Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right. Welcome to our planning commission meeting, our Draper City Planning Commission tonight. Our chair is out of town, and I'm the co-chair. I'm Lisa Fowler, so I'll be conducting the meeting this evening. It is Thursday, July 9th, 2026. I'd like to thank our staff for preparing the reports and working with our applicants so closely. And thank you for the commissioners to be here tonight, and also we appreciate the public and the applicants showing up. WE'LL GET STARTED WITH OUR FIRST ACTION ITEM, ITEM 1A, TO APPROVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JUNE 11, 2026. DO I HAVE A MOTION ON THIS FROM ANYONE?

I'LL MAKE A MOTION. WE APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JUNE 11, 2026 AS SUBMITTED.

THANKS, SUSAN. A SECOND?

I'LL SECOND.

THANKS, MARY. WE'LL PUT IT TO A VOTE. SUSAN, HOW DO YOU VOTE?

Yes.

Kendra?

Yes.

Gary? Yes. And Christine? Yes. And I'm also going to vote because I'm a member of the committee, right? Or should I not vote tonight?

You get to vote. The rules are weird. You get to vote.

I get to vote?

Yep.

Okay. So I also vote yes. Okay.

Should we only have five of us then?

If you want to not vote, you can make a motion to suspend that rule, and then we can have five votes, if that's what we want to do.

So then we have no need for a tiebreaker?

yeah you vote if you wanted to make a motion for that you could do that um the planning commission rules are follow what i call the captain barbosa strategy and that is uh if you recall in pirates of the caribbean captain barbosa says the rules of parlay are not hard and fast rules they're more like guidelines that's kind of what your planning commission rules are like so If you want a five vote instead of a six vote, somebody can make a motion to suspend the rule that you vote and that you'll vote only in the event of a tiebreaker.

Okay. Well, I voted, and so we'll just assume that passes for now. But, Commissioners, do you want to create the five-person vote for tonight? Anybody want to make a motion for that?

Do we have a rule number we can cite, or can we just state what the rule is? Spencer's going to look up the guideline. We certainly do.

I have to look it up, though, and I'm glad I brought my book.

While you're looking, why don't we go on to the next item? Marianne could do her presentation.

Yeah, if somebody wants to invoke the Barbossa rule, we'll just call it that.

I move we invoke the Barbossa rule.

I'll second that.

Lisa, you now do not get to vote.

Except I have to put it to a vote, I think.

Oh, you're right. Sorry.

Kendra? Yes. Susan? Yes. Mary? Yes. Gary? Yes.

And Christine?

Yes. And I guess I'll vote yes because I'm voting at this point, right? Still. All right. We're having fun. Okay. This is a fun night. All right. All right. Well, let's go on then to the 1B, the public meeting for the VISTA 11 South Subdivision Platte Amendment request. This is an administrative item on the request of Eric Winters, representing Wasatch Residential Group, a subdivision plat amendment for 2.36 acres located at approximately 13657 South, 600 West. It's known as Application 2026-0093-SUB. Our staff contact is Mary Ann Pickering. Mary Ann?

Thank you. This is a vicinity map showing the highlighted area for reference. This is Bangor Highway, and then this is the 600 West exit. This is a detailed view of the property, again outlined in red. It is an already developed site. The land use is TSD, or Transit Station District, and the zoning is also Transit Station District. What this request is is to take that one existing lot from today and split it into three lots. The commercial buildings are already built, as you saw, and the lots may be sold in the future by the developer. All of the buildings do meet the standards for the zone. For reference, this is the current plat. It is this property right here. And then you can see they're just adding the lines to create the three lots, and they've included all applicable easements. And this one is just a public meeting tonight. There's no hearing. Thanks for the reminder.

So are the lots the appropriate size then?

Yes, there are no size requirements in the TSG zone.

Great. Thank you for reminding us. All right, commissioners, do we have the applicant here want to come up and share anything? Please first state your name.

Adam Langford, Wasatch Residential Group, 620 South State Street, Salt Lake City. No comment. Yeah, we're just carving into smaller lots. It helps us with financing and the ability to sell them off in the future. Just house cleaning, really.

Yeah, great. Hold on a second.

Yeah, happy to answer any questions.

Yeah, commissioners, any questions? No. Oh, okay. Okay, thank you. Great. Okay, comments, commissioners, discussion, or does someone want to make a motion?

I'll go ahead and make a motion.

Okay, Gary, go ahead.

I move that we approve the plot amendment as requested by Eric Winters of Wasatch Residential Group, application 2023-4659-SUB based on the findings and conditions for approval listed in the staff report dated April 20th, 2024.

Thank you. Can I have a second? I'll second that. Thanks, Kendra. Okay, we'll put this to a vote. Gary? Yes. Kendra? Yes. Susan?

Yes. And Mary? Yes.

And then Christine? Yes. Okay, thank you all. So that's approved. Appreciate it. Thanks for coming in.

Lisa, can I jump in for a second? Of course, please. Just so we can get this on the record, the Barbosa Rule is 1.3 of the Planning Commission Rules and Bylaws, and the vote was to suspend for this evening Rule 2.2.3 of the Planning Commission's Rules and Bylaws.

Okay. Thank you. Thanks. Okay. Our next item is 1C. This is a public hearing for cleancrumb.co home occupation conditional use permit request. This is an administrative item on the request of Jolie Larson representing cleancrumb.co, a home occupational conditional use permit for approximately .47 acres located at approximately 12983 South Fox Crossing Lane. It's known as application 2026-0119-USE. Our staff contact is Nick Whitaker. Nick?

Thank you. So yes, this is the cleancrumb.co home occupation conditional use permit. Here's a vicinity map. Here is the aerial map. And land use, it is residential, low-medium density. and the zoning designation is RA2. So an overview of the request is it's a home occupation. The applicant is requesting to operate a cottage business that produces baked goods from the home. Orders are placed online and delivered to the customer. The baked goods are sold at events and ordered online and delivered to customers. Sorry, that was redundant. No customers come to the home. No additional employees. Hours of operation are Monday through Friday from noon to 3 p.m. All business is conducted within the applicant's home. Here's a site plan that the applicant provided. And just a little note here, this applicant was here a couple of years ago, almost exactly for another home occupation, Joko Jewelry. Just a side note there. Here is the site plan. They utilized the kitchen. The number that they gave me was 150 square feet. The impact analysis and mitigation is potential impacts will be customers coming to the home and associated traffic and customer vehicles parked on the street. However, there are no customers coming to the home. So that kind of takes care of that. The proposed mitigation, of course, is doing all the proper permitting through the various divisions and the Draper City business license will be obtained and that no customers come to the home. And then a staff recommendation is, staff recommends approval as the applicant's proposal does not negatively impact the neighbourhood or the city. The applicant's proposal will contribute tax revenue to the city and the applicant's proposal supports the economic vitality goals found in the city goals and policies chapter of the city's general plan. Here's a site photo. And any questions or comments?

Nick, do you know if the applicant's still operating the other business at the same time?

I do not know, but you can operate more than one business.

Oh, you can?

Yes, you can. There's nothing in our code that prevents that.

Okay, great. Any other questions for Nick?

