City Council - Regular Meeting

Anytime. Love to have you. We begin with a prayer and a pledge. Do I have any volunteers for tonight's prayer? Miss Christensen, Brooke, would you do that for us?

Our dearest heavenly father, we are so grateful that we could gather together this evening and worry about and contemplate the issues of Sandy City. Please bless us that we'd be able to have the residents' best interests in mind and that we would be able to come to solid decisions that would benefit them. We are so grateful for this wonderful country and the amazing freedoms that we have. We ask thee for these blessings in the name of thy son, Jesus Christ. Amen.

Amen. Thank you. And if everyone will rise for the pledge of allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the

flag of The United States Of America and to the republic for which it

introductions and we're gonna wrap in the planning commissioners as well. I'll start by introducing our city council staff, Dustin Frado and Justin Sorensen are here. Liz Theriault is here and Chris Edwards, our entire Tracy Caddell. I almost forgot you how could that happen. And so if we can go around the dais and introduce ourselves and who we are. Danny we'll start with you if you Danny don't

Schoenfeldt, Planning Commissioner.

Dave Bromley, Planning Commission. Cameron Duncan, Planning Commission.

Lenny Stavenport, Planning Commission.

Chris Nichols, Sandy City Council, District 3.

Marcy Houseman, City Council, District 4.

Craig Kidderwin, Planning Commissioner.

Brooke Christensen, District 1.

Cindy Sharkey, City Council at Large.

Allison Stroud, District 2, City Council.

Jennifer George, Planning Commissioner. Brooke D'Souza, City Council at Large.

David Hart, Planning Commissioner.

Aaron DeKaiser at large.

And Mayor Monica Zlachanski.

James Swartzon, Community Development Director.

Alright. Shane Pace is making his way in here too. Perfect and Lynn Pace is here as well as usual. Thank you everyone for coming tonight for this special meeting. We will have for anyone who's here to give comment. If you want to do that we have blue cards in the back of the room that we'll ask you to fill out to speak during the public comment period which will start at about 06:00. We'll also take public comment on council voting items as well. First item on the agenda is our joint meeting of the city council and the planning commission to discuss our upcoming land development code update. Melissa, you are our presenter, right?

Yes. Well, I just wanted to introduce the presenter. We have a consultant team representatives. We have Chris Hupp, who's the lead on the project from Somus. Their office is nearby.

And also Greg Haas from Somus, and they'll be doing the presentation. And what this is is to give you an overview of this project, which is updating our land development code on the heels of our adoption of the general plan. So we wanna make sure we're consistent and have the tools in our code, our zoning code, so that we can see the vision that was laid out in the general plan to fruition. So Chris, if you'd like to to get up, we have a it's a short presentation. We'll have plenty of time for questions. And

progress, it was a well thought out great plan that went through several strategic measures. We're looking to take those measures and see how we can be consistent with that with the code so that as an application or something comes before this large body one at a time, we'll be able to use this general plan and apply the code to meet those guidelines. Guidelines. And so that's that's the general idea that we're gonna be taking as we go through this this code update. That being said, this will translate those guiding or that guiding vision and the specific goals and and strategies into code format so that as you make adjustments to applications or whatever it may be or you make decisions on those, you can actually have have that confidence that we're actually meeting what's in that general plan update.

As we go through this, that's that's just a little background. Obviously, that that's finished. We're we're kicking this off. This is going to be a few year project. We should be finishing up in 2027, so a little bit of time. But this comes in in part with a grant from the Wasatch fran Regional Council. The the general plan came in part from a grant from Wassafran Regional Council as well. And there's a representative, hi, Byron, from WFRC. He's the project manager for that, and so he'll be helping to to manage this from from their side. I am the project manager for this project.

Greg Haas is is our senior code analyst, and and, we've been we've been doing this for a little while. We also have a few other individuals on our team that have specific emphasis in landscape architecture, in code analysis, in code writing, and and state mandates, and other things like that just to make sure that we keep the city safe. So that's a little overview of the team. We are the group, Greg Haas and I helped with the Stadium Village master plan to help finish that one up as well. And so former resident of the city, we love we love this place.

It's wonderful. That said, a little bit of background on us. This is a a small list of some of the codes that we've helped update in the last three years. It's a lot. I've done a few, in that time frame. And and these go and I'm gonna use a a little bit of buzzword, but I'm gonna explain it. These can be anything from Euclidean to form based. And what that means, Euclidean is more, here's the specific standards and measures that a thing needs to do. Form goes more towards this is the look and feel of how that that is developed. And and so we've done all of those.

We've also done hybrid codes, which are sort of a merge between the two. And so we've done quite a bit of that, and and we're excited to help with this one. It's Sandy is near and dear to my heart. My wife grew up here. So that said, here's a a very brief overview of the schedule.

You'll see on the right hand side, the general timeline, but then on the left, you'll see the specific phases of how we're going to move through this code update. This is our our process that we've, implemented for this specific process. We as we go through this process, we'll have strategic areas where we meet with the steering committees and technical committees. We have specific time frames where we'll be meeting with the individuals in this room as far as those key points of stakeholder interviews and and one on one interviews just to get a sense for the pain points that you have and the things that need to be brought into this process to make sure that we keep this group safe and and we make sure that we also see the vision of the general plan as we continue to work through this. And so one of the biggest pieces that we're currently working through is a preliminary code assessment.

And and what that is is we leverage our best practices and and past experience and things. We have been digging into the code. It's big. And a little bit of light reading. It's it's quite fun.

But as we go through this, we're finding areas where there's inconsistencies, incongruencies, and and things that don't meet the general plan, and we're looking for all these things and then layering the best practices that we've found on these dozens and dozens of codes that we've been writing. That's this first piece. Once we do that, we'll have our preliminary assessment saying, hey. This is this is what we're noticing. Then we actually come out and we meet with the stakeholders one on one to say, alright.

Now we wanna get a little bit more flavor of of some of the the concerns or the opportunities here that we can really work to enhance. And then we'll update that code assessment to get a greater context. Following that, we'll start to develop that framework that gives us the general outline, the general flow of how each and every zone is handled. So, for example, there's some inconsistencies right now with the code. You that's no shocker to you all.

We're gonna help streamline those things and and make them a little bit more systematic so that it's easier to enforce, maintain, manage, and understand, the code. And so that's something that we're gonna be going through as well, and then we'll draft. Drafting takes some time. So we'll go through that process, and that's that's generally the process. You have any questions with this throughout the process, we're we're open.

We're always available. In addition to that, we're we're also meeting biweekly every other week with with Melissa as well as we go through this process, and we'll be bringing people in and out of those meetings as well. Slightly delayed. So with the code update, we're going through that revamp as we talked about, and this is looking at the development code as a whole. There's some segments where we're going to take a high level view specific zones that have sort of the one off zones and things to see how we can blend those into the code as well.

But, generally, we're looking at all of this to to modernize it, to find things that will help maintain it more easily, so that we don't go a decade plus updating it. So it stays current, stays fresh, it stays something that helps the city. In addition to that, we're well, I I know there's some discussions about missing middle housing things. We're going to take what comes out of address that with the code as well. So whatever that decision is, how however that gets moved into this, we're going to take that and and pull it into the code as well.

And then the the standards. So the NACs from the general plan and and and the corridors and the station areas, that will all be implemented as part of this plan. We're gonna look at those pieces specifically to say, okay. This is what we're saying with with a station area. These are the guidelines. How can that guide this code? How can we actually put the the rubber where it meets the road into this code? So that's what we're looking there, enhancing the walkability, the contextual design, and all these pieces. And then that framework just to make sure that that works for all zones. And if there's an adjustment in two years, this is the process to do it.

This is how it can fit so that when you're reading through it, you're not like, wait. Is the parking in this section, or is it supposed to be over there? Or it's going to be very simplistic so that it's I know exactly where it's at. So that'll be part of it as well. And then, again, we help with the Stadium Village design standards, and we're very familiar with the Cairns master plan.

So as we we look to those, we'll also be incorporating those into the process that we take. Following that, our our specific next steps that we're looking to is is we're establishing a website that's more of a public information. Information. You've You've done done an incredible job at the general plan update and and the engagement to get the city involved. We want to take that and and keep some of this information front and foremost to residents so they know, okay.

This is why it's important to me. This is how we we integrate with this, or this is why I should even care. So we'll have some of that information on the website to just keep residents up to date as we go through this process. Steering committee will be established where we identify general topics of discussion. The steering committee will it's it's high level, so we're not getting into the nitty gritty with the steering committees.

It's gonna be, well, are we we looking more at a form type topic, or is this more of a Euclidean where we're getting into the specifics of here's a setback, here's a whatever. And so that's more of the decision as opposed to it's 10 feet here and 12 feet here or whatever it may be. So very high level, on the decision making for that piece. And then the one on one interviews are are coming up in in the next about a month and a half or less is is the process on that. Our chapter by chapter code audit is happening right now.

And, again, if you're ever struggling to sleep at night, just pop your code open. Obviously, joke.

What makes Sandy so great? Keep talking

how much you want. Yeah.

And that's why we go through that code so that it won't put you to sleep at night. Obviously, there's some specific code sections that we're gonna prioritize again with the knacks missing middle housing tools, the mixed use regulations, the corridors, and and some of those other pieces. We're gonna be in in, encouraged to to look through those. And from the developer side, from the city side, how can we infuse this into the code so that we can make sure it meets what you're looking for, and there's no cutting corners from a developer side or anything of that nature to protect the city in that process. We like to try and break the codes we make so that they are a little bit more, I'm gonna use this term foolproof.

And then, consistent updates as we go through this process. You'll see in this this previous

graphic, we

have, several locations where we're going to be meeting quarterly or at key milestones, with these groups to just let everyone know This is where we're at. This is where we're headed next. So with that said, any questions?

Oh,

Council planning commissioners. Miss D'Souza, go ahead.

Thank you. So I'm just trying to understand the process from that one of those first slides and I don't know that it's specifically said, but are we planning to introduce code amendments along the way or are code amendments to be reviewed by the planning commission and the council to wait until the entire process is complete October 27?

A great question. I don't know if you wanna take the first pass or if you want me to. First. Okay. We go through this process, we're going that's why we have these regular quarterly slash milestone meetings to address some of those topics as we go along. So we wanna to bring you through this process so it's not at the end of, like, here you go. Yeah. That doesn't help anybody. And so we wanted to bring you along that process and so we can have some of those design directions as we go through it. And then towards the end of this process, we actually will have meetings with this body where we go through, okay.

Here's this chapter one, chapter two, chapter three. We're going through this today. Let's go over the basic outline, how this works, how those structures, and and take it step by step through that. But we're going to be walking through that process along the way. Does that answer that question?

Well, I I guess I'm just looking for, like, the specific legislative update to the code that enacts it in that moment. Are we waiting until October 27, or are we going to be bringing bits of code to the planning commission and the council throughout the process?

The intent intent is towards the end is is where we will work through those adoption pieces of it. And and let unless as we work through the process, you're like, well, we really need this part done. We're flexible there. But, generally, it's we keep it at the same time so that if something else changes, we don't have to go back and readopt something.

Yeah.

The intent in terms of engagement is in our scope of work is to have oh, yeah. We'll have a steering committee, which will meet quarterly or or key milestones, whichever is first. And through that, we'll we'll be giving updates and going through the progress of it. We will also come back at these joint meetings approximately quarterly to give you all updates. We'll have technical review committees, like, per topic.

Let's say if our development review team that normally meets on specific projects in the city, they might be a resource or one on one on one. We also will have a few open houses available. But it sounds like you'd like to see code that is crafted along the way and would like to avoid having to go through a lot of it towards the end. What was your thinking in

terms With of that being said, let me try to answer what you're saying as far as I think I get what you're saying. That does not however mean that everything is on hold with City Council that we're not going to be adopting any code amendments. For instance we have the ADU was just approved by the city council or by the state legislature. So we'll be moving forward with that immediately. We're meeting with the we have a meeting with the council on March 31 already to start moving that forward and bring you some ideas on that.

We have to have that adopted for instance by October to actually march that through. But if there's other items that come to the city council that we can't wait on or things like that, we will definitely run some of those through and add on. We're not going to stop the business of the city until this is done if there's some critical things we need to push through.

