Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right, good evening. Welcome to our Draper City Planning meeting. Today's date is August 27, 2026. I'm Andrew Adams, and we've got our commissioners up here. We want to thank them for volunteering their time every other week here and throughout the year. Also, we want to thank the staff for getting everything ready, putting up notices, and especially for staying late. I know you guys have put in a full day, so thanks for staying late for the extra hours on these meetings. And then we want to welcome our neighbors and the applicants tonight out in the audience and anyone listening at home. So let's go ahead and get things kicked off. Jennifer, are there any changes to the agenda or will we go?

There's not any changes to the agenda, but I did want to make an announcement. This is Lisa's last meeting. So I want to announce it before the meeting was over. I'm not sure if she's let everybody know, but she is resigning from the Planning Commission. And we have enjoyed having her and we'll miss her.

Perfect. Lisa, do you want to say a few words there, Lisa?

Just a thank you. I appreciate everything the staff has done, all you guys, your work, how you've taught me, and my role as commissioner. And I just am really grateful for that. And I've really enjoyed my commissioner friends up here. That makes it, leaving everybody is what makes it hard. But I've really enjoyed my time. It's been eight years, so I have a few other things I need to get to now. But thank you.

Thanks, Lisa. We sure appreciate having you. It has been years, and it's been fun having you, so having your style. And you're always welcome. If there's nothing on Netflix, like I always say, there's Rose on the back seat, on the Rose in the back there. You're always welcome. And we'll even put you in the front, too, as honorary alumni, okay?

Okay, thank you.

No, thanks. Seriously, we enjoy you, and best of luck with your free time on Thursdays. All right, let's go ahead and move forward then with our agenda item. Thanks for that, Jennifer. Our agenda, the first two items are simply action items. They're to approve the Planning Commission meeting minutes. The first is for July 30th, and the second is for August 13th, both in 2026. Is there anything that needs to be amended in there, or can we get those minutes approved?

Okay, I don't have any changes to you. Nope, no changes. Okay, I'll make a motion that we approve.

Perfect, so that's to approve August 13th and July 30th. Let's go ahead and who will second that motion?

I'll second.

So Gary made the motion and Susan made the second. That's just for the audio recording so they know who was speaking. Let's go ahead and put that to a vote. Gary, how do you vote?

Yes.

Susan?

Yes.

Lisa?

Yes.

Kendra?

Yes.

All right. Phew, passed. So those will go into the annals of Draper City. So let's move on to our first public meeting tonight. It's the Camden Park Subdivision Phase 1 Amended Plat. This is a request. from Philip and Shelly Rosbach and the Weaver Family Trust. subdivision platte amendment request for approximately 0.62 acres located at 11446 south camden road and 1146 south camden road oh sorry let me restate that 11446 south camden road and 11464 south camden road this is known as application 2026 0162-use and nick whitaker you're our staff contact so go ahead nick

Thank you. So yes, this is the Camden Park subdivision phase one subdivision amendment request. Here is the vicinity map. Just right at the city's border there. There's an aerial map. There are the two properties affected. The amendment is taking place here where the property line is between the two properties here. Here's the land use map. The land use designation is residential medium density, and the zone is RF3. So here's a project summary. It's adjusting the lot line that runs between lot 120 and 121 and the location width of the adjacent public utility easements or PUEs. Lot 120 is currently 13,187 square feet. Lot 121 is 14,088 square feet. The proposed amendment would increase the lot size of lot 120 to 13,943 square feet and lot 121 would decrease to 13,332 square feet. Lot 120 would become lot 126. Lot 121 would become lot 127. Because they're moving the property line, they would also be moving the public utility easement. The proposed amendment would reduce The width of the public utility easement, it's currently 10 feet, it would reduce it down to 7 feet in width, which is actually what our code now requires is 7 feet. Here is the current subdivision plat. And the subject properties are right here. And there's a close-up there of the affected properties. And here is the amendment. Let me get a closer image here. All right. So this is how the two lots currently look. And on the right side is the proposed, where they changed the lot line. As you can see, the lot line moves north about seven feet. And then the public utility easements that run on each side of it follow that and then are also the width is decreased from 10 feet to 7 feet on each side. The staff recommendation is approval. The proposed amendment is in conformity with the lot size and setback requirements of the R3 zone. The proposed changes to the PUEs comply with city code. Good cause has been shown for approval of the plat amendment and boundary adjustment. And that is my presentation. Any questions?

