[0:00] We heard from anyone else? Is this us?

[0:02] >> Yeah, we got a

[0:03] quorum. We got a quorum.

[0:04] >> We got a quorum. All right.

[0:05] >> Yeah, so we got two members at large.

[0:08] >> Yeah.

[0:09] Let's go. It's 7:00.

[0:10] >> Fine.

[0:11] >> All right.

[0:13] We will get started then. Welcome

[0:16] everyone to Santa Monica City Planning

[0:17] Commission.

[0:19] Uh it's Tuesday, July 28th, 2026. We're

[0:21] getting started at 7:01 p.m.

[0:25] All right. Would anyone like to get us

[0:26] started tonight with an inspirational

[0:28] thought or an invocation?

[0:34] » I'll give the invocation.

[0:35] >> Thank you.

[0:37] >> Our Father in heaven, we are grateful

[0:39] for

[0:40] all the blessings that we have received

[0:42] from thee. We're grateful for the rain

[0:44] and precipitation that we received. We

[0:45] ask for more. We

[0:47] ask thee to bless us with um

[0:50] the the things that we need for this

[0:51] city. And these things we ask for in the

[0:52] name of Jesus Christ. Amen.

[0:54] >> All right, thank you, Commissioner

[0:55] Christopher. Would anyone like to uh

[0:58] lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance

[0:59] tonight?

[1:00] >> I can. Thank you.

[1:04] » Repeat after me.

[1:06] >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the

[1:09] United States of America.

[1:11] And to the republic for which it stands,

[1:14] one nation under God,

[1:16] indivisible, with liberty and justice

[1:19] for all.

[1:21] >> [clears throat]

[1:24] » All right, thank you, Commissioner

[1:25] Johnson.

[1:27] Okay, on the screen here before us we

[1:29] have the the agenda for tonight. Um

[1:32] if there's no objection, I think we'll

[1:33] just proceed in this order. Um

[1:36] we'll start though before we get into

[1:39] agenda item number one with the public

[1:40] forum. So, for those of you in

[1:42] attendance tonight, that is the

[1:44] opportunity for the public to address

[1:45] the commission um

[1:47] with regard to anything that's on your

[1:48] mind. However, we do have two public

[1:50] hearings on the agenda. So, if you're

[1:52] here for either of those public hearings

[1:54] and would like to comment on those

[1:55] items, we'd ask you to hold those

[1:57] comments until we get to those public

[1:58] hearings.

[1:59] Um but if there's anything else that

[2:01] you'd like to bring up before the

[2:02] commission tonight, now is the time. So,

[2:04] I'll open the public forum at 7:03 and

[2:06] invite any comments if anyone would like

[2:08] to.

[2:10] >> Trevor, can I ask that Sorry, that was

[2:12] so loud. Can I ask that we do the

[2:14] proposed conditional use permit before

[2:16] the public hearings because the

[2:17] applicant is in the audience?

[2:18] >> Absolutely, we can do that.

[2:20] >> Thank you.

[2:21] >> No problem.

[2:24] Okay, any comments for the public forum?

[2:27] Okay, then we will close the public

[2:29] forum at 7:03 and um

[2:31] as requested, we'll move right into

[2:33] agenda item number three. This is the

[2:34] proposed conditional use permit for Wild

[2:37] Thistle Cafe Class C alcohol license.

[2:42] » Okay, like Trevor has already

[2:44] introduced, Wild Thistle Cafe is located

[2:46] at 77 West Main Street and they're

[2:49] requesting a Class C alcohol

[2:51] establishment to

[2:53] the limited service restaurant license.

[2:56] So, 70% of the sales would still come

[2:59] from the sale of food.

[3:01] Alcohol would be the minor

[3:03] income and it is part of the Main Street

[3:08] business district zone.

[3:10] Um formerly, it was the central business

[3:12] district before we removed it, which it

[3:14] wasn't allowed use. But because it's

[3:16] just the MSC now, it requires a

[3:18] conditional use.

[3:19] Within the Santaquin City code, we don't

[3:22] have any specific conditions outlined.

[3:25] But we do still have to go through the

[3:26] process.