Okay. And and I was just really trying to understand what the vision was from your guys' perspective on what we as a council and a planning commission could expect throughout this process with regard to actual review of code changes. And part of it was the identification of some maybe priority topics like mixed use misdemeanor that would be helpful to not wait until a year and a half from now to be seen and discussed because I think that those things personally are really important to maybe get through more quickly.

So it is our intention to move through with the housing because that was has been the hot topic with our workshops and things like that. And we've committed to look at that right off the bat. The things that are part of that we're to transition into the code. There are some things we're going to do upfront of staff, other things we're going to hopefully do as part of the code. And the reason we want to do that really is they talked about the code staying together.

We don't want to one off too many things because the code all is integrated into different aspects within each chapter. So we want to keep that together just as much as we can so we have a very unified and very concise and very at the end. But in the meantime, there are areas that we probably do need to move and we can move faster on if that's what we end up, you know, that the council council ends up having us.

Yeah. The detached ADUs, we definitely I'll I'll be taking that coordinating with information feedback with the consultants, but I'm definitely moving on that. March 31 is on the on the docket. We also have a an application by a citizen that would like to see changes to our building height code, you know, how how we define building height. So that's kind of separate moving faster.

Okay. But That was go ahead.

Yeah. Well, I was just gonna respond to that as well. That's also why we put this framework very early in the process so that we can integrate with these things so that those can potentially meet that same framework of this final code. So there's not a lot

of adjustment.

I want to address one more thing too. The housing the housing study that Dustin has is going to discuss tonight that you worked on for five different meetings. That's anticipated depending on what you all do with it as a council tonight. That's anticipated to immediately be given to the consultant Yeah. To take your comments and and work on that as well within the code. Yeah.

We're we're definitely staying and listening to all that presentation and then looking forward to the final version because it that's great because it further refines guidance from the general plan process to code so that we can then craft code and that is consistent with that vision.

Okay. That was my question. Thank you.

Dave, go ahead.

I'm just curious how we're going to avoid the conflict if somebody's trying to move through the process, and we adopt a code and then they're stuck. What does that look like? I don't want people to be able to to stop and wait because their projects are timely and money costs grows and changes. So how are we gonna handle that transition from the old code to the new code? And is there going to be a grandfathering of people who are in process when the code is adopted? Or are we going to catch people and

Yeah. The general rule is that at the time of application, the code that's in effect at that time applies. So if three months from now, even though we've been planning for two years to adopt something, that code at the time they apply is is going to be the one that's in effect.

So no one will slow down and we won't hold anyone up. The code will always be in effect. The code we have now will come. They'll they'll have to comply with the existing code until the council adopts something new then that becomes law.

And that's the way we operate.

And they'll comply with the new one.

And that's the way we operate for all code amendments that may be in process.

Yeah. That's

typical. And

actually, I think it's part of the legal framework that we have to adhere to to

Can ask the question as well? If the new code is more advantageous for the person, even though they applied under the old code, will they be able to use the new code?

If it's adopted by the city council, they could re put their project in and go under the new code. But it would have to be adopted by the city council as the, you know, the ordinance of Sandy City.

They have to decide whether to wait. They could.

That would be up to them.

They do that. Oftentimes, there's close communication where if we have something that's that's going to be adopted or we know when the date's coming, we will inform them and talk about the timing that might be advantageous for their business decisions.

Madam chair, I have a question. Can you tell us who will make up the steering committee? Not the people necessarily, but the positions and the organizations represented.

So we've got a list of there's there's very specific groups of individuals that we typically look to that take up the places of steering committee members. Council, planning commission usually fill some of those roles. And you obviously understand that we can't have more than a certain amount too. Otherwise, it's a public meeting every time we meet. Yep. And and there's certain things that we need to address. Mhmm. But in addition to that staff, all technical advisory, it's it's usually internal to cities Mhmm. The groups that we involve.

Yeah. So specifically, I I have everyone from steering committee except for city council representation, so I'm anxious to hear from you tonight as to what your decision would would be on that. But we have Byron Head from the Wausau Trent Regional Council. We'll have several people from our community development sitting in on those. Other people from the city administration, our city attorney's office Works.

The Martin Jensen Public Works, Parks and Rec, and Public Utilities, Fire Department, and the RDA, and our Planning Commission representative, Dave Bromley. Also, Historic Preservation and

city,

transportation corridors and the looking at certain density per the direction of the general plan, that their the Utah Transit Authority is anxious to see that our development is moving in their direction so that they could invest in that kind of transit services.

I just have one follow-up comment. And I'm not super, super familiar with the legislation, but I do understand that that UDOT will now manage a lot of the land use around front row stations. So I wonder if UDOT would be good to add to that committee.

I was going to mention that and and where where we're talking some corridors. There are some UDOT corridors that it would address them. So yeah, that's already a consideration.

That's a great addition. We'll we'll add that.

So I have a question about the makeup of the other committees. So we're talking about the steering committee which is overarching, high level, kind of defining a process and keeping the process tracking, right? And then you talked about on the next steps, a technical advisory committees. So who makes up those kind of committees? Are those subject matter experts in different Okay.

How many people on those committees, generally speaking?

Typically based on need. I I don't wanna bring in a bunch of people and they sit in a meeting for no reason. Mhmm. We wanna be cognizant of that. And so it's it's we have this topic that we really need to address. We need these two subject matter individuals come in, have the meeting. And and and so it's it's we have a list of individuals that we would potentially pull on, but it's it's not always gonna be it's these 10 people every time.

Yeah. So what and then you talk about conducting one on one interviews. Tell me about that. Who's being interviewed one on one?

Well, we would anticipate a significant group here. We'd also have staff. We'd have community groups that have a particular interest in in, like, a a UTA or those types of larger groups that represent some facet of the city. We also talk to the development community Mhmm. Because in in they're the ones that build the city.

And so as we work through this, we wanna understand what are the issues that they have? How does this integrate with what the city council and the staff and everything are saying? And so those are generally the groups that we look to. Again, the UDOT's, the UTA's as well. And and in some cases, Rocky Mountain Power, we all love them. They're super great to work with all the time. I'm never sarcastic either.

Go ahead, Marcy.

You. Share Great questions. I'm learning a lot. Thank you for this presentation. I want to kind of circle back to you talked briefly about a website that will be used for kind of keeping the community informed.

In the past in some of our obviously general plan but also parks and recreation with the Alta Canyon conversations we did some like pop up kind of experiences where we went to the community instead of asking them to quote come to us by coming to the website and doing things. So I love the website especially if it's very interactive like we had during the pace of progress process. But do you have any thoughts around kind of a go to the community, town hall, pop ups, those kinds of things?

Great

question. When we're working on the code, it's not a visioning thing. The vision is established. We have the input of the public, and and we know the direction direction they they want want to to take. Take. K. Now this code will look to take that direction and see how we can marry the two. And so we don't typically do pop ups for this. And and realistically, in most cases, if you go to your neighbors, most of them are like, what's a code? So it's more informational at this point saying, hey.

We're looking at the general plan. We heard you, and we're wanting to take what's in that to guide this code process. And so that's, more of an understanding of why code's important, how it affects you, how we go through the process, what things can be addressed in this, what things shouldn't be addressed in it, what your rights are as a resident, more of that type of information with the public engagement as opposed to what do you think about this code? I don't know. I don't deal with that. I'm a dentist or

whatever it may be. Right. So your vision then for the website is is more what you just described. Not asking, not a not a place to gather feedback as much as, hey, did you know we're updating the code? Hey, did you know this is how it affects you? That kind of thing.

Yes. Very more informational, but in our scope of work, we also have established some interactivity ability on on the website.

Okay. Love to plus more about that.

We have in our scope open houses as well. Right.

You do have open okay. So

But again, it's more information on as opposed to tell us what you think about this chair.

Well, and I could have I could have clarified. No. By pop ups, I simply you're right. Pop ups are typically gather feedback on these designs and all of that. Yeah. But I I was thinking in terms of going to the community instead of just asking them to come to the website. So it sounds like it's already built in and maybe I missed that. But but you said open houses and an interactive component. Yes.

In our scope, we had written in an interactive element to the website. But, you know, the the general plan and that process, the product you're producing versus updating the the zoning code, the land development code, they're they're really very different. And so we see so much of that public engagement has been accomplished in gathering coming out with a vision, adopting it. And so that vision is already established. And so we are wanting to create tools in the code that are consistent with the vision of the plan.

But to directly answer that, we do have a workshop at the beginning, middle, and end.

Perfect. Right.

We are introducing workshops throughout the process.

Excellent. I just know that throughout the whole Pace of Progress experience that was phenomenal. And we did have a lot of engagement. And I think for those who were engaged, they found it to be very, very helpful and productive. But yet, you know there's still a piece of our community that they don't necessarily know that we've made these plans.

So where it might hit them is another round but it's from a different angle. It's we're changing code and this is how it could affect you. And you probably know why I'm asking this is because as we work to address the missing middle which I know we're going to talk about next because of our housing workshop. But as we work to not just change code but we start the process of starting to see some things going in that might you know raise some questions or wait wait this isn't what used to be allowed why is this now you know anything we can do proactively. It sounds like you've got it covered.

Love the idea of workshop before, middle, after. I think you have a plan. I should have just known that you would. Why even ask?

Well, think it's important to note though because it is a little different than the general plan type of shops. But you described it. It will just be what more of the code type and and asking questions and things like that and and what we are doing with the code and things like that. It won't be the visioning that the general plan because that's established. It's but it's planned in here and it will give people an opportunity to learn about what we're doing and ask questions.

I love that.

And we want be very protective of that too.

And and because what that will do is is certainly continue the conversation around Sandy City is committed to doing what we can to address the housing affordability crisis to help more and more people become homeowners in Sandy. And so anything we do in public engagement wise and I completely agree this isn't visioning. This isn't feedback. But this is here's how all of that visioning and feedback you provided Mhmm. Here's how that is informing actual, you know, things we are changing in Sandy through our code. I'm very happy with the plan. Thank you for clarifying

of that. Sure.

Yeah. And sorry to I I I don't know if it ended up in one of those slides, but, yeah, we do have beginning, middle, and end. And, again, we wanna be very protective of the vision that was and and that's why we're careful on how we craft these these workshops so individuals don't think, oh, well, I didn't really like this one thing. I can change it now. No. That's not what this is.

The general

story. That's all I have on the chair.

What other questions or comments do we have? Commissioners, council members, anything else? Alright. Thank you for the presentation. We appreciate that.

We will

be back to you on the farm.

Thank you. Perfect. We're looking forward to it. Now this concludes the joint meeting of the city council and the planning commission. Planning Commissioners, you are invited to stick with our meeting. There are interesting items on the agenda that I think you might be you might like to stick around, please. And we'll adjourn just for a minute while we move around and remove chairs and stuff like that. And then we'll come back to the meeting in in just we're recessing for just

a minute. Be right back.

We're good to go.

Okay. Thank you for that short recess everyone. Appreciate that. I do want to point out for those of you who were here last week too and wanna comment on the rezone. You have two opportunities to do that. You could either do it during general citizen comment or I will also be asking for public comment during that specific voting item. So, not to confuse you but sometimes we're confusing. So thank you for coming again. Appreciate it. It is our 06:00 public comment time.

Hang tight, hang tight. I'll do the others first. Alright. For anyone who would like to speak at this time for something just fill out a blue card if you haven't done so already. Hand it to staff. We'll give you three minutes. I do have a card from Dennis Tenney. So Dennis step up to the microphone. What do you have to tell the council tonight? You have three minutes.

Good evening. Mayor Zoltanski, members of city council, my name is Dennis Tenney. I sat in your place for a few years. I'm here to as a private citizen, to encourage Sandy City to seriously consider a formal sister city re relationship with the city of Zacatecas, Mexico. I was in Zacatecas about a month ago.

There is already a budding informal relationship between Zacatecas and Sandy City. Fire chief McConaughey and I are working on accumulating quite a bit of surplus fire equipment, firefighters' uniforms, and so forth. And major credit union right here at Mountain America has donated many laptops for two youth centers in Socatecas. If I could have a the if I could capture the expression of those youth when they saw those computers, it's changing their lives. There are many levels of opportunity for a formal sister city relationship.

