Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

So if there's a house and then they've gutted it and fixed it up to rent out the basement, it's not on 10th East. I'll bet you Dustin already did.

Is it the one next to the school? Uh-huh, that white one. I'm glad they fixed the outside.

Oh, so much better, but... Yeah, they've got renters in the basement and all the... Yes, and they've got all the cars, there's trucks, there's all kinds of things.

Yeah. That's all I'm sure. Is that the same guy? The one that built the garage?

That's never finished it.

We like having it here without permissions. Yeah. We like that even better. Oh, yeah.

Oh, I'm sure. I'm sure that that is. Hi. I broke it. Saturday. And then my husband goes, what finger is it? And I go, my favorite.

What?

I just go around like this in the car. At the gym, you know.

Robin's having a good time.

I'm having the best time. He said something to me today, and I go, really? Because he had cancer removed from his hand yesterday. And he goes, will you help me bandage it? And I go, have you helped me once with this? I'm telling you, I've had the best time ever.

Sure, I'd be glad to.

Sure, come here. It's like a good thing for me, isn't it? Of all the people, I should have this, don't you think?

Three weeks.

And then that afternoon, my grandson fell on his scooter and broke his arm. I'm thinking, well, nobody's going to give me pity now for this. Came with a broken arm. Jeez, you guys, can't I just have my own thing? Nope. Nope. That 10-year-old's got to take over. Shit.

Oh, hey.

What you wearing?

That's cute.

I knew it. Liar. Has it worked yet? Cute.

Yes. I do.

I identify as someone who has authority, so.

We don't know. Who told Robin that? I think you're taking a risk, but go ahead.

My friend says, the church thing. I said, oh, hon, I identify as your bishop. I can take care of that for you. He goes, oh, my gosh. I know I'm going straight to hell. I heard from my adopted son, so we'll see. He's got two minutes to get here. We had a really bad squirrel problem on our complex. Everybody has.

I'm just barely starting to see them.

Oh, they're eating through my sprinkler lines. Are they? Yesterday they did. No, they bite through them to get the water. Wow. 15 to 20 repairs yesterday. Wow. So I said, get rid of them. So I noticed that my yard guys brought guns yesterday. I'm thinking, yes, yes, yes. I said I don't want to know about it.

I just want to know. It's an invasive species to America. Okay, 6 o'clock, let's go ahead and call the meeting to order. We start each meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance. Thank you. Can we have a roll call vote, please?

Chair Edwards?

Yes.

Vice Chair Liedtke?

Yes.

Commissioner Tippetts?

Here.

Commissioner Anderson?

Here.

Commissioner Erikson? Here. Commissioner Snow is excused. Commissioner Brockie?

Here.

Thank you.

Did everyone have an opportunity to read the minutes? Questions, comments?

No.

I don't have any.

Oh.

Elizabeth's not here. Anyone want to make a motion?

I'll make a motion that we accept the minutes from August 12th, 2026.

Second. All in favor? Aye. Great. We're going to move to the first item on the public hearing portion of the meeting. Veronica McDougall requests preliminary subdivision approval for a two-lot subdivision located at 8081 South 300 East in the single-family residential with agricultural overlay zone. And Jonathan's presenting.

Thanks, Chair Edwards. All right, so this is for preliminary subdivision. You may recognize the area, the mill project by Garbet is just across the road from this property. I've shown it here on the parcel map which one it is. As included in your packet, here is the preliminary plot for the two lots, the frontage and then the flag. We as staff have reviewed it and it's met all of the requirements for preliminary subdivision application. So this is before you tonight for your consideration. Any questions for me? Doesn't appear so.

Thank you.

These are the findings that were included, that it complies with everything. Thank you.

How about the applicant? Is the applicant here?

Is the applicant here and would like to say anything? You don't need to, but you can if you'd like. All right, legal, anything to apply here? This is an administrative decision. Took the words right out of my mouth. Nice. Perfect. Okay, anyone, questions? No. Have any? Entertain a motion?

No, let's have a public hearing.

Oh, let's do a public hearing. That's a great idea.

I am.

Someone's running this meeting, it's not me. Let's open this up to public hearing.

Seeing no comments from the public, I move that we close the public hearing portion of the meeting.

I second it.

All in favor? Aye. Okay, now that I'm not ahead of myself.

I'll make the motion. I move that we approve the preliminary subdivision for a two lot subdivision located at 8081 South, 300 East in the single family residential one with agricultural overlay zone with the findings noted in the staff report. I second it. Roll call vote, please.

Chair Edwards?

Yes.

Vice Chair Liedtke?

