Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Alright. Good evening. Welcome to our Draper Planning Commission meeting. Today's date is 01/22/2026. Welcome to the new year. We would like to thank the staff for getting everything ready tonight, and the agenda will move forward as proposed and posted. Correct? We don't have any changes, as proposed. Nope. So alright. And thanks to the commissioners up here for volunteering their time. And, again, I would thank the attendance of our citizens and fellow neighbors, but we don't have any. So unless they're listening in, we'll welcome you remotely. So let's go ahead and get started. Tonight's agenda item, we have an action item just simply for approving the Planning Commission meeting minutes for November 20, way back when, on 2025.

Will someone give us a motion to approve that, or is there anything that we need to change?

November 20.

I have a motion. I move we approve the Planning Commission meeting minutes for 11/20/2025.

Perfect. Thank you, Mary. And who will second that motion?

I'll second that.

Thanks, Kendra. Okay. Let's put it to a vote then. Mary?

Yes.

Kendra? Yes. Susan?

Yes.

Lisa?

Yes.

And Gary? Yes. Perfect. Alright. So the next one we have is a public hearing, and this is a city initiated Utah State code reference update text amendment request. It's on the request of Draper City, a text amendment to portions of the Draper City Municipal Code titles nine, eleven, and 17 in order to update reference update references to Utah State Code known as application number 2026Dash002DashTA, and Todd Taylor is our staff contact. So go ahead, Todd. Thank you.

As noticed, this is proposed text amendments. These are in responses to changes in Utah State Code, specifically Senate Bill 1,008, which was adopted during the first special session last year. The state decided to go and renumber everything in section 10 or title 10, chapter 9A to primarily chapter 20 but some is in chapter 21 as well. So I've included all of the text here, but basically it's just renumbering sections. And then just as a note, if there were sections in the other three text amendments, those got updated in those amendments.

So it just sort of depended where the text fell between all four of these text amendments. So that concludes my presentation.

Thank Well done. You. Well done. Alright. This is a public hearing, so if there's no questions for staff, we'll go ahead and open it up to hot public debate. So if anyone would like to attend our meeting and actually, give us three minutes of their opinion, they're welcome to

do that now. Don't see

anyone, so we'll go ahead and close the public hearing portion. Alright. Commissioners, on this one, what do you say?

I'd say looks good. I'll make a motion if let's

Perfect. Let's do it. Susan, go ahead.

I move that we forward a positive recommendation to

the city council for the city initiated Utah state code reference update text amendment as requested by Draper City. Application number 2026Dash0002TA based on the

following findings and the criteria for approval as listed in the staff report dated 01/05/2026. And there are two findings of approval.

Great. Thank you, Susan. Who will second her motion?

I'll second it.

Thanks, Gary. Let's put it to a vote. Susan, how do you vote?

Yes.

Gary? Yes. Lisa?

Yes.

Mary?

Yes.

And finally, Kendra?

Yes.

Alright. Next public hearing, It's also a city initiated variance and land use appeal update text amendment request. It's on the request of Draper City again. Text amendment to portions of Draper City municipal code titles two, three, six, eight, and nine, and 17 to address recent changes to Utah state code related variances in land use appeals. It's known as application number 2026Dash0003DashTA. Todd Taylor again. Go ahead.

Thank you. So this, text amendment is in response to house bill three sixty eight which prohibits the city from requiring a public hearing for a variance or land use appeal. So basically we went through the code and looked at any place that it said hearing and changed that to a meeting. Also changed the title of the appeal and variance hearing officer to appeals and variance officer. So that's why there's so many sections included in this text amendment.

There is one other area that we made some changes on. So since we had to, since these are public meetings now in our noticing section, we added a section about, we clarified here that this, the noticing is for public hearings. We made it match the radius that we adopted for subdivisions, which is 300 foot radius for mailings. And then we removed some of the language that was previously required of an applicant when they noticed their own site which was removed from I believe state code a few years back. And then we've added in a new section here for how to notice for public meetings and that would go to the abutting properties.

And then finally, there is a section that commissioner Nixon noticed that I missed that is highlighted here in yellow that will be fixed when it goes to the city council as shown here. And that's the reference to the Utah State Code. That concludes my presentation and I'm available if you have any questions.

I'm just curious why would they have changed this from public hearings to just public meetings? That seems really strange to me. There a for it.

