Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

here when he can, but no sooner than 8 or 8.30. Oh, really? Text him if we're still.

Oh, okay. Okay, we're going.

All right, let's get started with the thought.

All right, I have the thought today. So I've worked in public service, sorry, I'm gonna read it because I wrote it down, for almost 15 years now. And one of the things I really love about public service is the opportunity to help create community where everyone feels like they belong. I've spent a lot of my life uh in recreation planning activities and events and stuff for people to come together and feel like they are part of a community and obviously right now we're in times where things tend to feel divided um people are often defined by politics instead of humanity but with local government i'm always reminded that you know our our neighbors are more than labels you know their their families their business owners their retirees students and children so my hope is that with every decision we make here that it reflects not only good planning but also compassion fairness and respect for everyone who calls centerville home fantastic very nice let's stand for the pledge

All right, we'll turn the time over to staff. Are you, is it me? Okay.

All right, thanks you guys for attending. The applicant, Tyler Oliver, is requesting a site plan amendment approval for the previously approved site plan by the Planning Commission on June 8, 2022. About two years ago, the planning staff did a landscaping check and found that the site was out of compliance with the final site plan. The core areas of that would include the gas bottle storage rack. There was a phase two that was never fulfilled. That included a second building and then in place was replaced with a lay down yard. Let me pull up the actual site so you can see. Oh, so you can see the site. You can kind of see the lay down yard on here. This area that I'm highlighting with my mouse is where the second building was proposed to be. And then the third item was the detention basin that is in the corner right here where I'm hovering over my mouse. Over the past two years, the city and fine line staff have been in discussion about getting the site up to compliance via site plan amendment. The actions for this application started to occur once that Stokes Stevens, which is the property just directly south of that, requested an access easement between the two properties. This request triggered a need for both sites to meet the site plan amendment standards. The Stokes-Stevens site plan amendment met the code criteria for the zoning administrator, Mike Agate, to approve. However, the Fineline Steel site plan amendment did not meet the criteria and needed to be reviewed by the planning commission for decision. Over the past six months, Fineline has been working towards getting the as-built site into compliance with the city standards for the industrial zone that it is zoned for. On June 29th, 2026, the city engineer and public works director noted that the detention base and matters could be completed and resolved after the potential approval of the site plan amendment. The city engineer noted that the development bond would be held until the city engineer and storm drain supervisor approved the updated storm drain plan with the appropriate calculations provided. The following day, Fineline submitted plans that fulfilled the update request by the city staff via DRC, deeming the site plan amendment application now compliant with the city code and ready for the planning commission consideration. You will see that in the staff report, they are not requesting any variations from the code. They are not making any alterations that impact the condition of the PDO, which include the exterior building standards. The conceptual site plans intended use was to have Fineline Steel operate on site. Unfortunately, the Fineline Steel, the final site plan approval is not what Fineline Steel needs to operate on its site today. So the site plan amendment process is the best tool to make sure that the site is brought into compliance with the city standards by addressing existing safety concerns and establishing a formal set of plans that conform to the city code. So with that, city staff recommend approval for the site plan amendment with the conditions of approval stated in the staff report.

Thank you. All right, did you guys have questions for staff?

So I guess my question is about the drainage and the retention. So I know that that doesn't have to, you're still working through that or it sounded like you would ask questions of people to make sure that things were figured out. Do you know more detail about that than you do

Absolutely. So while I'm not the city engineer or the supervisor for the storm drain, I lean on them heavily for this. It would be really it would be a bad idea if I was to just review that. Right. So after talking with the applicant, as well as the city engineer and the storm during supervisor, what they are planning on doing is The site is currently draining right now. And that was the biggest issue was that the pond was not draining. So currently right now it is draining. And then over a period of time, they're going to go back to the storm drain supervisor. The storm drain supervisor is going to check on the site periodically and making sure that it is still doing as it is supposed to do. And then the applicant actually explained a lot of this, and I think that he, Tyler Oliver, who is here, will be able to explain that in some more detail. Okay.

Good. Sure. Yeah. That'll be helpful. Thanks.

Any other questions? All right. We're going to open it up for the applicant. Tyler, if you could take a stand. Your name and your address, please.

Tyler Oliver. Do you want the building address or my residential address?

Just your city of residence.

River City. No, Riverton, Utah.

Oh, thank you.