I do have a question. If there are two businesses simultaneously running, does the square footage used, is that counted together? Because there is a maximum... Percentage, I believe, of square footage that can be used for business purposes?

You are correct in that there is a certain square footage that you can have before needing a conditional use permit. But there's nothing in our code that says that those numbers have to be added together if it's a separate business.

Okay, thanks. I think this one was only 2%, right? It's square footage, so yeah.

In fact, I can even show you here on the site plan, the breakfast nook area by that bay window is where the other business operated. I'm not sure if it's still in operation or not, and so it would be a very negligible amount of space regardless.

And did you say no employees?

No employees.

Okay, that's what I thought, thanks.

Okay, well, thanks, Nick. Appreciate your work on this. And we can invite the applicant up. Is Julie Larson here? Come on up and tell us. Say your name, please, and then tell us what you'd like to say about your business.

Okay, I'm Jolie Larson. Not really any other comments. I had a jewelry business that's just like at my desk in our house. That was my other conditional use permit. And then this one's just to sell baked goods at like the Draper Farmer's Market and Draper Days.

All right. Any questions for Jolie?

Okay.

Okay, we'll call you back up if we need you to come. All right, so let's open this up to public comment. I'll explain how public comment works at the Planning Commission. We have a timer over here. It's a three-minute timer. And so if you want to make a comment, you'll have three minutes to speak. When the timer goes off, we ask you to stop, please. Also, this isn't a discussion time, your comment time. We will listen to your comment. We'll take notes. And then we will, after the end of the comment period, we will answer or discuss the things that you've said. So no back and forth, though, with the commission. All right. So we'll open this up to public hearing. Anyone like to make comments on this item? Okay, seeing none, we'll end the comment period. Thank you. Commissioners, do you want to discuss the topic or the item or put it to a vote?

I'm happy to make a motion if there's no other discussion. You good? Good. Okay, Mary, go ahead. I move that we approve the home occupation conditional use permit as requested by Julie Larson representing cleancrumb.co application 2026-0119-USE based on the following findings for approval and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report dated June 26, 2026. Finding for approval being that the proposal complies with the standards for approval found in Draper City Code Section 9-5-080E, and potential impacts are mitigated through the imposition of reasonable conditions.

Thanks, Mary. Do we have a second?

I'll second that.

Kendra, thank you. Okay, we'll put it to a vote. Mary? Yes. Kendra? Yes. Susan? Yes. Gary?

Yes.

And Christine?

Yes.

Okay, you're approved. Thank you. Wait, that, yes, we do approve that. Okay, very good. Okay, we'll move on to item 1D. This is a public hearing titled 12430 South 700 East Zoning Map Amendment Request. It's a legislative action. On the request of Peter Gambroulis of Ivory Homes, representing J. Dawes Rentals, LLC, a zoning map amendment for approximately 1.67 acres located at approximately 12430 South, 700 East. It's known as Application 2026-0103-MA. And Marianne Pickering is our staff contact. Marianne?

Thank you.

This is a vicinity map showing the properties highlighted in red. For reference, this is Pioneer Road right out front and then 700 East. This is a detailed aerial of the site. You can see there is some development, but there is some vacant area in the back already. The land use on this is existing residential medium density. And then the zoning as of today is RA1 and RA2. The applicant is requesting to rezone from those RA1 and RA2 designations to R4. And the corresponding land use of residential medium density is the one that corresponds with the proposed R4 zoning. The applicant has indicated their desire to build a five lot single family subdivision with a private road if this is approved. And then they will have to meet all the minimum requirements for any future subdivision. This one is a recommendation to the city council from you, and I did not receive any phone calls or emails as a result of the public notice for this.

We've seen this plot, this site of land before, haven't we? There was a senior living probably five years ago, four or five years ago.

And this is just plain single family. Our four is the quarter acre lot minimum.

Will this lot connect to the lot to the west of it?

No, the plan they've submitted, the concept is off 700 East. Okay. Any other questions for staff?

OK. Let's invite up the applicant. Hi. You know the drill. Please say your name and then share anything you'd like to.

Sure. Thank you. My name is actually Skyler Tolbert. Peter is in Francis tonight, so we divided and conquered. But I'm very impressed, Chair, that you pronounced his last name correct, because most don't get it right. I don't really have any further comment. I read the staff report. We're happy to comply with everything Happy to answer any questions or after the public hearing I can answer other questions But we do appreciate our relationship with Draper City We've got quite a few subdivisions in the city actively being built as we speak. We love Draper We've been here for four decades and we appreciate our relationship Commissioners any questions?

Yeah, so you're planning on bulldozing the old houses?

Correct.

Okay, so is the 1887 home just too old to save, or it's just in the way? I'm just wondering if we have anything in our policy about saving a really old house like that, yeah.

Yeah, which one is the oldest home?

To be honest, I am not sure which is the oldest home. The landowner's not here tonight, but I don't know if anyone on staff knows the oldest.

I don't know the dates, but I can answer your question. None of these homes are on the National Register or anything like that. The big red house directly to the south of that, that's actually being added to the register right now. We're going through the paperwork for that. But the homes on this property aren't on the National Register. There's nothing that would prevent a property owner from tearing down a historic structure just because of the age. Okay.

Anything else? No? All right, thanks. We'll call you up if we need you. Thank you.

Can I ask a quick staff question before we do public hearing? So the current zone, is that conforming with the land use, the R1?

It does not conform today, no. This would make it conforming.

That's what I was thinking. And then could you bring up the zoning map again for me, the current zoning use?

This is so sensitive.

So we've got some more for nearby.

It's a circle, right? The Vandelay Lane ends in a circle.

That's known as Sixth Street Cottages, if you remember. If you were on the Planning Commission back then, that's that development.

Thank you.

All right, thanks, Marianne. We'll open this up to public hearing now. So if any of you would like to comment, again, please say your name first, and then we'll time you watch the timer for your comment time. Okay, so we'll take note of your questions, and then we'll discuss them. Okay, sure. So please go ahead.

So we're the house. Wait, your name? Mark Beaner. Thank you. We're the house just to the south of that, the historic home. And one of the questions is the property line, because when they did the development in the back, they actually moved it over a little to the north. And I just wondered if that's a continuation of that, if it would continue. I mean, so the fence line is there, but I don't know if, because it's been there a certain amount of time, if it wouldn't be taken into account that it would be moved a little further to the north. is one of the questions I have. And then I'm just kind of curious how the houses would be placed. I'm guessing there would be two houses on our side, and then the back lots would be butting up against our property, I'm guessing. But I guess I don't know if there's any of those details that could be answered right now, if that would be helpful.

Okay, thanks.

We'll make note.

Other comment?

Keith Short, I think what Mark was saying is we would like to see a plot plan of what they're actually planning the subdivision to look like. We really don't want a wall going up along 7th East to eliminate them out of our subdivision. And if they're going to put a road down the middle of it, their private road, that could end up with the houses to the back so that the backs were at 7th East. So I think that's what he was trying to say. It would be appreciated if we could see a plot plan to be able to make a decision on how we feel about it.

OK. Thank you. Anyone else?