Can you tell us more, Nick, about the reason or the purpose of the lot adjustment?

I believe that it has to do with, well, the applicant is here. I would recommend that they give that piece of information. Perfect.

Anything else for staff? We're good?

Okay. All right. Thanks, Nick. Is the applicant here? All right. Come on down. And you've heard the first question there. And if you'll just start by stating your name. Hi. Got it. Perfect.

Are they here tonight? Okay.

Okay. Well, we'll have to wait for the public hearing and see if there's anyone opposed. All right. I don't think we have any other questions for you, but we'll put it up to public hearing. If we need to come back up afterwards to answer anything, we'll do that, okay?

There actually is no public hearing.

Sorry, it's not a public hearing. This is just for approval, so never mind. Thank you. It's just for your input. Thank you. All right. Commissioners, what do you think? Pretty straightforward? Literally? It's a straight line?

Does the city need proof or evidence that both parties are in agreement with the lot change?

Oh, absolutely. And they did provide affidavits that show that both parties are in agreement.

Okay. All right. Great. Thanks.

That was my only question. I don't have any questions. I'm fine to make a...

It's a good thing there's a system for that.

Yeah. So I motion that we... That we approve the subdivision plot amendment as requested by Philip and Shelley Rosebach and The Weber Family Trust for the Camden Park Subdivision Phase 1 amended plat application 2026-037-SUB based on the following findings for approval and subject to the requirements as listed in the staff report dated August 17th. The findings for approval is there is good cause for the amendment. No public street or municipal easement will be vacated or amended. Both parties are in agreement, so I don't see any reasons why we shouldn't approve this.

Thanks, Gary. Anyone second that?

I'll second.

Great. And before we put that to a quick vote, is there any need for clarifying the lot number differences here in between the current and the proposed? Because I'm assuming you're doing everything off-tax parcel IDs.

Yeah, so... Not lot numbers. Yeah, since it's an amended plat, so it does require that the affected lots, since they're changing, have to have new numbers.

Okay. Got it. All right. Well, let's put that then to a vote for approval. Gary, how do you vote?

Yes.

Lisa, how do you vote?

Yes.

Susan?

Yes.

And Kendra?

Yes.

All right. Congrats on that. Thanks for coming in. Good luck with your third car garage. Hope you can get it up for the winner. All right. Let's go ahead and move on to our next agenda item. This is a public hearing. This is Rusty's Pitmaster Barbecue LLC. It's a home occupation conditional use permit. It's on the request of Russell Stevenson, representing Rusty's Pitmaster Barbecue LLC. It's a home occupation conditional use permit request on approximately .64 acres, located at 1645 East Richens Road. It's known as Application 2026-0162-USE. And Nick Whitaker, again, is our staff contact. So go ahead, Nick.

Thank you. So, yes, this is Rusty's Pitmaster's Barbecue LLC. It's a home occupation conditional use permit request. Here is a vicinity map. The property is the blue box there in the center. I should point out that there are two parcels that make up the applicant's property. Here is the land use map. The current land use is residential medium density. Here's the zoning map. The current zone is RA2. So here's an overview of request and business operations. So it is a home occupation conditional use permit request. And the proposed business produces and sells barbecued food. Orders are made online. A smoker is used, one smoker, to smoke meats in the rear yard and the basement kitchen is used to prepare orders. Customers come to the home by appointment only to pick up their orders. Up to and no more than eight customers per hour are scheduled for order pickups, and that's a maximum. No more than two customers are scheduled within the same 15-minute block. Two off-street parking stalls are provided for customers. There's actually, the applicant has actually provided three. The applicant is the only employee and hours of operation are Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday from 4 p.m. to 8 p.m. Here's a site and a parking plan provided by the applicant. So when folks come to pick up their orders, they pull in here, and the applicant brings out the order to them, and then they leave the property. The red block back here is the 250-gallon smoker where the meat is smoked. Let's see. I'll go back to that. Here's the floor plan for the how the residential structure is used. The applicant, as he mentioned, uses a kitchen and it's a second kitchen in the basement to prepare and put together orders. And he also provided a smoke mitigation plan. So where the smoker is located? is 130 feet from, at least 130 feet from any residential properties. And then also he set it next to the west property line because it's a large parking lot to a church. Here is the smoker. Here. And an impact analysis and mitigation identified potential impacts for customers coming to the home and associated traffic, customer vehicles parked on the street, and excessive emission of smoke generated by the smoker. The proposed mitigation is that all requirements of the Draper City Engineering, Public Works, Building Planning, and Fire Divisions are satisfied, that a Draper City business license shall be obtained, that all other required licensing and regulatory agency approvals shall be obtained, that the hours of operation be limited to Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday between the hours of 4 p.m. and 8 p.m., and the customer pickup times shall be scheduled so that no more than two customers at a time shall come to the home to pick up their order, and no more than eight customers shall be scheduled per hour, and that two off-street parking stalls shall be available during pickup times and shall be provided to the customer at the time of their scheduled pickup. Staff recommends approval. The identified impacts of the applicant's proposal can be mitigated through the imposition of recommended conditions and mitigations. And 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 Draper City General Plan. Here's a site photo. And then I added this so you can kind of see to where the, how the property to the west sits relative to where the smoker will be, which is back along this property line. And that's my presentation. Any questions or comments?

