that is whether I'm doing a two-lot subdivision or a 20 lot or 100 lot subdivision, each of those approvals have their own requirements to meet.

And so we're kind of coming in after this was all designed, and so this is a good depiction of what the existing is and what we're going to and what's been proposed in our special exception that is alongside with this subdivision.

Um, and so we we met with the city and all the officials in multiple meetings to basically brainstorm all of the different possible um outcomes or solutions for this.

Um to address some of the comments before this existing retention ditch on the left side, it has to be there in some way, shape, or form because that is where all of the water and is designed for that current HOA to drain and properly not cause floods.

Um we've designed our project to not add to or uh inhibit or affect any of the current use, and we won't be dumping any of our water into there.

So the two new building lots that are there and the home will all retain their drainage on site.

Um that will be uh buttoned up when the final home that that design will be affected by the end homes, right, and how those are designed and how big they are and the roof lines and all of that.

Um but that will be part of from what I understand of the final approval that they have to be met with some except or with some I don't know if it's by way of developer agreement, but basically that the that's held so that they can't that we don't dump water into their drainage.

Um so as far as addressing to widen it or affect that, there's not a viable way for us, or I assume the HOA to do that, and so that's why we've decided to basically propose taking into consideration all the concerns of the neighbors that we propose to make a couple of changes to it, but nothing completely drastic.

Um we are being held to have a one-foot dedication on the west property line of our entire property that we have designed into the project.

Um, and then the um let's see, the current sidewalk is a five-foot sidewalk and an eight-foot park strip.

Um, if we were to follow the city guidelines to reduce that or yet from uh downsize the park strip, all those trees would then also have to come out as well.

Um the main concern from the neighbors is was the drainage ditch, and although we brainstorm on how that could possibly happen, it's it's not really viable to get rid of that because the water has to go somewhere.

Um, and we hired uh Hales Engineering to do a traffic study to say, okay, with these homes, what difference in impact is gonna have on that road.

Um we've got like a three-page summary of the chip generation study, and basically they said there's almost little to no impact.

Obviously, that's not no impact, but um that let's see, they said where's that number?

So they say this will generate a pro these new homes and the layout, the change of the current home will generate approximately 28 trips on average weekday and four trips during the morning peak hour and four trips during the evening peak hour.

Um so that's their basis for saying that's little to no impact.

And so their recommendation was that to leave it as it is and make sure we're not dumping into that.

Um trying to think here.

So without getting into all of the nitty-gritty details of this, this was a summary of the ideas that we came up with the city of how to possibly mitigate these.

At the end of the day, all these options of mitigating of widening the road going west either were not possible because of the feasibility from a cost standpoint, and or that there was it would it would actually invite more people to park on the street, was kind of the logic here.

That if we widen our half of it on our side, which is our responsibility of the road, and move it either three or seven feet, that's actually gonna end not still meet the city requirements of coming up to the current code, which is why we're asking for the exception.

Um and a wider road could possibly actually entice people to say, oh, this is wide enough, we're actually gonna park here anyways, even though we're not supposed to, and it's still not the full width.

Um then you'd also have this jog.

We don't own the corner home here.

So if you see on this second second line and third line, whether we widen left or right, um, or call it east or west.

Um west is not possible because it affects the actual drainage basin and its capacity.

Going east, it would have this jog, whether it's at night, that kind of thing, it could pose some issues and also not be pleasant to see.

Um we can't really affect and change that neighbor because that's not our property.

Um so with all of these and going through the different options of what's possible.

Our suggestion and our request here is that we keep the road as it is, we put up multiple no parking signs, and we paint both of the roads uh the curbs red.

Additionally, um the way that we design these lots, the the shape of the lots where the curb cuts are and the anticipated home design will make room for just like the neighboring homes, three car garages, um, so you have plenty of off-street parking.

There'll be also three spots in the driveway, and there'll be an R V pad, room for an R V pad on the side, which is also additional parking.

Um for each home, you can see by this parking diagram, we've got seven out off street spots for the two new home, and because of the existing home and the way it's situated, there would actually be nine off-street.

There's you could actually fit two more.

We didn't even diagram those out on the driveway there, but um, so that'd be 11 off-street parking spots for the existing home.

So we took into consideration to try and mitigate and promote as much off-street parking as possible because of the concerns that the neighborhood has uh brought up.

Additionally, because we own the church right now and we're doing this process.

Our suggestion is that uh put into the agreement that for a part of this approval to have a shared parking agreement with the church.

Um it'll be way of typically the cities, I think you guys like to see it with like uh a license, a parking licensor permit that uh that the new owner of the church would then take over and inherit, and basically create a time schedule that these homes can use the empty parking lot for overflow parking as well, so that further mitigates people parking on the street.

Um that hopefully I did a pretty good job of how much time we spent addressing as much as we can and mitigating any possibilities.

But we all and the city and all the different people that were involved agree that actually keeping it more narrow with the signs and the curb will further mitigate people from actually using that.

So that was our solution on the road.

Um if we dive into the subdivision itself, that's pretty straight.

Can I just add something here real quick?

Yes.

Okay, so one of the things just for the people that are here listening, so one of the conditions number four says that no on-street parking is permitted.

Um, and signs restricting on-street parking will be erected on both sides, right?

So that's one of the conditions that's gonna happen, and that'll be your responsibility to paint the curbs and install the signs.

Yep.

Thank you.

Exactly.

And and one of the comments that was earlier, um, we're fine to do that.

I mean, that's a very simple thing for us to do.

We we're fine to do that right away so that that's taken care of, and especially through construction, so that any other contractors or anything like that won't be tempted to park on that street.

So that can happen immediately just because it's very easy to do.

Um, if we get into the subdivision part of it, I can kind of just go over the the two new lots on the northeast.

Um, yep, those two, those are basically the R110, they're almost exactly 10,000, just over 10,000 square feet.