Thank you for this opportunity. My name is Reed Gibby. I live with my wife at 667 Mandalay Lane. Those three squares towards the top in a row were the ones on the right, about 50 feet from this property. In general, philosophically from my profession of transportation engineering, I do get a little bit concerned to increasing density. I don't know if the city has an impact fee for schools, for roads, because Quite frankly, Pioneer Road is not the most smooth street in the world. And so that's just one little question. My wife and I, we're not really overly concerned about that being developed. It's kind of rustic. There's a couple of old abandoned vehicles and an old shed that's probably historic. When I first moved in, I was a little concerned about lightning hitting one of those cars and causing a fire, but being 50 feet away, I wasn't overly concerned about that. The three homes that are going to be removed, I guess, typically at least two of them are eyesores and open field there with the abandoned vehicles, you know, kind of look kind of crummy. In fact, when we looked at it first time in December of 24, we moved down from Suncrest. from a lot that was about over 20,000 square feet. Our current lot is under 4,000 square feet. Our age, we gave away our snow machine and our lawnmower, so we're happy about that. Anyway, so we basically think that this could be an improvement with the neighborhood. Thank you for your time, and thank you for your service.

Thank you. Anyone else like to make a comment? Okay, we'll end the public comment period then. And it looks like we have some questions to ask the applicant. Would you like to come back up?

Well, he's coming up. I heard mention of a concept plan. Was that submitted as part of the application?

It was not part of this application. We saw it as part of the DRC.

Okay.

But I will say also for the residents, this will go through a subdivision plat and there will be a public hearing when they do propose the subdivision should the rezone be approved.

Are the DRC documents publicly requestable, like a grandma request? I mean, if they wanted to see them, I don't know how the applicant feels about just sharing, but... Since it was discussed here.

I don't know the answer to that. We'd have to research that. I will say that a concept plan is not a requirement with a rezone application. Right.

Yeah. Understood. Thanks.

Okay. Thanks for coming up. So they wanted, some wanted to ask, how would the houses be placed? Do you have some idea of, or can you describe that? Sure. That mouse next to you might work for pointing. Yep.

Very touchy though.

This is good. Yeah, we've done a concept plan. I've got a small one on my phone right here, but that'd be hard to share with everybody. But essentially, our smallest lot on today's concept plan is 11,600 square feet. Largest is almost 13,000 square feet. And the road, if you picture basically the middle, it comes in right here. with a hammerhead here. And I forget the gentleman, it may have been Mr. Beaner, thought there'd be two lots on the south side, which is accurate, and then three on the north. So the backyards of the south side homes would face south, backyards of the north side homes would face north. Happy to discuss the property line and fence line. I don't know what happened previously, but happy to have those conversations. Seems like everything we buy in Salt Lake County that's been developed has something like this. So we're used to this and deal with it on almost every project we do. So happy to have that conversation. We do have an ALTA survey that we can get with. So I'm happy to get with you after and exchange information.

How many homes would go in this piece?

Five total. Five you said? Okay. So essentially we're going from three homes to five homes. There was one other question on traffic, and it's actually safer to have one point of ingress and egress on 7th East versus three driveways that people are backing in and out of. So it actually improves the traffic flow and safety of the community there.

Okay. Um, property line change. That was another question. Do you know about that?

Yeah, I'll get with, uh, Mr. Beaner after and discuss that. If there's a concern there, we'll, we'll work together on that, but we don't intend to necessarily do anything. I don't have my Alta survey with me. I know there were a few discrepancies on all three sides. So oftentimes we agree to boundary or fence lines that have been there. Um, But we'll have those conversations, and that will get resolved before a plat gets recorded. And if we need to record some boundary line agreements, we'll do that.

We'll do that, too. But we'll see the plat and look at it eventually, along with those things. Okay, those details. All right, any other questions, commissioners? Okay, thanks for coming up. Thank you working with the neighbors out there. It's of concern to them and Yeah, thank you One other question about Mr.. Gibby asked about any impact fees For roads that would go to schools and so forth Yeah, and I did look those up as you were asking the applicant questions, so the city Takes in

impact fees with the actual building permits for the homes so we take uh fire uh parks and recreation police transportation um water if it's well if it's in draper city water they go to water pro for their water impact fee if it's in water pros district and then um Our stormwater impact fee is currently suspended, so we're not collecting that one specifically. So transportation impact fees, let me just look at that real quick, because I know that's the one Reid mentioned. It's $1,152 per unit, and they pay those when we issue the building permit. Great.

Okay, thanks. Appreciate you looking that up. All right, commissioners, any comments or discussion you'd like to have on this motion, on this applicant?

I think it's a reasonable request, and I think it fits in well with the area, especially when there's R4 just to the west. I like the idea of one access instead of the existing three. I think it's an improvement, will improve, remove some older dilapidated homes and freshen up the area. So I think it's a good proposal.

I'm pleased to see instead of a commercial building or a commercial residence, resident-type building, homes, actual homes going in instead.

Yeah, me too. Yeah, and we've seen along Pioneer lots of, well, we've seen requests that I haven't loved, and so I like that this stays residential. I like it much better than the last application we saw, and I think it's a, I agree, it's a really reasonable request. Okay, do you have a motion then?

I'll make a motion. Thanks, Susan. I move that we forward a positive recommendation to the City Council for the zoning up amendment as requested by Peter Gambralis of Ivory Homes representing J. Dawes Rentals LLC, application 2026-0103-MA based on the findings of approval listed in the staff report dated June 30th, 2026. And there are five findings for approval.

Thanks, Susan. Any second?

Could I ask a quick question before we second? And I am sorry, but it just, the name J-Dawg's Rentals occurred, it just occurred to me, these will be single family home sites, correct? Yes, they will be. Okay. Being sold presumably individually. Correct.

Okay. J-Dawg's Rental is the name of the existing property owner. It's a local family that owns several pieces of property, but they rent them out. Okay.

And that's the current landowner? Yes. Okay. Thank you for that clarification. Just hit me.

Can I ask something? Can I? I'm just, I'm sorry, before I, I mean, I like the idea and everything. I'm just really concerned about the historical factor of the house. Like, can we have somebody look at the house and see if it's worth saving or not?

So I do actually, the Historic Preservation Commission has been working on a reconnaissance level survey. That survey looks at, really just quickly looks at each home that's 50 years or older in the city to determine if it's contributing architecturally, that kind of thing. We're currently reviewing that draft. I can look to see what it calls out for these homes. If I had to take a guess, I would say they're not contributing. To be considered historic as far as being on a national register or something like that, I think there's like five factors, but architectural integrity specific to a time period or a building that's attached to like a person or an event, something like that. It's been a minute since I've really driven past and looked at these homes, but I'm guessing they probably aren't worth saving, unfortunately. That said, even if they were, there's nothing the city can really do. do for a property say a property that's on the national register that could very well be very much worth uh saving the code allows um well all the demolition permits go to our historic preservation commission for review to determine whether it has significant historical value. If it does, they can delay the demolition of the permit in order to document the structure, take pictures, that kind of thing. Or they can delay it to try to come up with an alternative solution, whether that's relocating the home, that kind of thing. But they can't prohibit it from being demolished.

So if we approve, As the motion was, then the historic commission will still look at it, right? Yes.

So when we get that demo permit, they'll look at it. At a minimum, we'll get pictures of the homes so that we can actually document and have proof of what was there.