I do have one. Is the 130 foot, is that in our code or is that just an arbitrary number that they use to illustrate how far away it would be?

It is not in our code, but it is, the applicant was showing that that is how they are mitigating, one of the ways in which they're mitigating the dispersion of smoke from smoking. Okay. He is the pit master and he is here tonight to answer any questions about smoke. He would be the best person to talk to. Perfect.

I have a question. Nick, did you talk to the applicant or think about not just smoke mitigation, but the scent of meat, the cooking meat itself? I mean, generally people think that's a nice smell. Right. But if it's three times a week, that can get, I don't know.

That is definitely something that we did consider. I believe that that is mitigated by the fact that he's only doing that three times a week. In addition to, well, again, he may be the best person to talk to about how that smell is mitigated and how it travels. But in a residential neighborhood with other residences having smokers, it is a pretty common thing. smell. But again, that may be best answered by the applicant.

He's fortunate to have that parking lot next door.

I know.

Thank you.

I had the same question Lisa did, you know, because of the DCMC code 9-5-080E, where it does say, you know, that safeguards be provided or proposed to prevent noxious or offensive emissions such as noise, glare, dust, blah, blah, blah, odor from the proposed facility. So, I mean, we're probably just splitting hairs here, but some people might be offended by the odors, like you were saying. fence where there's a church. Probably no harm, no foul, I guess. And then my second comment, which staff's probably ready for, since there are two parcels, the proposed location looks like it is on the parcel to the rear. It could be right in the middle. And I brought this up before. I am always concerned when we're approving something where the accessory use is on a separate parcel from the main dwelling and should be on the same parcel as the main dwelling. Per the city's definitions. So, I mean, that could easily be mitigated. He just moves it a little closer to the house, and bingo, you're there. But my whole... I have heartburn when there's two separate parcels and they're not being combined into one or an accessory use or structures on a separate parcel, and this is probably a conversation for another time, but...

I appreciate that.

Anyway.

I appreciate that you bring this up because I believe that is a very important subject to talk about, and I think that... um that we do ask the applicant to move the uh because it is on wheels the the smoker that it should be moved on to the single property here but we should still have the discussion on how to address this issue because you you are right this is this does come up

Quite often, yeah. So I would have the conversation later, but I would like to have that conversation sometime with staff and planning commissioner. Okay, I'm done.

And Commissioner Nixon, another option you may think about if you wanted to impose a condition like that is you could say they could either combine them, that would fix it, or move the smoker. So they could be either or.

Yeah, okay. I mean, it's easily remedied for this particular situation for sure.

But if it were a structure they were using and it was on the other side, that would definitely.

That would be an issue for sure, at least I think so. Okay, thank you. Great.

Thanks, Susan. All right. Thank you, Nick. We'll invite the applicant up. Is the applicant here? Hi, come on down. We've got a couple questions for you. Hi, if you would state your name. Hi, I'm Russell Stevens. Hi, Russell. Hey, so just a quick question on the 130 feet and the scent of cooking meat. What was your mindset behind that 130 foot? I mean, it's more than that, actually, right? You're just illustrating that it's well over 130 feet. What did you have in mind with that number?

