Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. Welcome to our Draper City planning meeting. Today's date is September 10th. My name is Andrew Adams. I want to thank all the volunteers up here. They're sitting to my left and my right. The planning commissioners that are volunteering their time, thank you so much. We appreciate you attending every couple weeks. And then thanks especially to the staff, putting up notices, working with the applicants to get them to this point. And then we appreciate our friends and neighbors out in the audience that are sitting there, and even the ones that are listening in via the internet or website. So thank you so much for attending tonight. So tonight we've got an agenda item. that's going to be changed or continued. Other than that, Todd, do we have any other changes to the agenda that's been posted? Nope. Okay. So it looks like item number 1A, the Bangor Crossroads site plan request, that one's been continued, correct? Correct.

Correct. That will be continued. Got it.

Okay. So let's go ahead and move forward with our business meeting as proposed with that one change. So the first item we have here is a public hearing. It's Blueprints and Blossoms LLC. It's a Home Occupation Conditional Use Permit request. It's on the request of Emily Brinchley, representing Blueprints and Blossoms LLC, a Home Occupation Conditional Use Permit request. on 0.02 acres, and it's located at approximately 67 East Belmont Drive, known as application 2026-0075-USE. And Nick Whitaker is our staff contact. Go ahead, Nick.

Thank you. So yes, this is Blueprints and Blossoms LLC, Home Occupation Conditional Use Permit. Here's a vicinity map of the subject property. It's that red dot there in the middle of the circle, right by I-15. Here's an aerial map of the property. As you can see, the property is multifamily housing. It's a set of townhomes. Her property, or the applicant's property, is the last on Unit 8 there. Here's a land use map. The land use designation is residential high density. And here's a zoning map. The zone is RM2. RM2. So here's an overview of the request. So it's a home occupation conditional use permit, and the applicant is requesting to operate a cottage business that produces cakes and flower arrangements from her home for events. Orders are placed online and delivered to the customer. The applicant uses their personal vehicle for deliveries and to obtain supplies for orders. No customers come to the home. Everything is delivered straight to either the event or the customer's property. There is one additional employee. However, the employee works from their own home and does not ever work at the subject property. All business is conducted within the applicant's home. Here's a site plan. Since the applicant is using their personal vehicle for transportation and getting orders fulfilled. There are no additional vehicles. There are no employee vehicles. So there's no parking plan that was submitted with this. Here's a site plan. So the applicant uses their kitchen on their main floor to do both the flower arrangements and of course baking the cake. And that's the only area within the home that they use for their occupation. Impact analysis and mitigation. Potential impacts would be customers and employees coming to the home and associated traffic and customer and employee vehicles parked on the street. With proposed mitigation, it's 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 and that no customer shall come to the home. and that there shall be no more than one employee, and that no employees come to the home, that only the applicant's personal vehicle shall be used in conjunction with the home occupation, and that the applicant obtain a letter from the HOA or a management, property management group, And providing consent to operate a home occupation that has an additional employee who works remotely. And I know that is the code does require a letter or some type of verification, even if they're working remotely. That's just how it's written in the code. And also, just to bring up a point here, you may have noticed in the staff report, there is the option that the commission can waive that last requirement to get an HOA or to get consent to operate a business. With an employee who works remotely, that can be one of the deviations from the requirements. I can speak more to that later if needed. So the staff recommendation on this is approval, and that's because the applicant's proposal does not alter the established residential character and aesthetic of the area or impact the health, safety, and welfare of their neighborhood or the city. And the applicant's proposal will contribute tax revenue to the city, and the applicant's proposal supports the economic fatality goals found in the city goals and policies chapter of the city's general plan. Here's a site photo. This portion right here is the applicant's home. Any questions or comments?

Well, it doesn't look like we have any. Thanks, Nick. We appreciate that. Is the applicant here? Hi. You want to come on down? We'll give you a quick minute to add anything to that presentation that you like. You can just start out by stating your name. But you don't have to say much unless we've got some questions for you. So don't panic.

I'm Emily Brinchley. And yeah, like you said, I'm applying for a business license to do an event planning business for my home that doesn't generate traffic or anything. It'll just be kind of me doing it from my kitchen.

Perfect. Any questions for the applicant? OK. All right, the way this works is we'll put it up for public hearing, and if we've got any questions after that, we'll let you know and come back up, okay? Okay, thank you. All right, thank you. All right, this is a public hearing, so we'll have a couple of these tonight. The rules for public hearings, we let anybody come up and speak about this agenda item for up to three minutes. We've got a nice big red timer up there for you. You don't need to take the full time on this or any of the agenda items if you'd like to comment on them. We just ask that you don't go over the three-minute limit. So with those guidelines, who would like to address this agenda item tonight? All right. Okay, we don't see anyone, so we'll go ahead and close the public hearing portion of this agenda item. Commissioners, this is pretty straightforward. What are your thoughts?

If we're ready, I can go ahead and make a motion.

I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE HOME OCCUPATION CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AS REQUESTED BY EMILY BRENCHLEY REPRESENTING BLUEPRINTS AND BLOSSOMS LLC APPLICATION 2026-0075-USE BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT DATED AUGUST 28, 2026. And the findings for approval are that the proposal complies with the standards for approval found in DCMC Section 9-5-080E, and then potential negative impacts have been appropriately mitigated.

Great. Thanks, Kendra. Who will second that?

Can we have a discussion? Did you want to include Condition 6 with the HOA letter of consent?

Yeah, that'd be an okay time to discuss that with that condition.

You want to include that, right? Because we do have authority to waive it, condition six. I just want to clarify because we didn't really discuss that issue.

So what could be done is that condition could be modified to basically the commission is able to, I don't want to say the word waive, but to provide a deviation to that requirement. So it would be a deviation to the requirement.

So could you basically remove that? Is that what you're saying?

You could remove it. The issue is that that is a requirement in the ordinance. Obviously, it looks like that was more intended for when you have an employee that's coming to the property. This is a little bit of a different case, but it says any employee. It doesn't say whether they're there at the property or not. But you do have the ability to deviate from that at the Planning Commission's discretion.

So do we need to amend that motion that Kendra made and just add that in there? Is that what you're saying, Susan?

Or I guess I'm questioning, she wanted to include that. You want to include that then for sure?

Well, I was just going to go off the conditions that are there.

I don't see any issue with including it just because currently there is no employee.

And so if she's adding it, then the condition, the way I read it is she would, if there's any employees added, she would have to go to the HOA.

But that would also require to come back because that's not being provided for under the code.

So the way that it was interpreted by staff, and we may need to get a zoning administrator's interpretation of that piece of code, is that even if there isn't an employee at the home working, the way that it is written, you would still need to get that letter from the HOA, even if they're working remotely. In fact, I can read that.

Yeah, so in this case, there is an employee. The employee does not work at the home. So there is an employee of the business.

Got it. I'm good either way, so I don't know what the consensus is.

So basically, condition six here is that the applicant obtain a letter from the HOA providing consent to operate a home occupation that has an additional employee who works remotely. So what we're saying is... Do we bring her up and ask if that's even going to be an issue? Yeah, why don't we do that, and then let's hold on your motion. Let's do that. Let's hold on that for a minute, because I think that'll answer that. Yeah, so Emily, if you'd like to come back down, then you can see us up here stumbling through this. You probably don't. So tell us a little bit about the ability to get a letter from the HOA that says – and what's this letter supposed to say?

I love when we've got to comply with the HOA. So the reason why it's there is if you have another employee – and you have an employee who comes to the home or an employee, then you're required to get a letter from the HOA. And that's it. If you didn't have an employee, you wouldn't need a letter from the HOA to operate a home occupation.

And this is unlike in a single-family home. We don't see this come up because most likely there's not an HOA, even though some single-family homes do have that HOA. So that's interesting. I mean, I've been up here a long time, and I haven't heard that we need to get a letter from the HOA.

Yeah, so the concern with multifamily is a lot of the parking is common shared parking and guest parking. So if the business is going to be utilizing that shared guest parking for their business, we want to know that the HOA is okay with that.

Okay, so what I would suggest, Emily, now that we brought you up here, your employee is remote, correct?

Yeah.

And will they ever, ever be at your house?

No.

Okay. And if you did, you're allowed to have friends over, so if they're your friend, that would work too. But as an employee capacity, right, they could, yeah. So what I would suggest is that we just waive that requirement to get the letter because there's no need. That's what I would suggest. And that's allowed. We could change that in our motion up here and then vote on that, removing number six.

Mm-hmm.

Perfect. Thank you. And would that work for you then? Yeah. So not having to even go talk to your HOA about this?

Right, yeah. I wasn't sure what they needed to approve, so that makes sense to me. Perfect.

That would be great. I don't know what they would even say to that. They'd probably lay an egg and take a month to never respond, so that's fine. So I think that's the best way to do it.

Yeah.

Okay. Okay. All right. Thanks.

Thanks. With the motion, we'll modify it so the report identifies six conditions. The last one, number six, that the applicant obtain a letter from the HOA providing consent to operate a home occupation that has an additional employee who works remotely, we're going to remove that condition. So the motion will only include Conditions 1 through 5 is listed in the staff report.

Perfect. That sounds great. Is there anyone that will second that?

I will second.

Great. So thanks for the motion, Kendra, and then the second from Susan. Okay, let's put this one to a vote then. So Kendra, this is for approval of the home occupation. What is your vote?

Yes.

Susan?

Yes.

Drew?

Yes.

Josh?

Yes.

And Christine?

Yes.

