[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[0:00] Reporting
[0:10] in
[0:17] progress.
[0:29] Madam Chair, we're ready whenever you're ready.
[0:38] Thank you. We will go ahead and begin then. Welcome, everyone. We are grateful to have you with us for the
[0:47] just earlier for our award-night.
[0:51] Thank you for continuing to celebrate and be here with us tonight.
[0:55] We will start our meeting the way we always do with a prayer and a pledge.
[0:59] We'd like to invite Chris McHanless, a no-al bitman committee member and former city council member
[1:04] to offer this evening's prayer.
[1:06] Thank you.
[1:15] Good evening.
[1:17] Our kind of integration is father and him, and as we gather here tonight as citizens and
[1:21] all our good officials, we thank thee for the opportunity to live in this great
[1:24] community, it's a great state and nation. We thank thee for the blessings that I was
[1:28] bestowed upon all of us. We ask thee this evening, Father, for a blessing upon all of
[1:35] our city council people this evening, all of our elected officials, the administration,
[1:41] those who serve in uniform and serve as sworn officers of our community that they may
[1:47] health, safe and dinarms. As we know, they place their trust in the everyday and ask
[1:54] to keep them safe. Keep them vigilant and their desires to serve us as the citizens of
[2:00] this community with those decisions which will continue to build upon this great community
[2:06] and serve our nation. We thank the Father for all of those citizens who have served diligently
[2:13] and volunteering their efforts, and especially this evening, Father, we ask thee for a special blessing upon Steve Fairbanks, as he receives his award and Miss Cadale, as well.
[2:25] We ask thee, Father, for those decisions to be made without biased,
[2:32] without challenges to the integrity of the system at all times in all ways.
[2:38] We say these things, Father, and the beloved name of thy son, Jesus Christ, amen.
[2:44] Thank you, Mr. McCannless.
[2:47] Now we'd like to invite Mr. Ben Christianson,
[2:50] who will lead us in the pledge.
[3:00] Please follow me, I'm residing in the pledge.
[3:02] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America
[3:07] and to the Republic for which it stands,
[3:11] foundation under God in the visible, in the 13th and 13th of tomorrow.
[3:23] Thank you so much for the prayer and Ben,
[3:27] Thank you for the pledge and for all of you joining your voices together with us.
[3:32] We'll move on with quick introductions and then we'll jump into this evening's meeting.
[3:37] So if we could start with our council office over here, start with introductions.
[3:42] Thank you.
[3:47] Apologies Madam Chair.
[3:48] My name is Dustin Fraudon.
[3:49] I'm with the City Council Office.
[3:50] We've a couple other council staff members in the back of the room, Justin Sornson and Matt Perry.
[3:56] Hello, my name is Tracy and Council for the Council.
[3:59] Chris Edwards with the Council Office.
[4:02] Chris Nickle of District 3.
[4:04] Cindy Sharkey at large.
[4:06] Brooke Christensen District 1.
[4:08] Marcy Houseman District 4.
[4:10] Allison Straud District 2.
[4:11] Erin DeKaiser at large.
[4:13] Mayor Monica Zaltansky.
[4:16] And we excuse Ms. Councilwoman Dissources and unable to join us.
[4:20] She's an additional at large.
[4:22] So tonight we begin with a very special recognition and presentation.
[4:27] As part of our city council annual awards program, we will be presenting two awards this evening
[4:33] honoring the service and dedication of two individuals from our community.
[4:38] We will be introducing or announcing the Sandy City Council civic engagement award as well as the
[4:44] Noel Bateman Lifetime Service Award.
[4:46] The Sandy City Council was proud to honor Rebecca Cadel as the second recipient of the Sandy City Council Civic Engagement Award.
[4:56] This award was established to honor individuals whose voluntary service.
[5:00] Civic involvement, and quiet leadership have made a meaningful and lasting impact on the Sandy community.
[5:07] The inspiration for this award came during a special recognition that we held last year in honor of long-time resident Don Gerty,
[5:15] whose exemplary life of service and civic commitment perfectly embodies the values of this award and his service was the inspiration
[5:24] for the establishment of the Sandy City Council Civic Engagement Award.
[5:30] Civic Engagement can take many forms.
[5:33] It can mean serving on a city committee.
[5:35] It can mean volunteering at a school.
[5:37] It can mean helping the neighbor.
[5:39] It can mean creating a program when you see a need.
[5:42] It can mean preserving the history of our community
[5:44] or helping plan for its future.
[5:47] And sometimes it means doing all of those things.
[5:51] Which brings us to Rebecca.
[5:53] For our first presentation, we'll be back at Cadel and the City Council.
[5:57] Please join us in front of the Dias.
[6:31] I am honored to introduce Rebecca Cadel.
[6:34] Rebecca is a lifelong Sandy resident, someone who truly embodies the spirit of civic engagement.
[6:41] Rebecca's family has been part of Sandy for five generations, and she has spent her life
[6:46] giving back to the community that shaped her.
[6:48] Her service has touched Sandy's school, students, families, historic resources,
[6:53] community organizations. She has been an educator, PTA president, and everything else.
[7:00] At multiple schools, community council chair at multiple schools, and has served on numerous
[7:04] city committees, including the historic committee and the CDGB committee. Rebecca has created programs,
[7:12] brought volunteers together, supported students,
[7:19] preserved community history, and quietly helped
[7:21] families and individuals in need.
[7:24] One example that really captures Rebecca, who Rebecca is,
[7:27] came during her time at Sandi Elementary.
[7:29] She was recognized that some of the students were struggling
[7:32] with reading and needed additional support.
[7:35] Rather than simply identifying the problem,
[7:37] she created the Reach Gather Program,
[7:39] recruiting and coordinating more than two dozen volunteers
[7:42] to work one-on-one with students.
[7:44] She personally invested hundreds of hours
[7:46] to make sure the program succeeded,
[7:48] giving children not only reading support, but confidence and encouragement.
[7:53] Even with her many, many amazing acts of service to our community,
[7:57] what stands out the most about Rebecca is that she has never served for recognition.
[8:02] She sees a need, steps forward, brings people together and works to make things better.
[8:09] Rebecca represents the very best of Sandy, compassionate, thoughtful, humble and deeply committed to our community.
[8:15] Rebecca, we are honored to present you with the 2026 Sandy City Civic Engagement Award.
[8:49] Good afternoon, are you joining us?
[8:52] Thank you.
[8:53] I'm a Cadel family for a picture with her back in.
[9:14] We'll show you which is 18 rows.
[9:33] And two, three.
[9:51] Yep, kiss them all.
[9:54] Got my voice.
[10:25] Members of the Council and Mayor distinguished department heads and members here of the community. We are here, members of we are the chair and vice chair of the Noel Bateman award committee. It is our pleasure to work on presenting that award here this evening.
[10:49] The 2,026-Nolbeteman Lifetime Service Award will be presented to Steve Fairbanks if you join me in a round of applause for Steve.
[11:00] This is Steve.
[11:08] Come on up.
[11:08] We've got to brag about it.
[11:14] Since 1992, since
[11:23] 1992, Steve Fairbanks has served in our community in countless ways.
[11:29] As a member of the Sadie City Council, a civic leader, a volunteer and advocate, a mentor, a neighbor and a friend.
[11:36] And his service is reached across, sadly, and beyond, touching organizations,
[11:43] all those
[11:43] are projected.
[11:44] Maybe I'll just come up.
[11:45] Is it okay for you to just stay?
[12:00] Steve has served the City Council, but his commitment did not end when his time of being elected
[12:06] official did it.
[12:08] He's continued to give his time, his talents, his leadership, and compassion whenever it's
[12:13] needed to our city.
[12:14] What stands out the most is not simply the number of organizations where Steve is served, but the consistency.
[12:21] For more than 34 years, he has continued to find ways to make our community better.
[12:27] Steve's legacy is one of leadership, service, and genuine care for his community.
[12:32] Tonight, we are honored to recognize that that remarkable legacy.
[12:36] Before we present the war to see him, we invite you to hear from Steve and his own words in a video that we prepare it.
[12:44] So we'll sit down for a minute. We'll come back after the video.
[13:35] I'm not that important.
[13:39] But volunteering being involved is important.
[13:43] This is the place we live.
[13:45] We had lots of neighbors involved in various aspects of the city and it made the city great.
[13:52] And that tells cities become great as by people being involved.
[13:58] I guess I first started getting involved in the city at 1992 when I opened my real estate office here.
[14:07] I got approached by the chamber of commerce and they started listening to follow committees I could serve on and one of them was the economic development committee.
[14:16] That gave me the chance to meet people like Tekken Padded Dare and Jan Van Kampen and a number of others.
[14:24] Next thing I know I was asked to settle on the board of directors, so that was pretty much the beginning of it.
[14:31] So one thing just sort of led to another.
[14:34] I was a city councilman for 16 years.
[14:38] When I ran for office, my slogan, which was device by my son, was both for a man without a plan.
[14:50] But I didn't have anything particular that I was upset about, that I wanted to fix.
[15:00] City was great. I loved City, but I'd been involved in different things over the years, and I just got
[15:08] why it was one more committee to serve on. So I served and I think that's important. The elected officials
[15:15] know their citizens, that what we do in this community affects us as well as everybody else. And I enjoyed
[15:24] got sent to community. This fun meet with people and just discussing their concerns and seeing
[15:31] what we could do about them if they were rational, which they weren't always. So that was just
[15:38] fun to be involved. But it's nice to be recognized for the effort that you made. I was,
[15:46] I don't know whether it was because I was delumited or what, but I got involved in a lot of things
[15:50] through my time in the city. I got to chance to roam shoulders with a lot of good people and they influenced me for good.
[16:00] And I hope maybe somehow I influenced someone else for good. It's all we can do.
[16:22] Okay Steve, come on up.
[16:28] Ladies and gentlemen, I'm presenting the Null Bateman Lifetime Service Award to Steve Fairbanks for 2026. Congratulations.
[16:48] So if the members of the council could go down for a picture, that's when
[16:58] the authority of the person to receive this award.
[17:02] I'll be able to.
[17:04] We've got the council coming.
[17:07] Get a picture of Mayor, then we'll have you come down.
[17:27] Okay.
[17:29] So that's the way it goes really good.
[17:40] Good folks.
[17:42] Okay.
[17:43] We're going to.
[17:52] We're going to.
[18:00] We're going to try.
[18:04] Yeah, but the Fairbanks family could go up and then Council and Mayor please stay there as
[18:15] well
[18:49] Okay, we've asked Mr. Fairbanks to give some brief comments and then after which the Council will take back over the meeting
[19:08] It's an honor to be recognized
[19:12] When I had the opportunity to serve with the League of Cities of Towns, I would often
[19:20] get asked as I at our annual conferences by Councilpeople and Mayor of some different communities,
[19:28] what they could do in their community to make them as good as Sandy City.
[19:36] I always told them they had no hope because in order to be like Sandy City you had to
[19:44] have our citizens. It's an honor to serve you and I appreciate this award. Thank you.
[20:01] Thank you to everyone. So tonight we've had the wonderful privilege of recognizing two remarkable Sandy residents who services made a lasting difference in our community.
[20:14] Thank you Rebecca Cadel and Steve Fairbanks and family. We all know that there's always our loved ones standing behind us when we serve. So this appreciation goes that to all of you as well.
[20:25] We appreciate the opportunity to honor both of you and thank you for all that you've done to serve in our community in such dedicated ways.
[20:34] Thank you for making Sandy a wonderful place to be.
[20:37] And we're now going to move on and I know you have other things you probably would rather be doing than our conversation here.
[20:44] So one more round of applause for tonight's award recipients.
[20:57] Thank you.
[21:04] Madam Chair.
[21:04] Yes, please.
[21:05] So we're a little earlier than we suspected the planning commission isn't going to join us till 6pm, so if you'd like
[21:12] We could go through the consent calendar and then we could also take the
[21:17] Hagen Road item, which is item number five if you'd if you'd like okay, I'll turn it away
[21:23] You could recess, but I mean, that's a quite a long recess. I see let's go ahead and do consent calendar
[21:28] I like that
[21:30] Recommendation to try to get us up to that six o'clock
[21:32] That is sure I'm making motion to approve the consent calendar.
[21:38] Second.
[21:39] We have a motion on the second.
[21:40] This can just be a voice vote correct.
[21:42] So all in favor say aye.
[21:45] Any opposed?
[21:46] No.
[21:47] Okay.
[21:48] I see that that passes.
[21:50] And I do like the recommendation to move on to item number five this evening.
[21:54] We will return to the top of our agenda in order to make sure we have plenty of time for those items.
[22:00] So, this is community development, we are hearing the Hagen Road Reson, Mr. Warner.
[22:13] Good evening, Council.
[22:14] Thank you, Chair.
[22:15] I could be with you, all of you, for the Public My Names Jake Warner,
[22:19] Long Reigns Planning Manager for Sandy City.
[22:24] As I was mentioned, this item is an application presented by Matthew Grant,
[22:30] And also representing Barry Evans and Lyle Warner,
[22:34] Request, and a zone change of property located at 1-156-2 south,
[22:39] 1-156-3 south, and 1-158-6 south on Hagen Road.
[22:44] They are requesting to add the aid designation for farm animal rights,
[22:49] to there are 1-20 zone, so rezoning from our 1-20 to our 1-20 aim.
[22:53] Their properties total approximately 1.79 acres.
[22:57] This item was presented at the City Council on September 1st and has been brought back before
[23:04] you tonight for decision as a legislative item and this has gone to the Planning Commission
[23:09] with the statutory public or the required state required public hearing and they did
[23:15] forward a positive recommendation to you and with that the applicant is present and staff is
[23:22] available.
[23:25] Thank you. Council, do we have any questions? We know we've had heard this presentation.
[23:35] I am not seeing any questions. So then we will move forward with,
[23:45] we need to take it again,
[23:46] even though we did the, probably it always good practice for voting. Yes, this is a voting item.
[23:51] All right. So, and we're taking public comment on this item. This is not our general citizen comment.
[23:56] This is specifically on this Hagen road resound. So yes, thank you for that.
[24:00] I'll go ahead and oh, good for public comments.
[24:03] I have a number of blue cards from those who are here in Chambers the Safety and we're going
[24:07] the order that I've received them, and then we will move to our online.
[24:11] If you do wish to speak and you have not yet filled out of blue card, do do so.
[24:15] You can grab one in the back and present it to here to Mr. Frato.
[24:19] I have one comment, but I believe this is for general citizen comment and this looks like
[24:24] it is for item 5.
[24:26] So we have Paula Dodas, and I'm sorry if I did not get it right.
[24:33] Feel free to correct me on the record.
[24:38] Do that.
[24:39] I just emphasized the wrong syllable.
[24:43] I just, I know there's been some recommendations to move forward with this.
[24:50] I actually, well, if you put the map back up, I actually live in one of the houses that
[24:54] to one of the houses that want to, oh sorry.
[25:00] Okay. I actually back to one of the properties that they want to change to agricultural.
[25:09] And I have lived in San Jose for about 13 years now. And until recently, I haven't noticed any farm animals.
[25:19] And now all of a sudden we have roosters, which I know are illegal. We have called several times.
[25:25] And the person directly behind me keeps kind of playing games with it and sending it across the street, and then they'll go in, and they have a one-hagen road.
[25:35] And then they'll bring it back, so I just feel like if you allow them to go forward with these sheep or lamb that Matthew Grant wants to have.
[25:45] I just feel like they feel that they are above the law, and they don't have to follow the rules.
[25:50] They're not following the rules with the roosters. They have chickens which I know you can have chickens
[25:55] I'm not a fan, but not saying that you can't
[25:59] So I just feel like I just really want everybody to think about it. These properties are not very large
[26:05] We are all really close together and this is a city and that's why I moved here
[26:10] I didn't move to a farm. I don't want to live on a farm
[26:13] I don't want to hear a rooster at 6.15 every morning
[26:16] which I have video and I can show you pictures that happens every single morning in my backyard.
[26:23] So anyway, I just ask that y'all just kind of reconsider, look at the properties, look at the size of these properties.
[26:30] This is not farm country. You talk has a lot of farm land.
[26:35] You know, go live in a farm and get chickens and lambs and cows and whatever else you want.
[26:42] So anyway, I just ask that you just kind of reconsider or think about this development and we are in a city and that's kind of what where I want to live.
[26:53] So anyway, that's all I have to say.
[26:55] But anyway, thank you.
[26:57] Thank you very much.
[26:59] All right, next we have Debbie Judd.
[27:17] I'm Debbie Judd.
[27:19] I live next to the grass.
[27:21] When we built, I spoke before, I emailed each of the city council.
[27:30] When I spoke before, I haven't changed my mind.
[27:32] I am against rezoning for agriculture.
[27:35] When we came into Sandy's city, we were no longer Sandy County.
[27:41] And we were told at that time that we would not be county
[27:45] and not be agriculture, which was fine.
[27:48] We didn't plan to be.
[27:50] I maintained that I asked Mr. Sorenson.
[27:56] He was going to get a map and for us to put it up
[27:59] of the neighbors behind our lots.
[28:03] Their lots are very small.
[28:06] And so when people on a long lot who don't have room
[28:10] for animals decide to get farm animals,
[28:13] because they put them at the very back of their property.
[28:17] So the people off of play a road and the circles, I mean those farm animals, the smells,
[28:24] the flies, they're right there, they're literally in their patios, you know, feed away, feed
[28:32] away.
[28:33] I think, half an acre is not enough property, not enough land to have farm animals.
[28:42] When you consider there are houses, when you consider there are detached garages, there
[28:49] are basketball courts, there are big patios, so where is the land for the animals?
[28:58] There is no land for the animals.
[29:00] It is very very small. I don't feel like I have property for farm animals. I don't and my yard is the same size.
[29:11] In fact, I travel and I would like to not be agriculture. I am in Sandy City.
[29:19] And I don't think it's agriculture. I don't think it's consideration of large farm animals.
[29:29] They're just not room, so I am really against it, I would really like you to consider
[29:34] this space, this space.
[29:37] As planners consider it's just cruelty-dammals to try to have, can you imagine two horses
[29:44] on that property?
[29:46] Two cows would be allowed, five sheep, there is just not room in a sandy city can't differentiate
[29:53] between large farm animals and small farm animals, there's literally not room for that kind of
[30:00] So, I would hope you would at least come look at the properties if you haven't already. You could see it on Google search.
[30:08] But anyway, thank you for your time. Thank you for doing this meeting. Thanks.
[30:14] Thank you. Okay. Next for item number five. I have Matthew Grant.
[30:26] Thank you. Apologies and you heard from me last week that I just thought I'd take three minutes here and just summarise a couple of points.
[30:33] As the applicant proposal, I have covered in detail the reasons why our family and the
[30:37] two families that have joined us in this application, believe that it should be approved
[30:41] in our meeting two weeks ago on its planning commission, who unanimously approved it.
[30:46] The final thought I'd like to share is that, to us, well, let me just quickly address
[30:51] the prior comments, I agree, we shouldn't have roosters, the roosters she's referring to
[30:57] aren't ours or the Evans or the Warner's here part of the application that's a different house that's already his own day so
[31:04] But on
[31:05] For us this application is not about whether our kids should be able to continue raising these lamps for a few more months
[31:11] That is an important part of the application and that's what kind of kickstarted this process to be clear
[31:16] But I just want to
[31:18] I guess step back to the big picture that this is an application for three properties not just ours
[31:22] to have
[31:23] to have the aid designation and
[31:26] If this is approved and we're able to raise these lamps for another month or two until they're ready to be processed in the meat to be honest
[31:32] I don't you know current time. We don't think we will have lamps again. It's not in our plans
[31:37] But more broadly, you know, this is about whether these three properties are as the wonders and the ovens should have the same zoning rights
[31:44] Those are next door neighbors and every one of the other half acre lots on her street and in our broader neighborhood
[31:50] As we mentioned last meeting there are a lot of benefits to the A's on the designation beyond just animals
[31:54] including things like accessory structures, small green houses,
[31:57] et cetera, things that I think most people would agree.
[32:01] Getting increased property value in our helpful for these lots.
[32:06] You know, we don't currently have plans, too,
[32:08] but if we are the winners of the Evans at any point in the future,
[32:10] did decide we wanted to raise lands again,
[32:13] or raise rabbits, or build a small green house or any other thing
[32:15] that you can do under the Sandy City code if you haven't a lot.
[32:19] We think we should have the freedom to do that just as our neighbors do.
[32:22] and just like thousands of other Sandy-Cated residents do who have a lot.
[32:27] I appreciate Debbie's point that she just made that there's unique situations with each property.
[32:31] And I said a few weeks ago, there may be certain a-lots of the thousands of currently exist,
[32:37] and ours as well, that may not be appropriate for horses, for example.
[32:41] But we don't think that's the reason to deny us the same zoning rights that every other property in our neighborhood has.
[32:47] And it's core, what we're asking here is the ability to do on our property, what we would like to do as long as we're not violating the rights of our neighbors and as long as we're consistent with the other half-acre lots in our area.
[32:58] And you know, there have been a lot of comments around whether or not the lands are noisy or whether we might type that they have horses in the future.
[33:05] And I just wanted to, I guess, step back to that big picture of we're just requesting a simple zoning change consistent with the process in the Sandy City Code.
[33:13] Lastly, I'll just say I appreciate reasonable people who can have different opinions on things like this and have different viewpoints.
[33:19] And I know not everyone agrees with us, I think some people do agree with us.
[33:22] I just want to thank you all, regardless of how you all decide to go tonight and what is decided.
[33:26] Thank you for taking the time to consider this and good faith.
[33:33] Thank you.
[33:34] Next for item number five, we have Adele Clark.
[33:50] First of all, thank you for those of you that responded to my detailed email.
[33:56] Since I said that, you know, I've had to remove another wrath.
[34:00] So I'm not to forrest on my property.
[34:03] They're not coming from my property.
[34:05] They're coming from the grounds property.
[34:07] They're coming under the fence.
[34:10] They have gone into my greenhouse.
[34:12] They're eating my bird's seat, my wild bird's seat.
[34:15] I have holes in the bags.
[34:17] I have never heard an animal in my life.
[34:21] Until I had to get rid of these rats, I know how that has been used to ceased.
[34:28] I'm not going to be blamed for having rats or having problems with rats when the problems didn't come for me.
[34:36] Right over my fence line is a large wood container that has straw in it.
[34:45] Right next to that is where the chickens are. Right next to that is where the sheep are.
[34:51] Right by my green house.
[34:54] So talk about in the instance, besides the sound, besides the fact that now I have...
[35:01] I will not be removing any more rats. I will be contacting animal control because it literally makes me sick to walk into my greenhouse and see the dead rats.