Yes.

Commissioner Tippetts? Yes. Commissioner Anderson?

Yes.

Commissioner Erickson? Yes. The motion passes.

Thank you. You can continue to work with staff.

Thank you.

Thank you for being here.

Feel free to stay. Now I'll get an ice cream. Okay.

Okay, we're going to move to the planning department report, and we are going to roll that into the workshop portion of the meeting. I think we are going to go on a little walk. Anyone that's here and would like to attend is welcome to. Okay, we're going to be in here for a minute, and then we're going to go for a walk. Where are we walking to? To training.

Can we get an ice cream on the way?

I think so.

Can we have a discussion about freedom of speech and librarians?

So you might remember there were some changes in the state law regarding planning commission training. And so we thought today would be a good time to have some training because we didn't have that many other items. And I think I showed you this before. The changes in the training really are that there's an additional hour And if you look at the different topics that we should all train one another on, I guess, there's a little more on there than there used to be. And it's really quite open. If you look at it, appeals, conditional uses, exactions, impact fees, subdivision regulations, property rights, real estate procedures and financing, zoning and that's Johnny's going to do a little bit with you today on that. So there's a wide variety. So if you ever think there is a topic that you're really interested in, let us know and we can build a training around that. Oh, yeah. So did you have any ideas? Not at the moment. He says no. Okay. Okay. I wanted to briefly talk with you about a couple of things that we've run into in the last few meetings. And sometimes I know there have been questions. Tabling. What does that exactly mean? Are there any implications of tabling? And when was the last time that you remember tabling an item? Last month. And the month before. Yeah, lately it's happened more often than usual, it seems. And so there are two excerpts. The first one here says, a motion to table or continue an agenda item for further study should be, and that's what we had, should be accompanied by specific reasons for continuing the matter, and whenever possible, a specific date to rehear the matter should be made known to those at the meeting. that I think we've normally done, that we've had specific reasons that we've instructed the developer. We haven't always given a specific date. So I think it's something that's desirable to do. The second part here that says see action by planning commission goes into another aspect of it. And it seems we have talked about this a little bit before in one of the meetings. That if we table, then it's actually not a, well, a timeframe that doesn't have an end to it. It says there, within 30 days of the, well, this is a little different. It actually refers to the public meeting in this language. But it's, so the close of a hearing in combination with tabling still means that actually the item would move forward to the city council. It says the city council shall consider the matter forwarded from the planning commission with a negative recommendation. I don't know if we actually had this ever come up. I mean, this almost seems to say a little bit that there's a proactive action on the city council's end. I don't know if Garrett, if you, has this ever been invoked in a way where something got tabled at the planning commission level and then within 30 days to the day it had to appear at city council for specific reasons?

I know there have been at least two times that either myself or Aaron, um, had made this known to the Planning Commission because I think there was a desire to table an item indefinitely until it was corrected. And so I know there was an, we just said, for city council purposes, right? This can't be tabled for the amount of time that is kind of being discussed. So you kind of need to make a decision tonight about what the merits are of whether or not it deserves your recommendation or denial or whatnot. I'm not aware of a single instance in which it's been pushed up to the City Council When a developer said I want to invoke this and have it discussed with the City Council But it it's in our code and it is completely enforceable So with the fact that we've tabled a couple

Well, the last time we tabled something that was tabled, but we didn't put a timeframe on it, but we know that the developers trying to work on wording and stuff were okay, but there may come a time where we have to

Well, does it still have to come back to us within 30 days?

Yeah.

So if it doesn't come back to us in 30 days, if they don't come back, then we just do a negative. It's automatically negative and goes to the city council.

Yeah, that's what this indicates.

You get cut out. and it's treated essentially as a negative recommendation. Okay.

So in the future, should we proactively like listed as the meeting, this two meetings in the future and then just like go through the motions and formally denying it or should we just let it roll?

Um, it's, it's probably better than everyone is on notice what could happen. Okay. Um, You also have to, I mean, in the back of our minds, 30 days isn't very long. Sometimes that... You know, it can only be one meeting depending on, you know, what's going on in the month. It's really not a very long time frame.

And one thing to be clear on, this only is the 30-day shot clock, if you will, only applies to legislative items because that's when you're making your recommendations. For your administrative items, let's say someone comes in like tonight and has an incomplete application or you notice something with an administrative item, it is absolutely appropriate to table it if you believe that that item can be corrected and brought back corrected before approval rather than saying, hey, we're gonna deny it. You need to go submit a new application and start all over. that's absolutely within your power to be able to table and say, go fix this and then bring it back to us fixed, and we're not going to require you to go through the entire process again.

