City Council - Regular Meeting

Hey, everybody. We've still got about a minute, but I'm going to go ahead and get the recording started so our online folks can join the meeting.

Recording in progress.

Thank you. they may, last time this happened, they had to change the password, and then I needed to get a change of practice.

It's not the individual.

I mean, actually, the only thing I was going to access was

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

Thank you for that. Good evening, everyone. Welcome. We are grateful to have all of you here in the chambers, as well as those who are joining at home. Just as a matter of reminder, if you are going to speak during tonight's general citizen comment, we do ask you to fill out a blue card there in the back. You'll hand those to Mr. Fratto. And when we come to that portion of the meeting, we'll be happy to hear from you. We do not take that public comment until at least 6 o'clock or later. And we find a place in our agenda to naturally Close one agenda item, we'll do public comment, and then we will continue with our agenda. So just giving everyone a heads up on that. We'd like to begin our meetings with a prayer and a pledge. So I'm looking for a volunteer this evening to offer our prayer. Ms. Christensen, please.

Our dearest Heavenly Father, we are so grateful that we have been able to gather together this evening. We thank you for the opportunity we have to serve and represent our Sandy citizens. Please help us all to listen and understand the things that are being presented, be able to find the best solutions for our residents and our employees. We are so grateful for this amazing country we live in. We love thee and we say these things in the name of thy son, Jesus Christ. Amen.

Thank you. And we'll all stand, please, and recite the Pledge of Allegiance.

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

Thank you. Thank you for joining us in the pledge. It's always nice to hear multiple voices. So we would like to begin with introductions. We'll start on this side of the room and with our council staff and make our way around.

Thank you Madam Chair. My name is Dustin Frato. I'm with the city council office. There are a couple other council staff members in the back of the room. Justin Sorensen and Matt Perry. And then Mr. Cadell let me know that he'll be just a few minutes late this evening.

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

Brooke Christensen, District 1. Marcie Hausman, District 4. Allison Stroud, District 2. Brooke D'Souza, at large.

Mayor Monica Zoltansky.

Martin Jensen, Chief Administrative Officer. Good to be back. Lynn Pace, City Attorney.

Thank you, and welcome back.

And Madam Chair, Councilmember DeKaiser, let me know that he'll be probably about an hour late this evening.

Okay. Thank you. We will keep an eye out for him. So we're going to jump right into our agenda this evening, starting with a special recognition. I'll turn it over to you for that, Wendy, and then we'll resume. We're excited about this.

Okay. Thank you, Mayor and Council, for your time tonight on your agenda for this opportunity to recognize Barbara Tangawai, our deputy city recorder. I am here not only as a city recorder and Barbara's supervisor, but I'm here also as the vice president for the Utah Municipal Clerks Association. And we have Alicia Fairbourn, who's our secretary. So tonight we represent the Utah Municipal Clerks Association and our partnership with the International Institute of Municipal Clerks. The mission of our organization is to provide our members with educational and networking support, to promote positive professional interaction with the elected officials, staff, and the general public, to enhance the awareness and value of the municipal clerk and recorder profession, Our international organization offers two certification designations, the Certified Municipal Clerk designation and the Master Municipal Clerk designation. The programs to achieve these designations are administered here locally by the Utah Municipal Clerks Association, and we have a partnership with Southern Utah University that help us with those educational opportunities that we need. Barbara has completed the requirements to obtain a certified municipal clerk designation. To obtain this, she has to actively work in a municipal function doing city recorder duties, earn 50 points related to work experience, complete university level coursework to earn a minimum of 60 educational points, and it's one point You get one point for every two hours of class time. So the 60 points reflects at least 120 hours of class time. As you can imagine, this takes some years to attain. But we're very fortunate that you guys and the mayor recognize and... I can't remember the word I was gonna say. encourage and support improving the employee's skills and knowledge through continuing education and professional development opportunities. So thank you for that. It's our privilege now to honor Barbara with this award tonight, recognizing her professional accomplishments. So we have her beautiful certification and this beautiful plant for her. Can we get a quick picture?

We're going to get one from every angle guys. I count five cameras out there. Lynn you should be in here.

All right, thank you. Congratulations.