Christine, how do you feel about that?

Yeah, I'm okay with that. I'm also kind of worried if it is deemed unsavable, what are we going to find around it? There's going to be old artifacts that maybe Draper would be interested in. I don't know the process for that either, but I'm just concerned about that stuff.

That may come down to the property owner and their willingness to work with us. I know at the roundabout, the property on the northwest corner there on the roundabout on 13th, they just took down several of those, all of those buildings. The Historical Society and Historic Preservation Commission had actually walked through that barn and a couple of the other buildings beforehand, took quite a few things that they found. So it really kind of depends on the individual property owner and what they're willing to do.

Good to know.

Yeah, good questions. Anyone want to make a second then to Susan's motion? I'll second. Okay, Mary, thanks.

Since I derailed it, I'll second.

Let's put this to a vote then. Susan, how do you vote? Yes. And Mary? Yes. Gary?

Yes.

Christine? Yes.

And Kendra?

Yes.

Okay, thank you. It passed. So it'll go on. Does that go on to the city or the city council? It does, doesn't it? Okay, great. Okay, our next item is item 1E. It's a public hearing for the boat right fence conditional use permit request. On the request of Kristen and Joshua Boatwright, a conditional use permit for a six-foot fence in the front yard area on approximately 0.23 acres, located at approximately 12474 South Rollins Lane, known as Application 2026-0123-USE. Our staff contact is Nick Whitaker. So, Nick, take it away.

Thank you very much. Yes, this is the Boatwright Fence Conditional Use Permit Request. Here is a vicinity map. The property is right here. This area over here is where the Smiths is located, or as I always will remember it, where the Graywell CD Exchange was.

Here is an aerial map of the property.

The property is unique in that it has almost three frontages to it. Here's a land use map. The land use is a residential medium density. Zoning map is R3. So an overview of the request. They're hoping to install a six foot tall fence in the front yard area, matching the existing white vinyl fence. Per Draper City Code, any fence in the front yard area that is taller than four feet in height requires an additional use permit. Anything above six feet in height cannot be permitted. in the front yard area. So here's the purpose of the request. It's a very unique purpose. As you can see in this photo, a vehicle went through the fence. I did confirm with the property owner that nobody was hurt, thank goodness. They're also at this time hoping to expand in rebuilding the fence, expand the size of their rear yard. As I showed at that aerial image with the three frontages, it kind of restricts the backyard area or the private yard area. Here's a site plan of what they are proposing to bring it out into this front yard area. They've even included a clear view triangle in their design. Again, the materials would be white vinyl to match the existing fence. Impact analysis and mitigation would be potential impacts to pedestrian safety and visibility at the northeast corner of the property. That's a proposed mitigation is that all the requirements of Draper City Engineering Building and Planning Divisions are satisfied and that the fencing shall not exceed six feet in height and shall be constructed only in the locations indicated on the approved site plan, so including that clear view triangle. Staff recommendation is, staff recommends to approve based on the applicant's proposal that it does not negatively impact their neighborhood or the city. Here's a site photo. And here is another photo of the post where the fence will be replaced and expanded. Is that what the fence looks like currently?

Yes. Okay.

It certainly would give them more yard to use.

Yeah.

I think I drove by this right after, probably the day after the accident happened, and I thought, whoa, I hope nobody got hurt. So I'm glad to hear that. That's good. I'm in favor of this proposal. My only concern was that it meets the clear vision area, which it does. So I think this is a great proposal for them and will help them with their security, et cetera, for their rear yard.

Security and using the lot. Yeah. Let's have the applicant come up then. Are you done, Nick? Sorry we kind of stopped you.

No, you're fine. You're totally fine. Yeah, that was it. Okay, that was it.

Thanks. Thanks. We'll have the applicant come up, if you would. Say your name and then tell us what you'd like to share.

I'm Kristen boat right Joshua right where's the property owners? We're just hoping to make our yard a little bit more secure and bring you know a little bit more of it to utilize we'll make sure the fence stays within a out of the Clearview Triangle to make sure that there's still the visual for anybody who is turning because I get it. We pull out every day and the traffic coming by, you need to be able to see it. If anything, I think it'll make the neighborhood look better because it provides a little bit more privacy and it will look a little better, I think. Yeah.

The block just down I guess west of us is the same vinyl on the corner and so it would match the area perfectly so it's nothing that would stand out significantly different than what's currently in the neighborhood and using the same similar materials so that way it is cohesive throughout the neighborhood.

And we've made sure to not encroach, like, all the utilities that will still need to be accessed by the city that will be able to get to them. They're all available.

Yeah.

It's a bit of a unique lot.

It is because, like, all the other homes are facing into the neighborhood. Yeah. Whereas ours faces, like, the side.

Yeah. Or east, I mean.

Yeah.

Yes, east.

Parking and the front door. Yeah.

Yeah. It's unique. It is. I think it's good use. I like it.

Great. Any other questions for the applicants? No? Okay. Thanks. We'll call you up if we need to. It is a public hearing, so we'll open it up to public comment. If anyone has anything they'd like to add or let us know, please come up.

Hello.

I'm Peggy Stringfellow. We live to the west. And they did come and touch our fence in between the two properties. So I'm really all for this, a reinforced fence. The precedent for this type of triangle was set, if you go further to the west, I don't know if you have a map of that, there's a property that uses the same type of triangle clearance for safety reasons. And the difference is that that ends up being more of the side yard where that triangle is. So I look at it as, well, this is just semantics that we're just talking about. The exact same construction. Their house faces east. That other house faces south. Same triangle. I don't have any issues with it. I think it's perfectly good use of the property.

All right. Thank you. Appreciate your comment. Thank you. Anyone else like to make a comment? All right. We'll close the public hearing portion. Commissioners, any other comments or discussion?

I think this is pretty straightforward, and if nobody else has any comments, I can make a motion.

Okay. Thanks, Kendra. Go ahead.

I move that we approve the conditional use permit as requested by Kristen and Joshua Boatwright, application 2026-0123-USE, based on the following findings for approval and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report dated June 26, 2026, and the findings for approval. is that the proposal complies with the standards for approval found in the Draper City Code section 9-5-080E and the potential negative impacts are mitigated through the imposition of reasonable conditions.

Thank you. Do we have a second? I'll second. Thanks, Susan. Okay, let's vote. Kendra? Yes. Susan? Yes. Mary? Yes. Gary? Yes. And Christine? Yes. Thank you. Okay. We've approved that, but that will also continue. No, that doesn't continue on because it's conditional use, so it's approved. Okay. Good luck to you. And no more cars going through fences. Good. All right.

Did Mary make a motion to adjourn?

Not yet.

I thought she was.

Well, I mean, I'll give Spencer some opportunity to speak before I do, but he's not paying attention. He's not paying attention. So maybe I should.

We're going to adjourn. You just think I'm not paying attention. I'm paying attention. If you want to adjourn, you can adjourn and skip the training, but we'll have to do more later.

No, let's do it. Go ahead.

This is a good meeting to do this.

This is a good one. Plenty early. Go ahead. That one went fast.

Fine.

All right. So is it me now? Is this up or no? All right. Well, I guess I have to pull mine up because I didn't pull mine up earlier.