Okay. And then, so, like Sydney had mentioned on the detention pond, there was a lot of back and forth between ALSA surveys that we had had shot, that the city had shot. They thought that there was a negative slope going back into that detention pond. Cameron and his team dug it up, and they've reshot it. It says that the pipe was flat. Um, I joked with Sidney and I said, I don't know if when they recompacted everything, if there was a plug or something in there, but ever since they've done the work on this pipe, the pond is empty. We've had water in it for two years since then. Uh, like Sidney had mentioned, Cameron said he's going to come back and just periodically check it to make sure that it's empty. We love that it's empty. The wasps and mosquitoes have gone down, but we have agreed that if need be that we could pull some of that cobble out of there and raise the level on the bottom. The orifice that was installed looks to be a few inches high, but that's what Cameron wants to monitor. Is it okay where it's at? If it is deemed too high, we'll bring back and raise that cobble up so the volume in the pond is greater and so we can do it. The pond was designed, like Sydney had mentioned, for Phase 2 of Building 2 to sustain all that water if it did go there. Part of what we had worked with with the city before is that phase two, if it never came in, that phase one would be a standalone site. So all the infrastructure was put in for phase one. Again, phase two is ruled out now. We need more space and I wish you guys could grow more property right there next to us and we would buy it. It's unfortunate that we're that tight already. We didn't expect to grow this fast, but it's a great problem to have and hope to continue bringing revenue and tax dollars to the city. But yeah, so the pond I feel pretty great about. Kevin and Cameron have both been awesome to work with. As far as that goes, I know there are some issues with the bottle storage that just didn't reflect on the site plan that wasn't there as a lean to that we had built just to cover a snow load, didn't fall on some of these electrical components that were just monitoring gas flow and would shut it off in the case of an emergency, which is on the north side of the building, right? It's a little bit further about right in there, Sydney. I think it was a 68 or 70 feet by eight feet wide building, too. So we have updated that. While working with Sydney, we found that we were a little bit shy on parking stalls. We thought that we had an allowance due to the automated equipment that we had put into the facility that we would need less bodies there than it would be the one stall per thousand square feet. With that, we have put in, I believe it was 107, right, Sydney? Instead of the 106 needed. I think that's what Frank had submitted. So aside from that, I do think that we have, Hopefully answered all the questions, but if there's any more, I'm glad to answer them. I want to say thanks to Mike and Sydney. You guys have been a huge help. I know that it's been a struggle. This whole thing started, I think Lisa, you're the only face I remember, but when we started this whole thing years ago, applying for the PDO wasn't the most sought after thing, doing a metal building in Centerville, Corey had mentioned, well, hopefully we can be a pioneer to clean up the other old buildings in the city. I hope you guys still think the building looks nice, but it has been a little bit of a task switching committees, switching fire marshals, all of this. I understand that you guys have different visions than what they did. Maybe they all wanted to get out really quick and just hand you guys a whole bunch of a mess. With that, though, I hope we can work together and just get this resolved. Yeah. That's good.

Thank you. All right, now we'll open it up for the public.

There's actually no public hearing on this.

Oh, there's no public hearing? No public hearing? OK. We're going to bring it back to over here. Would anybody like to make a motion? You guys have any other questions?

I guess I have a question for Sydney. Just on the approval, there's the two sections in there. If we propose a motion to approve, what conditions are you looking at from the city standpoint that need to continue to be part of this?

Can you please go into more detail about your question? I don't know.

Did you go to page seven?

Yep.

Okay, you've got the approval with items one, two, and three, and then we have down here again items one through seven, I think.

Those are findings. Those are findings. The bottom seven are the findings. Okay, we don't need to worry about those. I mean, you do at least reference them to justify your decision for the approval.

Exactly.

So you want both in your motion. Okay.

So conditions one through three, and then findings one through seven.

Right, right.

you're ready i'm ready to approve it okay make a motion unless someone has a problem with it i think the uh the building has turned out exceptionally well it looks good and i'm glad you're being successful so so

getting this, I think Sydney is pending on the occupancy for the Steven Stokes building too, right? So that has been, when she was like, we can get you on the 8th, I was really stoked because I ran over there for the last eight months to those guys, and not being able to occupy the space and get in there, but I also can't safely traverse material from our site now, 1250, and come there, so this will grant the hopeful for that access. We can get that roadway port in there,

Where is the easement? Is it going to be on the east side?