Okay. Congrats on that. Good luck. And then sounds like a great little business. Thanks for coming in and doing it the right way. All right, so let's move on to our next public hearing. This is Exchange 14068 South 145 East Development Agreement Request. It's on the request of Woodbury Corporation for a development agreement on approximately 2.15 acres of property located at 14068 South 145 East. It's known as Application 2026-0195-DA. Our staff contact on this one is Jennifer Jastrzemski. So go ahead, Jennifer.

Great, thank you. So this property is located within the existing exchange office complex there off Bangor Parkway. It is the last remaining vacant property within that overall complex. It's a little over two acres in size. It's within our CR regional commercial zoning designation and our sorry, CR regional commercial land use designation. That's what that map is showing in the CR zoning map designation in the red there. So the applicant's proposing a development agreement. There's a new user that's coming in to potentially build a building on this property. They are approved through the Governor's Office of Economic Development, GOED. They are a new tech company for the state of Utah. So looking at their specific needs and what they need, but also looking at the existing complex. Most of the buildings and parking and landscaping predate our current code. So there's a proposed development agreement. The majority of the requested code deviations in the development agreement would allow for the development to essentially match the existing complex. So, and then the first, so I've just got the asks here in the development agreement, but the first item is asking for additional height. The code limits the CR zone to 45 feet. They are asking for up to 60 feet. Their concept elevation that was in the development agreement that I'll go over in a minute has the building at like 57 feet. So it just gives them a little bit of wiggle room as they fine tune their design. There is a building already within the overall center. This building here, that building is I believe 56 feet tall. At the time it was built, the code allowed additional building height with a conditional use permit. The conditional use permit for that building specifically said it is for that building only and not the others in the complex. The provision allowing additional building height with a conditional use permit has since been removed from the code. So they are asking for... a similar height to that existing building with the development agreement. Architectural materials, they're asking for materials that are similar to what's already used within the complex, allowing for tilt-up concrete, EFIS, and then a corrugated sheet metal as primary materials. Currently, tilt-up concrete is only allowed as a primary within our manufacturing and our CBD. zone and then a fist and metal or secondary materials and then facade articulation the development agreement would allow variations that are compatible to the existing buildings where our code has very specific horizontal and vertical standards you know every 30 feet you have to have I think it's five foot variation it's very specific So they're looking for a little bit of leeway to just match what's out there now. Parking lot landscaping, they're requesting to eliminate landscape islands and head-to-head parking rows. And with the allowance that they might use tree diamonds if they can make that work in the site plan. The code does currently prohibit tree diamonds. It didn't used to. There are some tree diamonds in the parking lot. already within that complex. And then I don't think any of the landscape islands in the existing complex are located between the head-to-head parking rows. Parking numbers. Now, this office complex has shared parking amongst all the buildings, but when the existing buildings were built, our code allowed a minimum maximum range of 25%. and that's based off the base parking number of four parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of building floor area. The code now has a 10% min-max range, so they're not asking to change that base number of four per 1,000, but they are asking to use that 25% min-max that the rest of the complex has been built under. And then they are asking for a concurrent review of the site plan and the building permit. The development agreement does have requirements that they apply for their site plan and go through the first round of reviews and address those comments before they submit for the building permit. That way we know what the building that... The plans examiners are reviewing in the building department. We know that's that's generally what is going to be built There's not going to be some major changes because we haven't done that site plan review yet The concept plan has been updated a little bit since the Planning Commission packet went out so this is slightly different Generally the parking and building is in the same location they were able to put a landscape island here. Still no landscape island back here. The parking is pretty tight. So there were a few changes, but generally this would be the site plan. You've got your shared drive aisles here, cross accesses to the other office buildings. And then here are some images of the existing buildings within the complex showing the material usage and architectural style. So they are... mirroring that with their building. It's just going to be a little bit taller. The buildings you see here have that architectural feature. They are mirroring that, but that is actually a fourth floor on that building to give them some space that the company needs for their technology. but it will match what's proposed or what's built. But happy to answer any questions you guys have.

Jennifer, do you have a picture of that building that's already that other height? That's similar height. I know these are not. I do not.

Well, actually, that might be it right there. Is that it? At four stories, yeah.

Okay, we can ask the applicant, too, if they can verify that. Mm-hmm.

Okay. Yeah, there is a representative from Wadsworth here as well.

Perfect. And then can I ask you, too, so what's the – every island, when you're talking about an island, you're saying that that should have landscape on the island, correct, when there's – head-to-head or bumper-to-bumper parking, there should be an island in between?

Yes, so our code requires landscape islands at the ends of parking rows, and then if you have head-to-head, so this is an example of head-to-head parking, it would require a landscape island there as well.

As shown on the other side, that's code. Tree diamonds are not allowed, thank goodness, in Draper anymore, so thank goodness. Okay.

I will say these tree diamonds here are actually installed already.

Oh, great.

Those are existing.

Good. They have trees in them?

I haven't been out there to verify, but they did when they were put in.

Sometimes they're just diamonds. They just take your bumper off, or you forget it's there, and then you pull forward, and you have no bumper. Yeah, but there's some detriments to that. So if those are already there, is that kind of – well, I'll ask the applicant that, but I just want to be clear on what – would normally require is a landscaped island. When you're saying island, that's not just a sea of concrete, right? Like, you'll see parking lots where they actually do have an island in there. Like, let's take Harman's, for example. They'll just have an island right in the middle, Walmart, whatever you have. They'll have a head-to-head parking, but it's cement. It's just a big sidewalk. Does that also, could an island look like that, or will it always have landscape on it as per code?

Park code requires landscaping.

Got it. Okay. So anytime we see that, that's on a development agreement, clearly, or a deviation. Okay. All right. Those are the questions I have. Anything else?

I just wanted to comment. So they're requesting the height of 60 feet, but the architectural feature is another 14 feet. So in essence, we're talking 74 feet. If I'm understanding this right.

Yeah, so the code allows architectural features to go up to 14 feet already. So it's already an allowance. So that would be a roof design, elevator bulkhead, screening for mechanical equipment, that kind of thing.

So the building that's similar to it is 56 feet. Is the architectural feature also 14 feet above that? I'm just trying to get a comparison here. So is it also more like 60, 70 feet then?

Correct. Yeah, because you're going to have, we're going to measure that height to the top of the parapet wall.

Right.

And then you're going to have your screening for your mechanical equipment or whatever.

So it's a good point, Susan, right, for height, because when they build this, you're like, oh, whoa, that's way taller than... Yeah, because if this one's like 70, the other one really is 56, including the architectural features. You're talking 20 feet difference.

That's why it's great that Jennifer pointed out that there's already a building that looks like this, that has this, and that it's already got that same height. And what you're saying is, does that height include or not include? And you're saying it does not include because that's allowed on anything, that 14-foot architectural. Right.

Is that right? Correct. The 14 feet's allowed outright in our court.

Okay. So we're really talking very similar. Correct. Okay. Thank you.

All right. Thank you, staff. We appreciate that. Is the applicant here? Hi. Come on down. And if you just state your name, and then clearly we'll have some questions for you.

First off, thanks for the time and having us today. I'm Jason Prisbila, here today representing a partnership between Woodbury Corporation, a local multi-generational family company here, with another group called Hunt Companies, who we've partnered with on multiple projects throughout the state of Utah. Really excited for this project and this user. They're currently headquartered in Arizona, looking to open their first office in Utah. They're defense and tech related, and looking to bring around 100 employees high-paying engineers and employees to the area and to the state. They also recruit heavily from Utah schools. So for probably the past 10, 15 years, the whole company has asked themselves, why don't we have a location in Utah if a good portion of our talent is from Utah schools? So they're really excited to have this as their flagship Utah location and be a good recruiting and landing spot for a lot of the higher education here out of Utah.

Got it. So as to my question or the question on height, on building height, can you identify which building is similar just by picture? Like Jennifer had this picture here. Is that the building we're talking about?

Yes, that's the four-story that's just south of the proposed development.

Yeah, and this looks like all the Wadsworth stuff up there, right, that they've got. Which this is not, but we're saying the height would be almost identical to this.

Correct.

And then where is that building, Jennifer, that you've got pictures of right here? If you just go back to that aerial. Did you say it was the one to the forefront?

Just to the south.

Like the southwest?

So the taller buildings right here.

That's it? Okay. Okay. Got it. Just to get our bearings. All right. Any other questions?

Is there any, I'm assuming there's no shared parking amongst buildings? There is shared parking, yeah. In the complex?

Yeah, there's an overall business park, CC&Rs that governs the whole park and all the parking is shared and landscaping is managed by the park owner. Okay.

And I can, you saw my question about the tree diamonds. I pulled up an aerial here. They're already there, darn it.

Yeah, they're already there. We do think during construction that we actually may have some damage there and some repairs. So we wanted the flexibility in this development agreement to not add them back in. And so that was one of the reasons we, and then we added the island on the other side because we have enough room to fit it and it will be landscaped with trees. Yes.

So if you go to the aerial, Jennifer, just to see the – I mean, I've just got my Google Maps pulled up here so I can see. There are tree diamonds on your parcel, and the one to the north has no tree diamonds.

Correct. So if you took them out, it would match the property.

It would match. So that is – I mean, I don't get a vote, but that is my preference is that if there is a tree diamond there that doesn't have a tree in it and it's just no water supply, that's why there's no tree in there. then I'd just rather have nothing than a tree diamond.

And they currently don't have trees in them.

Perfect. That's the kind we hate. Well, we don't hate anyone or anything, but that's the kind that we would rather not install or repair.

I'm with you.

All right. So that deviation is already requested, so that's my only. That's just it. Other than flying a red balloon for height, which we don't need to because we've already got a building there to scale from. Okay. Those are my only two points. Anything else from you guys?