Now, I can't wait to hear what our topic is.

And I just want to withdraw my statement that you weren't paying attention because I don't really believe that. I just was teasing you.

Topic is not exciting or interesting or good. And neither is the training, to be honest. But I have a law school buddy who texted me that he's at the Pines, and I invited him, if he finishes dinner early, to come and see it. This is... Todd asked me to do 45 minutes to half an hour, because we're kind of behind on training, but we're not doing that. We're doing, like, maybe half an hour tops.

So... You have a lot of files. My goodness. Yeah.

So we are doing our Planning Commission legislative update. And it's, you know, it's not Simpsons themed. But this is, well, you'll see. We're going to talk about our legislative update, or as I like to call it, our land use bill extravaganza. HB 284. Hang on, I got to pull my notes out here. HB 284 was the bill, or no, SB 284, Senate Bill 284, was the bill that made major revisions to our land use law. And we're going to talk about the parts that are specifically relevant to the Planning Commission tonight. This bill is brought to you by Senator Lincoln Fillmore. And so we'll get to it to see what we have here. So first we have the Planning Commission Ordinance. And this meme adequately represents how I feel about our Planning Commission Ordinance right now. Our Planning Commission Ordinance needs to change as a result. Now, I've got an ordinance draft ready to go. We're probably going to be submitting it. to council on the 21st that changes our planning commission ordinance to update it and make it consistent with what state law will now require. So our current ordinance is 35030. It talks about appointment, removal, and recusal. And we will talk about those things tonight. Appointment, removal, and recusal. Now, out of curiosity, does anybody know how we get removed from the planning commission? I assume you all know how you got appointed. If you're here and you don't know how you got appointed, raise your hand, please. Because I would like to have words with Troy about his selection process.

So far, removal is just retire.

That's retirement. Or you don't show up. That's a voluntary removal. Don't show up. That's one way that you can, according to our ordinance, yes.

I'm talking about... Like expulsion? Yeah.

Does anybody know how you get the boot right now?

I think someone can make a motion, right? And have you removed, at least from a meeting? From the meeting? From a meeting. I think I read that because I looked at the rules relatively recently.

No, no, I'm talking about removed permanently from the planning commission. Not we're kicking you out of the meeting because you're being terrible.

And not just an expiration then, or a non-renewal of a term.

Right, and not just a non-renewal of a term, because we've seen that recently. Like, you're in the middle of your term, and you are no longer on the planning commission.

We serve at the pleasure of the mayor, right? So I'm assuming, city council, don't they have to vote on that?

Yeah. Probably if we were having ex parte conversations, I would say that.

I'd throw a temper tantrum.

I could get off the grounds for getting the removal. The process.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah, so our ordinance does say that the mayor can remove, but he's got to have the votes of the council. So it's kind of a combination. Yes, serve at the pleasure of the mayor, but the council has to ratify everything. There is a need for revision amongst our code. And this is kind of how I feel when we talk about revisions needed to our code, no matter what they are. When I started preparing this presentation, we had just barely implemented some very important land use code. Amendments that were required by state statute in 2025 and the legislative session for 2026 was almost over. So it's like a never ending cycle. This is how we all feel when we see the legislative updates. I track the legislative updates for the city. for all of the departments, not just land use. And it's kind of a nightmare every year. And you see the stupidest bills and you think, what are they thinking? And you can't believe that some of these people get elected by who you would hope are reasonably well-informed people in the public.

I need you to change the slide. It's giving me anxiety.

Okay. So our current removal, as I mentioned, mayor removes council consent. Here's our new removal process. The legislative body will remove, and it's no longer an exercise of mayoral authority, and the removal must include a list of at least one of the statutory reasons. Now, previously, the mayor could be like, you know, you took your dog on a walk and your dog pooped on my lawn. You're out. Mayor can't do that anymore. That's not a reason. So why can you be removed? Does anybody want to take a stab at reasons why you could be removed from planning commission? If you're just taking a guess at it, what would you think?

For cause.

For cause. I have cause, David. It's because I hate him. Does anybody know what that's from?

The office. Yes.

And that's actually the slide that I was looking for. I couldn't find that meme. So I was like, no, this one's good, too. So, yeah, it's because I hate him. No, for cause. Yeah, there's got to be for cause. But the statute actually identifies which one of those things are. All right. So this shouldn't be too much of a problem because our planning commission does not have public funds. But I got to imagine that there are planning commissions out there that do have public funds. Anytime any city employee uses public funds or public resources or assets for a political purpose, it's a huge no-no. It's very verboten. And it can get you fired. It can get you removed from office. It can really mess up your day.

So is this new law specific to planning commissions?

This is very specific to planning commissions.

Wow. Yeah, that is an interesting.

So Senator Fillmore is, I don't know what he's got against planning commissions, but he's taking a shot at everybody.

Check LinkedIn. Maybe we should have this conversation.

Should we Google it?

No, let's go on.

Please go on. Well, isn't that, like, kind of one of the reasons how we would get kicked off is for, like, conflict of interest like that? Like, if we were a developer or something and we kind of, I don't know. That's, yeah.

yeah so christine you mentioned a conflict of interest that's actually on the list but let's so good job um here's the second one violating the municipal officers and employees ethics act um we'll do a training on that next time next time it's my turn to train we'll do the ethics training because you should be having the ethics training fairly regularly and it's been a minute since you got the ethics training the interesting thing about the state ethics law And the corresponding city ethics law, which follows the state municipal officers and employees ethics act is there's not a whole lot that's unethical under the law. It's a lot less than what you would think it is. When I was in law school, we had to take this class called professional responsibilities and we had to pass a class or pass a test that basically said you were going to be an ethical lawyer. It's part of the bar exam. And, um, The stupid thing about that class was it wasn't designed to teach you how to be ethical. It was designed to teach you how unethical you could be without crossing the line. And our Municipal Officers and Employees Ethics Act kind of mirrors that. There's a lot that's not unethical. under the act, but it's like icky. So if you act with the intent to influence the land, this is directly from the statute, I'm gonna just quote it here. With the intent to influence a land use decision or an appeal of a pending land use application in a manner that creates actual impermissible bias or unacceptable risk of impermissible bias in your administrative or quasi-judicial duties.

That's the biggest word salad I've seen in a long time.

It is a big word salad. Quasi-judicial. You're not judges. You're not sworn as judges. You're making decisions. Yeah, but I don't think you're tasked with making any judgment calls. We kind of have an appeals and variance officer for that. In theory, you could be the appellate body for some decisions like that Jen makes. And then somebody's got to come to Planning Commission because Jen's our zoning administrator. So when Jen makes a decision as the zoning administrator, if the recipient of the zoning administrator's opinion does not like what the zoning administrator has said, then they can appeal to the appeals and variance officer. And then I will argue before the appeals and variance officer why Jen got it right. Now, sometimes if you make a decision, that appeal can go to the appeals and variance officer as well. And then I argue to the appeals and variance officer why that decision is right. So you're not a quasi-judicial body in our city ordinance. But if our ordinance were ever to change and you were given that appellate authority, then you would be acting in a quasi-judicial capacity. You are more in an administrative capacity. All your authority is administrative, and it's been delegated to you by the city. Anything that you hear that is a legislative issue is just a recommendation anyway.