[3:28] Um

[3:28] for reference, here it is located on

[3:31] Main Street.

[3:33] And then

[3:35] this is

[3:37] a letter from them just explaining

[3:40] their request.

[3:44] So,

[3:45] your job today is to make a motion to

[3:48] approve or deny the conditional use

[3:49] permit for the proposed Wild Thistle

[3:51] classify it as a alcohol establishment

[3:53] license.

[3:54] And the applicant is with us.

[3:56] >> All right. Thanks, Asmin. Um for the

[3:58] applicants, is there anything you'd like

[4:00] to add to that presentation?

[4:06] » [snorts]

[4:06] >> Is there Would you like to add anything?

[4:08] >> Say my friend will do it. I was excited.

[4:11] Is there anything you want to say?

[4:13] >> I mean, the

[4:14] letter kind of just outlines like

[4:17] >> Would you step up to the microphone for

[4:18] us and state your name for the record?

[4:19] Thanks.

[4:20] >> add that, too.

[4:22] Um Chesley Cordis.

[4:24] Um the letter kind of just outlines like

[4:29] what it is and how we intend to use it.

[4:32] Um I guess the only thing that doesn't

[4:34] have on there

[4:38] Oh, no, it does say

[4:40] beer and wine.

[4:42] So, it wouldn't be any like

[4:44] full alcohol. So, like no cocktails or

[4:47] shots or anything like that. Um

[4:50] just beer and wine. That's really all I

[4:51] wanted to add. But

[4:52] >> Okay.

[4:54] >> I feel like it goes over what we need

[4:56] to.

[4:57] >> Great. Thank you.

[4:58] >> Yeah.

[5:00] >> Okay.

[5:02] All right, commissioners. Um

[5:04] any questions on the application or any

[5:06] thoughts?

[5:08] >> I'll just share that I The restaurant is

[5:10] run very well, and I don't see any

[5:12] problem with this at all.

[5:14] >> Yeah, I agree.

[5:23] » If I could just add one thing. So, I

[5:24] Asmin did did cover it, but I just

[5:25] wanted to kind of hammer home. The last

[5:27] zoning district it was in, it was

[5:29] already a permitted use. By our own code

[5:32] amendments, it made it a conditional

[5:33] use. So.

[5:35] And there's no built-in standards or or

[5:37] uh

[5:38] you know, guidelines in our code for it.

[5:40] It's just

[5:41] listed as a conditional use.

[5:42] >> This is just a step in the process?

[5:44] >> Yeah.

[5:45] >> Right.

[5:46] >> [clears throat]

[5:46] >> Okay. Thank you for that.

[5:49] Okay.

[5:51] >> I can make a motion?

[5:52] >> You can make a motion if there's no

[5:53] further discussion.

[5:55] >> I make a motion that we approve

[5:58] this application.

[5:59] >> Okay, we've got a motion to approve by

[6:01] Commissioner Christopher. Do we have a

[6:02] second?

[6:04] >> I'll second.

[6:06] >> Second by Commissioner Russell. Any

[6:08] further discussion?

[6:10] Okay, let's vote. Commissioner Johnson.

[6:13] >> Yes.

[6:14] >> Commissioner Wood, yes. Commissioner

[6:16] Christopher.

[6:16] >> Yes.

[6:17] >> Commissioner Russell.

[6:18] >> Yes.

[6:18] >> Okay, the application is approved and

[6:20] it's unanimous.

[6:22] Thank you.

[6:23] >> Thank you guys.

[6:24] >> Certainly.

[6:25] Okay.

[6:29] » We'll just finish signing that

[6:30] conditional use permit and then it'll be

[6:31] ready probably by tomorrow.

[6:35] » Okay.

[6:36] Thank you. We will now move on to agenda

[6:38] item number one. This is a proposed

[6:42] code amendment prohibiting fuel tanks

[6:44] over 150 gallons in all residential

[6:46] zones.

[6:53] » Okay,

[6:55] for this it is changing several sections

[6:58] of code because it's going to apply to

[7:00] all residential zones.

[7:02] Um

[7:04] So, it's just prohibiting fuel tanks

[7:06] over 150 gallons.