[35:12] I know Mr. Grant thinks that it's just him that wants the rezoning because it pretty much is. I've had a long conversation with Barry Evans and he doesn't plan on having any farm animals. He doesn't plan on changing his backyard.
[35:27] he did have chickens and he has since gotten rid of the chickens. Mr. Warner is a very sweet
[35:34] man. He is very old and very elderly and he doesn't plan on having farm animals. So everybody
[35:42] around Mr. Grant that lives on the east side of the street none of us want to deal with rats
[35:55] and flies. I've had to put a fly, bring my verthing in my gizzie park in my
[36:01] brainhouse to kill the flies. I've had to go in and put new landscaping underneath the
[36:11] fit the fence. I'm doing it myself. I'm 66 years old. I'm not a spy woman, but I
[36:17] will do it to keep the rats out on my yard. I've lived in Sandy City for 31
[36:23] years. Up until Mr. Grant worked in, I've not had any problems. I'm my property with rats
[36:32] or extra flies or anything like that. I know that those of you that read the email, you know
[36:38] the detail that I provided. And so for me it's a hard no and I can only hope that the city council
[36:48] understands what I'm having to put up with on a daily basis. Thank you all.
[36:57] Thank you. I do have a few more blue cards, but they are not checked for this item,
[37:04] but I don't, I don't want to overlook them in case they are. If you've shared a blue card,
[37:09] are you hoping to speak on this item?
[37:14] To this item, do we have a blue card for you? Did you
[37:18] been a blue card?
[37:21] Okay. Oh, I see it. Yes. Yes. So you're wanting to make a comment on this item.
[37:26] Yes. Come forward, please. And is it Tukitoa? Is that how I say your name? Yes.
[37:33] Yeah, long. I'm sorry. I'm not getting it right. Please tell me how to pronounce your name. That's
[37:38] important to me. Long ago. Long ago. Yes. Tukitoa. Tukitoa. I love that. Thank you. Please.
[37:46] You are living in everyone, all of them here, all members of the city council.
[37:55] My name is Longo, my loto, to get to her.
[37:58] I live, my address is 11969, South Triposville Avenue, in Tripo, Utah, Seoul, and
[38:05] City.
[38:07] It's a privilege for me to be here tonight, actually we are facing California, we are
[38:13] not profit, organization, 501 C3, and we cater for senior and elderly people in the community.
[38:25] We just launched a new one here, so this is our second location and I just wanted to touch
[38:31] space with the city and all the connected area.
[38:35] Madam Chair.
[38:36] I'm sorry to interrupt, but I believe you're not planning on speaking towards the voting
[38:41] the council is talking about right now, which is a
[38:43] reason, is that correct? You're planning on speaking just on another topic.
[38:49] Are you sharing about your nonprofit?
[38:51] Is that what you're hoping to share?
[38:53] So if you're willing?
[38:55] Yes. If you're willing to wait till we get to our general,
[38:58] so doesn't comment, which won't be much longer.
[39:02] But this is particularly about the item that is before us,
[39:06] which is a reason. I should have clarified better.
[39:09] No, no, please. You're good.
[39:10] just hold tight will be we'll be right back to you.
[39:17] Okay, so just checking if there's anyone else in the chambers who would like to speak to this particular item.
[39:24] Madam chair just to be clear we're talking about item number five agenda item number five the Hagen Road Resume we heard we heard from you.
[39:34] I earlier I didn't see any I looked I don't think we have any.
[39:43] So then if we could please move to online, if there are any members from the public online that would like to speak to this item.
[39:51] Yes, and then Madam Chair, once that's finished, we do have a comment that we were asked to read into the record as well.
[39:59] Related to this item.
[40:00] If you are joining us virtually this evening via Zoom and you'd like to comment on item number 5, which is the Hagen Road or Reson application on tonight's agenda, go ahead and click the raise hand button on your screen.
[40:15] We'll call your name in the order in which you raised your hand and you'll have three minutes.
[40:26] Okay Madam Chair, we do have one hand raised, it's Steve Van Marin, Steve. I'm going to allow you to begin speaking. Please remember to unmute yourself and you'll have three minutes.
[40:36] That evening council members, if the letter that
[40:42] doesn't Mr. Prattles referred to as for me,
[40:44] I will withhold my comments at this time.
[40:47] That letter is sufficient.
[40:51] It was.
[40:52] I'm happy to read it, Stephen.
[40:53] Unless you'd prefer to just make your comment.
[40:55] I'm good.
[40:56] Thank you, Dustin.
[41:08] Madam Chair, I don't see any other hands raised online.
[41:11] I'll go ahead and read the comment to the record.
[41:17] As mentioned, this is from Steve Van Marin.
[41:19] It says greetings.
[41:20] I attended the Planning Commission virtually.
[41:22] I came to the conclusion after all that transpired this reason would overrule a prior council's decision.
[41:29] There was no meeting minutes after the council approved the current zone.
[41:33] That was being considered for a different action.
[41:35] So my conclusion is that the council back then decided it was not appropriate to allow animals in this area.
[41:41] The staff stated that they could not find the minutes, but the reason was not previously allowed to have animals on these larger lots.
[41:48] I encourage you to not approve the change tonight.
[41:53] Thank you for listening, Steve Van Marin.
[42:05] And I don't believe we have any further.
[42:07] All right, so see no further comments needed.
[42:11] Then I'll go ahead and close public comment on this item.
[42:14] Bring it back to the council for emotion.
[42:20] Madam Chair, I'll make a motion to approve ordinance 2656.
[42:25] Second.
[42:25] Okay, we have a motion at a second.
[42:29] Discussion on the motion.
[42:33] Oh, Ms. Nichol.
[42:34] I just wanted to say, I don't think this is an inconsistent zone for the neighborhood.
[42:42] I think it once was.
[42:44] So today, now it's not.
[42:46] And putting it,
[42:49] folks.
[42:50] You know, it's not appropriate to speak from the audience right now.
[42:54] Well, whatever is happened in the past, it's in the past, and I don't think the animal designation
[43:01] is a detriment to the neighborhood, and I think it's gone too far with the neighborhood squabbles
[43:08] to be honest with you. If I haven't seen this very often, but it's been taken
[43:14] to an extreme. So I want to put an end to this tonight.
[43:20] Mr. Cherokee?
[43:21] I
[43:25] have really grappled with this one.
[43:30] I want to admit that.
[43:32] I mean between seven years on the Council,
[43:35] and three years of planning commissioner,
[43:37] this one is surprisingly difficult for me.
[43:43] This all started with a code violation, right?
[43:45] It's very interesting.
[43:46] It's a very interesting story.
[43:50] It all started with a code violation
[43:52] and a surprising discovery, and that discovery was that this property wasn't all ready
[43:59] zone or 128 for animals.
[44:03] Apparently, it came as a surprise to Mr. Grant, and I will tell you it came as a surprise
[44:08] to me too.
[44:10] I wanted to give this very deep and thorough consideration.
[44:14] We did receive a surprising amount of input from the public on this, and it isn't just
[44:21] the comments that have made publicly at City Council meetings, but it's also been some of the emails that we've received as well.
[44:28] And it's surprising amount to public comment for a relatively small request.
[44:36] Regardless of how this started, Mr. Grant has the right to make a request for a reason.
[44:46] Thinking about it so deeply and so carefully, in part because of the public input from the neighborhood I wanted to make sure that I landed on the right.
[45:00] Decision, the most fair decision, the one that strict away, all the feelings and focused on the request.
[45:10] And I do have to agree that I don't think that this property owner should be denied the same rights that the other property owners in the area in the same zoning category of 20 and 30 acre lots.
[45:32] I think there's a good reason to deny them that same right and opportunity.
[45:43] So I'll be supporting the, you know, I'll be supporting the motion on this and voting in favor of this as well.
[45:53] Ms. Prishasan?
[45:54] I'm in the same mindset as that this my brother actually lived in your neighborhood a couple of years ago and
[46:01] these are large lots in Sandy. And I am all in favor of the eight as
[46:09] Ignatians in any of the spots we can put them in the city because that is our root of
[46:16] where our city came from. We were mining town that turned to farmers and that were farmers
[46:21] for over a hundred years, and so I think that this is a huge benefit to our community, and
[46:27] that it just makes it more desirable place to live.
[46:33] Ms. Trump, thank you, Madam Chair.
[46:36] I too feel that having an agricultural designation that it does not overtly negatively impact
[46:45] an area.
[46:46] I live right across the street.
[46:48] I'm in an R18, my lot, but right across the street, there's several homes that have
[46:53] the agricultural designation to it.
[46:56] They've had horses, they've had llamas,
[47:01] and a variety of farm animals.
[47:04] I know that we do have code written down on our books
[47:09] that talk about how to maintain those animals
[47:13] to make sure that they are part of the cared for,
[47:17] that any sort of waste, smell, any sort of nuisance
[47:22] that that is a dress, the part that I'm grappling with is that this is a change for a resident
[47:37] that has purchased a home in an area.
[47:40] It is their responsibility to look into what the surrounding neighborhood looks like.
[47:48] if you have an empty field or a dirt patch at the end of your street to assume that it will
[47:54] always be a dirt patch is in the Salt Lake Valley scheme of things is not is no longer
[48:03] reasonable. It will probably be developed. I also look at this from that other side of saying
[48:12] if I bought a home in an area, and I drove down that street, and I can see that the homes
[48:18] are already built, they are established, and I buy one in that neighborhood, I should be able
[48:25] to make a reasonable assumption that it is not going to be dramatically changed. Once it's
[48:31] developed, that that's what it will look like. If it is an R18, it will stay in R18. It will
[48:37] not suddenly become a Wal-Mart or a high-density property.
[48:45] I can really sympathize and understand with a resident who has purchased a home, saying,
[48:52] I did not buy one with an animal designation.
[48:55] And once again, this is right across my street.
[49:01] I have really enjoyed having the animals that were there.
[49:05] I felt that it was beneficial for my children.
[49:08] We would walk across the street, feet the horses' carrots.
[49:14] It was good for them, and it did not harm me.
[49:21] But once again, I bought the home knowing
[49:25] that there were animals across the street.
[49:28] And it was not changed after the fact.
[49:31] So this is the part that I'm really that I'm grappling with and I will be a no vote on this because I feel strongly and I've felt this way with many other votes and many other decisions that the council has made.
[49:50] Where we are changing something, changing a land use or a density whatever it might be that we have changed that after.
[50:00] People have bought their property and established their home, their life, and built something under the assumption of what it was when they purchased it.
[50:13] So I completely respect moving forward with an agricultural desire of designation because I don't think it hasn't hurt.
[50:23] and I've been in my home for 25 years, but I also respects homeowners that have purchased
[50:31] their home under one assumption, so I will be in no more depth.
[50:37] Mr. DeKaiser, do you have anything to share?
[50:42] I don't have anything to share, thank you.
[50:44] Okay. I'll share my thoughts, and then I think we will have heard from everyone, and we can
[50:49] move forward. I want to echo something that Mr. Van Mayron shared, because that's been part
[50:56] my deliberation as well, and that is a prior council weighed this decision and intentionally
[51:07] removed the agricultural state, and I think that is something that is important to consider.
[51:15] I also recognized and many have heard for me before, know that I really fiercely want to
[51:24] private property rights. That is important. And I understand that that is one of the
[51:28] please from this applicant is I really like the opportunity to do what I'd like.
[51:34] But but there's a reason we have zoning and part of that zoning is yes, yes.
[51:39] And in an education I've shared this before at least restrictive environment.
[51:44] Zoning is a bit like that. It's what is the least restrictive environment we can have
[51:50] to allow a property owner to do what they'd like with their property so long as it stays within
[51:58] our zoning which is set up to establish some equity for all of those in the surrounding area
[52:04] of that property. So I've been weighing that quite a bit because it's it's it's it's a balance
[52:10] that we need to that we need to consider. And then I then I as I was deliberating I remembered
[52:16] something that was brought to us a few years ago, well, several of us were on the Council.
[52:22] And in my mind, and I could be wrong, but this is in my mind, I see some similarities here.
[52:29] Wherein, a request was made to change zoning because of a violation of code.
[52:38] At the time, this change that was requested was to allow boarding in a certain, a very certain place
[52:46] in Sandy City and because that was coming that that request was being made because they were
[52:54] operating in violation of our code and for many reasons I ultimately voted no on that change.
[53:02] I move forward but I feel there is some similarity here that I I'm not sure that it is appropriate
[53:11] it to adjust a designation that has been shared by a prior council, made this determination.
[53:21] They said it would not be agricultural rights.
[53:26] And to overturn what a prior council said, I absolutely understand and respect our planning
[53:31] commission.
[53:32] I know they've deliberated as well.
[53:34] They came to their own conclusion.
[53:36] They forwarded a positive recommendation, but we are all individuals and selected by
[53:41] voters to weigh everything. So I do not want to dismiss or take lightly what's been
[53:46] recommended, but for me, it feels similar. And so when this prior code
[53:55] violation was remedied with that remedy, even again I voted no on that, but it
[54:01] ultimately passed, with that remedy there were so many conditions placed. And that's
[54:08] That's not what this application brings forward.
[54:11] This application is either a yes or a no.
[54:15] There is no, what could we put this in place?
[54:19] I asked that question when this was first brought before, and I was told this is a yes or
[54:25] no, based on what has been presented.
[54:28] So with all of those considerations and for me, I am not comfortable supporting this application,
[54:35] And so I will also be a known.
[54:39] So I think we have heard from everyone.
[54:43] So we have a motion on the second.
[54:45] Ms. Edwards.
[54:47] Thank you, Madam Chair.
[54:48] Ms. Nichol?
[54:49] Yes.
[54:50] Ms. Christianson?
[54:51] Yes.
[54:52] Mr. DeKaiser?
[54:54] No.
[54:57] Ms. Strauss?
[54:58] No.
[55:01] This Houseman? No.
[55:05] The Sharkey? Yes.
[55:11] Madam Chair, that vote resulted in a tie of 3 to 3.
[55:15] Which means it fails?
[55:17] The motion has failed.
[55:21] So then we need a motion, or the applicant just, it did not have.
[55:27] You've taken action, it didn't pass.
[55:30] Okay, so it is past six o'clock at this point.
[55:33] So, and again, thank you to all who have been a part of this process.
[55:37] I know it's been exhaustive, and there's been a lot of thoughts on all sides, but thank
[55:44] you for sticking with us and making sure your voice was heard.
[55:47] We appreciate the deliberations.
[55:50] Okay, so could we resume with you?
[55:52] I know we've started, so we'd love to come back now.
[55:55] We are, I have one from him.
[55:58] But this is a different one.
[56:00] Okay.
[56:01] Please, yes.
[56:01] Thank you for your patience with us.
[56:03] If you could continue with now, we're in our general citizen comment so we can hear from anyone
[56:08] on city-related matters.
[56:12] Once again, my name is Longhaw and I'm a lot of Dr. Bitoa.
[56:15] My address is 11969 South, Travehsville, M&U, and Travehsville, Utah, and so on.
[56:23] So, it's a privilege for me to be here tonight to introduce our nonprofit organizations,
[56:32] since the fire won't stay free.
[56:35] And we cater for senior and elderly people in the community,
[56:40] wherever in Utah, what we do, we send the caregivers
[56:46] to elderly's home or all the adults, only for those who
[56:53] have low income.
[56:54] So our problem is we have to qualify some seniors
[56:59] that they are in a lower income.
[57:05] Our mission is to provide home health service home care services
[57:10] to all senior care in the community, including all the living
[57:16] and companionship taking them to their appointment
[57:20] and be at home with them to help them.
[57:26] So,
[57:30] so in the name of the organization, I'm so sorry, it's long one services provider or LSB.
[57:36] There's the name of it, and at the end of my speech, I would like to keep a brochure or a business card to that gentleman on the right side.
[57:51] May the mayor, I would like to request a presentation through the senior advisory committee
[57:58] in the near future.
[58:01] Thank you very much.
[58:04] Thank you.
[58:05] Mr. Fato can receive that for us.
[58:09] Mr. Butterers.
[58:11] He's outside.
[58:14] Do you want us to wait?
[58:15] Do you need to finish your conversation?
[58:17] So could you clarify?
[58:18] I received two cards from you.
[58:20] Are you speaking on something later?
[58:23] Oh, this might be an older one, maybe.
[58:27] OK, so you're speaking in public comment tonight.
[58:29] Please come forward.
[58:31] No problem.
[58:42] All this safety council, I have helped me out.
[58:44] Thank you.
[58:46] I do appreciate when you guys call me back
[58:48] and talk to me about my concerns.
[58:55] How am I going to say this the right way?
[58:59] When you guys get voted in as public office, you're working for the people for us.
[59:10] A couple of weeks ago, one of the mayor came out saying, you guys, there's her, people.
[59:17] No, she worked for this city of us.
[59:23] She's our mayor, it got voted in.
[59:29] That's where I'm getting that, is I have went to the mayor, Martin Persley, and then I said,
[59:36] I am willing to drop this personally and leave this loan on this horse thing.
[59:44] The mayor will still not come out and say, yes, I gave it to my state.
[59:49] I have done the mistakes, I come out and say I've done the mistake.
[59:53] That's where I don't think
[59:59] I am.
[1:00:00] I feel like someone is in the public eyes. If it was you, you, anybody in this council, I'm going to hold you to your, he did, did a mistake. I will hold Mark in a council, I'll hold the police chief for council. I don't care. But I'm looking at it where the public's looking at it. Look at what's going on with the mayor magna for right now.
[1:00:33] Where do we go from here? It's like you guys are in public office. She's in public office
[1:00:40] You guys work for the people's handy. I do appreciate everything. You guys have done
[1:00:47] For me and I appreciate everything
[1:00:51] But I think the mayor needs to really get down to a route and
[1:00:56] Think about I have gave her an option to say sorry to the whole full book about this
[1:01:06] it's someone needs to own up to a mistake. That's all I'm saying. I don't
[1:01:14] up to my mistake. I cop, cop, cop with a tell light out this last week. I didn't
[1:01:20] know about it, but I didn't my creature cop gave me a warning about it. But what
[1:01:28] would that force done? If it would have got broken loose off the land, it could have killed
[1:01:36] the kid for another animal. That's where I'm getting that. Where is the safety? That's a
[1:01:44] thousand pound force it's going to go crazy. Thank you. Thank you. All right, next we have Grant
[1:01:55] And if I mispronounce, please correct me.
[1:02:03] Council Mayor and staff.
[1:02:05] I appreciate the opportunity to come into your city and share a thought.
[1:02:10] I think it's a lot easier than the things that you've been dealing with today.
[1:02:15] In 1786,
[1:02:21] the assembly headed by Thomas Jefferson, who was the governor at the time, and James Madison, who was an assembly member of Virginia, also at the time, passed the first law that provided protection for freedom or religion in the United States.
[1:02:45] In 1992, our Congress of the United States passed and it put into effect January 16th,
[1:02:54] recognized in the day that that first law was given as Freedom of Religion Day.
[1:03:00] Every present since that time has publicly recognized and affirmed that opportunity for freedom of religion
[1:03:09] through Friedland for Intelligent Day.
[1:03:13] On 2015, the State of Utah adopted the same pattern
[1:03:19] and made to anywhere 16th Friedland for Intelligent Day
[1:03:23] for the citizens of the State of Utah.
[1:03:26] Since 2020, I have visited several city councils.
[1:03:33] Usually, once I be a little bit more per year,
[1:03:36] And there are now six cities here in the south part of the valley who have adopted January 16th of Freedom of Religion Day.
[1:03:47] I would like to point out that this is a resolution that encourages and supports the opportunity for unity among citizens.
[1:03:59] in a period of time when there's significant differences
[1:04:04] of opinion, it provides a bolster and an expectation
[1:04:09] for our citizens to look at the freedom of religion
[1:04:14] to remind them of the opportunities that we have to work together
[1:04:19] and this resolution.
[1:04:24] I've given some samples and copies,
[1:04:26] as well as the governor's copy from this past year.
[1:04:31] He's done it every year and would encourage your counsel and your mayor and your staff to support
[1:04:38] the opportunity to designate January 16th as Freedom of Religion Day for Sandy City.
[1:04:49] I'm going to take any questions.
[1:04:52] During public comment we listened to the public but it's not a back and forth.
[1:04:56] understand. But we appreciate your remarks and we do have your package.
[1:05:00] Thank you very much. Next, we have Anthony Romo.
[1:05:10] Maybe we don't have Anthony.
[1:05:14] Okay. Well, I'll hold on to it. Come check again. Julie Hepworth, please.
[1:05:27] Are you waiting for for that item specifically? That's fine. Yeah. Oh, you're right. I'm sorry. It's written right there. And I didn't. I just did see it. Thank you for that. All right. We'll hold off on that. But Anthony was listed here. He did check Anthony.
[1:05:43] or sorry, you did check. General says in comment, but, okay.
[1:05:48] Let's take. Sure, if you don't mind but we will go ahead and check from our public that is online to see if anyone wants to speak during General says in comment.
[1:05:57] Of course Madam Chair. Again, if you're joining us virtually this evening via Zoom and you'd like to comment on any city business.
[1:06:05] Go ahead and click the raise hand button on your screen now and I'll call your name in the order which you raised your hand and you'll have three minutes.
[1:06:27] And I'm sure I'm not seeing any hands raised online.
[1:06:31] All right.
[1:06:31] I'm not either.
[1:06:32] Thank you.
[1:06:33] So one last call for Anthony.
[1:06:39] Okay.
[1:06:39] We'll go ahead and close.
[1:06:40] General says in comment.
[1:06:41] And I am going to council.
[1:06:42] I'm going to bring us back to the top of our agenda.
[1:06:46] And lead off with item number two.
[1:06:49] Our joint meeting of our planning commission.
[1:06:51] The city council.
[1:06:52] So public.
[1:06:53] If you'll hold.
[1:06:54] Type for just a bit.
[1:06:55] We are going to invite our planning commission to come up and join us.
[1:06:58] We have chairs up here that we'll go ahead and open up and fill in spots.
[1:07:06] So please put, I guess so.
[1:07:09] And planning commissioners, if you just want to unfold one of the chairs up there and just
[1:07:13] take a seat between the council members, that'd be fantastic.
[1:07:34] And if one of you wants to go sit down by Mr. DeKaiser, there's an open seat down there as well.
[1:07:46] She has somebody I
[1:07:57] promise that Mr. DeKaiser does
[1:08:05] not bite all right I think we are
[1:08:26] set, Melissa Anderson. Thank you. If you will go ahead and and so for the public that this is kind of a combined experience for both our city council and our planning commission listening together asking questions, et cetera, et cetera. So everyone's got a mic close enough and we can share if you want an alternative. Thank you. All right. Thank you very much. So what this is is an update to the sea council and planning commission and
[1:08:56] And the public of our code update, we're doing a comprehensive update to the land development code.