Um the existing home is I think it's a little small to read, but I think that's around 12,000 and change square feet.

So pretty decent lot sizes conforming with the rest of the neighborhood.

Um so regarding utilities, I'll kind of go over that.

There is not gonna be a ton of construction that has to happen here.

The home will be remodeled.

There's about 60,000 or so in repairs of the home roof and utilities mainly.

There's gonna be new utilities that will come off and tee off into the road.

Um that's quick and easy work for the most part, relatively.

Um currently the sewer line for the home, existing home.

Um it's not exact, but on this image where the dotted line is, that's about uh actually that is they've marked it.

So that is the existing sewer line, one more dotted line left.

Yeah, just left that those.

Yep.

So that's the existing sewer line that we scoped.

Um it is in good shape, but it obviously cuts across all the new lots.

So that's for the home that will now be rerun out to the road.

Um the water line is the same situation.

I think that's the other one that you were on on the right, that's the water line.

Um, yep.

So that line has to also be run.

Those will be a band and cut, and then new taps will go in for the existing home.

And then it's pretty straightforward for the new building lots.

Um, gas sewer power will um all come out the front like a typical subdivision in a typical home build.

Um so those will all be brand new and stubbed and ready for somebody, whether it's a builder or a end user to come in and design their home to build there.

Um that's that that's pretty minimal construction.

Again, most of the heavy lifting and construction is gonna be on the church, and these ones are pretty straightforward.

Um will you keep your current comments specific to the special exception?

Yeah, are we doing just special exception, not subdivision?

We're doing both of both.

We're doing both combined kind of right.

Yeah, combined.

Okay, never mind.

Okay, so um as part of the conditions of this, it will be what I've suggested and that we've sent, which is the off-street parking spaces, um, the road dedication on our side of the property be carried out on the plat, um, the shared parking agreement, and the no parking signs in red.

So that's that's all stuff that we agreed to and are happy to do.

Um if there's more questions that are more detailed, I'm trying to give it as much as a high summary because we can get into real nitty-gritty, but hopefully that's a good summary.

Yes.

Uh, if you guys feel that's good.

So I'm ready for questions if you have any.

We do have some commission questions, Danny.

Just one general question.

What when you're completing I know the HOA does most of the street maintenance, or how are you going to handle or how are they going to handle street maintenance relatively once it's completed?

Good point.

Okay, so a couple of things.

I know one of the concerns was street maintenance.

Um the street itself, at least when I look on the plat, and correct me if I'm wrong, is a public street.

Okay.

Um, so that maintenance itself for the street is them.

The detention basin is on the plat map, does show it's because it's dedicated and was dedicated years ago, does show that it's city as well, right?

But part of that HOA, we're not we're not part of that HOA because that's its own subdivision, um, and we're our own subdivision.

And so as regarding are we joining that HOA?

That's not a desire for us, um, and not a requirement for us either.

Um, that being said, all of the land that's up fronting our properties, our new lots that are now our new frontage.

That uh park strip and the maintenance of those trees, the keeping those clean and the watering of those areas will be adopted like any other home where every homeowner, your frontage is your responsibility to maintain.

Um so that will be capped off as far as I believe they're watering it right now.

That will be capped off at the end of the property line for them, and then the new water service for each new home will be tapped in for their frontage so they sprinkle and keep um keep those maintained.

Um so that is not their concern anymore.

Um as much as in a perfect world, whether the city were to take over the retention basin to the west or us take over, that's not we're not fronting any of that property.

That's not technically our responsibility.

Um as much as it would be great for the HOA if I was living there, I'd want the same thing to go away because it's my understanding is most of their cost has to do with this retention basin.

But this basin has to exist, or else if it if it goes away and isn't properly upsized or taken care of and buried, um it the neighborhood would flood, right?

So that's part of the original design and is a major major change that just isn't feasible or our responsibility from what we've discovered and and researched.

Um we have more questions before we turn to staff.

Okay.

I have a question for you.

Has the church take into consideration that why these houses are being built, that they allow the construction to actually maybe come in through the church.

Yeah.

And also the construction workers to stay there so they're not parking on the street.

And I don't know where they park, I guess on R6, but is that gonna allow that to happen while these homes are being built?

Yeah, so currently, if you can kind of see from this image, uh it's a bit those two new lots of the new construction homes is a gravel parking lot, which are fairly big, 20,000 square feet worth of construction parking and staging.

Um and so there won't be a significant impact in the construction side of it, and they can enter through the church.

We don't intend to really during any construction impede uh any of hollow end um for that whole time.

The only time there'll really be construction is just a stub, and they'll just be those four foot T's that go out to just tap into the existing sewer uh water and gas.

Um that that should be fairly nominal, but the big lift on the construction, yeah, we will access through the church.

Yeah, from the east side or whatever, so you won't have impact upon the road or the HOAs.

Yes, exactly.

How about during the construction of the future homes on those two lots?

I think that's gonna be a probably the bigger impact.

Yeah, that is a great question.

We are not planning to build the end homes.

So those permits and that process of the end user, whether that's a different home builder or an individual could call it homeowner that plans to build and live in their own property.

My understanding is they'll go through the building permit process after they purchased the lot from us.

We're just stubbing utilities so it's a built, it's a fully for subcontractors to park during the construction of those.

Is the church going to accommodate that on their comment on that real quickly?

Yeah.

Real quick.

So we talked about, and you talked about no parking the streets.

That's gonna happen early, and that will include anyone later who is constructing or any site, they're gonna have to find an area to construct.

They will also not be able to park on those streets if they are signed that way, that includes everybody.

Okay.

And is and is that um going to be a note on the plat as well, or is it just gonna be a license that is?

It seems like it ought to be on the plates I think a license can not live afterwards.

Yeah, yeah.

License are usually recorded, right?