South side. Yes, the south. You might be able to pull that.

There's a drive. Oh, okay. There's a drive access. It doesn't show as well. It's right there.

It's right there. Okay. Oh, okay. That works.

This way that they can use their larger vehicles to not use the actual public streets to be able to transfer back and forth for safety purposes.

Makes sense. Yeah. Okay, Madam Chairman. I hereby make a motion for the Planning Commission to approve the proposed fine line steel fabrication final site plan amendment for the property located at 975 West 50 South, also known as Parcel 06-008-0034, contingent upon the following conditions for approval. One, the applicant will be required to resolve outstanding city engineer and staff comments as indicated on the attached checklist document and reports. The required final site plan amendment corrections will be reviewed by the city staff for compliance with this approval. Two, prior to the bond release, there will need to be a final approval from this storm drain supervisor and the city engineer that indicates the site is in full compliance with city code and The updated plans follow the city standards and details specifically for the detention pond and any storm drainage improvements needed and for the associated fine line and steel property. And three, the applicant shall post and pay any outstanding development-related costs consistent with the city ordinance and fee schedules. This includes any bonding, escrow, funding expenses that may be required by the city. And I get, by acclamation, the other seven items.

Findings one through seven.

Yeah, due to the following findings, one through seven. And I'm not going to read them all. No, don't read them. Unless you want to.

Do we have a second?

I'll second.

We'll start down here.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Okay, it passes unanimously.

Thank you. Thank you.

All right, and we'll turn it back over to Mr. Eggert. Are you leading us out on the next one?

Yep. Yep. So... I've talked about this item, which is the first review discussion of the Detached Accessory Dwelling Unit to be located in Chapter 12 of the Sustainable Zoning Code. Obviously, the state legislature approved bill language that's now found in the state code and specifically the Detached Accessory Dwelling Unit ordinance will be need to be in place. Well, it's effective by state ordinance, state code on October 1st, 2026. And so we are required to have a code in place in our code that allows for that to remain in compliance with the standard when it goes into effect on October 1st. So basically it's our deadline to put it in very, very frank terms. So we have a deadline of what we're trying to accomplish. And we've looked at the calendar and kind of backed into it to see how to accomplish that. And that puts this discussion on today's meeting to start the planning commission review of this. The goal and intent would clearly be to give the council up to two meetings of discussion with it. So both meetings in September or maybe even late August in the early September meeting discussion to even afford them a third if we are able to move that quickly. That's the idea. So the thought process is that we give the planning commission two to three meetings worth of it. And then similarly the council, either two to three to get to that October 1st deadline. So with that, um, what I did is I provided multiple documents and it's kind of going to come in the form of homework to the planning commissioners, um, as well as looking down the road at what we think might be the best time to set a public hearing for this. I don't know that the document as it's currently drafted is the right timeframe, but same time, Obviously, I will need the right go-aheads to advertise for the public hearing in order to stay on calendar with what the expectation is here. So where I'm going ultimately with it is the documentation I put in your packet, I would ask that you review very, very closely and carefully with the links that were provided in your email for this meeting. And I probably am going to hit on the proposed draft ordinance to some extent. I don't want to get so granular that I take away number one from Sydney or make it so we have a meeting that goes to 9.30 or 10. In all fairness to everybody, because I know time is valuable as well. But what I provided is the state code, which is 10.21.304. That is the complete regulatory ordinance for detached accessory dwelling units. 10.21.101. is where you have the definitions of an accessory dwelling unit. Detached accessory dwelling unit's number nine, right where she was at. And other information is in there if you're trying to figure out the, it's basically about housing, even internal accessory dwelling if you've ever wondered. These are all definitions tied to housing regulations. And then 1021.303 is the internal accessory dwelling unit ordinance that's already in place. And I put it in there just to kind of reminder that we have this already established in code that we reference by our city code, which is referenced in CZC 12.60, which is why I provided that so you can have a reflection of what we already have in place, how it's linked to city or state code, and what we're trying to accomplish obviously with DADUs. And then the next one is a survey. So I did, I believe it was six, maybe even seven communities survey here of their already existing detached accessory dwelling ordinances. Now what's interesting, a lot of them had a combined accessory dwelling unit ordinance. I parsed it out as it's relative to DADUs. Anything that's highlighted in yellow is detached accessory dwelling unit, either relevant or direct language to what we're looking at. If it's not in yellow, completely disregard it unless you're just curious to see how they apply accessory dwelling units more broadly in their community. But if it's in yellow, it may have relevance or it directly says detach accessory dwelling unit. So that was my thought process with doing it that way. And I did, like you can see, I did Bountiful, North Salt Lake, West Valley City, Salt Lake County, Mill Creek City, and And then Eagle Mountain, one of the ones that I was able to find half. I would have done other cities more in our area, but there are many communities in South Davis County that do not have a detached accessory doing unit ordinance themselves. So these are the ones that I was able to find. And the Farmington model is so unique and different. We don't want to look at doing theirs unless you want to start parceling off detached accessory dwelling units as ownership lots. That's what Farmington has gone to that model. So you can actually own the footprint of the detached ADU as a homeowner. And that becomes your home.

