City Council - Regular Meeting

Recording in progress.

Madam Chair, we're ready whenever you're ready.

Thank you. We will go ahead and begin then. Welcome, everyone. We are grateful to have you with us for this evening's city council meeting. And for those who joined us earlier for our award night, thank you for continuing to celebrate and be here with us tonight. We will start our meeting the way we always do, with a prayer and a pledge. We'd like to invite Chris McCandless, a Noel Bateman committee member and former city council member, to offer this evening's prayer. Thank you.

Good evening. Our kind and gracious Father in heaven, as we gather here tonight as citizens and elected officials, we thank thee for the opportunity to live in this great community, this great state and nation. We thank thee for the blessings thou hast bestowed upon all of us. We ask thee this evening, Father, for a blessing upon all of our City Council people this evening, all of our elected officials, the administration, those who serve in uniform and serve as sworn officers of our community, that they may be held safe in thine arms As we know, they place their trust in me every day and ask that you keep them safe. Keep them vigilant in their desires to serve us as the citizens of this community with those decisions which will continue to build upon this great community and serve our nation. We thank thee, Father, for all of those citizens who have served diligently in volunteering their efforts, and especially this evening, Father, we ask thee for a special blessing upon Steve Fairbanks as he receives his award, and Ms. Goodell as well. We ask thee, Father, for those decisions to be made without bias, without without challenges to the integrity of the system at all times and all ways. We say these things, Father, in the beloved name of thy Son, Jesus Christ. Amen. Amen.

Thank you, Mr. McCandless. Now we'd like to invite Mr. Ben Christensen up, who will lead us in the pledge.

Please follow me in resigning the pledge.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you so much for the prayer, and Ben, thank you for the pledge, and for all of you joining your voices together with us. We'll move on with quick introductions, and then we'll jump into this evening's meeting. So if we could start with our council office over here, start with introductions, thank you.

Apologies, Madam Chair. My name is Dustin Fratto. I'm with the City Council Office. We have a couple other council staff members in the back of the room, Justin Sorensen and Matt Perry.

Hello, my name is Tracy. I'm counsel for the council.

Chris Edwards with the council office. Chris Nickel, District 3. Cindy Sharkey, at large.

Brooke Christensen, District 1.

Marcy Hausman, District 4. Allison Stroud, District 2.

Aaron DeKaiser, at large.

Mayor Monica Zoltansky. And we have excused, Councilwoman D'Souza is unable to join us. She's an additional at-large. So tonight we begin with a very special recognition and presentation. As part of our City Council annual awards program, we will be presenting two awards this evening honoring the service and dedication of two individuals from our community. we will be announcing the Sandy City Council Civic Engagement Award, as well as the Noel Bateman Lifetime Service Award. The Sandy City Council is proud to honor Rebecca Cadell as the second recipient of the Sandy City Council Civic Engagement Award. This award was established to honor individuals whose voluntary service, civic involvement, and quiet leadership have made a meaningful and lasting impact on the Sandy community. The inspiration for this award came during a special recognition that we held last year in honor of longtime resident Don Gertie, whose exemplary life of service and civic commitment perfectly embodies the values of this award, and his service was the inspiration for the establishment of the Sandy City Council Civic Engagement Award. Civic engagement can take many forms. It can mean serving on a city committee. It can mean volunteering at a school. It can mean helping a neighbor. It can mean creating a program when you see a need. It can mean preserving the history of our community or helping plan for its future. And sometimes it means doing all of those things, which brings us to Rebecca. For our first presentation, will Rebecca Cadell and the city council please join us in front of the dais?

I am honored to introduce Rebecca Cadell. Rebecca is a lifelong Sandy resident and someone who truly embodies the spirit of civic engagement. Rebecca's family has been part of Sandy for five generations, and she has spent her life giving back to the community that shaped her. Her service has touched Sandy's schools, students, families, historic resources, and community organizations. She has been an educator, PTA president, and everything else at multiple schools, community council chair at multiple schools, and has served on numerous city committees. including the historic committee and the CDGB committee. Rebecca has created programs, brought volunteers together, supported students, preserved community history, and quietly helped families and individuals in need. One example that really captures Rebecca, who Rebecca is, came during her time at Sandy Elementary. She recognized that some of the students were struggling with reading and needed additional support. Rather than simply identifying the problem, she created the Read Together program, recruiting and coordinating more than two dozen volunteers to work one-on-one with students. She personally invested hundreds of hours to make sure the program succeeded, giving children not only reading support but confidence and encouragement. Even with her many, many amazing acts of service to our community, what stands out the most about Rebecca is that she has never served for recognition. She sees a need, steps forward, brings people together, and works to make things better. Rebecca represents the very best of Sandy, compassionate, thoughtful, humble, and deeply committed to our community. Rebecca, we are honored to present you with the 2026 Sandy City Civic Engagement Award.

Sorry.

All right, one, two, three.

The mayor, will you join us? Thank you. And the Caddell family for a picture with Rebecca? One, two, three.

Yep, I kiss them all.

MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL AND MAYOR, DISTINGUISHED DEPARTMENT HEADS AND MEMBERS HERE OF THE COMMUNITY, WE ARE HERE, MEMBERS OF WE ARE THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR OF THE NOLE BAITMAN AWARD COMMITTEE AND IT IS OUR PLEASURE TO WORK ON PRESENTING THAT AWARD HERE THIS EVENING. The 2026 Noel Bateman Lifetime Service Award will be presented to Steve Fairbanks. If you'd join me in a round of applause for Steve. Congratulations, Steve. Come on up. Come on up.

We've got to brag about you a little bit. If you'd come up.

Since 1992, I guess I'll just have to project a little bit. Since 1992, Steve Fairbanks has served in our community in countless ways. As a member of the Sandy City Council, a civic leader, a volunteer, an advocate, a mentor, a neighbor, and a friend. And his service has reached across Sandy and beyond, touching organizations. I'll just project. Maybe I'll just come up. Is it okay if I use this one? OK. Steve has served the city council, but his commitment did not end when his time of being elected official did end. He's continued to give us time, his talents, his leadership, and compassion whenever it's needed to our city. What stands out the most is not simply the number of organizations where Steve has served, but the consistency. For more than 34 years, he has continued to find ways to make our community better. Steve's legacy is one of leadership, service, and genuine care for his community. Tonight, we are honored to recognize that remarkable legacy. Before we present the award to him, we invite you to hear from Steve in his own words in a video that we prepared. So we'll sit down for a minute. We'll come back up after the video.

Okay.

I'm not that important, but volunteering and being involved is important. It's the place we live. We had lots of neighbors involved in various aspects of the city, and it made the city great. And that's how cities become great, is by people being involved. I guess I first started getting involved in the city in 1992 when I opened my real estate office here. I got approached by the Chamber of Commerce and they started listing off all the committees I could serve on. One of them was the Economic Development Committee. That gave me the chance to meet people like Dick and Pat Adair and Jan Van Campen and a number of others. Next thing I know, I was asked to serve on the board of directors. So that was pretty much the beginning of it. So one thing just sort of led to another. I was a city councilman for 16 years. When I ran for office, my slogan, which was devised by my son, was vote for a man without a plan. But I didn't have anything particular that I was upset about that I wanted to fix. I thought the city was great. I loved the city. But I'd been involved in different things. over the years, and I just felt like it was one more committee to serve on. So I served, and I think that's important. The elected officials know their citizens, that what we do in this community affects us as well as everybody else. And I enjoyed that sense of community, just fun meeting with people and just discussing their concerns, seeing what we could do about them if they were rational, which they weren't always. So it was just fun to be involved. It's nice to be recognized for the efforts that you made. I was... I don't know whether it was because I was dumb or what, but I got involved in a lot of things during my time in the city. I got the chance to rub shoulders with a lot of good people, and they influenced me for good. And I hope maybe somehow I influenced someone else for good. It's all we can do.

OK, Steve, come on up. Ladies and gentlemen, I'm presenting the Noel Bateman Lifetime Service Award to Steve Fairbanks for 2026. Congratulations. So if the members of the council could come down for a picture.

That's very nice. Very nice. He's the 40th person to receive this award.

You have the council come and get a picture. Mayor, then we'll have you come down.

You trained some of us, so it's your fault.

Yes.

All right. On three. One, two, three. All right. Let's have the mayor join, too.

Thank you. Hey, don't go yet. Don't go yet. Oh, God. My clothes. After you go, mayor, we're going to have your family come up.

All right, one, two, three.

All right.

The Fairbanks family could go up, and then council and mayor, please stay there as well.

Is that actually open? All right, one, two, three.

Okay, we've asked Mr. Fairbanks to give some brief comments and then after which the council will take back over the meeting.

It's an honor to be recognized. When I had the opportunity to serve with the League of Cities and Towns, I would often get asked at our annual conferences by council people and mayors from different communities what they could do in their community to make it as good as Sandy City. And I always told them they had no hope. because in order to be like Sandy City, you had to have our citizens. It's an honor to have served you, and I appreciate this award. Thank you.

Thank you to everyone. So tonight, we've had the wonderful privilege of recognizing two remarkable Sandy residents whose service has made a lasting difference in our community. Thank you, Rebecca Cadell and Steve Fairbanks and family. We all know that there's always our loved ones standing behind us when we serve. So this appreciation goes out to all of you as well. We appreciate the opportunity to honor both of you. And thank you for all that you've done to serve in our community in such dedicated ways. Thank you for making Sandy a wonderful place to be. And we're now going to move on. I know you have other things you probably would rather be doing than our conversation here. So one more round of applause for tonight's award recipients.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam chair.

Yes please.

So we're we're a little earlier than we suspected the planning commission isn't going to join us till 6 p.m. So if you'd like we could go through the consent calendar and then we could also take the Hagan Road item which is item number five if you'd like. OK. Alternatively you could recess but I mean that's quite a long recess.

I say let's let's go ahead and do consent calendar. I like that recommendation to try to get us up to that six o'clock.

I make a motion to approve the consent calendar.

Second. We have a motion and a second. This can just be a voice vote, correct? So all in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed say no. Okay. I see that that passes. And I do like the recommendation to move on to item number five this evening. We will return to the top of our agenda in order to make sure we have plenty of time for those items. So this is community development. We are hearing the Hagen Road rezone. Mr. Warner.

Good evening, council. Thank you, chair. Good to be with you, all of you. For the public, my name's Jake Warner, long range planning manager for Sandy City. As was mentioned, this item is an application presented by Matthew Grant and also representing Barry Evans and Lyle Warner requesting a zone change of property located at 11562 South, 11563 South, and 11586 South on Hagen Road. They are requesting to add the A designation for farm animal rights to their R120 zone, so rezoning from R120 to R128. their properties total approximately 1.79 acres this item was presented to the City Council on September 1st and has been brought back before you tonight for a decision as a legislative item and this has gone to the Planning Commission with the statutory public or the state required public hearing and they did forward a positive recommendation to you and with that The applicant is present and staff is available if needed.

Thank you. Counsel, do we have any questions? I know we've heard this presentation. I am not seeing any questions. So then we will move forward with business. We need to take it again even though we did the probably always good practice because we're voting.

Yes this is a voting item.

So and we're taking public comment on this item. This is not our general citizen comment. This is specifically on this Hagen Road rezone. So yes thank you for that. I'll go ahead and open it up for public comment. I have a number of blue cards from those who are here in chambers this evening will go in the order that I've received them and then we will move to our online. If you do wish to speak and you've not yet filled out a blue card. Do so. You can grab one in the back and present it here to Mr. Fratto. So I have one comment, but I believe this is for general citizen comment. And this looks like it is for item five. So we have Paula Dudash. I'm sorry if I did not get it right. Feel free to correct me on the record. Dudash. I just emphasized the wrong syllable. Okay. Okay.

I just I know there's been some recommendations to move forward with this I actually well if you put the map back up I actually live in one of the houses that backs to one of the houses that want to oh sorry okay I actually back to one of the properties that they want to change to agricultural and I have lived in Sandy City for about 13 years now. And until recently, I haven't noticed any farm animals. And now all of a sudden we have roosters, which I know are illegal. We've called several times and the person directly behind me, um, keeps kind of playing games with it and sending it across the street and then they'll go and, and they live on Hagen road and then they'll bring it back. So I just feel like if you allow them to go forward with these sheep or lamb that Matthew Grant wants to have, um, I just feel like they feel that they are above the law. And they don't have to follow the rules. They're not following the rules with the roosters. They have chickens, which I know you can have chickens. I'm not a fan, but not saying that you can't. So I just feel like I just really want everybody to think about it. These properties are not very large. We are all really close together. And this is a city. And that's why I moved here. I didn't move to a farm. I don't want to live on a farm. I don't want to hear a rooster at 615 every morning, which I have video and I can show you pictures that happens every single morning in my backyard. So anyway, I just ask that you all just kind of reconsider, look at the properties, look at the size of these properties. This is not farm country. Utah has a lot of farmland. You know, go live in a farm and get chickens and lambs and cows and whatever else you want. So anyway, I just ask that you just kind of reconsider or think about this development. And we are in a city, and that's kind of where I want to live. So anyway, that's all I have to say. But anyway, thank you.

Thank you very much. All right, next we have Debbie Judd.

Hi, I'm Debbie Judd. I live next to the Grants. When we built, I spoke before. I emailed each of the city council. When I spoke before, I haven't changed my mind. I am against rezoning for agriculture. When we came into Sandy City, we were no longer Sandy County. And we were told at that time that we would not be county and not be agriculture, which was fine. We didn't plan to be. I maintain that I asked Mr. Sorensen, he was going to get a map for us to put it up of the neighbors behind. Our lots, their lots are very small. And so when people on a long lot who don't have room for animals decide to get farm animals, they put them at the very back of their property. So the people off of Player Road and the circles, I mean, those farm animals, the smells, the flies, they're right there. They are literally in their patios, you know, feet away. feet away, I think half an acre is not enough property, not enough land to have farm animals. When you consider there are houses, when you consider there are detached garages, there are basketball courts, there are big patios. So where is the land for the animals? There is no land for the animals. It is very, very small. I don't feel like I have property for farm animals. I don't. And my yard is the same size. In fact, I travel. And I would like to not be agriculture. I am in Sandy City. And I don't think it's agriculture. I don't think it's consideration of large farm animals. There's just not room. So I am really against it. I would really like you to consider the space. The space. As planners consider, it's just cruelty to animals to try to have. Can you imagine two horses on that property? Two cows would be allowed? Five sheep? There is just not room. And if Sandy City can't differentiate between large farm animals and small farm animals, there's literally not room for that kind of animal. So I would hope you would at least come look at the properties. If you haven't already, you can see it on Google search. But anyway, thank you for your time. Thank you for doing this meeting. Thanks.