[7:09] Our home occupation code already

[7:12] outlines that any

[7:18] Let me find it. Oh, yeah. Any home

[7:20] occupation which entails the use of

[7:22] chemicals exceeding typical household

[7:23] quantities, pesticides, inflammable,

[7:25] combustible materials

[7:27] um

[7:29] would require an operational permit, so

[7:30] it's already kind of in there.

[7:32] Um we just believe that anything over

[7:34] 150 gallons wouldn't be needed in a

[7:37] residential use and should be kept to

[7:39] industrial or commercial zones.

[7:41] Um so, we've added it in the home

[7:43] occupation code and then in each

[7:46] residential zone in the use table, we've

[7:49] spelled out fuel tanks over 150 gallons

[7:51] is not permitted.

[7:54] So, your job today is to

[7:58] make a motion to

[8:00] recommend positively or negatively to

[8:03] the city council the code amendment

[8:07] to prevent fuel tanks over 150 gallons

[8:10] in residential zones.

[8:12] >> Okay. Thank you, Aspen.

[8:13] >> [clears throat]

[8:14] >> Um since we do have a public hearing

[8:16] tonight, let's proceed with the public

[8:17] hearing now on this agenda item. So, I

[8:19] will open the public hearing at 7:09 and

[8:21] invite any comments if anyone would like

[8:23] to comment on this proposed code

[8:24] amendment.

[8:30] Please state your name for us for the

[8:31] record.

[8:33] >> Yes, of course. My name is Jacob

[8:35] Frazier. I'm a

[8:37] resident here in Santaquin.

[8:39] Um yeah, I have a couple thoughts and

[8:41] comments on this proposed

[8:43] change. Um

[8:45] first off, you know, I I do question why

[8:48] 150 gallons when most tanks

[8:51] sold for like agriculture use

[8:54] typically minimums are like 500 gallons.

[8:56] And if you go around our town, many

[8:59] households and old farms and stuff

[9:02] already have these large quantity tanks

[9:04] on their properties and are using them

[9:06] for various uses, whether it's

[9:08] continual agriculture use or whatever

[9:11] might be.

[9:12] And so, proposing something like this

[9:15] makes it now illegal for them to have

[9:17] these tanks that they've already had for

[9:18] who knows how long.

[9:20] And then the other um concern is

[9:23] or point I'd like to address is

[9:25] um

[9:26] I totally agree with the

[9:29] use of large quantities for

[9:31] commercial properties and things of that

[9:33] nature. Like, we don't necessarily need

[9:36] someone trying to have

[9:37] tons of flammable fuels in someone's

[9:39] neighborhood, right? However, I do

[9:41] question, again, why did we come up with

[9:44] a number like 150? You know, what

[9:47] purpose does that serve?

[9:48] You know,

[9:50] instead of just saying no, what are we

[9:52] doing about

[9:54] making something happen for if someone,

[9:56] like for example, is in a residential

[9:58] commercial

[9:59] based on the wording, this would still

[10:00] affect all residential zones, right? And

[10:03] that still falls under residential

[10:04] commercial or sorry, residential

[10:06] agriculture. A lot of these guys might

[10:08] still be using old tanks or other

[10:10] things, and there's a lot of regulations

[10:12] that, you know, you have to follow with

[10:14] uh containment and and things of that

[10:16] nature that these guys are already

[10:17] following, but now they can't if you

[10:19] reduce their quantity.

[10:21] Um

[10:22] so I just I think there's some things

[10:23] that maybe not have been thought of or

[10:26] maybe they have, and I just haven't

[10:27] heard them yet, and that's why we're

[10:28] here.

[10:29] Um another thought to it, too, is

[10:33] um

[10:35] I guess

[10:36] what danger are we trying to prevent

[10:39] with this code, right? Is there

[10:41] an event that happened? Is there

[10:43] something that happened that, hey, we

[10:45] need to try to prevent this? Or are we

[10:47] just trying to make another policy to

[10:49] prevent future

[10:51] decisions or actions from other people,

[10:52] right? Like, why are we burdening

[10:54] another code

[10:56] if there's no need yet? And if there's a

[10:58] need, I'd love to hear it. I'd love to

[10:59] understand what's happened, what's going

[11:01] on, so I can be educated as well. So,

[11:04] those are just some of my thoughts, and

[11:05] I'd love to hear from you guys. Thank

[11:07] you. All right, thank you, Mr. Frazier.