The only one that I have any kind of mixed emotion on is the concurrent review. I think all the rest of them, I'm good with the concurrent review. I guess in my previous life, how many times you got requests to be fast-tracked in reviews and whatever, and there's a line this long for reviews and building permits, and everybody's in that line, and then when you allow someone... to kind of jump ahead, I guess is what I'm saying. I have heartburn with that.

Yeah, and I'll add the development agreement does have a couple safety features in there with that concurrent review. They do have to make their site plan application, go through that first review with staff, address those red lines and resubmit before they can apply for that building permit review. So that will give us a chance to get them their red lines changes they need to make in order to meet the code and comply with the development agreement. and for them to address those before we're expending time reviewing that building permit.

Okay, thank you.

Perfect. Do you need to explain your prior life? Just for those that don't know. I think it's interesting.

I'm a retired city planner, so I used to sit over there.

So Susan knows her stuff. So there you go. So people aren't like, you weren't a hit man or anything. I just wanted to clarify that. It was very mysterious. We know that up here, but we want to make sure that we've got to keep up. Thanks for clarifying that. You got it. It's safe. It's a safe environment. Susan's great. All right. So any other questions from you guys down here? Okay. Great. That's it. Public hearing. We'll invite you back up if we need to. Thank you. All right. This is a public hearing with the same guidelines as before. Who would like to address this agenda item? All right. We'll go ahead and close the public hearing portion. Commissioners, what are your thoughts on this?

I think we've discussed any of the issues that were questions, and I think at least I am comfortable with the request at this point.

Perfect.

So if there's no further, I'd be happy to make a motion.

Go ahead.

Okay. I move that we forward one positive recommendation to the City Council for a development agreement as requested by Jason Paisbalas. Sorry, no, I just... I just did... DESTROYED THAT NAME, SORRY. REPRESENTING WOODBURY CORPORATION FOR EXCHANGE 14068 SOUTH 145 EAST DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT APPLICATION 2026-0195-DA BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT DATED AUGUST 28, 2026. AND THERE ARE THREE FINDINGS AS LISTED.

PERFECT. THANKS, SUSAN. WHO WILL SECOND HER MOTION?

I can second that.

Awesome. Thanks, Kendra. All right. So this is for a positive recommendation being sent off to the city council. So let's put this one to a vote. Susan, how do you vote?

Yes.

Kendra?

Yes.

Christine?

Yes.

Drew?

Yes.

And Josh?

Yes.

All right. Okay. Congrats on that. Good luck with city council. So we appreciate that. That's Pris Bila, correct? Yeah. Got it. Okay, good. Just for the record. Thanks. Thank you. Good job. Yeah, he's got to make sure who's here. All right, so let's go ahead and move on to our next public hearing. It's the Snow Zoning Map Amendment Request. It's on the request of Lowell and Tamara Snow. It's a zoning map amendment for approximately 1.35 acres located at approximately 960 East New Hope Drive, known as Application 2026-0186-MA. And Nick Whitaker's our contacts. Go ahead, Nick.

Thank you. So, yes, this is the snow zoning map amendment request. And here's a vicinity map. Again, it's the red square there in the middle of the big circle right off of Fort Street. Here's an aerial map. The property is just over an acre in size, 1.35 acres. Okay. Here's a land use map. Land use is residential low, medium density. And here's a zoning map. As you can see, the zone is currently designated as RA1, which is a 40,000 square foot lot minimum. So here's an overview of the request. It's a zoning map amendment. The current zoning, as I mentioned, is RA1. And they would like to change this to RA2. The difference there in size, at least, is 20,000 square feet. So it would go from a 40,000 square foot minimum lot size to a 20,000 square foot minimum lot size. And real quick, I'd like to point out too that this request was made in 2013, or I'm sorry, in 2016. It was approved by the Planning Commission, but it was denied by the City Council. Here's an overview of the request. So the purpose for the request. Is the applicant wants to rezone the property in order to subdivide the 1.35 acre lot in the RA two zone would allow the applicant to create one additional lot so they could turn one lot into two with this zone change. The applicant desires to age in place and having a smaller lot to manage will allow him. To meet this goal. City code and definitions, they're both the same, the definitions for RA1 and RA2. Land use compatibility, it is compatible. The RA2 zone is compatible with residential low-medium density, which is the existing land use. Staff recommendation is approval. The RA2 zone is compatible with the existing land use designation. The abutting properties located to the north and south of the subject property have RA2 zoning designations, as well as other properties within a 300-foot vicinity. And the request will provide the applicant an opportunity to age in place, which aligns with Goal H and 4 of the Housing and Neighborhoods Goals of the Draper City General Plan. Here is a photo of the property. And any questions or comments?

A question about the last time it was in front of the city council. Were they using the language of age in place? And what was the beef? I guess I shouldn't say that because we wouldn't know because we weren't there. So what was the request? Was it identical to this one?

The request was exactly the same.

You get to RA2.

RA1 to RA2. Aging in place was not mentioned in that iteration, but it was the same request. I forget, was there another question?

No, technically it was the same request. So just using now the age in place. Got it. Thank you. Great job. All right. Questions for staff on that one?

Do we know the specific reasons why it was denied previously?

Yeah, I have that here. So the city council notes that I, or minutes that I reviewed from that 2016 meeting is that the request in that area could change the city's character and negatively impact the area. However, I do point out, or I will point out that this is not an uncommon request for this area. In fact, the abutting properties are RA2 and the underlying land use supports that.

Perfect. Great job. See, Kendra, he did know. See, I just assumed that we didn't go back there. So great job, Nick. Appreciate that. Obviously, there's no site plan. This is just zoning. So where that would be cut down the middle, what have you, we have no idea on that. Well, now we can see.

And the applicant is here tonight.

That'll be great. Perfect. Good. Good questions.

I just want to comment. So it's 1.35 acres, which is 58,000 square feet, more or less. Do the simple math. That could... I mean, it's so close to... Ideally, you could have three lots, 20,000 each, but... I guess he's really stuck to one additional new lot. My question is, he's so close to having 60,000 square feet. Could they come back and ask for an area variance and have three lots potentially? Again, it's an ideal number, just going strictly off numbers and not taking out roads, blah, blah, blah. Is that a possibility? Sure.

So going off of the code, it would not be a possibility. If he were to seek a variance or something, that would be up to an administrative officer to determine that, and not me.

But not likely, really.

Yeah, they would have to provide... you know, the required application and a justification as to why.

And meet state criteria for variances and whatever. Okay. All right. Thank you.

And again, we'll ask the applicant when they come up, but it's good to see the existing home on there, right? If that were just a vacant lot, it's a good catch. Right.

And then so, yeah, unless he was going to tear that down or something in the future, I mean, you know.

That's a good catch.

Okay. Thanks.

Good. Okay. Well, no other questions for staff? All right. Is the applicant here? Hi, if you want to come on down, you've seen the drill. If you just state your name and then you can add anything you like.

Thank you. Thank you. First of all, thanks to you for doing this regularly. Thanks. And thanks to Jennifer because she kind of helped us figure out how we get started on this process. And especially thanks to Nick. Great. Nick was very sensitive about old people aging in place. And he had good advice. He had really good advice.

Good.

And we followed it. Good. So this was a pretty dumpy. The house was condemned. Didn't have a front door. A bank had owned it for three years. The previous owner had been forced out by foreclosure because he tried to rezone it, and the city council wouldn't let him, and he lost the house. And we've lived with that pain for 15 years, knowing what went before us. At some point, we tried to do something. It's obviously a lot that has to... It's a corner lot, so it has two frontages, and we tried to naively do something on the corner. We thought, oh, we're going to build a lovely barn, and Draper said, no, you can't build anything on there ever because it's a corner lot. So we have provided an open space for Draper, and it looks really good on our property. And open spaces always look good on somebody else's property. But we've had no flexibility of what to do. And we have H in place. And life doesn't look like it did even five years ago, let alone ten years ago. And we redid the house. And it's got a little casita for my wife's mother who passed away there. And it's got a pool in it. It's been a wonderful place, but it's too much. We need a little flexibility and some certainty as we go forward of how we... When you get into your 80s, you're not thinking about the same things. So as to building three houses on there, right across the street is a lot that's about the same size. A little smaller, but... It's zoned R3. It's right across the street. So if anybody's got a dilemma with maybe building three, it's not on the east side. It's on the west side. So we're just looking for some flexibility. And the request 10 years ago was not identical. That was a zoning map amendment. and a subdivision request. This is not a subdivision request. This is just a zoning map amendment. And we're looking for some certainty because it affects our finances and our future. So we're just looking for some certainty. That's why now. Ten years ago, almost every neighbor on Fort Street was opposed to this. Just because of the cascade effect, you trigger with this one lot, and pretty soon everybody wants that. So that's the reason it was denied, really, is that there was just overwhelming public opposition from our own street. There were three children living on our street at that time. Now there's 12. 22 It's different And so the first thing my wife and I did was to go to every neighbor and say are you opposed to this We're not asking you to support it. But are you opposed if you're opposed we won't do it and everyone said Well sure So we wouldn't be doing this if there were any opposition. We would not be here because we value our neighbors and our relationship with our neighbors way above this property. So we're happy to place ourselves into your capable hands. Any questions for me?

I do have a couple quick questions about the existing property. What are the structures on the existing property right now? So see the two, is the casita the one that's furthest to the south there that's by the pool?

Uh-huh.

And then what's this other little property there, that little structure? That looks almost like a pool house.

Oh, that is a beautiful she shed.

Oh, okay.

Oh, my gosh.

I've seen this property from Fort Street. I drive by it almost every day.

You could live in that house and just quilt to your heart's content.