Um title.

We can have Sarah address that when she makes her presentation.

Great.

Um, and yeah, it's tough because there'll be a new owner, like we're we're doing all this part of it, but even with the church and the new owner, but there's probably also some verbiage we could put into the license regarding.

I mean, they'll have the parking uh agreement of parking during non-church hours, which will apply to construction as well.

So that could be a possible solution for that.

All right, thank you so much.

I think we'll bring Sarah up.

Um Sarah, if you can please provide us more information about these two items.

Um yeah, just a few things.

I think Matt did a good job at explaining um the special exception requests and kind of the conversations that he's had with the city.

Um with us, our land development code, we do have a um for the special exception, we have a set of criteria, and we did um go through those and decide that uh the majority of those didn't meet their special exception request.

Um just a few of those, the number of houses and the configuration of lots we felt wouldn't make um a huge impact to leave the road as is.

Um, with the pedestrian concerns, um, there is that one side of the sidewalk that it is already finished and um provides safe access um down the street.

Um the flood control and storm damage is another one of the considerations.

Um, and we've kind of discussed that, and also um public utilities has recommended that they would like to just see that remain as is and not make any changes.

Um changes to put in full improvements sidewalk and all of that would be pretty extensive, and so public utilities of this time doesn't think that that's necessary what's there right now is good, and if we need um the city engineer to come up, we can also have um him come comment on that.

Um yes, so those are some of the considerations that we felt met.

Um, the special exception, uh, and then they did go through uh some of those conditions as well that we feel helped to mitigate that with the extra off-street parking requirements, and then um the parking agreement that would be recorded um would be another mechanism to help that along with the no parking signs.

So uh any other questions about the special exception?

I was gonna say on the 20-foot road, that probably was except special exception for the HOA when you put it in there, wasn't it?

That there had to be some kind of an exception for the 20-foot road originally.

It must I am not exactly sure of all that history, and although the road is built in the early 2000s.

Um, because otherwise that's less than what typically they would have to put in.

Correct, yes.

And they probably couldn't put that road in there and require that the other property owner gave them more road, more space, correct.

That's why it went to the case.

That's possible, yes.

The existing um right-of-way is 50 feet wide.

Uh the exact configuration of that was reviewed by the planning commission and city staff, kind of was approved at that time.

Um so that existing configuration was reviewed with the hollow bin subdivision.

Okay.

And approved by the planning commission and city at that at that point in time when it was installed.

Yeah, I was just wondering why it went 20, and it sounds like there was a reason for that 20.

Rather than encroaching upon the church's property to say you need to go over to make a wide map.

Yeah, and the 50 foot was the minute was our standard instead of our current standard is 52 feet.

Um, but that existing lane is 50 feet wide.

So which meets our typical right-of-way width at that point in time when it was developed.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

Do you have more to present?

Um that's just on the special set special exception.

I don't think I really have anything else to add on the subdivision unless there's any specific questions.

Uh maybe you could follow up more on the parking agreement and um the necessity of that being noted on the plat as well.

It seems to me that that something like this, if it is if it is a big deal that it needs to be on the plat, um, so that all owners, future owners, uh comply.

Yeah, I know I do my understanding, I know that there is the parking agreement that is a document that does get recorded as far as being on the plat.

Is that something that's if you want that noted on the plat, we can have that amended in the condition that that require that also be recorded and noted on the plat beyond just recordation with the county.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you, ma'am.

Do we have anybody in the public in the audience that would like to speak to this item?

If so, please come to the podium and state your name and address.

Seeing oh, we do.

No, you've already come to the podium, but just state your name and address one more time.

Again, it's can't go.

Um I I just want to know that I'm happy to see the development.

You know, my name or former name or not.

I I've got no issue with that.

And it's really around the items that I brought up before.

The only thing you need to speak to the planning.

Is still around I forgot, of course, coming up here.

Um the requirement of the HOA.

And and and again, Matt has talked to this in the sense that the the property in front, you know, the park strip in front of those new lots, which didn't exist before, which is probably why the 50-foot easement was okay or the width of the road was okay as it was never contemplated to have houses there, which again is fine.

But my my question, and that maybe you have an answer for this, is right now I believe in the plat of the HOA, that park strip is called out and in the plat of the HOA covered.

So the idea that I'm gonna build these houses, it's there and not address that is really the only reason I'm saying we should have a conversation just to make sure.

Because if it if that is still in the HOA property, and I don't expect that they should join at all, but it's going to leave something that's open where 10 years from now when none of us are there, it's gonna be in the HOA, which maybe doesn't help anyone.

So it that was that was it.

Okay, thank you.

Anybody else?

Okay, seeing that Mike, do we have anybody online?

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

I'm seeing no hands.

Okay, thank you.

With that, I will close the public comment period.

Um does the planning commission have any more questions for the applicant or staff where we're ready for a motion.

I I just have a comment.

I I think I agree with Ken that if if that landscaping in front has been maintained by the HOA.

If if they just go in on day one and cut that water off, and it takes three or four years or ten years for a house to get built there, then we're gonna lose the trees and the landscaping.

Um I don't know that I have a solution for that.

Um it it seems like it probably just needs to be addressed and kind of cleaned up so that to his point in another you know ten years that people are looking at saying, well, who who really owns this, right?

Yeah, so my my bit is for what it sounds like the city owns that ground, but was the HOA was required to maintain it.

They probably installed the escaping.

My understanding, is that correct, Sarah?

Yeah, like the park strip in the right of way would be technically city owned, but like in a normal but maintained by the HOA.

Yeah, maintained by the HOA like in a normal house.

You have your house and still take your park strip.

Okay.

So it is owned by the city.

Even though it was on the plat, it shows that that was dedicated, and then it would be maintained by that HOA.

But I do have the same question that Cameron has raised, and that is that uh once the utilities have been stubbed into these new lots uh and the um water has been capped.