That's wild.

I'm surprised that wouldn't go against like accessory though at that point.

It's a weird hybridized detached accessory dwelling unit, but you can own it and have fee simple title ownership to it. It's interesting. But it's such a big animal and it's such an experimental animal. I didn't go there. I'm not sure that's where it wants to go anyway in light of that. So that's what I did. Yeah, go ahead there, Sydney. Because I felt like Mill Creek seemed to be kind of where we wanted to go to start, and it kind of helped me. I was trying to figure out, OK, which of these six gives me a framework that seems to feel correct? and match up better than the others. Bountiful seemed too basic. North Salt Lake's had some things, but there were some things where I was like, that's kind of different. Maybe there's certain things I like. Mill Creek felt like enough of a middle road. Even though it looks like with everything I'm omitting that I didn't like it that much, it was the basis that I used. And then I would pull in already established internal accessory dwelling unit language that seemed relevant that I could easily just rename detached accessory dwelling unit, but it had the same effect. Doesn't mean I got it right. And I'm not expecting to have it perfectly right, obviously, in how I did that. But that's what I did. So as you look it over, that's what I tried to do. I tried to model it as close as I could to even the organization to the internal ADU so it feels similar enough to reference and reflect the IADU code we already have in place. I did add a few sections and a few things that are specifically relevant to detached. Now let's talk about a few features of the required state code on detached that you'll see reflected in the working draft. On detached accessory dwelling units, it says that a city can adopt land use regulation for a detached accessory dwelling unit parts of those 11 11,000 square feet or larger. So you can say, you can't go any larger. You can't say the maximum allowed site for DADU is 12,000 square feet. 11,000 is where the state says that's a cap. Now, if you wanna go smaller, go for it. But you have to start at 11,000 square feet. Cities can't say no. So if a lot of 11,000 square feet, that's the state's benchmark.

Have cities gone less than that?

Yeah, and you'll see it in your summary view. Some were 8,000, some were 7,000, some were 10,000. And I highlight, in fact, this document, I guess we'll go to this real quick. This document here that I provided, and then there's a clean copy of this in there if you want to see what that looks like in clean format. But this document, I did this today, and I thought about after I put the packet together, I'm like, I'm going to highlight and find things that are unique about the other city's codes. do a summary and what those references are so you can see how some of the cities vary their standards as you research what other cities are doing because some of them like north salt lake's the only city that allows tiny homes to be detached adus which which i thought was interesting but tiny homes are on wills and almost all the other cities said we don't allow homes right yeah yeah right so that's kind of interesting voter homes this is a explanation i also provided In my original review, my working draft, I wasn't sure what public works position was on a few things. I was able to identify what those are, just the two things that they said they would want for sure was a separate water meter and a separate, then the water line that comes off of that to the DADU specifically is a dedicated line. And they also would support the sewer district if the sewer district wanted their own separate shared life or sewer. Because capacity may not be there for the water line that goes into the home, number one. Number two, it makes it harder for a utility building. Number three, it's harder to know if there's leaks or there's problems with water metering if you don't have two separate meters. So it's a cleaner system for that. So that's what they wanted. The other thing that- It's more expensive to build. It is, but it's better to obviously monitor and track and as well as not overload the systems with fixture counts and all that good stuff.

They don't have cousin Eddie loan.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, exactly. The other thing that I know I'm kind of all over the place, but just continue with me because I hopefully it will make sense. The other thing that's really strict with the state code is that an accessory dwelling unit If the accessory dwelling unit is smaller than 650 square feet, you can only require one on-site parking space. So you can't obviously say, well, you have to have two no matter what. If it's 649 square feet or smaller, you can only require one. If it's 650 square feet or larger, you can require two. The reason that that matters is, I talked to our street supervisor about this and he said he would recommend that we do follow the state standard and put that into our code. I wasn't sure what the thought was.