Alright, it's always nice to start with special recognition and Thank you again Barbara for all of your work and service in our city Alright, we will move on to the first item of infer under our informational items This is the City Council's receiving a presentation on the general management operations study just that I believe you are leading us in this Thank you

Thank you, Madam Chair and Council. Joining us tonight is our representatives from Matrix Consulting. And I'll introduce them in a second. But just to remind the Council that nearing the end of 2025, it was time for the second management study to be conducted under the policy that was adopted by the Council. So we went out to RFP for a study of our public utilities department and selected Matrix Consulting to help us with that. Once they were selected, myself and a team from public utilities that included Tom Ward, Richard Benham, and Scott Ellis served as the executive committee to kind of guide and assist in this study. All that matrix explained their methodology process in the study that they did, but I just wanted to give a quick thank you to public utilities staff. They were excellent throughout the process. That includes the executive team, but also all the others who participated in the data collection and interviews and anything else that was needed. In addition, thanks to Matrix, the study was unique for a couple different reasons. There were some challenges that came up that were unforeseen regarding the proposal of the merger. and they were incredibly responsive to those challenges and so I wanted to quickly thank them. So joining us tonight we have Jen Winter and Amy Mabee from Matrix Consulting. I'll turn the time over to them, let them introduce themselves and walk you through their study.