[11:09] Any other comments on this proposed code

[11:11] amendment?

[11:14] Okay, we will close the public hearing

[11:16] at 7:12, and we can move into

[11:18] discussion.

[11:19] Commissioners' thoughts on this code

[11:20] amendment?

[11:24] I had a similar question to Mr. Frazier.

[11:26] I was just um wondering where the 150

[11:28] gallons came from, and if there's any

[11:29] context about why the change is being

[11:31] proposed.

[11:32] >> That

[11:33] >> that's a great question. Um So, when we

[11:35] had talked with our fire marshal and our

[11:37] public works director,

[11:39] we were looking at really more of kind

[11:41] of a home occupation standpoint. So, if

[11:43] you have a home occupation, typically

[11:45] that's going to be for like your home

[11:46] offices or things that you do kind of

[11:48] directly within the home that have low

[11:50] impact. It could also accommodate things

[11:52] where you have like some customers. The

[11:54] idea was that we wanted to keep fueling

[11:57] operations located within the commercial

[11:59] districts cuz we do have a fueling

[12:02] station use that that's allowed within I

[12:05] believe the C1.

[12:07] district.

[12:10] And so,

[12:11] we wanted to make sure that like things

[12:13] that could potentially have impact,

[12:15] you know, something with fuel. If you

[12:17] have a lot of fuel and it ignites and

[12:18] you're and you're close to your

[12:19] neighbors,

[12:21] then you could have, you know, some

[12:22] really

[12:23] some some really significant impacts.

[12:26] And so, in talking with our public works

[12:27] director and our fire

[12:29] chief, their recommendation was

[12:32] we kind of looked at 100. They said bump

[12:33] it up to 150 cuz 150

[12:36] could be something that's more standard

[12:38] that could accommodate someone from a

[12:40] residential standpoint. If you have dirt

[12:42] bikes and four-wheelers and

[12:43] side-by-sides or if you have some

[12:45] equipment that you use on your property.

[12:48] So, the idea was that

[12:50] for your personal use up to 150, they

[12:53] felt like that was a safe amount to have

[12:55] stored and

[12:57] something I would be associated with a

[12:58] home occupation. So, if you have a truck

[13:00] that you use in your home occupation,

[13:02] then you'd be able to

[13:03] fuel that, but keeping it so that there

[13:06] was kind of a threshold

[13:08] that if you were above that, then really

[13:10] you should be in a commercial zoning

[13:11] category

[13:13] because it should be regulated at a

[13:15] higher level. So, that was the point was

[13:18] from a residential standpoint keeping it

[13:21] kind of lower especially with the home

[13:23] occupations and moving kind of fueling

[13:25] operations, um, those within like the C1 district.

[13:30] >> Okay, that makes sense. Thank you.

[13:33] Can you speak to what, um,

[13:35] Mr. Frazier talked about with the

[13:36] 500-gallon non-at-residential

[13:39] agriculture? Do you know anything about

[13:40] anything like that or

[13:43] >> Um, I mean, it that that is something if

[13:45] you like it that this isn't a code that

[13:47] has to be approved today. We're we're

[13:49] bringing it forward in a public hearing.

[13:50] We believe it's ready, but if this is

[13:52] something you would like us to dig into,

[13:54] um, what further, we're we're happy to

[13:56] do so. Um, we don't want to impact the farmers in in in our community. And

