[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.