[1:09:04] And it's a multi-year process.
[1:09:07] So periodically we want to make sure and update after we complete a major milestone,
[1:09:12] one of which is a completion recently by our consultant team of the assessment and best practices report
[1:09:22] looking at our existing code and how approaches to make improvements to that code in a
[1:09:31] comprehensive manner.
[1:09:33] And so tonight we have Chris Hub from Somers who's the project manager from the firm
[1:09:39] that we hired based off of generous grant from the Washington Front Regional Council as
[1:09:46] as a decision by our leadership, our council to fund this project overall.
[1:09:54] And so Chris is here to do that presentation and so I'll just hand it over to you.
[1:10:00] We just want to make sure and keep you informed so that we don't surprise you at the end of the project with, you know, a big project with, you know, just keep you informed. So anyway, Chris.
[1:10:20] I had mentioned Mossett Front Regional Council as one of our partners in the majority of the funding for this project.
[1:10:27] And from what's at front is Brian Head, who's a project manager from that organization he's here tonight as well.
[1:10:39] Okay. Last time I presented, we went over the preliminary assessment that we had started.
[1:10:47] We'll go lightly over that today and give you enough data to where we are.
[1:10:53] As we've been going through this, one of the big takes is, as you'll see here,
[1:10:56] is the plain English look at why we're updating this.
[1:11:01] This is one of the pieces as to why we're updating it.
[1:11:04] The state code requires that to be in plain English,
[1:11:08] so everyone can understand this and go through that.
[1:11:10] But we'll talk about that as we go through this.
[1:11:14] A little bit of background, which you all are aware of.
[1:11:17] The vision was created through the general plan,
[1:11:20] that pace of progress general plan adopted last year,
[1:11:24] Now is the time to make those pieces of reality this specific vision actually giving teeth to that
[1:11:31] Actually before we jump into that again just an overview for the public and and this spot as well
[1:11:38] You held in credible outreach 47 events throughout that process
[1:11:44] The eight key strategies which will touch on lightly here and then the next steps is to rewrite that ordinance
[1:11:52] one of the big strategies obviously was to rewrite the code. Thus why we're doing this? Why the
[1:12:00] codes of being updated now? Again, we've given a little bit of this background and seeing as a
[1:12:06] lot of you have been sitting here for a while. You understand that it's been a few years,
[1:12:12] almost 20 years since the last comprehensive update. There have been a thinned thems and
[1:12:18] Minimence and changes to the code since then, but no comprehensive look to make sure that the structure and the organization's clean and simple up to work through and so that's part of why
[1:12:30] What we found in the preliminary assessment these rules some of them are a little bit difficult to find there's some
[1:12:38] In consistencies with some of those and there's also duplicated information
[1:12:42] So part of this is we're looking to streamline that process, make it a little bit cleaner,
[1:12:48] easier to find these pieces, and other pieces again, because the state law has moved or
[1:12:54] or changed, we need to make sure that the code for the city is updated to that, and then the
[1:12:59] general plan specifics need teeth.
[1:13:04] As I go through this feel free to stop me if you have any
[1:13:07] questions, I don't mind being interrupted. So what is the development code?
[1:13:13] we're writing this in part obviously you know what the development code is hopefully at this point
[1:13:19] but this is this is more for the public as well as this this this body just to give everyone that
[1:13:25] update as to where we are today this is also an information that we're going to be presenting at the
[1:13:29] heritage day which I'll talk a little bit about that as well but this is the city's blueprint for building
[1:13:37] for what can be done what can't be done obviously you've talked about some of those tonight
[1:13:42] But we're going to be looking at all of these things to understand with this health safety and general
[1:13:49] where welfare community needs are and make sure that those are incorporated as part of the
[1:13:56] vision from the general plan and the state updates and other things that we've seen in other
[1:14:00] communities as we work through these these code updates. The code by the numbers and this I'll
[1:14:08] touch on briefly. Currently there's 38 chapters plus the appendix. There are four separate
[1:14:15] land use tables. One of the first things that we're wanting to do as part of the preliminary
[1:14:20] assessment is to consolidate some of those things so you're not having to or the staff isn't
[1:14:26] having to or developers not having to search several different pieces of your code to find the answer.
[1:14:33] and a lot of times we missed that because they looked in X, Y, and Z section, they didn't think
[1:14:37] they needed to look in A, B, and C as well. And so just cleaning that up and simplifying it a
[1:14:42] little bit makes it that much easier for you to maintain the staff to maintain and developers to
[1:14:47] actually understand that code, which I know you've heard some of those concerns and issues in the
[1:14:53] Another piece, there are existing 572 terms defined and up.
[1:15:00] How those terms defined and I believe it's on the next slide? Nope, it's on a further slide. We'll touch on that. There are several about the missing middle housing and that housing that you've already addressed and worked through. A lot of those terms are not in these existing 572 definitions. So that's part of what we'll be looking at in addition to the other pieces. There are existing 171 residential use categories and
[1:15:28] 30 plus zones written for single parcel, meaning the SD zones, I'll touch on that up in a little bit as well.
[1:15:38] Of the 171 uses 102 are banned in every single zone.
[1:15:43] So there's some consolidation, some cleanup, if it's banned everywhere.
[1:15:47] Maybe there's another way to do it so that you don't have to search through 171 things when you just scroll through a page.
[1:15:56] So, how this review has been done so far or how it will continually be done, we did a
[1:16:03] for cursory look at the existing code.
[1:16:05] We look through Title 21 and understood what the baseline is today.
[1:16:12] We took our existing knowledge, the general plan, state law, and the housing workshop that
[1:16:18] you had already completed.
[1:16:20] We took all those pieces and we did this preliminary assessment to understand this is the best
[1:16:24] practices.
[1:16:25] is this is what we would typically do.
[1:16:27] That was our first step.
[1:16:28] The second step is we did a revised version of that.
[1:16:32] After we met with many on the Council,
[1:16:34] many on the Planning Commission, staff,
[1:16:36] development community, and other strategic partnerships
[1:16:40] and groups throughout the city.
[1:16:43] And we revised that preliminary assessment
[1:16:45] based on the heavy context of the city.
[1:16:48] Our next steps are working through this framework.
[1:16:51] So we did the preliminary assessment.
[1:16:52] our next step is to do take all of these pieces and establish a very detailed framework that says
[1:16:59] this is how the structure of the coach work. That'll be our next piece and then as we go through
[1:17:06] that the following step will actually be moving the pieces of the code taking what's good, keeping it,
[1:17:13] and changing the things that need adjustments.
[1:17:18] The five major ways this code or the buckets in which
[1:17:22] we have essentially taken all the preliminary assessment
[1:17:25] on these five right on screen.
[1:17:27] So easier to understand.
[1:17:29] Again, that talks a little bit about the plain language.
[1:17:34] It also talks about that structure,
[1:17:36] cleaning it up.
[1:17:37] There's no duplicative information.
[1:17:40] Easier to understand, making it so that it flows.
[1:17:42] So that if I'm a random person off the street,
[1:17:45] I can look up the code and figure out
[1:17:47] where that item should be.
[1:17:49] just a blueprint to match the community's plan.
[1:17:53] So the existing vision that you have taking that,
[1:17:56] understanding that process and how we can simplify
[1:17:59] some of those pieces so that it's applicable in the code
[1:18:03] that you can actually follow the vision that you've established.
[1:18:06] So that's that better planning piece and then more housing choices.
[1:18:09] That heavily comes from the decisions and the discussions that you have had.
[1:18:14] And that's also where we talked about a little bit of those.
[1:18:18] specific terms that are mentioned in that housing assessment, but aren't actually found in the code today or not defined in the code today
[1:18:28] so actually bringing that into the code and then better community design. We know as we've worked through
[1:18:35] Karen's district and some of these other there's some complexities to those when a developer comes in and says, well,
[1:18:42] I want to do this in this area and you're like we love that, but based on this you have to have
[1:18:50] 36 exemptions or something, we need to look through that process and figure out what can we do to simplify that, keep the things that are important to community development and remove the things that are not.
[1:19:04] And then just general process. How can we streamline that process so it's quick and predictable?
[1:19:09] When I come into the city it's the same in two years as it is today. I'll get the same response if the situation is the same
[1:19:19] So as we go through this easier to understand, I won't talk about this already. We want to make sure that
[1:19:26] If a citizen comes into the code, they can find the role. It's
[1:19:31] Easy to find. I can comply with that. If it's not easy to find that's when you start to get staff time at the desk
[1:19:39] calls and questions here where he would just don't know no or couldn't find that.
[1:19:44] So the more we can minimize that and streamline that process,
[1:19:48] the easier it is to minimize the time that you have to spend here,
[1:19:52] which I think you would appreciate.
[1:19:58] So with this piece, we have a step...
[1:20:00] This is the rule for every single piece that goes in the code. So let's say, for example, a fence. This is the rule. If we're changing anything to fence, this is the rule as to where that would go, or if it's animal rights or whatever it may be. You can actually follow these rules and understand that's exactly where it's going to go. That's where that information will hit. And so that's what this is talking about.
[1:20:25] simplifying some of those chapters, we've organized them into seven specific parts and we
[1:20:30] won't touch on that. That much today, general provisions which standard things that the
[1:20:37] city needs to address, administration procedure, so process, zoning districts, the specific districts
[1:20:44] that are established in the city, use regulations, so the details of those zones, development
[1:20:50] and the design center. So the things that city staff establish for road sections and all
[1:20:57] the things like that, that's where they can actually clip to and link to that information,
[1:21:04] definitions which we've already addressed. And then existing special districts, there's quite
[1:21:09] a few special districts, that's where those will sit as we continue to work through this. Consolidated
[1:21:16] tables one part per question,
[1:21:18] consistent numbering throughout.
[1:21:19] Those are the types of things that we're looking at
[1:21:22] with this code update.
[1:21:24] Plain English, these two diagrams on this page,
[1:21:28] the left is, essentially, the code today.
[1:21:31] The right is where we're wanting to get to.
[1:21:35] You can decide for yourself which one you like better.
[1:21:38] One of them is easier to get through.
[1:21:44] The other piece, as we continue to work
[1:21:48] development community as we continue working with residents and other things a lot of the
[1:21:52] codes that we come across are not what is called dynamic and what that means in developer
[1:21:57] terms meaning web developer terms is it can adjust based on the screen that you're looking
[1:22:03] at it with. So if it's on a phone which is where a lot of these things are now accessed it
[1:22:09] will actually shrink or readjust to actually work well on a phone as opposed to a tablet
[1:22:14] of our laptop or desktop.
[1:22:17] And so making a code that works dynamically
[1:22:20] as another piece that we're looking into.
[1:22:24] This thing to better planning.
[1:22:26] So the community already agreed on the vision.
[1:22:28] Now we're looking to deliver the tool that establishes
[1:22:33] the specific criteria to make that real.
[1:22:40] Touch on this.
[1:22:41] The bottom piece I'll touch on here
[1:22:44] is some of those specifics as to what we're trying to take out of the general plan and put into
[1:22:50] the code.
[1:22:50] We've talked about the transit stations, the adopted plans for those areas, how do we make those
[1:22:56] real in the code? In addition to that, the neighborhood activity centers, the corridors and
[1:23:01] those pieces that were addressed in the general plan and in these key strategies and then
[1:23:07] tie them to actual roles.
[1:23:11] I'll touch on this briefly, so existing you have 30 plus written special districts.
[1:23:19] What we're looking to do is we're looking to take the zoning and to take the existing code that you have
[1:23:26] and make it flexible so that there is limited discretion so that the city is protected and safe in that circumstance.
[1:23:36] But these special districts, which are specific to one spot in the city, can be more broadly associated with other locations, given certain circumstances.
[1:23:49] So if we add some flexibility to a zone that this special district can now fit into, this special district is not needed anymore.
[1:23:57] So there's that ability to establish that in existing code framework and eliminate non-conformities but still allow that special district to be standardized across the city.
[1:24:11] More housing choices, which I know this has been something that the city has worked on for quite a while.
[1:24:18] The three big pieces is affordable, honourable and available for people at every stage of life.
[1:24:24] So that's, that's sort of the crux that we're looking at this and the lens that we're looking at this through obviously with
[1:24:30] with a document that's already been worked on to add is that framework for this.
[1:24:38] I don't know if we need to touch on this that much seeing as you did spend quite a bit of time on it.
[1:24:44] We'll just touch on on some of the pieces that came out of that process.
[1:24:49] The difference between apartments and single family homes large, lots and things.
[1:24:54] That range of housing between where to the seniors senior housing go where to the
[1:25:00] First time home by earth, where are some of these other products that are missing in the city for residents that have no option here and have to move elsewhere? How do we get these back into the city? So that's essentially what we're touching on here.
[1:25:16] As I briefly mentioned earlier, as part of that, these 572 definitions, we will look to standard ICs, make sure that they are defensible, understandable, and have diagrams to support.
[1:25:28] So, if I'm looking at housing height on a hill or wherever it may be, it's consistent across the board.
[1:25:37] We get the same answer and a developer coming in.
[1:25:40] Well understand, that's exactly how it's measured. That's exactly how it's measured.
[1:25:44] In addition to that, the codice cluster, small multiplex, senior housing,
[1:25:48] some of these other pieces are not defined in the code.
[1:25:50] So, bringing those definitions into the code is another piece that we're looking at.
[1:25:54] the next piece, better community design. I did touch on this, speaking about the
[1:26:00] Karen's district and some of these other pieces in the city, there's a little
[1:26:03] bit of complexity. What we want to specifically look at is streamlining that
[1:26:08] process and that the development standards are associated with that so that we
[1:26:14] keep those things that actually move the needle for the better community design and
[1:26:19] move the barriers to development that don't actually do anything, as far as helping get the
[1:26:27] vision and the outcome that you're looking for. So that is one of the pieces that we'll
[1:26:31] be looking through, making sure these standards are defensible, they're easy to follow practical
[1:26:37] and actually move that needle. It's not there just to make something more expensive.
[1:26:44] With that,
[1:26:46] We've done a little bit of development, and that's a... I get a little sarcastic sometimes.
[1:26:53] We've done quite a bit. And in this process, some of the big pieces that we've noticed move that needle,
[1:27:00] and this is where we'll focus is there are some architectural pieces that obviously move the needle.
[1:27:04] There are some that do not. Parking, trees and water, lighting, and all of these pieces.
[1:27:12] We'll look at standardizing this, and we'll obviously pass it in front of this body.
[1:27:17] We'll talk through that.
[1:27:18] We'll work through those pieces as we continue to go through the framework and the actual
[1:27:21] development of this code.
[1:27:23] But these are some of the big points that we're going to be looking to.
[1:27:28] And then the other piece that comes out of the general plan is this street focus.
[1:27:36] Street's built for people, not just cars.
[1:27:38] Moving people through these streets, making a comfortable environment what actually moves
[1:27:43] for them and what doesn't. And so looking at those pieces for walking, biking,
[1:27:49] transit, and so on. Because those were big components as part of the general plan.
[1:27:57] Process. One of the number one things that we heard consistently from the
[1:28:00] development community was the time at which it takes to get through some of the processes
[1:28:05] that is not unique to Sandy. That is across the board, across the Wassette,
[1:28:11] across the US, across Utah, whatever, maybe this is a consistent thing that we hear from everyone.
[1:28:18] So it's not that the process is bad or terrible. There are things that we can do to streamline it,
[1:28:24] so that it's easier and more predictable for anybody to come and say, okay, here's my timeline.
[1:28:30] This is exactly what's required of me, and this is the process.
[1:28:33] So you get exactly what you want, and there's that partnership.
[1:28:37] But
[1:28:40] one of the big pieces of that is the some levels of ambiguity with definitions and
[1:28:48] a parts of the code.
[1:28:49] As we remove discretion, it allows you to defend the code, defend the city in a practical
[1:29:00] and legal way.
[1:29:01] So that a developer doesn't have the ability to come in and say, well, you're taking my opportunity
[1:29:08] to do what I want to do, and there's nothing in the code that says you can't.
[1:29:14] We want to make sure that the text where it says, as deemed appropriate, does that mean?
[1:29:21] I don't know.
[1:29:23] As determined by the commission, a little bit of the ambiguity there.
[1:29:28] A lot of discretion, that's where we get into trouble.
[1:29:31] We want to remove some of this type of language to make it, no, it's 35 feet maximum.
[1:29:37] and here's the way that that's measured, whether it's on flat ground or slope or whatever, you know exactly what that means.
[1:29:45] 60% of the ground for in-windows. The a crosswalk every 400 feet.
[1:29:50] Very specific criteria that is very defensible and you can measure.
[1:29:59] So...
[1:30:00] With that said, what happens next? We've obviously completed this assessment. That is available. This next piece is we are going through the framework, which is it sounds simple. There's a lot to it. We're going through a few pages of code and taking all the section in this, trying to make sure that there's streamlined and organized in a systematic process that makes sense to no matter who comes into it.
[1:30:26] They can come to the same conclusion, the same organizational structure, 10 years down the road,
[1:30:32] two years down the road, whether you're half asleep or fully awake.
[1:30:37] We want to make sure that the outline of that is consistent.
[1:30:42] And so that's the next piece that we've been working on and we'll continue to work on,
[1:30:46] and we'll be coming back in November 17th with that information, just as a FYI.
[1:30:54] We'll be working through staff with that as well, so continue to vet that.
[1:31:00] Then the next piece is, alongside of all of this, there's the public review and the information
[1:31:06] going on to the website, going to Heritage Days on Saturday, and some of these other
[1:31:11] pieces just to incorporate the community so that they're not in the dark as well.
[1:31:17] And then obviously, as we go through this whole process, it will end in that those public
[1:31:22] here. So with that said, here's the last slide of how individuals can get involved. We have
[1:31:32] drafts posted or information posted so that the public can see what's happening. We have
[1:31:40] public comment available. We have received one individual interested in following it.
[1:31:51] That's
[1:31:52] really want to punish themselves in the community, please read through the code, and then obviously
[1:31:58] we have our first open house at Heritage Days, and there will be two more to follow after
[1:32:02] that. Any questions with that?
[1:32:08] Council or Commission, Ms. Sharkey?
[1:32:16] I do get concerned when I hear a discussion about the marriage of the land development code
[1:32:22] in the general plan. I understand that there would have to be some amount of that.
[1:32:28] Yeah. We did adopt a general plan as an example. We adopted a general plan that talked about
[1:32:34] mansion style homes, but the land development code doesn't have a residential design standard
[1:32:39] for that, right? So I understand why they would have to correlate. But I think they're two different
[1:32:46] documents. I think the land development code is a rulebook, a blueprint for what is expected.
[1:32:54] I think a general plan is a possible vision of a possible future, and so you used another,
[1:33:03] you used the word discretion wanting to, to some extent or another, remove discretion.
[1:33:11] I'm going to have to think about that one.
[1:33:14] We're not removing it completely.
[1:33:16] That's an impossibility, but where we want to be defensively, we want to remove the discretion
[1:33:23] that will get you in trouble.
[1:33:26] I'm going to have to think about what that means.
[1:33:29] Right?
[1:33:29] Yeah.
[1:33:29] So I think, too.
[1:33:31] My point of view, I think, is shared by many other cities.
[1:33:34] Ms. Nichol and I are members of the League of Cities and Towns legislative policy committee.
[1:33:40] And a legislator brought a bill to a last year for approval that would make the general plan a zoning map.
[1:33:49] And cities universally said, no.
[1:33:52] And so there's a reason for that, right?
[1:33:56] And so I just want to make sure that I put in my two cents here on this issue.
[1:34:01] I understand that they're highly correlated and why they need to be.
[1:34:07] I don't know exactly how to explain where the line is,
[1:34:10] but there also needs to be a line, right?
[1:34:12] Yeah, they aren't the same.
[1:34:14] You're correct. They aren't the same document.
[1:34:16] The general plan is the guiding document.
[1:34:20] Genre plans typically don't have significant teeth, but you even talked about it, you referenced it.
[1:34:28] The legislature tried to make the general plan map a simply code, and it failed across the state.
[1:34:36] There's a reason for that, because the general plan allows you to envision that flexibility, that future, that growth.
[1:34:44] And anyone who live through 2020 can reasonably say, I have no clue what's going to happen tomorrow.
[1:34:54] No one expected 2020 to happen.
[1:34:57] And so as I've seen these general plans change...
[1:35:02] There's been a lot more resiliency and flexibility out of these general plans that can be difficult to capture it in a code rewrite or a code update.
[1:35:13] And so there will be some level of overlap with the two documents, just because the general plan is our guiding document.
[1:35:19] So there will be pieces that come into the code.
[1:35:23] However, as a follow-up to that, remember,
[1:35:27] this body is the body that approves the code update.
[1:35:31] So as we work through sections, as we go through some of these pieces,
[1:35:35] there will be technical committees where we discuss specific issues
[1:35:40] and get the understanding of what the city wants to do in those circumstances.
[1:35:46] So although the general plan is the guiding document, the code is where the rubber meets the road.
[1:35:52] So it may not look exactly or identical to each other.
[1:35:56] It won't because one is code and one is vision.
[1:36:03] Hopefully that helps.
[1:36:07] I would just add that like in the general plan, the transit oriented development or
[1:36:13] stations. We don't have tools like a zone or an overlays zone with specific standards, land
[1:36:20] uses that are in our code now to actually make that happen. So it's in our general plan
[1:36:27] and we have no tool to implement it. If you're going to do a rezone in, or, well, some things
[1:36:33] maybe we've established an overlays zone in their standards, but the council ultimately would
[1:36:40] have the decision-making authority to actually
[1:36:42] rezone and they don't have to be an application of
[1:36:45] rezone, they have property.
[1:36:46] So then you have that discretion to do so as well as
[1:36:51] discretion of adopting any standards or the code.
[1:36:56] But just there's we just don't have the tools for
[1:37:01] redevelopment being around our neighborhood activity centers.
[1:37:05] Some improvements in our Karen's district.
[1:37:07] the transestation area plans, the corridor is a missing middle housing on the transition
[1:37:16] corridors or to allow flexibility of different housing types. We don't have those tools right
[1:37:23] now and so those are directions coming straight from our general plan and so we want to have
[1:37:29] those tools to implement it but ultimately the council has discretion in the future on those
[1:37:36] reasons, when and if they happen, and also adoption of the code.
[1:37:41] So just to emphasize that they are two different things, but we're at a loss right now of
[1:37:48] things that the general plan speaks to, seeing how the city would grow or redevelop in
[1:37:56] some areas, and that's the primary piece of the impetus for this project, and then the other
[1:38:05] pieces are reorganizing and making it more compliant with state law, plain language and a better
[1:38:13] organization easier to understand for the staff and the public and the decision makers.