What what ordinances do we have right now that would address the maintenance of those of the park strip uh prior to them being assumed by the future owner of a home there?

Just basically what do we have that would ensure that they that that gets maintained, watered, maintained just like the HOA has been doing.

I don't think he's asking me.

No, I'm asking staff.

I'm asking staff.

I am not sure how that works with HOA because normally all of that is privately handled, and so I'm not sure where this HOA or that subdivision has already been created.

Um, my question is what city ordinances would make it make sure that the owner that of this new subdivision will maintain that maintain.

So um as part of the conditions of approval of the hollow bend or the crescent hollow subdivision, I should say, when hollow bend was created.

Part of the condition because they didn't have lots that fronted that street, and the detention area that's on the west side was uh necessitated by the development itself.

That's why the HOAs uh was formulated.

That's the reason why an HOA exists for that subdivision, was to maintain those areas uh because there weren't other property owners that fronted that street, but that subdivision needed a second point of access.

Otherwise it would have been a long uh one one access uh subdivision.

So this west side was critical for that that development uh to have that secondary access point and to have the storm drainage system.

It is owned by the city.

The requirement because that road was developed with the rest of that subdivision, that's why the HOA exists.

The proposal would be that uh, as was explained by the applicant, that upon recordation of this plat, though that frontage uh on the east side, that as I'm showing on this diagram, the right hand side of the page, um, that would that parkship and maintenance would be assumed by the property owners that front that street.

And the HOA would no longer be needed to maintain that east side of the street.

Um the HOA would still need to maintain the west side and that uh storm drainage area as is currently in in um process and and has been doing for the last 20 plus years.

Um you could put in a condition if you wanted to I think the maintenance of those trees and ensuring that those are watered in the meantime, because that's part of the reason uh to support the request to not uh change uh the profile is part of that is to maintain that existing urban frontage of and the street trees are part of that.

Uh so you could require uh that um the property um be subject to creation of any uh of a uh homeowners association for those three lots to maintain that area so that we ensure that that occurs, or they'd have the option, I guess, if they wanted to uh to main uh join the HOA that's to the west of them and to the south of them and then maintain that existing infrastructure as it currently exists.

That's another option that uh they could um uh work out with that HOA if they didn't want to formulate their own.

Thank you, Mike, for doing the digging on that.

That was helpful.

Did that answer your question?

Uh yeah, we we need to address that.

Sounds good.

All right.

Um can we still have the applicant come up to say some more things?

I I think having him come up and addressing uh what he would prefer to do on get like do a separate HOA for his three lots or join um is would be relevant.

Meaning that almost that red property line, every property line in every area, you don't actually own typically the park strip, but it's part of city uh code and maintenance and to maintain that, right?

Everybody maintains park strips in front of their property, even if it's not technically on their property.

So we're under the assumption of just using that, that's the uniform way of doing it for everything.

Um the chicken and the egg or what you know, there is it's a legitimate concern about the timing of taking the water off who's paying for it, and then switching those lines over to the new things so that they don't die.

I think the mechanism in place for my understanding is code that anyone could call in if your weeds are too tall and you're not maintaining the park strip as properly, that could be reported, and then code enforcement could handle it.

Um but as far as the agreement to be a good neighbor, basically, I would suggest that we just get together and have and say, okay, let's figure out how much water usage is being used monthly and have a temporary um agreement to pay for that water until that rollover is completed, because there is some lag time between this approval and a flat recordation versus when the actual um water lines will be constructed and in up and running.

And so to maintain the main to main to have the maintenance of that park strip and also make the trees not die, that would be my idea taking because we don't want a full HOA for just three lots because they're not there's nothing else actually dictating an HOA that wouldn't be desirable for then we're just in this situation again, like they are, rather than just being like a city lot.

Um so my suggestion is we figure out how much we need to pay them monthly until we roll over to the water on our own.

And that could be an MX uh requirement of the our condition of the approval.

Yeah, I'd I'd be interested in staff's comments on this uh to see what you guys think as well.

Because I guess my my perception on this is that the HOA was there and and it has been maintaining that, enjoying that they have a more pleasant access into their area that they maintain.

Um the the it sounds like city ordinance would not really come into play until you've got some future homes that are on there.

So you could do a temporary HOA that gets abandoned uh once you have you know all owners there is a possibility.

But I'm I guess I have concerns about the HOA and uh in this whole aspect of it.

So and and again, it is different in my mind because you're looking for a special exception so that you don't have to do a full road.

So I think it's different as far as that goes.

So I would totally agree that normally it wouldn't, and that's why I was asking, are there ordinances that would cover it right now?

Sounds like there's not.

Yeah, it's it's kind of that gray area.

But we want to keep those alive, it's beneficial for the resale of those lots and the neighbors and the new homeowners.

So to pay our fair share to until the water lines roll over, it seems like a very reasonable and something that we'd be happy to do with them.

Yeah, and it's that way.

Yeah, because they'll you guys probably gravel of those rock.

There's a lot of things.

Like modified problems.

You sell one lot, happens to be the one that's on the south side, cut off the water.

The trees of the north are outside the lot.

Yeah.

So running you're gonna have to do something more than lines in there, like currently.

A temporary HOA or something where you're gonna have to re be responsible for those four trees.

Yeah, so and the maintenance area until a homeowner builds and then they take possession of it and maintain it.

Otherwise, it's just it shouldn't be the HOE's problem anymore.

For sure.

That needs to switch over to it becomes your problem, not theirs.

I agree.

So I'd be interested in staff's comments on on those thoughts.

Yeah, and I think we can condition it in such a way, right?

Yeah, my my suggestion is um because it is unique, um and also the fact that we have the existing home that's on that south side.

Um I think it's lot four on the subdivision plat, um, where the existing pastor home will be reoriented and facing to the west.