I think I've emailed to all of you copies of letters to mayor Soltynski.

A little

bit about Socatecas very briefly. It's a city that was founded in 1548. It's almost going on five hundred years of existence. It is the major, single largest silver producing area in the world. In the hotel, the mirror frames are silver. The the lanterns are all silver. It's it's amazing. It's an incredible city. There are several levels of potential relationship that would be beneficial to Sandy City and businesses. Number one, they have a very vibrant business community, which many of them are bicultural, bilingual.

They have two or three major chambers of commerce that are very dynamic. They're anxious to have interchanges. One chamber of commerce is strictly comprised of business owners. They're decision makers. There are cultural opportunities. There are educational opportunities. Socatecas was designated in 1993 as a UNESCO World Heritage Site. It's a beautiful old colonial city. It's on a high desert. It's about 8,000 feet elevation.

The people are as friendly as you can be. It's just a wonderful in the past, I know Sandy City has had a formal sister city relationship with Mies in Germany. And then Chris McCannis had encouraged me we'd had a sister city relationship with Pietro Senegro in Mexico. I don't know what the status of those are. But since our largest ethnic minority in Utah are Hispanics, it's to me just a no brainer not to consider this.

I think you can be justified on every level, educational, cultural, commercial, political, in in encouraging and developing a formal relationship with them. The the mayor of Zacatecas is very dynamic. His name is Miguel Varela Pinheiro. Wonderful person. They're very sharp. They don't take a second seat anyway. So I'm just encouraging you to form a committee and establish a formal sister city relationship. Thank you.

Thank you. Alright. Those are the only cards for general citizen comment that I have in the chambers. Dustin, will you see if anyone online has a comment at this time?

Yes, madam chair. And then just a note, I also have a comment that somebody requested to get read into the record. So if we could

do that

after our online commenters. If you're joining us virtually this evening via Zoom and you'd like to comment on any Citi business, now's the time. Go ahead and click the raise hand button on your screen. I'll call your name in the order in which you raised your hand and you'll have three minutes. I don't see any hands raised, madam chair.

You know, in looking at this, it seems like it's in relation to the one of the rezones this evening. I don't know if you'd like me to read it now or wait until

Let's just wait.

Okay.

Yeah. Let's do that.

I'm making it the responsibility of all of you to remind me.

To remember.

Maybe we do it now. I can't be trusted to remember. Council, Representative O'Kerland and I spoke a little bit earlier today and he offered to come down and give us kind of a debrief on the session. And I thought now would be a good time. Do you guys agree to put him into our agenda right now and go ahead. Thank you for coming. We appreciate you. Don't worry. You're not limited to three minutes. We'd love to hear what you have say about what happened in the last seven weeks of your life.

Well, thank you. I the one thing I've learned in my short political career is that people do appreciate brevity. So I will try to stay within my three minute allotment. So this has been another whirlwind. I still feel like I deserve a couple of naps that I haven't yet gotten, but I have gotten back to work and and am slowly recovering.

So this year well, first, I'll introduce myself. I'm Clint Ochreland. I represent District 42, which if you live in Sandy East Of 13th East, you probably live in the district that I represent. My intern was an intern for for me and another representative in the state, and she said that I got six times as many emails as the other representative. I was told that when she tallied it all up, that it was the number one constituent responsive district in the entire state.

I wouldn't have it any other way. I still owe a lot of people a lot of responses to emails. I got about 200 emails a day from constituents as well as other voice mails, text messages, and other things that I try I've tried to respond to. But if you text it, emailed, or or sent me a voice mail, I am gonna try to get back to you. It's just gonna take me a lot of time. But I'm just so proud to represent such a politically active and engaged citizenry. We had a record of over a thousand bills introduced this year. I don't think that's great. I think we should have fewer bills. I I think famously, I've kinda become known as the guy who wants to try to limit the number of bills in the legislature.

I think that would give us more time to give thoughtful discussion to the bills that are represented in the legislature, and I'm gonna continue to fight that fight in the future. But we did pass fewer bills this year, which is probably for for those of you who think that when the legislative session starts, what are they going to do to me this year? The good news is we did a little less damage than than we might have otherwise. I think it ended up being about 541 bills passed. And then today, I think we pulled one back because it got its final votes after the stroke of midnight.

So so that was kind of a new thing for me to see that. Notable highlights this year. Sorry. My voice is not recovered yet from all the talking that we do. But notable highlights this year primarily is what didn't pass.

If you looked at the emails that I was receiving from constituents as the session was starting, people were terrified by all the legislation that they saw that they didn't like. I encourage you, if you were terrified by some of the bills that you thought were going to be introduced and passed, go back and look and see if it actually happened. If you really thought it was awful, there's a decent chance that that it didn't pass. We really did a good job of of screening these and and making sure that we did the will of the people, I think, this year. So which bills did pass and which ones didn't?

A lot of the what I think my constituents consider to be attacks on the judiciary, most of those did not pass. Most of them didn't even see the light of day. We did end up expanding the Supreme Court, which I wasn't a fan of, but it happened anyway. We kept mail in balloting, which my constituents are big fans of. Maybe not everywhere in the state, but East Sandy really loves their mail in balloting.

We funded education even in a light budget year. And so I think we can be proud of ourselves for the prioritization that we gave to our educators and our children. And we found all kinds of creative ways to make sure that more water gets to the Great Salt Lake and that the water that gets there gets saved. A lot of our money got invested that way. A lot of creativity went into into making sure that our air stays cleaner, our water stays in the Great Salt Lake.

And in some cases, we had some legislation that did a little bit of both when it comes to The US magnesium deal that we did. And anyway, I just really appreciate the thoughtfulness, the engagement that I had from our city leaders. There were several times we were texting back and forth about bills and legislation that would impact Sandy. And we've got great leadership in this city that knows how to engage with with me and with our other representatives in the house tonight. Thanks for your time.

It goes right back your way. Thank you for being so responsive to us. Thank you for your outreach to us at times asking us how we felt about certain bills, funding opportunities, things like that. Thank you very much for the two way dialogue that we we had during this session. We really appreciate that.

All right, thank you.

All right, it seems to me I have not closed general citizen comment and I just got another card. And so that is McLean. McLean, come on down and give your comment.

I know I look like a robot so to remind you that I appreciate the accommodations which most cities do not have prepared or even ready or even know where it is. So great job on him. That was very quick so I appreciate that. I actually work in the ADA world with people who are deaf and hard of hearing. I'm hard of hearing myself. I was born getting it genetically from my mother. And I was involved with the Hale Center Theater with all the ADA accommodations at Listen Tech. And they also provide your guys' services. So we appreciate you working with businesses who are based here in Utah. But I've been going around the cities to lend a helping hand to make sure that we're working with the businesses in the city to make sure that we are providing accommodations and checking up on that.

I work a lot with the hard of hearing community, older, younger, even teenagers, and just making sure that we're encouraging them to come out and support the businesses that are doing that. So then that way we are supporting and making a note of businesses who take the time to look and see what services because technology gets better. Now we have AI and hearing aids. A lot of people don't realize that now. And I get a test a lot of that technology.

It's kinda crazy how far we've come. And so I like to come and make that known, give my information. So then that way if there's entities that are doing that and have connections to businesses that are looking for information or have been expressed concerns of not proper accommodations. I just wanted to make sure we do that because about 93% of the websites aren't accessible for people with disabilities and then about fifty percent of workers who have some sort of disability say they don't get adequate accommodations which makes them not able to work as efficiently. Just trying to bridge the gap because there's a lot of questions with it and making sure that we always just check up on it every year. Just want to leave that with you. So I appreciate it.

Thank you. Thanks Thank for you. All right. That does conclude our general citizen comments. I'll close that section of the agenda. And we will move on to item number two, presentation of the Building Our Future housing workshop draft final report. Dustin, please.

Thank you, counsel. Appreciate it. Liz is gonna go ahead and pull up the report, which I have to say she compiled the final report. And didn't she do an amazing job? It looks so nice. If I had had to put that together myself, you would have gotten one long word document that wouldn't have looked, nearly as nice. And she also helped draft quite a few sections within the report. So I just wanna pass along appreciation to staff and I'll pass along appreciation to all of the other staff at the city that helped work on this as well. Shane and Lynn and James and Jake and Casey and Rob and Justin and I've already mentioned Liz. And I'm probably missing somebody, but there's a lot of work that went into it.

And I just wanna pass along that appreciation to city staff. And then finally, appreciation to you guys and to the mayor for participating in the workshop series. Appreciation to council member DeKaiser for kind of bringing this up initially, you know, in the middle of last year. Hopefully, we come up with something that we can pass along to the consultant that just presented that'll help us to make some good amendments to title 21 that that really consider housing, housing affordability. So I I don't have slides.

I'm gonna go through the the document that Liz put together. So but but let me start out with what our our objectives are tonight. This is a draft. Draft. You know, it's our best effort to capture what we feel like was said during the housing workshops, the five workshops, and our best effort at giving you recommendations on, how to move forward based upon the feedback that we got.

You know, we took into account all of the feedback, especially the exercises that we did. Right? We did exercises and workshops three, workshops four, and workshops five. And, it maybe you didn't feel this way in the workshop, but there actually was a lot of consensus. When we put together, all of your participation and looked at it, there was a lot of consensus. We did not, attach all of those appendixes to what you're looking at tonight. Though when we bring back the final after feedback tonight, we'll make sure you have all the all the appendices. And you can take a look at the, various exercises or the results from them. And you can, you know, make your own, judgments based on that. But we we did take all of that into consideration.

So our objectives tonight, number one, does the report accurately capture your intent? Number two, are you comfortable with the three with the strategies, the tactics, and then the tools that we recommend in section four? And then the third objective is are you comfortable with the implementation plan that we outlined in section five? I'm gonna jump through this just a little bit. We're not gonna go through every page.

Okay. So really quick, I don't wanna spend a lot of time on recapping what we did. You all lived through it. Even the council members that weren't council members in 2025, you attended, you watched. You observed what happened.

But I wanna give a quick recap for everybody. So it was a the workshop series started in the 2025. It was elected officials, all eight elected officials, key staff, and then we had some industry experts present at the beginning. We had folks from WFRC, the governor's office, the Utah Foundation, the Kem C Gardner Policy Institute, and then we had a developer from Cowboy Partners who also presented. From those industry experts, we identified identified 48 major issues within 10 categories and we have those listed here on page 10. No maybe not. Maybe I've got the wrong page listed. Sorry. I do. Page six.

There we go. So those are the 10 categories that we identified. There were 48 issues that we identified within those categories. They will be attached to the appendix. Once we identified, each of those issues, we provided, all of them to you and we created an exercise.

And what we asked you to do was to go ahead and identify which of those you felt were the most critical to Sandy City. And as a group, you prioritized three of these 10 categories. And you identified five of the issues that you felt were the most important. And the categories that you identified were category a, severe housing shortage category d, limited housing stock variety, category f, neighborhood and community opposition. The issues you identified were obstacles to middle housing, limited options between large family, homes, and apartments, right, nothing in the middle, Lack of tools to enforce owner occupancy, low condominium construction, and restrictive zoning codes.

So we that was our first area of focus. The next thing that we did is we we all worked together and we created a shared vision. I'm gonna skip through quite a few of the pages here to go into detail on the background. And we're gonna go to the vision. So once we identified and prioritized the issues, we worked on an on a vision as a group.

And the vision that that you all came up with was the following, to ensure continued sustainability and to maintain the character of our city, our goal is to encourage housing and housing affordability for residents across all stages of life. We want to encourage, allow, and incentivize a larger variety of housing, including housing for seniors, first time home buyers, middle housing, and workforce housing, more housing in the right locations, and we want the housing to be owner occupied. That's the vision. Every policy recommendation that we're making within this draft final final report, every strategy, every tactic, every tool, it was filtered through those two lenses. The lenses of how do we achieve the vision that you've put down on paper here and how do we address how do we best address those prioritized issues?