Thank you. Okay. Next for item number five, I have Matthew Grant.

Thank you, and I apologize. I know you heard from me last week, but I just thought I'd take three minutes here and just summarize a couple of points. As the applicant on the proposal, I have covered in detail the reasons why our family and the other two families that have joined us in this application believe that it should be approved in our meeting two weeks ago and with the Planning Commission, who unanimously approved it. The final thought I'd like to share is that to us, well, let me just quickly address the prior comments. I agree we shouldn't have roosters. The roosters she's referring to aren't ours or the Evans or the Warners who are part of the application. That's a different house that's already zoned A. For us, this application is not about whether our kids should be able to continue raising these lambs for a few more months. That is an important part of the application, and that's what kind of kick-started this process, to be clear. But I just want to, I guess, step back to the big picture, that this is an application for three properties, not just ours, to have the A designation. And if this is approved and we're able to raise these lambs for another month or two until they're ready to be processed into meat, to be honest, I don't know. Current time, we don't think we will have lands again. It's not in our plans. But more broadly, this is about whether these three properties, ours, the Warners, and the Evans, should have the same zoning rights as our next door neighbors and every one of the other half acre lots on our street and in our broader neighborhood. As we mentioned last meeting, there are a lot of benefits to the A zoning designation beyond just animals, including things like accessory structures, small greenhouses, sheds, et cetera, things that I think most people would agree can increase property value and are helpful for these lots. We don't currently have plans to, but if we are the warners of the evidence at any point in the future to decide we wanted to raise lambs again, or raise rabbits, or build a small greenhouse, or any other thing that you can do under the Sandy City Code if you have an A lot, we think we should have the freedom to do that, just as our neighbors do. And just like thousands of other Sandy City residents do who have A lots. I appreciate Debbie's point that she just made, that there's unique situations with each property. And as I said a few weeks ago, there may be certain A lots of the thousands that currently exist, and ours as well, that may not be appropriate for horses, for example. But we don't think that's a reason to deny us the same zoning rights that every other property in our neighborhood has. At its core, what we're asking here is the ability to do on our property what we would like to do as long as we're not violating the rights of our neighbors and as long as we're consistent with the other half acre lots in our area. And, you know, there have been a lot of comments around whether or not the lambs are noisy or whether we might hypothetically have horses in the future. And I just wanted to, I guess, step back to that big picture of we're just requesting a simple zoning change consistent with the process in the Sandy City Code. Lastly, I'll just say I appreciate reasonable people can have different opinions on things like this and have different viewpoints And I know not everyone agrees with us. I think some people do agree with us I just want to thank you all regardless of how you all decide to vote tonight and what is decided Thank you for taking the time to consider this in good faith Thank you, all right next for item number five we have Adele Clark and

First of all, thank you for those of you that responded to my detailed email. Since I sent that email, I've had to remove another rat. So I'm up to four rats on my property. They're not coming from my property. They're coming from the grounds property. They're coming under the fence. They have gone into my greenhouse. They're eating my bird seed, my wild bird seed. I have holes in the bags. I have never heard an animal in my life until I had to get rid of these rats. I don't have a husband. He's deceased. I'm not going to be blamed for having rats or having problems with rats when the problems didn't come from me. Right over my fence line is a large wood container that has straw in it. Right next to that is where the chickens are. Right next to that is where the sheep are. Right by my greenhouse. So talk about a nuisance besides the sound, besides the fact that now I have rats. I will not be removing any more rats. I will be contacting animal control because it literally makes me sick to walk into my greenhouse and see the dead rats. I know Mr. Grant thinks that it's just him that wants the rezoning because it pretty much is. I've had a long conversation with Barry Evans and he doesn't plan on having any farm animals. He doesn't plan on changing his backyard. He did have chickens and he has since gotten rid of the chickens. Mr. Werner is a very sweet man. He is very old and very elderly, and he doesn't plan on having farm animals. So everybody around Mr. Grant that lives on the east side of the street. None of us want to deal with rats and flies. I've had to put a fly remover thing in my greenhouse to kill the flies. I've had to go in and put new landscaping underneath the fence. I'm doing it myself. I'm 66 years old. I'm not a spry woman, but I will do it to keep the rats out of my yard. I've lived in Sandy City for 31 years. Up until Mr. Grant moved in, I've not had any problems on my property with rats or extra flies or anything like that. I know those of you that read the email, you know the detail that I provided. And so for me, it's a hard no, and I can only hope that the city council understands what I'm having to put up with on a daily basis. Thank you all.

Thank you. I do have a few more blue cards but they are not checked for this item but I don't want to overlook them in case they are. If you've shared a blue card are you hoping to speak on this item? To this item? Do we have a blue card for you? Did you submit a blue card? Okay. Oh, I see it. Yes. Yes. So you're wanting to make a comment on this item. Yes. Come forward, please. And is it Tukitoa? Is that how I say your name? Yes. Yeah. Long. I'm sorry. I'm not getting it right. Please tell me how to pronounce your name. That's important to me.

Longo.

Longo.

Yes. Tukitoa.

Tukitoa. I love that. Thank you. Please.

Good evening, everyone. Honorable Mayor. all members of the city council. My name is Longo Moloto Tuketoa. I live, my address is 11969 South Traperville Avenue in Traper, Utah, Salt Lake City. It's a privilege for me to be here tonight. Actually, we are based in California. We are a non-profit organization, 501 , and we cater for senior and elderly people in the community. We just launched a new one here. So this is our second location. And I just wanted to touch base with the city and all the connected area.

Madam Chair, I'm sorry to interrupt, but I believe you're not planning on speaking towards the voting item the council is talking about right now, which is a rezone. Is that correct? You're planning on speaking just on another topic?

Are you sharing about your nonprofit? Is that what you're hoping to share? Yes. So if you're willing, yes, if you're willing to wait until we get to our general citizen comment, which won't be much longer, but this is particularly about the item that is before us, which is a rezone. I should have clarified better. No, no, please. You're good. Just hold tight. We'll be right back to you. Okay. So just checking if there's anyone else in the chambers who would like to speak to this particular item.

Madam Chair, just to be clear, we're talking about item number five on the agenda.

Item number five, the Hagen Road Rezone. We heard from you.

I'm happy to answer questions.

Earlier I didn't see any. I looked. I don't think we have any. OK. So then if we could please move to online, if there are any members from the public online that would like to speak to this item.

Yes. And then Madam Chair after once that's finished we do have a comment that we were asked to read into the record as well related to this item. If you are joining us virtually this evening via Zoom and you'd like to comment on item number five which is the Hagen Road rezone application on tonight's agenda. Go ahead and click the raise hand button on your screen. We'll call your name in the order in which you raised your hand and you'll have three minutes. Okay, Madam Chair, we do have one hand raised. It's Steve Van Maren. Steve, I'm going to allow you to begin speaking. Please remember to unmute yourself, and you'll have three minutes.

Good evening, council members. If the letter that Mr. Trouto was referring to is for me, I will withhold my comments at this time. That letter is sufficient.

It was. I'm happy to read it, Steve, unless you'd prefer to just make your comment.

I'm good. Thank you, Dustin.

Madam Chair, I don't see any other hands raised online. I'll go ahead and read the comment to the record. As mentioned, this is from Steve Van Maren. It says greetings. I attended the planning commission virtually. I came to the conclusion after all that transpired this rezone would overrule a prior council's decision. There was no meeting minutes after the council approved the current zone. That was being considered for a different action. So my conclusion is that the council back then decided it was not appropriate to allow animals in this area. The staff stated that they could not find the minutes but the rezone was not previously allowed to have animals on these larger lots. I encourage you to not approve the change tonight. Thank you for listening. Steve Van Maren.

And I don't believe we have any further, okay. All right, so seeing no further comments needed, then I'll go ahead and close public comment on this item, bring it back to the council for a motion.

Madam Chair, I'll make a motion to approve ordinance 2656. Second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second. Discussion on the motion. Oh, Ms. Nichol.

I just wanted to say I don't think this is an inconsistent zone for the neighborhood. I think it once was zone A. Now it's not. And putting it back.

Folks, it's not appropriate to speak from the audience right now.

Thank you. Whatever has happened in the past, it's in the past. And I don't think that the animal designation is a detriment to the neighborhood. And I think it's gone too far with the neighborhood squabbles, to be honest with you. I haven't seen this very often, but it's been taken to an extreme. So I want to put an end to this tonight.

MS. Ms. Sharkey?

MS. I have really grappled with this one. I want to admit that. I mean, between seven years on the council and three as a planning commissioner, this one is surprisingly been difficult for me. This all started with a code violation, right? It's very interesting. It's a very interesting story. It all started with a code violation and a surprising discovery. And that discovery was that this property wasn't already zoned R120A for animals. Apparently it came as a surprise to Mr. Grant, and I will tell you it came as a surprise to me too. I wanted to give this very deep and thorough consideration. We did receive a surprising amount of input from the public on this, and it isn't just the comments that have been made publicly at city council meetings, but it's also been some of the emails that we've received as well. And it's surprising amount of public comment for a relatively small request. Regardless of how this started, Mr. Grant has the right to make a request for a rezone. Thinking about it so deeply and so carefully, in part because of the public input from the neighborhood. I wanted to make sure that I landed on the right decision, the most fair decision, the one that stripped away all the feelings and focused on the request. And I do have to agree that I don't think that this property owner should be denied the same rights that the other property owners in the area in the same zoning category of 20 and 30 acre lots, or 20 and 30 square foot lots, thousand, I should say that right, 20,000 and 30,000 square foot lots. I don't think there's a good reason to deny them that same right and opportunity. So I'll be supporting the I'll be supporting the motion on this and voting in favor of this as well.

Ms. Christensen? I'm in the same mindset as that. My brother actually lived in your neighborhood a couple years ago, and these are large lots in Sandy. And I am all in favor of the A designations in any of the spots we can put them in the city because that is our root of where our city came from. We're a mining town that turned to farmers, and we're farmers for over 100 years. And so I think that this is a huge benefit to our community, and that it just makes it a more desirable place to live.

Ms. Stroud. Thank you, Madam Chair. I, too, feel that having an agricultural designation, that it does not overtly negatively impact an area. I live right across the street. I'm in an R18, my lot. But right across the street, there's several homes that have the agricultural designation to it. They've had horses, they've had llamas, and a variety of farm animals. I know that we do have code written down on our books that that talk about how to maintain those animals to make sure that they are properly cared for, that any sort of waste, smell, any sort of nuisance, that it is addressed. The part that I'm grappling with is that this is a change. For a resident that has purchased a home in an area, it is their responsibility to look into what the surrounding neighborhood looks like. If you have an empty field or a dirt patch at the end of your street, to assume that it will always be a dirt patch is, in the Salt Lake Valley scheme of things, is no longer reasonable. It will probably be developed. I also look at this from that other side of saying if I bought a home in an area and I drove down that street and I can see that the homes are already built, they are established, and I buy one in that neighborhood, I should be able to make a reasonable assumption that it is not going to be dramatically changed. Once it's developed, that that's what it will look like. If it is an R18, it'll stay an R18. It will not suddenly become a Walmart or a high density property. I can really sympathize and understand with a resident who has purchased a home saying, I did not buy one with an animal designation. And once again, this is right across my street. I have really enjoyed having the animals that were there. I felt that it was beneficial for my children. We would walk across the street, feed the horses carrots. It was good for them, and it did not harm me. But once again, I bought the home knowing that there were animals across the street. And it was not changed after the fact. So this is the part that I'm grappling with. And I will be a no vote on this because I feel strongly, and I've felt this way with many other votes and many other decisions that the council has made. where we are changing something, changing a land use or a density, whatever it might be, that we have changed that after people have bought their property and established their home, their life, and built something under the assumption of what it was when they purchased it. So I completely respect moving forward with an agricultural desire and designation, because I don't think it hasn't hurt. And I've been in my home for 25 years. But I also respect homeowners that have purchased their home under one assumption. So I will be a no-vote on this one.

CHRISTIE WOODARD- Mr. DeKaiser, do you have anything to share?

I don't have anything to share, thank you.

Okay. I'll share my thoughts and then I think we will have heard from everyone and we can move forward. I want to echo something that Mr. Van Maren shared because that's been part of my deliberation as well and that is a prior council weighed this decision and intentionally removed the agricultural state. And I think that is something that is important to consider. I also recognize, and many who've heard from me before know that I really fiercely want to protect private property rights. That is important. And I understand that that is one of the pleas from this applicant is I'd really like the opportunity to do what I'd like. But there's a reason we have zoning. And part of that zoning is yes, yes. And in education, I've shared this before, least restrictive environment. Zoning is a bit like that. It's what is the least restrictive environment we can have to allow a property owner to do what they'd like with their property so long as it stays within our zoning, which is set up to establish some equity for all of those in the surrounding area of that property. So I've been weighing that quite a bit because it's a balance that we need to consider. And then as I was deliberating, I remembered something that was brought to us a few years ago while several of us were on the council. And in my mind, and I could be wrong, but this is in my mind, I see some similarities here, wherein a request was made to change zoning because of a violation of code. At the time, this change that was requested was to allow boarding in a very certain place in Sandy City. And because that was coming, that request was being made because they were operating in violation of our code. And for many reasons, I ultimately voted no on that change. that move forward. But I feel there is some similarity here, that I'm not sure that it is appropriate to adjust a designation that has been shared by a prior council made this determination. They said it would not be agricultural rights. And to overturn what a prior council said. And I absolutely understand and respect our planning commission. I know they've deliberated as well. They came to their own conclusion. They forwarded a positive recommendation. But we are all individuals and selected by our voters to weigh everything. So I do not want to dismiss or take lightly what's been recommended. But for me... It feels similar. And so when this prior code violation was remedied, with that remedy, again, I voted no on that, but it ultimately passed. With that remedy, there were so many conditions placed. And that's not what this application brings forward. This application is either a yes or a no. There is no, well, could we put this in place? I asked that question when this was first brought before us. And I was told this is a yes or a no based on what has been presented. So with all of those considerations, and for me, I am not comfortable supporting this application, so I will also be a no. So I think we have heard from everyone. So we have a motion and a second. Ms. Edwards.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Ms. Nickel? Yes. Ms. Christensen? Yes. Mr. DeKaiser?

No.

Ms. Stroud? No.

No.

Ms. Houseman?

No.

Ms. Sharkey? Yes. Madam Chair, that vote resulted in a tie of three to three.

Which means it fails.

So the motion has failed.