That one will need to have a new water service, and that will be live for that existing home.

Um if they didn't want to join the existing HOA, they could create their own HOA that would exist on up until each of those two other two homes to the north of it were developed.

And then that point each of them could then take on their own responsibility of that park strip.

So that's one way that they could address it.

This the second option is to leave the existing improvements as is, join the existing HOA and continue that in perpetuity.

I think it's up to the property owner to work that out as best that they see fit.

But at least they have the ability because there will be an active water service for that existing home on the south side, um, regardless.

And that's another unique situation that isn't common in a typical subdivision, that we have an existing home that will have a live water meter that could then maintain the existing landscaping and the park strip along that frontage.

Yeah, I like that.

Up until such time as the other two home uh homes are built and occupied.

Yeah, and then at that point they'll cut off at that point, and the new home will take over.

So I think that's a great idea to the existing home to just basically have that maintenance until they're sold.

So I I think they have two options to address that concern, which I think is a legitimate concern regarding the uh maintenance of that park strip in the in the interim.

Yeah, I agree.

Great.

Good discussion.

We ready for a motion yet?

I'm really as long as Dave addresses those issues because I I think that's critical.

The note on the plat's easy, but how do you word that?

Well, can't we see that about the HOA options?

Can't we just say something as simple as adding a condition that requires that the they work with the developer to create uh an agreement, but we don't have to describe what that agreement actually says.

But that the city approves it.

That's the note on the plat.

Are you talking about parking?

You're talking about water.

Yeah, the short parking is a no.

On the water, I think that we had an additional condition that just says that they establish an HOA for the existing three lots, or they join the other, and that covers the that covers both options.

It would be a temporary HOA that's up to them.

They could keep it, or they can I mean they can kill it once it but it has to it has to go through live through the sale of the until until all three homes have so why can't the developers take over that responsibility until all the homes?

Because there's no ordinances that require that right now.

We have no ordinances that would basically through the HOA creating, he is saying the developer has to take it, basically.

That that is basically what he's saying.

Okay, so the developer creates the HOA.

At this point, it would still be controlled by them, the HOA.

Yeah, okay.

Yeah, I mean he's somebody who's owning this property, yeah.

Okay, so let me give it a show.

Yes.

Okay.

Any other discussion before?

Okay.

Uh I'll make a motion that the planning commission approve the requested specific special exception for the whole hollow bend subdivision located at 166 east, 10600 south, as we start describing the staff report, and based on the two findings as detailed in the staff report as well as the four conditions with a modification to condition number three.

Um that a note on the plat is documented associated with this parking agreement in a manner that staff has feel comfortable with.

And then an addition additional fifth com fifth condition that the developer create either an HOA to address cover the three new lots in the subdivision that will maintain the park strip, the existing park strip uh along hollow bend drive, abutted by these three lots that will last at least through the construction and occupancy of all three lots, or that the developer subject these three lots to the existing I don't know, whatever subdivision that is.

Adjacent subject.

Crescent hollow what crescent hollow crescent hollow HOA.

Did that cover it?

I like it.

I'll second it.

Nice.

Dave Bromley?

Yes.

Cameron Duncan?

Yes.

Ron Mortimer.

Yes.

Daniel Schoenfeld?

Yes.

Stephen Wrigley?

Yes.

Lenise Davenport.

Yes.

This motion carries.

Okay, and I'll do an easy one.

Make a motion that the uh planning commission determine the preliminary subdivision review for the hollow bend subdivision located at 166 east, one of 600 south, is substantially compete complete based on the four findings and four conditions detailed in the staff report.

I'll second it.

Dave Bromley?

Yes.

Cameron Dunkin?

Yes.

Yes.

Danny Schoenfeld?

Yes.

Stephen Wrigley?

Yes.

Yes.

This motion carries.

All right, thank you.

Okay, we'll move to the next item.

This is item number five for the indigo subdivision special exception review.

Mike, will you please introduce this item?

Thank you, Madam Chair.

So the next item is uh a proposed subdivision uh that has been uh submitted by Damian Mora of Garbette Homes.

Uh they are requesting that that this property be further subdivided.

It was recently rezoned uh to the RM12 zone.

They're proposing to develop this into uh residential single family lots.

Um I believe the applicant is here and can present um their request.

We're gonna hear both the subdivision and special exception at the same time, similar to the previous item.

Damian Mora, uh 371 east, 9,000 south, Sandy Sandy, Utah.

Uh thanks.

Thanks everyone for your time uh this evening.

Um Damian Mora with Garbell Homes.

Uh we uh proposing this 20 uh single family detached lot subdivision called Indigo.

Um before I go into what Indigo is, I want to say what it's what it's not.

Uh a few years ago it was rezoned to the RM12.

Um so what it's not, it's not uh with the R within the RM12.

Uh you know, we're allowed 12 units to the acre, 20 units or 49 units.

Mr.

Morrow, can you make sure you're speaking right into one of one of those two.

One of these two, yeah, perfect.

Um, or 49 units using the the P uh PUD method.

But um earlier on with the rezone uh we the public comment uh and and just we wanted to present the the best product, the best subdivision we could.

Uh the the those 20 uh a similar site plan to this 20 lot detached uh subdivision was was contemplated and and as you see here is what we were proposing with indigo.

Um tough little site.

Um just with the the the it's it's a single access, so the there's a special exception uh application for for that.

Um it is uh the the seller when they when they they uh the the seller is the one I think that did the rezone.

Um they they uh demoed the the the building on site, but as you can see it's it's uh surrounded by existing uses, existing sub uh subdivision to to the east, uh a church to the to the west, and that's also the the west property line, the the the line on the left is uh Midville City, and then residential on the on the south side.

Um it is uh three, three and a half times longer than it is wide.