[1:38:20] In addition to that, Sandy is predominantly built out, and the code talks a lot about what
[1:38:33] is called Greenfield Development, meaning vacant land that can be developed.
[1:38:37] So there's some level of that that doesn't really exist in the city.
[1:38:42] I've obviously there's pieces, but a level of infill code language to help guide those processes
[1:38:53] and as we're talking about the neighborhood activity centers, as you transition from existing
[1:38:59] to just the more intense around those corridors as it's referring to in the general plan.
[1:39:06] Those transition areas become very important.
[1:39:10] How do you address those?
[1:39:11] There's no zone, there's no co-piece currently in Sandy that addresses that.
[1:39:17] So those are some of the areas that are very critical to address with this code update.
[1:39:29] I think Mr. Rakeley, you've had something?
[1:39:32] I appreciate how you're trying to make this code more readable, the current codes a little bit of a sleeper.
[1:39:38] I mean, just black and white and goes on forever.
[1:39:41] You talked about putting it on cell phones and maybe the report you're coming to giving to us is it to be like a word document with graphics and stuff embedded in it.
[1:39:50] And then the city will want to take that and then transfer it to the web requirements or will that be ready accessible.
[1:40:00] Yeah, the code is already on the meeting code. And the meeting code has some ability for
[1:40:10] phone usage, but some, as you get through that, some of those tables and things are very difficult to use.
[1:40:17] So there's some of that that will clean up. Well, all of that that we're working to clean up. To answer the other question, if I understood it correctly, you were talking about the existing preliminary assessment.
[1:40:30] I'm going to talk about using graphics and making more visual and I'm going to make sure that the graphics that you give in the report here can later be used by the city because there's some new ADA acquired.
[1:40:42] That's coming out regarding federal government and the university where you're just going to do some stuff.
[1:40:49] I'm just going to be sure that you didn't give us a report and then it turns out that the graphic you spent all this time on which a beautiful city can't use.
[1:40:55] So, you know, everything we're doing is, does that format that we have could be easy to upload or something?
[1:41:03] Yeah, and we have graphics in the code now, but there's some inconsistencies, and there can be improvements on that, and so this project will help to add more graphics, or advise, or place some of the existing graphics,
[1:41:19] because that helps explain the standard and using table format, where a program can also
[1:41:27] help simplify the rules.
[1:41:30] Yeah, I'd like that.
[1:41:31] I mean, I think people are into graphics and they like video and they like stuff like that.
[1:41:35] I just want to be sure that the 88 compliant.
[1:41:38] So while you put all this together, and then the city's got to put it into a website.
[1:41:43] Right.
[1:41:44] And for those things that, you know, technically or legally, that we need to coordinate with our city recorder, we're absolutely doing that, and speaking, coordinating all the way to make sure that we're meeting each other's needs and all of it.
[1:42:05] Any other questions?
[1:42:08] None on the site either.
[1:42:10] Look at you. You were that thorough.
[1:42:13] I will just add quick comments.
[1:42:16] I very much appreciate the move.
[1:42:18] And I think this echoes a little bit of what you said.
[1:42:21] The move to visualization, simplification,
[1:42:24] everyday language, making everything more accessible,
[1:42:30] understandable, and I love predictable.
[1:42:34] I understand that there will always be some analysis, et cetera,
[1:42:39] but we become a city that is, you know,
[1:42:42] We're attractive to work with when people have things they can count on.
[1:42:47] There is some level of predictability, and I appreciate that.
[1:42:51] That's been one of the things we've been talking about for quite a while,
[1:42:55] is what barriers can we remove so that things can move forward quickly
[1:43:00] and we get more homeowners, for example, and Sandy.
[1:43:04] Thank you for all of that.
[1:43:06] I think we are done.
[1:43:08] Thank you so much.
[1:43:10] Thank you for joining us.
[1:43:16] All right, so that was item number two, okay, and we have already held items 3, 4, and 5, so I am going to move us on ahead to item number six, a few notes for the public, thank you everyone who was a part of that, we very much appreciate you.
[1:43:38] So with this discussion, can you engage recognizing that it is actually multiple items all tied together?
[1:43:46] We are actually going to take the items concurrently as my understanding, Mr. Warner, including public comment, correct?
[1:43:53] So you'll present. We've got Mr. Cadel ready to speak to the development agreement.
[1:44:00] We're going to, as a council, you know, really understand the development agreement before we move forward on anything else because ultimately we need to make a decision on that first.
[1:44:12] Is my understanding Mr. Prado, is that correct?
[1:44:14] What I would suggest is before you amend the general plan before you adopt the reason.
[1:44:20] If you decide to do that, you should probably have a good feeling about the development agreement, right? Do you want to move forward with that?
[1:44:27] If you don't, and there's no reason to adopt the others unless you plan on doing so without adopting the development agreement.
[1:44:35] All right. Thank you for that guidance. So I am going to turn over to Mr. Warden.
[1:44:44] Thank you, Madam Chair. Good evening again, Council.
[1:44:49] You just had 50% of what I was going to talk about, had a discussion about 50% of what I was going to talk about.
[1:44:55] So thank you.
[1:44:57] items number six and seven on the agenda
[1:45:00] Our two items representing two applications. We have three potential motions, but it's all one project. So I think it's wise to open up both items have the discussion and I'll get into what Dustin was talking about as well and maybe lay out the foundation of why we would be suggesting that.
[1:45:22] Just as a background,
[1:45:30] this item came to the City Council twice already once on January 7th
[1:45:37] or January July 7th and once on July 14th and at that time we also had two items, the
[1:45:46] first item was the general plan amendment
[1:45:52] and there was some if you recall there was some
[1:45:56] discussion about how to handle these two items.
[1:45:59] There was a motion to approve the general climate amendment.
[1:46:03] The general climate amendment is requesting that the institutional future
[1:46:07] land use designation be changed to the medium density.
[1:46:11] The future land use designation.
[1:46:14] That would be consistent with the zone that the applicant is requesting and
[1:46:18] would be consistent with the majority of the surrounding area.
[1:46:23] The Council made a motion to approve that General Fund Amendment that vote was three to three so failed due to a tie and the Council's direction was to bring that back for reconsideration when the reason came back to you.
[1:46:46] And in that meeting on the 14th of July, we then went into the
[1:46:51] Reson application and there was quite a bit of discussion about
[1:46:57] bringing back a development agreement.
[1:47:01] The council directed the council, did make a motion associated with that
[1:47:07] item.
[1:47:07] The motion basically was directing staff, the council attorney,
[1:47:13] city turns office to prepare development agreement and bring it back and that
[1:47:20] motion was approved six to zero. So just a reminder the
[1:47:25] reason is requesting that the zoning on the proper to be changed from the R18
[1:47:32] zone to the PUD12 zone and the intended project there is a town home project of
[1:47:40] 86 units. And so, with that, a development agreement has been prepared. Mr. Cadel provided
[1:47:50] an memo that provided some insights into that document.
[1:47:58] As Dustin mentioned, it is our,
[1:48:02] I think, well, as we've talked, that would be our joint recommendation is that you have
[1:48:07] discussion about the development agreement. Determine if you're comfortable where that is.
[1:48:12] And if so, we would recommend, I would recommend the following order for motions. First
[1:48:20] of all, ordinance 26-52 is the ordinance that would approve the reason. That ordinance
[1:48:26] specifically ties the development agreement to that decision as a material, as Mr. Kadeel
[1:48:32] states it as a material component in your consideration of the
[1:48:36] result. And so the development agreement is tied to ordinance 26-52,
[1:48:42] but ordinance 26-52 is the document that would
[1:48:47] rezone the property subject to that development agreement.
[1:48:52] Now resolution 26-84C is the document that
[1:48:58] officially approves the development agreement
[1:49:01] and authorizes the mayor to sign that agreement.
[1:49:03] So they're kind of tied together.
[1:49:05] The resolution to approve the development agreement
[1:49:08] actually refers to the development agreement
[1:49:10] that's attached to the ordinance for the reason.
[1:49:13] So they aren't linked together.
[1:49:16] If you're not comfortable with the development agreement
[1:49:19] if ordinance 26-52 fails,
[1:49:22] I don't know that there's a whole lot of point
[1:49:25] in moving forward with the other two motions.
[1:49:27] Resolution 26-84C.
[1:49:29] And then the final ordinance, which is ordinance 26-51,
[1:49:34] which would approve the General Plan amendment
[1:49:38] amending, revising the Future Lightest Map
[1:49:41] for the subject property from institutional
[1:49:45] to meeting the density neighborhood.
[1:49:47] So again, one project,
[1:49:51] two applications, three potential motions,
[1:49:55] and I failed to mention subject properties 825
[1:49:59] of ease.
[1:50:00] Ninety eighty-five south, proxious seven point two, acres. Again, general unemployment application would re-designate the subject property for institutional, the meeting, density, neighborhood.
[1:50:13] The re-zone application would re-zone our property from our one eight to P U D 12, and as the ordinance is written, it would tie in that development agreement.
[1:50:25] So with that staff is available for questions, I know the Mr. Cadela is prepared to address the development agreement.
[1:50:32] Well done, Mr. Warner. I know this once got a lot of layers, so thank you for that.
[1:50:38] All right, and because we've been given that guidance, Council, I'd recommend we start with the development agreement, perhaps if we have questions on that.
[1:50:46] I'm seeing nods or does that sound, I know but I'm asking if that's okay if we start with just folks, you know, the development agreement and ask questions, et cetera, have deliberation.
[1:50:59] I just have one question, so Jake, you're suggesting taking the ordinances out of order?
[1:51:09] Yeah, we're recommending we do it backwards from the order in the agenda is, well, we typically
[1:51:17] would like to see and maybe from a best practice would be the order that we would recommend,
[1:51:24] but with where we're at, we are recommending that we first address the development agreement,
[1:51:30] and if you're not comfortable with that, if we need to do more work there, there's really no point
[1:51:34] do in the other things.
[1:51:37] Good clarifying question.
[1:51:40] All right.
[1:51:40] So, Michelle, can you have a question about the development?
[1:51:42] No, no.
[1:51:45] Are there any questions about the development agreement?
[1:51:49] Mr. Cadale.
[1:51:49] Is there anything you would like to just summarize for us?
[1:51:53] I'm happy to do that, Madam.
[1:51:54] Thank you.
[1:51:55] Would you like me to come down?
[1:51:56] Your car.
[1:51:57] I'm like you.
[1:51:58] Well, maybe I'll just come down.
[1:51:59] Okay.
[1:52:11] Good evening, Madam Chair.
[1:52:12] Members of the Council.
[1:52:13] Mayor, she's here, professional staff at all, a couple of weeks ago that Council first
[1:52:22] did a first reading on this particular project.
[1:52:25] It's one of the alter egos of the Boyer Company was coming in and wanted to get a
[1:52:31] reason of some property owned by the Kang and school district in order to put some multi-family
[1:52:37] property, a multi-family project in that particular area.
[1:52:41] You cast me, one of the questions you asked is the question that City Council's across the State of Utah are asking is,
[1:52:48] if somebody is showing us the bright and shiny object that they're going to build in our community,
[1:52:54] and we think it's wonderful, and it's bright and shiny, and we would love to have it.
[1:52:57] And all we have to do is this reason.
[1:53:00] And you do the reason, you know, and you think you're getting the Ferrari and then you go show something, right?
[1:53:07] A lot of that has to do with what your zone is and make sure your zone is correct, but we're
[1:53:13] talking about here is one of the tools that legislative bodies can use in order to ensure
[1:53:19] that they're getting what they bargain for and how it really works is is that developer
[1:53:27] and the city come to terms and the developer agrees to exchange for getting certain development
[1:53:32] rights and vested rights and interests that are very, very important to them.
[1:53:37] They agree to do certain things in conditions under a contract that makes us feel
[1:53:41] a bit more comfortable about the project.
[1:53:43] That's essentially really what it is.
[1:53:46] And so, a pursuant to your council, Jim Wright and I, Jim, represents the applicant and
[1:53:54] Lynn worked on the project sort of, Jim and I sort of took the first crack at it.
[1:54:00] what's we sort of had it ready, we said to Lynn who had some really good feedback too.
[1:54:04] And so the document that you're seeing is a project with legal counsel for Boyer,
[1:54:11] the City Attorney's Office, and me. And so I'm comfortable with the draft,
[1:54:17] and I know Lynn wouldn't have forward along if he was it. Just a couple of just a flyover in terms
[1:54:23] of what it does.
[1:54:26] What this essentially does is that it gives the developer this
[1:54:31] rights that, and it's both the benefit and the burden
[1:54:34] that runs with the land, because it's directly recorded.
[1:54:39] So if the property changes hands, what
[1:54:42] needs to be built is what's in that development agreement.
[1:54:47] There are certain protections in that document
[1:54:50] concerning how the project might, it can't really be,
[1:54:55] materially different than what is articulated in that document.
[1:55:01] There's a specific provision that these are going to be forced sale units, and talking to the applicant, because they just don't know how many they're going to be able to move, we agreed and principle to turn.
[1:55:17] I mean, obviously, you have your legislative discretion, whatever you decide is ultimately to you. But what the development agreement basically says,
[1:55:24] 17 of those units can be rental units, but Boyer has every intention of selling these and having them be owner occupied.
[1:55:36] They are not planning on being in the landlord business and keeping these for rental units.
[1:55:42] But they needed the 20% in order to, because they're just not sure if they're going to be able to move them all once they're going to be able to cab them on the market if they're not being sold.
[1:55:52] So that's why there's the 17 that represents 20% and there's a provision in there that's
[1:56:01] important that if anybody who's ever paid attention to some litigation that happened
[1:56:08] out in the tool of county with the development agreement, you'll always know all the development
[1:56:12] agreements now say no damages, they can only see for specific performance, we include that provision.
[1:56:19] So essentially what it does is it just tells the developer that they can do it, they can
[1:56:25] do the project, and it says that we're going to get the kind of project that we bargain
[1:56:28] for.
[1:56:29] This particular development agreement means that it still goes for planning and it still goes
[1:56:35] through the PC.
[1:56:36] So we're not circumventing them, it's still got to go through that process, but when it hits
[1:56:41] that application hits the applying department's desk, it's got to be within the confines
[1:56:48] of what you tell them in these documents.
[1:56:52] Then, when the PC looks at it, they can approve it,
[1:56:55] but it has to be within the confines of this document too.
[1:56:59] So it's a tool to be able to, you wanted to get to make sure
[1:57:03] that we work having more rentals,
[1:57:05] so not particularly area, this should do that.
[1:57:08] Let me tell you what it does not do.
[1:57:10] What it does not do is it doesn't limit, say,
[1:57:14] there's somebody who buys one of these units,
[1:57:17] and say in five years from now,
[1:57:18] They decide it's time for them to move up and by a home,
[1:57:22] it does not prevent that person who owns it from leasing it.
[1:57:27] Even if Boyer is leasing 17 of them.
[1:57:32] Individuals could still lease their properties.
[1:57:35] So there isn't a degree stretch,
[1:57:38] which is something that Councilmember Nichol asked about.
[1:57:43] And it isn't because they didn't ask.
[1:57:45] They felt like that, in fact, that was the first thing that Jim and I talked about outside
[1:57:51] the door, the night of the meeting that this was discussed on the first reading, is that
[1:57:56] that is very, very difficult for them to do.
[1:57:59] And so that, if that's very important to you, Council Member Nabeel, you'll have to decide
[1:58:04] how you wish to vote.
[1:58:07] I know that there was also the issue, Council Member Sharkey asked for some maybe some additional
[1:58:12] green space in there, that hasn't changed either. But what is significantly better is the fact
[1:58:20] that if you didn't have this agreement in place and you didn't approve it, it would mean
[1:58:25] that there's a zone change and then everything that could be built and that zone could be built
[1:58:30] there. And that is not true if you approve this. Do you have any questions for me?
[1:58:37] Thank you for that. That excellent overview. Questions, council. This nickel?
[1:58:46] No, it's about the CC&Rs or the Homeowners Association.
[1:58:54] Yes. Who sets that up?
[1:58:57] The, basically, the Boyer Company is probably the company that they'll create.
[1:59:01] I'm sure like a limited liability company will.
[1:59:04] They'll originally set up those, those as the owner will.
[1:59:08] So they set up the HOA, the documents that the HOA creates are the set of CCNRs, and limiting conditions of what owners can do, right?
[1:59:23] Generally yes.
[1:59:25] That's what I was hoping they could put a limit on more than 20% of any time could be rented.
[1:59:34] That's what I was hoping for.
[1:59:36] And I pushed for that too, I started, you know, we've gone pretty quickly from me pushing on the, um, you know, I totally, I see, but that was, so that would be, that would be the time that that took place when the creation of that, so technically they can put that in, they don't want to, because it's a deep restriction that could affect value, because values are affected by disease.
[2:00:00] Do you understand the issue perfectly? Just so you know that was something that I asked them about multiple times in the conversation. I included it in the draft of the document that I sent to them. Jim and I talked about it on the phone and he explained to me that that would make it very difficult for them to accomplish what they want to accomplish. I understand that.
[2:00:26] If that's I think I think and I don't want to put words in there mouth, but I think from my perspective
[2:00:31] I got him to move as far as they were willing to move on the things that are willing to move on and now the next question is is that movement far enough for you
[2:00:40] But I do want you to know that I did do the very thing that you're asking me about
[2:00:46] Yeah, I was really persuasive, but there's still tell me now
[2:00:49] I think that's some time to win some time.
[2:00:52] That's all my question.
[2:00:53] Thank you.
[2:00:55] I'm checking.
[2:00:58] I don't believe so.
[2:01:00] Thank you for that.
[2:01:02] So with that discussion over, I'll bring it back to the council for,
[2:01:08] because we did feel like the first thing to consider was the development agreement.
[2:01:17] Yeah, we can take it now, or we can take it after we have our own discussion.
[2:01:22] because we got our question.
[2:01:24] I can do it either way.
[2:01:26] Do we want to have our discussion or take?
[2:01:27] It will be before we vote for sure.
[2:01:30] Do you want to hear from public and then we discuss?
[2:01:33] All right.
[2:01:34] We do have one card on this item.
[2:01:36] It's a very patient waiting.
[2:01:38] So Julie Hepworth, this is the item you want to kiss.
[2:01:41] Did I say it wrong?
[2:01:44] Well, we're taking public comment on.
[2:01:46] No, Madam Chair.
[2:01:48] Or on items number six and number seven.
[2:01:50] Ah, see? Still not ready for you. I was thinking 6, 7 and 8. My apologies. That we are merging 3, not 2. We'll get there.
[2:02:01] Okay, so then I do not have any blue cards on these two. We're taking 6 and 7 together. So with that we'll, I'm looking around. No one's jumping up. Let's go ahead and check online, please.
[2:02:12] Thank you, Madam Chair. If you're joining us virtually this evening via Zoom and you would like to comment on
[2:02:20] items number six or items number seven on this evening's agendas related to the
[2:02:26] Canyon Gate General Plan Amendment and the Canyon Gate Reson. Go ahead and click the raise hand button on your screen. Now
[2:02:33] I'll call your name in the order in which you raise your hand and you'll have three minutes.
[2:02:55] Not seeing any hands raised Madam Chair.
[2:02:56] Okay, I'll go ahead and close public item.
[2:02:59] I have a public comment on this item and come back for discussion.
[2:03:04] Madam Jerry, do you have one quick question for Mr. Cadet?
[2:03:07] Mr. Cadet.
[2:03:07] I forgot to ask.
[2:03:09] What is with the December 31st, 2021-27 date that seems far off to me?
[2:03:17] It's interesting.
[2:03:18] I think it was actually Linda suggested that date that was actually moving it up because I had
[2:03:25] just moral but ended, right? Just to allow them to, for their business, according to their business needs,
[2:03:31] and it's actually lens office that thought we needed to get a date in there and get them moved up.
[2:03:36] And it was basically a negotiated date. And so just so you know, I was okay with the being more open and
[2:03:42] a lens that we needed to get a date and needs to be, needs to be this.
[2:03:45] I think it actually needs to be sooner. Yeah. But that was just,
[2:03:49] maybe you could ask the, maybe you could ask the applicant about that. Yeah, it's okay.
[2:03:52] Thank you.
[2:03:55] Madam Chair, I'm ready with a motion to deny the request for Kenyan gate development
[2:04:01] agreement.
[2:04:02] Second.
[2:04:04] Okay.
[2:04:04] We have a motion and a second.
[2:04:06] Discussion on the motion.
[2:04:12] I'll start.
[2:04:14] I support the development agreement.
[2:04:17] I think it's, we've demonstrated this, an appropriate degree.
[2:04:24] I believe I'm back and forth.
[2:04:25] I think this is the right use for this property.
[2:04:30] I think there's a lot of reasons why.
[2:04:32] I've shared it in previous conversations,
[2:04:34] so I'll just keep it short and simple.
[2:04:37] I appreciate the negotiation back and forth.
[2:04:39] I appreciate frankly not everyone's even willing
[2:04:42] to do a development agreement.
[2:04:44] So you could have said no to a development agreement entirely.
[2:04:46] I think it allows us to have more kind of to point
[2:04:52] to what Mr. Cadel said, a little more guidance
[2:04:56] and what is allowed here.
[2:04:58] So I will not be able to support the...
[2:05:00] What did you call it, the denial? That will not get it there. Other comments?
[2:05:09] Are you misturkey?
[2:05:13] Tonight is difficult for me. I struggled with this one, too. I struggled with how to explain what my vote will be on this one.
[2:05:20] But I think it's important for me to tell the boy or company and for the community development department. Why I'm voting the way I'm voting?
[2:05:30] I'm going to vote no, I'm going to vote yes to the motion.
[2:05:35] But not because I don't like the development agreement, it's because I don't like the project.
[2:05:43] So, the DEED restrictions.
[2:05:46] I think DEED restrictions are mandatory if what we're doing is affordable housing and
[2:05:52] we've got public money supporting the project.
[2:05:57] I think deed restrictions under those conditions are mandatory.
[2:06:02] Under this condition, I am accepting of the fact that the boy or company
[2:06:08] doesn't feel like they want to go to that length either in terms of a deed restriction
[2:06:12] or in terms of HOA requirements.
[2:06:18] But it's the project that I'm not supportive of and so I'll get into that
[2:06:25] when we move on to the next thing, but I just didn't want my vote to be misunderstood
[2:06:30] because I think it's important. We will be having more development agreements and my
[2:06:35] problem isn't with this development agreement. It's with the project. Thank you.
[2:06:49] Okay, I don't think we have any more discussions. We have, oh yes, we do. Sorry, Ms. Nickel.