Got it. Got it. So I know we're not this far, but Nick, if you pull that picture back up there and this were going to be subdivided, we're allowing for a second lot, a second buildable lot, and I'm assuming that's the plan for finances.

There's really only one option. You can see where that little she shed is, and that's a garden. That's cement, got a cement foundation around the outside, and it's got gravel. In order to get 20,000 square feet, you'd have to run right down the west side of that little garden spot, garden line, right there, front to back. Because this is a private street, The property line goes to the center of the road, so you pick up a little bit in the street. But you can get 20,000 square feet right to the smack dab up at the edge of that garden.

Perfect. So that's where that new property line would be. Yeah.

It's really the only option.

Yeah, it makes sense, too, because it's more than one acre. So it doesn't have to be a nice even split down the middle.

And it leaves about nine-tenths of an acre for the house and the structures, which is, in fact, the same size as the lot to the east. Right next to that red line is a lot. It's a log cabin. But that's also nine-tenths. So there's some nine-tenths lots that are that size. And so it would be the same size as the lot to the east. Great. Those are the questions I have. Anything else?

Okay.

Anything over here? All right. Awesome. Thanks for sharing that. Yep. All right. This is a public hearing like those before, so same guidelines apply. If anyone would like to address this agenda item, we'll go ahead and open that up for public comment now. Who would like to address that agenda item? Okay, I don't see anybody getting up, so we'll go ahead and close the public hearing portion. All right, commissioners, what are your thoughts on this one?

I don't have any concerns with it. I don't know if anyone else has any issues. It appears as though the nature of the street and the smaller lot sizes have increased over the years since maybe these requests were made in the past. There's obviously no public opposition to the proposal, so I don't see any issues with moving forward. So I can make a motion unless anyone else has concerns.

No, I think that'd be great. Go ahead. Let me get to the right spot.

I move that we forward a positive recommendation to the city council. For approval of the zoning map amendment as requested by Lowell and Tamara Snow, application 2026-0186-MA, based on the following findings for approval listed in the staff report dated August 28, 2026. And there are four findings of approval that are listed there.

Perfect. And then can we get a second for that motion?

I'll second.

Okay, thanks, Christine. And then can you go back just real quick, Nick, to that aerial with the house on it? So just something to point out as well. It looks like, let's assume that, you know, these guys aren't surveyors, but let's assume that that line, that lot line has a little bit of... variation or deviance, it could actually jog back behind that property line. And then that's why I wanted to identify what those buildings were, just in case the lot line isn't going to be as they think. So because we don't know that yet, but they kind of have a general idea. So with knowing the nature of those two structures, worst case, If one had to go, heaven forbid, the she shed had to go. Not that. Yeah, not the she shed, but that's what it is. It's not the third car garage or something that needs to be cut into. Right, right. Make sense?

Yeah.

Okay. Yeah, so with that, let's go ahead and put that to a vote. We've already got a motion and a second. So let's start with you. Kendra, how do you vote?

Yes.

Christine?

Yes.

Susan? Yes. Josh? Yes. And Drew? Yes. All right. Well, you've passed here before, so good luck. We'll keep our fingers crossed for you on the next Tuesday night meeting, so good luck with that. Thank you. All right, let's go ahead and move on to, I think this is our final. item tonight this is our last public hearing and last agenda item of the evening it's the ssbm development agreement it's land use map amendment and zoning map amendment request it's on the request of ari bruning representing sai suresh dan duboyina approval of a development agreement to allow the development of the property into four lots on a 26-foot wide private roadway, amend the land use map from the residential low-medium density designation to the residential medium density designation, and amend the zoning map from RA1 zone to RA3 zone. For approximately 1.58 acres of land located at 11511 South, 700 West, this application is number 2026-0126-DA, 2026-0124-MA, and 2026-0125-MA. Todd Taylor's our contact on this one. Go ahead, Todd.

And Todd Taylor's not here, so Todd Draper will be taking care of it. Todd Draper, sorry, sorry. But you're good. We'll just send it over to Todd. Yep. So this is, as you mentioned, three related applications, a development agreement, a land use map amendment, a zoning map amendment. Here's the vicinity map. So over there on, gosh, I forgot, 700 West. And there's the subject property and the general vicinity. You'll notice that we get to the city boundary here pretty quick. This is the aerial map. And this is the land use map. It's currently residential low-medium density. With their request, they would like to move that to the residential medium density. You'll see some of that here in other areas of, I guess, the neighborhood, but in the surrounding areas. And then the zoning, currently RA1. They would be looking to go to an RA3. And then just some site photos here of the property, currently vacant. And I'll point out, yeah, they have a few things, some irrigation and whatnot along the front that they would have to deal with at the time of development. And then just another aerial photograph of the property. So this is some excerpts from the master plan or concept plan. that would be part of the development agreement. They would like to be able to do four lots in this kind of general configuration with private roadway, fire department turnaround. They are asking to go down from our typical 31 feet of roadway width to 26. And then there's the cross-section there. So in the development agreement, Obviously, they'd have maximum dwelling units as shown. The private right-of-way being at the 26 feet instead of the 31. And then as consideration for the city, they would be agreeing to phase this so that only one residential unit was built every so many years and no more before that. So they would... lengthen out the time that it took to build those individual units. And then another consideration that had come up from before, there was some concern about the other properties nearby being potentially agricultural. Well, they are agricultural, but potentially having animals on them, so they would put a notice on the plat and the deeds. to notify any potential future owners of the animals and then that they would not be able to complain about the animals themselves as a nuisance. With that, are there any other questions you might have for me? I know Todd did add a couple other maps in here that might help show maybe a larger area.

I have a question. What's the primary objective for the phasing? Is that just anticipating more of those properties breaking up over time, or what's the specific objective? I don't know.

The applicant could probably answer that better.

Oh, that came from the applicant, not the city?

Yes. Yeah, it was mentioned as consideration. So, yeah, for a development agreement, sometimes we get a park or a trail. And in this case, the applicant's volunteering that he only builds one every couple years, I guess. Right? Is that what we're saying as far as that's what they volunteered as consideration?

Yes. And staff's recommendation is to hear this and then make a recommendation to the city council on all three of those different applications. Yeah.

Since this is a private, they're proposing a private road, if in the future they, 10 years down the road, homeowners get tired of maintaining, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, this private road would not meet city standards for a public road. Do I understand that right?

Correct, yeah. This would not meet those standards or not be able to, if there are homes on the property... Setbacks and whatnot would be pretty tight, even with the R3 zone. And to note that these aren't the actual setbacks. Some of them are not quite accurate, but this is just a concept plan. Setbacks would still be per the zone.

I get that this is a long, narrow property, and those are really difficult to subdivide just for this reason. How do you subdivide it and, you know, come up the road? Other than maybe a flag lot or something. But I personally have struggled with private roads. I'll just go on the record for that. I think they're not... I'm just going to use the word they're not in the best city's interest because down the road, again, my previous life, eventually people, single family homes. They get tired of paying the maintenance, blah, blah, blah, 10, 15 years down the road. They approach the city and say, hey, can you take this over? And it's too late. Can't do it. Can't retrofit the road. So I struggle with these kind of situations where there's a private road that doesn't meet public road standards for when and if that opportunity ever comes. So I'm just making that comment. Thank you.

Your concern is then the width. Yeah. We have a lot of these public roads, but they're like from 1920. Right. They're from before. Sure. Or they could even be, when did we start counting, 1970, 1980? I mean, whenever. It doesn't even have to go that far back, right? Right. But we have a couple of these dirt roads, these private roads, and that's what you're saying. Sometimes the city has to just take those back. And fine if it were 50, 60 years ago, but now to say yes to it now and then say shame on us for saying yes to that and then having to take it back now.

Exactly. I see where your concern is. And then there's always the snow removal, the garbage cans. They have to get the garbage cans out to 700 West. I mean, there's so many things that come into play. Private road sounds great at first, but I've seen so many times over the years... 20 years down the road, people are tired of it. Unless there's enough units, meaning like a multifamily or something where it's on a private road, where there are enough units, the total of them together, it's not a financial strain or whatever, and it's feasible at that point, but when you're only talking a few units.

So I will add, looking at our code, so our code does allow for private roads outright. So the request on this isn't necessarily to have a private road, but it is the width of the private road they're requesting. Because it's long enough that they would need a fire hydrant at the end, the fire code would require 26 feet of drivable surface, which the fire marshal looks at as asphalt. typically. Our standard cross section for a private street with up to five lots is 24 feet, 20 feet of asphalt and two feet of curb on either side. So they're requesting a 26 feet, but they're requesting to have the curb be mountable and drivable for emergency vehicle so that they still have the 26 feet of drivable surface the fire department would require it's just instead of having 26 feet of asphalt plus your curb they're doing 26 feet including asphalt and curb

right yeah so so it is 26 feet of hard surface i guess fire department is obviously okay with it which is good um yeah because again these long narrow deep lots are hard to develop they're hard to do something with and it's hard for someone to keep a big lot like that i get it it's one of those difficult situations so anyway but thank you for explaining that i i again The city code allows private roads, great. I just hope that in the future it doesn't become an issue with all the private roads down the road. That's all.

Perfect. Go ahead, Drew. Yeah, I just had a quick question. Looking through the packet, am I wrong to say that I read about a prior city council meeting denying this before?

Yeah, that's correct. This had come before the city council before and had been denied. So they've been through the time period and they're back again asking for it. But this time with the development agreement, the prior time was just the zone and land use map change.