Great, thank you Justin. Can everybody hear me okay? I am going to share our presentation tonight. So first of all, thank you for having us. We have greatly enjoyed working with the city, with Justin and with the staff of public utilities throughout this general management and operations study. So my name is Jen Winter. I've been serving as the project manager for the study. My background is in both in the private sector, serving with multiple consulting engineering firms and also within the public service. within the public sector as a former city engineer and public works director. I have with me today, Amy Mavey, who is a manager with Matrix Consulting. She has spent most of her career working for Utah municipalities, most recently as a city administrator in Pleasant View, and also as a policy analyst with Ogden City. So really quickly, what we're going to go through tonight, we want to touch on the study goals and approach. We're going to look at the department at a glance, talk about some of what we saw from a high level. We'll look at some of the key findings, and then we'll also get into some of the findings and the specific recommendations within each of the areas. And then we'll close out with our thoughts on where to start and what the high priorities we would recommend for the department. I wanna start off a little bit and talk about some of the goals that were provided to us by council and staff for the study. So we wanted to look at the management structure, staffing levels, and resource allocation of public utilities, assess the department against national best management practices, and also benchmark it against similar sized peer cities within the state of Utah. We looked at some of the facilities, equipment and technology that was in place. We identified critical issues and opportunities to strengthen service efficiency and financial sustainability, and also to deliver clear, actionable recommendations to guide the department forward. So how we approached meeting those goals and objectives, the project was performed in three primary phases. So the first phase was an existing conditions assessment. And within that phase, we came on site to conduct interviews. We did facility tours, looked at some field observations. We had interviews with leadership, including supervisors and some staff, and also data collection. So a lot of what we do, we really tout that we are a database analysis. data and information on staffing, work practices, metrics, policies, everything that the department is currently doing. The second phase is the primary part of the analysis that we conduct. And within that analysis phase, we look at workloads, staffing levels, work practices, how technology is utilized within the department, and really what the operational efficiency looks like. And then we take a look at the organizational structure to see if the organizational structure in place is effective in allowing the department to deliver the services. And finally, the last phase is the findings and recommendations. So the final report incorporates all of the interim analysis and deliverables that we have done. It provides the recommendations for improvement and also in a prioritized implementation plan for how to proceed with those recommendations. So when we do a study like this, it's important to look at what the opportunities for improvement are, but it's also important to find the key strengths of the department. And in looking at the public utilities department, we found that there were multiple strengths, a few of which we've listed here, the water conservation standards that consider resource limitations and provide education. We found really a dedicated staff and a strong organizational health and a culture of safety and regulatory compliance. That was a theme that we heard over and over again from staff. Infrastructure master planning, when you're looking at a utility department that relies on rates and rate fears, that master planning to understand where are our necessary improvements and how do we prioritize them. Overarchingly, I would say there was a very prideful, dedicated staff within all of the units and the departments that we talked to. There was also, of course, obviously opportunities to improve and to be better. And a few of these we'll touch on in more detail, but just to highlight them is a little bit of inconsistency in work management and the use of that technology. And it's really critical that consistency of that technology is important as you get into being able to make data-driven decisions. You have to be able to compare apples to apples to be able to implement some improvements and decisions. The operational efficiency is constrained by some outdated and some missing standard operating procedures. Some units were better than others at having standard operating procedures. Most units had these informally. It was just how well they were documented and how often they're updated to be able to really allow efficiency in training staff, onboarding staff, and bringing in new staff. We looked at kind of some targeted investments in technology. Technology is really a challenge that we see across the board a lot of times in public works and utilities operations. We have very field-oriented staff. They're in this profession for a reason. They like to be outside, they're doers. And there's some critical steps to making sure that that technology can be utilized as effectively as possible. And we'll get into those in a minute. So from a high level, the assessment at a glance. So we broke down the study into three primary functional areas. So we looked at leadership and administration, and this looks at not just the leadership, but also any of the best practices that apply to the department as a whole. So anything that would look to cover the entire department, not just those in leadership positions. We looked at over 40 best management practices that we benchmarked the organization against, and we came up with just under 60 total recommendations within the areas. So we wanted to get into a little bit of the detail of what we found within each of those areas. So for each functional area, we'll talk a little bit about what we examined, what our key findings were, and what some of our top recommendations are. So the first functional area is leadership and administration. And we really found within that leadership and administration area, a strong governance, that critical master planning, but there are some gaps in data documentation and some proactive communication. So what we examined in leadership and administration, we looked at the organization of the department as a whole. So is there adequate spans of control? Are there inequities in supervisory spans of control where maybe you have one supervisor overseeing two people and another that has 25 people? So we look for things like that in span of control. We also looked at the impact of the Public Works merger. Justin touched on that. about after we started the study. So we did take into consideration of how that murder might impact any organizational recommendations we were making. We looked at management and administration. So again, those policy manuals, how those are in place, what do those standard operating procedures look like? What do the workflows look like both within the department and in the overlap, like in the case of procurement workflows, what does that overlap look like between finance and public utility staff? We looked at communication and coordination, both internally and externally. So internally within the department, between divisions, between departments, and then also that external communication. What does the website look like? What does the media coordination look like? We looked at utility planning and management. So this really focuses on the areas of the interlocal agreements, which is the rate setting and rate policies look like, any of your reserves, and how is the department positioned to be able to go after grant funding. And then finally, within this chapter, we looked at asset management. Within any any public works and utilities organization asset management is really critical to efficient and effective operations. So we looked at the steps of asset management that were in place and where there is still some opportunities. So some of the key findings within the leadership and administration area were some of the strengths were the governance and that regional resiliency, the in-place interlocal agreements, the active advisory board, the diversified water supply, that infrastructure master planning that I'll come back to in several cases. It's really important to be able to stay up to date on a master plan that understands and the risk of the infrastructure that you're maintaining and then that organizational health. So within the leadership groups, within the units, between