And the cities, you'll see it, are all over the board.

And the other thing that's interesting is, whether or not we want to allow tandem. I don't know if you know what the definition of tandem is. You think side by side, but tandem is they can be in file. So one is parked in and the other one parks behind. Oh, so do we want to allow tandem to to accommodate that or do we want to say no tandem?

It's got to be side by side.

Yeah. So that's something to think about as well with parking. Another area that was interesting to think about is setback standards. Do you follow the setback standard of the accessory building standards already in code for the zone? Or do you want it to be more strict? Some cities have it 10 feet from the property lines for a detached accessory dwelling unit. Obviously, it's good practice, but we probably should still declare that we don't want any accessory dwelling unit on a public utility easement. And you clearly spelled that out. And a lot of cities do spell that out. But setbacks is something that could be right now or accessory dwelling unit or accessory not dwelling unit accessory code for accessory building allows if it's under 300 square feet, it can be up to three. Is that right? Or a 400 under 400 square feet can be up to three feet from the rear property line. So basically property lines in the rear yard.

Wow.

If it's over 400 square feet, it can it has to be five feet away as a setback. Are we okay with that? Or do we want to say if you're going to convert to DADU you have to move it. Now the other, another thing the state code requires is that we allow conversions of existing accessory buildings to go and get you to use. That's why this setback discussion becomes challenging because if there's already an existing garage that meets setback requirements of code, you can't clearly, they're already grandfathered in. So now you're going to punish the people who want to apply for accessory dwelling units and say, Well, your neighbor got it because they already had a garage, but you don't get it because you're coming in to apply for an accessory and dwelling unit that doesn't exist in your backyard. That's where the setback discussion becomes a little more challenging. Another thing that the cities have looked at doing is what do you want to do relative to entrances? Are you okay with entrances being visible from the street? Do you want to say entrances must be not visible from the street and away from neighboring properties? Do you care? What about window openings? Do we want window openings to be able to look down on the neighbor's property by the rear yard or the side yard? Or do we want window openings to be towards the front or interior of the property? And the cities have commented on that in their reviews. That's something else to think about. Drainage. Do we want to make an explicit statement about a DADU shall not drain on neighboring property? I mean, I think that makes logical sense, but we probably should have explicit language that says as much in the code. Now let's get to the idea of rentals, short-term rentals, long-term rentals. The state code says that you can prohibit detached accessory dwelling units from being rented for less than 90 consecutive days. So I have that in our draft. Basically, it needs to be in a long-term rental scenario.

So no Airbnbs, no verbose?