So can you give us an example of that one?

Yeah, sure.

Like if I'm talking to people outside of the meeting?

Yeah.

So an applicant, you mean? Yeah.

So I'll give you an example.

Perhaps.

I'll give you an example. If I'm on the planning commission in the city where I live in West Jordan, Utah, and I find out that David Dobbins, after he moved over to West Jordan for a short time, was going to get a Trader Joe's installed three minutes away from my house. And I find out ahead of time, before Trader Joe's announces it, before West Jordan City announces it, and then I go to the other planning commissioners and I say, hey, I really need this Trader Joe's. I got to get my snack fix and I don't want to drive to Draper to get it. Then that would be acting with the intent to influence a land use decision that creates an impermissible bias.

I mean, but is that an impermissible bias? Just because, I mean, you like it. You're not benefiting. It's not, I mean, impermissible bias is pretty strong language, I think. And an actual, these are all like legal words that have a lot of weight.

Well, yes, but we haven't tested this in the arena of planning commissions with land use.

Well, that's why I think it's a word spell.

It's why we don't talk about it in our dinner time.

Right. Right? Right. We don't want to be discussing – well, I would say that it does create – I mean, it's impermissible in the sense that it violates the Open Public Meetings Act provisions.

But not if you speak individually, only if you're speaking in a quorum. Right.

Right. But if I'm lobbying votes or if I'm, or how about if I were to go and tell all my neighbors, hey, this is coming, go and speak in favor of the Trader Joe's when it gets to planning commission? You know, that's kind of lobbying. That's probably not.

On behalf of an applicant.

On behalf of an applicant. That's probably not permissible. Or here's an interesting one that's a little bit more applicable. If in your capacity as planning commissioners, you get a say in items that come before you before they go to council. So do all of your lobbying from the dais when those items come before you, and then I would recommend that we not say anything after that to council members especially, right? Because they'll read your report and they'll see what it says. I don't know what that, like you said, Mary, it's a word salad. We don't really know what this means.

Well, and I don't – I mean, I take issue with the last thing you said because that is absolutely not impermissible according to our rules or state law. And I can tell you that definitively. So I do take issue with that.

Okay.

I don't think that is any sort of violation to this or our rules. Well, like I said – We can move on.

This hasn't been tested yet. And so –

Well, but that's in our capacity. We're not allowed to create bias in the proceeding that we are voting in. That most certainly does not exclude us from participating in our own city and lobbying our city council members after we have heard something. Absolutely, that's not what that says. So that's what I take issue with.

Okay, so here's this next one. Deliberating about specific pending land use applications in a planning commission meeting with staff or with an elected official is not cause for removal. So not cause for removal about That's the next one. So you're right, Mary, on that one. But impermissible bias, I still don't know. All right. Conflict of interest.

Maybe we'll know it when we see it.

I don't know.

That's a legal standard, by the way.

That is a legal standard, but that's a stupid legal standard.

I know. That's why I said it.

I don't know what we're going to get to. All right. So conflict of interest. Anybody want to give some examples of conflicts of interest?

When we have a financial relationship with the applicant.

Correct. What else?

Well, an application that is ours. Like if I were to apply for a conditional use permit, I could not sit on that panel.

Correct. What else?

We've recused ourselves if a close neighbor or friend is an applicant.

Oh, that's a good one, but we're going to get to it. It's not.

But we've done it anyway.

But you shouldn't.

You don't have to. But if they're a client of yours. If they're a client, yes. That's a totally different situation. But just a friend or somebody you know, you don't necessarily have to refuse.

So how about levels of consanguinity? Do we know what that means?

No.

Consanguinity means blood relations.

Spouse or parent.

Spouse or parent. What else?

Child. Child. Child.

Sibling.

Cousin.

Cousin, aunt, uncle. Another one is an adult living at your house who's unrelated by blood. So if you have a tenant.

You're saying it's a conflict if it's a blood relative?

Yeah.

Where's the line then on? Well, if it's a tenant, you're in a financial relationship with that person. How far removed? Yeah, like someone.

The state ethics law says something about it. I can't remember what it says, but I think it's like three levels of consanguinity or something like that. Like grandparents, aunts, uncles, like that level of orbit of your family.

So my cousin would be a conflict.

Yeah. Yeah.

Because I did recuse myself when my husband was here, but that was the main reason I did was because I had financial ties. So I did recuse myself. But when I talked to the attorney prior to the meeting, the fact that I was a relative, I was told it was not an issue. But I recused myself anyway because there was the financial in addition to the relatives.

Yeah, so that's a reason to recuse. The level of consanguinity is also a reason to recuse. Getting back to this, if it's going to, a reasonable person would look at it. Okay, let's say I have a cousin who I haven't seen in forever, and I don't recognize when they come to the dais. You laugh, but that actually happened to my brother. My brother was a missionary in San Diego, and he was at somebody's house. And this person whose house he was at was a child care person. And somebody came in to pick up their kid. My brother was sitting there waiting for this person to pick up their kid and leave. And this person looked at him. He's like, Dushane, are you my cousin? My brother is like, I don't know. Who are you?

Were they first cousins? Yes, my first cousin.

And he said his name and he was like, oh, are you are you Aunt Mary Ellen's kid? He's like, yeah. He's like, yeah, you're my cousin.

You just need a family reunion stat. No, thanks. Maybe they didn't recognize me. Or not.

Pass. So if it's something like that, you're probably not going to be influenced. But I think that there is an ethics law on the books that says this level of consanguinity. All right, so we're going to do an example. A planning commissioner sits on the board of a charter school, and the charter school is looking to add a campus in Draper. The parking deviation study says a deviation is permitted. The planning commissioner votes to grant the parking deviation. And does this action constitute a removable action? Why or why not? On the board of a charter school and on the planning commission.

I mean, there's a conflict for sure. Yeah. Yes.

Okay, why?

There's a benefit to the commissioner in their capacity as a board member.

Well, they're on the board.

Yeah, they're on the board.

They are the applicant or a party to the applicant.

Could the parking study be legit? And it's not a problem.

Sure doesn't mean that there's not a conflict of interest just because the outcome The outcome doesn't dictate whether or not there's a conflict right?

It's not outcome determinative of all if you have a Position where with a pecuniary interests in a different capacity, and then you also on the Planning Commission you don't vote on those things All right, so reasons for me.

I'm being distracted by the cookies in the other room Todd, will you go get them for us?

These are some things.

Bring some napkins, please.

It's snack time.

I want one of the chocolate ones.

Okay, go ahead.

Yeah, let's talk about reasons for recusal. And this is my meme. I don't always recuse myself, but when I do, it's for more than being just neighbors. um because that's not a that's not a reason necessarily for recusal again if you have a pecuniary relationship with your neighbor probably should recuse all right so our reasons for recusal the state statute now requires that we codify them uh dcmc 19109 or 191010 and the others are our states or not i'm excusing our city ordinance regarding our ethics laws And our amendment to the Planning Commission section that we're going to be implementing soon is kind of a belt and suspenders approach because Draper City Municipal Code 191010, which you're all already bound by, spells these things out as well. So our amendment to the Planning Commission section that's going to mirror state law, it's just kind of, it's redundant, but we're going to put it in there anyway because the state law says we have to put it in our Planning Commission code.