Yeah. Yeah. Thank you.

Perfect. And then I also had a question about the hours of operation. So when you say 4 to 8 p.m., those are the hours that the smoker will be in operation, right? Or is this something that would just, is that just for the pickup and the business operations, but actually prepping the meat could take place any time during the week, any other time? So how many days or how many hours a week are you anticipating that the smoker will be running?

When you say cookie, you're meaning the function of cookie, not a cook or a chef or whatever you're talking about. Just clarifying so you don't have all these cooks coming to the house.

It's not a person.

Right. One man show.

It's a process.

Gotcha. Okay. Thanks. The process. Right. Thank you.

You got it. Any other questions?

I'm wondering on the conditions we've got, he's indicated that he has two parking stalls, which is what he's being required. But on condition number six, where there is more requiring three off street parking stalls, should those be the same? I mean, he's got plenty of room, but it's kind of silly for us to require three where he's saying there's two customers at a time.

I can actually answer that question there. So originally, the original plan was to have up to three people come in for 15 minutes. So that plan actually, that parking plan, represents the original three customers coming into the home. During our review and during discussions that we had with the applicant, he decided to reduce that to two.

Two customers?

Two customers, yeah.

Okay.

And then, Susan, did you want to ask about moving that, you know, 20 feet or 10 feet onto the property line? Because when you look at the 130-foot, you know, setbacks that he's trying to be, you know, courteous about.

Yes, right. And I'm sure it's just, again, the logistics. But are you willing to accommodate your smoker a little bit closer, a little further to the south, I guess, so it's on the same parcel as the main dwelling area? Technicality, but yeah. Either that or you can combine the lots, which that would be a lot easier to do for sure. So, okay. Thank you.

Perfect. Okay, so thanks, Susan. So that would mean that then based on that guideline in the future, if you found that it was just going to fit better somewhere else, it would just be on your property line of the first parcel. Or you could come in then at that point and just say, hey, let's just make this all one lot and then put it wherever you want. Of course, with the staff approval, right? Is that kind of what we're going for? Okay. All right. Any other questions for him? Okay. Thanks, Russell. We'll appreciate it. It's a public hearing, so we'll invite you back up if there's anything that needs answering, okay? Afterwards. Thank you. Okay, so I've been raring to go. I love public hearings, so this is one of them. It's our first one tonight. So what you get to do at the public hearing is you get three minutes. If anyone would like to come up and address this agenda item, there's a little red timer up there. You're welcome to do that now. We just ask, you don't have to use the full three minutes. We just ask that in any public hearing this evening, that you just don't go over that limit. So with that being said, with the guidelines, is there anyone that wants to address this agenda item? Okay, I don't see anyone, so we'll go ahead and close the public hearing. All right, commissioners, what are your thoughts?

I'm comfortable with making a motion with the suggested changes, unless someone else has comments. Okay. Oh, what did we decide on the parking stalls? Three or two required? Two? Okay.

Yeah, they can only have two at a time.

Well, two customers, but as far as the required condition number three says three parking stalls.

It would actually be up to two customers during a 15-minute time frame. It doesn't mean that there will always be two at the same time, but there could be.

Okay.

Yeah.

Thank you. Okay. Then I would like to make a motion that we... Approve the home occupation conditional use as requested by Russell Stevenson requesting Rusty's Pitmasters BBQ LLC application 2026-0162-USC based on the findings of approval and subject to the conditions with one addition, number seven, that the smoker be moved so that it isn't located entirely on the main parcel as the home. or he combined the properties and then the conditions, all the conditions as listed in the staff report dated August 17th, 2026.

Great, thanks for that motion. Susan, who will second it?

I'll second that.

Thanks, Kendra. All right, so this is for approval. Let's go ahead and put this to a vote. So Susan, how do you vote?

Yes.

Kendra?

Yes.

Lisa? Yes. And Gary?

Yes.

All right, congrats on that. Good luck with your business. Thank you. All right, so our next public hearing is the Wise Flooring Site Plan and Parking Deviation Request. This is on the request of Mitch Cordner, representing Savio Rentals, a site plan to construct a retail building with a deviation from strict compliance for required parking on approximately 1.08 acres. It's located at 41 West Ikea Way. It's known as Application 2026-0033-SP and 2026-0190-VAR. So Nick Whitaker, once again, go ahead.