And then finally, the the kind of last thing that we did to to gather your feedback before we we went to work. You gave us feedback on the types of housing that we should encourage, where it should go, who it should be for, and how to make it happen. You might remember we categorized that as the what, where, who, and how. So in our workshop four exercise, you provide a direction regarding what types of missing middle housing belong where within the city. And then in workshop five, you provide a direction regarding the types of conditions that are required for those housing types and for those locations.

And then in that same exercise, you also provide a direction regarding the types of development incentives that the city can should consider and then what types of housing or public benefits we should actually incentivize. K? So now we have all of that information, all of that feedback that you provided us with, and that is what we use to come up with three actionable strategies. The strategies are kind of the the overarching the umbrella, I guess, I would say for the tactics, the tools. They are what are we trying to accomplish.

And so the the three actionable strategies essentially are incentivizing variety, targeting strategic locations for additional housing, and then encouraging ownership and quality design to maintain neighborhood character. K? And they're listed here on the screen. I I shortened them a little bit in what I just read. But those are the three key actionable strategies that we're proposing.

Each strategy I'm gonna go through in detail. Each strategy has a couple of tactics that are applied within the strategy. Wait. How are we going to work towards that strategy? That's what the tactic will cover. So let's go through each one. So strategy one, permit and incentivize a variety of housing options for a broad range of residents. There are a couple of tactics that we've proposed. The first tactic for this strategy is to legalize middle housing much more broadly. Broadly.

Okay? How how are we gonna do that? That's the question. Right? So the focus from our perspective and based upon the feedback that you gave to us is that we should focus on gentle infill when we're talking about some of the lower density neighborhoods with the the kind of denser development in the cairns and centers and along corridors.

It became really clear to us that that kind of gentle or invisible infill in neighborhoods was important to all of you as elected officials. Specifically, you talked about a few housing types. Number one was detached ADUs. K? So detached ADUs you said were preferred in low and very low density neighborhoods with specific conditions. Small lot single family preferred in low and very low density neighborhoods but without conditions. In other words, we're ready to go. Let's put those in those lower density neighborhoods. Small mid rise, preferred in centers, along corridors with conditions. I'm sorry.

We and I'll add the the onto there as well. Forgot to mention that. Mansion style multifamily preferred in the Cairns, centers, and low very low density neighborhoods with conditions. Preferred along corridors and in medium density neighborhoods without conditions. Twin homes or duplexes depending on, you know, if you're renting them or or selling them. Preferred in low or very low density neighborhoods with conditions. Preferred in centers without conditions. K? So when we're talking about legalizing middle housing, what we're saying with tactic one is let's legalize these housing types. There will be conditions attached to some.

There won't be conditions attached to other to others. So some of the conditions I'm actually gonna stay on this slide. Some of the conditions that you mentioned is important. I'm gonna go over them by location. So conditions that you came to a consensus on that were important for very low, low, and medium density neighborhoods were dimensional requirements. K. So things like the size of the structure, the setback, where it's placed on the lot. How is it gonna impact the neighborhood? Things like parking. Right?

That's what the that that would be an impact. Is there gonna be new infrastructure required based on this, new structure? Is it going to cause some new noise issue? Or is it gonna increase traffic? Right?

Those are the types of conditions that you identified, again, is important in neighborhoods. And then the final one is owner occupancy. That is a clear preference across pretty much every location type, quite honestly, but especially in medium, low, and very low density neighborhoods. So those are the conditions that we're talking about when we mention with conditions conditions on these various housing types that you've identified as preferred. Within the Cairns, you've identified one condition that you came to consensus on,

and that was

affordability. Within centers and along corridors, there wasn't consensus reached on any particular conditions. And quite honestly, that aligns with the various housing types and the locations that you've brought up because there aren't any that you've really said, hey. In centers and corridors, this is okay, but with conditions. K?

You didn't identify any conditions. So we're approaching each of those areas and these housing types based upon what you've said is preferred and the conditions that you've identified as preferred. So that is the first tactic within strategy one. The second tactic is incentives. We've listed as adopt financial and regulatory incentives.

One one thing I wanna point out, it was made really clear to us early on that there wasn't an interest in incentivizing incentivizing housing in necessarily particular, you know, geographic locations. And there wasn't an interest in incentivizing particular types of structures or types of housing. But there was an interest interest in incentivizing outcomes. And what I mean by that is incentivizing things that might constitute a major public benefit. K?

So an outcome might be housing for first time home buyers, right, or housing for seniors. We've listed some of the public benefits here on this on this slide. These are ones that you've you all seemed to speak to as important to you. So we have affordable units, housing for first time home buyers, workforce housing, housing for seniors. And again, you'll see this pop up all the time, owner occupied housing. So those are some of the major public benefits that we're recommending you consider incentivizing. How do we incentivize them? You made it clear that there were three areas that you were interested in using as incentives. One is density bonuses. One was city assistance.

City assistance could be various things. Right? It might be providing land at one end or it might be providing city funding at another end or it might be fee waivers or reductions. Right? Some type of assistance from the city. And then the third incentive that you identified were accelerated was an accelerated approval process. You know? And we don't know what that looks like at this point. But it could be something like if you propose a propose a project that it meets this particular set of standards, we're bumping into the front of the line. We don't know that what it would be at this point in time.

But what we're recommending is in order to achieve those public benefits that we recommend a combination of those three incentives. And honestly, we'll probably have to use all three of them. The second strategy that we've identified is more housing in the right locations. And so I'm I'm referencing that as targeting strategic locations. There are again, there are a couple of tactics that we've outlined within the report.

One is encouraging higher density housing options downtown, so we mean the Cairns, in centers and along corridors. Okay? You've identified mansion style multifamily, townhomes, small mid rises, those options. So that's tactic one. We want to encourage those in those higher density area, or I'm sorry. We wanna encourage those in the downtown areas, centers, and corridors. The second tactic is the one that will make a little bit more of a difference in my mind. And it's context sensitive infill in existing neighborhoods. Mhmm. So those are mostly made up of your low and your very low density neighborhoods.

And again, we're talking about small lots, single family. Okay. And you mentioned again that you wanted you didn't have a lot of conditions that you wanted to apply to that. Twin homes and mansion style multifamily. You made it clear to us that they that design standards were important. You wanna make sure that they fit in, right, to the neighborhood. You wanna make sure they have that look of the housing surrounding them. And the other condition that you wanted to apply to those was, impact. Right? And so you're concerned about do we have enough parking? How is it gonna impact traffic, for example. And then the third is detached ADUs.

So

detached ADUs is this one's interesting because as you all know, the state just passed a new law last week related to external ADUs. And interestingly enough, actually from my read of it, and I had a conversation with Lynn, I actually think it fits pretty well within what you've identified here, the conditions that you've identified. Owner occupancy is one of the conditions that you said was important. Under that statute of the past, we can still require owner occupancy for either the ADU or the primary dwelling unit. Dimensions and other design standards.

So the statute, it takes a little reading to get to this point but it does make it clear that you can apply certain design standards especially when you're trying to make it look like the existing home, right, the main the main home. And my recollection from the workshops is is that was one of the topics that came up. How do we make sure that it fits? You can still apply things like setbacks, size requirements, etcetera. There are some some stipulations on the amount of parking that you can require.

But I I feel like we're still we're still good there with what the state has passed. The area where maybe we're gonna have to give a little condition. So you you all made it clear that location was really important when it came to external ADUs. There was a lot of conversation about, well, maybe they're best on kind of the odd lot that where maybe the impact won't be so great. Maybe they're better along busier streets or when they're abutting a commercial area or they're kind of transitional.

We can do that when we're talking about lots that are under 11,000 square feet under the current state statute still if we want to. But once you hit that 11,000 square foot threshold, my understanding of what was passed is they're going to be permitted by right. We can still apply some of the dimensional design standards. We can still apply the owner occupancy standards. But we may not be able to apply some of those location standards.

So to go back through tactic two, context sensitive infill, we want to focus on small lot single family, twin homes, mansion style homes, and then detached ADUs with the conditions that you've identified. Strategy three that we're recommending is I'm calling it maintain neighborhood character. Really it's maintaining neighbor neighborhood character is kind of the result of that strategy. How you do that is we are recommending again, two tactics. One is incentivizing, encourage, or require owner occupancy requirements whenever possible.

Okay? I think an important part of maintaining neighborhood character is you maintain the character of, hey, the people who own this property live here. That's my understanding of what you passed along to us. And so one of our tactics is let's do everything we can to incentivize, encourage, or require owner occupancy, especially when we're talking about neighborhoods. That's really what's important.

You identify ADUs. You identify low, very low density neighborhoods is where owner occupancy is most important. And then the second tactic is to adopt robust standards for the location, dimensions, and design of middle housing in neighborhoods. So any of these middle housing options that we've talked about, the ADUs, the dupe I'm sorry, the twin homes, the mansion style multifamily, etcetera, we wanna make sure that when they're built in those lower density neighborhoods that they they fit. Right?

They look like the surrounding neighborhood. And that's what tactic two is talking about within strategy three. So how do we do we meet those? What do we need to implement in order to make that happen? We have come up with a list of kind of broad operational regulatory tools. And most of these are really going to be we're gonna need to consider them with our title 21 rewrite. That's where that's where this belongs. And so we've identified four regulatory tools that we recommend. One is Byrite development approval. One is looking at some form based codes.

And then the other two are looking at development agreements and then overlay zoning. So I I I'm not gonna go into those into those in great detail, but I'd like to talk about them a little bit. So the development agreement and the Byrite development approval, those are the how do we make this happen? By Wright development agreement, I kind of view it as the self checkout lane. Right?

It's, hey, here are a list of standards. Here are a set of standards. And if you meet these standards by Wright, you can build this thing in this location. The development agreement is how we, you know, make sure that if we're incentivizing something or if we're offering something that's maybe not necessarily offered by Wright that it's gonna happen. The form based codes and then the overlay zoning are how we implement those two things.

Okay? So form based codes are gonna be there may there may be some sections of the city where we say, hey, if you are building within if your building looks this way, then we're going to give you more leeway on what can happen inside of it. Right? It's a little different than Euclidean zoning. Whereas when we're talking about the overlay zoning, that might be more surgical in nature.

So if we want to apply a incentive to a very particular location within the city, we may use an overlay zone to more surgically say, if you do x, y, z, then you may qualify for, this benefit from the city. Right? You may get a density bonus, for example. That's just an example of how that might work. That's not the full detail, obviously.

But those are the regulatory tools that we're recommending that we move forward with exploring in the Title 21 rewrite. And so finally, I want to talk about implementation and next steps. The way we've kind of written this out is a green light, yellow light. Green means go, yellow means slow. And the green items are ones that we want to start moving on right now as soon as the council says, yes, we like this.

Let's move forward. And so I'm going to go through those really quickly. Number one, permit detached accessory dwelling units ADUs. James and his team as Melissa mentioned they are ready to come present and say hey here's where we want to go on external ADUs based upon those the workshops that we've held. We would like to do that on March 31.

We've got it listed tentatively on the agenda planning calendar. Once the council says, yes, we like this. If you say that, we're ready to go on that. Public benefits. So the next issue that we want to attack is understand is helping you to understand the kind of interconnected use of development agreements, buy right approvals, and then certain incentive programs to achieve the kind of outcomes that we've we've noted here.

And Lynn is prepared to come and present to the council on how we can make those three things work together. How can we use development agreements and incentives to achieve the outcomes that we want. Right? And we plan on doing that in combination with the incentives that we've identified here in the report. Tied into that is obviously accelerated approvals.

That is another topic that will be covered in that same meeting. And then finally, financial and soft cost relief. And Casey and Rob are ready to come present on city and RDA owned property that has the potential for future housing projects. Right? So that would be the city partnering with with the developer in some fashion in order to move that forward.

They're also prepared to suggest a property that we might be able to use as a test case moving forward. So we're ready to move on all three of those things and we'd like to come present on them within the next month and a half. Two more, mandate owner occupancy for ADUs. That's another topic that will be discussed on March 31. And then again, the use of development agreements that'll be in with the April 21 presentation.

The yellow items, those are items that we're recommending we complete along with the title 21 rewrite. So Brooke, you mentioned, well, what are the things that we're gonna move on right now? Right? You mentioned during that presentation, are you going bring things to us or are we going to adopt everything at the end? So I think right here we're identifying, hey, here are some things that are important to us that we want to focus on. And maybe we want to tackle these a little earlier than two years, maybe. So that's why we're calling them out here. So those yellow items are items that we would want to notify our I'm sorry. I said general plan, I didn't mean that. Our title 21 rewrite.