Just requesting to change it to something that would allow four lots. Yeah. Yeah. What's the difference when they go to private road versus flag lot? So let's move up. For example, if you look at the aerial there, there's a couple flag lots. So when does it go from a flag lot to a private road? And what are the restrictions there? So for example, if they were to cut this into requesting to cut this in half, and it was just a flag lot, not really in the back, but just access, it would be a flag lot in the back and then a smaller one in the front. Would that have the same requirements on the 26 feet, or could that be a lot narrower?

So kind of two points here. First off, the difference between when we do a flag lot or when it's on a private street, flag lot is a single lot in the back. If we get more than one, it becomes a private street. The other problem here, 700 West is a classified street, and we do not allow flag lots on a classified street.

So that counts that out. So really, they would have to do it privately?

Yes.

In order to subdivide it. I mean, I'm stating the obvious, but... Got it.

All right. Okay, no other questions for staff, so we'll invite the applicant up. Thank you. Is the applicant here? Hi. Have you just state your name for us and then add anything you like?

Yeah. My name's Ari Bruning. I'm a land use attorney and a planner. Fellow planner, thank you for taking the time to listen to me. I'm representing the owner of the property here. I put together a few slides. I'm going to try not to kill you with death by PowerPoint here, but just wanted to share a few things. Do you want to go to the next slide?

You actually have a mouse right there. You can actually control it if you'd like.

I have a mouse. Look at that.

Did we give him the trick mouse? I have power. Yeah, we've got the good mouse there. You were actually just one slide at a time, so lucked out tonight.

That sure beats saying, next slide, please. So first of all, in terms of consistency with the rest of the neighborhood, I wanted to take that head on. If you look within a third mile of this property, about 80% of the lots there are already zoned R3 or R4. So the the ra1 lots are kind of an anomaly in this area This is really kind of getting this more in keeping with the rest of the neighborhood And took a look at the general plan I'm gonna go through a lot of these But there are a number of provisions the general plan that this seems consistent with including infill development on vacant lots and reducing government regulatory constraints to enhance housing affordability, reducing water use and conserving resources like land, clean air, water, and energy. I'm going to talk a little bit about all of those. First of all, this map from Wasatch Front Regional Council shows areas where either there's better than average access to jobs or worse than average access to jobs. This area has better than average access. So if you look at it from that standpoint, putting more housing there is a good thing, People are closer to work. They don't have to drive as far. It creates better access to opportunity, less traffic, fewer emissions. In terms of conserving water, this chart is a little complicated, but the solid line, so x-axis there is density, essentially. And then the solid line is how much water is used. But it's important to look beyond that and look at how much water is actually consumed on a lot. So when you water outdoors, most of that water is consumed. When you take a shower, that water goes down the drain, goes back into the system, ends up in the Great Salt Lake. And so when you look at this consumptive use line, that dotted line that goes down as you go to the right, the denser you get, the less water you're using per acre and particularly per person. So there's a benefit there. Also, we all know we have a housing shortage. I know that Four Lots is not going to alleviate our housing shortage, but every little bit helps. And then a few other points I want to make. So the owner already has pulled a building permit for one house and is looking for certainty to know whether there is a potential for more lots in the future because that helps with locating that house, designing the utilities, and so forth. And so that's the reason for it coming forward with this application now. But it has no plans to build those other homes in the near future, which was why We offered up in the development agreement that we delay construction of those over time so that any impact on the neighborhood is delayed. There isn't a sudden influx of homes and so forth. Also, this parcel, as far as I can tell, is a non-conforming parcel because in the RA1 zone, there's a limit on the ratio of length to width. So by doing this, we'd make the parcel conforming. And then also, there's a positive impact on the city fiscally. more lots more property tax revenue without a really any increase in expenses because the utilities in the and uh... rotor private privately maintained now is mentioned that uh... the landowner came forward with a proposal i think it was about two years ago exactly the timeline uh... and there were some concerns raised by neighbors and so uh... wanted to come back with a development agreement that would address those concerns One of them was there are some owners who have some large animals, and they were worried that people moving in on lots that were a little smaller than theirs might object to those large animals. And so in the development agreement, we have this requirement of a notice on the plaid and the deeds and a waiver of their right to object, essentially. Although I'd also point out that there are already a lot of R3 and R4 size lots that are adjacent to these lots already, so... And then also, I mentioned already, the delay of the development of the additional homes. The transition's gradual. And then we've already talked a lot about the private roadway width, just clarifying that the drivable curb could be included in those 26 feet. Since this is such a long, narrow lot, that helps a lot. So I think, as I pointed out, this is pretty consistent with the rest of what's in this neighborhood. And I think it'll be good for the city. And the impact is pretty minimal, I think, on the neighbors. These lots are still going to be pretty big, 30-acre lots. And you're probably really only going to see that one home from 7th West. The rest are going to be back behind as it slopes down toward the canal there. So with that, I'll take questions.

So the staggering or the phasing for the other homes is, I guess I'm just, in my mind I'm thinking, why not do them all and get the construction over with rather than, you know, five years and five years and five years. Is that what they want to do? I guess in their mind, is that what they want to do, just stagger it out or whatever? Sure. I'm trying to understand that theory.

The owner really just has no plan to build them right now, right? And because he's doing that first house, he just wants to know that eventually he can. And so that was just an offer to help alleviate any concerns from neighbors about impact on the community.

I'll comment. I think it's a good idea, and I'm glad that you're offering to include that statement on the plat about the large animals so that people who potentially are looking at lots, if this is approved, kind of puts them on notice because, yeah, then they know what they're buying.

I do have a quick question. When you do your radius there, I mean, you know, it's not people's court, right? It doesn't matter what's going on around it or, you know, what precedent is. But as we're looking at this, as we're looking at the zoning, clearly there's higher density over across, right, over the new construction. These long, narrow lots, you know, aren't really similar to those. Yeah, see what I'm saying over here. So where we've gotten this, this was a development agreement as well, right, that we've gotten the orange, the golden rod there. Correct. So that was a development agreement here. So what's the consideration, again, for the city? I'm assuming that you did a radius around here, and that's where you got your 80%, 20%, right, on that graphic?

Yeah, so 1,700 feet, which is about a third of a mile.

Around there, about a third of a mile?

Yeah.

Yeah, so just in a radius around that. So as we look at that, fine. So with the development agreement, it Do we have anything like this? Have you seen anything like this that we can kind of gauge this is what it'll look like? Have you seen anything like this in Draper or maybe even in other cities that have these long, narrow lots that are slamming four homes with a private road down them? That's a good question. Because we get this a lot. We get this a lot because of the nature of these long, narrow, you know, pioneer lots that you put your house in the front and then you live off the land in the back.

Yeah, I am aware of one in Taylorsville that I've done a little bit of work with. Similar situation is very off of 47th South, very busy road, narrow property. And so they did a similar long, narrow road with the hammerhead turnaround for a fire truck there. And it looks pretty nice.

Yeah, it's not even the lot size, really. I mean, that's fair. I mean, smaller lots. We've got, for example, elements here right by that new proposed development. And right off of 3rd, I guess I should say, after you hit the charter school, there's that brand new development that went in there. And again, so people are settling on smaller lots. That's fine. It's more the orientation. So as we start to get, I mean, I'm looking at these aerials all the time. I'm looking at these, so forgive me for keep bringing these up. But that is so narrow with the orientation for this to fit. And the lots just are problematic. I mean, if you orient one home, you know, if you place one home the way that they have already done so in the neighbors to the north, you're almost losing the whole back lot, or you've got a football field in the front. But the orientation on these, just kind of putting those down in there, I always just like to see some kind of... like a sample or some kind of other example of this being done because I can't even picture what that would look like. So sometimes these neighborhoods, I mean, in a way it does kind of ruin that. whole neighborhood just to say hey they're all oriented differently um in a row like that with a private road so again it's narrow it's problematic it's what it is what it is they're just trying to do something with this lot so um it's not really even a question it's just if you sure there's a place in taylorsville but i can't think of anywhere that we've got in draper that looks like this so i'll kind of discuss that with staff but that might be something that yeah because it's hard to envision yeah

I mean, the two homes to the north, well, there's a couple lots to the north, one, two, three, three and four further north, very similar in size, width, whatever, but, you know, the home's right smack in the middle of the lot or close to it, so... They've got a huge backyard. I'm trying to visualize.

It's not so much. One of my concerns, and this isn't the city's place to decide, but the concern is, like, what kind of home can you even build on there, right? Is this going to be a, you know, 1,300-square-foot Rambler, you know, two-story? Two-story. I don't know. I don't know what they would put on there that is congruent with. I mean, you've got homes down in this, in that Wright Homes development. Those are... It can be up to $1.3 million, $1.4 million, maybe $1.8 million as you start to go across Seventh. Then you look at the new stuff that went in, very expensive. But again, these are not bigger lots. They're just... They're bigger homes. I mean, you still have some of those homes are still 5,000 square foot homes that are slammed on those size lots. So, again, not really a question, just observations as far as why this didn't go through. It's four homes on, I know the parcel that's there, you know, there have been parcels that wouldn't go down to third, you know, R3 or RA3, whatever we were calling it back then. And then this is, in essence, is going RA4. And with the development agreement. One last quick question. What is the consideration? So development agreement, the city gets something, you get something, which is higher density. What is the city getting for this? Just so you can clarify that statement, other than what staff said.

Yeah, just basically what Todd said. The notice about the animals, the delay on development.

How does the delay on development, how does that benefit the city?

I think it just mitigates any impact on any neighbors. It just takes more time as opposed to overnight. You've got four homes there. I also want to mention that the building permit that was pulled, I'm pretty sure, is for a fairly large home. I don't know exactly how many square feet, probably 4,000 or 5,000 square feet, and I think the intent is for all four homes to be similar size.