Right, that's not for an Airbnb, if you're going to have one. Obviously, it also says that you can require owner occupancy, which we would, because that's the whole nature of an accessory dwelling unit, internal or detached. You can restrict a detached accessory dwelling unit from being in the front yard. Right now, we don't allow any accessory structures to be in the front yard by code, or even the side yard. We only allow accessory structures to be in the rear yard, so we can continue that even with detached accessory dwelling units. Let's see, you can restrict it so that they're not larger in size than the single family dwelling located on the same lot or parcel. By our very core definition of an accessory structure right now, it already says that. So by practice, if we continue that same sentiment that you would expect that. There's also lot coverage requirements. This would still need to meet lot coverage requirements. We can explicitly state that, but obviously where it's an accessory structure, it's subject to that whether it's stated in this code or not. But some cities have explicitly stated a lot coverage requirement just to remind people you can't go and grow this to a mini mansion in your backyard. You still have to meet a lot of coverage requirements. So that's something that we'll have to to look at. Let me see if there's anything else as I've looked at this. Obviously, we're going to require that they meet all building codes, fire codes, comply with all that, all that stuff addressing systems. We have an addressing system with internal accessory dwelling units, but some of the other cities have very explicit addressing addressing. I keep seeing addressing addressing systems that they talk about. Oh, another one is, do we want to allow detached accessory dwelling units above garages? Because if we do, right now the current maximum height for an accessory structure is 20 feet, and it's meant to currently curb the ability of someone to readily do a conversion for an upstairs unit. Are we wanting to look at that and address that if it's a detached accessory dwelling unit? The cities that do allow for an upstairs detached accessory dwelling unit above a garage allow for the height of the detached accessory dwelling unit structure to be the same as the primary home structure. So it matches at most height. And again, do you want roof styles to be the same? I mean, that's kind of more nitty gritty, but do we care? Do we want them to look exactly the same? Do we want the exterior appearance of the structure to be exactly the same as the single family dwelling in it? Or are we going to allow for a little bit of variation, say a percentile? So I'm hitting on a lot of tough questions things because these are all real things where the state's not really regulating them and we have optional discretion the question becomes if you look at a bountiful code do you want as basic a code as bountiful and just keep looking back to state code do you want more specificity as you look at some of these the reason i went to bigger cities is sometimes bigger cities tend to have a lot more specificity in their code i did that on purpose yeah You might say, well, why did you do West Valley City? Well, I did it. Yeah, because you even get a diagram. I think that is actually West Valley City that shows imagery. Oh, that's the other thing. By fire code, all accessory structures have to be six feet behind the main dwelling. But almost every city has defined that in their code just to make sure it's clear with the DADU that that stays. Oh, that's the same. So we would want to do that as well. Um, I thought about getting into the code, um, the, the draft that I had provided, but I don't think I will. I think what I'm going to do, because I put in a lot of internal comments and questions is give you the two weeks to look at it. And then when we come back, get your guidance to refine it and schedule the public hearing at that same meeting. and then schedule that public hearing two meetings out, and hopefully have it on for consideration for a recommendation at that point. So what I want to do is afford you all time, and clearly if you find other cities that have detached accessory dwelling units and you want to share it with the group or bring it forward even, and let's say it's before a meeting, email it to me, and I'll reflexively push it out to the planning commission to share that with them. And then we can come back. I want to make sure we do everything as publicly as possible as far as any commentary. So save your comments and dialogue for the next meeting. But if there's like, hey, Mike, this city has a great detached accessory door unit code, you should push it out. I will do that. I haven't done the survey or the analysis of it like I have these others, but I will do that at least for the sake of conversation. And then when we come back, we can discuss it further. And I think Lisa will even take some time to look at what I provided and maybe write commentary as well. Is that fair?

Yeah, I thought I would see how this discussion goes. And I think Mike's done a really good job with the background research and seeing what some other cities have done, because we're all this is new legislation.

Yeah.

Thank you, Mike. That's very eye opening.

Yeah. And the hope is that we at least get it ironed out enough to meet state code. And if there's other things that feel lingering that we want to further drill into and address, we can always bring it back and amend stuff into it if we need to clarify something. Yeah. Right? Okay. So that's my thought process. I don't know. I've said a lot. Does anybody have questions or comments for me? Or Lisa, do you want to add anything else or send me on this?

So are you wanting us to, like, come back with ideas that we have for the code? Yeah. And what are we going to, like, debate it here, whether they should be in? Okay.

Yeah, what I want to do is get to the point of having a draft that feels like the right draft that's 90% there or closer. Set the public hearing and bring it back. Still give you some time to further refine whatever comes out of that discussion if there's things that further need to be dialed in. But I'm looking for some consensus guidance on the key things that you want to have in that. proposal so like if I got it wrong let's say what I did you feel it's 60 there bring that commentary back so we can get it to 90 of what you want as a planning Commission to protect the interests of the city but also need to stay covered I know it feels like a big task but I think once you get going into it you'll see that the other cities have organized it pretty well that if

So all of these cities that you've given us here have already updated to the state standard? No.

No, I don't feel like they have. And I note that on some of my, when you go through this summary, you'll see where I've noted that. I've tried to identify that. That's why I would say if you're going to, Mike's tasked me to do that. Read the state codes first. Especially 304, get familiar with it. Read the definitions first. Then start prying into what they've provided and what I've provided to make sure we're on page with what's required. And then you can actually add in the menu of what you think is in the best interest of the residents from there. And that's it. That's all I have. Thank you. That's a lot. I like it.

All right. And then now we've got staff report.

Another one tied to state code. This is a Sydney one, so I appreciate her efforts on this. This is one that directly impacts her on a daily basis and she's been asking to get looked at for a while now.