Yeah, so that's an important distinction. In that context, you can table, and it could take a month or two.

So I guess the question I have now though is you know a month ago they came to us with three items and we kind of tabled it all they came back a couple weeks and we approved one and denied one and then we tabled the other and Can we do that, or do we need to deny it?

So, Vindelwin's going to have to help me because I'm not involved on the application process. And so my understanding of our conversation was with the first one where they had the combined application, they voluntarily withdrew that application or modified that application. and then essentially submitted three new applications for each of those so that they would be independently considered by the Planning Commission and City Council. So that way the same dilemma you guys ran into of saying we like part of this but not all of it, and if we have to do a complete take it or leave it, the answer is probably we're gonna leave it. So that's my understanding is they came back with three applications, three separate applications, which were considered. And so that 30-day shot clock is running from that date and not that item. So we've got two more weeks.

Yeah.

Okay.

So does it make sense to put it on the agenda for in two weeks or just let it roll forward with a deny for the city?

Well, the developer, I mean, they're working on the... And they're aware of the time frame that it needs to be brought back? Honestly, I don't know. And I don't know on this. I mean, this... I, there may be enough room in here that this isn't an automatic, but if it's a situation where the city council feels it really should move on, then they can for sure do that. So,

I thought it was clear that it was 30 days. I thought it was pretty clear.

It was mentioned, yeah.

But we didn't state a specific day that it would be re-heard. So on these two items, does anyone have an idea where these two snippets came from on the screen?

the bottom one is from the code, the top one's from our bylaws, right?

Yeah, that's exactly true. Code and bylaws. So the interesting thing is that in this legislative session there were quite a few changes. It seems over time the legislature is doing more and more that they add on to the Land Use Management Act. And this year, you see that red mark, and right below it, something was struck out. And what got struck this year was a legislative body may consider a planning commission's failure to make a timely recommendation as a negative recommendation. So it's the same principle basically, I mean slightly different, but mostly the same as in Mid Wales Code. The state, though, got rid of it. But in this case, that doesn't mean that that means our provision was taken out essentially. So, but, I mean, I guess one wonders is what, you know, what is the reason for having this 30-day time frame? Do we want to ever look at having a different time frame or no time frame? You know, that's all things one could think about. So, now that we've talked about that, I wanted to also briefly talk about our criteria for zoning code text amendments. So that's this page. And at the last planning commission meeting, we dealt with its counterpart, well, the other way around. We dealt with zoning code text amendments. This here on the screen is a zoning map amendment. And, you know, there's only so much one can see on these slides. These are very similar, but there are a couple of differences. I don't know from seeing it on this slide, can anyone pick up on what the differences are? Let me just go back to the other one.

The Utah code, right?

Yeah, that's part of the right answer. So the Utah code in code text amendments, that Utah code provision is in line with all the other criteria. And that's the one that we focused on in the last meeting, if you remember. And so if you compare that with the zoning map amendments, do you see, I didn't mark it on the slide, do you see where the Utah code reference is? So it's sort of in the... Well, preamble isn't quite the right word, but in the intent section there, which means it always applies in that context. And getting back to the text amendments, it's one of the criteria. So that's, in a way, the last meeting, it was pretty, if one wants to, it's pretty easy to find one of these, especially on the state code that can fit. So just, um, you know, the developer needed some help, but, um, there, there's a lot there in the state code. where one can place things in a way. And I made one more slide here. This is the section in the state code. So if you think about it, the state code basically says the general land use authority applies to all these different criteria. So if it has to do with these, then a municipality, in our case, can work with that. And so we've used that as a screening, basically, for the zoning map and the code text amendments. If you look at this, protecting the tax base, secure economy and governmental expenditures. That's what I was shooting for a little bit in the last meeting. If you don't need the streets, let's say, or extra asphalt to maintain, then why have it? I mean, that could be one potential argument in this context. I guess what I wanted to just make sure everyone understands is that all of these can be argued from different angles, and in that sense it's not an exact science. And that makes it hard, even though we have criteria in our code for zone map amendment and code text amendments, They are criteria, but depending from which angle you approach them, you may still end up with two valid answers that are opposing to one another. They're not absolute. Yeah.

Yeah, I think that my biggest conflict that was going on when we were discussing doing work for the developer, is what it felt like, was the burden of proof. Just being like, we have perceptions of whether this is a boom for the property value, but is it really? So there was no way to actually, like, prove that this is going to be safer. It's an intuition thing, which you can't really defend with any kind of facts that I was looking for from the developer.