[2:06:55] I'm kind of the opposite. I love the project. It's the fact that we can't do the deep
[2:07:00] restriction is my hang up with that because our community wants ownership opportunities
[2:07:08] not more rentals and they've made that very clear. So that's it. I love the project but we
[2:07:12] just couldn't meet on that one little part.
[2:07:18] So the motion, are you looking for who the
[2:07:20] The motion was misnical, and the Christians who read the second.
[2:07:25] So I think we've exhausted our discussion, so we'll do a roll call, though, please.
[2:07:29] And, though, again, do you clarify the motion?
[2:07:32] Was that correct when we did it?
[2:07:35] Well, it was, I mean, it's okay.
[2:07:37] I mean, no one made a motion to approve it.
[2:07:40] You made a motion to disallow it.
[2:07:42] If that's motion fails, someone could make a motion to approve it.
[2:07:46] which would is what we're required to go for, but it's still problem.
[2:07:51] We're okay if you, that's the solution.
[2:07:54] I mean, I would always suggest avoiding motions to the negative,
[2:07:58] right, even if you don't want something to pass,
[2:08:00] you just vote no if you don't want it to pass.
[2:08:01] It makes more sense to motion to approve something
[2:08:04] whether it's in the discipline.
[2:08:06] Nonetheless, that's the motion that's been made.
[2:08:08] My one question with the, is the, is the motion to deny specific
[2:08:14] to one of the resolutions or ordinances, or is it to all three, there's a resolution, there's an
[2:08:22] ordinance that all three since they're connected.
[2:08:26] So ordinance that, 2651, ordinance 2652, and resolution 26-84c for the record.
[2:08:38] Do you have the clarity of the image Edwards?
[2:08:40] Okay.
[2:08:41] Yes.
[2:08:41] Thank you.
[2:08:42] We'll do.
[2:08:42] You don't want to do that.
[2:08:46] Well, we sort of took public comment.
[2:08:49] I should have, I should have made it.
[2:08:51] But that's the applicant.
[2:08:53] I know.
[2:08:53] Oh, OK.
[2:08:54] OK.
[2:08:54] But yes, if you're asking, I mean, we have heard from you
[2:08:59] on Preusifications.
[2:08:59] Do you have new information to share with us this evening?
[2:09:02] Yeah.
[2:09:04] OK.
[2:09:04] If you're open to it, I mean, we have
[2:09:09] a second.
[2:09:09] We're not yet voting.
[2:09:11] We have a motion.
[2:09:12] We have a second, but we've not yet voted on the motion.
[2:09:15] And so, absolutely.
[2:09:16] No, thank you.
[2:09:17] We'll keep it brief.
[2:09:18] I appreciate the feedback and, you know, Kudos to Tracy and to Lynn for working.
[2:09:24] We spent a lot of time on this and went back and forth and Tracy is not understating his
[2:09:29] position.
[2:09:30] He was very adamant about that.
[2:09:32] And we did have it linked the conversations about that.
[2:09:36] The challenge that we have or a couple of fold, we've got to finance this project
[2:09:40] and finance and becomes very, very difficult with the restrictions.
[2:09:43] And also, we have a underlying land owner in the Canyon School of District that owns the property.
[2:09:52] We'll own the project if we go away.
[2:09:55] And so, in sharing this information with them,
[2:09:57] dedertrictions were very challenging.
[2:10:00] For the project, in an of a whole weather voyeur does it or anyone else does it. One more item to answer
[2:10:05] question, council member Nichol, about the rental provision and restricting that. We heard you loud
[2:10:13] and clear on the rental restrictions. We're okay with that as the Tracy alluded to. Our plan is to sell them all. It doesn't
[2:10:20] really make sense for us to rent 17 of them in there. It's nice to have that as an option should the market
[2:10:25] change, and with interest rates going to 7%, it may be a little bit challenging to move
[2:10:30] them at the velocity that we want to move them. So it may help us to be able to rent
[2:10:35] some, you know, during the cell season, just to, you know, kind of smooth out cash flows,
[2:10:40] but our plan is to sell them all as to the de-distriction, if what we've found in other
[2:10:47] communities when we have an HOA managing and restricting rentals, that becomes very
[2:10:51] for property owners.
[2:10:54] There's property rights, they expect certain property rights
[2:10:56] when they purchase property, and so that will be very difficult
[2:11:00] for them.
[2:11:00] If there's been in $500 to $600,000 on a home
[2:11:03] to have a restriction on the property,
[2:11:06] most of them probably won't end up renting it,
[2:11:09] but with their lender,
[2:11:11] investment of capital, they have that restriction on the property
[2:11:13] right, it becomes very hard to sell those.
[2:11:16] And then the second condition to that is just
[2:11:19] The market will dictate what becomes of these as I alluded these will be between five and six hundred thousand dollar pound homes
[2:11:26] That's just the cost of materials the cost of a land
[2:11:29] I think you can see a project around the corner the Brad Reynolds is doing trading for that same price
[2:11:33] If you look at the market when an individual buys these for that
[2:11:38] That's called five hundred and fifty thousand dollars with mortgage rates where they are today in a three percent down payment
[2:11:44] Their monthly payment will be upwards of four thousand dollars
[2:11:49] That is way above rent in that area. If you look at Cori Bend and you look at all the surrounding inventory rentals for that similar type of product are trading between 2200 and 2900, you are way out of market if you buy a project or if you buy a home in here and you're paying a mortgage for
[2:12:08] Let's call 3900 dollars. You can't rent it. You would be riding a check every month
[2:12:14] to rent these out.
[2:12:16] And so the market will correct that issue.
[2:12:19] They won't become rentals because they
[2:12:20] don't make sense to be rentals.
[2:12:21] The only way it makes sense for this project
[2:12:24] to be rentals is for an institutional investor
[2:12:26] to come in and buy it and do rentals on the whole project
[2:12:30] with a lower cost of capital.
[2:12:31] We've agreed not to do that.
[2:12:33] That's fine with that.
[2:12:35] We will sell them, but the market will dictate
[2:12:38] whether these can be rented by individuals.
[2:12:40] and currently at the price which these work,
[2:12:43] these will be sold for they won't work as rentals.
[2:12:46] For an individual who comes in and purchases now,
[2:12:49] there may be someone who has cash
[2:12:50] and doesn't know what to do with it and comes up in and pays
[2:12:53] all cash for the unit and rents it at a loss.
[2:12:57] That I can't control that happening,
[2:12:59] but for those who buy this and use an FHA loan
[2:13:02] or 3% down payment, the market will dictate
[2:13:05] what they can do with their property.
[2:13:07] And so for those reasons, it was very hard for us to agree to rental restriction.
[2:13:14] I'll be honest with you, we could put something in the HOA government documents.
[2:13:18] Those are really, really hard to enforce.
[2:13:21] We've seen several communities where those are put in and they're not really.
[2:13:25] And here too, and you have neighbors, paddling on neighbors, or not, or scramming people.
[2:13:30] And it's just really, really hard to enforce a rental provision from an HOA perspective.
[2:13:35] And so we've tried that before, the non-successful, we found the best mechanism to govern
[2:13:41] that as to let the market do it.
[2:13:43] And for those reasons we push back, now we're open, you know, if it's something, if it's
[2:13:49] a for sale issue, if you're still feeling comfortable with the 17-number week, we negotiate
[2:13:54] that.
[2:13:54] Like if it's, you know, you're really worried about those becoming rentals, that's,
[2:13:59] That's negotiable that the challenge is, as I alluded to, just those, a degrestrict, or a property restriction on those who are by the property, because we ultimately have to pass that on to someone else who has to have a lender and has to get a loan on something, and that becomes difficult to do.
[2:14:16] So anyway, I don't know if that makes sense or not, but we're willing to have additional conversations if there's other ideas that we haven't thought of, but I just wanted to let you know why we came out of the direction.
[2:14:28] or why we approach it from that direction.
[2:14:33] So yeah.
[2:14:34] Thank you.
[2:14:35] And if there's, like I said, if there's ideas or suggestions
[2:14:38] we're open to those, we're happy to keep on working on it.
[2:14:43] We love the property, love the use.
[2:14:46] But there are some things that are challenging for us.
[2:14:49] Yes, thank you for that.
[2:14:52] Any additional thoughts before we vote?
[2:15:00] Okay. Please, Mr. Fedwards. So again, because this was a, the motion was to deny, we're essentially denying.
[2:15:14] All right.
[2:15:16] Madam Chair, vote, yes, would be to deny about no, would be to deny about no, would be to deny about no, would be.
[2:15:30] All right. I think we're ready. Thank you, Madam Chair. Ms. Nichol. Yes. Ms. Christensen. Yes. Mr. DeKaiser.
[2:15:42] No.
[2:15:45] Ms. Trial. Yes. Ms. Houseman? No.
[2:15:53] Ms. Sharky. Yes.
[2:15:59] Madam Chair. That motion carried four to two to deny.
[2:16:07] Okay, so with that we won't take up the other items, not tonight.
[2:16:17] Okay, then I will thank you for those who've been a part of that conversation tonight.
[2:16:23] I will move us on now to actually item number eight.
[2:16:27] But before we take public comment on that, we are going to hear again.
[2:16:31] This is our second reading on ADUs, we'll be taking away the same version.
[2:16:50] So we're going to bring up the presentation.
[2:16:56] So two weeks ago I presented on a proposal to amend the Land Development Code to allow
[2:17:05] for detached ADUs, and the whole slide deck that was included in the packet is available
[2:17:13] here, but I don't want to go through the whole thing.
[2:17:17] I don't necessarily think it's necessary, but I want you to know that it's all available
[2:17:21] here if you want to reference any of it.
[2:17:25] I do want to just briefly go over some requirements of the state law just so that we're
[2:17:35] clear on what we have to do or may not do and briefly touch again on our general plan
[2:17:45] policies and so I'll go through some of that right now and then I'll open it back up to
[2:17:54] the council to discuss the item. So the new state law is effective October 1st. It was
[2:18:01] that the legislature and it requires us to provide for detached,
[2:18:08] accessory dwelling units,
[2:18:11] and that law has things that we are required
[2:18:17] to do, we must, we shall do it, things that we may not do or were prohibited
[2:18:22] for doing and also things that we may do.
[2:18:28] And so in the staff report, originally, it addressed all those, but the shells or our requirements,
[2:18:38] the minimum requirements of that law is to allow for detached data use on single family
[2:18:46] home lots that are at least 11,000 square feet or greater.
[2:18:51] We can go lower than that, but that's the minimum that we're required to do.
[2:18:59] To do so, we must ensure that the building fire and health codes are addressed.
[2:19:06] We also have to provide a process to convert existing accessory structures to a detached adieu.
[2:19:16] It doesn't specify all the details of that,
[2:19:19] but that we must provide a process.
[2:19:21] So those are the things that the minimum that we're required to do.
[2:19:27] And the minimum that we, or rather, the things that we're prohibited from doing
[2:19:35] are that we can't require a conditional use permit for a detached data.
[2:19:40] It needs to be a permitted use.
[2:19:44] We can have standards, but it must be a permit at use in the residential zones.
[2:19:51] For parking, we are prohibited from requiring a certain amount of parking, but we can require
[2:19:59] some.
[2:20:00] Up to one, if it's an ADU that's 650 square feet or less, or less than that, or two, if it's 650 square feet or more.
[2:20:13] But we can't, we're prohibitive from requiring any more than that. And we may not have design standards that conflict with all the design elements listed in the state code that regulate single-family homes.
[2:20:29] So there's a number of things that we may do, and that's where, you know, having the minimum
[2:20:37] required by state laws not a simple black and white, because they just list, okay, you must
[2:20:43] do that, you're prohibited from doing that, you could do a variety of other things.
[2:20:48] So basically, if we did the bare minimum, it would probably be more open and liberal than probably
[2:20:54] the council would be comfortable with.
[2:20:57] And so that's why we have that discretion to have additional standards.
[2:21:03] So that is laid out in the proposal and so the number of maze that was in all in your packet.
[2:21:17] I can go back to them if you'd like but I just didn't want to belabor this since we had a link.
[2:21:22] What is the red indicate?
[2:21:25] Yeah, and in the presentation and that was included in the packet and you see here now was like at the top it says we may require owner occupancy and so in the red we're saying we have done that and in this section of the culture.
[2:21:45] And then lastly, I also wanted to just reiterate the General Plan policies because the proposal there is an attempt to try to make sure that we're following existing policies that the Council is already adopted.
[2:22:04] So, the goals and policies of the general plan, as well as the moderate income housing plan,
[2:22:13] which is state mandated, in general support accessory dwelling units, whether they're attached
[2:22:19] to the home or inside the home or detached.
[2:22:24] There's general support and it is to encourage a variety of housing options for different types of households.
[2:22:32] There's also specifically with the policy is to require owner occupancy or to continue with that practice.
[2:22:42] Mitigate impacts on neighboring properties and ensure aid use our subordinate or accessory to the primary structure.
[2:22:53] Don't want them to be larger than that.
[2:22:55] And so, that's the, some of the points that I just wanted to go over a refresh, and in the
[2:23:08] packet and last meeting in the work session, I wanted to make sure you understood that we have
[2:23:19] staff recommended proposal.
[2:23:22] We had the public hearings with the Planning Commission.
[2:23:25] Planning Commission did forward a positive recommendation,
[2:23:28] but with modifications.
[2:23:30] So all those modifications were laid out specifically,
[2:23:34] they were in the presentation as well as in the minutes.
[2:23:40] We tried to really capture those very detailed.
[2:23:45] And also, at the last meeting,
[2:23:49] The council did not necessarily give staff specific direction in terms of coming back with anything specific.
[2:23:58] So we did not necessarily make any changes other than to maybe elaborate on how our proposal compares to what the state law is making and prohibiting or allowing us to do.
[2:24:11] We did augment with that information, but at the last meeting I did notice I took notes throughout that there was some general support from and there may be had different perspectives now after thinking about it
[2:24:30] But at the last meeting there seemed to be general support from the council for one story accessory dwelling units
[2:24:41] Not to say everybody, but it seemed like there was maybe four people, council members, support on a maximum limit on the total square footage.
[2:24:54] Because right now, the code is stipulating maximum footprint.
[2:25:00] And as it compares to your main house size, as well as your lock coverage on the rear.
[2:25:07] But other cities do do that, so that's certainly a standard practice.
[2:25:13] So if that's something that council want to consider, there seem to be some general support for that.
[2:25:20] and also there was general support for detachity to use on lots 10,000 square feet or greater as opposed to 11,000 square feet or greater.
[2:25:34] So those were just some points that I thought that I had heard at that time anyway.
[2:25:40] I think that covers, yeah, most of my points I think tonight, the Council can make a decision in ordinance is attached to this.
[2:25:51] If you wanted to make a motion to approve as presented or you could approve with modifications or you could have a discussion and direct staff to come back next week with something.
[2:26:06] Our deadline is we need to have something adopted by October 1st, so we do have limited time, but you can direct staff if you wanted me to come back next week with some changes,
[2:26:19] or some information.
[2:26:22] I think that that covers everything, at least that I had.
[2:26:27] So if you have questions, if you want to discuss that, and I'm here to work through
[2:26:33] it all.
[2:26:34] All right.
[2:26:35] Thank you, Ms. Anderson.
[2:26:37] Questions?
[2:26:41] Ms. Nickel.
[2:26:45] What planning commission recommendations did you incorporate it?
[2:26:54] Well, there was one that was just a typo.
[2:26:57] And that was already incorporated in.
[2:27:01] And the other ones were not necessarily incorporated into the text.
[2:27:08] Into the, um, your red line.
[2:27:11] That's correct. Okay.
[2:27:13] That question totally fine with that.
[2:27:20] So I'm having a hard time with the extended living area definition.
[2:27:26] I think it needs to be clearly delineated between extended living area and an ADU because I'm
[2:27:36] looking at these other codes and extended living area, the definition is ADU.
[2:27:45] So I think there may be some need
[2:27:50] to change that extended living area and I was looking at it
[2:27:54] really the only differences is, I would like the definition to say, to
[2:28:04] restrict, okay,
[2:28:10] so attached
[2:28:13] living facility should it be space, sorry, the word, or facility, doesn't matter?
[2:28:21] Oh, I see, additional living facilities,
[2:28:27] space, and soaps, I don't know, but anyway, it's
[2:28:30] I'm not lying, the single felt me dwelling contains a kitchen or kitchen net.
[2:28:34] I would like to strike the kitchen or kitchen net, so an extended living area cannot have
[2:28:39] a kitchen or kitchen net,
[2:28:43] but it can have habitable living area.
[2:28:52] It's actually a very big change, so I think I'm going to think about it.
[2:28:55] I mean, that would have broad impact to the way our existing code is formulated and that's
[2:29:05] what we have tried to do is graphed, what are existing standards are, and then an
[2:29:10] extended living area is an existing construct that we have within our code, and the
[2:29:14] functional difference between the spaces is how it's utilized, and who utilizes it.
[2:29:21] So I'm trying to understand the direction that you're proposing to go with this, is it
[2:29:27] Because you can have as many extended living areas as you want in any structure, right?
[2:29:38] No.
[2:29:39] So in extended living, how many extended living areas can you have?
[2:29:44] So that depends on the recommendation that you end up deciding to move forward with.
[2:29:49] So in the red line version that Melissa and staff has prepared,
[2:29:53] It's limited to one internal and one external so one attached and one
[2:30:30] In the motion that you want to incorporate certain, certain, I don't think that.
[2:30:38] You can only have one extent in the living area, in attached or detached, right?
[2:30:46] Or can you have more than one extended, well, if it's attached and it is a self-contained with all the bells and whistles, full bathroom, kitchen or kitchen.
[2:31:00] bedroom, or sleeping area, sometimes this is studio. You would only be allowed to have
[2:31:07] one self-contained extended living area for family, friends, no rental, but if you had
[2:31:14] in addition to that, let's say a playroom with the kitchenette where you're watching
[2:31:19] movies and stuff like that, that would also be allowed. And when we restrict it as something
[2:31:27] number. And then what the Planning Commission's recommendation was is to allow up to two
[2:31:34] self-contained internal if they didn't have any detached. So essentially they'd still
[2:31:40] be allowed to have two as the staff's recommendation, but they provided a provision that would
[2:31:46] allow both of those units to be internal when attached to the home.
[2:31:51] I still like removing the kitchen or kitchen that from extended living area and make it habitable living area.
[2:32:04] So you could have a bathroom, say you've got a cabana or a pool house, you can have a bathroom and a shower, but you can't have a kitchen or kitchenette.
[2:32:14] It's the impact of the use, right?
[2:32:18] And so the more kitchens you have, the more kitchens you're going to be cooking, the more people are going to be cooking.
[2:32:23] That's a bigger impact.
[2:32:25] I don't want to take some of that impact away.
[2:32:29] So the issue isn't the use.
[2:32:32] Do you go get it?
[2:32:33] So like you're saying, if I'm not.
[2:32:36] Like, I build a pool house.
[2:32:38] Because there's a lot of pool houses in this district, Sandy.
[2:32:40] But I build a pool house and I have a bathroom and I have, like, whatever goes in a pool house and then I can't have, like, a kitchenette in there to, like, keep my drinks cold and, like, have snacks out.
[2:32:54] Is that actually?
[2:32:54] Kitchenette is defined by an alcove kitchen smaller than a regular kitchen with a cooking facility. You can have a microwave and a mini fridge in your cabana.
[2:33:07] But I can't have, like, a sink in a dishwasher and a full-size fridge.
[2:33:10] Yes, and it's dope. You can't have a stof
[2:33:18] in my world.
[2:33:24] It's jerky.
[2:33:25] So, along these lines, there must be a reason, but I don't understand it.
[2:33:32] If an ELA cannot be rented, and it's meant for you by the family or extended family or
[2:33:40] whatever, why would we limit them at all?
[2:33:44] So, since we limited them, there must have been a reason, I like to understand the reason that we were applying a limitation of them at all.
[2:33:56] What is it?
[2:33:58] I think part of it is, once you have the facility within the house, it leads to other unintended consequences.
[2:34:06] It could become a rental, but so you're used to it could become a legal rental or an illegal rental.
[2:34:15] It all depends on how it's utilized and who utilizes it and whether it's for the extended family,
[2:34:25] or their existing family, or whether it's used as an auxiliary unit.
[2:34:32] Since we require a business license, if it's a rental,
[2:34:41] not sure we're in the business to prevent people from doing something they would want to do because we're afraid they might go rogue on us and do something illegal.
[2:34:53] You know, I just, you know, the last time I went looking for a house with...
[2:35:00] My daughters, they wanted two masters. That was a housing stock that was available. It wasn't widely available, but they
[2:35:09] wanted two masters. So I'm thinking might there be a reasonable legitimate reason, that two people might want two
[2:35:18] two and I just imposing a restriction on that. I'm still having a hard time wrapping my head around.
[2:35:28] They could have two kitchens.
[2:35:30] Under this provision, they would exactly have that right.
[2:35:34] They currently have that right.
[2:35:36] We're not changing that, but under this proposal.
[2:35:38] What we're doing is adding to it that those spaces can be external detached.
[2:35:44] So, this is existing code language that we have within our city and have had four decades.
[2:35:51] I guess I used to bad example because I said two, but what if it was three or four or whatever, but we're not going to allow that, right?
[2:36:00] Well, I think the key in the in the house, the way it's written, you could, it's just if it's self-contained,
[2:36:08] We're, you know, that it could, you could fully have a full bathroom and the kitchen and everything
[2:36:15] as an apartment.
[2:36:18] What's the definition of self-contained?
[2:36:21] That it includes all the elements.
[2:36:29] I think it's in the other.
[2:36:32] The confunction is a separate dwelling, meaning that they're not sharing those facilities
[2:36:36] with the rest of the house. So if you just had to say like the example of a movie room or a
[2:36:43] pool house and they didn't have the other associated bathroom and bedroom and living facilities,
[2:36:49] it couldn't be used as a self-contained unit. And so you could have any number of...
[2:36:53] And you also have all the components? Yes, exactly. And in the ADU definition, for example,
[2:37:00] So self-contained habitable living unit includes kitchen or kitchen at three-quarter or full bathroom and sleeping areas.
[2:37:11] The extended living area.
[2:37:15] If it's self-contained, that's going to, it's the same.
[2:37:18] Exactly the same, right? The definition?
[2:37:20] Yeah, and then the only difference is if it's not self-contained, if it's just an extra bedroom
[2:37:26] and an extra kitchenette somewhere within the house for wet bar or something like that.
[2:37:31] They could have any number of those.
[2:37:34] However, they couldn't have more than one self-contained.