So then we need a motion or the applicant just, it did not pass?

You've taken action, it didn't pass.

OK, so it is past 6 o'clock at this point. And again, thank you to all who have been a part of this process. I know it's been exhaustive, and there's been a lot of thoughts on all sides. But thank you for sticking with us and making sure your voice was heard. We appreciate the deliberations. OK, so could we resume with you? I know we started, so we'd love to come back now. We are, oh, I have one from him already. But is this a different one? Okay, please, yes, thank you for your patience with us. If you could continue with, now we're in our general citizen comments, so we can hear from anyone on city-related matters.

Once again, my name is Longhua Moloto-Tukitoa. My address is 11969 South Traverseville Avenue in Traverseville, Utah, Salt Lake City. So, it's a privilege for me to be here tonight. to introduce our nonprofit organizations, the 501c3. And we cater for senior and elderly people in the community, wherever in Utah. What we do, we send the caregivers to elderly's home or older adults, only for those who have low income. So our program is we have to qualify some seniors that they are in like a lower income. Our mission is to provide home health service, home care services to all senior care in the community, including all daily living and companionship, taking them to their appointment and be at home with them to help them. So in the name of the organization, I'm so sorry, it's Longmore Services Provider, or LSB. That's the name of it, and at the end of my speech, I would like to give a brochure or business card to that gentleman on the right side. Madam Mayor, I would like to request a presentation to the Senior Advisory Committee in the near future. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Mr. Fatto can receive that for us. All right, Mr. Butters is outside. Do you want us to wait? Do you need to finish your conversation? So could you clarify, I received two cards from you. Are you speaking on something later? Oh, this might be an older one. Maybe okay. So you just start you're speaking in public comment tonight. Please come forward.

No problem All the city council I have helped me out, thank you I do appreciate when you guys call me back and talk to me about my concerns I How am I going to say this the right way? When you guys get voted in as public office, you're working for the people, for us. A couple of weeks ago when the mayor came at me saying you guys is her people, No, she worked for the city of us. She's our mayor. It got voted in. That's where I'm getting at is I have went to the mayor, Martin, personally, and I said, I am willing to drop this personally and leave this alone on this horse thing. The mayor will still not come out and say, yes, I did a mistake. When I have done mistakes, I come out and say I've done a mistake. That's where I don't think I feel like someone that's in the public eyes, if it was you, you, anybody in this council, I'm going to hold you to your, you did a mistake. I will hold Martin accountable. I'll hold the police chief accountable. I don't care. But I'm looking at it where the public's looking at it. Look at what's going on with the Mayor Magna right now. Where do we go from here? It's like, you guys are in public office, she's in public office. You guys work for the people's handy. I do appreciate everything you guys have done for me and I appreciate everything. But I think the mayor needs to really get down to her roots and think about, I have gave her an option to say sorry to the whole public about this. It's, someone needs to own up to her mistake. That's all I'm saying. I have to own up to my mistake. I got caught with the tail light out this last week. I didn't know about it, but I did my pre-trip. Cop gave me a warning about it. But what would that horse done if it would have got broken loose off the lanyard? It could have killed a kid or another animal. That's where I'm getting at. Where's the safety? That's a 1,000-pound horse. It's going to go crazy. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, next we have Grant Howarth. And if I mispronounce, please correct me. Okay.

Council, Mayor, and staff. I appreciate the opportunity to come into your city and share a thought. I think it's a lot easier than the things that you've been dealing with today. In 1786, the assembly headed by Thomas Jefferson, who was the governor at the time, and the James Madison, who was an assemblyman in Virginia also at the time, passed the first law that provided protection for freedom of religion in then the United States. In 1992, Our Congress of the United States passed and put into effect January 16th, recognizing the date that that first law was given as Freedom of Religion Day. Every president since that time has publicly recognized and affirmed that opportunity for freedom of religion through Freedom of Religion Day. On 2015, the state of Utah adopted the same pattern and made January 16th Freedom of Religion Day for the citizens of the state of Utah. Since 2020, I have visited several city councils usually once, maybe a little bit more per year. And there are now six cities here in the south part of the valley who have adopted January 16th of Freedom of Religion Day. I would like to point out that this is a resolution that encourages and supports the opportunity for unity among citizens in a period of time when there's significant differences of opinion. It provides a bolster and an expectation for our citizens to look at the freedom of religion, to remind them of the opportunities that we have to work together. resolution I've given some samples and copies as well as the governor's copy from this past year He's done it every year and would encourage your council and your mayor and your staff to support the opportunity to designate January 16th as freedom of religion day for Sandy City Happy to take any questions.

During public comment we listen to the public but it's not a back and forth.

I understand.

But we appreciate your remarks and we do have your packet. Thank you very much. Next we have Anthony Romo. Maybe we don't have Anthony. Okay well I'll hold on to it and come check again. Julie Hepworth please. Are you are you waiting for for that item specifically. That's fine. yet oh you're right I'm sorry it's written right there and I didn't I just didn't see it thank you for that all right we will hold off on that but Anthony was listed here as he did check Anthony or sorry he did check general citizen comment but okay let's take sure if you don't mind but we will go ahead and check from our public that is online to see if anyone wants to speak during general citizen comment

Of course, Madam Chair. Again, if you're joining us virtually this evening via Zoom and you'd like to comment on any city business, go ahead and click the Raise Hand button on your screen now, and I'll call your name in the order in which you raised your hand, and you'll have three minutes. Madam Chair, I'm not seeing any hands raised on lightning.

All right. I'm not either. Thank you. So one last call for Anthony. Okay. We'll go ahead and close general citizen comment. And I am going to council, I'm going to bring us back to the top of our agenda and lead off with item number two, our joint meeting of our planning commission, the city council. So public, if you'll hold tight for just a bit, we are going to invite our planning commission to come up and join us. We have chairs up here that we'll go ahead and open up and fill in spots. So please, I guess so.

And planning commissioners, if you just want to unfold one of the chairs up there and just take a seat between the council members, that would be fantastic. And if one of you wants to go sit down by Mr. DeKaiser, there's an open seat down there as well.

I promise that Mr. DeKaiser does not bite.

How many of you two are staying?

I have to leave in about seven minutes. Okay.

Take the comfy chair. Somebody. Poor Aaron's down there on an island. It's the dog.

It smells bad.

All right. I think we are set. Melissa, Ms. Anderson, thank you. If you will go ahead. And so for the public, this is kind of a combined experience for both our city council and our planning commission, listening together, asking questions, et cetera, et cetera. So everyone's got a mic close enough, and we can share if you want. And I'll turn it over to you. Thank you.

All right. Thank you very much. So what this is is an update to the city council and planning commission and the public of our code update. We're doing a comprehensive update to the land development code. it's a multi-year process so periodically we want to make sure and an update after we complete a major milestone one of which is completion recently by our consultant team of the assessment and best practices report looking at our existing code and how approaches to make improvements to that code in a comprehensive manner and so tonight we have Chris Hupp from Somis who's the project manager from the firm that we hired based off of a generous grant from the Wasatch Front Regional Council as well as a decision by our leadership, our council, to fund this project overall. And so Chris is here to do that presentation. And so I'll just hand it over to him. We just want to make sure and keep you informed so that we don't surprise you at the end of the project with a big project, but just keep you informed.

So anyway, Chris. Thank you.

I had mentioned Wasatch Front Regional Council as one of our partners in the majority of the funding for this project, and from Wasatch Front is Byron Head, who's the project manager from that organization. He's here tonight as well.

Okay. Last time I presented, we We went over the preliminary assessment that we had started. We'll go lightly over that today and give you an update as to where we are. As we've been going through this, one of the big takes, as you'll see here, is the plain English look at why we're updating this. This is one of the pieces as to why we're updating it. The state code requires that to be in plain English, so everyone can understand as they go through that. But we'll talk about that as we go through this. A little bit of background, which you all are aware of. The vision was created through the general plan, the pace of progress general plan adopted last year. Now is the time to make those pieces a reality. The specific vision actually giving teeth to that. Actually, before we jump into that, again, just an overview for the public and this body as well. You held an incredible outreach, 47 events throughout that process, the eight key strategies, which we'll touch on lightly here, and then the next steps is to rewrite that ordinance. One of the big strategies obviously was to rewrite the code, thus why we're doing this. Why are the codes being updated now? Again, we've given a little bit of this background and seeing as a lot of you have been sitting here for a while, you understand that it's been a few years, almost 20 years since the last comprehensive update. There have been addendums and amendments and changes to the code since then, but no comprehensive look to make sure that the structure and the organization is clean and simple to work through. And so that's part of what we found in the preliminary assessment. These rules, some of them are a little bit difficult to find. There's some inconsistencies with some of those, and there's also duplicative information. So part of this is we're looking to streamline that process, make it a little bit cleaner, easier to find these pieces. Another piece, again, because the state law has moved or changed, we need to make sure that the code for the city is updated to that and then the general plan specifics need to be. As I go through this, feel free to stop me if you have any questions. I don't mind being interrupted. So what is the development code? Again, we're writing this in part. Obviously, you know what the development code is, hopefully, at this point. But this is more for the public as well as this body, just to give everyone that update as to where we are today. This is also information that we're going to be presenting at the Heritage Day, which I'll talk a little bit about that as well. But this is the city's blueprint for building. for what can be done, what can't be done. Obviously, you've talked about some of those tonight, but we're going to be looking at all of these things to understand what the health, safety, and general welfare community needs are and make sure that those are incorporated as part of the vision from the general plan, the state updates, and other things that we've seen in other communities as we work through these code updates. The code by the numbers, and this I'll just touch on briefly. Currently there's 38 chapters plus the appendix. There are four separate land use tables. One of the first things that we're wanting to do as part of the preliminary assessment is to consolidate some of those things so that you're not having to, or the staff isn't having to, or developers not having to search several different pieces of your code to find the answer. And a lot of times they missed that because they looked in X, Y, and Z section. They didn't think they needed to look in A, B, and C as well. And so just cleaning that up and simplifying it a little bit makes it that much easier for you to maintain, the staff to maintain, and developers to actually understand that code, which I know you've heard some of those concerns and issues in the past. Another piece, there are existing 572 terms defined, and of those terms defined, and I believe it's on the next slide, Nope, it's on a further slide and we'll touch on that. There are several about the missing middle housing and that housing that you've already addressed and worked through. A lot of those terms are not in these existing 572 definitions. So that's part of what we'll be looking at in addition to the other pieces. There are existing 171 residential use categories and 30 plus zones written for single parcel, meaning the SD zones. We'll touch on that in a little bit as well. Of the 171 uses, 102 are banned in every single zone. So there's some consolidation, some cleanup. If it's banned everywhere, maybe there's another way to do it so that you don't have to search through 171 things when you're just scrolling through a page. So how this review has been done so far, or how it will continually be done, we did a precursory look at the existing code. We looked through Title 21, and understood what the baseline is today. We took our existing knowledge, the general plan, state law, and the housing workshop that you had already completed. We took all those pieces and we did this preliminary assessment to understand this is the best practices, this is what we would typically do That was our first step. The second step is we did a revised version of that after we met with many on the council, many on the planning commission, staff, development community, and other strategic partnerships and groups throughout the city. And we revised that preliminary assessment based on the heavy context of the city. Our next steps are working through this framework. So we did the preliminary assessment. Our next step is to take all of these pieces and establish a very detailed framework that says this is how the structure of the code should work. That'll be our next piece. And then, as we go through that, the following step will actually be moving the pieces of the code, taking what's good, keeping it, and changing those things that need adjustments. The five major ways this code, or the buckets in which we have essentially taking all the preliminary assessment, are these five right on screen. So easier to understand. Again, that talks a little bit about the plain language. It also talks about that structure, cleaning it up. There's no duplicative information. Easier to understand, making it so that it flows, so that if I'm a random person off the street, I can look at the code and figure out where that item should be. just a blueprint to match the community's plan. So the existing vision that you have, taking that, understanding that process and how we can simplify some of those pieces so that it's applicable in the code, that you can actually follow the vision that you've established. So that's that better planning piece. And then more housing choices. That heavily comes from the decisions and the discussions that you have had. And that's also where we talked about a little bit of those specific terms that are are mentioned in that housing assessment but aren't actually found in the code today or not defined in the code today so actually bringing that into the code and then better community design we know as we've worked through Karen's district and some of these other there's some complexities to those when a developer comes in and says well I want to do this in this area and you're like we love that but based on this you have to have 36 exemptions or something, we need to look through that process and figure out what can we do to simplify that, keep the things that are important to community development, and remove the things that are not. And then just general process. How can we streamline that process so it's quick and predictable? When I come into the city, it's the same in two years as it is today. I'll get the same response if the situation is the same. So as we go through this, easier to understand. We've talked about this already. We want to make sure that if a citizen comes into the code, they can find the rule. easy to find, I can comply with that. If it's not easy to find, that's when you start to get staff time at the desk, calls, and questions here where people just don't know or couldn't find that. So the more we can minimize that and streamline that process, the easier it is to minimize the time that you have to spend here, which I think you would appreciate. So with this piece, we have established rules for every single piece that goes in the code. So let's say, for example, a fence. This is the rule. If we're changing anything to fence, this is the rule as to where that would go or if it's animal rights or whatever it may be. You can actually follow these rules and understand that's exactly where it's going to go. That's where that information will hit. And so that's what this is talking about. Simplifying some of those chapters, we've organized them into seven specific parts, and we won't touch on that that much today. General provisions, which standard things that the city needs to address. Administration procedures, so process. Zoning districts, the specific districts that are established in the city. Use regulations, so the details of those zones. Development and design standards, so the things that city staff establish for road sections and other things like that. That's where they can actually click to and link to that information. definitions, which we've already addressed, and then existing special districts. There's quite a few special districts. That's where those will sit as we continue to work through this. Consolidated tables, one part per question, consistent numbering throughout. Those are the types of things that we're looking at with this code update. Plain English, these two diagrams on this page, the left is essentially the code today. The right is where we're wanting to get to. You can decide for yourself which one you like better. One of them is easier to get through. The other piece, as we continue to work with the development community, as we continue to work with residents and other things, a lot of the codes that we come across are not what is called dynamic. And what that means in developer terms, meaning web developer terms, is it can adjust based on the screen that you're looking at it with. So if it's on a phone, which is where a lot of these things are now accessed, it will actually shrink or readjust to actually work well on a phone as opposed to a tablet or a laptop or desktop. And so making a code that works dynamically is another piece that we're looking into. This theme two, better planning. So the community already agreed on the vision. Now we're looking to deliver the tool that establishes the specific criteria to make that real. touch on this. The bottom piece I'll touch on here is some of those specifics as to what we're trying to take out of the general plan and put into the code. So we've talked about the transit stations, the adopted plans for those areas. How do we make those real in the code? In addition to that, the neighborhood activity centers, the corridors, and those pieces that were addressed in the general plan and in these key strategies and then tie them to actual rules. I'll touch on this briefly. So existing, you have 30 plus written special districts. What we're looking to do is we're looking to take the zoning and to take the existing code that you have and make it flexible so that there is limited discretion so that the city is protected and safe in that circumstance but these special districts which are specific to one spot in the city can be more broadly associated with other locations given certain circumstances so if we add some flexibility to a zone that this special district can now fit into this special district is not needed anymore so there's that ability to Establish that in an existing code framework and eliminate nonconformities, but still allow that special district to be standardized across the city.