So the current our current code has an exchange of titles which pertains to the boundary lines of parcels and the current state code has made updates, I think as of October last year, about November of last year, about boundary line adjustments and boundary line establishments. So as of probably, well since November, we have had about six boundary line adjustment applications come in, of which case we are trying to navigate how to meet the state code while also meeting our city code. Obviously, state code overrides what the city code states. So while the detached ADU discussion is ongoing, um we're able to have a lot of flexibility really with the exchange of titles boundary line adjustment discussion the state has it pretty explicitly stated out so while like i said the adu is more of a discussion point the boundary line adjustment and boundary line establishment is spelled out. So with my red line that I did to the code, let me... Yeah, that's it. It pretty much follows the state code verbatim about what is required and what is not required. So there's not any kind of... I was not going in and I was not saying, I think that this should be in here. I think this should not be in here. It was basically verbatim stating it by code and then trying to tie it into our current exchange of titles. After discussing with Mike and Lisa on Monday, I think there is a portion of the code that needs to be amended and This discussion came about because we were actually talking about a current boundary line adjustment application. So the current code by state have a boundary line adjustment simple, a boundary line adjustment full, and a boundary line establishment with an agreement. So in the current red line that I have, I just included the boundary line adjustment simple and the boundary line adjustment full, and I have excluded the boundary line establishment. However, I think the boundary line establishment really should be put in there. They are pretty similar in what they are trying to accomplish, but the reason for each of them being separate has its own characteristics. So for the boundary line adjustment simple, that is when two properties are trying to adjust their property lines or establish a new or sorry, adjust their property lines. They don't affect easements. They don't affect public right of ways. And obviously they're not creating new parcel because then that would trigger a subdivision. The boundary line adjustment full is let's say that the boundary is being moved and there was a public utility easement on that property or like abutting that property line. So then if we were to move that boundary line, then we would be affecting the public utility easement. So then that would trigger a full as well as let's say that there is, we had this happen recently where there are two properties and it is an older portion of town. There is a structure that is too close to the property line. So what we would do is that we would have to trigger it to be a full because it doesn't match the current city code. It would have to go to the Board of Adjustments and to get a nonconformity and to establish a nonconformity, ergo triggering a full boundary line adjustment. And then after our discussion on Monday, the best way to describe a boundary line establishment is where there is a vagueness of where the boundary line is. So with the boundary line simple and the boundary line full, it is a pretty established line where both parties can agree, okay, this line, this is where it is. with a boundary line establishment. There's maybe one party that says, actually, this was established via fence 20 years ago, or maybe there's an overlap that was plotted with the county and recorded with the county quite some time ago before we had all of the I don't want to say skills, but we had all of the tools that we have nowadays to verify where the actual property lines are. So that's why boundary line establishment is really important to also include in our code. Each of these have different levels of review. So a boundary line establishment, as long as the two property owners can come into agreement, that is something that is done by the zoning administrator. And it is actually something that He can just sign a paper and give it up to the county for that to be approved and be verified by the city for the boundary line adjustment. Simple. It is a pretty similar process, except we require a survey as well with that. And with the survey, the zoning administrator has to review it as well, verify with that as well as Lisa. or the city attorney to make sure that it is also meeting the conditions and the what is it called the title report properly. And then the boundary line adjustment full that is a little bit more into detail. And with that, they do require a survey. And then the cities have the ability to request and require a plot to be formalized with that. So it is an extra step and obviously with a plot, that's when a plot is made versus just a survey. And then on a plot, the city attorney, the city engineer, the city community development director, and the mayor also need to sign off on that for approval. So each of them are a little bit more in depth with the review. Each of them all hold a certain requirements tied to them and Like I said, after talking with Lisa and Mike, I really think that boundary line establishments should also be included in my red line. Mike was added at the last second what the code states for boundary establishments per state. So what we would do is that we would take this almost verbatim and then tie it into either the end or the beginning of the red line.

so um i don't know if we are planning on having this just be a discussion point tonight and then going moving forward with it yeah my thought process is exactly what you did present it allow for commentary we could even have it do a similar thing like we were doing perfect the detached yeah perfect bring it back if there's any comments or questions if they want to find at least have a little bit of time with it she'd like that and then we could set it for public hearing at their next meeting And then the other thing, the conveyance for boundary adjustment, which is the very bottom document, that's just a tool that is referenced both in boundary adjustment and boundary establishment. That's the tool that Cindy was talking about. They would have to create a conveyance document that we then verify to ratify approval from the city before the county will sign up on it. So it's talking about what that conveyance document would look like in order to accommodate the boundary adjustment. in a simple or a boundary establishment scenario.