So again, we we would have to um part of the subdivision application, uh the special exceptions was was a single access uh ingress egress uh and then uh special exception to the the uh the public standard of of right away, the 52 feet wide.

Um I don't know if it helped me.

The the the previous project was 20 feet wide, or we're proposing 27 feet of asphalt, just asphalt uh on the project.

So uh I don't know if that was a good good or good or bad segue, or I don't know, maybe no help at all.

But uh anyway, we we fill uh this project, this proposal uh balances the needs of of the public and and presents the the most efficient use of the land uh in that even though we're proposing a private street, it is accessible by the public.

Um we went we did some a lot of back and forths with the the staff just trying to get the best project proposal forward.

Um and and I wanted to just present them now just so you're aware of just kind of some of the work that we did.

We originally proposed uh sidewalk only on one side, and I think staff felt strongly that we should include it on both sides.

Uh and and we agreed, and so we we show the sidewalk on both sides of that private road.

Uh all all private improvements would be uh maintained by an HOA that would be created.

Uh so that that would be maintaining the the private road and improvements.

Um then part of the because it's a single access, um, we uh show a stub road with a potential uh of future development uh if uh if if we were able to purchase that uh that adjoining property but uh I I I uh we have made some attempts and have not heard heard back from so but that was part of the the application requirements is to show how we could plausibly develop that adjoining piece and and provide us a secondary access to the to the project.

Um these are some elevations we're proposing.

Um Garbette, we we uh pride ourselves in some more modern design, uh, but we we do uh a mix of of modern design and also uh some more traditional looks.

But these were some of the elevations we're proposing.

Um all would have a uh a two a two car garage that would um uh meet city standards of unobstructed, uh I believe the twenty by twenty feet.

Uh and then we would also have uh a twenty foot uh garage setback.

And then uh these uh these are the list of the special exception uh requests.

I'm happy to dive into those if you'd like, or happy to answer any questions.

Okay.

We will um I don't know if there's any other slides, is that the last slide possibly?

Oh I think we're good.

Are we good on slides?

Okay, all right, thank you.

We'll turn it to staff time.

Cash Hamsey, will you come please provide the staff presentation on this before we turn it to questions?

Yeah.

Thank you, Commission.

Um I just briefly want to talk about we had a a great neighborhood meeting um this last week with the the surrounding neighbors.

Um I think we had four or five show up.

Um but they had some questions about fencing, and and we didn't really talk about that in this presentation, so I just want to touch on that.

That the this zone does require a a fence to be around the property, so there's already an existing fence on the east side there, and I believe the west side and they're going to replace that with uh some sort of vinyl fence, I assume.

A six foot vinyl fence, and and they the applicant said that they'll work with those residents who live up on the the east side there to inform them of when they're planning on on doing that.

Um but besides that uh they they've been great work to work with and and we have no concerns with this project moving forward.

Excellent.

All right, thank you.

Okay, um we will now open this item to the um public for public comment.

Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak on this item?

Yes, please come to the podium and state your name and your address, and you'll have approximately three minutes.

It's Michelle Walker and it's eighty twenty-eight South Tap Lane.

Um I appreciate Garbette Homes building detached single family homes.

So thank you very much.

We worked very hard on the other subdivision to make sure that was in place and and it was, and they're beautiful.

I just wondered about the sidewalk, because there is an existing sidewalk, but it's very i it's in rough, rough condition.

Um and a tree fell on it.

Um I'm just also in not with Garbat Homes, but Sandy.

Sandy, come on.

I know you have money.

We need sidewalks, good sidewalks all the way out.

There is a school there, and there are children walking, and there is not sidewalks all the way up ADS South on Sandy Side.

Thanks to Garbette Homes, there is now on Middle side.

So that's my other concern is let's get with it, Sandy and and get a nice sidewalk all the way up on Sandy Side.

Thank you.

Yeah, thank you so much.

Anyone else?

All right.

Mike, do we have anybody online?

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

I'm seeing no hands.

All right, thank you so much.

Um with that, we'll go ahead and close the public comment and turn it back to the planning commission for deliberation.

Do we have any questions or comments or do we want uh any questions answered for cash or the applicant?

Yeah, I've got a couple of questions actually.

Um so on the oh what is this one, the subdivision review one?

Condition number three talks about um signage uh for no parking.

Is that just limited to the hammerhead area?

It's not the whole street, correct?

Um well I I I was told to be prepared to speak about it.

Is there one that um yeah, we would we would uh put signage on the on the hammerhead?

Um right, that is a condition.

I guess my my question is is that is that the whole street?

That's correct.

Why why?

No, just uh oh just the hammerhead.

Sorry, I've yeah, okay.

Yeah, I would have thought it was it's within the it's within the hammerhead itself.

Yeah, okay.

I think we need to clarify that on that condition is what I think because their width of street is at least 27 feet wide.

Yeah, it does allow for on street parking.

Um but where it would not allow for any on street parking is within the fire hammerhead turnaround area.

Yes.

That makes all the sense in the world.

Storage or anything else.

Makes all the sense in the world.

Perfect.

And we'd have we're happy to put signage on the on the on the no parking signage on the on the hammerhead.

And and the the the 27 feet is just asphalt.

We should also have gutter.

You should pull that to the right.

And then Mike, can you pull up that uh that site uh the plan that shows the detail right there, the detention?

Uh I I don't know these already been sized, the detention basins.

I mean, like particularly the ones that are on the the homes on the west side, those are all those are all been sized, and know that you can build the home and the detention basins.

Yes, they've all been size uh size.

So the ones uh the ones on the on the rear are I guess the bottom and the top of the lots are all uh uh retention?

So those are retention.

Yeah, those are those are right.

Can you those are those retentions or size, particularly the ones on the west side of the road where that they're a lot tighter?

And they can be built to size and our public works has looked at that and good with that.

Yeah, yeah, I think uh they they take the whole site uh uh I think uh uh analysis.