We want to notify consultant that those issues are important to us. Maybe we wanna consider them a little earlier but they are going along with the title 21 process. So legalizing small lot single family housing, encouraging mansion style multifamily, allowing twin homes and duplexes more broadly, focusing on high density in the carens and centers, establishing design based conditions,

and

then prioritizing ownership in neighborhoods. And then finally, the implementation tools. Those are also tools that we would suggest be considered in combination with the title 21 rewrite, a combination of form based codes, overlay zoning, and then by right approvals. And so in conclusion, and I'm happy to open it up to questions, what we're trying to accomplish tonight is, again, the following. Does this report accurately capture your intent?

Are you comfortable with the strategies, tactics, tools that we're recommending in section four? Are you comfortable with the implementation plan we've outlined in section five? And then finally, once we get to the point where you are comfortable, we would like the council to adopt this at some point and say, hey, we're making this our final report, not our draft final report, but our final report on the house shop working oh, I'm sorry, the the housing workshop series. So with that, happy to answer questions and I'll invite any of the staff that helped out with this to jump in if you have any answers to the questions as well.

Ms. Souza.

Thank you, madam chair. Okay. So on page 32, there were a couple of things specific that I thought reflected my recollection. And it was the mandate owner occupancy for ADUs. The subtext says require that the primary unit of any property with a detached ADU be owner occupied. And so I would think that either one of them but not necessarily the primary because I mean it kind of defeats the purpose that somebody might want

ADU. Yeah. Well and that's that's fair because the new state statute also says that it can be either or.

Okay.

There are certainly some things that we'll have to amend in this based upon that the law of the past after we put this in the packet last Friday.

Okay. No. That sounds good. Thank you for that clarification there then. And then the other one is the between the green light and the slowdown yellow light, the prioritized ownership in neighborhoods versus used development agreements. And maybe I'm missing it, but it sounds like the development agreement is a tool of owner is is a potential tool of owner occupancy. And so I guess I'm I'm questioning why we would focus on that specific tool as opposed to the overall goal in a plethora of tools.

Can you point out where you're what you're referencing one more time? Sorry. What page are you referencing?

32.

Page 32.

Am I looking an old it's a printed okay. Yeah. Right there. So in the the bottom section, the yellow and the green. Mhmm. And I guess my question is, wouldn't we prioritize on our ownership prioritize ownership in neighborhoods versus just use development agreements?

I think that and I'm I apologize if I'm not getting your question correct, but I think those things are tied are tied together potentially.

Well, I guess that's what I'm saying is prioritize ownership in neighborhoods is slightly larger that may have more tools than just development agreements where development agreements is maybe a tool in prioritizing ownership in neighborhoods. And so my question is why would we just prioritize one specific tool as opposed to the goal which may allow us more tools. Does that make sense?

I'm not

Are you ask sorry. Are you asking why used development is agreements is green instead of being the opposite? Why are we focusing on that first instead of o? Okay. Yeah. So just like

So why are we

Why are we focusing on used development agreements? I think because Lynn's gonna present that to us first.

Yes. But

it's not like the only thing. Right?

Yes.

Just want

them to be different.

So Maybe. Maybe I can answer your question. And again, if anybody wants to jump in, feel free. But so development agreements, what we would like to do on April 21 is have a joint conversation about a couple of topics. And it's kind of how development agreements are interconnected with incentives, for example.

And so that's why we've listed that one as green is because we can move on it now. Prioritizing ownership in neighborhoods, I understand what you're saying because prior maybe the development agreement is maybe in order prioritize ownership in neighborhoods, we may need to talk about it with development agreements. You may be correct. But I think that the intention is to talk about how development agreements and incentivizations are connected to one another. Ownership in neighborhoods not not an incentive necessarily, right?

Okay. It is a public benefit that we might experience. So I think you're right. I think a lot of these are tied together but we just didn't classify that one necessarily with what we're planning on presenting in April. Okay. Does that answer your question?

It does. I Okay. The the incentive aspect was missing from my mind when reviewing this. I just don't wanna miss opportunities for a year and a half to come up or to or to create tools that would be beneficial in

Yeah.

The overall goal of providing prioritizing owner occupancy.

And this this is end all be all. Right? This is our recommendation on where where we're gonna start.

Where you're starting. I understand.

We might get into the title 21 rewrite and a year later the consultant says, hey, have you guys considered this? And we'll say, not at all. It might be a new thing that comes up, right? But this is just what we're recommending at this point in

time.

Okay. Thank you.

Ms. Houseman, did you have comments?

Thank you. You for that question. I'm going to more comment just on the layout because I don't really have any questions but more comment. I really appreciate the way that you sort of unpack the process. I can't imagine the hours spent looking for consensus across all the sticky notes and handwritten stuff and I agree Liz is beautiful.

Well done. Such branding. I just finished my marketing class so I can talk about branding now. Excellent. But the thing I'd like to highlight is not just a summary but coming back to us with actual here's what we'd like to talk about next. Here's who's going to present that. Here are the dates. I'm a big fan of stoplight like here's what's ready to go green. Here's some things we're still talking about. Doesn't mean we're not going to do it but we're not ready to commit to dates.

100% approve like I know you're looking for actual adoption of this So I'm I'm wondering does that also mean like you're you're good with these dates because I think that's the chair has said yeah those dates are good. Right? Like if they're in in this document they are tentative on the agenda.

We have not spoken with the chair about the dates.

Thanks a lot.

Oh sorry. They're listed

as they're listed as tentative.

Tentative. We

were gonna go over them.

This one.

Warm sweet heard from the council today.

Sorry sorry. Well then I am I am proactively saying the timeline I think is is great. I think we cannot miss. And I think this was sort of what council member DeSousa was after. I I don't wanna miss any window of execution around the things that are green. And I think they're the right things. I think there's consensus. There's years you know two almost two years spent on this right? Is it a year?

I think we started last middle

Well I've last thinking about it a lot longer than that.

Marcy's been thinking about it way longer

than that.

And so

has Aaron. And so has We all have.

We talked about ADUs. I want to say that was over a year ago. Yeah. Am I correct on that guys? Yeah.

I think we have the right traction. These are the right what did you call them? It's not just strategy it's

Tactics.

Tactics. Thank you. I just drew a blank. I think it's the right tactics. I I love the specific dates. I love that we are gonna set things in motion. And I'm ready to bring it back with all the appendices so that we can actually adopt this because that is ultimately what you need from us. Right?

Yeah. What I'm looking for tonight again is does this capture Yeah. Your feeling of what was accomplished during those workshops? Did we miss anything? Are there any changes that you'd like to to see us make? And then our plan at that point is to attach the appendices and put it on the next agenda for adoption. James will then take the adopted version, hand it to our consultant so that they have that when they're going through the title 21 rewrite.

Yep.

We will then immediately be able to begin kind of bringing those green items back.

Okay. I think the one thing that you did really well, if there were any tuning needed this would be the only thing. But I feel like it's really really well done but I like what you've done in terms of highlighting the need to blend like we spent a lot of time talking about transition from a certain type of housing structure into what we might allow but the need for buffer and transition type housing that makes that feel more seamless instead of just we have this and then we have this very abrupt all of a sudden very very different type of housing. I think that's reflected in here. I don't know if it if it could be emphasized in a in a few other ways just so that people know we

are. Yeah.

The the way we got to some of of of the where is thinking about transitional house like transitioning that blending. I that's the only little piece of feedback if if we could say it a few more places. I think that's one thing that people are gonna wanna

That's a that's a good recommendation. I actually noticed as I was preparing my notes over the last couple of days and I was reviewing this for the fifteenth time, right? I thought, hey, some of the conditions that we're talking about maybe aren't called out in here quite well enough. And that would be a condition, right? Those kind of transitional. And so maybe we could look at maybe inserting those conditions a little bit

Yeah, not as much continuity as a blend. So we're so we're not going dramatically different. Because continuity means I'm gonna look exactly like like this area, the housing we approved in the hair area adjacent is going to look exactly the same. What I remember from all of our workshops was this thought around a transition like a slow transition. So this this in the middle will look somewhat like this But then when we get over here, this looks even more different. Does that make sense? Just sort of the

And the the place we talked about that unfortunately in the report is the place that we can't do it anymore. And that's with ADUs. Right?

Right.

So we need to edit that section anyways. And so we could try to kind of wiggle that somewhere else just so it's more clear.

Perfect. I I really appreciate all the work on this.

Miss Christensen. This was super helpful for someone who was stepping into it after the fact. The only two things that might possibly be helpful

Mhmm.

Totally up to you guys.

It's all helpful. Okay. Yeah.

The conditions, like, specifically, they weren't listed in there. That would be really helpful.

K.

And then also a map that shows when you're talking about the three things you talked about throughout the downstairs downstairs. Downtown, centers, and corridors.

Yeah.

Like a map at the beginning or the end, just calling those specifically out to be referred back to. Those it was really good.

Excellent recommendation.

Mister DeKaiser. I

don't wanna add too much. I did agree with council member D'Souza's reading of the ADUs and the ownership requirements that'll change. Also as we talk about transition, let's really edit that as we do that. I didn't think that had anything to

do with ADUs. As far as

I'm concerned, you can plop one down wherever you want. In terms of going from, you know, on a busy street from a residential to build up to scaling to McMansion whatever we're calling them. I think that's more the intent in the transitional housing or housing on peripheries and through corridors things like that. But too I did just want to give a huge shout out to you. I cannot wait for the council to pass an ADU ordinance.

It's been over a year since we've been trying to do that. There are dozens of residents chomping at the bit for this to happen. So I am super excited that that happened in the legislature. But, yeah, huge kudos to you for doing this and also to the working group team Lynn, Shane, everyone else who was involved with those meetings. It was a big lift from the city as a whole to do these workshops and bring in all the speakers that we had. So thanks to everyone to for doing this and look forward to implementation. Thank you.

So is the intent that when the council passes this that this gets taken and built into the new land development code?

I think the intent is that it the consultant considers it, that they reference it. Right? It is you it is a conglomeration of policy feedback given by the legislative body. Right? You didn't vote

on all of those

things necessarily, but you participated in quite a few exercises where you expressed your preferences. You expressed what issues you thought were most important to the city. And so I I feel I I know James feels this way as well because he said it to me that providing it to the consultant as a reference of, hey, this is where we're at on these issues is good. It also gives us some understanding of maybe what what some other priorities that where we should maybe start are based upon kind of what Brooke had mentioned during the first presentation earlier tonight. Know, where are we adopting this all the end or are there things that we're going to talk about throughout? Right? These might be the things you wanna talk about throughout.

As I said before when we were doing the housing workshops, I'm still struck by the fact that we're missing something that I feel is very important and that is a staff recommendation. We are not we have our opinions and we're the legislative body but we are not the decades long professionals. We're not and I feel like because of that I'm wondering whether we might already be making some mistakes. Mistakes is probably too strong a word. Like as an example, page 26, if you want to go back to that one, Dustin.

So we did make it very clear, and I would agree that we talked a lot about a goal being owner occupied housing. But on page 26, two of the three things we have on here would be rentals. So I think what we're missing is the guiding hand of the professionals saying, did you think about this? What about that? I must say I am uncomfortable with the fact that the council who again decides in the end, but should be deciding based on input from other professionals along the way.

I feel like maybe that isn't happening. I like the idea going back to page 32 of trading density for affordability or maybe for owner occupancy. But I would pose question, if that's a tool that we're thinking of using, did we already in adopting the future land use map, did we set the standard as too dense? Did we leave ourselves room for that kind that we we that

that

some angst. Yeah.

May I madam chair?

Yes.

So one one thing to point out is when you're talking about owner occupancy, my my belief in where we're focusing on is owner occupancy within neighborhoods. Right? When you mentioned page 26, you're talking about centers, the cairns. And I don't think it's really any of our perspective that all of that is gonna be owner occupied. I don't think that's anyone's perspective necessarily. That's not what we're recommending. In terms of staff recommendation, is this exactly what we would recommend is like as planners, right, the nonelected officials in a vacuum. It's probably not what I would recommend. Right? I'm a trained planner.