Thank you. So yes, this is the wise flooring site plan and parking deviation requests. Here is the vicinity map. Right here is the subject property that blue box. It's right next to I-15. You'd be familiar with it. It's IKEA is right here. It's part of the same parking lot there. Here is the aerial map of the property. Currently it is a parking lot. Here's the land use map. Its land use designation is commercial special district. And here is the zoning map. The zone is CSD, DRC. CSD is a commercial special district. And then DRC is the Dolly Retail Center. That's part of where IKEA is. I actually, let's see, it looks like.

Oh, there we go.

So this is from our city ordinance. This is the area in which the CSD covers. IKEA, of course, is right here. Here is the subject property. This is lot number three. Here is the proposed site plan. The structure is right here, right on the corner here of Ikea Way and Deponia Express Road. It's approximately 17,256 square feet in size. In terms of parking, it follows a different parking requirement than the standard table found in city ordinance. This particular commercial special district has its own way of tabulating the number of stalls. They require five stalls per 1,000 square feet of retail use, just straight retail use. That would require 85 stalls. The applicant is proposing 53 stalls and with that a parking deviation request, which I'll get to further on in this presentation. In terms of pedestrian connections, they're required to provide public sidewalks to the entrance, which they have done. And it does comply. And then crosswalks have different material from parking lot. That's the requirement. And they did comply with that.

Can I ask you a question about that table real quick before we move on? The Draper Municipal Code requires 85 stalls. But what is the, was there a special district or rules for the special district? What did we decide there?

So that is the, this is the special district requirement. This isn't based off of the, we do have the standard table that we use, just the general parking calculations. But part of the, how the ordinance is written for this particular CSD, they have their own parking calculation. And this is the tabulation here. It's five stalls per 1,000 square feet of retail use.

So the, okay, I guess I'm reading your table wrong, but five stalls per 1,000, is that what, is 53 the right, the calculation? Is that the correct calculation, or should it be 85?

So 85 is what would be required, but they're requesting less through a parking deviation.

I think that you just wrote DCMC at the top, and that just confused me.

The special district is part of the code. Yeah. So that's why it is still the DCMC requirement. Just to kind of point out the two different ones, yes, in the commercial special district, it's five stalls per thousand for retail. In the parking chapter of our code, retail would be at 2.5 stalls per thousand. So that's the difference. And CSD requires double.

Here's the landscape plan that was provided. Again, this particular zone has its own standards for landscape plans. And So the overall landscaping coverage that is required is 15% per phase. What they're proposing is 25%. That complies. They need to provide buffer or berm landscaping. just two feet of shrubs or berm, this is provided and complies. Waterwise landscaping is required. They've provided that and it complies. And street trees, they're required from the approved list. Street trees actually exist because it was part of, it was a parking lot at one time with the street trees already there. So that complies. Let me use this. Here are the architectural plans. Again, with the commercial special district, the requirements are pretty minimal. The building height maximum in that, in the commercial special district, is 45 feet. What they're proposing is 25 feet, and that complies. In terms of exterior, There are no restrictions, and what they're providing is stacked stone, stucco, and metal wood siding. And then dumpsters are required to be enclosed in decorative masonry, and they are providing an enclosed dumpster with decorative masonry. So that does comply. This is their photometric plan. Again, the photometric plan is read a little bit differently in this commercial special district. It does not require a nighttime plan or an after-hours plan. The requirements are that the light pole height Does not exceed 35 feet. What they're proposing is 20 feet. That does comply. And then in terms of illumination, the requirement in this commercial special district is that there should be no spillage into any residential areas. And there are no residential areas nearby this development, so they comply with the plan that they've provided. The staff recommendation is approval and the applicant's proposal will create more commercial space within the city and the applicant's proposal is compatible with the purpose of the CSD-DRC zone and complies with its development standards. with the conditions of approval are that all the requirements of the Draper City Engineering, Public Works, Building Planning, and Fire Divisions are satisfied throughout the development of the site and that the construction of all buildings on the site and, excuse me, are satisfied throughout the development of the site and the construction of all buildings on the site, excuse me, including permitting. And that all requirements of the geotechnical report are satisfied through the development of the site and the construction of all buildings on the site. And that the applicant shall provide the engineering department with documentation of fire line sizing and provide adequate fire flow to buildings plus fire hydrants prior to a building permit being issued. Now for the parking deviation request. So there is a way to, of course, lower the amount of required parking through the deviation request process. The applicant did provide a study. Let me back up here real quick. Again, what they would be required to have based on the standards found in the code regarding this commercial special district would be 85 stalls. What they're proposing is 53 through this deviation. So they did a parking study. The study meets the submission criteria for the parking deviation. The study uses three methods that utilize the Institute of Transportation Engineers, or ITE data, ITE studies and ITE recommendations. The study also uses general parking calculations found in city ordinance, including those not used in the CSD DRC zone to determine an appropriate number of parking stalls. The study's findings and conclusion is that an appropriate number of stalls would be between 44 and 53. The applicant is proposing 53, which is the highest number in the report's range of findings. Similar parking deviations have been approved in the same CSD, including Bassett Furniture, which abuts the west side of the subject property and is nearly identical in lot size. And staff believes that 53 stalls is appropriate for this particular site. Here's a site photo. And that's the end of my presentation. Any questions or comments?