units, there was a lot of collaboration and coordination and some formalized leadership training that is taking place. Under the opportunities for improvement, we talked about that use of the work management technology. So really be able to make data-driven decisions, to be able to tie what those master plannings tell you, needs to come that information from the field. So how are we prioritizing our work? Is our preventive maintenance scheduled within the asset management system? Are we Are we able to accomplish what we set out to do? Are we reporting on that? And can we clearly communicate what we're doing? And can we tell the public, the elected officials such as yourselves, how we are doing? We talked about a little bit on some of the missing standard operating procedures. and how crews are using those and operating. Public communication is largely reactive. So we found some ways where the department could increase their proactive communication with the public to be able to be a little bit more vocal and proactive in telling the community, here's what we're working on, here's why we're doing things in overarching out-facing communication. And then we looked at the kind of a lack of formal reserve and rate benchmarking policies. So to the actual recommendations within each of these areas. So under the organization, we had several recommendations that looked at a deputy manager appointments and specific project coordinators and project assignments. So there was a little bit of and confusion on who is responsible for what. And when some of these projects come about, the coordination comes about who is in charge. So we looked at kind of designating people to be assigned certain functions and programs. We talked about the policy manual, updating those standard operating procedures, along with that, looking at key performance metrics. So within the budgetary documents, there are some performance information that's in there that is largely an accounting of what we're accomplishing, but there's not really a tie to what is the goal. in order for a metric to really be useful, there should be a goal tied to it. So if we are looking at exercising all of our water valves annually, are we accomplishing that goal? If you tell me we're doing 200 of them, I'm not sure what that means. Are we doing all of them or are we doing 10% of them within that year? So we gave some recommendations on really tying those metrics to some goals to be able to a little bit better show the accomplishments of the departments. within the asset management system within the City Works software, looking at department-wide adoption. So there was some inconsistency in how the units had adapted the City Works platform and how they were using it to plan, schedule and complete their daily workload. And looking at developing with some of the recent additions and staffing within that area, within the GIS and asset management, there has been a really an increase in the technology capabilities of what the department can do. So looking at increasing the automated dashboard, so that way different levels can have different information at their fingertips. So what the director might wanna see from a high level is different from what a manager is gonna wanna see from what a field crew leader is gonna wanna see. So as you go down those levels, you need more specific information specific to the work that my unit is doing. So creating those dashboards and then also with that, creating some of those external dashboards so that information is available on the website and to the public as well. Within communication and engagement, we have six different specific recommendations around communication that again, go back to the information on that website and looking at what is being provided by the dashboards and that advisory committee. So one of the recommendations we did make is that advisory board should really move back to city hall. So it's a little bit more visible and easily accessible to the public, maybe a little less intimidating to be able to kind of not have to seek out the utilities location to be able to find where that board is meeting. Within the financial and regional governance areas, we also had six recommendations. Those largely revolved around some of the rate benchmarking reserve and grant policies. So for instance, while the department certainly does go after grant, They do not really have a dedicated approach of types of grants, amounts of grants, when we're gonna do these in-house, when we're gonna ask for consultant help. So a little bit more of a proactive, formal approach to some of these areas. And then also probably more challenging is taking a look at those interlocal agreements and how do you update and keep those in the best interest of everybody that's involved in those agreements, but certainly more geared towards the city of Sandy. within asset management we have four recommendations in asset management that revolved around looking at establishing service levels so for anytime we're managing an asset a proactive service level of what are we what's the service level that we are trying to maintain this asset at and then developing work schedules around that so in order to do that we need to first, what do we have? What does that inventory look like? What is the condition of it? And knowing that then allows your field staff to be able to input much better information and then use that information when they're in the field to make sure that the assets that you are trying to maintain, staff have the ability and the information to be able to do so. The second area we looked at was engineering. So we found a few recommendations in the engineering area. Overall, the theme really was that probably their biggest constraint is on that capital project delivery. to be able to deliver what is currently in the five-year plan, which is 47 projects and worth over $35 million. So 47 projects is a lot for the number of staff that are currently there. So we looked at some different areas of capital projects, stormwater. So what does that annual stormwater, stormwater staff, stormwater has become a much bigger deal and really in all regions across the US. We've seen changes in how stormwater is being handled. We've seen more intense fluctuations between periods of drought versus periods of intense rainfall. So how are we managing water within those drought periods? And then also how are we managing it when we get into those more intense rainfall events? We looked at the GIS and the asset management staffing and then what the engineering best practices were. The key findings of what we found is there's really, while there may not be capacity in staff, there is a clear project delivery pipeline of what needs to be done and an approach of how that's going to be done. The capital improvement program is based on routinely updated master plan. So instead of just trying to decide what I think we should be doing. That capital improvement program is based on those overarching master plans that give you where your most critical needs are. And then the GIS capability that is in place to support asset management. Within the opportunities for improvement, again, that capital project staffing, we looked at project delivery. Not uncommon to many places we see project delivery is often done through a series of spreadsheets. And for larger organizations that have larger capital improvement programs, really needing a project management system that allows staff to be able to manage that portfolio of projects as a whole rather than as individual projects. Stormwater is not, not all of the stormwater workload is currently being captured. I think that workload has continued to increase over recent years. And without a lot of metrics or workload being documented, it's hard to sort of quantify really what is that storm water workload. So some of the key recommendations, while we felt the capital project delivery was understaffed, short term, we didn't recommend staffing. What we recommended was really evaluating what the capacity was within public works to assist with that. So kind of looking as a whole to see, is there capacity for the public works engineering staff to be able to help absorb some of the capital project load that is specific to utilities. Looking at phasing in some enhanced project management tools. So starting small, which is looking at some project management overlay and automation that can occur within the Microsoft Excel that's already being used. And then eventually looking at a specific project management software. that will help staff be able to deliver those projects from a high level, make sure that they're staying on schedule. Are we delivering them within the budgets? Where are some of our areas where we're falling behind and be able to mitigate that as early as possible. implementation of that