More housing choices.

which I know this has been something that the city's worked on for quite a while. The three big pieces is affordable, ownable, and available for people at every stage of life. So that's sort of the crux that we're looking at this and the lens that we're looking at this through, obviously with the document that's already been worked on to add as that framework for this. I don't know if we need to touch on this that much, seeing as you did spend quite a bit of time on it. We'll just touch on some of the pieces that came out of that process, the difference between Apartments and single family homes, large lots and things, that range of housing in between. Where do the senior housing go? Where do the first time home buyers? Where are some of these other products that are missing in the city for residents that have no option here and have to move elsewhere? How do we get these back into the city? So that's essentially what we're touching on here. As I briefly mentioned earlier, as part of that, these 572 definitions, we will look to standardize these, make sure that they are defensible, understandable, and have diagrams to support. So if I'm looking at housing height on a hill or wherever it may be, it's consistent across the board. We get the same answer. And a developer coming in will understand that's exactly how it's measured. That's exactly how it's measured. In addition to that, the cottage cluster, small multiplex, senior housing, some of these other pieces are not defined in the code. So bringing those definitions into the code is another piece that we're looking at. The next piece, better community design. I did touch on this. Speaking about the Cairns District and some of these other pieces in the city, there's a little bit of complexity. What we want to specifically look at is streamlining that process and the development standards associated with that so that we keep those things that actually move the needle for the better community design and remove the barriers to development that don't actually do anything as far as helping get the vision and the outcome that you're looking for. So that is one of the pieces that we'll be looking through, making sure these standards are defensible, they're easy to follow, practical, and actually move that needle. It's not there just to make something more expensive. With that, We've done a little bit of development. And I get a little sarcastic sometimes. We've done quite a bit. And in this process, some of the big pieces that we've noticed move that needle. And this is where we'll focus is there are some architectural pieces that obviously move the needle. There are some that do not. Parking, trees and water, lighting, and all of these pieces. We'll look at standardizing this and we'll obviously pass it in front of this body. We'll talk through that, we'll work through those pieces as we continue to go through the framework and the actual development of this code. But these are some of the big points that we're gonna be looking to. And then the other piece that comes out of The general plan is this street focus, streets built for people, not just cars, moving people through these streets, making a comfortable environment. What actually moves the needle for them and what doesn't? And so looking at those pieces for walking, biking, transit, and so on, because those were big components as part of the general plan. process. One of the number one things that we heard consistently from the development community was the time at which it takes to get through some of the processes. That is not unique to Sandy. That is across the board, across the Wasatch Front, across the US, across Utah, whatever it may be, this is a consistent thing that we hear from everyone. So it's not that the process is bad or terrible. There are things that we can do to streamline it so that it's easier and more predictable for anybody to come in and say, okay, here's my timeline. This is exactly what's required of me, and this is the process. So you get exactly what you want, and there's that partnership. One of the big pieces of that is the some levels of ambiguity with definitions and other parts of the code. As we remove discretion, it allows you to defend the code, defend the city in a practical and legal way so that a developer doesn't have the ability to come in and say, well, you're taking my opportunity to do what I want to do, and there's nothing in the code that says you can't. We want to make sure that the text where it says, as deemed appropriate, does that mean? I don't know. As determined by the commission, a little bit of ambiguity there. A lot of discretion, that's where we get into trouble. We want to remove some of this type of language to make it, nope, it's 35 feet maximum and here's the way that that's measured, whether it's on flat ground or slope or whatever, you know exactly what that means. 60% of the ground floor in windows. A crosswalk every 400 feet. Very specific criteria that is very defensible and you can measure. So with that said, what happens next? We've obviously completed the assessment. That is available. This next piece is we are going through the framework, which is... Sounds simple. There's a lot to it. We're going through a few pages of code and taking all the sections in this, trying to make sure that they're streamlined and organized in a systematic process that makes sense to no matter who comes into it. They can come to the same conclusion, the same organizational structure ten years down the road, two years down the road. whether you're half asleep or fully awake. We want to make sure that the outline of that is consistent. And so that's this next piece that we've been working on and will continue to work on. And we'll be coming back November 17 with that information, just as an FY. We'll be working through staff with that as well. So continue to vet that. Then the next piece is alongside of all of this, there's the public review and the information going onto the website, going to Heritage Days on Saturday, and some of these other pieces just to incorporate the community so that they're not in the dark as well. And then obviously as we go through this whole process, it will end in those public hearings. So with that said, here's the last slide of how individuals can get involved. We have drafts posted or information posted so that the public can see what's happening. We have public comment available. We have received one individual interested in following it. That's it so far. But it's available. For those who really want to punish themselves in the community, please read through the code. And then, obviously, we have our first open house at Heritage Days. And there will be two more to follow after that. Any questions with that?

Council or Commission? Ms. Sharkey.

So I do get concerned when I hear discussion about the marriage of the land development code and the general plan. I understand that there would have to be some amount of that. We did adopt a general plan. As an example, we adopted a general plan that talked about mansion-style homes, but the land development code doesn't have a residential design standard for that, right? So I understand why they would have to correlate. But I think they're two different documents. I think the land development code is a rule book, a blueprint for what is expected. I think a general plan is a possible vision of a possible future. And so you used another, you used the word discretion, wanting to, to some extent or another, remove discretion. I'm going to have to think about that one.

Yeah. We're not removing it completely. That's an impossibility. But where we want to be defensible, we want to remove discretion that will get you in trouble.

I'm going to have to think about what that means, right?

Yeah.

So I think, too, I mean, my point of view, I think, is shared by many other cities. Ms. Nickel and I are members of the League of Cities and Towns Legislative Policy Committee. And a legislator brought a bill to us last year for approval that would make the general plan a zoning map. And cities universally said no. And so there's a reason for that, right? And so I just want to make sure that I put in my two cents here on this issue. I understand that they're highly correlated and why they need to be.

um i don't know exactly how to explain where the line is but there also needs to be a line right yeah they aren't the same you're correct they aren't the same document the general plan is the guiding document guiding general plans typically don't have significant teeth you even talked about it you referenced it the legislature tried to make the general plan map essentially code and it failed across the state. There's a reason for that because the general plan allows you to envision that flexibility, that future, that growth. And anyone who lived through 2020 can reasonably say, I have no clue what's going to happen tomorrow. no one expected 2020 to happen and so as i've seen these general plans change to reflect that history there's been a lot more resiliency and flexibility out of these general plans that can be difficult to capture in a code rewrite or a code update and so there there will be some level of overlap with the two documents just because the general plan is our guiding document So there will be pieces that come into the code. However, as a follow up to that, remember this body is the body that approves the code update. So as we work through sections, as we go through some of these pieces, there will be technical committees where we discuss specific issues get the understanding of what the city wants to do in those circumstances so although the general plan is the guiding document the code is where the rubber meets the road so it may not look exactly or identical to each other it won't because one is code and one is vision hopefully that helps

I would just add that, like in the general plan, the transit-oriented development around the stations, we don't have tools like a zone or an overlay zone with specific standards, land uses, that are in our code now to actually make that happen. So it's in our general plan, and we have no tool. implement if you're going to do a rezone in or well some things maybe we've established an overlay zone and their standards but the council ultimately would have the decision-making authority to actually rezone and there would have to be an application of rezone that property so then you have that discretion and to do so as well as discretion of adopting any standards or the code but just there's we just don't have the tools for redevelopment being around our neighborhood activity centers some improvements in our Cairns district the transit station area plans the yeah the corridors and missing middle housing on the transition corridors or to allow flexibility of different housing types we don't have those tools right now and so those are directions coming straight from our general plan and so we want to have those tools to implement but ultimately the council has discretion in the future on those reasons when and if they happen and also adoption of the code so just to emphasize that they are two different things but we're at a loss right now of things that the general plan speaks to seeing how the city would grow or redevelop in some areas and that's probably that's the primary piece of the impetus for this project and then the other pieces are reorganizing and making it more compliant with state law plain language and

better organization easier to understand for the staff and the public and the decision-makers in addition to that sandy is predominantly built out and the code talks a lot about sort of what is called greenfield development, meaning vacant land that can be developed. So there's some level of that that doesn't really exist in the city. Obviously there's pieces, but a level of infill code language to help guide those processes. And as we're talking about the neighborhood activity centers, as you transition from existing to potentially more intense around those corridors as it's referring to in the general plan, Those transition areas become very important. How do you address those? There's no zone, there's no code piece currently in Sandy that addresses that. So those are some of the areas that are very critical to address with this code update.

All right, I think, Mr. Winkley, you had something?

Yeah, I appreciate how you're trying to make this code more readable. The current code's a little bit of a sleeper. I mean, just black and white, and it goes on forever. You talked about putting it on cell phones, and maybe the report you're giving to us, is it going to be like a Word document with graphics and stuff embedded in it, and then the city will have to take that and then transfer it to the web requirements, or will that be ready accessible?

Yeah, the code is already on MuniCode, and MuniCode has some ability for phone usage, but as you get through that, some of those tables and things are very difficult to use. So there's some of that that we'll clean up. Well, all of that that we're working to clean up. To answer the other question, if I understood it correctly, you were talking about the existing preliminary assessment? Is that?

You're talking about using graphics and making more visual. And I was just making sure that the graphics that you give in the report here can later be used by the city because there's some new ADA requirements coming out regarding federal government and the university where I do some stuff. I just want to be sure that you didn't give us a report, and then it turns out that the graphic you spent all this time on, which are beautiful, the city can't use. No, no, no.

Everything we're doing is cities.

That format that we have could be easy to upload or something.

Yeah, and we have graphics in the code now, but there's some inconsistencies, and there can be improvements on that. And so this project will help to... Add more graphics, revise or replace some of the existing graphics because that helps explain the standard and using table format where appropriate can also help simplify the rules.

Yeah, I like that. I mean, I think people are into graphics now, and they like video, and they like stuff like that. I just want to be sure that it's ADA compliant so that you put all this together, and then the city's got to put it into a website. Right, and...

For those things that technically or legally that we need to coordinate with our city recorder, we're absolutely doing that and speaking, coordinating all along the way to make sure that we're meeting each other's needs and all that. Thank you.

Any other questions? None on this side either? Look at you. You were that thorough. I will just add quick comments. I very much appreciate the move. And I think this echoes a little bit of what you said. The move to visualization, simplification, everyday language, making everything more accessible, understandable. And I love predictable. And I understand that there will always be some analysis, et cetera. But we become a city that is more attractive to work with when people have things they can count on. There is some level of predictability. And I appreciate that. That's been one of the things we've been talking about for quite a while, is what barriers can we remove So that things can move forward quickly and and we we get more homeowners for example in Sandy So thank you for all of that. I Think we are done. Thank you so much. Thank you for joining us All right, so that was item number two Okay And we have already held items three, four, and five. So I am going to move us on ahead to item number six, a few notes for the public. Thank you, everyone who was a part of that. We very much appreciate you. So with this discussion of Canyon Gate, recognizing that it is actually multiple items all tied together, we are actually going to take the items concurrently, is my understanding, Mr. Warner, including public comment, correct? So you'll present. We've got Mr. Cadell ready to speak to the development agreement. We're going to, as a council, discuss You know really understand the development agreement before we move forward on anything else because ultimately we need to make a decision on that First is my understanding. Mr. Prado. Is that correct?

what I would suggest is before you amend the general plan before you adopt the rezone and If you decide to do that, you should probably have a good feeling about the development agreement, right? Do you want to move forward with that? If you don't, then there's no reason to adopt the others unless you plan on doing so without adopting the development agreement.

All right. Thank you for that guidance. So I am going to turn it over to you, Mr. Warner.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Good evening again, counsel. You just had 50% of what I was going to talk about, had a discussion about 50% of what I was going to talk about, so thank you. Items number six and seven on the agenda are two items representing two applications. We have three potential motions, but it's all one project. So I think it's wise to open up both items, have the discussion, and I'll get into what Dustin was talking about as well and maybe lay out the foundation of why we would be suggesting that. Just as a background, this item came to the city council twice already, once on January 7th, or January, July 7th, and once on July 14th. At that time we also had two items. The first item was the general plan amendment. And there was some, if you recall, there was some discussion about how to handle these two items. There was a motion to approve the general plan amendment. The general plan amendment is requesting that the institutional future land use designation be changed to the medium density future land use designation. That would be consistent with the zone that the applicant is requesting and would be consistent with the majority of the surrounding area. The council made a motion to approve that general plan amendment. That vote was three to three, so it failed due to a tie. And the council's direction was to bring that back for reconsideration when the rezone came back to you. In that meeting on the 14th of July, we then went into the rezone application, and there was quite a bit of discussion about bringing back a development agreement. The council did make a motion associated with that item. The motion basically was directing staff, the council attorney, city attorney's office to prepare a development agreement and bring it back. And that motion was approved six to zero. So just a reminder, the rezone is requesting that the zoning on the property be changed from the R18 zone to the PUD12 zone. And the intended project there is a townhome project of 86 units. And so with that, a development agreement has been prepared. Mr. Cadell provided a memo that provided some insights into that document. As Dustin mentioned, it is our, I think, well, as we've talked, that would be our joint recommendation is that you have the discussion about the development agreement, determine if you're comfortable where that is, and if so, We would recommend, I would recommend the following order for motions. First of all, ordinance 26-52 is the ordinance that would approve the rezone. That ordinance specifically ties the development agreement to that decision as a material, as Mr. Cadell states it, as a material component in your consideration of the rezone. And so the development agreement is tied to ordinance 26-52, but ordinance 26-52 is the document that would rezone the property subject to that development agreement. Resolution 26-84C is the document that officially approves the development agreement and authorizes the mayor to sign that agreement. So they're kind of tied together. The resolution to approve the development agreement actually refers to the development agreement that's attached to the ordinance for the rezone. So they are linked together. If you're not comfortable with the development agreement, if Ordinance 26-52 fails, I don't know that there's a whole lot of point in moving forward with the other two motions, Resolution 2684C and then the final ordinance, which is Ordinance 26-51, which would approve the the general plan amendment amending revising the future land use map for the subject property from institutional to medium density neighborhood. So again one project, two applications, three potential motions. And I failed to mention subject property is 825 east, 9085 south, approximately 7.2 acres. Again, general plan amendment application would redesignate the subject property from institutional to medium density neighborhood. The rezone application would rezone the property from R18 to PUD 12. And as the ordinance is written, it would tie in that development agreement. So with that, staff is available for questions. I know that Mr. Cadell is prepared to address the development agreement.