So, Nick, it sounds like on the parking, this whole special district was a little bit heavy-handed on what it required, and we'll probably see this again and again for, I don't want to say regular structures, but have you even noticed, like, one of the things that came to mind is that IKEA was even, you know, have you noticed they put now a structure on their parking lot? Because, again, it was heavy-handed, just way too much parking, even for a building that size. So is it safe to say that 85 is what the special district required, 53 is what they're asking for, and our city code anywhere else would allow a number quite a bit lower than the 53 for this size of a building, correct?

Correct. So if they were to use just the standard, the general parking calculations in the standard area, they'd fall into the area of what they're requesting. Pretty close.

Okay. Yeah. So that's, again, that was my assessment of it is that just that over time we realized that that parking, that special district of parking has just been very heavy handed on what was required. So totally in line. Any other questions for Nick?

I just like that there's another big, giant lot next to them for overflow in case they won't have to pour out onto the street or anything like that.

Perfect. All right. Thanks, Nick. Is the applicant here?

Yeah.

Your time to shine. You can come on down. Just state your name like everybody before and then add anything you'd like. Okay. Do we have any questions? Pretty easy. So great. All right. Well, thanks for being prepared. We'll go ahead and put this up for public hearing, then get you back up here if we need to. All right. Let's go ahead and open this one up to public comment. Is there anyone that would like to address this agenda item? All right. We don't see anyone. So we'll go ahead and close the public hearing. Commissioners, what are your thoughts?

I think this is similar to the property we just saw a couple months ago, Bassett Furniture. I think it was very similar. I appreciate the applicant supplying a parking study. I think that gives credence to their request. So I think this is a reasonable request for 53 based on the different scenarios of calculating the cost. number required in the code plus the parking study together. I think it's a reasonable request.

I would agree. I don't get a vote, but I do agree. So I still remember years ago, one of the city council members looked back after approving all that parking over by the eBay building and just went, man, what did we do? You know, what do we do? There's a big sea of concrete and it's not full. So I think this is great just to look at everything on a case by case basis, because there are places that are really suffering with not enough parking. And this is not one of those. So this area is not one of those. So great. Thanks for that comment there. Are we ready to make a motion?

I'll make a motion. Okay. On the parking deviation. I move that we approve the parking deviation as requested by Mitch Cordner, representing Savio Rentals, LLC, application 2026-0190-VAR, based on the findings for approval listed in the staff report dated August 17, 2026. There is adequate parking provided, and let's see. There's eight... Findings for approval rather than read them all refer to the staff report. They're Great. They all fit great.

Thanks Lisa who will second that motion Great well perfect then this for the parking deviation approval Lisa, how do you vote? Yes, Susan? Yes, Kendra. Yes, and Gary. Yes. All right, so I think we've got one more there for the modified approval and

I'll make a motion if that's okay.

Go ahead, Gary.

I move that we approve, this is on the, this is not the site plan, right? This is the site plan. This is the site plan. Okay, sorry. I motion that we approve the site plan as requested by Mitch Cordner representing Savio Rentals LLC application 2026-033. SP based on the findings for approval and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report dated August 17th, 2026. And there's four reasons for approval in the report or five actually.

Great. Thanks, Gary. Who will second that?

I will.