Okay. Andrew, can I jump in here for a second? Yeah, please. So when we're talking about consideration, forbearance is a type of consideration, and if we approve the rezone, then the entitlement is to be able to build all four right at once. So by phasing it, that's forbearance on the part of the applicant, and that's adequate consideration. Perfect.

I didn't think that would be cool to the city, and if it is, then... So shall it be, right? Okay, forbearance. Okay. Any other questions?

Okay.

Thank you. We'll invite you back up after we do public comment. Thanks. All right, so this is a public hearing. We'll go ahead and open it up for public comment. Who would like to address this agenda item tonight? Come on down. And if you're considering speaking while he's speaking, you're welcome to kind of come down and get closer to the front. You don't have to be too polite. So go ahead, and as a basic guideline, three minutes, and just start by stating your name.

Okay, I'm Rudy Tolbert, and I have the lot just below. You can go to that aerial picture. So they never mentioned anything in this about 7th West to Willow Creek. what the elevation changes. Any idea?

We'll just address us, so it's just send only, and then we'll write down our questions.

I'm guessing it's 40 feet, so pull up that aerial picture. And so the street is going down the side of my property. And so about, well, you can see the one in mention. I don't know if you can. So this is the lot. It's flat up here, but about at these trees, it starts sloping. So you've got a slope that goes down, I'm guessing, 40 feet. So right now, I've got, to my property, this has been built up with dirt, and it would have to have a retaining wall. And so I'm guessing the retaining wall could be up to 15 feet high. And then you put a proper fence on top of that, you've got quite a fence there. So we do have our own irrigation company that I don't use any seedy water to water my front yard or my back yard. It's all a private irrigation company that we pump out of a ditch line that goes right down this east side of Seventh West. So couple considerations is the fourth lot that goes down, you've got a hill that goes down. If you put four houses in there, those at least two homes would have to pump their sewage clear up to 7th West. It's got that much drop. There's no flow. There's no way to get your sewer is not even there yet. So you've got to pump up to the sewer, which is not there. So consideration for that. I mean, there's construction on Seventh West and I don't know if they're putting sewer in and when that is. We've heard that's been coming for years. So I would consider some of that because if you're pumping sewer at least three to 400 feet up their own line so it doesn't backfill into their homes, that's quite a consideration. I think that's all I've got. Thanks for your time.

Thank you. Alright, who's next? I need to get you guys a clipboard back there so you can get the order sorted out.

My name is Jan Sharp. I'm at 11471 South 700 West and I'm the Does this monitor? How does it work?

Just roll it around on the table there?

Yeah, it's a mouse, so you've got to roll it around.

What about something to show where...

Oh, perfect, to the north.

So to the left here with the... That's hers, that's mine, okay?

Oh, perfect.

And we go all the way down, and we also irrigate, and it's flood irrigation, and it doesn't cost the city anything. And it doesn't cost a lot of money for us to use water, and flood water does not evaporate as much as using a sprinkler system, just so you know. And with the grade down, we have been stuck at winter trying to drive up our driveway. So just think about any of the houses that map that you had there with four houses on it. The bottom ones are down at the bottom. And that has flooded before. I don't know if you know that, but it flooded up to five feet of water because Willow Creek got blocked. So any of the houses down there could be susceptible. That's a floodplain. So that's pretty dangerous, okay? And then... I don't know if you realize, but this whole area was a subdivision, and it was a Sue Allen subdivision, and it was divided up in the way it was from the farm lands so that everybody could have long lots, that they could have animals, that they could have kind of peace of mind of not a lot of neighbors. And that's why we all bought into it. And on every side of this lot, everybody has that type of a lot. And to put four homes in there and have houses in the front, middle, and then behind all of us, when I'm down in my lot, I'm going to be looking at houses, which I didn't used to. If I'm coming out my driveway, instead of a clear view, there's going to be houses because he's going to build up right to the road. So it does not conform with the neighborhood. And I've heard a lot of you talking about, you know, things should conform with the neighborhood and make the neighborhood be more congruent. And this totally destroys the nature of our neighborhood. And I'm totally against having four houses in there and having it transformed or renovated. What does it change from an A1 to an A3? Thank you.

Thank you. All right, who's next?

Good evening. Hi. Rick Taylor, 114.43 South, 700 West. I'm here to... argue or place my displeasure with the current application. To go forward, I'd like to just read some of the stuff that you've already seen and saw, but in your own land use descriptions, the characteristics for low-medium density, which it currently is now, and I'm just going to read the ones that I've I think are bullet points for me. Very large lot, single family neighborhoods or ranchettes allow enhancement of Draper's rural character, rural character. I'd like to tell you that 32 years ago when I bought my lot, I was told the northwest corner of Draper was going to be a rural area. They didn't want site curb and gutter, didn't want any of that stuff. I understand we've changed and it's growing up and it's time for that thanks to some neighborhoods we've allowed to be put in. Also, some natural features and cultivated vegetation is apparent and special care required in order to preserve those areas and features. Equestrian uses and privileges may exist in certain areas. I'd like to point out all lots adjacent to and north of this property are single home lots or ranchettes, if you want to call it that. All lots adjacent and north of this property have natural features and cultivated vegetation. All lots adjacent to and north of this property have and most use equestrian privileges as well as farm animal and ranch atmosphere. Now in residential medium density, bullet point parts, preservation of large tracts of open space rather than open space contained primarily in individual subdivision lots. Variations and mixing of lot sizes, setbacks, and residential development forms, and discourage piecemeal infrastructure installation. I'd like to point out absolutely no preservation of large tracts of open space in this current plan. The only variation of lots and variation would be four times more dense than what's currently adjacent to and all around it. And also that this feels exactly like piecemeal mini subdivision. Some of the things that they've felt was beneficial to it. The change is harmonious with the overall character of existing development. Absolutely untrue. It's easy to see that. The change will maintain shorter commutes. So we'll go into a subdivision that's already built a third mile away.

Thanks, Rip.

Wish I had a little more time.

All right, who's next?

Just let Rick keep going there. My name is Leroy Larson. I'm on 11553 700 West. Two lots to the south of the one in question there. We moved into the area 26 years ago knowing that it was a R1, that's meaning one acre, is that right? And that's what attracted us to the area. Every home on 7th West there from 114th down past my house is that long skinny lot. That's what attracted us to the area. And to see this, four houses going right down in the middle of that, is just totally out of place. Totally out of place. That's all I have to say.

Thank you. All right, next.

Hi there. Greetings. I've been here before, I think. So my name is Bob Rohr, and I live just to the west of that, down the little cul-de-sac there. I'm also the water master for the irrigation that runs along 7th West. And a couple, I don't know if you can quite see it on there, but the irrigation line that runs on that property is kind of high up. In fact, it's exposed. Yeah, there you go. That line, if you look across going to the right in the picture, that line is actually exposed just to get the fall from the far end to the other end. So to get into those lots, there's going to have to be a hump up and over. We'll just see the two concrete boxes and envision the light area there is where that conduit is out of the ground. And what happens along where the road's broken up there is we get big puddles in there. If somebody makes a mistake with the irrigation or we get a big rain, And so the city this spring came and extended the storm sewer from 114th down this direction. So they're trying to catch the puddles that form right where it says Google Street View. And they're working, as we speak, from the opposite end, trying to bring the storm sewer up because it puddles down kind of where you see the car in the picture there. So I don't, you know, there's a setback from that irrigation line. So if you take that setback, I think it's six feet, maybe Brian or somebody knows that, So that lot, the buildable part of that lot is going to start six feet back, probably where the power lines are. Just imagine that. And then on the rear end of that, on the far east side, it drops off. It probably drops off 30 feet there. So I don't know. to stay off of Willow Creek with the setback is there and to build a retaining wall there for $100,000 to be able to get four lots in there, it's not a 1.58 buildable lot. I'm thinking it's down to probably close to an acre by the time you take the setback off the front and the easements for the irrigation and the utility easements, as you can see. And then if you consider the drop off on the back and then the drop off to the, Southside to Rudy's side is going like you said that's going to be a 15 foot high Retaining wall there, so there's going to be this big retaining wall across the back and across the south side of that lot from Rudy's garage That you see their back just to make this buildable. I don't number one I don't see how the numbers work out for this and are these going to be homes that are sold or they're going to be rental properties I don't know exactly it seems to me like this is a tiny home plot if anything just from a you know, the dimensions that you have to work with here. So that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Thank you. Who's next?

I'm Wayne Hughes. I live directly across the street from the subject property. I've been there five years. The reason I bought my home was because of the zoning and the neighborhood, the feel of the neighborhood. This changes it dramatically. It's so out of keeping with the neighborhood. Si knew the zoning of that property when he bought it. He's never done anything about it except try and get this through and try and get this through. If he wants to build four homes, I think he could buy a lot that is zoned for four properties. I think to ask all the other neighbors to acquiesce because he finds the zoning inconvenient, and I think you find that pretty much every single neighbor up and down the street is in opposition to this. So I hope you'll consider that. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, anyone else?

Sure.

Sure.

Jen, can you talk on the mic? Thanks, Jen.

Altogether, there's 71 signatures. There's 20 from the families and the neighbors. I'm sorry. I was just wondering if I could submit it first.