I think that's what I don't know if that bottom one is that that's what it is.

That's the drainage.

Um I think the I don't know the color on top blue takes all the drainage to that top retention.

Uh actually that would be a detention pond that would um detain and then uh overflow into the the city system uh and then you know the different colors go to the different uh detentions.

But yeah, they they've uh uh I uh the site as a whole, we've analyzed uh and uh uh size those accordingly to city standard and and uh required uh detention retention.

Yes.

Okay.

Any other questions?

Any other comments?

I guess my one comment would be um I I do hope that you hear back from the other landowner to allow for a secondary access point.

Um I think that would be a really good thing to have.

But other than that, I think we might be ready for a motion from the commission.

I I'll make the motion.

Um see, I make the motion that the planning commission approve the requested special exceptions described in the staff report for the indigo subdivision located at 348 east, 8,000 south based on the three findings is that as outlined in the staff report.

I'll second it.

Yes.

Danny Schultz?

Yes.

Dave Romley?

Yes.

One more comment?

Yes.

Stephen Wrigley?

Yes.

Yes.

This motion carries.

Thank you.

One more motion.

Yes, I'd like to make another one.

Make the motion of the planning commission to determine the preliminary subdivid subdivision review is substantially complete for the indigo subdivision at 348 East 8000 South based on the five findings.

And seven conditions is outlined in the staff report with an amendment to condition number three that the no parking signs are within the fire truck hammerhead area.

I'll second Cameron Duncan.

Yes.

Dave Romley?

Yes.

Yes.

Stephen Wrigley?

Yes.

Lenise Davenport.

Yes.

Thank you.

All right.

That ends all of our business for today.

Thank you so much.

Um the last item of business is to approve the meeting minutes from June 18th, 2026.

Do I have a motion?

I'd like to object to me being the vice chair.

Too late.

You're in.

It's always dangerous to miss a meeting when we're voting for chair and vice chairs.

That's can we have an official motion?

Motion to approve minutes from the list.

No, I think skip for you, Ronnie.

And I think Cameron wants to be chair.

Is that what he's saying?

That works for me.

I'm in favor.

Right.

All right.

I don't think we need a roll call vote for that, right?

All in favor?

Any opposed?

All right.

I wasn't here.

I call that motion unanimous passing unanimously.

Thank you.

All right.

With that, um, James, is there anything that you have for us?

Yeah, just a couple items.

Um, first item just uh we talked a little bit about on the field trip, but I will get you information as soon as I have it.

Um I just wanted to invite you to the pink box grand opening.

It's actually a pretty cool event, usually.

I the I went to the one down in America for just to see how they ran it.

So as soon as I get information on it, I'll send it out to you so you can come and kind of see it.

But it's kind of the first of its kind in well, we're second now behind American Fort, but still first in Salt Lake County.

But um they do quite a few events and things, so it might be fun for you to participate in that.

The second item I wanted to discuss is you had your uh uh somewhat of a I guess at an executive session today, as far as uh um talking about ADUs and so forth.

I want to address though and make some clarifications to make sure you're completely understanding where and how we run a city initiated code amendment and how we're required to do that.

So I think it's important for you to understand the process and what we will do on that and what we do consistently on all them.

We have to run them the same, obviously, because that's the law.

So when we get a when we get a um city initiated, like uh we will run on anything that we initiate or that we're required to initiate.

We will we will draft that as staff.

We will make a staff recommendation.

That staff recommendation will come to the planning commission.

We'll present that, the planning commission will review that recommendation, the planning commission as we go through that, we can discuss it, we can have whatever discussion you want on it.

If the if you agree with all of it, then you vote as a planning commission to agree with all of it.

If there's parts you don't, you don't have to agree with everything that staff may say.

But at that point, you can you can sand or create your own, you know what we don't agree with.

This we would like to send this to the city council.

So what's important though is as you have that discussion, that has to be a discussion that has a majority vote to send to the city council from the planning commission.

It can't just be one individual or two sending that.

When we send something as the code amendment process, we'll have to have it a majority.

So on the things that you we agree on in the staff want or disagree on, it'll be whatever you send on, but it will have to be through a majority, obviously, vote from the planning commission.

That'll go to the city council, they'll have a staff report, they'll have the planning commission's recommendations that may or may not agree with everything that the staff says.

That's super common.

I mean, when we have code amendments that we uh we may not always agree on everything, and that and that's what the city council will look at, they'll make a final decision.

But the key point I wanted to make is when you guys, all of you, when you discuss this, you'll discuss it and have to make a major uh you'll have to have majority votes on it.

And so at a point you either agree, you'll you'll agree with us, or points you don't.

Each one will have to come as a majority vote.

If there's personal items that each of you have that you feel stronger about, maybe you as a planning commission doesn't don't do not totally agree with what the majority of the planning commission sent on.

It's still the voice of one planning commission sends that on through a majority vote.

If you want to come and wrap around and come to a city council meeting and speak as an individual, and um, but not for the planning commission, you have every right to do that as well.

But my point is it's important that to know that if we bring something you don't agree with that, yeah, it still goes, we take that and you'll make your recommendation to the city council as well.

But it has to be a majority from the planning commission who will send that on.

I think that we all understood and agreed with that.

And I think that we were just trying to make sure that we have information soon enough so that if there's anything that we felt like we needed to um jointly come to determination on, sure that we would have the opportunity and ability to do that in a in a manner that would that would that we'd be able to understand where we were united or not united and figured that forward.

That's what we were trying to do.

Are you recommending possibly this could take two meetings?

That depends on what comes in the order.

So we'll just we'll just see, but but if if if for instance it it did take more than that, there's there's no reason we couldn't take more time if you needed it.

We need to take the time the planning commission needs, and I totally agree that you need the time to decide what your recommendation is and whether you have unanimity or not.