All right. Thanks, Lisa, for that second. Let's put this one to a vote for site plan approval. Gary, how do you vote? Yes. Lisa?

Yes.

Susan?

Yes.

And Kendra?

Yes.

All right. Congrats on that. You guys were overprepared. Sorry everybody didn't get a chance to come up and say something, but we appreciate it anyway. Thank you. Good luck with your construction. Happy to have you there. All right. I think we've got some staff questions.

Items?

I see that on the, oh, then go ahead. Ready? Staff items. Your turn.

Yeah, I just wanted to do a recap of last week's city council for you. There were two items. The first was a text amendment to the town center zone to clarify some density definitions. I don't know if we had a full commission the night that came before the commission. The commission did make a positive recommendation, but that text amendment, what we were finding was with the density allotments in the zone for smaller pieces of property, that the density calculation gave them one or two units. They couldn't build any residential because only multifamily was allowed and per the definition you have to three or more units for multifamily so we added single family and to the town center zone so that a smaller piece of property that may only get One unit per the density that's allowed already They could actually build that unit still would require a mixed-use commercial use as well. And then Spencer had a text amendment to Title III, which is the Planning Commission section and authority section in the code. I believe that was to just address some changes in state law to make sure our code was in align with state law. And then just, well, and Susan brought it up during the home occupation item, but she had sent an email earlier asking to have a discussion and clarification on how properties are treated if you have multiple properties and you but you've got accessory uses accessory buildings none of us had time to dive into that today but it's something I think we can we can bring back and have have a discussion I know for a it's the codes a little bit clear when it comes to actual structures um you know and saying no it's got to be on the property with the house um so but we can we can kind of dive into that a little bit and bring it back for a discussion get some of your guys's feedback and and see if we want to make some changes to the code

I think that'd be great. I think that when things come to the Planning Commission or maybe on a staff level, but that's the time to clean up properties, you know, these little remnant parcels and that. That's the time and could be the catalyst to do that. I know that it happens in other municipalities and it seems to work great. It's a little more work for property owners, but... I think it's important to do. And I think, you know, when you say accessory, use accessory structures, whatever. To me, it's kind of a, I'm going to use the word no-brainer, but if it's accessory and it's on a separate parcel, what's it accessory to? You know, it's just kind of a no-brainer. So to me... That ought to be. We ought to pursue that.

And I didn't mean it to happen tonight.

I just wanted to throw it out there while I was thinking about it. And so, yeah, I'd appreciate it if you folks would look at it and then bring it back sometime for us to look at.

Yeah, we will. Thank you.

Because, Susan, when you brought this up on this one right here, right, this smaller parcel is almost like you can't sell that off, can't build on it. It's too small to do anything. I can see some examples, though, where it's of value to the homeowner that they already have two great parcels, right? And they'd love to leave it that way in case they just want to sell one off or do something like that.

But sell it off? They couldn't sell it off? It's too small to do anything with.

In this case, it is. But let's pretend there were two identical parcels, one that was just the same size as the dwelling. Let's say it's our...

There is one right to the east of it. That is exact. So there's two of them.

See, so if I were a homeowner and I came in and I said, hey, look, I just want a barbecue back here, and you guys said, hey, well, you need to take your one acre, you know, your two half acre parcels and make it into one, I'd be like, no, because I'm in an R2 zone and I'd just like to leave it that way. But that's not what you're proposing, right?

Well, yeah, in a way that kind of is what I'm proposing.

Well, that would be something to consider.

Well, and for some, yeah, for some it's not a big deal. You do a lot of parcel consolidation. If it's in a plotted subdivision, that's a little more. But, you know, he could sell that parcel to someone else, you know, but you can't really do anything.

Yeah, but then he'd come in and say, and then he could redo a lot line adjustment to the neighbor or whatever it is there. But I guess that's the one thing I would caution on is just to say, hey, if I've got two perfectly good parcels, because people go jump through hoops and pay a lot of money and spend a lot of time with us just to get that back to two half-acre parcels, right? So if it's R2 and half acres allowed... And I have two of those, and those are mine, and I want a barbecue on the back one. And you guys were telling me, hey, if you want to have that on the back parcel, you've got to make this a one-acre lot. I'd be like, hmm, well, maybe I'll just put the barbecue on the front.

Like I said, well, in essence.