[2:37:37] Or if the Planning Commission's code provision was applied,
[2:37:41] they could have up to two, as long as they didn't have any detached.
[2:37:45] And I think to answer your question, Councillor Scherke,
[2:37:49] Sorry, if I hadn't more than one or multiple self-contained, then in my mind from a planage perspective, we're looking at, well, then it's an R2 zone, duplex, duplexes, it's an R3, it's for, because you're having full units, and so to me that's looking at is the intention to, you know,
[2:38:19] basically, up zone because these are intended for single-family zones and there's a certain
[2:38:25] expectation of how much development really can go on a single-family within single-family
[2:38:32] zones on each property and so if we had an excessive amount of these fully self-contained units
[2:38:43] you know, you could have a operationally a foreplex going on in a single family home that the code never intended.
[2:38:50] We're still only allowing for one set of utility connections to the building, right?
[2:38:56] That's part of the code.
[2:38:59] And the other part of it is that the right to have an ADU is contingent on owner occupancy.
[2:39:07] And that's one thing that we get calls a lot when someone does develop an internal ADU currently.
[2:39:13] When it gets listed, oftentimes the real-iters will list it as has an ADU.
[2:39:19] And they will call and ask, can I have an ADU with this property?
[2:39:22] And we say, yes, with conditions, you have to own the property.
[2:39:26] Many people take that under the assumption that has been converted into a duplex and they
[2:39:31] can rent out both the top and the bottom.
[2:39:34] And so part of the reason to have this distinction is to make that implicit that it is not
[2:39:40] always going to be an additional unit like a duplex.
[2:39:44] It is conditioned upon how that family chooses to use that space.
[2:39:49] And it could be a separate unit that is rented as long as the primary owners are the primary
[2:39:54] occupants of that home and live there as their primary residents.
[2:39:57] And so that's part of the reason why we've had
[2:40:00] This concept of an extended living area and an ADU is that these units may come and they may go as far as how they're being used.
[2:40:10] That's why we don't allow for separate addressing, we don't allow for separate meter connections, because they are not a full unit all the time.
[2:40:17] They're not a duplex or a triplex type of situation. It could be used by the occupant and their family.
[2:40:23] And that's where if there's less barriers to do this, if it is for family use, but if they have the intent of renting it out, there are a few more regulatory barriers that they have to pass in order to do that.
[2:40:40] And one of the key things is to honor occupancy when we go through that application process.
[2:40:45] Just checking the documentation and checking parking on site.
[2:40:50] We ask a question.
[2:40:52] I actually have some personal experience with this because I've dealt with it myself and so
[2:40:57] I'm happy to share my experience, but I have a question.
[2:41:00] When you talk about self-contained, does that require an external entrance?
[2:41:07] So if you're an internal property, so you could have an extended living area that doesn't
[2:41:13] require an external entrance, but what about an 80, what an 80, you require an external
[2:41:19] required to, they don't have to be, if it's in the main house, it doesn't have to be internally
[2:41:27] connected, per state law, does not have to be, they can't have an external, you know,
[2:41:34] another way to come in, but we don't dictate that.
[2:41:37] We couldn't regulate, we couldn't require an external entrance for an ADU.
[2:41:41] The state changed the code provisions on that a couple of years ago when they made
[2:41:49] building codes and other design requirements like having an exterior entrance eliminated from
[2:41:56] the code to make these easier for homeowners to implement.
[2:42:01] Now that you say that that sounds familiar to me, I think I built mine.
[2:42:04] We used to have a provision that required a separate entrance and we used to have a provision
[2:42:08] that required full separation and firewalls in between the units.
[2:42:13] That has all gone away by state provision.
[2:42:16] And we have the internal connection requirement before state law changed that way to that one.
[2:42:22] So they can have it, but they're not required to internally.
[2:42:26] Right.
[2:42:26] They don't have to have a share of hallway.
[2:42:28] Madam Chair, can I just share my experience?
[2:42:30] Because I think it's applicable.
[2:42:32] So I have a extended living area in my basement that was not there when I bought my house.
[2:42:40] We put it in.
[2:42:41] And we put it in with the intention of, and I don't live in Sandy.
[2:42:45] right, so this is under different cities ordinances, but I'm just going to put that on
[2:42:50] the record.
[2:42:52] We built it in order to have family come stay there, right, and we needed a kitchen bathroom
[2:43:00] bedroom for that purpose.
[2:43:03] We did not put an external entrance, and we have no intention to rent it to anybody else,
[2:43:09] but in the example of, you know, why would you need a kitchen?
[2:43:13] I think there are other people that probably have that same experience, right?
[2:43:16] Maybe they want their grandkids or kids to come stay there, but they're not necessarily going
[2:43:21] to rent it out to a, you know, external renter.
[2:43:24] I think that's probably the purpose of the extent of the living area, right?
[2:43:28] That's how I understand it.
[2:43:30] It's, hey, this is where the intention is that you're going to have family, friends, et cetera,
[2:43:34] come stay here.
[2:43:35] That's why you can put this in, but if it's going to be an ADU, then there's another set
[2:43:41] of requirements and standards, and that's kind of the difference.
[2:43:45] If we take away the ability to put in a kitchen or kitchen
[2:43:48] at in an extended living area, then essentially you'd be requiring all
[2:43:53] of those to become 80 use if they're going to have a kitchen or kitchen
[2:43:56] at, which might you may be putting up a barrier for folks who are wanting
[2:44:02] their kids, grandkids, et cetera, a family to come stay there, and which was my
[2:44:06] experience.
[2:44:06] So I thought I'd share that because I think it might be applicable.
[2:44:10] And the way the code is written right now, it does become a game of kind of counting
[2:44:15] kitchens and trying to ascertain someone's intended use.
[2:44:20] And the way we wanted to rephrase this a little bit from what we currently are doing is
[2:44:24] make sure that it is a self-contained area.
[2:44:28] And if it's not self-contained, if it's not isolated, if they don't have all of the components
[2:44:34] then it wouldn't necessarily count against them.
[2:44:36] But if they just had a need for an additional kitchen or a wet bar,
[2:44:40] we've even seen people putting wet bars in their bedrooms and their master bedrooms,
[2:44:45] that's becoming a thing.
[2:44:47] So we didn't want to get into that business of trying to count up the number of kitchens per se
[2:44:52] or kitchenettes that people are putting into their homes or where they're putting them.
[2:44:56] The real issue is regarding whether they're trying to create a self-contained.
[2:45:00] That could be, at some point, used as an ADU. And then only limit that space to one, which is what we, the intent, I believe, of our current ordinance, as is written.
[2:45:12] That was the intent, but I think it's getting harder to actually kind of split the hairs between those different use cases.
[2:45:24] Thank you.
[2:45:25] Yeah, the difference is the use, and that's the only difference, right?
[2:45:30] Yes.
[2:45:30] Okay.
[2:45:31] The Christians.
[2:45:35] These are the things that, I don't, I think, like, as I went through this document,
[2:45:42] like, I'm looking specifically at
[2:45:48] the exhibit A, the red line version.
[2:45:52] And under the general requirement section, it was the only place I had questions.
[2:46:07] So basically, we're saying one internal, one external, on number one, this is in section E, sorry.
[2:46:15] Can't sell it as a separate lot.
[2:46:18] It has to use the same meter.
[2:46:20] No extra addresses or mild boxes.
[2:46:22] Lays out the parking that we already talked about, the one in two spots.
[2:46:25] You can't have a mobile home in Section E8, B. Do we as for a single family? Do we need
[2:46:40] to add in something like number of non-related individuals? Like we do in other parts
[2:46:45] of our code?
[2:46:48] Oh, I see. Well, I think that is referencing our definition of family, which
[2:46:55] fine. General requirements. And then section E, numbers eight, sorry. Yeah, so.
[2:47:06] It's already defined. Yeah, single family is defined as remind me. We can pull that up.
[2:47:14] Because I know in some other parts, and this might be old, and I could be wrong, because
[2:47:17] I'm just remembering. But like in a home, you could have either a single family or XML of
[2:47:28] So you can have up to four unrelated individuals and still constitute as a single family.
[2:47:41] Okay, so but we don't need to like call that out in here.
[2:47:43] That's was just making sure.
[2:47:45] It would fall back to that definition of a family.
[2:47:47] Great.
[2:47:50] Then I'm fine with the rest of G and F.
[2:47:54] or sorry ENF, then in G4, G4, it says that you should not
[2:48:02] encroach into the setback.
[2:48:06] Is anyone opposed to, well, it says they can
[2:48:10] encroach to feet into your setback. Would anyone be opposed if we adjusted that to
[2:48:15] not encroach into the setback? Because it means that like, you know, your house is
[2:48:21] on your six-foot property line but two feet over that you can have the eaves of the 80
[2:48:26] year. The 80 would have to be set back a minimum of 10 feet. Okay, so 10 feet and then
[2:48:31] at 8 feet you can have the eaves coming out. That's the edge of the eave. So the set
[2:48:36] back would be here. It could come two feet and then the edge of the eave would be
[2:48:40] the eight. And that's the same that we have now on your primary home. The eave can
[2:48:46] extended to the setback by two feet. That's where we got that from. And that's that assuming
[2:48:52] that we have already at least 10 feet, side rear, that they have up to two feet. And that's
[2:49:00] the distinguishing from an accessory building, which they are allowed to go as close as
[2:49:05] two feet and have a four foot or four inch encroachment into this side back. Okay, okay, I'm
[2:49:14] G8, number two, is that where we were talking a little bit ago about setting a maximum size?
[2:49:21] Yes, you could. In this area, if you wanted to do something like that, I think this would be the location that you would do that.
[2:49:27] I would love to set a maximum size just because like based on the lot sizes before I think the maximum size was like you could build a 4,000 square foot,
[2:49:37] 6,000 square foot, 80, but potentially if you had a basement, and if you were back enough to have a two
[2:49:45] And in the large lots and then a lot of size, but that's huge
[2:49:49] It is large. Yeah, so if you wanted to institute an alternative maximum, I would like to because they you could have multiple standards where you know
[2:50:00] Whichever's last, no more in the past. You could add us three, but any number of these, whichever.
[2:50:05] So if you have an 11,000 square foot lot, what size can your ADV?
[2:50:13] Depends.
[2:50:16] So what's more than, do you have the 11,000 square foot lot size examples on this slide deck that we can show?
[2:50:24] Madam Chair, can I make one other comment?
[2:50:26] So, one thing to just think about is if you wanted to implement an alternative maximum,
[2:50:34] you might consider keeping the recommendation that staff has put forward, and then saying
[2:50:39] or this maximum, whichever is smaller as we have to comply with, right?
[2:50:46] That way, you're not saying, hey, we have a 1,500 square foot maximum, but that applies
[2:50:51] to all lot sizes, right?
[2:50:53] Because maybe a 10,000 square foot lot with a larger house would actually, a smaller, you know,
[2:51:01] a smaller square footage would be better, but maybe you want to make sure that that maximum
[2:51:06] doesn't get go over for a larger lot, right?
[2:51:09] That's been thinking like 11,000 square feet.
[2:51:13] 1100?
[2:51:15] 1100?
[2:51:16] No.
[2:51:16] 1100?
[2:51:16] On a lot.
[2:51:17] On a lot.
[2:51:18] On a lot.
[2:51:20] So this slide kind of explains a little bit of how that provision is set out.
[2:51:26] So it says no more than 75% of the primary filling dwelling footprint, but it also has to
[2:51:34] meet the rear yard coverage area. And so for a lot of under 15,000 square feet, the max size is
[2:51:49] in the rear yard and in no case can be more than 25% of the rear yard area.
[2:51:54] So if you remember those, it could take, it could be with a basement, 1500 square feet.
[2:52:00] If you had a basement at 750 and then the, okay.
[2:52:04] If they could accommodate that maximum size, yes.
[2:52:08] So here's my thoughts and I'm fine with everything with these changes and you guys tell me what you think.
[2:52:15] I think that we should keep it at 11,000 square feet until we see how this pans out and see once we do what we can't take it back.
[2:52:26] And then we can go forward and make smaller areas as we see how this process goes. So 11,000 square feet.
[2:52:33] Um, and then we make the maximum, I mean, I'm flexible on that, but I don't think it should
[2:52:40] be more than like 2,000 square feet of the most, I mean, that's.
[2:52:45] And you're talking total square foot is, oh, oh, I don't know.
[2:52:49] Yeah.
[2:52:50] And only one story.
[2:52:51] Those are my three things.
[2:52:53] Okay.
[2:52:53] Or one and a half, whichever one.
[2:52:56] 15.
[2:52:57] Whatever.
[2:52:58] 15 foot, 15.
[2:52:59] Yeah.
[2:52:59] It was not in there.
[2:53:00] So that one is the next slide I think.
[2:53:07] But let's see, this 11,000 square feet are greater and lots.
[2:53:28] Yes.
[2:53:28] And then did you have a group?
[2:53:30] was total square footage was 2000.
[2:53:33] I mean, you guys, I'm kind of tossing that out there.
[2:53:35] I don't know if that's where these people are not, but.
[2:53:39] So those would be like, so it's that would be my,
[2:53:42] with those changes that I would be happy to pass it tonight.
[2:53:46] So that's what I'm trying to get us to is,
[2:53:48] I don't want to repeat what we did before
[2:53:50] where we just all say what we like and don't like
[2:53:53] and we don't end up giving any direction.
[2:53:55] So I feel like we're headed down that path
[2:53:57] just a little bit as individual input.
[2:53:59] So maybe you're asking for feedback from
[2:54:01] Like, is that something that the rest of the council is willing to support those things as
[2:54:07] and passing it or not?
[2:54:09] So part of that would not be allowing even if they met the setbacks of an attached structure,
[2:54:17] you're still not okay with the second level or anything over 15 feet.
[2:54:21] Just to clarify what you're discussing.
[2:54:23] Yeah, 15 feet.
[2:54:25] And anything that's detached?
[2:54:26] I can't support that.
[2:54:28] And I know we're, yeah, we have to give directions tonight. So either we, well, you can make a motion and have it have it.
[2:54:36] Be a mandate.
[2:54:37] Even support for this from so Marcie's and no.
[2:54:39] Well, let me explain why I haven't had a chance to share thoughts. So just let me share why.
[2:54:46] I'm a little, um, I feel like we're getting caught up in in some things and losing sight of perhaps a picture that I am seeing,
[2:54:55] which is, if I were to buy...
[2:55:00] A property is a homeowner and I wanted to come in and build to the max of the envelope of the property. I could have a two-story structure right up against the setbacks within the envelope.
[2:55:16] So I'm not sure why we are considering being so restrictive on the story of an ADU.
[2:55:26] We're like, we're just anti-second story on an ADU where someone could build on that same property
[2:55:33] and have a two-story home that takes up the entire envelope and that's allowable.
[2:55:37] So I'm starting to get concerned about so many restrictions and this is just for me.
[2:55:44] I'm trying to solve, I feel like we need to have
[2:55:47] offer the homeowner as much flexibility as possible
[2:55:51] to make home ownership a reality.
[2:55:54] And I'm getting concerns with some of,
[2:55:59] it being even more strenuous than I think in these three.
[2:56:01] So that's why I'm saying camps for that.
[2:56:05] But I'm one of six tonight, so.
[2:56:08] The maximum height period in San Diego is 35 feet, right, for any, any residential structure.
[2:56:20] So, right, so when I give you, you would say it could go to 35.
[2:56:27] If, I mean, again, my rationale is, yeah.
[2:56:31] And my view, if it's allowed to go to 35, it is not subordinate to the main house.
[2:56:37] So, and if we're looking at making the maximum building coverage, 75% or less, if we're accepting
[2:56:46] as we can, per state law to make it subordinate, then it should be smaller.
[2:56:55] That's right.
[2:56:55] And I understand that what we're discussing is a subordinate, like it needs to be smaller.
[2:57:01] And I understand what I want to operate with within what state law says, which if state law says it's got to be a smaller size than I can support that, but what I'm struggling with this argument against a second story, if it's still smaller than the primary dwelling.
[2:57:23] I mean, I could build a home, again, second, I could build a two-story home, stay in the 35 feet.
[2:57:29] Like, that's the part I'm, I'm certain.
[2:57:32] I personally don't understand the 75% or less, but I understand that's what we have to operate within.
[2:57:39] I'm just, I'm like, I don't want to, I don't want to add more restrictions that are necessary.
[2:57:45] I want to allow as much flexibility for the homeowner's possible.
[2:57:49] Just for clarity, Council Member Houseman, the 75% or less, that's related to the footprint compared to the footprint of the primary dwelling, and that's optional.
[2:58:03] Well, the state law doesn't dictate us that it must be supportant.
[2:58:09] It allows us to do so, but our general plan policies are supported being supportant, too.
[2:58:20] And you can accomplish that in a variety of ways.
[2:58:22] We attempted to do that with this by having, well, the footprint no more than 75% of the
[2:58:29] But potentially, if you met all the setbacks,
[2:58:31] you could be as high as it.
[2:58:34] So, you know, you could have subordinate in a number of ways.
[2:58:37] Like, hey, you can't even be as tall as that.
[2:58:40] And I think that's what she was writing exactly.
[2:58:43] I just want to make sure that you,
[2:58:44] or the state's not requiring us to be used.
[2:58:47] And I think I'm probably in the minority.
[2:58:49] I think everyone, the size me, perhaps, agrees that it should be subordinate.
[2:58:56] But I, again, I'm thinking the envelope, what is an allowable build.
[2:59:03] And that same logic was the logic that we were using only crafted some of this language.
[2:59:10] And that's why I'm very comfortable with what you've brought to us tonight.
[2:59:13] Can I just comment, I think that's the best logic.
[2:59:17] The subordinate conversation, I don't think that the height, they can be the same height,
[2:59:22] the ADU is still subordinate to the main dwelling unit.
[2:59:26] To me, it's almost always going to be subordinate to the original unit.
[2:59:33] I think it's more in terms of the size of the building that it's subordinate, not necessarily
[2:59:38] the height, but I just wanted to agree with the chair that I think we need to be doing as much
[2:59:44] as we possibly can on ADUs to make housing more accessible and affordable and why if you
[2:59:54] can do it with the primary unit based on the setbacks, you couldn't do it with the ADU.
[2:59:58] I have no
[3:00:01] So, again, I feel like we're getting a little bit derailed by the details, but I just really want to encourage my colleagues to do as much as we can for our property owners and their rights and getting people into more affordable and attainable housing.
[3:00:20] I take a completely, which I respect your opinion, but I take a completely opposite view because you're saying respect that property owners, right? What about everybody else around them?
[3:00:29] They have the right to do that with the primary dwelling.
[3:00:34] What I'm saying, but that's if you have a house and then you're trying to build something different.
[3:00:37] So I end and I think we walk into this.
[3:00:41] We implement something.
[3:00:43] We see what applications come forward.
[3:00:45] We see what the challenges are and then we can loosen up after that.
[3:00:48] But you cannot roll anything back.
[3:00:51] You can't say, you know what?
[3:00:53] Wow.
[3:00:54] We have some issues with this.
[3:00:55] we didn't realize that this could be a potential problem.
[3:01:00] Let's see, I mean, the state is demanding this of cities.
[3:01:07] Let's see where it really puts us.
[3:01:10] I mean, there's zero part of me that says somebody's going to go
[3:01:15] by a, you know, $15,000 square foot lot.
[3:01:21] Say, you know what, I've got $1.5 million to do this,
[3:01:23] to go build an ADU because I need affordable housing.
[3:01:26] There's no part of me that says that that is bringing
[3:01:30] this affordable housing component.
[3:01:32] And that's, so I think we just, we look at this.
[3:01:36] And we say, I mean, planning commission is recommended coming back.
[3:01:39] I think all of us agreed at one point that we will
[3:01:42] be wanting this to come back.
[3:01:45] But let's start with some conservative things,
[3:01:49] and then move forward from that from there.
[3:01:54] Madam Chair, could I make a recommendation?
[3:01:59] So far, if I missed one, I apologize, but I've heard
[3:02:03] three suggested edits, Council Member Nichols suggested
[3:02:07] an edit to the definition of extended living area,
[3:02:11] and then Council Member Christensen suggested two changes,
[3:02:15] one to put an additional cap of 2,000 square feet for total
[3:02:19] building coverage, in addition to what staff is already recommending, and then both Council member
[3:02:25] Christian and Council member Nichols suggested the 15-foot height limitation that I capture
[3:02:31] the recommendation, the edits that I've heard so far.
[3:02:36] 11,000 square feet.
[3:02:38] That's already coming.
[3:02:40] Yeah, the 11,000 square foot law is already included in that.
[3:02:43] And the planning commission recommended in their motion.
[3:02:45] test. Yeah. And I'm okay with with
[3:02:48] him. I don't know if we want to talk about that.
[3:02:51] If we can, I like that you want to take one
[3:02:53] one. Okay. Yeah. And so that was going to be my
[3:02:58] suggestion is why don't you make a motion for
[3:03:02] each one of those individual amendments and then
[3:03:04] just do a voice vote on them. That we, you're
[3:03:07] giving direction, you know, I'll give you an
[3:03:09] example for the 15 foot height. You might say,
[3:03:12] We, I make a motion directing staff to include a 15-foot height maximum for external
[3:03:19] ADUs within this, within this, sorry, AD ordinance, that'll give them the direction
[3:03:28] that they need to do that.
[3:03:30] Okay, so I would make a motion to direct staff to adjust the maximum height to 15 feet in the
[3:03:39] your minutes.
[3:03:46] Second.
[3:03:48] Okay.
[3:03:48] We have a motion in the second.
[3:03:50] On the motion.
[3:03:52] So what does that give us?
[3:03:54] When we first had a presentation from you guys on April 16th, we were talking about one story.
[3:04:01] One and a half, too.
[3:04:04] So and I saw council support for one and one and a half.
[3:04:07] So what is 15 feet?
[3:04:10] Get us.
[3:04:11] How many stories that's generally a single single story, they might be able to squeeze in a little loft area, but it's not enough to have a full second story.
[3:04:24] No, not for second.
[3:04:27] So if it's one and a half, and it does include, at least the potential for a loft, how what kind of building height are we talking about in that case?
[3:04:38] generally you'd probably need 17 18 20 feet. Max, yeah. Out of minimum. And that's a
[3:04:47] peak truth and not a flat roof or what is it? Yeah. For a story in a half. Yeah.
[3:04:57] Yeah.
[3:04:57] If, yeah, when-
[3:05:00] When you think about construction, when you're trying to do that little bonus space up above in the rafters, you still have rafters. You still have trusses that take up some of that space and still having enough headroom to make it livable between the different floors.
[3:05:19] So yeah. A 15 foot in the most cases, I think, would limit it to single story buildings like this.
[3:05:24] plus the basement.