Well done, Mr. Warner. I know this one's got a lot of layers, so thank you for that. All right, and because we've been given that guidance, Council, I'd recommend we start with the development agreement, perhaps, see if we have questions on that. I'm seeing nods or does that sound I know but I'm asking if that's okay if we start with with just focusing on the development agreement ask questions etc have deliberation yes I just have one question so Jake you're suggesting taking the ordinances out of order

Yeah we're recommending we do it backwards from the order in the agenda is what we typically would like to see and maybe from a best practice would be the order that we would recommend but with where we're at we are recommending that we first address the development agreement and if you're not comfortable with that if we need to do more work there there's really no point in doing the other things.

Good clarifying question. All right, so Ms. Sharkey, did you have a question about the development? No, no, no. OK. Any questions about the development agreement? Mr. Cadell, is there anything you would like to just summarize for us?

I'm happy to do that, Madam Chair. Thank you. Would you like me to come down? Your call. I'm comfortable. Well, maybe I'll just come down. OK. Good evening, Madam Chair, members of the Council, Mayor, I know she's here, professional staff at all. A couple of weeks ago, the Council did a first reading on this particular project. It's one of the alter egos of the Boyer Company. It was coming in and wanted to get a rezone of some property owned by the Canyon School District in order to put some multifamily project in that particular area. You tasked me, but one of the questions you asked is the question that city councils across the state of Utah are asking is, if somebody is showing us the bright and shiny object that they're going to build in our community, and we think it's wonderful, and it's bright and shiny, and we would love to have it, and all we have to do is this rezone. And you do the rezone, and you think you're getting the Ferrari, and then a Yugo shows up, right? A lot of that has to do with what your zone is and making sure your zone is correct. But we're talking about here is one of the tools that legislative bodies can use in order to ensure that they're getting what they bargained for. And how it really works is that developer and the city come to terms, and the developer agrees to, in exchange for getting certain development rights and vested rights and interests that are very, very important to them. They agree to do certain things and conditions under a contract that makes us feel a bit more comfortable about the project. That's essentially really what it is. And so pursuant to your counsel, Jim Wright and I, Jim represents the applicant, and Lynn worked on the project, sort of Jim and I sort of took the first crack at it. Once we sort of had it ready, we sent it to Lynn, who had some really good feedback, too. And so the document that you're seeing is a project with legal counsel for Boyer, the city attorney's office, and me. And so I'm comfortable with the draft. And I know Lynn wouldn't have forwarded along if he wasn't. Just a couple of just to fly over in terms of what it does. What this essentially does is that it gives the developer this rights that and it's both the benefit and the burden that runs with the land. Because this document will be recorded. So if the property changes hands, what needs to be built is what's in that development agreement. There are certain protections in that document concerning how the project might, it can't really be materially different than what is articulated in that document. There's a specific provision that these are going to be for sale units. And talking to the applicant, because they just don't know how many they're going to be able to move, we agreed in principle to turn, I mean, obviously you have your legislative discretion and whatever you decide is ultimately up to you. But what the development agreement basically says is 17 of those units can be rental units. But Boyer has every intention of selling these and having them be owner-occupied. They are not planning on being in the landlord business and keeping these for rental units. But they needed the 20% in order to, because they're just not sure if they're going to be able to move them all at once. They want to be able to get them on the market if they're not being sold. So that's why there's the 17. That represents 20%. There's a provision in there that's important that if anybody who's ever paid attention to some litigation that happened out in Tooele County with the development agreement, you always know all development agreements now say no damages. They can only sue for specific performance. So we include that provision. So essentially, what it does is it just tells the developer that they can do it. They can do the project. And it says that we're going to get the kind of project that we bargained for. This particular development agreement means that it still goes through planning. And it still goes through the PC. So we're not circumventing them. It's still got to go through that process. But when that application hits the planning department's desk, it's got to be within the confines of what you tell them in these documents. Then when the PC looks at it, they can approve it, but it has to be within the confines of this document too. So it's a tool to be able to, you wanted to make sure that we weren't having more rentals in that particular area, this should do that. Let me tell you what it does not do. What it does not do is it doesn't limit, say there's somebody who buys one of these units, and say in five years from now they decide it's time for them to move up and buy a home, it does not prevent that person who owns it from leasing it. even if Boyer is leasing 17 of them. Individuals could still lease their property. So there isn't a deed restriction, which is something that Council Member Nickel asked about, and it isn't because I didn't ask. They felt like that, in fact, that was the first thing that Jim and I talked about. outside the door the night of the meeting that this was discussed on a first reading, that is very, very difficult for them to do. And so if that's very important to you, Councilmember Nookie, you'll have to just decide how you wish to vote. I know that there was also the issue that Councilmember Sharkey asked for maybe some additional green space in there. That hasn't changed either. But what is significantly better is the fact that if you didn't have this agreement in place and you didn't approve it, it would mean that there's a zone change and then everything that could be built in that zone could be built there. And that is not true if you approve this. Do you have any questions for me?

Thank you for that excellent overview. Questions? Council? Ms. Nichol?

So it's about the The CCNRs or the Homeowners Association.

Yes.

Who sets that up?

The – basically, the Boyer Company is probably the company that they'll create. I'm sure, like, a limited liability company will – they'll originally set up those as the owner will originally set up the original CC&Rs.

So they set up the HOA. Yes. The documents that the HOA creates are the set of CC&Rs. Yes. And limiting conditions of what – owners can do, right? Generally, yes. Yes, generally. That's what I was hoping they could put a limit on no more than 20% of at any time can be rented. That's what I was hoping.

And I pushed for that too. Yeah. I started, you know, we started, we moved on pretty quickly from the, from me pushing on the, you know.

I totally see, but that was, so that would be, that would be the time that that took place. Yes. The creation of that. So technically they can put that in. They don't want to because it's a deed restriction that could affect value because values are affected by deed restrictions.

You understand the issue perfectly. Right, okay. Just so you know. That was something that I asked them about multiple times in the conversation. I included it in the draft of the document that I sent to them. Jim and I talked about it on the phone, and he explained to me that that would make it very difficult for them to accomplish what they want to accomplish. I understand that. I think, and I don't want to put words in their mouth, but I think from my perspective, I got them to move as far as they were willing to move on the things they were willing to move on. And now the next question is, is that movement far enough for you? But I do want you to know that I did do the very thing that you're asking me about.

I have no doubt you did.

And I was really persuasive, but they still told me no.

Sometimes you win, sometimes you don't. That's all my question. Thank you.

Anything else?

I'm checking. I don't believe so. Thank you for that. Thank you, Madam Chair. So with that discussion over, I'll bring it back to the council for, because we did feel like the first thing to consider was the development agreement. Yeah, we can take it now or we can take it after we have. Our own discussion? Because we got our question. I can do it either way. Do we want to have our own discussion or take? It will be before we vote, for sure. Do you want to hear from public and then we discuss?

Okay. All right. We do have one card on this item. You've been very patient waiting.

So Julie Hepworth, this is the item you want to, did I say it wrong?

Number eight.

Well, we're taking public comment on.

No, Madam Chair. We're on items number six and number seven.

Ah, see, still not ready for you. I was thinking six, seven, and eight. My apologies. Thought we were merging three, not two. We'll get there. Okay, so then I do not have any blue cards on these two. We're taking six and seven together. So with that, I'm looking around. No one's jumping up. Let's go ahead and check online, please.

Thank you, Madam Chair. If you're joining us virtually this evening via Zoom and you would like to comment on items number six or items number seven on this evening's agenda as related to the Canyon Gate general plan amendment and the Canyon Gate rezone, go ahead and click the raise hand button on your screen now. I'll call your name and the order in which you raised your hand, and you'll have three minutes. Not seeing any hands raised, Madam Chair.

Okay. I'll go ahead and close public comment on this item and come back for discussion.

Madam Chair, I do have one quick question for Mr. Cadell. Mr. Cadell, we have a question. That I forgot to ask. What is with the December 20 or 31, 2027 date? That seems far off to me.

It's interesting. I think it was actually Linda suggested that date that was actually moving it up because I had it just more open-ended, right, just to allow them for their business, according to their business needs. And it was actually Lynn's office that thought we needed to get a date in there and get it moved up. And it was basically a negotiated date. And so just so you know, I was okay with it being more open-ended. And Lynn said we need to get a date and it needs to be this.

I think it actually needs to be sooner. But that was just a big question.

Maybe you could ask the applicant about that.

No, it's okay. Okay. Madam chair.

I'm ready with a motion to deny the request for Canyon Gate development agreement second Okay, we have a motion and a second discussion on the motion I'll start I I support the development agreement. I think it's it's a We've demonstrated an appropriate degree, I believe, of back and forth. I think this is the right use for this property. I think there's a lot of reasons why. I've shared it in previous conversations, so I'll just keep it short and simple. I appreciate the negotiation back and forth. Frankly, not everyone's even willing to do a development agreement. So you could have said no to a development agreement entirely. I think it allows us to have more, kind of to point to what Mr. Cadell said, a little more guidance in what is allowed here. So I will not be able to support the, what did you call it, the denial. Double negative there. Other comments? Ms. Sharkey?

Tonight is difficult for me. I struggled with this one, too. I struggled with how to explain what my vote will be on this one. But I think it's important for me to tell the Boyer Company and for the Community Development Department why I'm voting the way I'm voting. I'm going to vote no. I'm going to vote yes to the motion. But not because I don't like the development agreement. It's because I don't like the project. So development, deed restrictions. I think deed restrictions are mandatory if what we're doing is affordable housing and we've got public money supporting the project. I think deed restrictions under those conditions are mandatory. Under this condition, I am accepting of the fact that the Boyer Company doesn't feel like they want to go to that length either in terms of a deed restriction or in terms of HOA requirements. But it's the project that I'm not supportive of and so I'll get into that when we move on to the next thing. But I just didn't want my vote to be misunderstood because I think it's important. We will be having more development agreements. And my problem isn't with this development agreement. It's with the project. Thank you.

Okay. I don't think we have any more discussion. Oh, yes, we do. Sorry, Ms. Nichol.

I'm kind of the opposite. I love the project. It's the fact that we can't do the deep restriction is my hang up with that because our community is wants ownership opportunities, not more rentals. And they've made that very clear. So I love the project, but we just couldn't meet on that one little part.

So the motion, are you looking for who? The motion was Ms. Nichol and Ms. Christensen. Were you the second? So I think we've exhausted our discussion, so we'll do a roll call vote, please. And again.

Could you clarify the motion, please? Was that correct the way I worded it?

Well, I mean, it's OK. I mean, no one made a motion to approve it. You made a motion to disallow it. If that motion fails, someone could make a motion to approve it, which is what it would require to go forward. But it's no problem. We're OK with you on the motion.

I mean, I would always suggest avoiding motions to the negative, right? Even if you don't want something to pass, you just vote no if you don't want it to pass. It makes more sense to motion to approve something rather than to disapprove it. But nonetheless, that's the motion that's been made. My one question would be... Is the motion to deny specific to one of the resolutions or ordinances, or is it to all three? There's an ordinance that- All three, since they're connected. So ordinance 2651, ordinance 2652, and resolution 26-84C, for the record. Do you have clarity, Ms. Edwards?

OK. Yes thank you.

Oh well we sort of took public comment.

I should have made it but that's the applicant. I know. Oh OK. OK.

But yes if you're asking we I mean we have heard from you on previous occasions. Do you have new information to share with us this evening. OK. We have not yet voted. We have a motion and we have a second, but we've not yet voted on the motion, so absolutely.

No, thank you. We'll keep it brief. I appreciate the feedback. And, you know, kudos to Tracy and to Lynn for working. We spent a lot of time on this and went back and forth. And Tracy is not understating his position. He was very adamant about that. And we did have lengthy conversations about that. The challenge that we have are a couple fold. We've got to finance this project, and financing becomes very, very difficult with deed restrictions. And also we have an underlying landowner in the Canyon School District that owns the property, will own the project if we go away. And so in sharing this information with them, deed restrictions were very challenging. for the project in and of a whole, whether Boyer does it or anyone else does it. One more item to answer your question, Councilmember Nickel, about the rental provision and restricting that. We heard you loud and clear on the rental restrictions. And we're okay with that, as I think Tracy alluded to. Our plan is to sell them all. It doesn't really make sense for us to rent 17 of them in there. It's nice to have that as an option should the market change. And with interest rates going to 7%, it may be a little bit challenging to move them at the velocity that we want to move them. So it may help us to be able to rent some during the sales season just to kind of smooth out cash flows. But our plan is to sell them all. As to the... Deed restriction, what we found in other communities when we have an HOA managing and restricting rentals, that becomes very onerous for property owners. There's property rights. They expect certain property rights when they purchase property. And so that will be very difficult for them if they're spending $500,000 to $600,000 on a home to have a restriction on their property. Most of them probably won't end up renting it, but with their lender, with their investment of capital, if they have that restriction on the property right, it becomes very hard to sell those. And then the second condition to that is just that the market will dictate what becomes of these. As I alluded, these will be between $500,000 and $600,000 townhomes. the cost of materials, the cost of the land. I think you can see a project around the corner that Brad Reynolds is doing trading for that same price. If you look at the market when an individual buys these for that, let's call it $550,000 with mortgage rates where they are today and a 3% down payment, their monthly payment will be upwards of $4,000. That is way above rent in that area. If you look at Quarry Bend and you look at all the surrounding inventory, rentals for that similar type of product are trading between $2,200 and $2,900. You are way out of market if you buy a project or if you buy a home in here and you're paying a mortgage for let's call $3,900. You can't rent it. You would be writing a check every month. to rent these out. And so the market will correct that issue. They won't become rentals because they don't make sense to be rentals. The only way it makes sense for this project to be rentals is for an institutional investor to come in and buy it and do rentals on the whole project with a lower cost of capital. We've agreed not to do that. We're fine with that. We will sell them, but the market will dictate whether these can be rented by individuals, and currently at the price which these will be sold for, they won't work as rentals for an individual who comes in and purchases. Now, there may be someone who has cash and doesn't know what to do with it and comes in and pays all cash for the unit and rents it at a loss. I can't control that happening. But for those who buy this and use an FHA loan or a 3% down payment, the market will dictate what they can do with their property. And so for those reasons, it was very hard for us to agree to a rental restriction. I'll be honest with you. We could put something in the HOA governing documents. Those are really, really hard to enforce. We've seen several communities where those are put in and they're not really adhered to. And you have neighbors tattling on neighbors or not, or cramming people in. It's just really, really hard to enforce a rental provision from an HOA perspective. And so we've tried that before, been unsuccessful. We found the best mechanism to govern that is to let the market do it. And for those reasons, we pushed back. We're open, you know, if it's something, if it's a for sale issue, if you still feel uncomfortable with the 17 number, we negotiate that. Like if it's, you know, you're really worried about those becoming rentals, it's, you know, that's negotiable. The challenge is, as I alluded to, just those, a deed restriction or a property restriction on those who will buy the property. Because we ultimately have to pass that on to someone else who has to have a lender and has to get a loan on something. And that becomes difficult to do. So... Anyway, I don't know if that makes sense or not, but we're willing to have additional conversations if there's other ideas that we haven't thought of. But I just wanted to let you know why we approached it from that direction. So yeah. Thank you. Like I said, if there's ideas or suggestions, we're open to those. We're happy to keep on working on it. We love the property, love the use, but there are some things that are challenging for us.