[14:01] so, if, um,

[14:02] you know, if you feel like we need to

[14:04] have more of a delicate touch kind of in that regard. Our point with

[14:08] this was to make sure make make so that

[14:10] someone just running a home occupation

[14:13] wasn't running a a fueling operation and

[14:15] having people like pull into a

[14:16] residential neighborhood filling up like

[14:19] their their truck or landscaping

[14:20] equipment and pulling out. I mean, that

[14:22] and um

[14:23] you know, if if it's not something like

[14:25] that's not done right, you could really

[14:26] impact your your your your neighbors on

[14:28] either side. And so, that was kind of

[14:30] where we decided that, you know, 150

[14:32] felt like a safe amount. Our fire

[14:34] marshal our fire chief felt comfortable

[14:36] with that. Public Works Director felt

[14:37] comfortable with that. Um, but yeah,

[14:39] we're our intent is definitely not to

[14:41] impact our our farmers and, um, the

[14:43] folks running the orchards. We want to,

[14:45] you know, make sure that they have what what they need. And so, um,

[14:50] yeah, that and I'm not sure if that

[14:51] would necessarily impact it. Do you want

[14:53] to add to this?

[14:54] >> We didn't deny the use in an

[14:56] agricultural zone.

[14:58] So, it would still be permitted for

[15:00] their equipment.

[15:01] >> What about residential ag?

[15:03] >> We didn't include it in there.

[15:05] >> Okay.

[15:05] >> Cuz they to be residential ag, you have

[15:07] to have at least 5 acres. So,

[15:10] there's more regulations already within

[15:12] that.

[15:13] >> All right.

[15:16] » I mean, the zones it does impact are R8,

[15:19] R10, R12, R15, R20.

[15:22] The residential commercial it only

[15:24] applies to the residential not the

[15:25] commercial aspect and then um

[15:29] R43.

[15:32] » Okay, thank you.

[15:41] Do you feel like that covers the

[15:42] concern?

[15:42] >> I think so.

[15:45] » All right, any other any other thoughts

[15:47] or questions on this one?

[15:51] » Instead of making it a non-permitted

[15:52] use, could you change it to for those

[15:55] people that have already they store

[15:58] things there is there a possibility to

[15:59] make it a conditional use per basis

[16:01] compared to just taking it away all

[16:04] completely in residential zones?

[16:09] » Um you we could look at doing it as a

[16:12] conditional use.

[16:14] Um

[16:14] conditional uses can be tricky and we're

[16:17] trying to the state as a whole is trying

[16:19] to move away from them.

[16:21] Um

[16:23] if we were to go that route, we'd have

[16:25] to set specific conditions in the

[16:27] conditional use permit.

[16:29] Sure.

[16:31] >> And you've probably I'm sure you've all

[16:33] taken like the the training throughout

[16:35] the years. But a a conditional use

[16:37] permit I I do apologize I'm not trying

[16:39] to like talk down to down to you. I know

[16:40] you guys deal with this all the time.

[16:41] But conditional use permits in Utah it's

[16:43] different state by state. I worked in

[16:45] Virginia and you you can actually deny a

[16:47] conditional use permit. You don't need a

[16:49] ton of uh you know, facts or data. In

[16:51] Utah though, conditional use permit is

[16:53] essentially a permitted use

[16:55] where you can you can apply conditions.

[16:57] Now, you can you can deny one if you can

[16:59] prove that there's a detrimental impact

[17:01] to the surrounding neighbor

[17:03] neighborhoods or to your to your

[17:04] neighbor that cannot be mitigated

[17:06] through the implication of of

[17:07] conditions. And so if you can add a

[17:09] condition that takes away the impact and

[17:11] so that's why from I guess from a staff

[17:13] standpoint we're always a little

[17:15] cautious about making something a

[17:16] conditional use cuz once it is, you

[17:18] can't you can't really deny it. Um and

[17:21] so like for instance with

[17:23] Wild Thistle, great restaurant. So sorry

[17:25] to use them as an example, but let's say

[17:27] if you did want to deny that, you would

[17:29] have a really hard time cuz you would

[17:31] need to prove through data that allowing

[17:33] alcohol sales in the restaurant has a

[17:36] detrimental impact that cannot be

[17:38] mitigated through the imposition of

[17:39] conditions. And so that that that's why

[17:41] I mean we can definitely look at that if

[17:43] you like us to or if you want us to to

[17:46] cut a little little bit deeper or add

[17:47] something to it, we can always come back

[17:48] with the with with an amendment, but we

[17:51] feel as written

[17:52] it would address our concerns and it

[17:54] wouldn't impact on our farming

[17:55] community.