software, then it also gives the ability to do some automated bond and warranty alerts. We actually recommend that you do this in your asset management software. A lot of times those engineering projects get closed out, those bonds and that warranty alerts are still need to be out there and tracked. So a really easy way for staff to be able to stay on top of that is to put that as a planned activity within the City Works asset management software. Within GIS and asset management, there was a little bit of confusion from staff of kind of what those, from operational staff of, you know, since the GIS staff currently sit within engineering of what they're doing, they really are operational positions. They certainly assist engineering and creating maps. We also recommended a title change as often there is confusion in cities of, well, why do we have GIS staff in IT? And we have GIS staff in the departments. And it was really, it's very different of what the staff are doing. So when we are recommending asset management staff, we really, we typically do recommend that they are GIS people. They're, it's, you know, you're not gonna find a person that has an asset management background technology degree. So the GIS staff are the most competent people to be able to really understand those asset management softwares and systems, but they have a very different role. So instead of that higher level mapping of the city and producing some of that information, they really are mostly focused on the maintenance and the scheduling of work and the dashboards and the reporting of the work that's being done on your assets. For work planning and training, there was a couple of recommendations related to, again, back to that stormwater workload of trying to capture and quantify what does that workload look like? What are those staff spending their time on? And then increasing that City Works asset management software training to make sure that staff are understanding how to use the information and be able to put information into that system as well as be able to get it out. And that is usually where we see the shortfall is staff are able to put information into the system, but really are typically unsure of how do I use it to make good decisions? How do I use it to decide what we're gonna do next year? How do I use it to decide where our problem areas are? Which is really the value of the system of why we wanna use an asset management software in the first place. All right, within the operations area. So within operations generally found that staffing is broadly appropriate and the priority is really within data and the consistency of that data collection. So what we examined, so we examined each of the unit within operations. So we looked at the workload, the staffing and the organization within each of the units within the utilities group, and then the operational best practices specific to all of operations, but then also within those specific units. The key findings, so within the strengths of the operational teams, we found that staffing is broadly appropriate. They're able to keep up with the workload that they're being assigned. A strong safety culture, effective incident tracking, which is excellent to be able to say that everybody that we talked to within the levels of the organization could clearly communicate to us what their personal protective equipment gear was, how to use it, where to find it, all of those things. And adequate facilities and space, there was secure indoor storage for the equipment. And by and large, crews reported really commending the city for providing them with the tools and equipment they needed to be able to do their jobs well. for improvement, again, is looking at the consistency in how that work is being tracked, looking at establishing service levels. So when we're going out to be able to go do maintenance on these assets, do we know what we're doing? Do we know what we're trying to accomplish within each year on each given asset? What are those service levels? And then consistently tracking information. looking at, we're tracking the information of how long did it take us to do something, looking at the equipment that we use to be able to go do a task, how that information is being input. So within the different types of work, how we are accounting for our productivity and our crews and our equipment should all be done the same to allow for each, as you go into those dashboards and roll that information out to make that useful information at the leadership's fingertips when they're trying to make decisions about how to best go about the maintenance and use the funds that are available. inventory management processes and procedures. So I will say that is one thing that we do know was in process of this. There were some changes in staffing positions and a new person that had come in that was very diligently working to be able to change that practice, to be able to really understand what the inventory was, put some better procedures in place for what that inventory management looks like. And then hydrant testing and flushing and street lighting were a few opportunities that I'm gonna touch on a little bit more on the next page. So within those specific recommendations, we talked about some of that workload data. So looking at the data that goes in there, primarily just maintaining staffing. Staffing was really adequate across all of those operational units. There was a recommendation for a service transition. So one of the areas that is a collaboration between departments is transitioning that hydrant testing from the fire department to public utilities. A lot of times, you know, there's a phase in approach to that where the fire department is still involved in that. They have ISO regulations that they need to meet. So, but because that hydrant is part of a greater water system, it's really critical that if the fire department is doing it, that they become certified, that they get their water certifications to be able to understand the impact of what they're doing on the entire system, or the best practice really is to transition that work to the utilities department. We do understand that that takes collaboration between departments and that may not be something that can be done in the short term, but that should be the goal long-term is to transition that. Within inventory and asset management, we had a couple of additional recommendations in addition to the general asset management ones we had on inventory management procedures and some of the asset management expectations of those drainage crews. work is not really being done in the asset management system at all. It's a lot of some of that was still paper-based. So a recommendation to use those tools that are available to you. We had five recommendations in the areas of looking at some of those cost of service and infrastructure planning models. And then also a couple of recommendations within that streetlight programs of looking at a street lighting policy across recovery framework and a multi-year replacement plan to transition to LED bulbs. So where to start? The full City Works adaption was clearly a theme of making sure that all of the operational teams are using the tools and technology that are available to them and they're using them consistently. Updating the policy manual and some of those standard operating procedures, where there are gaps and those are where they are perhaps out of date and just need to be refreshed a little bit. Looking at some of the information that the and asset management team has done taking some of that information public facing to be able to kind of to increase the information that's available to the public. Looking at the cost of service methodologies, what those policies are and relying on the American Water Works Association, the AWWA rate benchmarking to assist in that. And then taking a look at that capital project management capacity across public works to really develop a plan for how do those capital projects get delivered over the next five years? Is there capacity internally within the city or will additional staffing be necessary to be able to do that? So overall, our team really believes that these recommendations will help the department. There were a lot of strengths identified. There are a lot of things at the department where the department is meeting best practices and doing things very well. And we feel like the opportunities and the recommendations that we've made will help the department, help you as city leaders continue to meet the high service standards for the community's utilities needs as the city progresses. So with that, I will just say that we really enjoyed working with the city and with the staff and having this opportunity to be able to work with everyone in Sandy City. And we will open it up for any questions or discussion.