But it's what I would recommend based upon the feedback that you've given us as elected officials. And so that is one of our one of our intentions was to gather that feedback and give our best recommendation based upon what's important to you as the elected officials. And so that's what we tried to do. Sections four and five are our recommendations. They're our best recommendations based upon that.

There will be more recommendations coming because these still are somewhat high level. How are the details going to work? That's where I think you have to leave it to the subject matter experts to really flesh that out. We don't want to be coming to have conversations with you all about every little word within title 21. But I understand what you're saying. Maybe your perspective was we should have given you a recommendation first. That's not how we approached it. We approached it from we wanna hear from you. It doesn't always go well for us to give recommendations before we understand the perspective of the elected officials I don't think. And so that's usually what we try to do is get that perspective.

Well I would say too that it's uncommon for the elected officials to make such a consequential decision without professional staff recommendations. And I'm worried that if we're not getting there, at very least, can I say, during this process of updating the general plan or updating the land development code, If we're going down the wrong avenue and there's professional staff that believes you started this out by saying this your background is in planning? You wouldn't have done this. What there may be more of that.

What I said is I wouldn't necessarily in a vacuum suggest all of these things. But I am not here representing

What would you suggest?

You don't want to know what I would suggest. You don't because as a planner things are different. I have a different perspective. I have a different perspective than what might be accept accepted by the residents, right, or accepted by you's elected officials. But we are giving a recommendation based upon the feedback that we got.

Now it's true. We could get a whole lot of professional recommendations and still decide against it. For me, it's just an important part of decision making, Right? A very important part especially with something so consequential. We may be already seeing the effects tonight in another agenda item of a decision that we made and now we're second guessing.

I'd like to do as little of that as possible in the future. And when it comes to complete overhaul rewrite of our land development codes and specifications, It shouldn't be, let's pass it and then fix what we got wrong later on. It should be, let's make our best attempt to do it right and then maybe fix in hindsight what we got wrong. But I am a little bit worried. I'm just going to put that out there.

Would I say that this is not representative of what the council I think we probably went a little too far on this mansion style multifamily housing for this reason. And I'm just speaking for myself. Other council members may disagree. I think we liked that idea as an owner occupied solution that fits into neighborhoods or corridors or whatever, meaning it looks like every other house around it. But instead of accommodating one family, it accommodates four.

Isn't that a great thing? But then we came to find out that because we aren't moving the needle very much on condos, we don't know how many of those will get built. Maybe we wait to enact those until we feel a higher level of certainty that the use is going to be owner occupied instead of rentals. We didn't get anywhere on condos in this legislative session. You know one of the things that I think it's in this that we talked about is as a city, this is kind of a Jake Warner kind of question or comment.

It seems like the information we've been getting is that when it comes to market rate apartments, we're doing pretty well. We are fitting the need of affordability at market rate for the 80% and above of household income in Sandy. If we're going to build apartments, should we focus and we're designating a lot of them. Should we focus on the unmet needs, not more of the already met needs? I don't think we're being I'm not sure if we're being very visionary in that category.

I don't know if we want to build more apartments, but it sure looks that way by what we came up with, right? We know in the Karens we've already permitted some. And so that's where we're headed. I just want to make sure I'm uncomfortable with an answer which is this is the council's product sitting there in a series of work sessions saying that sounds good. But we're missing the input of the professionals and that makes me uncomfortable.

So may I madam chair?

Yes.

The in I this is just my my perspective at this point. As I mentioned, our this is our recommendation based upon the feedback that we got. But there is going to be more in input from the professionals. We have we have the next three sessions scheduled where you are going to hear from city professionals and where they're gonna recommend this is how this is gonna work. This is how we should move forward. Right? This is higher level than that at this point. The the green means go, yellow means slow. Right? The yellow items, we're still going to get professionals, additional professional staff input on those items.

None of those, we could we could not take one of those items and say, oh, let's just go ahead and stick it in the code right now. They're not code amendments. They're not written that way. Staff, the consultant will come back with their professional recommendation on how are we going to actually put this into the code. How are we going to make it happen?

How about the if? Can they go as far as if?

I would say yes. Yeah. There are there could certainly be things. Maybe Lynn comes back in two months and says hey this thing about owner occupancy we've really looked into it. And in order for us to enforce it it's gonna cost you know, a million dollars and we're going to have to do x y z and it seems really hard to do. And we might say, oh well, maybe we're going to have to sidelighten that one for the time being. We don't know at this point. Right? What we're trying to figure out in the report is did we capture the high level direction that you gave us so that we can move forward and drill down and ultimately adopt amendments to the code to hopefully make these things happen? Some of them may not may end up not being feasible.

That very well I think that's a completely possible outcome for some of them.

Cindy, me?

I also wanna make sure that some very important people sitting in the room are hearing this too. I am looking for your opinion, your guidance, your input. This is collaborative. I don't want anyone thinking when they get this. This is what the council told us to do. So how are we going to get this over the finish line? Right? So anyway, and I know I haven't forgotten that you wanted to speak too, but miss Nickel,

go ahead.

Thank you. For me, I think the document gives flexibility for a purpose because it's not set in stone. None of this is and until we write code. That's the stone, and I I believe we will have a lot of input. I I do. And as far as making it perfect the first time, we write code until it's until it's if we're thinking it's good and we're until until we find out it's not good. So setting the goal as perfect is a high bar. I don't know that we'll get there. But I just wanted to voice I think it's a great document. The sentiment is there in what we said. And obviously there were other things said as well and I think those would be taken into recommendation too.

Lynn Pace I'm willing to let you weigh in finally.

If have to hear from the attorney we will. First, I want to echo Council Member Keyser's comments. Thanks to all of you and the staff. This was a lot of time spent wrestling on what is a very challenging issue. And so I applaud all of the time and effort that was spent.

I also, in terms of what you're looking at tonight, I think this is a, ultimately I think Dustin is looking to bring this back for a vote. But this document is directional. It's not a decision. It is direction to staff and to the consultants to say, go explore these options and bring back possibilities to us that we can then put into the code and that we can actually start implementing. So I would not panic over the fact that it isn't perfect.

These were the things where we expressed interest and support. We'd like to explore that. And if you think of it, in my mind what I think we want to develop is some kind of a menu of options so that a landowner or developer coming into Sandy could say, oh, I can do X, which is my base zoning, or I could do option A, B, C, or D if I meet the conditions. And that menu of options gives them possibilities. It gives them certainty.

It gives them predictability based upon market conditions and what they want to do with their property and etcetera. So what we're doing tonight will give the ability to go explore those options and bring back those possibilities. And you, of course, will get the final decision on all of this. So I don't want you to panic that by saying yes to this tonight or a month from now that you've somehow unleashed Pandora's box. I hope that's not the case.

The other thing I guess I wanted to comment on was Councilmember Souza's comments. As you look at this and we have marked this green and yellow. I wonder, as I sit here tonight, I wonder if you want three colors because what I heard tonight was the code rewrite is not going to be completed until December 2027. That means the next for whatever elements of this housing plan that wait until 2027, the 2027 to get adopted, you won't be able to use those tools until 2028. That is two years from now.

So I think you might want to say, what do we want to do right now? ADUs, we have to do right now because the state told us we have to. What do we want to do next? And when I say next, I mean without waiting until the 2027. Are there things you want to pursue? We may not be ready right now, but we don't want to wait for the whole code rewrite to do them. So maybe you want to think about using three colors. I don't know. But through that. For instance, I'll just give you one example.

On I don't know what page this is, Dustin, but this is on the implementation next steps. We have permit detached ADUs as green. We have allow twin homes and duplexes as yellow. Yellow. Well, bear in mind that with the state's authorization of internal ADUs, every home can have two units right now.

And with the authorization of external detached ADUs, any large lot can have detached ADUs starting in October. So this is not going to wait until the 2027 to implement. Our citizens are going to start using it now or at least in the fall. So you might want to think about accelerating that. Just think about as you look through this list, which ones do you want to do now, which ones do you want to do soon, and which ones are okay to wait until the whole code rewrite is done.

That would be helpful guidance to staff just in terms of sequence. But all in all, I think it is critical to move forward as fast as you feel comfortable and that may because the crisis is now. And for Sandy citizens or their children or college students graduating, two years from now is an eternity. And so anything we can do to move the ball forward in terms of accessibility, number of units, affordability is enormously important and enormously meaningful. So I think that's our collective pledge is to help us accomplish that at whatever in whatever specifics and whatever timetable you're comfortable with.

You. May

I make another comment, Mo? Sorry. Go. Oh, in reference to Lynn, if you'd like we as staff could take a look at those and make recommendations on what might be kind of the now, next, end of the general plan. We could do that and include those changes in, you know, potential next version if you'd like us to.

If you wanna give us any feedback tonight, open to that. The other thought in reference to your comments, madam chair, would it make you more comfortable if we included in our resolution, you know, setting this as the final report, you know, the findings and but we make sure in the you know, now therefore, staff is directed to, you know, pursue, use this report. But also to let you know if there's anything that's just not just doesn't work. Right? I'm not boardsmithing this really well right now. But we could include something like that in the resolution so that it's exceptionally clear. Hey, staff. We if something doesn't work, we want you to tell us. We want you to let us know.

Yeah. Yeah.

Miss DeSouza. Thank you. You're you're bringing up the mansion style apartments or or multifamily housing reminded me that I felt like there was a bit of a disconnect in a couple of areas of this really amazing beautiful. Thank you, Liz report where we talk about that page 31 where you I think you're still at. Mhmm.

When it talks about encourage mansion style multifamily. It says to authorize multi unit buildings designed to look like large single family homes and and that kind of is the in the you know the beneficial use of that style of housing is to create density in areas that may not be suitable to other types of housing very well from a consistency continuity and look. But then on page 31, I think it's 31. Oh, no. It's 26 because that's where we're on.

Sorry. It says mansion style multifamily was preferred moderate density middle housing option with within the Cairns neighborhood activity centers and along corridors, but I don't know that that style of housing matches that particular location as opposed to a, like lower medium density single family neighborhood?

Yeah. Madam chair, may

I? Yes.

Yeah. We actually had discussion about this in some of our meetings that we had as a group. We were a little we were interested to better understand why the elected officials felt like that fit there. That might be one of the mansion style homes, for example, in the Cairns may not be it may be one of those items that the council member Sharkey's comments that we come back and we say, you know what? Maybe we wouldn't recommend that. That might not be the best idea for x y z. We've already actually discussed that. We intended to draft this using all of the incomes. We didn't wanna cherry pick. Right?

But I agree with you.

Okay. Well, and we went through a lot of the the information. Not that we went through it quickly but there was a lot of information to get through even over those five meetings and so, you know, reminders of of the styles and types. There's, you know, what it looks like and and density. They're very different.

Now if you want us to take that out now, happy to because again it's a topic we already discussed in one of our meetings. I think we generally agree that it doesn't necessarily belong in the Cairns for example. Corridor centers may be a different story but I mean we'd be happy to take that out if that's what you guys would like us to do. It doesn't have to be in the report.

Okay. I'm not recommending that we take it out because I think it's still an important topic to cover or consider. I just wanted to

Yeah.

Voice the discrepancy with what it looks like and its intended use versus where we say we're comfortable with it. They don't match.

Yeah. You did know also so mansion style was interesting because mansion style, you all made it very clear that you were happy with it just about anywhere. And so really, we've we've talked about it in multiple locations in this report. And in our minds, I shouldn't say our, in my mind and I'm under in my understanding of the minds of some of the other staff, maybe it doesn't belong in locations like the Cairns for example.

Okay. And then the only last comment that I was gonna make, and it kinda goes back to council member Hausman and council member DeKaiser's comments on the transitional zoning. And I'm I you know, I'm thinking about it. I I think I understand what you guys are getting at and more of blending two different different densities so that they aren't there isn't such a stark contrast and providing more I don't know what the word is. Assistance is the only word I can think of to create a a better blend between two opposing density areas. So yeah. But I I do agree that we need more direction. That's kind of the word I was looking for on on how to achieve that. Thank you.