We need to take the time the planning commission needs and I totally agree that you need the time to decide what your recommendation is and whether you whether you have unanimity or not correct but unanimity has to be passed on from the planning commission majority has to be passed.

Oh sorry majority has to be passed on to from them to the council because that's already recognized by the council.

We totally agree.

Okay can you just remind me what just what the majority number is five four four well it would be four four if there's seven votes okay or whatever how many are here you have to at least have four based on a quorum if we're based on your quorum which is seven.

Okay.

Okay.

So any motion so even if there's only five of you that show up you still have to have four positive votes to move anything forward.

And if six show up and it's three three it's denied.

Gotta have four James do you anticipate having the recommendations out of I know you typically you try a week before the next planning commission do you anticipate having the report out before you know earlier than that or are we only going to see it a week before we'll have it out as early as we can on uh Friday the 31st I can't commit to it any earlier than that but um if we do by chance have it drafted and in a form that we can share um then we will do so but um we'll I am imagining that we're probably gonna need all the time that we can to make sure we have it as tight and as polished as we possibly can um because it is a complicated code amendment.

It is it's not totally uh just a few words and a few lines it touches in a couple of different sections even and so it's it's gonna be fairly complex.

Could we get a briefing paper in advance of that then without with the it depends how far along we are on it because we don't want to say anything on that that might not match that later on or something right I'm just saying but my point is though if if you don't feel like you have a ton of time or need more time we'll take the time in this meeting or a next you know what I mean?

Yeah I was just curious.

Yeah we'll take the time we need to give the planning commission the time to do what you think is the time you need to pass something that you feel comfortable.

And we don't want to make you feel rushed in any way except for the fact that we do have a October 1st deadline that we need to have something in place prior to the state's code going into effect.

And and you guys are usually you guys are usually fairly quick and efficient.

And we want to make sure we have equally enough time for the council to deliberate and make their decision prior to that October time frame.

I say no more so we appreciate you um taking the time and and I know it's it's one that um people feel very strongly both and and no matter whether they're in support of the concept or not we do need to adopt something.

And so um yeah we'll we'll try to be as thorough as we can give us something good then.

And uh hopefully hopefully um it's something that's right hopefully it's something that you feel that could be adopted or with some minor tweaks or changes that could also move forward.

But if we need more time don't feel like you have to adopt anything on that August 6th meeting.

And I would say we do have a second meeting in August which would be on um 16th.

The 20th 20th but I can't we won't take it we we need to have it within that honest time frame for sure.

Yeah I I wouldn't push it into September because that then doesn't give the council much time for their uh deliberation and discussion on that as well.

I know that the boss we're good I just it's I think we'll get there.

I think we will too and I and I appreciate the the input and feedback that we've reached that we've received thus far from both the council and from U.S.

planning commissioners.

Anything else James I I I guess I would hope also I I think the overall premise in my mind is that we're um hoping to provide greater opportunity for existing Sandy residents to stay and other ones to be able to come in.

And but our existing stock, we're all we're there's not that many infill you know places to build, and so we're looking at existing stock.

And so having ex homes built, many of these homes built in a manner that preclude likely an a D a detached ADU as one issue, and then also cost is another issue.

I just don't see that happening.

So I just hope that kind of a premise can really be discussed with the council also.

The council has had many discussions on this already.

Um, and there they've been thinking about this for a long time since the general plan process went through.

So they have been thinking, and I think I think everybody's agreeing with you on your points.

I think it's a matter of how fast we take it and how fast we get it there.

Some you know what I mean.

I think I think there's some that would like to.

Well, I don't want to open this up to uh a discussion on this right now, but I think it's a matter of how fast we actually take and how fast the approach moves on it.

I think that uh there's some who would like to go just a little bit slower and see how it works.

I loved ripping band-aids off because I could deal with it rather than let it faster.

Well, there's a difference between planning commission and city council.

So um one quick uh note of reference as far as uh you all are concerned.

Um Utah APA uh just published their kind of uh preliminary conference agenda.

It will be held up in Leighton at the Davis Conference Center this year, September 9th and 10th.

Uh they do have a track that's specific for planning commissioners and citizen uh planners, uh so city council members or any people that uh are citizen planners that want to be involved in the urban planning process.

Um there are uh specific classes that are tailored to you as non-planning professionals.

Um so it's a great opportunity.

Uh the city will cover your costs to go if you commit to going.

Um so if if that's something that you're interested in, please reach out to me directly and we can get you registered and and get that lined up.

Um if you're thinking about it, pencil it in on your calendars and let me know so that we can get you registered for that.

Uh there was an email that uh Utah APA also sent out that I'll forward this information to you all regarding this conference as well as uh some things that they're rolling out.

They're doing quarterly planning commissioner chats, um, group chats essentially, where you all can talk as as a forum and and uh in a group, which I think is uh an awesome opportunity.

Oh, for some reason it's not sharing.

That's weird.

Well, okay.

Um I'll just discuss what what's on there.

Um so I'll send this link out to you so that you could join that if you're so interested.

Uh they'll have different topics and things that you can uh talk with your fellow planning commissioners about issues that are happening across the state, how other communities are doing that.

Good opportunity for you to generate new ideas or or help other uh planning commissioners that maybe are newer and can provide some guidance to those other uh uh planning commissioners that are serving throughout the state.

Um so anyway, I'll forward this information to you all, but I just wanted to make sure you were aware of those opportunities.

Thank you guys.

Thank you.

And thank you for your efforts and time.

And this, like Mike said, this one's gonna be a little longer and tougher, but you get I appreciate you hanging in there and just uh working with us on it.

You guys are great, all of you motion to adjourn.

Second, I look at that.

I already read it for that.

Do you want to ask for it?

Uh we are motion to adjourn.

Motion to adjourn.

All in favor?

That was a mess, my bad.