Thank you so much for that, Jen and Amy. I will turn to colleagues. What questions do we have? Oh, before we do that, I do want to acknowledge Mr. DeKaiser has joined us online. Welcome. Did you want to introduce yourself quickly?

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I apologize for being late, but my name is Aaron DeKaiser. I represent the city at large.

Thank you. All right, questions? Ms. Sharkey?

Thank you for this report. Yours is a really short presentation in consideration of all the information you've provided us in the report. I really just want to give... a giant pat on the back to public utilities. In both of the management studies that we have received so far, I'm very gratified to have gotten the sense that I've gotten from these two is that we are doing very, very, very well. And that is especially important to recognize public utilities for that because they're an enterprise fund. There is high expectation that they will balance their own budgets and make the revenues and the expenses work. And we'll be looking at other departments and already have that are part of the general fund and get to draw on the pool of general fund revenues. And that is not true for public utilities. So what I'm reading here is that we are doing an excellent job. There are some tweaks, and they're probably going to be helpful. And so there are some really good recommendations here, it sounds like, and a good time to maybe implement them. I did read with interest in the full report about one of the drawbacks. And this is based on our partnerships. And this also kind of meshes with the council's responsibility. It talks about the fact that I see this There's not a good linkage between the cost of service rate methodologies. And some of that is our fault, right? We have, we've really had some difficulties trying to find the exact right rate structure. And we know that PUEB has made recommendations that haven't always been implemented. There's also some discussion about Metro. And this has come up among council members as well. This relationship works well for us in terms of the ability to access water, but it also imposes costs on us. And so there's some discussion in here too about looking at those contracts, and it's something I know that council members have brought up. Is there a way to reduce overhead Or are we where we are and there's nothing to fix there? But I like the fact that it brought that up. It's something that the council has questioned as well and it's part of this report. And so I realize that when public utilities hasn't completely implemented the rate strategies, it's in part because we haven't approved them or we've given as a council we've given an indication back that we want to pull back. And so I know that public utilities has been constrained by the city council. But I just do want to give you guys a pat on the back. I want to recognize you for such a great report. Not only are you an enterprise fund, but another thing that occurred to me when I was reading this is you're probably the only department where your infrastructure that you're responsible for is buried. It's not visible. So unlike streets you can't sit there and watch, or parks, you can't sit there and watch the degradation and decide exactly when you have to make a capital improvement. And there's unpredictabilities. Your income is completely unpredictable. If it's a wet summer, you're going to sell less water. If it's a dry summer, you're going to sell more. So in terms of preventive maintenance, that is pretty darn hard to figure out with any exactness when you can't see when all of your infrastructure is buried. And so I think you guys do a phenomenal job. I think this report says that I'm proud of what you do, and I'll be looking forward to hearing what you think about this report and whether you think there's some good ideas to implement here. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Ms. Nickel, did I see your hand? Yep.