[17:57] >> Those those zones that you listed,

[17:59] that's only under 5 acres, right?

[18:01] So it's it's basically the residential

[18:03] areas that it that have

[18:05] more of a high capacity of homes.

[18:07] Is that correct?

[18:08] >> Yeah. Yeah, that's a great that's a

[18:09] great way of density is a lot higher.

[18:11] Mhm.

[18:14] » Yeah, good point. I think I feel good

[18:15] with that how it's written.

[18:16] Um especially I'm glad to hear that it

[18:19] doesn't impact the agricultural zones as

[18:21] is and so I think that addresses most of

[18:23] the concerns.

[18:26] >> I agree. I'll just for Mr. Fraser, if

[18:28] you find that there are homes that are

[18:30] in those zones that are impacted, please

[18:31] bring it back to City Council when it's

[18:33] approved when it's presented there so

[18:34] that you can all understand that as

[18:35] well.

[18:36] >> [clears throat]

[18:37] >> And we're we're happy to to to to meet

[18:39] with you, too, if you want to between

[18:41] now and and City Council. If we we're

[18:43] happy to dive into the code and meet

[18:45] with them if you if you want to run

[18:46] through it with us.

[18:47] >> I think I think the purpose here is not

[18:48] to impact those who are using things

[18:50] correctly, just to make sure that we're

[18:51] not providing danger for those who are

[18:53] in a higher density area.

[18:56] >> Um to that point, if there was someone

[18:57] who was operating today with a

[18:59] 500-gallon tank,

[19:01] um would they be subject to this new

[19:03] code if it were approved?

[19:06] >> We have what's called um

[19:08] lawful nonconforming uses. And so we we

[19:11] would have to look at that. Typically

[19:13] and another thing you've dealt with

[19:15] probably a lot and you've been on the

[19:17] planning commission. But essentially

[19:19] something was allowed or there wasn't a

[19:20] code that restricted it. If they can

[19:23] prove that they lawfully had that use in

[19:25] place before the code changed then they they could still continue. But if

[19:30] it didn't meet fire code or building

[19:32] code cuz those still apply regardless of

[19:35] what we're doing here. Any storage of

[19:37] fuel that I mean there are I don't I

[19:38] can't tell you the exact code but there

[19:40] are code sections that do apply to to

[19:42] storing fuel and so if they didn't meet

[19:44] it then then they you know

[19:46] they would have to upgrade regardless.

[19:49] So but yeah if they had some something

[19:52] that approved larger storage of fuel

[19:55] then then it would be a lawful use that you know we wouldn't

[20:00] come after them.

[20:01] >> Okay, thank you.

[20:03] All right commissioners any other

[20:04] questions or concerns?

[20:07] Seeing one ready to make a motion.

[20:11] » I'll make a motion that we recommend

[20:13] the change of code as outlined in the

[20:15] document.

[20:16] >> Okay, we have a motion to

[20:18] forward a positive recommendation. Do we

[20:20] have a second?

[20:21] >> I'll second that.

[20:22] >> Seconded by Commissioner Johnson. The

[20:24] motion was by Commissioner Christopher.

[20:26] Any further discussion?

[20:29] Okay, let's vote. Commissioner Russell.

[20:31] >> Yes.

[20:32] >> Commissioner Christopher.

[20:33] >> Yes.

[20:33] >> Commissioner Wood. Yes. Commissioner

[20:35] Johnson.

[20:35] >> Yes.

[20:36] >> Okay, that is forwarded with a positive

[20:37] recommendation and it is unanimous.

[20:40] Thank you.

[20:43] Okay, we can move on now to

[20:45] agenda item number

[20:47] two.

[20:49] This is a another proposed code

[20:51] amendment regarding permitting of

[20:53] detached accessory dwelling units in all

[20:55] residential zones.

[21:01] » Um this one's very simple because it's

[21:03] coming from the state.