There's a reason for it. So with a variance, a variance has to meet five legal criteria. And those are questions of law, not questions of public concern. And so if you call it a public hearing, do you have to create a public hearing where somebody gets the opportunity to stand up and make comments? If somebody stands up and make comments, that has no bearing on whether the applicant can prove by the burden that they're required to prove that they can meet all five criteria that are required for a variance.

So it makes a lot of sense actually to not call that a public hearing and not give people their say in it because then people are going to show up, they're going to talk about how awesome their neighbor is and how much they want their neighbor to have this variance or how awful their neighbor is and how they don't want their neighbor to have this variance. And that should have no bearing on whether they can meet those five criteria, and then you'll have bunch of angry villagers one way or the other.

Makes sense. Thanks. Is that also for appeals because appeals are usually just off the record?

I'm not certain about appeals. I can I can answer I can answer for certainty that those variances are legal matters? Appeals not always the same because if you'll recall, as the Planning Commission decided a while back with an applicant, there was an applicant who had a multifamily development come in with without sidewalks on both sides of the private streets. And the way that our code reads is that the Planning Commission may grant a deviation under our code if the planning commission makes these certain findings. If the planning commission made the findings, the planning commission was also welcome to say no to granting that deviation because the way that the code read, the code read may.

So in that case, there could be a basis for overturning the Planning Commission's decision, which the Appeals and Variance Hearing Officer has the opportunity to do. Effectively, the appeals and variance hearing officer stands in the place of the planning commission and can uphold the planning commission's decision, overturn the planning commission's decision, or impose some new conditions. So in that kind of a scenario, a public hearing might be useful.

So could they still have the possibility of a hearing? Because, I mean, it says may not require one. So is that even a possibility?

Under state law, it would be permissible to have a hearing barring any of our ordinance changing. So in our changing the ordinance, it makes more sense to, like, take that out of the planningcom or out of the appeals officer's hands and leave it in the hands of the planning commission, the body making the decision. Worst case scenario, if somebody doesn't like our code and doesn't get the result that they want with the planning commission, doesn't get the result that they want with the appeals officer, they have other avenues to take from

there. Okay. Thanks.

Great. Thanks, Susan. Okay. So this is still a public hearing. We'll go ahead and open this up to public comment. Is there anyone that would like to address this agenda item? Alright. We don't see anyone, so we'll go ahead and close the public hearing. Alright. Commissioners?

I can go ahead and make a motion.

Go ahead, Kendra.

I move that we forward a positive recommendation to the city council for the city initiated variance and land use appeal update text amendment as requested by Draper City. Application number 2026Dash0003DashTA based on the following findings and the criteria for approval listed in the staff report dated 01/05/2026. That would include the six findings for approval listed in the report.

Awesome. Thanks, Kendra. Who will second that?

I'll second.

Thanks, Susan. K. Let's put this one to a vote. Kendra?

Yes.

Susan?

Yes.

Mary?

Yes.

Lisa?

Yes.

And Gary? Yes. Alright. Now we're on to item one d. This is also a public hearing. It's the city initiated public access amenity zoning text amendment request. It's on the request of Draper City. A zoning text amendment to portions of Draper City municipal code title nine to address recent changes to Utah state code related to public access amenities known as application number 2026Dash0004DashTA. And Todd Taylor again, it's your turn. Take it away.

Thank you. So this text amendment is in response to house bill three sixty eight, a different portion of that bill. It prohibits the city from requiring private maintenance of public access amenities except for park strips and sidewalks or those amenities that are agreed upon through an agreement. The bill defined public access amenity as a feature like a trail or recreation area that a municipality designates for public access and use. So we basically just looked through the code to find out where we had anything that required public open space or public trails for our planned residential developments.

These were, this was required so we have just changed it to open space. I think the biggest section where we had this was our transit station district. The TSD over by Vista Station. Talked about public use spaces. So again those are just being changed to open space.

Removing the definition for public use space. There's already a definition for open space in the code. And that's the majority of really the text amendments is just changing it from public use space to open space or public open space to open space.

Does the open space mean that the public can use it?

Or is it just like green space?

It really would depend upon how the developer sets it up. I mean, would be green space, but it could be a private open space. And when really this state law has really tied our hands and we can't require it to be public.

But they, how would they identify it as private then? Would they have a sign?

I mean, what would, how would the public They

could fence it off. What? They could fence it off or restrict access to maybe only the residents of that complex.

Okay. That's interesting.