[3:05:26] Plus the basement, off potential.
[3:05:29] That's what's in there now, if you continue to allow that.
[3:05:32] So what do we think, Council?
[3:05:33] We debated between one story and one and a half back then.
[3:05:39] What do we think now?
[3:05:41] And under our provision, anything above us, a single story
[3:05:45] would require it to be set back further.
[3:05:49] So let's see.
[3:05:53] Yeah, so if we're getting into these scenarios,
[3:05:55] those, that's where we're saying that they would have to meet the setbacks of, as though it were attached for that zone,
[3:06:02] no closer than 10 feet, regardless of the zone to the side, but in the rear, that's where you'd want additional setback.
[3:06:11] Similar to the way that footprint showing there on that graphic, that's what is in the staff's recommendation.
[3:06:18] Now that I think the client commission kept at the same and their motion
[3:06:26] So we have a motion in a second if we could go ahead
[3:06:30] boat on that unless
[3:06:35] Man, I'm sure since we're going to be moving through a few these if the council's open to it
[3:06:39] I would suggest you just do a voice vote
[3:06:41] Okay, all in favor all against and so as a reminder this motion is to cap
[3:06:48] height at 15 feet. Yes. For the detached 80. Yes. Okay. We'll do a voice
[3:06:56] vote. All in favour? Say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Say no? No.
[3:07:02] No. That failed. Okay. So then it was three and three. So then the second
[3:07:09] motion is to instruct staff to amend 26.55.
[3:07:17] Councilmember, so sorry, can we maybe I was, maybe I shouldn't have had to do a voice
[3:07:21] vote.
[3:07:21] We're having some trouble.
[3:07:23] Let's go ahead and do voice vote.
[3:07:25] Can we do a roll call vote?
[3:07:27] We'll see if we were right.
[3:07:30] Yes.
[3:07:31] We're quite sure what the council is.
[3:07:33] So, the motion made from birth Christians in seconded by Allison Stroud to adjust the height to a maximum of 15 feet.
[3:07:47] Miss Christians in? Yes.
[3:07:48] Discussion on the motion? Yes.
[3:07:50] Oh, okay. All right.
[3:07:55] Miss Stroud? Yes.
[3:07:58] Miss Nickel?
[3:08:01] Yes.
[3:08:03] Miss Houseman? No.
[3:08:05] Miss Sharkey? No.
[3:08:08] Mr. DeKaiser.
[3:08:11] So that motion failed because the vote was a tie three to three.
[3:08:16] So quick question for the staff down there.
[3:08:18] This is the 15, or this is what you could have on 15.
[3:08:23] No.
[3:08:24] No.
[3:08:25] That's second story.
[3:08:29] So can I make a motion to cap the height limit at 20 feet?
[3:08:32] Could you, could you get two stories on 18, 18?
[3:08:39] So I think a bonus, like a living area, you could.
[3:08:43] Or a flat roof maybe.
[3:08:47] What was it, 18?
[3:08:48] Yeah, 20 and just seeing if we could do that with 18.
[3:08:51] Is the concern, the subordination of that structure to the primary,
[3:08:58] is it just overall height?
[3:08:59] It's high, when compared, when you're, the neighbor.
[3:09:06] So it's, it's, it's, it's the coordination does come into play, but it's more of the impact
[3:09:10] of the height that I want to reduce, because we, we've had plans before before that they said,
[3:09:17] if you keep the, the properties that on the exterior to one levels, there'll be less resistance,
[3:09:25] And, because it's not that big of a change.
[3:09:27] So I'm just thinking along that line.
[3:09:31] And you can also adjust the setback to what's 18 feet increasing the setback.
[3:09:41] If that's something you want to do, I mean, our proposal was if it's what 15 feet or
[3:09:46] less, then you can have this 10 to 10, but if it's taller than that, well, then you
[3:09:54] have to have the setback, just like the main house.
[3:09:56] What's the magic number to get a one-and-a-half?
[3:10:00] I don't think there is a magic number.
[3:10:04] We said 18 to 20, right?
[3:10:06] You can also welcome it, right?
[3:10:08] We said something and say one and a half feet or 18 feet.
[3:10:13] I mean, that's not true.
[3:10:14] You didn't have that.
[3:10:16] As a matter of fact, the legislature adopted that we are legally allowed to include defined high building
[3:10:22] high as a story and a dimension.
[3:10:25] And so you can say, you know, the more than one story and so many feet high.
[3:10:32] So can we, what do you want, what no more than like one and a half, so can I do so much
[3:10:39] then you can do that real quick before you do.
[3:10:42] Ms. Christensen, can I just ask the council, do you think there are any properties in
[3:10:48] Sandy where a two story ADU is would potentially be acceptable?
[3:10:55] Because if there are, which I assume there are a ton, why are we limiting this?
[3:11:02] I guess the question is, are you looking for affordable housing or are you looking for rental income or for your kids?
[3:11:08] So, because those are the only places I think they would, I'm just the acceptable.
[3:11:12] I'm just saying I think we're really limiting possibilities on large lots and sandy, which is where they're mostly going to be happening.
[3:11:21] And it is affordable so people can age in place and their families can move in, et cetera.
[3:11:28] I'm just saying, I just feel like we're being overly restrictive because I'm pretty sure the answer to the question is,
[3:11:35] yes, there are plenty of lots where you could have a really nice two-story ADU that works for a family.
[3:11:41] And so I just want to cautious us about being over the minute.
[3:11:44] If you're talking about affordable housing, if anything you build above the main level, it's twice the cost.
[3:11:50] So, we're getting there if you do a two story, you're talking ballpark in the range of on the upper
[3:11:58] side.
[3:11:59] It's not for a ball.
[3:12:01] So the thing about two story, you often will have a garage level on the bottom that either
[3:12:09] could provide additional offshoot parking for the unit or for the homeowner themselves.
[3:12:14] Oftentimes I think we'll see a lot of these two story being converted, meaning they haven't
[3:12:18] existing detached garage, and as long as they met those standards for setbacks, they
[3:12:22] could convert the upper level or the loft area or things like that.
[3:12:26] So we wanted to accommodate for those type of scenarios.
[3:12:30] The other thing, I think we wanted to do in doing this is an addition versus a detached
[3:12:36] structure is also more expensive to do an addition to a home than it is to do a detached
[3:12:41] structure.
[3:12:42] So I thought it was if someone wants to do an ADU and they want to do a second story
[3:12:47] If we restrict it to only having single level, we're going to force them into doing an addition which will increase the cost to do that.
[3:12:58] But they could do it and they could have the same.
[3:13:00] In fact, they could have more height in that scenario.
[3:13:03] They could have up to 35 feet if it's attached to the house.
[3:13:06] It's part of their house.
[3:13:07] Because it's part of their house.
[3:13:09] So you have more design discretion as a detachity to you as well.
[3:13:13] Okay, so can I make a motion then to adjust the edu to say the maximum height would either be one and a half stories or
[3:13:25] twenty,
[3:13:27] eighteen,
[3:13:27] do you have preference?
[3:13:31] Eighteen feet.
[3:13:34] So either or, right?
[3:13:38] If you want to do that as your standard, you're going to eliminate a lot of second story.
[3:13:44] And force them, either that or force them into a flat roof design, which may not be compatible with the character of the neighborhood.
[3:13:54] Michael's two limited-class stories.
[3:13:56] Flat roof at 18, it still couldn't get you to two stories, right?
[3:14:00] 18, yeah, you probably could.
[3:14:04] You may not have very tall floor to ceiling heights, but you could get to the second story.
[3:14:08] So I'm going to stick with that for about a second.
[3:14:14] 18 or one and a half stories.
[3:14:16] Councilmember.
[3:14:18] Is the 18.
[3:14:19] So I guess I'm confused on the requirement.
[3:14:22] Would it be one and a half stories,
[3:14:26] or up to a maximum of 18 feet?
[3:14:29] Is that what it is?
[3:14:34] Because, yeah, it depends on the roof height.
[3:14:36] Yeah, even on a, like this scenario,
[3:14:40] which is showing kind of a nested in
[3:14:43] second story.
[3:14:50] Yeah, 18 will probably limit most second story units if that's the
[3:14:55] and 10th goal.
[3:14:56] I'll second the motion.
[3:15:01] So, we have a motion in a second. Any discussion? Mr. DeKaser.
[3:15:06] I feel like this is going to get rid of the, you know, garage with a unit above option.
[3:15:13] And you all are concerned about getting cars off the streets and having nice parking.
[3:15:17] Why are you eliminating like the prime ADU that's going to solve the problems you are?
[3:15:23] So this is for detached ADU, so if the garage is attached to the house, is there a limit on building the it's it does it become an internal ADU if the garage is attached to the house
[3:15:37] And you add an ADU over the garage. Yeah, that would be in addition to the house that's an internal ADU.
[3:15:43] Okay, so we're only talking about detached garages. Yes, so this one right here on the right
[3:15:50] That is a great two-story unit with parking on the bottom and living on the top and it
[3:15:56] gets our cars off the streets and you're going to disallow it.
[3:16:02] That is what.
[3:16:06] You know, just to add to that one of the things that we brought up the first time we met
[3:16:09] on this that hasn't come up so far because we've been really focusing on the specifics of
[3:16:15] the build is the privacy issue.
[3:16:17] So, a second story is going to encroach on the privacy.
[3:16:24] Not more than like the chair said, not more than a house already could.
[3:16:30] We have those protections in the process.
[3:16:32] We're also introducing into double the density.
[3:16:36] Potentially double the density on all of the time.
[3:16:39] That's not unique argument because it's inevitable.
[3:16:42] We're going to double the density regardless of the height.
[3:16:46] And, and I just this council is so set on parking requirements, which I am way on the other side on and I just cannot believe that in our design we're going to
[3:16:59] Go with the option that gets the cars off the street and not allow housing on it.
[3:17:04] Mr. DeKaiser, can you focus your comments on your thoughts?
[3:17:07] I'm in the comments.
[3:17:09] I'm in the comments.
[3:17:10] I'm in the comments.
[3:17:13] However, good policy.
[3:17:15] We need to thank you, I appreciate this as a spirit of conversation.
[3:17:20] But I don't think it's necessarily productive.
[3:17:22] What I think would be most productive is we have a motion, and we have a second.
[3:17:27] I think we've shared enough to understand why we will vote the way we will vote.
[3:17:35] So we have a motion of second, roll call vote, please.
[3:17:38] Thank you Madam Chair, Ms. Christensen. Yes, Ms. Sharpie. Yes, Mr. DeKaiser.
[3:17:45] No.
[3:17:47] Mr. Stroud. Yes.
[3:17:50] Ms. Nichol. Yes.
[3:17:52] Ms. Houseway.
[3:17:53] No.
[3:17:55] Madam Chair, that motion carried forward to two.
[3:17:59] Kate, do you have the direction you need for that one more?
[3:18:02] I know. Okay.
[3:18:04] You got it? Okay.
[3:18:05] So then I'd like to make a motion to have staff adjust the ADU code to have the total
[3:18:16] square foot becapped a 2000 square feet or the other one that you have.
[3:18:25] So just to clarify Madam Chair, that is a cap in addition to the requirements that staff
[3:18:32] is already included correct?
[3:18:34] Yes.
[3:18:35] It would be adding a number of three in that table.
[3:18:40] That's right.
[3:18:41] In G8.
[3:18:43] Okay.
[3:18:43] We have a motion?
[3:18:47] Second.
[3:18:48] Okay.
[3:18:48] We have a motion.
[3:18:49] Second.
[3:18:49] Discussion on this motion.
[3:18:58] Okay.
[3:18:59] So those a markup she did, Mike, were any of those 80 use over 2,000 square feet?
[3:19:08] Yeah.
[3:19:08] In some of those scenarios, it did permit an ADU, let's say I think they're all over the end.
[3:19:14] And that was a caveat with the fourth out for one acre lots.
[3:19:21] That was something for sure, right?
[3:19:22] So, yeah, anything that's over 40,000 square feet is the only area that can have a footprint over 2,000 square feet.
[3:19:32] Or up to 2,000 square feet.
[3:19:35] So this scenario, oops, this shows 2,000 square foot ADU sizes in relation to the context of that area.
[3:19:47] And this also gives an example.
[3:19:50] So the one on the left already has an ADU, that's a two story.
[3:19:56] And that's where in that box, that's where they put that ADU.
[3:20:00] Which was limited to 400 square feet for a guest house. Which would now be called the detached adieu. That's how that one was built on on the left. The one on the right doesn't have that. And so that's showing at 1200 square foot adieu because they already have some detached structures on the on the lot.
[3:20:17] Just to give you some site context.
[3:20:22] So what are we changing with what the the motion that I understand it is this is limiting the footprint.
[3:20:29] It would add an additional restriction to the total score footage of the unit all floors
[3:20:38] inputted.
[3:20:38] The gross footage.
[3:20:39] There was a basement.
[3:20:40] You'd have that sort of.
[3:20:41] Or a bonus level.
[3:20:43] So you're establishing a cap.
[3:20:45] So the only way you couldn't maximize that footprint is if it were all single level.
[3:20:51] So if you maxed out the 2000s for a feed, you'd be capped with this as well.
[3:20:55] You couldn't have a basement in that scenario.
[3:20:57] You can have an upper level because you've already maxed out your score footage.
[3:21:06] Square footage is common.
[3:21:10] Okay.
[3:21:11] It's not unique or out of this world.
[3:21:14] Thank you.
[3:21:16] Okay.
[3:21:16] We have motion.
[3:21:17] A second.
[3:21:17] Any other discussion?
[3:21:20] Roll call vote, please.
[3:21:23] Ms. Christensen?
[3:21:25] Ms. Stroud?
[3:21:26] Yes.
[3:21:28] Ms. Nichol?
[3:21:31] Yes.
[3:21:33] Ms. Houseman?
[3:21:34] No.
[3:21:36] The Sharkey, yes.
[3:21:39] Mr. DeKaiser.
[3:21:41] No.
[3:21:43] Madam Chair, that motion carried forward to two.
[3:21:47] Okay, do we have any other amendments we're hoping to vote on?
[3:21:51] So now can I just make a one to do the whole thing with these changes?
[3:21:57] So we don't know the fact that we have other individual amendments.
[3:22:03] So, parking, I think the way that it's written right now is that we do make that
[3:22:09] exclusion for no parking required within a half mile of a transportation.
[3:22:16] It's not by one, reduced by one parking spot if you are.
[3:22:23] So, if it was over 650 square feet and you'd normally have to have two, you could just have one instead.
[3:22:30] So, that's how it's proposed in our exhibit.
[3:22:35] Yeah, and the minimum parking requirements without even any detached stadiums is that we have a two-car garage and two in the driveway so that's a total of four.
[3:22:46] Yes, that's the baseline. This allows us to do some additional if you had a detached stadium.
[3:22:52] So, in the way that SB 284 was written, it's just two additional spaces, or one additional space based on the square footage of the dwellings.
[3:23:00] And that's gross square footage.
[3:23:02] So, we added the reduction for the proximity.
[3:23:07] Yes, so.
[3:23:08] Well, we added the parking requirement, because that's an optional standard.
[3:23:12] And we allowed for that to be reduced if they're approximate to transit in our recommendation.
[3:23:18] I would, I, my amendment would be that we eliminate that, at least for starters, and, and we can always come back to it.
[3:23:29] I think what we're doing is establishing a baseline of a trial, right, and so I would do that as well.
[3:23:38] I'd eliminate that, that, that, no reduction in parking because you're, yes, that's correct.
[3:23:52] So I think I heard a motion in a second.
[3:23:57] Discussion on this motion.
[3:24:01] All right, see now we'll do a little call though.
[3:24:08] Can I clarify really quickly?
[3:24:10] So yes, we are requiring two parking spots.
[3:24:16] One or two.
[3:24:17] It's just eliminating the reduction based on proximity to transit.
[3:24:20] That's what you're voting to eliminate, potentially.
[3:24:24] And if we say no, it's because we want that, let's say.
[3:24:28] You want to allow that.
[3:24:29] Thank you.
[3:24:31] What we're going to call that?
[3:24:33] Ms. Sharkey.
[3:24:36] Ms. Christensen.
[3:24:39] Mr. DeKaiser.
[3:24:40] No.
[3:24:42] Mr. Stark.
[3:24:45] Ms. Nichol?
[3:24:46] Yes.
[3:24:47] Ms. Houseman.
[3:24:48] No.
[3:24:49] Madam Chair, that motion carried forward to two?
[3:24:54] Any additional amendments beyond what has been presented?
[3:24:58] Just a second.
[3:25:02] I just want a clarification on Exhibit A6. It has to accept it systems.
[3:25:15] So,
[3:25:17] I'm not clear, somebody couldn't put
[3:25:33] the land development code, but we don't allow septic things anywhere in the city. We have
[3:25:41] some of the ground-fathered in, so you could not service an ADU off of a septic.
[3:25:50] And if your
[3:25:51] home is on a septic now, and you want to do an ADU, you have to upgrade, you're going to have
[3:25:56] to connect a sewer, and get rid of your septic system. We're using that as a tool to get rid
[3:26:02] of septic systems.
[3:26:13] Madam Chair, just a reminder, once you're done
[3:26:17] with amendments, we'll want to jump to public comment.
[3:26:20] I was planted on it before we actually moved to the whole thing.
[3:26:24] So is that everything?
[3:26:25] Just what's it?
[3:26:32] So regarding the Planning Commission recommendations,
[3:26:39] someone during what you guys feel about this one
[3:26:42] If you don't have an external ADU, you could have two internal extended living areas.
[3:26:49] Anyone have any thoughts about that one?
[3:26:52] I could support that one depending on what the council feels.
[3:26:56] Sorry, which one?
[3:26:58] If you don't have an external ELA, you can have two internal ones.
[3:27:06] That's number one slide of the proposed changes
[3:27:14] that the planning commissioner recommended.
[3:27:16] No, the fear is that that kit is converted and adopted for another use.
[3:27:24] But it's clear that those ELAs are not for cannot be rented.
[3:27:32] That is clear.
[3:27:35] Anyway, I just wondered whether that was something I thought I could support.
[3:27:42] Don't know how you guys feel about that one.
[3:27:47] Madam chair. Unless I hear like emotion.
[3:27:52] I just want to move us on. Yes, please. I just wanted to let staff know. Our computer back there got kicked out of the meetings.
[3:27:59] That's why that's why the slides disappeared.
[3:28:01] Well, I have notes of the slides, so.
[3:28:06] Were there any other further those?
[3:28:08] Were there any other recommendations that you wanted to consider?
[3:28:14] Well, let's finish with this one.
[3:28:16] So this one's a no.
[3:28:17] There's no second on a motion.
[3:28:19] If I were to make, I'll make a motion.
[3:28:21] But do I have a second on?
[3:28:24] Two internal ELIs.
[3:28:27] If there is not an external.
[3:28:28] It's page 222 of the packet if you're curious and want to get to that slide.
[3:28:34] And that was a planning commission recommendation that you did not age up at all.
[3:28:39] It wasn't in our original recommendation to the planning commission as part of their motion.
[3:28:45] They recommended that to you.
[3:28:47] To us.
[3:28:48] But it's not currently.
[3:28:50] It's not in exhibit.
[3:28:51] So if we did that, I'm just thinking to make sure I understand.
[3:28:55] They could have two of them inside, but they only could rent one.
[3:28:58] Correct.
[3:28:59] You can't rent any ELAs.
[3:29:01] Well, one of them could be converted into an ADO for rent.
[3:29:06] The way it's written right now, you can have one internal and one external.
[3:29:10] Correct.
[3:29:10] As a planning commission is saying, if you don't have an external, you can have two internal.
[3:29:14] Correct.
[3:29:15] But you still can only rent one.
[3:29:17] Correct.
[3:29:18] And no scenario, could you have more than one ADO?
[3:29:23] Whether it's attached or detached.
[3:29:24] You can have, like, for example, one detached ADU rental and one basement apartment for your adult child as an extended living area.
[3:29:38] So there's two fully operational circumstances.
[3:29:46] But you only allowed the one rental on the property.
[3:29:49] So,
[3:29:55] it still allows, what it does is, it would allow for greater flexibility, first.
[3:30:00] Someone that either doesn't have the room to do a detached ADU or can't do a detached ADU, because they are in a lot that's under 10,000 square feet, or sorry under 11,000 square feet, so it gives them some flexibility as well.
[3:30:18] And everything's within the primary footprint of the home and it's not detached.
[3:30:24] Did you get a second,
[3:30:28] I'll just get a second so we can at least,
[3:30:35] and I happen, since
[3:30:36] what I seconded, I happen to like it simply because I feel like all we've done so far
[3:30:41] is more restrictive, this seems to add a little degree of flexibility,
[3:30:48] so we're working
[3:30:48] All right, any, Kayla, let's do roll call vote on that amendment, please.
[3:30:55] Madam Chair, the motion be clarified.
[3:31:02] To allow two internal ELAs if there is not an external one,
[3:31:11] which is plenty commission recommendation.
[3:31:13] Number one.
[3:31:14] Number one.
[3:31:15] And that's in the slides.
[3:31:17] Number one.
[3:31:18] of the exact language of their principles.
[3:31:25] Okay. Okay.
[3:31:25] With this question.
[3:31:27] I already asked for this question.
[3:31:28] I have an affriendly amendment.
[3:31:31] Okay.
[3:31:32] That maybe we look at lot size and put that in there.
[3:31:36] So you don't get a 10,000 square foot lot with three families living in a single unit.
[3:31:43] So it would need to be probably a larger home to begin with
[3:31:47] to house three possible families
[3:31:55] and that's I'm just I mean it's like I think we start if it's
[3:31:58] 10,000 square feet and you're allowing three possibly three households I guess three households
[3:32:08] that could start to get pretty tight especially when you start adding in parking but if
[3:32:24] we
[3:32:26] If you have to think, you have to have two sets of questions.
[3:32:30] We cannot require any more parking when they're attached.
[3:32:34] It's part of the main house.
[3:32:36] Because we already required the four.
[3:32:38] That's very important.
[3:32:39] And that's what I mean.
[3:32:40] But the detached state you use, they allow us to require additional parking.
[3:32:46] For now.
[3:32:46] For now.
[3:32:47] For the one or two, if it's over 650.
[3:32:51] Sort of something.
[3:32:53] What would you, what would the square footage go to, would it be to the lot of studies or to think on the lot size?
[3:33:02] Because then you could find more places for parking.
[3:33:06] And there's more bodies on the larger lots.
[3:33:12] You know, I think, you know, on a home because then you look as well, then I'll add an addition.
[3:33:16] But if it, the lot is going to stay a fixed size.