Thank you for that. Any additional thoughts before we vote? Okay, please, Ms. Edwards. So again, because this was a, the motion was to deny, we're essentially denying

Madam Chair, a vote yes would be to deny, a vote no would be to keep talking.

A vote yes would be to deny, a vote no would be to keep talking.

We don't do denials very often. It seems weird. All right.

I think we're ready.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Ms. Nickel? Yes. Ms. Christensen?

Yes.

Mr. DeKaiser?

No.

Ms. Stroud?

Yes.

Ms. Hausman?

No.

Ms. Sharkey?

Yes.

Madam Chair, that motion carried four to two to deny.

OK. So with that, we won't take up the other. the other items, not tonight. Okay, then I will thank you for those who've been a part of that conversation tonight. I will move us on now to actually item number eight. But before we take public comment on that, we are gonna hear again, this is our second reading on ADUs. We'll take it away Ms. Anderson.

So we're going to bring up the presentation. And so two weeks ago, I presented on a proposal to amend the Land Development Code to allow for detached ADUs. and the whole slide deck that was included in the packet is available here but I don't want to go through the whole thing I don't necessarily think it's necessary but I want you to know that it's all available here if you want to reference any of it I do want to just briefly go over some requirements of the state law just so that we're clear on what we have to do or may not do and briefly touch again on our general plan policies And so I'll go through some of that right now, and then I'll open it back up to the council to discuss the item. So the new state law is effective October 1. It was passed at the legislature, and it requires us to provide for detached accessory dwelling units. And that law has things that we are required to do, we must, we shall do it, things that we may not do or were prohibited from doing, and also things that we may do. In the staff report originally, it addressed all those, but the shalls or our requirements, the minimum requirements of that law is that to allow for detached ADUs on single-family home lots that are at least 11,000 square feet or greater. We can go lower than that, but that's the minimum that we're required to do. To do so, we must ensure that the building fire and health codes are addressed. We also have to provide a process to convert existing accessory structures to a detached ADU. It doesn't specify all the details of that, but that we must provide a process. So those are the things that we, the minimum that we're required to do. And the minimum that we or rather the things that were prohibited from doing are that we cannot require a conditional use permit for a detached ADU. It needs to be a permitted use. We can have standards, but it must be a permitted use. in the residential zones. For parking, we are prohibited from requiring a certain amount of parking, but we can require some, up to one if it's an ADU that's 650 square feet or less, or less than that, or two if it's 650 square feet or more. and but we can't we're prohibited from requiring any more than that and we may not have design standards that conflict with all the design elements listed in the state code that regulate single-family homes so there's a number of things that we may do and that's where you know having the the minimum required by state law it's not a simple black and white because they just list okay you you must do that you're prohibited from doing that you could do a variety of other things so basically if we did the bare minimum it would probably be more open and liberal than probably the council would be comfortable with. And so that's why we have that discretion to have additional standards. So that is laid out in the proposal. And so there's a number of mays. And that was all in your packet. I can go back to them if you'd like, but I just didn't want to belabor this since we had a link.

What does the red indicate?

Yeah. And in the presentation that was included in the packet and that you see here now was like at the top, it says we may require owner occupancy. And so in the red, we're saying we have done that in this section of the code. Gotcha. And then lastly, I also wanted to just reiterate the general plan policies because The proposal, there is an attempt to try to make sure that we're following existing policies that the council has already adopted. So the goals and policies of the general plan, as well as the moderate income housing plan, which is state mandated, in general support accessory dwelling units, whether they're attached to the home or, you know, inside the home or detached. There's general support. and it is to encourage a variety of housing options for different types of households. There's also specifically the policy is to require owner occupancy or to continue with that practice, mitigate impacts on neighboring properties, and ensure ADUs are subordinate or accessory to the primary structure. Don't want them to be larger than that. And so that's the – some of the points that I just wanted to go over or refresh. And in the packet and last meeting in the work session, I wanted to make sure you – you understood that we have staff recommended proposal we had the public hearings with the Planning Commission Planning Commission did forward a positive recommendation but with modifications and so all those modifications were laid out specifically they were in the presentation as well as in the minutes we tried to really capture those very detailed And also, at the last meeting, the council did not necessarily give staff specific direction in terms of coming back with anything specific. So we did not necessarily make any changes other than to maybe elaborate on how our proposal compares to what the state law is prohibiting or allowing us to do. We did augment with that information. But at the last meeting I did notice I took notes throughout that there was some general support from and there may be had different perspectives now after thinking about it but at the last meeting there seemed to be general support from the council for one-story accessory dwelling units not to say everybody, but it seemed like there was maybe four people, council members, support on a maximum limit on the total square footage because right now the code is stipulating maximum footprint. as it compares to your main house size, as well as your lot coverage on the rear. But other cities do do that, so that's certainly a standard practice. So if that's something that council wanted to consider, there seemed to be some general support for that. And also there was general support for detached ADUs on lots 10,000 square feet. greater as opposed to 11,000 square feet or greater so those were just some points that I thought that I had heard at that time anyway I think that covers yeah most of my points I think tonight the council can make a decision an ordinance is attached to this if you wanted to make a motion to approve as presented, or you could approve with modifications, or you could have a discussion and direct staff to come back next week with something. Our deadline is we need to have something adopted by October 1st, so we do have limited time, but you can direct staff if you wanted me to come back next week with some changes or some information. I think that covers everything, at least that I had. So if you have questions, if you want to discuss that, I'm here to work through it all.

All right. Thank you, Ms. Anderson. Questions, counsel? Ms. Nichol.

What Planning Commission recommendations did you incorporate in?

Well, there was one that was just a typo, and that was already incorporated in. And the other ones were not necessarily incorporated into the text. Into your red line?

That's correct. Okay. That answers my question. I'm totally fine with that. So I'm having a hard time with the extended living area definition. I think it needs to be clearly delineated between extended living area and an ADU. Because I'm looking at these other codes and extended living area, the definition is ADU. So I think there may be some need to change that extended living area. And I was looking at it and really the only differences is I would like the definition to say To restrict okay if you go to So Attached living facility should it be space? Sorry that The word or facility does it matter?

Oh, I see additional living facilities Space?

I don't know. But anyway, it's on that line. The single family dwelling contains a kitchen or kitchenette. I would like to strike the kitchen or kitchenette. So an extended living area cannot have a kitchen or kitchenette. But it can have habitable living area. It's actually a very big change. So take a minute and think about it.

I mean, that would have broad impact to the way our existing code is formulated. And that's what we have tried to do is graphed what our existing standards are. And an extended living area is an existing construct that we have within our code. And the functional difference between the spaces is how it's utilized and who utilizes it. So I'm trying to understand the direction that you're proposing to go with this. Is it to.

Because you can have as many extended living areas as you want in any structure right.

No.

OK. So an extended living. How many extended living areas can you have.

So that depends on the the recommendation that you end up deciding to move forward with. So in this in the red line version that Melissa and staff has prepared it's limited to one internal and one external. So one attached and one detached either extended living area or detached ADU.

So am I reading that that was a planning commission recommendation to allow. Then the planning commission made a revision and we can go to that slide.

We didn't incorporate all but one. We didn't incorporate in the red line version any of the Planning Commission's recommendations except for the typo. So if you wanted to include those in your motion you would just need to direct in the motion that you want to incorporate certain items and amend certain items.

You can only have one extended living area in attached or detached. Right? Or can you have more than one extended living area?

If it's attached and it is self-contained with all the bells and whistles, full bathroom, kitchen or kitchenette, bedroom, or sleeping area, sometimes it's a studio, you would only be allowed to have one self-contained extended living area for family, friends, no rental. But if you had, in addition to that, let's say a playroom with a kitchenette where you're watching movies and stuff like that, that would also be allowed, right?

And wouldn't be restricted as to the number.

Yeah.

And then what the Planning Commission's recommendation was is to allow up to two self-contained internal if they didn't have any detached. So essentially they'd still be allowed to have two as the staff's recommendation but they provided a provision that would allow both of those units to be internal when attached to the home.

I still like removing the kitchen or kitchenette from extended living area and make it habitable living area. So it could have a bathroom. Say you've got a cabana or a pool house, you can have a bathroom and a shower, but you can't have a kitchen or kitchenette. It's the impact of the use, right? And so the more kitchens you have, the more kitchens are going to be cooking, the more people are going to be cooking. That's a bigger impact. I want to take some of that impact away.

So the issue isn't the use?

You don't get it? So what you're saying is, like, I build a pool house. because there's a lot of pool houses in historic Sandy, but I build a pool house and I have a bathroom and I have whatever goes in a pool house and then I can't have a kitchenette in there to keep my drinks cold and have snacks out.

Is that what you're saying? Kitchenette is defined by an alcove kitchen smaller than a regular kitchen with cooking facilities. You can have a microwave and a mini fridge in your cabana.

But I can't have a sink and a dishwasher and a full-size fridge and a stove.

Yes, you can't. You can't have a stove. In my world.

Ms. Sharkey.

So along these lines, there must be a reason, but I don't understand it. If an ELA cannot be rented and it's meant for use by the family or extended family or whatever, why would we limit them at all? So since we limited them, there must have been a reason. I'd like to understand the reason that we were applying a limitation on them at all. What is it?

I think part of it is once you have the facility within the house, it leads to other unintended consequences.

It could become a rental. So are you saying it could become a legal rental or an illegal rental?

It all depends on how it's utilized. and who utilizes it, and whether it's for the extended family or their existing family, or whether it's used as an auxiliary unit.

Yeah. So since we require a business license if it's a rental, I'm not sure we're in the business to prevent people from doing something they would want to do because we're afraid they might go rogue on us and do something illegal. You know, the last time I went looking for a house with my daughters, they wanted two masters. And that was a housing stock that was available. It wasn't widely available, but they wanted two masters. So I'm thinking, might there be a reason, a legitimate reason, that two people might want two kitchens, too. And they're, I just, imposing a restriction on that, I'm still having a hard time wrapping my head around. Well, they could have two kitchens.

Under this provision, they would exactly have that right. And they currently have that right. We're not changing that under this proposal. What we're doing is adding to it that those spaces can be external detached. So this is existing code language that we have within our city and have had for decades.

I guess I used a bad example because I said two. But what if it was three or four or whatever? But we're not going to allow that.

Well, I think the key in the house, the way it's written, you could. It's just if it's self-contained, that you could fully have a full bathroom and the kitchen and everything as an apartment.

What's the definition of self-contained?

That it includes all the elements. I think it's in the other.

It can function as a separate dwelling, meaning that they're not sharing those facilities with the rest of the house. So if you just had, say, like the example of a movie room or a pool house, and they didn't have the other associated bathroom and bedroom and living facilities, it couldn't be used as a self-contained unit. So you could have any number of...

It has to have all the components. Yes. Right. Exactly. And in the ADU definition, for example, self-contained habitable living unit includes kitchen or kitchenette, three-quarter or full bathroom, and sleeping areas.

The extended living area. If it's self-contained, that's going to include... It's the same. It's exactly the same, right? The definition? Yes.

Yeah. And then the only difference is if it's not self-contained, if it's just an extra bedroom and an extra kitchenette somewhere within the house for a wet bar or something like that, they could have any number of those. However, they couldn't have more than one self-contained. Or if the Planning Commission's code provision was applied, they could have up to two as long as they didn't have any detached.

And I think to answer your question, Council Member Sharkey, is if they had more than one or multiple self-contained, then in my mind, from a planner's perspective, we're looking at, well, then it's an R2 zone, duplexes. It's an R3 because you're having full units. And so to me, that's looking at is the intention to basically up-zoning, because these are intended for single-family zones, and there's a certain expectation of how much development really can go on within single-family zones on each property. you know, an excessive amount of these fully self-contained units, you know, you could have operationally a fourplex going on in a single-family home that the code never intended.

We're still only allowing for one set of utility connections to the building, right?

Correct.

That's true. That's part of our... That's still in the code.

And the other part of it is that the right to have an ADU is contingent on owner occupancy. And that's one thing that we get calls a lot when someone does develop an internal ADU currently. When it gets listed, oftentimes the realtors will list it as has an ADU. And they will call and ask, can I have an AD with this property? And we say, yes, with conditions. You have to own the property. Many people take that under the assumption that it's been converted into a duplex. And they can rent out both the top and the bottom. And so part of the reason to have this distinction is to make that implicit that it is not always going to be an additional unit like a duplex. It is conditioned upon how that family chooses to use that space. And it could be a separate unit that is rented as long as the primary owners are the primary occupants of that home and live there as their primary residence. And so that's part of the reason why we've had this concept of an extended living area and an ADU is that These units may come and they may go as far as how they're being used. That's why we don't allow for separate addressing. We don't allow for separate meter connections, because they are not a full unit all the time. They're not a duplex or a triplex type of situation. It could be used by the occupant and their family. And that's where, if there's less Barriers to do this if it is for family use but if they have the intent of renting it out There are a few more regulatory barriers that they have to pass in order to do that And one of the key things is the owner occupancy when we go through that application process.

Yeah, that is just checking the documentation and Checking parking on site May I ask a question?