Yeah. Madam chair may I? Yeah. I think what we could do in the report is make sure that it's understood that that is an area of interest right? That's a priority.

We noted it specifically under ADUs which we need to change that at this point, right? But maybe we could, as I mentioned earlier, move that or make that more clear in reference to other housing types or other locations that aren't necessarily ADUs. That was another kind of area where we had some conversation and we felt, well, does there really need to be buffers between properties that don't have ADUs and properties that do have ADUs. In the exercises, you made it clear it was important. But it's another one of those things that maybe doesn't quite align with what might be best in practice, right?

Ms. Houseman.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to understand a little bit more. I really appreciate this conversation around the because my. My vision doesn't mean it's the right vision was more in line with with Councilman de Sousa that it helps us accomplish housing. Councilman Sharkey, you just said that it falls and I'm making an assumption. You said two out of the three on this page are rentals and that you had concerns about that. You saying that the mansion style multifamily is a rental? Why is that the case?

Because otherwise

it That's not my understanding.

Well we did talk about that during one of the meetings. It'd be most likely that unless it was built as a condo and we just are having trouble getting condos built. So it's most likely

So it's kind of an assumption based on what the market is currently doing but it doesn't mean that we're limited to it being rental.

In a development agreement we could try to get away with mandating it with a developer but it's the developers that are resisting building them.

Well they don't know about all of the other things that we're we're working on that could make it

This is in my mind this is one of those areas where incentives are really important right? If you're going to ask for something that maybe isn't being built right now and you're gonna say, hey, we and we want it to be owner occupied. You better be willing to offer some incentives that make that interesting to the person who's gonna develop it. And so that's where those details are the things that I think we're gonna have to struggle with over the coming couple of years. It was it was clear that incentives for particular types of housing weren't of interest to you.

Maybe that'll change in the near future. But it was also clear that incentivizing again outcomes was. Right? Like as you mentioned owner occupancy. So if you're saying we like mansion style multifamily for example and we want it to be built like a townhouse where it's divided and can be owned. But the market's not necessarily allowing for that. You would have to offer some pretty good incentives to encourage it to happen.

Okay. And I agree you don't need to take any like strike it now but I do want to make sure that we maybe revisit that of what do we feel is are the right locations. Understand if the staff recommendation is not in the Cairns. I'm I'm fine with that. But it doesn't say here single family neighborhoods where I think that is Yeah. A possible location for this.

Because you're looking at us at the strategy. So this is an individual strategy, right? And this strategy this tactic, I'm sorry, within this strategy is specifically talking about housing in downtown and centers and along corridors. So it's only talking about those locations.

Okay. Okay.

But if you go to the next tactic under that same strategy, it's talking about context sensitive infill in existing neighborhoods. And you'll notice that it also talks about mansion Okay. Style multi Because mansion style multi family was a housing type that you there there was broad consensus that it was something that you all liked at least in the workshop series. Again, maybe that changes but there was interest in exploring it pretty much everywhere in the city.

Great. Great. Okay. Thank you for clarifying. I think that's all I had.

So in terms of the question that both you and Lynn asked about, do we have other priorities council other than are we okay with the priorities that are listed on here already, the items in green. We have three of them teed up to be heard next month. So it seems like we're starting out at a pretty good clip. I think I'm going to answer my own question and then look to others. There was a bill that got pretty close to passing for starter homes.

And so we know that that is a great interest at the state level. And if we're not if we're talking about something not being implemented until 2025 we're falling be in 2028 we're falling behind. So I would suggest that maybe we escalate legalizing small lot single family housing. Maybe if we can get a jump start on that we can beat the state in telling us how to do that. So that would just be my input.

Thank you. Since you asked you offered to have the revised version come back with staff recommendations doing that very thing like act now like immediately but then act now then wait for so almost three per Mr. Pace's recommendation. I would love to have that in the revised version that comes back to us so that we are parceling out act now.

May I manager? Yes. I'm happy to sit down with planning staff and discuss with them. Hey, what's the where which of these items could be in that middle ground which could we actually potentially move forward? That would be our recommendation. I I wouldn't wouldn't necessarily necessarily wanna recommend something outside of what they feel like can be accomplished.

Any other council input or questions? Anything else that you're looking for, Dustin?

No. It sounds like thank you for the great notes and recommendations. We're still looking through this as a final edit. Know, even today I found a couple minor things that we needed to change. So we're still doing that. I will talk with staff. We can kind of add a middle ground to some of those, you know, upcoming or I'm sorry, to the road map. And then if you're comfortable, I would like to put this on the agenda two weeks from now. And and essentially what we'd be asking for is just for the council to set it as is the final report. Right?

You know, we're not necessarily adopting and saying this is the policy of the council on how this is gonna happen. It's the final report from our housing workshop series that staff will use to implement the code rewrite and to consider when bringing forward, you know, other recommendations related to housing. So that's what how I would like to proceed if you're comfortable with that.

Looks like

I'm seeing nodding heads.

Great. Okay.

We're done on that one. You're up on the next one as well. Do you wanna stay there or take your seat or

it's I'm to happy

to just stand here for a minute. I might go sit down. Would you mind pulling this off the screen though? Thank you.

So this one is selecting a council liaison or liaisons for that land development code steering committee.

Yes. So the intention of the this agenda item tonight is to allow the council to discuss how you would like to select who you want to serve on the the steering committee. We don't have a particular process for this. With the general plan, you actually had me serve on the steering committee. I went to all of the meetings.

They were beneficial, but the way I kind of viewed them is it was planning staff and the consultant providing an update to a particular group of individuals on how things were going. Whether or not that was the intention of the meeting, that that's what it was in my opinion. And then as you recall, there were the technical subcommittees that you served on. And we actually appointed you to those in the same process we do with our annual committee appointments. We had them listed on that resolution.

And you appointed selected who to go on and you appointed them. So since we don't have a particular process, my interest is is in understanding how the council would like to proceed. I know you could appoint a person or people to serve the entire time. You could appoint a person or people to serve for shorter periods of time and switch it out. You could say, hey, you know what?

We want some we want a staff person to be on the committee. You could and I'm just throwing out some examples. You could say you know what we don't want to formally appoint somebody let's just hear when the meeting dates are and we're gonna have a council member or two you know attend the various meetings without being formally appointed. Haven't spoken with James about that one but I'm trying to throw all the ideas out there. And so there may be some other good ideas that you may have I don't know.

Tonight you could select who you'd like to put on the committee. You don't necessarily have to do that by resolution at this point. You could just say, you know, informally we make a motion and we want council member x y z to represent us. Or you could we could bring back a resolution two weeks from now. You could pick somebody.

We could change that in January when we do the council committee liaison appointments. There's a lot of different ways that you could do it. I I would suggest you know if there are if there's a lot of interest in participating, you should give as many people an opportunity to participate as you can. And that doesn't necessarily mean you have to appoint everybody. It could mean the different people attend at different times. That's my best suggestion though. Try and make sure that everybody has an opportunity to participate if they'd like to.

So we've heard it's quarterly possibly more often. Do we know when the meetings are daytime nighttime do we know that?

I haven't heard them. Melissa do you know?

We haven't set a time of of day, but I would anticipate it would be daytime. Our first meeting we wanna do on April 29, a lunch meeting in in this room right right behind us. And it would be approximately quarterly or milestones, whichever is first. So and probably we'll try to shoot for Wednesday or Thursdays. I know we have a strong preference by our planning commissioner in terms of his availability that he requested that.

First meeting April 29 you said? And that one's kind of an introductory get to know everyone. Do you know when the first regularly scheduled? It seems like I had some notes about this. Is there a first, like, regularly scheduled meeting?

We haven't set that that up yet. We we did reserve and identify, okay. We're gonna do this is the first time we're gonna move from there. I think it would make sense getting some feedback from the group in terms of regularly scheduling at that first Okay.

So it seems like a good starting point for me is finding out what how many council members have an interest in being on part of this steering committee? Ms. DeSouza says she's interested. Ms. Nichols says she's interested.

I can. I don't need to be, but I actually love the rotating option.

Of

course, I but I'm flexible, guys. Miss

Stroud says she's interested as well. Sounds like you're interested. Daytime meetings are you can make it work. Mr. DeKeiser is interested.

I am not but I am interested in starting with two who do spend some time. I think some continuity, at least for the first couple. I do think it's important to have consistency to I feel like though there's value in in rotating I think we need to be very wise about how frequently we rotate. This is just it's important for people to have context from from one meeting going into the next so that the feedback is provided. So I'm ready to make a motion if you are open to that.

Let's have a let's see if there's more discussion on that. Miss D'Souza. Well, was just gonna

some of the options that were brought brought up, you know, I am not a huge fan of rotating frequently. You know, I I know that we did a test pilot case with the legislative kind of policy update and I didn't love the idea going into it but said I would try it and ultimate and I I did serve well, serve. I attended a couple of meetings and ultimately, I felt like it was a disservice to the people in the serving on it to be valuable in a in a way that extended past like that one moment because things change so fast. So I'm not a huge fan of of just rotating. I think that it also creates problems in scheduling and not just for for those in it but for anybody that wants to serve on it.

Will I be available this week? Is it gonna be my week? Do I have to, you know, hold this out in my my calendar? And I just I think it's I I prefer to have two appointments to it.

Question. I think we should only have one person. That's just my thought. Like, the planning commission's only having one person. It's already a fairly large committee. So I personally don't think we should have more than one person doing it. I don't know. I think that I don't think it's such a high level committee. Like, when I talked to James, he said 30,000 feet. Like, they're it's not making a lot of decisions. It's just a person that's there to steer very generally with the rest of the committee. And so I don't know. I don't think we need more than one person. And if we're we all disagree, I think we should send us in.

Miss Steekel.

I like the idea too because if one can't make it, it's just a guarantee to the steering committee that shows commitment that the city council is gonna in it. That's just my idea.

I would agree that it sounds like I don't think there my understanding of the steering committee is it's basically attending the meeting, finding out what's happening and coming back and reporting to the council during council member business. I don't think there's any decision, certainly no technical decision making being made there. So I think anyone could do it. And yeah, I'm not clamoring to be on it. I think it's just kind of a like, oh, no.

Because whoever's on it will come and explain what's going on. So sounds like we've got five council members at least though that would like a chance to be on it at some point in time. I'm okay with the idea of doing two largely because of what you just said. If one can't make it, we already have a backup that can.

If we did two, could we make one of them a staff member so we have that consistency no matter what? Are you on it, Dustin?

No. No. He wants to.

I don't wanna overwhelm the committee with the council either. I'm very concerned about that.

I just wanna share that I I I share that sentiment and we we could send the staffer if needed to but also just whittle it down all, withhold or or remove my name from consideration to get us down to four to serving on the committee. But I I too agree with council member D'Souza. One person serving over two years provides a lot of continuity and and I think you know the first few meetings are just getting your feet wet and figuring out. And so I'm seconding what both of you are saying.

If we go to one person, I'm happy to take my name off the list.

Mister Susan. I guess I don't understand I guess I don't understand the reason why one person is better than two. Two in my mind. Yes. And if we're gonna do two, why it needs to be a staff member.

I mean, this this is a we are the legislative body. This is, you know, a steering committee for legislative items that will be coming back. Staff has already expressed and I'm not speaking for you, but my perception is, you know, that there's a lot of council led projects that they're working on. And so it would take more time out of their schedules to complete other things, and it just seems unnecessary. Plus, do think that originally when I first heard about it, it was would only go down to one. Anyway, those are my I guess I'm trying to understand why one is such a big deal.

Oh, I did we recommend? Missed that. Who recommended two?

I Who was it? The one I heard her say. Yeah.

Two. When I talked to Dustin originally, you had mentioned that it

was two. Because I'm totally throwing James under the bus. Don't listen, James. He said he thought one was more than enough just because there's only one planning commissioner and the breadth of the other committee members. Like, there's a lot of different people and no one other than the planning staff is having more than one representative come. So that's that's my reasoning. I didn't realize that we were recommended to have two.

Just to clarify in the packet it says the preference is for one representative from the May

I madam chair?