[21:05] It's in state bill 284

[21:09] that was signed into law in March of

[21:10] this year, which allows detached ADUs in

[21:13] all residential lots greater than 11,000

[21:15] square feet. Um, currently we already

[21:18] allow detached ADUs in most residential

[21:21] zones. So, the zones that would be

[21:23] affected are the R12, the R20, the

[21:28] residential commercial, and residential

[21:30] ag, and residential 43 zone.

[21:35] Um

[21:37] Yeah, here

[21:39] let me show you the zoning map.

[21:45] And then, just like the last one, your

[21:47] job is to forward a recommendation to

[21:50] city council regarding the code

[21:52] amendment.

[21:54] But, like I said, it is state law, so we

[21:57] will need to comply.

[22:00] >> All right, thanks, Jasmine.

[22:01] >> Mhm.

[22:02] >> Okay, we have a public hearing on this

[22:04] um agenda item as well, so we'll open

[22:06] the public hearing at 7:23, and I'll

[22:08] invite any comments if anyone would like

[22:10] to comment on this agenda item.

[22:15] Okay, if not, we will close the public

[22:17] hearing at 7:23,

[22:18] and we can move into discussion.

[22:24] I think my only question, I mean,

[22:26] obviously it's mandated by state code. I

[22:28] was just um

[22:29] it's sort of a tangent. Um, the state

[22:31] requires the city to do moderate income

[22:34] housing plans, and over the last several

[22:37] years, this has been a tool the city has

[22:39] used to comply with those requirements,

[22:41] but I know some of those requirements is

[22:42] have changed, also. So, I was just

[22:44] curious how this will affect that going

[22:47] forward.

[22:49] >> Um, moderate income housing was on pause

[22:52] for 2026. They did say that it is going

[22:55] to start again in 2027.

[22:58] Um, because of this change, I would

[22:59] assume that if we do comply with state

[23:02] code, they're not going to count this

[23:03] out of as a strategy.

[23:05] Um they haven't released like officially

[23:08] what the moderate income housing reports

[23:10] are going to look like for 2027. So,

[23:12] there could potentially be some

[23:14] flexibility, but

[23:16] they're still working that out.

[23:18] >> Okay, thanks. Sorry, that question was

[23:19] not related to this agenda item.

[23:21] >> No, that's okay. It's something to keep

[23:23] in mind cuz we will be back here for it.

[23:26] >> Yep, for sure.

[23:27] Okay, commissioners, other questions?

[23:31] » Does this address the parking that goes

[23:33] along with that or is that going to be

[23:35] brought later with it?

[23:38] » Can you explain further what you mean by

[23:40] the parking?

[23:41] >> Um anything over it was 600 or 650, you

[23:44] have to

[23:46] you can't require more than two parking

[23:47] and then anything under 600, it's one

[23:49] parking. Is is that going to be

[23:50] addressed with that or

[23:52] later on?

[23:54] >> Um the parking requirements are already

[23:56] addressed in the general like attached

[23:59] accessory dwelling unit chapter. So, yeah.

[24:05] >> So, the city's still allowed to

[24:08] regulate those ADUs, but we have to we

[24:10] have to allow them.

[24:12] Is that right? Like we can still make

[24:14] rules around how they're

[24:16] um

[24:17] deployed, but we have to allow them.

[24:20] >> Yeah, so that it has to be a permitted

[24:22] use. We can still create

[24:24] regulations and stuff. Currently, Santa

[24:26] Quin does not have a permit or license

[24:29] for them. If you choose to construct a

[24:31] detached ADU, then you obviously need a

[24:33] building permit, but it's not like a

[24:36] here's a license to rent out this unit,

[24:38] if that makes sense.

[24:39] >> It does, thanks.

[24:41] Yeah, the same. So, the same codes that

[24:43] are in place, um we we would still

[24:45] follow for ADU um development standards.

[24:48] Um and then if we wanted to make changes

[24:50] to those, we'd have to adhere to um the

[24:53] state code requirements

[24:55] um because they they do limit the amount

[24:56] of parking that that that you can place.

[24:58] But when I uh served in in Vineyard as

[25:01] the plan planning director there, they

[25:03] had

[25:04] that's when we wrote our code. But I

[25:06] think it was only like we could only

[25:08] require one additional parking stall

[25:10] into what you would require for a home.