I actually have some personal experience with this because I've dealt with it myself. And so I'm happy to share my experience. But I have a question. When you talk about self-contained, does that require an external entrance? So if you're in an internal property, So you could have an extended living area that doesn't require an external entrance. But what about an ADU? Would an ADU require an external entrance?

No, it's not required to. They don't have to be – if it's in the main house, it doesn't have to be internally connected per state law. It does not have to be – they can have an external – another way to come in but we don't dictate that.

We couldn't require an external entrance for an ADU? The state changed the code provisions on that a couple years ago when they made IADUs mandatory. They also made some changes regarding building codes and other design requirements like having an exterior entrance eliminated from the code to make these easier for homeowners to implement.

Now that you say that, that sounds familiar to me. I think I built mine the year before that happened.

We used to have a provision that required a separate entrance, and we used to have a provision that required full separation and firewalls in between the units. That has all gone away by state provision.

We had the internal connection requirement before state law changed that, and we took that one away as a So they can have it, but they're not required to internally.

Right. They don't have to have a shared hallway. Madam Chair, can I just share my experience? Because I think it's applicable. So I have a extended living area in my basement that was not there when I bought my house. We put it in. And we put it in with the intention of and I don't live in Sandy. Right. So this is under different cities ordinances but I'm just going to put that on the record. We built it in order to have family come stay there. Right. And we needed a kitchen. bathroom, bedroom for that purpose. We did not put an external entrance in and we have no intention to rent it to anybody else. But in the example of why would you need a kitchen, I think there are other people that probably have that same experience. Maybe they want their grandkids or kids to come stay there, but they're not necessarily going to rent it out to a you know, external renter. I think that's probably the purpose of the extended living area, right? That's how I understand it. It's, hey, this is where the intention is that you're going to have family, friends, et cetera, come stay here. That's why you can put this in. But if it's going to be an ADU, then there's another set of requirements and standards. And that's kind of the difference. If we take away the ability to put in a kitchen or kitchenette in an extended living area, then essentially... You'd be requiring all of those to become ADUs if they're going to have a kitchen or kitchenette, which you may be putting up a barrier for folks who are wanting their kids, grandkids, et cetera, family to come stay there, which was my experience. So I thought I'd share that because I think it might be applicable. Yeah.

And the way the code is written right now, it does become a game of kind of counting kitchens and trying to ascertain someone's intended use. And the way we wanted to rephrase this a little bit from what we currently are doing is make sure that it is a self-contained area. And if it's not self-contained, if it's not isolated, if they don't have all of the components, then it wouldn't necessarily count against them. But if they just had a need for an additional kitchen or a wet bar, we've even seen people putting wet bars in their bedrooms, in their master bedrooms. That's becoming a thing. So we didn't want to get into that business of trying to count up the number of kitchens, per se, or kitchenettes that people are putting into their homes or where they're putting them. The real issue is regarding whether they're trying to create a self-contained unit that could be, at some point, used as an ADU, and then only limit that space to one, which is the intent, I believe, of our current ordinance as it's written. That was the intent, but I think it's getting harder to actually kind of split the hairs between those different use cases.

Thank you.

Yeah, the difference is the use. And that's the only difference, right? Yes.

OK. Ms. Christensen. These are the things that I think, as I went through this document, I'm looking specifically at the, what is this called? Exhibit A, the red line version? Yeah. And under the general requirements section, was the only place I had questions. So basically we're saying one internal, one external on number one. This is in section E, sorry. Can't sell it as a separate lot. Has to use the same meter. No extra addresses or mailboxes. Lays out the parking that we already talked about, the one and two spots. Can't have a mobile home. In section E8B, it says it's for a single family. Do we need to add in something like number of non-related individuals like we do in other parts of our code?

Oh, I see. Well, I think that is referencing our definition of family, which defines nonrelated.

General requirements. And then section E, numbers 8B. OK, sorry. It's already defined?

Yeah, single family is defined.

As? Remind me.

We can pull that up.

Because I know in some other parts, and this might be old and I could be wrong because I'm just remembering, but in a home you could have either a single family or x amount of non-related individuals. So inherently it says a single family, so does that exclude more than one non-related individual?

So you can have up to four unrelated individuals and still constitute as a single family.

Okay, but we don't need to call that out in here. Okay, that was just my question.

No, it would fall back to that definition of single family.

Great, okay. Then I'm fine with the rest of G and F, or sorry, E and F. Then in G4, it says the Eve should not encroach into the setback. Is anyone opposed to... Well, it says they can encroach two feet into your setback. Would anyone be opposed if we adjusted that to not encroach into the setback? Because it means that your house is here on your six-foot property line, but two feet over that, you can have the eaves of the ADU, right?

The ADU would have to be set back a minimum of 10 feet.

Okay, so 10 feet, and then at 8 feet, you can have the eaves coming out.

That's the edge of the eave. Yes. So the setback would be here. It could come two feet, and then the edge of the eave would be at 8 feet.

And that's the same that we have now on your primary home. The eave can extend into the setback by two feet. That's where we got that from. Assuming that we have already at least 10 feet side and rear that they can have up to two feet.

And that's to distinguish it from an accessory building, which they are allowed to go as close as two feet and have a four-inch encroachment into the setback.

Okay, I'm okay with that. And then in G8, number two, is that where we were talking a little bit ago about setting a maximum size?

Yes, you could. In this area, if you wanted to do something like that, I think this would be the location that you would do that.

I would love to set a maximum size just because based on the lot sizes before, I think the maximum size was like you could build a 4,000 square foot, 6,000 square foot ADU.

potentially if you had a basement, and if you were set back enough to have a two-story. And in a large lot scenario. And a large lot size. But that's huge. It is large, yeah.

So if you wanted to institute an alternative maximum?

I would like to. Because you could have multiple standards where whichever is less, no more than this, but any number of these, whichever.

So if you have an 11,000-square-foot lot... What size can your ADU be?

Do you have the 11,000 square foot lot size examples on the slide deck that we can show them?

Madam Chair, can I make one other comment? So one thing to just think about is if you wanted to implement a alternative maximum, you might consider keeping the recommendation that staff has put forward and then saying, or this maximum, whichever is smaller is what you have to comply with, right?

Totally.

That way you're not saying, hey, we have a 1,500 square foot maximum, but that applies to all lot sizes, right? Yeah. Because maybe a 10,000 square foot lot with a larger house would actually, a smaller thing a smaller square footage would be better. But maybe you wanna make sure that that maximum doesn't go over for a larger lot.

That's what I'm thinking, like 11,000 square feet. So this slide kind of explains a little bit of how how that provision is set out. So it says no more than 75 percent of the primary building dwelling footprint

But it also has to meet the rear yard coverage area. And so for a lot of under 15,000 square feet, the max size is 750 square feet. So that's the maximum footprint that that ADU could take up. in the rear yard. And in no case can it be more than 25% of the rear yard area.

So if you remember those- So if that's how much space it takes, it could be with a basement, 1,500 square feet. If you had a basement at 750 and then the- Okay.

If they could accommodate that maximum size, yes. Okay.

So here's my thoughts. And I'm fine with everything with these changes, and you guys tell me what you think. I think that we should keep it at 11,000 square feet until we see how this pans out and see once we do it we can't take it back and then we can go forward and make smaller areas as we see how this process goes so 11,000 square feet and then we make the maximum I mean, I'm flexible on that, but I don't think it should be more than, like, 2,000 square feet at the most.

I mean, that's... And you're talking total square footage? Total square footage. Of all levels? Yes, exactly.

Okay. And only one story. Those are my three things. Oh, okay. Or one and a half, whichever one. Fifteen. The 15 foot. Was that in there? I forgot already. The building height is the next slide, I think. Let me make sure I got it.

One story and 15 feet high.

15 feet high with the assumption that that is no more than a one story. And 11,000 square feet or greater lot size. And then did you have a total square footage was 2,000 square feet?

2,000. I mean, you guys, I'm kind of tossing that out there. I don't know if that's reasonable or not. So those would be my, with those changes, I would be happy to pass it tonight.

So that's what I'm trying to get us to, is I don't want to repeat what we did before, where we just all say what we like and don't like, and we don't end up giving any direction. So I feel like we're headed down that path just a little bit, is individual input. So maybe you're asking for feedback from- Yes.

Is that something that the rest of the council is willing to support, those things, and passing it or not?

So part of that would not be allowing, even if they met the setbacks of an attached structure, you're still not okay with a second level or anything over 15 feet, just to clarify what you're discussing.

Yeah, 15 feet.

For anything that's detached.

I can't support that. Okay. And I know we have to give direction tonight.

So either we- Well, you can make a motion and have it be amended.

See if there's even support for this. So Marcy's a no. Well, let me explain why.

I haven't had a chance to share thoughts. So just let me share why. I'm a little, I feel like we're getting caught up in some things and losing sight of perhaps a picture that I am seeing, which is if I were to buy a property as a homeowner and I wanted to come in and like build to the max of the envelope of the property, I could have a two-story structure right up against the setbacks within the envelope. So I'm not sure why we are... considering being so restrictive on the story of an ADU. We're just anti second story on an ADU, where someone could build on that same property and have a two-story home that takes up the entire envelope, and that's allowable. So I'm starting to get concerned about so many restrictions. And this is just for me. I'm trying to solve, I feel like we need to offer the homeowner as much flexibility as possible to make homeownership a reality. And I'm getting concerns with some of it being even more strenuous than I think it needs to be. So that's why I'm saying I can't support that. But I'm one of six tonight.

The maximum height period in Sandy is 35.

feet right for any any residential structure so right so when i do you you would say it could go to 35 yeah okay if it i mean again my rationale is yeah in my view if it's allowed to go to 35 it is not subordinate to the main house so and if we're looking at making the maximum building coverage 75% or less, if we're accepting as we can, per state law, to make it subordinate, then it should be smaller.

Right, and I understand the... what we're discussing is a support, like it needs to be smaller. And I understand, I want to operate within what state law says, which if state law says it's got to be a smaller size, then I can support that. But what I'm struggling with is this argument against a second story. If it's still smaller than the primary dwelling, I mean, I could build a home, again, second, I could build a two-story home, stay in the 35 feet. That's the part I'm struggling. I personally don't understand the 75% or less, but I understand that's what we have to operate within. I'm like, I don't want to add more restrictions than are necessary. I want to allow as much flexibility for the homeowner as possible.

Just for clarity councilmember Hausman The 75 percent or less that's related to the footprint compared to the footprint of the primary dwelling and that's optional It the state law doesn't dictate us that it must be subordinate It allows us to do so but our general plan policies are supported being subordinate to And you can accomplish that in a variety of ways. We attempted to do that with this by having, well, the footprint no more than 75% of the Maine. But potentially, if you met all the setbacks, you could be as high as it. So, you know, you could have subordinate in a number of ways. Like, hey, you can't even be as tall as that.

And I think that's what she's proposing.

Right, exactly. I just want to make sure that the state's not requiring us to be subordinate.

And I think I'm probably in the minority. I think everyone besides me perhaps agrees that it should be subordinate. But again, I'm thinking the envelope, what is an allowable build.

And that same logic was the logic that we were using when we crafted some of this language.

And that's why I'm very comfortable with what you've brought to us tonight.

Can I just comment? I think that's the best logic. The subordinate conversation, I don't think that the height, they can be the same height and the ADU is still subordinate to the main dwelling unit. To me, it's almost always going to be subordinate. to the original unit. I think it's more in terms of the size of the building that it's subordinate, not necessarily the height. But I just wanted to agree with the chair that I think we need to be doing as much as we possibly can on ADUs to make housing more accessible and affordable. Why, if you can do it with the primary unit based on the setbacks, you couldn't do it with the ADU, I have no idea. So again, I feel like we're getting a little bit derailed by the details. But I just really want to encourage my colleagues to do as much as we can for our property owners and their rights and getting people into more affordable and attainable housing. Thank you.

I take a complete, which I respect your opinion, but I take a completely opposite view because you're saying respect that property owner's rights. What about everybody else around them?

They have the right to do that with the primary dwelling.

But that's if you have a house and then you're trying to build something different. And I think we walk into this. We implement something. We see what applications come forward. We see what the challenges are. And then we can loosen up after that. But you cannot roll anything back. You can't say, you know what? Wow, we have some issues with this. We didn't realize that this could be a potential problem. Let's see. I mean, the state is demanding this of cities. Let's see where it really puts us. There is zero part of me that says somebody is going to go buy a 15,000 square foot lot and say, you know what, I've got $1.5 million to do this and to go build an ADU because I need affordable housing. There's no part of me that says that that is bringing this affordable housing component. So I think we look at this. And we say, I mean, the Planning Commission has recommended coming back. I think all of us agreed at one point that we will be wanting this to come back. But let's start with some conservative things and then move forward from that, from there. So.

Madam chair could I make a recommendation. So so far I've been if I missed one I apologize but I've heard three suggested edits Councilmember Nickel suggested an edit to the definition of of extended living area. And then council member Christiansen suggested two changes one to put an additional cap of 2000 square feet for total building coverage in addition to what staff is already recommending. And then both council member Christian and council member Nickel suggested the 15 foot height limit limitation. did I capture the edits that I've heard so far?

11,000 square feet. But that's already in there, right?

Yeah, the 11,000 square foot lot is already included. It's already in there.

And the Planning Commission recommended in their motion 10.

I'm okay with 10. I don't know if we want to talk about that. I like that you wanted to take them one by one. Oh, okay.

And so that was going to be my suggestion is why don't you make a motion for each one of those individual amendments and then just do a voice vote on them. That way you're giving direction. I'll give you an example for the 15-foot height. You might say I make a motion directing staff to include a 15 foot height maximum for external ADUs within this ADU ordinance. That will give them the direction that they need to do that.

So I would make a motion to direct staff to adjust the maximum height to 15 feet in the ADU ordinance.

Second. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Discussion on the motion. Please, Ms. Sharkey.

So what does that give us? When we first had a presentation from you guys on April 16th, we were talking about one story, one and a half, two. And I saw council support for one and one and a half. So what is 15 feet get us? Does that get us one and a half?

How many stories? That's generally a single story. They might be able to squeeze in a little loft area, but it's not enough to have a full second story.

No, not enough for a second.

So if it's one and a half, and it does include at least the potential for a loft, what kind of building height are we talking about in that case?

Generally, you'd probably need... 17, 18, 20 feet.

Max. Yeah.

At a minimum.

And that's a peaked roof and not a flat roof? Or what is it?

Yeah. For a story and a half? Yeah.

It's a peak roof? It still allows you a peak roof?