And then, you know, we also have to remember the context. These are legislative actions, which means, well, there can be two solutions that... can be supportable, then in the end it depends on your values and your argument. I mean, you need to be able to support the argument. It needs to be reasonable. And Garrett, feel free to chime in or add more. But that makes it hard sometimes because, you know, one can oftentimes construct an argument that comes to the opposite conclusion and it's still also internally consistent and another city council, let's say, could say, yep, we believe this argument and therefore we approve a certain, let's say, court text amendment. Yeah.

I mean, the one we did approve though, I think that we were pretty good about what our findings were in alignment with this criteria. Yeah.

So anyway, any other comments on this, on these two things?

I thought it was very relevant based with what we've been facing. I think it was really good to have this.

Very timely.

I appreciate it.

Thank you.

Can you give it to applicants as well? I can, yeah.

Although that might not be a good idea because then they'll look for the other side.

And they're probably all watching YouTube right now. Oh, I know they are. I'm getting that view count up. So anyway, Johnny, do you want to take over?

Pendling got all the technical stuff tonight. So hopefully this is a little more fun. Um, so I'm going to go over a little bit of form-based code versus use-based zoning. Um, in relation to, you know, kind of how Midvale has both of these. These are all buildings that exist in the city. A quarter and six is right across the road here. This is one of the Garbet homes in the mill development on 8,300 East. And then this one I think was my very first site plan project for the Valvoline oil change over on Fort Union and almost 700 East. Here's our zoning map offhand. Where is our form-based zoning, if you know where it is?

Downtown.

Right over here, it's a very small portion as a percentage of what we've got. And I kinda wanted to go in a little bit of the differences of what they are. Use-based zoning, also known as Euclidean zoning, and I have some history-based stuff on this. It's 100 years ago, there was a Supreme Court case It was a little city on the outskirts of Cleveland, Ohio, that there was a bunch of people, there was like a zoning ordinance put in place that restricted use of land. People start suing each other. The Supreme Court ended up ruling that the city has the right to separate uses to protect the public health and safety, and that's where that kind of comes into play. You can't have essentially industrial uses right next to residential uses, yada, yada, yada. So basically, I mean, you can look at this map that we have here. We have single family districts, multiples of them, clean industrial, which you can see clustered around the freeway where they typically are. commercial scattered wherever, because it's all based on what is the use of the land. you know, density caps, you can't have some uses in some zones, vice versa, and it really makes a lot of, you know, vehicle traffic, and a lot of people refer to it as urban sprawl, and you get tons and tons of parking, large roads, and you know how all that is with traveling, and you get rush hour. So it makes for a fun environment. Form-based code, like what we have on Main Street, instead of really going off of use, use is still regulated, but we focus a lot more on the design of a building, how it looks, the materials used. You get a lot more mixed use, as we'll see with the buildings that we have done on Main Street over the last couple years. There's a lot more... less reliability on vehicles and more hopefully transit and walkability. You guys, as the planning commission, you mostly only see stuff in the use-based zoning category, you know, conditional use permits for, we used to need it for, you know, car dealerships, vehicle repair, that sort of stuff, small-scale master plans for, you know, over an acre of residential development. A lot of people often refer to these as, you know, cookie cutter, and there's only so much we can do to regularly design on them. It's what we did tonight in subdivision. That comes before you. It's a used base because it's residential. If you have a residential zone, you can do it. Form-based, you guys will probably never see any of the plans for these. Staff level, we do this. We do the reviews, site plans, etc., And that's kind of what we want to do tonight is, you know, go look at a couple of the buildings that are done and just, you know, see what the requirements have made the property owners build that they've done the last couple years. So we'll probably start. We'll look at the corner and sixth a little bit. I think they call it the canary now. And then over to West Main and just talk for a couple minutes at each. Love it. Yeah.

Great.

Any questions on any of this before we go? Five or six years?

Well, it's 2020, right? When you guys came. Yeah, when we came. I think it's 2020.

But we voted on it just after I was up here.

Actually, I'm in it.

I feel like it was when I first started.

You should say somewhere here.

I think it's either end of 2020 or beginning of 21. So it's only been five, almost six years.

But what a difference it's made.

Yeah. Candy and Robin each have a question on can we get ice cream?

You'll have to ask for YouTube. I'm sure we can. It's a free country. As long as it's in the code. Well, what we'll do is we'll adjourn the meeting before we go.

So we'll go around, talk a little bit at each building, and then adjourn, and that's it.

Okay. We have to adjourn outside or in here?

Adjourn and get pizza, tacos. I'm going to adjourn this meeting. Ice cream, a tattoo.