So I

I did suggest to a couple council members. What's in the packet is what administrative staff recommended. And it doesn't in my mind I have if you guys want me to do to be on steering committee, I will. But I don't think I can do a better or worse job than another council member. Whatever you guys want.

But the reason that I had suggested to to a couple council members is pretty simple. Number one, sometimes schedules can be extremely difficult and it is good to have somebody available if the other person can't can't be there. Right? Otherwise, we get thrown in which I'm fine with but it can be difficult to kinda go in the middle sometimes. The other thing is, you know, I think Cindy did did a good job of saying, hey, the purpose of this is to go maybe express a 30,000 foot level opinion on behalf of the council, right, not on behalf of yourself as an individual but on behalf of the council.

And then to report back to the council. And so it's good to have a couple of members so that you are you don't miss something. You ensure that things are being reported accurately. If somebody forgot something, you say, oh, you forgot this. Here's here's how I remember it. Right? So that's why I suggested two people initially just because I know your guys' schedules. I know how difficult it could be. And in my opinion, I don't see an issue with one or two. I know administrative staff has recommended one.

How often I just so I understand every time the committee meets will be getting update from. Will it be Melissa? I don't know who. Every time you guys meet, you'll come back and update the council anyway. Right? That's my understanding.

Periodically, we'll be have having the same setup. We we'd request that anyway. Planning commission, city council, joint meeting to give updates. We were anticipating about quarterly. We just wanna make sure that you all are informed and we don't come back a year and a half later with a big surprise.

And eventually, after the first little bit, meetings anticipated to go quarterly. Is my understanding? For which one? For this for the steering committee.

For the steering committee? Yeah. Our in our scope, we establish it as quarterly milestones, whichever is first.

Okay. Thank you.

Miss Trapp?

I think two is great. I mean, does you know, if there's scheduling issues, if there's something where it's, you know, a council member, know, forgets to relay some information. You know, you you have two people that are able to talk about it especially with something this big and this impactful, you know, to be able to bring back that And if there is something that starts to be discussed that it's like, oh, wow. You know, we need to make sure that we are requesting more information or more engagement that we have that chance to do that. So you know I I mean I I don't see a problem with two.

You know I would even throw in and say there's a third and you put in a staff member with that. You know just in case there is I mean, that that conflict. I mean, this you know, when was the last time that we did some sort of code rewrite? I mean, how how long has it been since we've looked at as comprehensive as we are planning to do that?

Less than twenty years, but more than fifteen years back.

So something that we're looking at

And but and it was all staff staff done as well.

But even that I mean, something that we're looking at a couple of decades, probably a couple of and we add in that two years, so probably around there, you know, this this significant and twenty years ago, Sandy looked very very different than what it does today. Mhmm. So I think having as much you know awareness of bringing things back because I I think you are 100 correct and accurate in saying that it it it's not a council member's job to try to steer the steering committee. Oh. But more of bringing information back if there are concerns or clarifications that need to happen or saying, hey, you know, as a as a body, you know, this is what I'm thinking the council is feeling but then to bring it back into discuss with other council members.

So, know, it I think you Mhmm. You know, ride on the money with that. So I mean I'm happy with one staff and two council members but whatever works.

So it kind of sounds like although we could kind of do a vote. It kind of sounds like the consensus is no harm in two. Maybe there's another person to cover if someone can't make it. Are scheduling issues. And if we're doing it the way it's supposed to be, really not.

No one's conveying their point of view. It's reporting back to the council on what's being decided in the steering committee. What about the issue of the longevity? Shall we make it till the end assignment or shall we select two people and then bring it up again January when we do our committee assignments that would be about a six month commitment and then we could take it back up again in January with all our other committees. What is the period of time we're thinking about?

Madam Chair since there's four people why don't we just pick two for this year and two for next year and we can settle it?

I think it would be beneficial because the committee is gonna be the same. Maybe keep them the same. It lessens our pain up here to do this again.

I see we love Marcy maker motion.

I'd say that maybe we'd start with the two and then we could look at it in January. And if those two are and the feeling is to maintain that continuity.

That's what we always do with the committee is if someone wants to stay on it. We will really take that into consideration.

Well, if that recommendation is that it it really would be beneficial, but I I think you could start with the two. And then, I mean, if it's not, you're going, you know what? It really is just kind of relaying information back and forth.

They may whoever gets selected may wanna get rid of it.

That's true.

There's a fifty fifty chance.

Yeah. Yeah.

Alright. So Marcy make your motion. So we have something real to chew on.

I tried Melissa. I tried to just like get this done so you could be gone and but we had a great discussion great discussion but I feel like we've got some clarity so it sounds like you're you're open to my motion so I would like to motion so that we can move forward with steering committee nominate Chris Nichol and Brooke D'Souza because of their experience in Chris has served on the planning commission. Brooke has extensive experience on in real estate. I love the idea of having that like having it be those two who serve and then they come back and say for continuity we recommend staying or they say at the year mark I wouldn't want to rotate before the year mark. But at the year mark they could come back with and say there's you know I think I think it makes sense for another two or I think it makes sense for continuity.

But at least those two serving for a solid year on the steering committee. That's my motion.

Thank you for the support Marcy. I'll second.

All right so the motion is for council member D'Souza and council member Nickel to serve for one year which brings it back on a March agenda in 2027.

Point of clarification. I'm hoping that they will make a recommendation as to like what it looks like at the year point as yes let's let's reconvene and and choose two additional people or we recommend we continue serving so I don't know how that needs to be reflected in the motion.

Still needs to be on an agenda for discussion.

Okay so agenda for discussion.

Alright. So, shall we're just taking a procedural vote on this.

Madam chair, do you want me to, I've drafted a motion. Do want me to reread it and make sure I've got it correct? From council member Houseman, I move that we nominate Chris Nickel and Brooke D'Souza to to serve on the title twenty one steering committee to be discussed again after one year of service.

Oh good clarifying question thank you. A year from the first meeting. That's a great

addition. Thank you. Is you.

There any friendly would you be willing to friendly whatever it to I know I'm really articulate tonight. To January, not because I'm worried about the year time frame just because it seems like it would be easier for the staff to keep track of and all of us when we're redoing our committees to look at our schedules.

Well I like we've heard that it's quarterly meetings and so a year from the first meetings means they will have they will get four meetings in because they're going to meet quarterly and so then the next batch if it does pivot to two more people it's a clean start with the second year and four quarterly meetings. So I think it's I think this in particular aligns with the schedule of the team that's that's running the steering committee. I think they'll be able to keep track. I don't think it's complicated. So I think I'll keep it as is.

I just wanna comment for the record. I don't think you'll have four quarterly meetings. I think there'll be more like six since it's scheduled to end in October. And so if we do it January, you'll the the first group will get three meetings and the second group would get three meetings.

I didn't realize that the end date. So it's more of an eighteen month. What are your thoughts on aligning the terms of this with the steering committee calendar?

I think my comment on that is what you all decide is most fair for you.

Oh my goodness. Dodge. Okay I think that's a fair point that it's potentially three and three. Mean you based on what you've outlined you're anticipating three and three. Okay so what if the friendly amendment is following following three meetings then we regroup. That way we're not locked in at the January thing but we're making sure we revisit after we've had we're halfway through.

I'm fine with either way because I have this feeling that by the time we get to three meetings, no one else is gonna wanna do this. And so that I don't care. I was only thinking for, like, staff's sake. So it doesn't matter.

Okay. Let's I don't know how

oh, sorry.

Oh, go ahead. Nope. That's all. You

could make the friendly amendment just for the calendar year. And then we would do it in January when we're talking about

our committee. No I know that's the friendly amendment but I don't know that that's gonna get us to three and three. So if I were gonna make an amendment Mr. Frado what would it sound like to ensure we're doing three and then revisiting?

So here's what I've written down. Okay. I move that we nominate Chris Nickel and Brooke D'Souza to serve on the title twenty one steering committee to be discussed again after three meetings of the steering committee.

Perfect. That takes into your feedback but I feel like it's a little more I I I just need a little more certainty that we're gonna get consistency across at least half of the quarterly meetings. I'm good means I need my second to. Are you good with that? Okay. Don't know was that my job that was your job sorry.

So yeah, counsel, are we good with a voice vote? Yeah. Okay. All in favor of that motion?

Aye.

Aye. Any opposed? Okay. That was easy in the end. Consent calendar. Left reappointment of our two planning commissioners and then we have four more intent to annex. Do I have a motion?

Motion to approve.

Second.

All right. All in favor. Aye. Any opposed? All right. And we're moving on to agenda item 10 at this point. That is the rezone of the 106 Church.

Sorry, madam chair. I wasn't sure if you were inviting me up to give an introduction before you take it.

Take

action. Jake Warner, long range planning manager for the city. On March 3, the 106 Church rezone application was presented as an informational item to the city council. The request is to rezone 1.94 acres of property at 166 East 106 South from the R 140 a zone to the R 110 zone. You have ordinance number 26 dash o five in front of you for your consideration tonight, and staff is available for questions and I believe the applicant is joining us virtually tonight.

Okay, counsel. Do we have any questions for Jay Corner or for the applicant who's online? Doesn't look like we do. Alright well this is a voting item so we will open this up to public comment. I don't have any blue cards on this. Mister Fratto, will you invite the online participants?

Of course, madam chair. If you are joining virtually via Zoom and you'd like to comment on item number 10 on this evening's agenda, please go ahead and click the raise hand button on your screen now. I'll call your name in the order in which you raised your hand, and you'll have three minutes. Gonna give it just a minute madam chair because somebody had contacted me earlier and noted that they wanted to comment on this item and I see them online but their hand's not raised. That's for item 11.

Thank you. Thank you, council member. Okay. I don't see any hands raised, madam chair.

Alright. I'm slowly going to close public comment on this item and we will bring it down back to the council for action. Anyone like to make a motion?

I will make a motion to approve resolution zero zero seven one two with regards to the church rezone as presented. Second.

Is that what we're voting on? Yeah. Okay.

Is it the church? Yeah. Twenty six zero five.

26.

265. 605.

Okay. Oh, yes. I read the wrong number. 2605. Thank you.

Alright. For the record, madam chair, it's ordinance twenty six

zero five. It's twenty six zero five.

It's been a minute. Alright.

We have a motion and a second. Miss Edwards. Miss Nicholl. Yes. Miss Christian Yes. Miss D'Souza? Yes. Mister DeKeiser? Yes. Miss Stroud? Yes. Miss Hausman? Yes. Miss Sharkey? Yes. Madam chair, that motion carried seven to zero. Thank you. Alright. Item number 11, that's the Fortner rezone. Jake.

Madam chair, this item, the Fortner rezone was presented to the council on March 3 as well as an informational item. The application proposes to rezone point six five acres of property, two parcels actually at 8564 South 10th East from the R 110 zone to the R M 12 zone. You have in front of you ordinance twenty six zero four for consideration tonight. And again, staff is available and the applicant is present tonight as well.

Council, any questions for Jake or for the applicant?

Miss Trout.

It actually might even be a little more for Lynn as well. So we received an update from you. There was a memo. And in that memo, it to me, as it sounded a little more like that the applicant was questioning if they were going to make them for sale units. You know, they they had some concern about how that may how they could do that.

So, you know, I'm wondering mister Pace, the Lynn version or Tracy, somebody. You know, if we looked at trying to and and seeing what we've just gone through with our, you know, housing of the five five different meetings on there and then the the update that we got tonight. Looking at either deed restrictions or developer agreements. But if we're really interested in that and with both of those conversations coming up, you know, in the next six weeks, I think one was in April. You know, if we if we were to move forward on this, which I I don't like the multifamily.

You know, that that part. You know, would rather than be single family and and to see, you know, I mean, even if it was smaller lots. But, you know, to ensure that we are looking at providing some of that missing middle what it is described. You know, we have this this RM zone. You know, I'd like to hear more about deed restrictions and developer agreements, you know, and and you know, whether we're tabling this or we're waiting a little bit on there just because that is so close.

You know, to make sure because that is something that I've heard more frequently in the past several months with the council is looking at the desirability of owner occupied homes and not just something that is going to be rental or turnover. I I'm. Madam chair. Curious.

We received a memo and an update?

No. I think there was

it was an email. I'm sorry. It was an email, you know, questioning of some questions that I had back