So the current code where it resides, is that applicable to any city voting member of any commission or city body?

191010? Yeah. Yeah, because it's a municipal officers and employees ethics act relationship.

Right. Okay.

So you are all officers of the city.

Yeah.

So 191010 applies to you as well. It's our ethics code. We will be doing a training on that sometime.

Will it be identical to the current more widely applicable code, the update?

No, the update's going to follow directly what the state statute says in SB 284 about the planning commission ethics specifically. Okay. But it's basically the same thing. Yeah. But we're required to put it in by statute. It's kind of redundancy, but we're doing it because we've been told to. All right, so we have new training requirements. We need to train you on the role of the planning commission in administrative, legislative, and quasi-judicial functions. We've done a little bit of that tonight. Legislative, you don't have any. Quasi-judicial, you don't have any, and your role is administrative only and recommending body in the other capacity. Interesting thing is where the planning commission's code is housed, it's housed in a section of our code called subordinate bodies. And we break out our subordinate bodies into two different types of groups, commissions and committees. And the differentiation there is the commissions have administrative tasks delegated to them by the city council, which is permissible. And the committees are recommending bodies only. The exception to that is the audit committee, which is actually should be called a commission, but we call it a committee because the state auditor wants us to call it a committee. But they do have administrative delegated tasks. So we have to give you three hours training on a combination of land use and ethics topics. So tonight's going to account for some of that. Our new ethics topics that must be included in this is ex parte communication and conflicts of interest. We've talked a little bit about those. So this is Senator Fillmore, our sponsor of the bill. And we're going to talk about conflicts of interest for no particular reason at all. with Senator Fillmore's face on the background there. Let's say a charter school board member owns a tech solutions company. Let's say said charter school board member is involved because the FCC offers grant money to help pay for tech infrastructure upgrades in schools across America. And let's say the charter school board member's tech solutions company is one of several companies that bid to do the upgrades in the charter school. And the charter school votes to give that board member's company the contract. Is there a conflict of interest? Why or why not?

I'm going to take a stab at this. If you're on the planning commission, I'm guessing that's a conflict of interest. But if you're in the legislature, I'm guessing it's not.

Very good answer.

Those staff are married.

If you're a planning commissioner, it's a conflict of interest. If you're a legislator, it is not. All right, so here's our next slide for no particular reason at all. And so the standard of proof on appeal, if something that you decide gets appealed, I think we've talked many times about this, but I like to reiterate it every single time because every single time I have to do an appeal, this is there. Applicable standard of proof for overturning a PC's land use decision is substantial evidence. This is our legal definition, these three bullet points. The first three, anyway. That's not a very difficult standard to meet. Yeah, a mere scintilla. What's a scintilla? The weight of a feather. The weight of a feather.

We debate this in law school. I know, we're crazy, aren't we?

Yeah, this is law school stuff, but it is a legal term that gets applied every single time. And something less than the weight of the evidence. So the weight of the evidence is what? For the lawyers. Kendra, we're calling on you now. Yeah. Yeah. What's the... It's something less than the greater weight of the evidence or preponderance of the evidence. What is that standard?

Mm-hmm.

right yeah it's something it's less than tipping the scale slightly one way or the other and more than putting a feather on the scale that's that's effectively what substantial evidence standard is so it's not a very difficult standard to meet it's not difficult burden to me it's could a reasonable mind reach the same conclusion that's another way that it gets defined legally and you know what Hats off to the Planning Commission because you all have great statements that you give in Planning Commission meetings that help me when I have to argue this standard. Mary gave some great statements once with a development that was not putting in sidewalks. And she pointed out, hey, this doesn't meet the code because it's not reaching certain amenities. Sidewalks aren't getting to certain amenities, so people can't walk to them. They have to be in the road. That was one of the examples that I can remember off the top of my head.

Good job, Mary.

I had to go back in the record and I had to listen to the entire planning commission meeting, including all of the, public comments on the topic and then cite to the record in the number. And Gary also pointed a few out about why sidewalks should have been required in different places. So I appreciate it when you do that.

Would you tell us which project? I'm just curious. Or should we not?

Probably shouldn't say it on the record, but if you want to find out afterwards, I'm happy to tell you.

Now I'm curious. But thanks for the kudos.

All right. So who's an adversely affected party? People who own the property, people whose property joins the property that is the subject of a land use application. Now.

Oh, so this is that's who has standing on an appeal. Right.

That's who has standing on an appeal. So the city also has standing on an appeal. So let's say the you as the planning commission decide to grant a conditional use permit. and the city council says we don't want that conditional use permit to be granted we want you to appeal that decision to the appeals and variance hearing officer now i have to go and argue that the planning commission got that conditional use permit thing wrong because this the city could be an adversely effective party um i don't think the city would do that just to be clear um we have

I actually have one that came to mind. I won't bring it up now, but I will. I would like to chat with you about it later. I don't think it happened, but city council was really mad about it.

So this is the interesting thing. We're talking about land use regulations, land use applications, or land use decisions. And that's differently defined than a land use regulation, which is in LUDMA. And in LUDMA, a land use regulation is something that generally is strictly limited to something that's legislatively controlled. It's the discretion of the legislature. So we had a lawsuit that we were defending recently where somebody had claimed that they were an adversely affected party. They did not have property adjoining the project. and we went to court over it and our argument was this is not a land use decision or a land use application this is a land use regulation we had an injunction against us and we won the injunction and the the person who sued us realized they were not likely to succeed on the merits and and said that they would drop out, we have yet to see what's going to happen with that. But you also must suffer, or you could suffer damage different in kind or distinct injury from that of the general community as a result of the land use decision. And this is a weird one, and I've never seen it happen. I can't give you an example of it. If any of you can think of an example, I'm happy to hear it. The second bullet point suffer damage different in kind or a distinct injury from that of the general community as a result of the land use decision.

I mean I can see something well and this is land use. I mean if we're talking about a closure of a road maybe or access being cut off or you know something like that being affected, but I don't know. I don't think it's a high bar.

I don't think road closures are land use decisions. Those are administrative decisions that the city controlling its road as a property owner.

Yeah. So would it be something then that necessarily comes through the Planning Commission to qualify as a land use decision or not necessarily?

Yeah, it would have to be something that's administrative. Because it's a land use application. It's not a land use regulation. So it could be something that comes through the Planning Commission, but there are also administrative tasks related to land use that the City Council does. So it could be that as well.

It seems like one they just added as a catch-all just in case the first bullet point wasn't met, but somehow the second one was.

In the interest of justice?

Yeah, exactly.

I guess so. I would prefer it not be there because... I don't want somebody claiming that they have some kind of distinct injury because then we've got to fight about what that is.

You know, we actually had one. It was a concrete block manufacturing business next to the Humane Society, which they claimed. And it did blow dust around.

It was right next door?

Right next door.

Okay. So this goes back to our immediately adjacent property. Let's see.

And it, yeah, they appealed it and it got really hairy and. Drunk things out for a long time.

Yeah.

But, yeah.

So, let's say a conditional use permit. Okay, so here's... And it was a CUP. Here's my weird example. Let's say a conditional use permit for a mining operation.