[3:33:19] So, does this, and with this right now the way it's written this applies to everything, this isn't in the category of 11,000.
[3:33:28] So, this is in the category of general requirements that applies to all attached or detached scenarios.
[3:33:38] Yeah, I could go for that. Either way, I'm a no, because, yeah, 20,000,
[3:33:50] I could do that.
[3:33:55] Okay, so we have an amended motion, would you say, for the clarity,
[3:34:00] Mesharky, for the record, would you say that revised motion?
[3:34:05] Revised to apply it to only lots that are over 20,000 square feet.
[3:34:11] That they could have two internal adios or extended luminaries.
[3:34:18] Okay, so fully set up.
[3:34:19] Wouldn't they have no details?
[3:34:21] Got it, okay.
[3:34:22] I've got that.
[3:34:22] So just for the record for us, so it's allowed to internal ELA's if there is not an external
[3:34:28] ELA and a lot is over 20,000 square feet.
[3:34:33] That's what I'm hearing.
[3:34:34] So we have a motion and I also second the amendment, I'm good with that's fine.
[3:34:40] So let's go and do roll call vote on that, please.
[3:34:43] Thank you Madam Chair, Ms. Sharking, yes, Ms. Hasman, yes, Ms. Christianson, yes,
[3:34:51] Mr. DeKaiser?
[3:34:53] Yes.
[3:34:55] Mr. Stroud?
[3:34:56] Yes.
[3:34:57] Ms. Nichol?
[3:34:58] Yes.
[3:35:00] That I'm sure that motion carried 6 to 0.
[3:35:04] All right, does that take care of all of our amendments?
[3:35:07] I'll make a motion to allow all of this on 10,000 square foot lots.
[3:35:15] Instead of 11,
[3:35:17] it's adding flexibility. 11,000 is...
[3:35:21] That's right now, right? I want to take that down to 10,000.
[3:35:25] That's that would be planning commission for recommendation number 5.
[3:35:29] I understand. Thank you.
[3:35:31] And that was one I thought I remember right, I agree, to accept that.
[3:35:36] I think the Christian recommendation.
[3:35:39] So anyone want a second?
[3:35:42] You did.
[3:35:44] Okay, sorry, I didn't hear it.
[3:35:45] So we have a motion second discussion on the motion.
[3:35:50] Okay, then we'll do roll call vote on accepting planning commission number.
[3:35:55] Recommendation number five.
[3:36:00] Miss Nikol.
[3:36:01] Yes.
[3:36:01] Mr. DeKaiser.
[3:36:02] Yes.
[3:36:03] It's strong.
[3:36:05] No.
[3:36:07] Ms. Houseman?
[3:36:08] Yes.
[3:36:08] Ms. Sharkey?
[3:36:12] Ms. Christian said.
[3:36:15] Madam Chair, that resulted in a tie of three to three, the motion failed.
[3:36:20] Okay.
[3:36:20] I don't have any others, but I would like them to go through each and exhibit eight.
[3:36:25] It pertains to conversions of sheds and that type of thing.
[3:36:29] I just want some clarification on that for me, guys.
[3:36:36] What did you have though?
[3:36:38] So, was this scenario that you could only have living space in the setback, right?
[3:36:45] So, if you had a structure that was encroaching over a setback, you couldn't have that as a living space, right?
[3:36:53] You could just have it earlier.
[3:36:56] That's correct.
[3:36:58] And then the Planning Commission made an additional recommendation.
[3:37:03] They were presented at a use case of an existing building that didn't comply with that.
[3:37:09] And so they did recommend the language shown on the screen here,
[3:37:13] which is item number nine of their recommendations.
[3:37:17] Slide our page 229 of the packet.
[3:37:22] That includes this additional provision that they're recommending.
[3:37:25] So it's a additional language that was not in the Exhibet A.
[3:37:29] So staff's initial rendition.
[3:37:30] I don't
[3:37:34] want to request this.
[3:37:36] OK.
[3:37:36] OK, so I believe that's all of our amendments.
[3:37:39] Before we move to adopt, we do have public comment on this item.
[3:37:45] Thank you to our public who's been waiting patiently for their opportunity to share
[3:37:49] thoughts on item number eight.
[3:37:51] We'll start with Julie.
[3:38:05] I want to thank you.
[3:38:06] I know that you all received an email for me today, and I guess I'm going to kind of be
[3:38:13] out of doing an ADU, but going over my email, I do appreciate the opportunity as a citizen
[3:38:22] of Sandy Yuton property owner at 9135 Stillwater Circle, the chance to build an ADU on my property.
[3:38:31] as a recent widow in having a daughter and her family that had been priced out of the
[3:38:37] housing market and her husband has medical issues and having to move every couple of
[3:38:45] years because the house they are running then the owner wants to sell it and seeing the
[3:38:52] financial cost of just renting and renting and coming up with that downpayment and all
[3:39:00] emotional costs too, especially on children to have to keep moving.
[3:39:07] So, and actually my daughter who lives in Salt Lake City, another daughter is living in
[3:39:13] an area where there have been ADUs added recently, and she's the one that came up with the
[3:39:20] idea, and their neighborhood loves them.
[3:39:23] It's been a good thing.
[3:39:24] I see building an A to U on my property is an excellent solution to me to having family around
[3:39:32] as I grow older and to give them a chance to get ahead in life and have a stable home life.
[3:39:40] So I was excited when I was reading the planning commission meeting minutes for August 6
[3:39:48] when they did recommend the 10,000 square feet.
[3:39:53] Because I think that opens it up for a lot more of us
[3:39:56] because if you'll notice it, my house...
[3:40:00] This is on a lot, 10,890 square feet. So I think that's going to eliminate me unless they have some leeway.
[3:40:10] When you look at the assessor structure, rules and definitions, they were created for the definition and accessory structure building is a detached subordinate building.
[3:40:27] It is customarily incidental to and located on the same
[3:40:31] lot as the main residential or primary building such as detached garages, sheds, or workshops.
[3:40:39] So using that definition, they came up with that table that we saw
[3:40:44] that the maximum size and the accessory structure.
[3:40:50] And that was for a building that was never meant to be lived in.
[3:40:53] And ADU is a place for people to live in, at home, and not a garage, shed, or workshop.
[3:41:00] There needs to be a little bit more leeway, because the table as it is,
[3:41:04] hinders the options of providing livable housing.
[3:41:09] Okay.
[3:41:10] Anyway, thank you.
[3:41:15] Thank you.
[3:41:17] Next, we have Emma Glenn.
[3:41:21] If I was pronounced, your last name.
[3:41:24] Thank you.
[3:41:24] Glad to be.
[3:41:25] My apologies.
[3:41:26] Thank you.
[3:41:27] Glad to be.
[3:41:29] All right.
[3:41:29] My name's Emma Glendy.
[3:41:30] I'm one of Julie's granddaughters.
[3:41:32] And I'm actually a city planner for the city of
[3:41:34] Columnwood Heights.
[3:41:35] I'm going to finish her.
[3:41:36] She is saying.
[3:41:38] She's saying that again her property is 10,890 square
[3:41:43] feet so you can even consider 10,880 square feet.
[3:41:45] You'd be down with that too.
[3:41:47] She does need at least a two-bedroom ADU for kind of her Libyan situation.
[3:41:52] The plan she's looking at would potentially be 820 square feet.
[3:41:56] Her backyard is about 4,000 square feet, so 25% of the backyard would give us 1,000 square
[3:42:01] feet, which would make it possible to even potentially have a three-bedroom.
[3:42:05] But when you apply the rules for accessory structures, she can have the lesser of 750 square
[3:42:10] feet or 25% of the backyard.
[3:42:12] The 750 square feet is not quite enough for what she's looking for, for even the example of the two-bedroom ADU in the slide presentation requires 800 square feet.
[3:42:24] Why can't the rules for an ADU be their own rules?
[3:42:26] You've taken the two feet set back for side property line and the rear yard and rear property line for accessory buildings and changed the set back for an ADU to be 10 feet for both situations.
[3:42:36] This table of maximum accessory structure size is based on property size and for an accessory structure.
[3:42:42] So, right now, the alternative maximum size for accessory structures is extremely limiting for livable housing,
[3:42:50] especially for smaller homeowners and wouldn't allow my grandma to proceed with their plan.
[3:42:54] The 25% of her rear yard would allow her to have a two-bedroom ADU, but the table won't.
[3:43:00] She says, I don't see any of you discussions about the alternate maximum accessory structure size table and how it relates to ADUs.
[3:43:06] I'm asking you to look at that table and create a table of maximum ADUs structure size, taking into account the purpose of an ADU.
[3:43:13] And what is already available in sizes for ADUs that are cost effective and can give occupants a livable environment.
[3:43:19] The maximum needs to be increased to allow some flexibility, especially for smaller property sizes.
[3:43:23] She also says she's very appreciative that Sandy City is looking into expanding housing options.
[3:43:28] That will allow people in all walks of life to benefit.
[3:43:31] Plus, she loves the idea of multi-generational housing that allows families to stay together,
[3:43:36] caring for one another, and able to remain in Sandy City.
[3:43:39] And since I've 50 more seconds, I'd also like to add in-comment heights.
[3:43:44] Right now, the minimum loss for a D-tash ADU is 6,000 square feet.
[3:43:48] I have to say, we probably get three applications for a detache to you every single year, as someone who's looking to say for my own house someday, it is really disturbing seeing the housing prices increase.
[3:44:02] Currently, 91% of Utahans cannot afford a median price home, so I think any solution to an increase in affordable housing options is excellent.
[3:44:11] So I would consider, I would recommend, I mean, honestly, not even having a minimum law size
[3:44:17] would be incredible for ADUs, just because all the other restrictions already reduce the
[3:44:23] properties where an ADU would be an option. Even 10,000 square feet would give it a lot more
[3:44:28] people options. ADUs are expensive so that you're not going to see a billion coming through. Thanks.
[3:44:34] Thank you. And there are last one on item number eight is a Dell clerk.
[3:44:47] Thank you for listening to
[3:44:48] for a second time tonight. I just want you to know that I have a hundred percent disabled
[3:44:55] that living in my basement, and I don't consider it in e-halle.
[3:45:00] I consider it a gift to be able to provide him space to live. My son lived in Texas for the past three or four years and the Texas market, the rental market, pushed him out of being able to rent.
[3:45:16] So my son was this close to being on the street. He was already going to food pantries to get food. So I hadn't come home.
[3:45:24] So, I want you to consider that my ELA, as you would call it, isn't an ELA to me at all.
[3:45:33] It's a gift to him, to be able to help him.
[3:45:37] I have a half acre.
[3:45:38] As you know, I have a spot picked out on my half acre to build another garage, and I have plans for that garage.
[3:45:46] And that garage has living space above it that would go above your 20-foot rule.
[3:45:52] It is in the back corner of my lot, it is surrounded by trees on my neighbors, on both sides.
[3:46:01] It's not going to impact anybody for me to be able to build that, but it's going to be another gift to my son to give him space.
[3:46:11] This is a hundred percent disabled vet.
[3:46:13] And I don't think you guys have considered all of the different applications or people and their concerns.
[3:46:22] I didn't know anything about the ADU until I came in for my other issue.
[3:46:27] But I am intrigued by what is going on here and quite honestly.
[3:46:31] Mr. DeKaiser and Ms. Houseman.
[3:46:34] I am with you a hundred percent that you're going to have to be less restrictive.
[3:46:38] And I believe that what is past you're going to end up changing within a year because of the needs of the people that are out there
[3:46:50] And I don't think you're considering everything
[3:46:53] So I'm not going to give up my 56 seconds. I don't know if you can do that
[3:46:57] But I just want you to know that this issue is near and dear to me and I didn't realize that it was even a process that was going through Sandy City until I came in
[3:47:08] my other issue. So thank you both for trying to get more and not less. My
[3:47:15] son deserves more and not less. He fought for this country. He deserves more.
[3:47:23] Thank you. Thank you. That is all of the blue cards I have for this item.
[3:47:31] We'll go to those in our online Mr. Fraddle, please. Of course, thank you Madam Chair.
[3:47:36] If you're joining us virtually this evening and you'd like to comment on item number 8, which are amendments to Title 21 related to ADUs, go ahead and click the raise hand button now.
[3:47:47] I'll call your name in the order which you raised your hand and you'll have three minutes.
[3:48:08] I'm not saying any hands raised Madam Chair.
[3:48:12] Okay, then we will go ahead and close public comments on this item and bring it back to the council.
[3:48:17] Can I believe Ms. Christensen you are going to?
[3:48:21] motion to approve, to adopt ordinance 2655 to amend Title 21 with the four changes that were voted on tonight and approved.
[3:48:43] We have a motion in the second. I just want to clarify process here.
[3:48:49] Because we have voted on each of the amendments, we're now voting on the package.
[3:48:55] Yes. So, Council Member Christensen's motion was to adopt this ordinance with the changes
[3:49:02] that were voted on this evening. So, yes, you'd be adopting it with those changes.
[3:49:07] Yes, it's to do that.
[3:49:09] Road yes is to adopt what if I'm still opposed to the changes that I've already voted
[3:49:15] no.
[3:49:15] Will the Council's given direction to include those changes? And so, you would vote no to the
[3:49:21] motion to adopt the ordinance. Okay. And if you vote no, again, the council has to
[3:49:26] it. If it doesn't pass, the council has to adopt something before October 1st,
[3:49:31] statutory. And so we would need to probably continue discussion to see what we would need
[3:49:38] to do to get to four folks voting. Yes. Okay. Thank you for clarifying. So we have motion
[3:49:45] Wait a second. Any discussion?
[3:49:50] I'm sure.
[3:49:52] So to the members of the audience into my council
[3:49:55] colleagues,
[3:49:58] I would.
[3:50:00] We expect that we will see tweaks. I think that is the plan. I think that's even sort of been suggested by the Community Development Department by the Planning Department.
[3:50:12] We didn't have a lot of time to come around to casting this vote tonight. This is potentially pretty impactful. We understand that. We support it. It's something that we voted on as a council on our moderate income housing plan that we would allow these.
[3:50:28] Then what we got was the state deciding a baseline of requirements which we have to adopt and then a short period of time for us to consider some tweaks that are allowed under the law.
[3:50:44] That's why we went over the musts and shelves and stuff like that.
[3:50:47] So to my council colleagues, I am of a mind that we will probably make changes sooner than
[3:50:56] rather than later.
[3:50:58] And it could be an association with the land development code creation.
[3:51:04] So I'm open to that.
[3:51:07] I expect that.
[3:51:08] I just want to make sure we get in the area of unintended consequences.
[3:51:13] I was having a discussion with someone earlier saying, I'm also worried about the placement
[3:51:21] on the lot, because I've seen this before, so far, we're looking at is EDUs that are
[3:51:28] in the corners. But what if they're not in the corners? And I've seen a really bad example
[3:51:33] of that in the past. And so I wonder if we also need to consider the placement of these on the
[3:51:40] we do or whether we don't, I've just seen a really a very, very, a horrible example recently
[3:51:48] of where someone had placed an accessory dwelling at a point on their lot that was really,
[3:51:56] really impactful to the next door neighbors.
[3:51:59] And so I do wonder whether that's something we need to consider.
[3:52:03] I'm expecting that what we'll see is some questions, problems, issues come up that we need
[3:52:11] I just want to express to my fellow colleagues my openness to apply tweaks, but I like this starting point of where we are, although yes to it and keep my eyes and ears open for other changes that we should or need to make.
[3:52:32] I can't wait to make changes to it, again, because it's very flawed that way of this right now, but I think it's a very good baseline.
[3:52:43] And I would like staff to update us at some point on if the applications and the process and how it's going, so we can anticipate this when we're looking at it again, hopefully next year.
[3:52:59] And I, I, I, I, I, too think that this will be, um, um, very dynamic, you know, and as things come up, then we can look at it, oh, yeah, you know, that there's a lot of potential things on there.
[3:53:11] Um,
[3:53:14] great now. Here's one. I, I, in my head, I've always kind of thought they love in thousand square feet as being kind of quarter acre.
[3:53:22] but it's not. It's 10,000, 800, 90.
[3:53:26] I mean, would we look at maybe just saying quarter acre?
[3:53:29] I don't know what that does with it.
[3:53:31] My head has always been that's what that quarter acre is.
[3:53:35] So I don't know if, you know,
[3:53:36] friendly amendment of adjusting to say,
[3:53:38] it's a quarter acre, you know,
[3:53:40] if that's easier or if it's if we truly have gone by.
[3:53:43] I know an hour code,
[3:53:45] often it's, I mean, we see that, you know,
[3:53:51] we go strictly by the, you know, thousand square feet, but if it was that quarter acre
[3:53:56] if that makes more, I mean, maybe in public size, it does make more sense and it could
[3:54:01] address, you know, maybe a little bit of the issue. So I don't, I mean, and if not, I know
[3:54:05] it's already muddy and we've done whatever, but I think the standard is the based on the
[3:54:10] square footage of the land. Right. And so I think if you add .25, it would actually, another
[3:54:19] And I can probably limit more than, that's, and I, yeah, it's just money.
[3:54:29] Okay, go, is it really the difference of quarter acre versus that 110 square feet?
[3:54:34] You know, if that was, but yeah, if it's then.
[3:54:42] Okay, I think we have had our discussion.
[3:54:46] Roll call, though, please.
[3:54:49] Ms. Christensen.
[3:54:50] Yes.
[3:54:51] Ms. Nichol.
[3:54:52] Yes.
[3:54:53] Ms. Houseman?
[3:54:55] No.
[3:54:57] Ms. Sharky?
[3:54:58] Yes.
[3:55:00] Mr. De Kaiser.
[3:55:01] No.
[3:55:03] Mr. Trump.
[3:55:04] Yes.
[3:55:06] Madam Chair, that motion carried forward to two.
[3:55:09] Thank you. Thank you, staff, for walking us through all of that and continuing to answer questions.
[3:55:17] Thank you very much.
[3:55:18] So moving on, our next item is actually a closed session.
[3:55:23] And so we would likely want to take council or standing reports first.
[3:55:29] And then a motion to move into close session at a adjourn from there, so if we could start over here with Sandy reports, please.
[3:55:36] Of course, thank you, Madam Chair.
[3:55:38] I'll just quickly go over the calendar for next week.
[3:55:40] I don't have any other information to report this time.
[3:55:43] We do have a information report for an ILA with Salt Lake County for our special bond election.
[3:55:51] We're going to get an update on Wildland and deployment from Chief McConaughey.
[3:55:57] We also will have on the agenda notification of an upcoming vacancy on the Metro Waterboard.
[3:56:03] So John Kirkham's appointment is expiring the council will need to consider re-appointing
[3:56:09] him or appointing someone else to go through that process.
[3:56:13] We have a discussion on adjusting the management study schedule, moving PDA year sooner.
[3:56:18] And then we have our public meeting in public hearing
[3:56:22] as related to the bond election.
[3:56:25] So we have the transparency meeting,
[3:56:27] and then we have the ballot proposition public hearing.
[3:56:32] And that's it at this point in next week's agenda.
[3:56:36] So thank you, Manager.
[3:56:40] Any updates?
[3:56:42] Let's go super fast.
[3:56:44] Appreciate the healing field.
[3:56:45] It was just another fantastic event and always impactful.
[3:56:51] and I hope we do it forever so. I also appreciate public utilities reaching out to council members
[3:56:59] and asking to have small group meetings to just discuss storm drains, the storms that we've
[3:57:07] had in the impacts and I appreciate the outreach from public utilities and the desire to sit down
[3:57:13] and talk and really talk about everything that happened. I also want to I'm sure they're not listening
[3:57:19] but express appreciation to my colleagues in Cottonwood Heights.
[3:57:24] They hosted a screening of a documentary called The Lake,
[3:57:29] which was a Sundance Film Festival winner.
[3:57:32] And they got aside from myself.
[3:57:36] There were also other elected officials that came to see that.
[3:57:39] It was all about the great Salt Lake.
[3:57:42] And the need to refill the lake.
[3:57:44] and so I appreciate that they recognize
[3:57:47] the selected officials and welcome
[3:57:50] to us to be there as well.
[3:57:52] That's it.
[3:57:53] Thank you.
[3:57:54] I just wanted to remind everyone
[3:57:56] that the Heritage Festival is the Saturday
[3:57:58] from 1032 at Main Street Park for not busy come.
[3:58:05] And I have another story, but I'll see
[3:58:08] if it's only a factual staff here.
[3:58:14] I wanted to thank Chris, Ms. Edwards, and the youth council.
[3:58:20] You know, you did a quite a bit of work, so at the healing fields,
[3:58:25] setting up flags there, and then also on Saturday with bumps across America,
[3:58:29] where they were able to help build 94 beds for children here in Utah.
[3:58:34] For those that would need them, and then a couple of them were helping out with the
[3:58:44] There was a competition this weekend, which was Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday where
[3:58:50] more than 50 teams throughout the state competed and Sandy placed in narcotics, tactical
[3:58:57] obedience, agility, tracking, criminal apprehension and tough dog, so taking a lot of awards
[3:59:03] through that.
[3:59:04] So, well done for a push department, and then, so historic committee, also had a meeting last
[3:59:10] And, you know, going through, you know, very similar as their rebook, or they're looking at their code rewrite as well, and actively engaged in that process and working with planning on that.
[3:59:22] But, I think is it. Can I turn?
[3:59:27] Moving on to administration, please.
[3:59:29] We don't have anything this evening. Thank you.
[3:59:32] Okay. So, we need to clarify who will be joining us in close session and then I'll need a motion.
[3:59:39] To move into closed session followed by adjournment from closed session, who's going to be joined?
[3:59:45] It would be myself, Ryan Meekham, our city attorney, and then our chief of police, Ethan Curtis,
[3:59:54] and Cory Homingash.
[3:59:57] It's the only half working.
[3:59:58] It's the foot, right?
[3:59:59] Yeah.
[4:00:00] Put in mouth right there. Corry, please join us. Corry has. Yes, yes. Was that, were good then? Yep, so we need, we'll just need the motion.
[4:00:12] Motion to go into closed session to discuss tab and discussion regarding deployment of security, personnel, devices, or systems, and thereafter adjourned the city council meeting.
[4:00:23] All second and that is roll call, right?
[4:00:27] Go call, please.
[4:00:29] Ms. Sharkey, yes.
[4:00:32] Ms. Hasman?
[4:00:34] Ms. Christian said, yes.
[4:00:36] Mr. Dick Heiser?
[4:00:37] Yes.
[4:00:39] Ms. Stroud? Yes.
[4:00:40] Ms. Nichol.
[4:00:48] Madam Chair.
[4:00:49] Go ahead.
[4:00:50] Motion carried five to zero.
[4:00:53] And for the record, the close session will just be here at City Hall.