No, if you're going to speak, go ahead and speak and start with your name. If you're going to submit, you can pass them up here. So let me stop talking. You can say all that again.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I would like to submit signatures. I have 20 signatures from the neighborhood behind us. We're divided by a creek and a walking path. We don't consider ourselves in the same neighborhood, although they are impacted because their overlook is of the back of this property. There's 20 signatures from those neighbors and 51 signatures from the neighborhood around us. And granted, it was Labor Day weekend, people were gone, and Because of the nature of our neighborhood with the long narrow lots, we don't have a big neighborhood. So we feel like 71 names is a very substantial list of people asking you to not change the zoning on our neighborhood. Legally, as I've researched, there's not a lot of legal ground. We understand that... Changing property value isn't something maybe that the councils consider a valuable reason to not make changes, but we do feel substantially that this is not in the character of our neighborhood. Each of these, I had a map and I colored it all out to share with you. I'm not sure that's necessary. I respect and I'm grateful for your comments and your words that you have to say about your feelings, how it doesn't fit on, and particularly with the houses being turned, being opposite houses, of every home on the street. It was mentioned that maybe there would be water conservation. I'm not sure adding so many more homes actually lowers the water conservation or adds to it. And as Rick said, we do irrigate, so we don't have to use water for our properties. Everyone that purchased these properties before this particular land purchase, everyone did purchase for the special reasons of the large land. It is unique. One of the neighbors mentioned, Rudy, on the other side of the empty lot, mentioned when he built his house, Draper City made him sign paperwork that he would never build a home on the back of his property. This happened kind of fast, meaning for us, and so we didn't get back down to the city to research that. But if that's possible, with one neighbor signing paperwork that they would never build a home, and then another neighbor right next door coming in and wanting four. Also, I feel like it's fair to mention that the first time this was brought up, the owner was asking for less. He was asking for a smaller zoning. Now he's asking, and it was denied by both the Planning Commission and the Council, now he's asking for even more. and we ask that you do please consider looking at our neighborhood, our real neighborhood, of the people that we change Christmas cookies with, that we know, that we care about, and what our neighborhood looks like. The aerial view is kind of hard to tell because of the trees and barns and sheds, but there is one home on each of these lots. And the ones behind us it is a different area and zone and even those lots would be bigger Than what is proposed particularly with the setbacks with the creek and the restraining retaining walls.

Thank you And if you want to submit that just feel free to pass that over here, thank you Thanks all right anyone else Looking for any fresh faces back there anyone else okay, I All right, we'll go ahead. I don't see anyone, so we'll go ahead and close the public hearing portion of this agenda item. All right, commissioners, any questions that have been raised on that? I think, again, this is for a zone change, not for a plat approval or elevation and all these things that we haven't really considered. It's just strictly to ask, hey, is a four-lot zone development agreement here for four lots, is that... what do we think about that? That's all that's on the table here. So all that insight was very valuable, though. I mean, most interesting to me is that irrigation pipe, as you're staring at right here in that picture. So that's pretty elevated out of the ground there. So got it. So, Commissioners, that's all that's in front of us here, is what do you think about this density? We've got three items that we need to go through and vote on, but what are your thoughts?

I have a question. Given the large change in grade from the west side to the east side, what would a private road and homes in the back, maybe this is for engineering and or fire, what would that even look like with that significant of a change for homes towards the east and how would they mitigate or could they meet percentage-wise for fire apparatus or would they be required to raise the grade? How does that even pan out in the situation

for something that they're asking for the city does have a maximum street grade and so to accomplish that they may have to bring in grading the engineering hasn't been done on this site so to answer what they would need to do to meet that maximum grade there could be different strategies it could be grading it could be cutting there there could be several things where the land may be the maximum grade of the street on that private street. So we don't know until they get into the final engineering of it.

But that's something they'll have to comply with. Say the zoning change was changed. Would that come into play during the subdivision review?

Yes, that would be subdivision review. That would be after this.

And would they be required to retain, I know for commercial and that they are, but for residential single family, are they required to retain water on their own property?

So the subdivision as a whole will have to accommodate their stormwater runoff, whether they accomplish that by individual basins on individual lots or whether they do a subdivision lot. That's up to the engineer and the owner to decide. But they would have to address stormwater runoff and water quality being discharged into the creek.

And also the percentage of the grade for the roads, the private road would come into play. So who knows at this point, actually.

And Chairman Adams, I don't know if you would like to ask the applicant back up just after the public hearing.

Yeah, we will. I just want to grab a couple of these questions here real quick. We will. And that's why I wrote these down. So the elevation drop, the sewer, the irrigation, but again, All that's in front of us is the zoning. And so, yeah, these are all good questions. Sure, yeah, if the applicant wants to come back up, you're welcome to come back up and address any of those, I guess, questions or concerns that you heard or anything else you'd like to add.

Yeah, I just want to echo a lot of those concerns. Great questions were asked, and those are things that would need to be dealt with at the subdivision stage through engineering. And the owner is perfectly aware that if, It's impossible to engineer four lots. It may be three lots or two lots, whatever. But the engineering would have to be dealt with. At this point, we're just talking about the zoning for the density.

All right. Thank you. All right. Any more deliberation there, commissioners?

I feel like we've already kind of had something similar to this plot, but it was more west of, like, Sport City, and their lot was also really long and narrow, and I think he wanted to put three houses on his lot, and we actually gave him a negative recommendation because probably, I think maybe his lot was a lot more narrow, and he couldn't do a proper road, though. But he also, you know, there was like problems also, like the back of his property was also like part of like a ravine type. Do you guys remember that? Not specifically, but I don't know. Yeah. And he was trying to do like he already had a house on his lot and he was trying to add two more houses on there. He was saying that he was going to do it for his family so that like his kids could like live on the same lot. But. It was just too narrow. We just all kind of decided. And also, it was right smack in the middle of the north and south neighbors, and we still gave them a negative recommendation. We just said it didn't match the character of the neighborhood, and it was too narrow of a lot, but I don't remember how narrow it was.

I mean, one of the things on, no, sorry. Sorry, I don't mean to be rude and cut you off like that, but we've got to keep some decorum here, so thank you. So back to what I was saying, the land use map is what we're looking at right now. It's one of the three items tonight. We need to vote on the recommendation on there, but just look at that. I mean, if all of a sudden that parcel right there is segmented into four areas,

That's really what's on the ticket tonight Look at that look at that red square if that were divided into four lots You know Andrew right we have three three applications basically to make recommendation on development agreement some change But in the development agreement where it specifies four lots We have to consider that. I mean, it's not a subdivision application, but it kind of is.

It's like putting a mini subdivision in there. I just don't see that anywhere. And, again, see, the argument is that, well, there's other developments that are, you know, maybe higher density, smaller lots, what it is, but they are developments. They're not just a strip. They're not just a parcel application. that has now been pretty much changed from single family to multifamily. I know that's a little harsh to say it that way, but look at that. I mean, that is not, to me, one private road with four houses off of it is not a subdivision. It's not really a neighborhood. It's just high density. It just reminds me of what's west of the soccer city. And what are those? They're pretty much townhomes or what you've got up here in the red area with ivory up there. Not even the dark brown, but the red. I mean, that's four homes slammed in there where you just have single-family homes on one-acre plus lots. And I, Christine, I don't remember that specific example, but yes, we've said no to third acre lots with larger lots on this. They did allow, you know, cutting one in half, you know, going down to, you know, half acre lots, but yeah, it's pretty high density. And again, regardless of where this is, I mean, just looking at that, that's all that's on the ticket tonight, that development agreement is, you know, is that too high density On all three questions, right, Susan? On all three questions, on all three applications, is this the right density?

And ideally, you could say, well, if they could buy the property to the north or south and kind of do an actual subdivision where you've got enough width to then, you know, create a subdivision. Well, that's easy to say, but, you know.

Yeah, four homes on one private street is not a subdivision, so. Right.

So tough deal.

Yeah, they're tough lots to do anything with other than what they were intended for and what they've been used for by the neighbors. So, well, should we start tackling any of these? These are all for recommendations to the city council. So we want to start swinging away.

So we start with, I guess, well, development agreement, I think is the first one on there. Well, I'm happy to make a motion.

Yeah, go ahead.

I move that we forward a negative recommendation to the City Council for the development agreement as requested by Ari Bruning, representing Syarish Danboulina, application number 2026-0126-DA, based on the following findings for denial listed in the staff report dated August 27th, 2026.

Great. Thanks, Susan. This is on the development agreement? Yeah. Negative recommendation to the City Council. Who will second that?

I'll second that.

Thanks, Kendra. Okay, let's put this one to a vote. So let's start with you, Susan. How do you vote?

Yes.

Kendra?

Yes.

Christine?

Yes.

Drew? Yes. And Josh? Yes. Okay. And then let's go through the next one. We've got the land use, correct? And then zoning map after that. So land use map amendment.

I can make the land use amendment.

Perfect.

Make sure I'm at the right spot I move that we forward a negative recommendation to the City Council for the land use amendment as requested by Ari Brunig representing size Dan Dubojina, application, and I apologize if I got that wrong. Application number 2026-0124-MA, based on the following findings for denial listed in the staff report dated August 27th, 2026. And specifically the findings for denial are that the land use amendment does not comply with the DCMC section 9-2-020F and Utah State Code 10-20-405.

Thank you. Can we get a second for Kendra's motion?

I'll second.

Thanks, Susan. Okay, let's go ahead and put that one to a vote. Kendra, how do you vote?

Yes.

Susan? Yes. Josh?

Yes.

Drew? Yes. And Christine? Yes. Okay. All right, last one there, the zoning map amendment.

I'll make a motion. I want to comment. These are recommendations for the City Council, and I'm glad the City Council gets to make the final decision, because these are tough.

They are tough.

They are tough. So, I make a move that we forward a negative recommendation to the City Council for the zoning map amendment, as requested by Ari Bruni, representing Sy Sarish Damburina. Application number 2026-0125-MA based on the following findings for denial listed in the staff report dated August 27th, 2026. And there are five findings.

Thank you. All right. Who will second that motion from Susan? I'll second.

I'll second.

Okay, you got it? That was Christine?