Yeah. When you think about construction, when you're trying to do that little bonus space up above in the rafters, you still have rafters. You still have trusses that take up some of that space and still having enough headroom to make it livable between the different floors. So yeah, a 15 foot in the most cases I think would limit it to single story buildings like this.

Plus the basement.

Plus the basement, op potential.

That's what's in there now if you continue to allow that.

So what do we think, council? We debated between one story and one and a half back then. What do we think now?

Under our provision, anything above a single story would require it to be set back further. So let's see. Yeah, so if we're getting into these scenarios, that's where we're saying that they would have to meet the setbacks as though it were attached for that zone, no closer than 10 feet, regardless of the zone to the side. But in the rear, that's where you'd want additional setback, similar to what that footprint's showing there on that graphic. That's what is in the staff's recommendation. I think the Planning Commission kept that the same in their motion.

So we have a motion and a second. If we could go ahead.

vote on that unless Madam Chair since we're going to be moving through a few of these if the council is open to it I would suggest you just do a voice vote. All in favor all against.

And so as a reminder this motion is to cap height at 15 feet. Yes. For the detached ADUs.

Yes.

OK. We'll do a voice vote. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed say no. No.

That failed.

I think it was three and three.

So then the second motion is to instruct staff to amend 2655 with.

Council member, so sorry. Can we, maybe I was, maybe I shouldn't have had to do a voice vote. We're having some trouble knowing.

Let's go ahead and do voice vote on that.

Can we do a roll call vote?

We'll see if we were right.

Yes.

We weren't quite sure what the count was. So the motion made from Brooke Christensen, seconded by Allison Stroud, to adjust the height to a maximum of 15 feet. Okay. Ms. Christensen? Yes.

Discussion on the motion? We already held it. Oh, okay. All right. Okay.

Ms. Stroud? Yes. Ms. Nichol? Yes. Yes. Ms. Houseman?

No.

Ms. Sharkey? No. Mr. DeKaiser?

No.

OK. So that motion failed because the vote was a tie, 3 to 3.

So a quick question for the staff down there. This is the 15? Or this is what you could have on 15? No. No? OK. That's second story. OK.

So can I make a motion to cap the height limit at 20 feet? Could you get two stories on 18? 18.

I think a bonus living area. Or a flat roof maybe.

What was it, 18? 20 and just seeing if we could do that with 18.

Is the concern the subordination of that structure to the primary? Is it just overall height?

compared when you're the neighbor. So subordination does come into play, but it's more of the impact of the height that I want to reduce. Because we've had plans before that they said, if you keep the properties on the exterior to one levels, there'll be less resistance, right? because it's not that big of a change. So I'm just thinking along that line.

And you can also adjust the setback to, what is it, 18 feet, increasing the setback. If that's something you want to do. I mean, our proposal was, If it's, what, 15 feet or less, then you can have this 10-foot setback, 10 and 10, rear and side. But if it's taller than that, well, then you have to have the setback, just like the main house.

What's the magic number to get a one and a half stories but not two?

I don't think there is a magic number.

They said 18 to 20, right?

You can also say something and say 1 and 1 half feet or 18 feet. You can do that.

As a matter of fact, the legislature adopted that we are legally allowed to define height, building height, as a story and a dimension. And so you can say no more than one story and so many feet high. So can we, if you want, but if you want what, no more than like one and a half, you can do that real quick before you do Ms. Christensen.

Can I just ask the council, do you think there are any properties in Sandy where a two story ADU is, would potentially be acceptable? Because if there are, which I assume there are a ton, why are we limiting this?

I guess the question is, are you looking for affordable housing or are you looking for rental income or for your kids? Because those are the only places I think that they would actually be acceptable.

I'm just saying I think we're really limiting possibilities on large lots in Sandy, which is where they're mostly going to be happening. And it is affordable so people can age in place and their families can move in, et cetera. I'm just saying I just feel like we're being overly restrictive because I'm pretty sure the answer to the question is, yes, there are plenty of lots where you could have a really nice two-story ADU that works for a family. And so I just want to caution us about being over-limiting.

If you're talking about affordable housing, if anything you build above the main level, it's twice the cost. So we're getting there. If you do a two-story, you're talking ballpark on the Upper East Side. It's not affordable.

So the thing about two-story, you often will have a garage level on the bottom that either could provide additional off-street parking for the unit or for the homeowner themselves. Oftentimes, I think we'll see a lot of these two-story being converted, meaning they have an existing detached garage. As long as they met those standards for setbacks, they could convert the upper level or the loft area or things like that. So we wanted to accommodate for those type of scenarios. The other thing I think we wanted to do in doing this is an addition versus a detached structure is also more expensive to do an addition to a home than it is to do a detached structure. So our thought was, if someone wants to do an ADU and they want to do a second story, if we restrict it to only having single level, we're going to force them into doing an addition, which will increase the cost to do that. But they could do it, and they could have the same. In fact, they could have more height in that scenario. They could have up to 35 feet if it's attached to the house.

It's part of their house.

Because it's part of their house. So you have more design discretion as a detached ADU as well.

OK, so can I make a motion then to adjust the ADU to say the maximum height would either be 1 and 1 half stories or 20, 18? Do you have a preference? No. 18 feet. So either or, right?

If you want to do that as your standard, you're going to eliminate a lot of second story. Yes. And either that or force them into a flat roof design, which may not be compatible with the character of the neighborhood.

That's true. My goal is to eliminate second stories.

Flat roof at 18, it still couldn't get you to two stories, right?

18, yeah, you probably could. You may not have very tall floor to ceiling heights, but you could get to a second story.

So I'm going to stick with that and see if I get a second. 18 or one and a half stories.

Council member is the 18. So I guess I'm confused on on the requirement. Would it be one and a half stories or eight up to a maximum of 18 feet. Is that what it is.

Because depending on the roof height big. Yeah. Even on a like this scenario which is showing kind of a nested in second story. Yeah. 18 will probably limit most second story units if that's your intended goal.

I'll second the motion.

So we have a motion and a second. Any discussion. Mr. DeKaiser.

I feel like this is going to get rid of the you know garage with a unit above option and you all are concerned about getting cars off the streets and having nice parking. Why are you eliminating like the prime ADU that's going to solve the problems you want.

So this is for detached ADU. So if the garage is attached to the house, is there a limit on building? Does it become an internal ADU if the garage is attached to the house and you add an ADU over the garage?

Yeah, that would be an addition to the house.

That's an internal ADU. So we're only talking about detached garages.

Yeah, so this one right here on the right That is a great two-story unit with parking on the bottom and living on the top, and it gets our cars off the streets, and you're going to disallow it. That is wild.

You know, just to add to that, one of the things that we brought up the first time we met on this that hasn't come up so far because we've been really focusing on the specifics of the build is the privacy issue. So a second story is going to – is going to encroach on the privacy.

Not more than, like the chair said, not more than a house already could. We have those protections in the code now.

But we're also proposing to double the density, potentially double the density on all 11,000.

That's a non-unique argument because it's inevitable. We're going to double the density regardless of the height. And I just this council is so set on parking requirements which I am way on the other side on and I just cannot believe that in our design we're going to go with the option that gets the cars off the street and not allow housing on it.

Mr. DeKaiser, can you focus your comments on your thoughts instead of attacking the other council members?

I'm talking about creating good policy, council member, good policy.

We need to stop. Thank you. I appreciate this is a spirited conversation, but I don't think it's necessarily productive. What I think would be most productive is we have a motion and we have a second. I think we've... We've shared enough to understand why we will vote the way we will vote. So we have a motion and a second. Roll call vote, please.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Ms. Christensen? Yes. Ms. Sharkey? Yes. Mr. DeKaiser?

No.

Ms. Stroud?

Yes.

Ms. Nickel? Yes. Ms. Hausman?

No.

Madam Chair, that motion carried four to two.

Kate, do you have the direction you need for that? I need one more. I know. OK.

I got it.

You got it? OK.

So then I'd like to make a motion to have staff adjust the ADU code to have the total square foot be capped at 2,000 square feet, or the other one that you have. The gross square foot? Yes.

So just to clarify Madam Chair that is a cap in addition to the requirements that staff has already included correct.

Yes. OK.

It would be adding a number three in that table. In G8.

We have a motion. Second. We have a motion and a second discussion on this motion.

So those mock-ups you did, Mike, were any of those ADUs over 2,000 square feet?

Yeah, in some of those scenarios, it did permit an ADU. Let's see.

I think they're all the way at the end. And that was the caveat with the 4,000 or 1-acre lots, all those 1-acres, right?

So yeah, anything that's over 40,000 square feet is the only area that can have a footprint over 2,000 square feet or up to 2,000 square feet. So this scenario, oops. This shows 2,000 square foot ADU sizes in relation to the context of that area. And this also gives an example. So the one on the left already has an ADU. That's a two-story. And in that box, that's where they put that ADU, which was limited to 400 square feet for a guest house, which would now be called the detached ADU. That's how that one was built on the left. The one on the right doesn't have that. And so that's showing a 1,200 square foot ADU because they already have some detached structures on the lot. just to give you some site context.

So what are we changing?

The motion that I understand is this is limiting the footprint. It would add an additional restriction to the total square footage of the unit, all floors included.

The gross square footage. If there was a basement, you'd have that square footage.

Or a bonus level. So you're establishing a cap. So the only way you could maximize that footprint is if it were all single level. So if you maxed out the 2,000 square feet, you'd be capped with this as well. You couldn't have a basement in that scenario. You couldn't have an upper level, because you've already maxed out your square footage.

A max total gross square footage is common. It's not unique or out of this world at all.

Thank you. We have motion and a second. Any other discussion? Roll call vote, please.

Ms. Christensen? Yes. Ms. Stroud?

Yes.

Ms. Nickel? Yes. Ms. Hausman?

No.

Ms. Sharkey? Yes. Mr. DeKaiser?

No.

Madam Chair, that motion carried four to two.

OK, do we have any other amendments we're hoping to vote on?

So now can I just make it one, two, do the whole thing with these changes so we don't have to bring this back?

No, let's wait till we have other individual amendments. Okay, Ms. Sharkey.

So parking. I think the way that it's written right now is that we do make that exclusion for no parking required within a half mile of a transit station.

It's reduced.

By one. Reduced by one parking spot if you are. So if it was over 650 square feet and you'd normally have to have two, you could just have one instead. Okay.

That's how it's proposed in our exhibit.

Yeah, and the minimum parking requirements without even any detached ADUs is that we have a two-car garage and two in the driveway, so that's a total of four. That's our baseline. This allows us to do some additional if you had a detached ADU.

And the way that SB 284 was written, it's just two additional spaces or one additional space based on

And that's gross square footage. Yeah.

So we added the reduction for the proximity.

Well, we added the parking requirement, because that's an optional standard. And we allowed for that to be reduced if they're proximate to transit in our recommendation.

My amendment would be that we eliminate that, at least for starters. And we can always come back to it. I think what we're doing is establishing a baseline of a trial, right? And so I would do that as well. I'd eliminate that.

No reduction in parking because you're. Second. So I think I heard a motion and a second.

Discussion on this motion. All right. Seeing none we'll do roll call vote. Can I clarify really quickly. So a yes is we are requiring two parking spots. One or two.

It's just eliminating the reduction based on proximity to transit. That's what you're voting to eliminate potentially.

And if we say no, it's because we would like that flexibility.

You want to allow that.

Thank you. Roll call vote.

Ms. Sharkey. Yes. Ms. Christensen. Yes. Mr. DeKaiser.

No.

Ms. Stroud. Yes. Ms. Nickel. Yes. Ms. Hausman.

No.

Madam Chair, that motion carried four to two.

Any additional amendments beyond what has been presented?

Just a second.

I just want a clarification on Exhibit A6. It has to do with septic systems. So I'm not clear. Somebody couldn't put a septic tank in to service the ADU, a detached ADU, right? No, because that's not it. If you dig a little deeper, they call it zone one, two, and three in the land development code. But we don't allow septic tanks anymore, right?

We do not allow septic tanks anywhere in the city. We have some, but they're grandfathered in. So you could not service an ADU off of a septic.

And you couldn't?

And if your home is on a septic now and you want to do an ADU, you have to upgrade. You're going to have to connect to sewer and get rid of your septic system. We're using that as a tool to get rid of septic systems.

Madam Chair, just a reminder, once you're done with amendments, we'll want to jump to public comment.

I was planning on it before we actually moved to the whole thing. So is that everything?

Just one second. So regarding the Planning Commission recommendations, So I'm wondering what you guys feel about this one of if you don't have an external ADU, you could have two internal extended living areas. Anyone have any thoughts about that? That one's, I could support that one, depending on what the council feels about that. Sorry, which one? That if you don't have an external ELA, you can have two internal ones. Right.

Okay.

That's number one slide of the proposed changes that the Planning Commission recommended.

CHRISTIE WOODARD- Now again, the fear is that that gets converted and adopted for another use. But it's clear that those ELA's cannot be rented. That is clear. Anyway. I just wondered whether that was something I thought I could support. Don't know how you guys feel about that one.

Madam chair unless I unless I hear like a motion. I just want to move us on. Yes please.

I just wanted to let staff know our computer back there got kicked out of the meeting. That's why the slides disappeared.

Well I have notes of the slides so I can refer to those.

Were there any other planning commission recommendations that you wanted to consider.

Well, let's finish with this one. So this one's a no. There's no second on a motion. If I were to make, I'll make a motion, but do I have a second on two internal ELAs if there is not an external?

It's page 222 of the packet, if you're curious and want to get to that slide.

And that was a Planning Commission recommendation that you did not end up adopting? Yeah, modification number one, number permitting.

It wasn't in our original recommendation to the Planning Commission. As part of their motion, they recommended that to you.

To us. But it's not currently in what we would adopt.

So if we did that, I'm just thinking to make sure I understand, they could have two of them inside, but they only could rent one.

Correct.

You can't rent any ELAs.

Well, one of them could be converted into an ADU.

For rent. So the way it's written right now, you can have one internal and one external. Correct. And the Planning Commission is saying if you don't have an external, you can have two internal. Correct.

But you still can only rent one.

Correct. That's right.

In no scenario could you have more than one ADU, whether it's attached or detached.

You could have, for example, one detached ADU rental and one basement apartment for your adult child as an extended living area. So there's two fully operational apartments. Self-contained. Self-contained. But you only are allowed the one rental on the property.

So it still allows, what it does is it would allow for greater flexibility for someone that either doesn't have the room to do a detached ADU or can't do a detached ADU because they are in a lot that's under 10,000 square feet, or sorry, under 11,000 square feet. So it gives them some flexibility as well. And everything's within the primary footprint of the home and it's not detached.