But I do like the way you're thinking because it's a great time for a small parcel like this that is not falling into that category of value. Like, that's not added value to this homeowner that he's got that lot.

Well, yeah, not only that, but in theory, if you combine them, he actually would probably benefit from tax-wise because he's not getting taxed on two separate parcels. You know, so it's just a way of cleaning up all these little oddball remnant parcels that are out there that, you know, I don't know. I just think it's a good time to do it and clean it up.

And all I would caution is that sometimes the city wanting it clean and wanting it their way would be a The way you wanted it, I want it back my way. And here's the fee and the time and six months later.

No doubt. No doubt. People say, yeah, you take it.

Yeah, if we just want to make it nice.

I'm not doing that. I get that.

But this parcel right here, I'm with you 100%. Yeah. There's no value add to that. He's not building a lot on it. He's not building a nice new home on it. if you wanted to sell it off.

Yeah, I mean, there are whole different scenarios, and this is really nitpicky, unfortunately, tonight. This poor little guy, I don't mean to nitpick. I truly don't, but this was the time for me to bring up this kind of a scenario.

I really appreciate that you brought it up and that you sent me the emails, because I think what you say is 100% valid, especially when we're talking about an accessory anything. Because an accessory is based on the property. So it's also an issue with the terminology we're using and the definitions. So either we need to amend what an accessory use or structure is.

So if he wanted to put an ADU back there, literally the term, accessory dwelling unit, he'd have to come, that would be the time to say combine this. Oh, yeah. Or else you're not an accessory. Yes, absolutely. An accessory would be an accessory to the structure.

An accessory detached structure.

Yeah.

Yeah, he's already got something on there. So that's not an accessory use. That's a.

It's just a use on another property.

It is. And so, therefore, it is in violation of the city. And it's landlocked.

He's got no access.

But I would also like to point this out, too, that this is something that I – this is just observational. I do get a lot of calls, you know, every day with people wanting to do various things with their properties. And many times they don't know that they have two parcels. True. Or two lots. They just bought something and they – Maybe they didn't understand what they were buying, or they didn't fully do their due diligence, or whatever reason, they don't fully know. So I try to express some empathy toward the applicant. Sure. Because... Clearly, they did not know, but they, I don't know. But then we also, sorry, I'm thinking out loud here, but we also then have the responsibility to educate and then bring them into compliance.

Yeah, a lot of times they don't know. How did this happen?

I mean, how did it develop?

I actually did the research. I actually did the research on it.

Okay.

Just, you know. How did it happen? Well, so this, the parcel was, that was created back in 2014.

It's landlocked, though.

It is landlocked, which, again, that should not ever be. You're right. So there's another, to me, there's another issue to resolve. But this goes back quite a ways. And people, a lot of times, they have no clue. Like Nick was saying, they don't have a clue.

But now's the time to do it. Yeah, and I'll say, and I haven't done any research into these specific parcels, but they're... That section of Richards is not within a subdivision. Most of Richards is not within a subdivision. When you get into the older parts of the city, a lot of the land was slowly divided off from the farms repeatedly over the years. So it can take a bit of time to divide. do that research and recreate that history of the parcels and when it was created. So without doing the research, it could be that they did it 10 years ago. It could be that they did it 50 years ago. You know. Oh, right. Sure. Yeah. Yeah.

I did notice, I went to the recorder's website and found that that smaller lot came into existence in 2014. Yeah. Which I believe you didn't own the home at the time. I mean, but I mean, he buys it.

That's when this happened, was 2014. Yeah. But anyway, it doesn't matter.

Well, he's just lucky it was all transferred, both parcels were transferred over to him.

Well, there's a lot of horse trading back then, too.

Yeah, well, it's just a good... Back in the old days. He bought it after 2014.

I'm glad that they both got it.

Okay.

Thank you. I appreciate that.

Well, this is the forum to air it out, so that's good. So thank you, Susan, for bringing that up. Anything else?

I just have some thoughts for you to sign before you leave.

Perfect. All right. Well, thank you again, Lisa. We thank you for your service. And thanks for hanging out with us. So you're always welcome back.

Yes, you will be missed for sure.

Yep. We appreciate all your input and your wise insights. So thank you. All right, guys. Well, I don't see anything else on the agenda. So?

Meeting adjourned.

Adjourned.

I should have said motion to adjourn.