Hypothetically.

Hypothetically.

Allegedly. Right.

We're not talking about surface mining. Let's say it's a land use application for a... For... No, no, no. We're not going to be specific to people we like or businesses we like or dislike. Let's go to the world of oil and gas.

It's a make-believe.

I came from wildlife, but I did a lot of oil and gas in wildlife. Let's say somebody is injecting wells with their groundwater refuse. When a well gets extracted, there is groundwater that has to be dealt with, and it's contaminated. And you can't just put it back into the water system because then it has these chemicals. And so what oil and gas companies do is they'll put it back into the ground. Now let's say somebody has a well that is five miles down the road. If we approve the land use application and this person that's five miles down the road because they've got a conditional use permit to mine the oil, Let's call that, that's what our conditional use permit is. You have to get a conditional use permit to mine the oil. And somebody comes in to the planning commission and says, if you allow this conditional use for mining oil, the oil company will put its wastewater back into the bedrock. That's going to make its way into the aquifer, and it's going to poison my cows that I feed out of these water rights that I have for so many acre feet for so many AMUs. and planning commission says we don't know anything about water rights or amus or groundwater but it seems like it'd be okay because you're five miles down the road well they can make an appeal i suspect that they would suffer damage different in kind or a distinct injury from that of the general community as a result of the land use decision um and i think that would probably be a legitimate like gripe that somebody might have and and we should probably have that that bullet point in for somebody like that all right so am i an adversely affected party we're going to go to another hypothetical charter school board member owns property a charter school is located at property b property let's just say for i forgot to put this in there property a and property b are adjacent okay An applicant for a home occupation conditional use permit making custom coffee blends with one employee is granted a conditional use permit on the condition that the applicant take reasonable, enforceable measures to mitigate any odor the operations might emit. We actually had this one at one point in time. Now our charter school board member complains that he does not want to smell the coffee being made because he's a thief of joy from his house. He speaks in his individual capacity because he's never at the school. He's just a board member of the school. And is the charter school board member an adversely affected party?

Doesn't the adverse, well, and now I'm not remembering, does the adversely affected party need to own the property?

Yeah, so let's go back to our previous slide if we want to look at our standards.

They can't complain about something the entire city would, the entire neighborhood.

Right, they need to be more adversely. Personally adverse affected. Suffered damage. General community. Okay, so no property ownership is required. Distinct injury from that of the general community. I would say no. Because everyone has to smell it. I mean, gets to smell it. Excuse me.

It's really good coffee. Okay, so.

There's no distinct injury. They're a board member.

They still have to stick up for their employees, though. And if the employees are complaining about it, then maybe that's something else. I don't know.

Okay, so in this hypothetical, the board member says he doesn't want to smell the coffee being made from his house, but his house isn't on property B. The charter school is located on property B. So here's the other interesting thing. If the charter school board member says, I am making this statement on behalf of the charter school, and we don't want the kids to smell the coffee, You know, that's one thing. But if he comes in and he says, I don't want to smell it from my house, but his property is property C and not adjacent to property A. I don't know why I have this charter school is located at property B. I meant that the applicant owns A or B.

Is the charter school relevant here? I'm not even.

No, we're just using charter school as our example because.

They're our target tonight.

What's that?

They're our target tonight.

Yeah, and for a very good reason. If you want to know more when you get done with planning commission, you can Google Lincoln Fillmore charter school board member.

Oh, I know about Lincoln Fillmore.

So. So, no, he's not an advisor. The charter school board member in this case is not an adversely affected party. They do not have property that's adjacent there because they're complaining about smelling it from their house. Right. They don't own the property. The charter school owns the property that's adjacent. If the charter school board member is speaking on behalf of himself and for his house, that's not adjacent. It's not a distinct injury. Everybody in the neighborhood gets to smell the coffee. So it's time to pick up and move neighborhoods for charter school board member. Do we have any questions? Todd, were you keeping track of time? I don't know how much time that was.

Oh, no, it's been like...

40-ish?

Yeah, I think it was 40. Okay. Yeah, 713 to 751. All right, not bad.

That's my presentation. If you have any questions about ethics or any of that, or if we want to recognize that Mary was right and I was wrong, which I'll do, we can do that. If you want to make a motion, Mary, I'd entertain a motion.

Oh, well, I'll make that motion. I just want, I don't want to.

We need to do it prematurely. We need to clarify with you guys that there's no meeting on the 23rd.

Correct.

Right. So this month the meeting should be the 23rd, but we're skipping it because of the 24th. Correct. So the meeting's on the 30th.

Gotcha.

Okay. We're just pushing it a week, not moving it up a week.

Correct.

Yeah.

Okay.

It gets too hard having the meetings back to back.

Yeah.

Is there any other announcements you have for us?

I've got a couple things. I just wanted to, well, I wanted to give you an update from council, but while Spencer was doing his training, I did look up those houses on 7th East. One of them, the southern house, was built in 1887, and the other two were built in 1941. I'm guessing the two southern ones could be contributory, but not for architectural style. So I don't think there'd be a reason to push for preservation. And then the northern house has been substantially changed too much to be contributory in any way.

Okay, great. Thanks for looking into that. Sorry, I'm an anthropology major. No, no, you're good.

But it's a real issue for Drape.

Yeah, you guys don't have a whole lot of old, old houses. I mean, you do, but you kind of have to find them. It's getting harder and harder to find them.

Christine, I'd be happy to discuss implication of state and national historic preservation laws afterwards, if you'd like, because I am fairly well-versed in those.

I will say we do have a very active Historic Preservation Commission and they do get properties put on the National Register every year. When we can get funding from the State Preservation Office, we do typically partner with property owners on restoration work for that funding. So we do have an active Preservation Commission working towards you know, preserving these homes and these buildings. But at the end of the day, you could have a building on the National Register. And if the property owner wants to tear it down, they can tear it down. So, yeah. But so real quick, we had Tuesday council meeting this week. So there were three items on the agenda. One was a text amendment for corner lots, fixing some issues with code that was approved by the city council. The other two, Kuwahara's nursery development agreement and zoning map amendment and land use map amendment. So this is the Kuwahara property on 123rd, just west of 7th West. That was denied by the city council. They had concerns about down zoning the property from commercial land. garage size reductions in size resulting in reduction in parking and then access concerns.

What was the vote on that? I wasn't even here on the planning commission that night.

That was all three of us.

Yeah, it was a 3-0 positive recommendation.

Oh, I mean on the city council, yeah.

5-0 denial. Wow. Okay. I'm surprised.

Wow.

Cool.

And then the Rort DADU text amendment that also got denied by the city council. And that one, so that text amendment was to allow for a detached structures like garages, things like that to be converted to ADUs, detached ADUs. Council, their concern was the impact on potential neighbors. The neighbors would not have a say or a recourse with the proposed code, so they did have changes. They did state in the meeting that they were open to exploring other options for the property owner on an individual basis, that kind of thing, but the text amendment that was brought before them was just citywide, and they had some concerns on how it may affect other properties.

Well, that's interesting, because we debated that quite a bit, but...

Okay. And that's all I have. Okay, thanks. I move we adjourn. Adjourned.