Would this be a recorded document?

It becomes a recorded document. Yeah. In lieu of a plot that that's that's why they're they're saying the state is carved out and said, OK, if you're not going to do a plot and we want cities to see it and say, yeah, we've seen this, we understand you're doing this. This is what we want to have happen. And this is what the county is going to look for when they they go to record it.

ideally ideally yes that's what they're seeking okay thank you sounds good i think we can look at that so now we'll go to the staff report

Or are we doing minutes?

No, it would be staff report. Because I'm still rushing on doing everything with the...

Which you did a wonderful job.

Thank you. I didn't really plan for it. Let me see if I can just off the cuff bring some things forward. The... Right Development Group is working on their improvements for their subdivision on the corner where the Quick Trip service station will go. So you're gonna start seeing dirt showing up there. I saw some dumpers going even today. That's what's going on. If anybody asks, that is starting up. The building permit for Quick Trip still is under review at staff's level. and they are still trying to finalize some things with UDOT, but the subdivision improvements can commence forward. They've had the pre-construction meeting, so that's what's going on. That can work first, and then the site plan will come in and do an improvement after that. So that's what's going on there. A conversion for the Carl's Jr. site to a Jack in the Box. The building permit is ready. We're just waiting for the applicant group to pick that up. um the uh udot team came in last night i would highly advise those of you don't know a lot about the i-15 widening project to watch that city council work session because we record the work sessions right lisa yes they're not on youtube but we record them oh okay yeah and udot has it on facebook as well so at least get yourself familiar with it because that project will start up in 2027 They'll start getting everything lined up in the early part of 2027 and then start working probably onsite in around June of 2027. We were just finalizing yesterday with you that we be in the council what the agreements look like for landscaping. That still isn't quite dialed in yet, but cities in South Davis are all across the spectrum. Some are doing irrigation and trees and plantings and other them are just doing rock, rock mulch designs and basic. So the reason for the variation, right, is cities are going to be required to maintain the landscaping impacts. So we have to determine what Centerville as a city and its staff are willing to maintain as a result of the gift that UDOT is giving us in how they landscape the new designs. So be aware of that. as well as there'll be new designs going along Frontage Road for both landscaping and travel use. There will be a 12 foot shared use pathway that will go along Frontage Drive. Our Frontage Road from Chase Lane all the way through up into Farmington, all the way to, I don't know what the road is, but it's pretty much almost to the road that goes east to west towards lagoon and station park. So I think it terminates around where the junior high school is, is where that path will terminate. And then at a future date, Farmington would pick that up and continue that on. Is that, is that a result of the South Davis Greenway effort that has agreed to do it with the, the team got in front of UDOT soon enough to have UDOT pay for that section of that improvement. So you will put in that improvement as part of that project and then have the the separation as well from that shared use path. So that'll be a really good representation of what that path could look like elsewhere throughout South Davis as it continues into other parts of the communities. Excuse me. I thought I was going to sneeze. I think that that's everything that's pretty significant right now. Obviously, please feel free if you have questions, though, to shoot me an email. I'd be glad to answer any other questions that may come up.

Thank you.

Anything I've missed from either of you two that feel pertinent?

I would say just that we are finding the sidewalk, the sidewalks for the historic district.

Yeah. And there is a map. If you're following that one at all, there's been quite a bit of discussion with the city council relative to waivers for sidewalk improvements and, you know, bonding and that sort of thing. I forget what the term is right off the bat, even though we've talked about it a billion times. But anyway. We are working on a map for the direction of the council where areas of the more centered point where she's got shown here of the city. The map would be staff recommendation to council of which streets would be expected to put in sidewalk and where other areas would not be required to put in sidewalk. We're bringing that to a DRC, the Development Review Committee staff committee on Monday. And then the thought would be if it looks like it's ready to go to take it to council their next meeting for a work session discussion. Okay. That's all I have.

Thank you. All right. And we'll go to the minutes. Do you guys have any?

I make a motion to approve the minutes as written.

Okay. Do we have a second?

I'll second it.

OK. We'll start over here.

Aye. Aye.

Aye.

Aye. Aye.

I'll make a motion to adjourn.

You made the motion? Yes. And I'll second that. OK. All right.

And we can do it together.