[25:12] So it was very limited what we could do.

[25:14] >> Yeah.

[25:16] >> But they said they they took that one

[25:17] out, too. The minimum parking requirements.

[25:20] >> I remember that being a recent change

[25:21] and I think it affected our code as

[25:23] well, right?

[25:24] >> Yeah, we did.

[25:24] >> Yeah.

[25:26] Right.

[25:32] » Okay. Yeah.

[25:36] » Okay.

[25:38] Anything else we need to discuss?

[25:41] And if not, is anyone ready to make a

[25:42] motion on this proposed code amendment?

[25:45] >> I'll make a motion that we

[25:47] uh

[25:47] recommend a positive recommendation for

[25:50] permitting the detached accessory

[25:51] dwelling units in all residential zones.

[25:54] >> Okay, thank you. We have a motion by

[25:55] Commissioner Christopher. Do we have a

[25:56] second?

[25:58] >> I'll second that.

[25:59] >> Second by Commissioner Johnson.

[26:02] Um any further discussion?

[26:04] Okay, let's vote. Commissioner Johnson.

[26:06] >> Yes.

[26:07] >> Commissioner Wood, yes. Commissioner

[26:08] Christopher.

[26:08] >> Yes.

[26:09] >> Commissioner Russell.

[26:10] >> Yes.

[26:10] >> Okay, that's forwarded with a positive

[26:12] recommendation and it is unanimous.

[26:15] Very good, thank you.

[26:17] Okay, that brings us to agenda item

[26:19] number four. We need to approve the

[26:21] minutes from our last meeting, which was

[26:23] on June 9th, 2026.

[26:25] Any discussion on those minutes before

[26:27] we move ahead with approving them?

[26:29] Okay, if not, would anyone like to make

[26:31] a motion to approve?

[26:32] >> I make a motion to approve.

[26:34] >> Okay, we have a motion to approve by

[26:35] Commissioner Christopher. Do we have a

[26:36] second?

[26:37] >> I'll second that.

[26:38] >> Uh second by Commissioner Russell. All

[26:40] in favor?

[26:41] >> Yes.

[26:42] >> Anyone opposed?

[26:43] Okay, those minutes are approved and it

[26:45] is unanimous.

[26:47] That brings us up to staff reports.

[26:53] » We don't have

[26:54] anything to report.

[26:56] » All right, very good. That won't hurt

[26:57] our feelings.

[26:58] >> And I'll I'll just add one thing. We do

[27:00] have um and you're probably aware of

[27:01] this, too. Um

[27:03] we do have a budget for training. And so

[27:05] I would say um we if you look at the

[27:08] Utah APA conference, the fall uh um

[27:12] the the fall conference, if if you could

[27:14] Google that, it it'll be a lot of

[27:15] information. So if you do want to go to

[27:17] that, we we have um allocated funds. And

[27:20] also, if the if you do find something as

[27:22] well that's land use,

[27:25] you know, urban design, anything that's

[27:26] kind of related to to uh your functions

[27:28] on the planning commission, if you let

[27:30] us know, too, if you would rather do do

[27:31] something else, then um then we we we

[27:34] can uh we can try and accommodate that.

[27:36] But I just wanted to let you know from a

[27:36] training training standpoint, definitely

[27:39] they're phenomenal, really great

[27:41] conferences. They put a lot of effort

[27:42] into them, and it'll it'll teach you

[27:44] just a just a ton of good and new

[27:45] information. And that's where you get a

[27:46] lot of the new state code stuff, too, um

[27:48] coming down the line, so.

[27:50] Yeah, feel free to to look at that if

[27:52] you have an interest. Um so we still

[27:54] have a ways, but starting to get kind of

[27:56] a head count now that'll help us from a

[27:57] budgetary standpoint. Thank you.

[27:59] >> Okay, cool. Thanks.

[28:01] Okay, that brings us to the end. Um so I

[28:04] would look for a motion to adjourn.

[28:06] >> I I can make a motion to adjourn.

Santaquin City Planning Commission Meeting - July 28, 2026

Transcript