Yes.

Okay, just for the recording so we can keep her straight. All right, let's go ahead and put that last one to a vote here. Susan, how do you vote?

Yes.

Christine?

Yes.

Kendra?

Yes.

Josh? Yes. Drew? Yes. Okay. All right, there we go. Good luck with city council. Thank you for coming in tonight. Looks like on our agenda, do we have any other business?

We do. There's training.

Sorry, mine doesn't show that. My mistake.

Just kidding. You were hoping we'd just magically forget. You never know.

It's worth a shot.

Yeah, you never know. I tried, guys.

This training won't take very long, I don't think. The last meeting, we had a home occupation that the overall property included two separate parcels, and there was discussion on what they could do on the other parcel that didn't have the home. Todd put together some code sections from the zoning code for us to kind of go over so we can look and see how the code actually treats multiple properties that are essentially one development. And then we can, you know, have a discussion on that. And this can kind of go for as long as you guys would like it to.

After we get a little into it, no. And it's hard to really give this a good name. It's more about the use of property. And it really deals with the definitions that are in the code. In 9-3-040, it just defines use as any purpose for which a lot, parcel, or structure is designed, arranged, or intended, or for which it is occupied or maintained. And so we're just going to go through the different definitions of uses. You know these two, you see them a lot. Permitted use and conditional use. Permitted use is a main use of a building or land allowed on one or more of the respective zones set forth in the title. Then it doesn't need that specific approval of the Planning Commission or City Council subject to compliance with other provisions of the title. So that's something someone can come in and do. It's permitted. And then you've got the conditional use. which is ones that you see very frequently. That's that land use because of its unique characteristics or potential impact of the land use on the municipality. Surrounding neighbors or adjacent land uses may not be compatible or fully compatible in some areas or may be compatible only if certain conditions are required that mitigate or eliminate the detrimental impacts. So we see a lot of those. Now, a couple of different definitions. What's a main use and accessory use? So main use, the primary purpose for which a lot, parcel, or structure is designed, arranged, or intended, or for which it is occupied or maintained, is allowed by the provisions of the title. And then here's the one that kind of starts giving it the question that we had last time, an accessory use, which is a use incidental and subordinate to a permitted or conditional use and located on the same lot or parcel as such use. So to have an accessory use, you have to have a main use, permitted or conditional. I threw these in because they're kind of fun, just in case you're interested in what's an illegal use and an incompatible use. Those definitions also exist in the ordinance. And then we have this other type that you'll hear sometimes from us, the non-conforming use. And that is a main use of land that meets these things. Had to legally exist before the current zoning designation of the land where it is located. Has to be maintained continuously since the time the zoning designation governing the land changed. And because of subsequent zoning changes, does not conform with applicable requirements of the title. So sometimes we'll have those, and we'll let you know if there's something nonconforming about a use. But we also have other things that can be nonconforming. Land, I think that was mentioned here in the last one as well, where it may not have conformed to the strict ratios, depth, and whatnot that are in the current title. And then again, one of those other fun ones, temporary uses. These are... Things that you'll see, I'm trying to think, farm stands, things like that. Use is not allowed as a permitted conditional or accessory use where located and which is established for a limited time with the intent to discontinue the use upon expiration of the time period. And then here, they need a temporary use permit to authorize them. So just looking at two, I didn't go through all of them. We have our residential zones and the uses allowed. Obviously, you have your permitting conditional uses. We have that table. I won't go through that further. And then we have B in that same section, accessory uses. And it says, permitting conditional uses set forth in those tables shall be deemed to include accessory uses and activities that are necessarily and customarily associated with an incidental and subordinate to those activities. So those permitted and conditional uses, which are main uses. It mentions that these accessory uses are subject to the same regulations that apply to those permitted and conditional uses, unless there's something expressly providing otherwise. And then no accessory use, building, or structure shall be allowed on a lot or parcel unless a permitted or conditional use has been established. So you can't put the accessory in first and then come back with the main use. So that you'll see often when we get into subdivisions and they have a garage on half of the property and they want to divide that half off, they would have to take down the garage first before we could allow the subdivision. And then third one here, accessory uses in residential zone shall include but not be limited to the following. Again, back to that incidental subordinate customary kind of language there. I put it all on the next slide because it's a list and it's a little bit long. You've got your garage sales, garages and carports and off-street parking, hobby activities. And then here we have it, our home occupations. So they are accessory uses. Have to be accessory to the primary. And because accessory use is defined as being on the same lot, they have to be on the same lot. Other things, household pets, nurseries and greenhouses, playhouses, patios, porches, gazebos, incidental storage buildings. There's a seasonal farm stands, again, an RA1, RA2, because those are RA for residential agricultural, where R3 is just residential. And then solar energy systems, swimming pools, hot tubs. A little bit the same, but a little bit different when we move to commercial zones. We have, again, the permitted conditional uses allowed. Those main uses. And then the same thing with accessory uses. They're those customarily associated with them, incidental subordinate. They have to meet the same regulations, same as in the residential zones. And then we've got, again, our list of things that might be in a commercial zone, including things like cafeterias, dining halls, daycare facilities for exclusive use of employees. So that would be not your typical just standard daycare open to public, but a daycare for employees of a business. Now, dwelling units for security and maintenance personnel. We may see that from time to time. Again, garages off street parking, recreational areas and facilities for employees, recycling collection stations, refreshment stands and food and beverage sales located in uses involving public assembly. So another little bit of a caveat if you have a public assembly, a refreshment or food and beverage stand could be there. Solar energy systems, swimming pools and hot tubs, and then that's where you see the temporary uses come in. And then that has a separate section in our business license code. And then, of course, trails. Anything that's part of our city trail system. Okay. And then, Jen, I don't know if you want to talk about this one more, but just another section in kind of our 927-140 lots and yards. It's kind of a catch-all section.

Yeah, this one is really... applies sorry my computer's acting up this one is this this section applies to all properties regardless of zoning district um subsections a and b there talk about you know you have to have a legally created piece of property in order to build on it um and that you can't just sell off a portion of property you do have to go through the correct process. D there that's highlighted, there is a provision in the code that allows somebody to get a building permit if they have two pieces of property that they're going to build as one piece with that building actually overlapping the property line with the requirement that they combine the properties into one before they get their building occupancy. So the code is kind of acknowledging that these properties do exist. It's providing an avenue for the applicants to get some approvals as long as they ultimately come into compliance and combine the pieces.

So what phase would that come into play then?

Under the code, and this is if we're talking building permit, so like if you have two residential properties and somebody buys both of them and wants to build a big house encompassing both, the properties would have to be combined before the building gets occupancy. Okay. to combine the two even though even though the home would fit on the main lot setbacks everything is that what you're saying yeah well if if the home is all on one piece of property and meet setbacks then they're they're good they're going to be limited on what they can do on the other piece so if we're thinking of That home occupation we had last time where half of their backyard is on this other piece of property. Right. They can garden. They can plant. They can enjoy. They would not be able to obtain a building permit for a detached garage, a swimming pool, anything like that. Any accessory building or use on that property, they would not be able to get any permits for unless they combined them into one. Okay.

Yeah. And this applies a little bit more so to the residential side.

Right.

I think the easier way to look at it is if they had two lots and they wanted to build the house down the middle across the property line, we could allow it, contingent on them getting them combined into one before they occupied it. With a lot of commercial development, you'll see, usually in the conditions, we're already asking that they combine it before they get the building permit.

So somewhere along in the building permit process is where they would have to do it. Yeah. Not before.

Either before or during. Before they got off. Before the permit is finished.

Okay.

And that was what we had. If you had any other questions.

Thank you.

Do you want to go back and repeat slides one through eight? Just kidding. Just kidding.

No, I appreciate you getting back that fast. That was great. Thank you.

No, thanks for that, guys. Let's get us a little bit more free money through code. And if I can just add one thing before we close. Are you guys, to the new alternates, are you guys able to see, I notice you guys following along. So you're always welcome just to check in with us. If you'll notice, as you follow along that agenda, you'll be able to click through, get right down into the staff report that you guys have read and looked through. And there's always, that's where these motions are coming from. And they're just quick. Yeah, just so you get, just since we're training. So that's where those are coming from. So as you sit up here and you start to deliberate and you feel like, hey, I want to make a motion, feel free to jump in. And you guys are totally welcome to do that. I just want to give you some encouragement that that's where that comes from. You don't have to make this stuff up. It's just read verbatim off of there. And then, of course, we've got an attorney, right? A few attorneys. Sometimes you get a few. They'll nicely weave in as with the conditions proposed. And sometimes there's a change. So that's it. So don't be scared. Don't be shy. You're welcome to participate that way when you're ready, if you're so compelled, right? And then, Kendra, you do a good job. You guys are doing a good job. The hairy ones, right, where we have to pull three and four out and add six and seven, those are the ones that we let them. But you're welcome to. But seriously, we appreciate you spending your time volunteering and welcome. All right, anything else on the agenda tonight?

Not on the agenda, but sometime, I'd like to make a request, sometime in the future. I know that the project, the point, does not have to come to the Planning Commission. But I would like to see what the plans are as they develop, just kind of for our information, if that's possible, a quick little overview. Here's the status. Here's what's going on. Is that possible? Yeah. I would be interested in that. So, thanks.

Yeah, because aren't you asked by your neighbors, hey, what's going on?

Uh-huh, and you're like, oh, it's the state.

They're like, well, it's not really, it's the state. They're like, what? It's like, yeah.

Yeah.

But it's right there. It's like, yeah.

Right, thank you.

No, good suggestion. All right, well, seeing no further items on the agenda, what say you?

Meeting adjourned.

Adjourned.