Like it. It makes sense. I mean, it's private land, private use, and then can't really force them to make it public. I get it. It's funny that it's still in our code that way, but

That concludes my presentation. Do you have any Oh, okay.

Perfect. Were you waiting for Susan?

No. I was just We were.

We were waiting. He was. He was looking right at you. Okay. I'm just kidding. Okay. Alright. No. Thank you. Alright. Good. So, no questions there for staff. So we'll go ahead and open this up to public comment. Who would like to address this agenda item? Alright. We don't see anyone. So, again, we'll close the public hearing. So commissioners, would you like to vote on this?

Yeah. I'll I'll go ahead and make a motion. Okay. Go ahead, Gary. I move that we forward a positive recommendation of the city council for the city initiated public access amenity zoning text amendment as requested by Draper City application number 2026Dash004DashTA based on the following findings in the criteria for approval listed in the staff report dated 01/05/2026 in their findings for approval in the report.

Great. Thanks, Gary. Who'll second that?

I'll second.

Alright. Thanks, Mary. So let's put this to a vote then. Gary? Yes. Mary?

Yes.

Susan?

Yes.

Kendra?

Yes.

Dan Lisa?

Yes.

Alright. Thank you. I think we have one more. It's also a public hearing. It's the city initiated residential parking right requirement zoning text amendment request. It's on the request of Draper City, a zoning text amendment to portions of Draper City municipal code title nine to address recent changes to Utah state code related to residential parking requirements known as application number 2026Dash0005DashTA. Todd Taylor again.

Thank you. So this text amendment is in response to senate bill one eighty one. It modified the provisions for the size and configuration of parking for one and two families, single family homes and townhomes, specifically dimensions of parking stalls, whether they're enclosed or uncovered, and then tandem parking. And then it restricts the city from requiring a garage for attached or detached single family homes that are owner occupied affordable housing and that's defined in the bill. So this one first we went through and we added the exemption for not requiring a garage when it's the owner occupied affordable housing as defined in the Utah State Code.

And then we've added some standards for visitor parking because of how the tandem spaces were working with our current code. And that we require two spaces per unit and additional visitor parking spaces. We've added in that visitor parking spaces shall be located in an area of common ownership and be accessible for the intermittent short term use of all visitors to a property. So then we went and revised our tandem parking definition to say that it's a pair of parking spaces that are located end to end where the space is not directly accessible to the street or one of the spaces without traveling over the other parking space. So then in the parking code we went into our section that allowed tandem parking spaces and added in single family and two family dwellings, and then added in townhomes into the multifamily dwellings, but then indicated that if it's a private garage or driveway, those parking spaces shall not count towards visitor parking requirements.

Then we went to the accessory dwelling unit section and since single family homes can now count tandem parking spaces, are proposing to allow the two parking spaces for the IADU deviation to be counted as a tandem pair, but they cannot be counted with the two parking spaces for the home, for the single family dwelling. And then finally we went through anywhere in our code that talked about visitor parking spaces and added in the requirements that they shall be located in an area of common ownership and be marked as visitor. So that's in our MARF section, Edelweiss, and our multifamily development standards. That concludes my presentation and I'm available if you have any questions.

Thanks Todd. All right, this

is again a public hearing so we'll open it up. One last chance. Seeing nothing, we'll go ahead and close

the public hearing. So go ahead, commissioners.

Mister chair, I would like to make a motion.

Go ahead, Mary.

I move that we forward positive recommendation to the city council for the city initiated residential parking requirements zoning text amendment as requested by Draper City application number 2026Dash0005DashTA. Based on the following findings and the criteria for approval listed in the staff report dated 01/05/2026 and the findings that we would include are listed in our agenda.

Thanks, Mary. Who will second her motion?

I'll second that.

Thanks, Kendra. Okay. Let's put a vote to this one. Start with you, Mary?

Yes.

Kendra?

Yes.

Susan?

Yes.

Lisa?

Yes.

And Gary? Yes. Perfect. Alright. I think that concludes our agenda items. Other business, coordination between city staff and planning commission as needed. Is there any needed?

I have nothing, but Laurie does have, conflict of interest disclosure forms if you haven't filled yours out yet.

Perfect. We'll stay after we conclude the meeting and make sure everybody gets those filled out and turned in. Sound good?

Sounds great.

Alright. Perfect. Well, well done, everyone. Seeing no further, business in front of us, what say you?

I move we adjourn.

Great. Adjourned. See you next time.