So just a quick question about asset management. Is that like the materials nuts and bolts type thing? Is that what you're talking about? And does that include fleet?

So when we're, in this context, when we're talking about asset management, we're talking about the infrastructure to be maintained. So that is primarily looking at your water pipes, your valves, your hydrants, your storm sewer infrastructure. So looking at the, really the underground, primarily underground infrastructure that the department is responsible for maintaining. Okay, thanks.

Any other questions? I will jump to mine. I echo what's been shared. I think the value of these management studies is, well, first, acknowledging the extraordinary effort that happened. So thank you to our consultants, but also thank you to all of those involved in the entire process. These strengths and opportunities would not come to life without participation and engagement. So I really appreciate that. And then just echoing what we've said previously, there's so much value in the management studies. I'm grateful that as the city council we continue to invest in these. I think the presentation is delivered, and then it's kind of what do we do with it? And what kind of a roadmap does this provide us with? And how do we shine a spotlight on the things that are working? I think sometimes, and this is true in all industries I believe, We are very quick to jump to, oh my goodness, all these opportunities, these things we need to tweak and fix and all of that. And we don't necessarily slow down and celebrate, look at all that we are getting right. And I think that's what you were really emphasizing. And both of you, Jen and Amy, I know that you were as well. always starting with, here's the strengths. And so definitely hope that we will shine a spotlight on those things. The wondering that I have, and I feel like as you went through the presentation, there was context you added that answered a few of the questions I prepared. One, I did not fully hear you unpack, and I know it might seem minor, but I'd love to just hear a little bit more about that. Two of the recommendations sort of transferred some of the work across department lines. So hydrant testing, you were recommending moving from fire to public utilities. I know in the presentation you mentioned some of that, like that shared ownership. And then the full cost recovery for street lights. So can you clarify who owns those transitions? What does that cost? And I know this study is complex because it was initiated before the merger, was under consideration, and then announced. And perhaps this sort of fell to not being a thing. But I would just love to hear either of you elaborate a little bit on that.

Sure, I can start. I think that transition of the maintenance of the water system being done by the water utility is gonna have to be a city, you know, a department head collaboration. So that isn't something that, you know, Public Works and Utilities has sole responsibility over. So some of those that are interdepartmental, we generally acknowledge in the study that interdepartmental coordination, we would assign ownership to that still of the department that we were working with and studying with acknowledgement that this is going to take collaboration from other departments and possibly city leadership to make that happen. I think within that street lighting fund, that cost of service also can be held within the department. looking at specifically what is that cost of service model, looking at a more detailed plan of how do we complete those upgrades. Amy, is there anything that you would like to add on the street lighting piece of it?

I actually wanted to add something on the other piece with the fire department. And it's just the consideration that there's immense coordination when those types of testings occur. And so it really is already laborsome to kind of coordinate that testing. And so it's almost easier to transition that to a singular department. So that's part of the reasoning behind that recommendation. I didn't have anything specific on the streetlights. I know there is a big need to make a transition to a plan long-term, especially as the city continues to have more aging assets and transition to that.

Thank you. Another question, thinking about the workload data, and I saw, of course, that you emphasized that in several different ways, ensuring that we were thinking differently and perhaps more strategically about data. What would you say is a realistic timeline where we could achieve a full year of clean systems, standard operating procedures that translate into really clean workload data.

Yeah, I think for where you guys are currently sitting, that is a fairly quick transition. So I would say you are sitting ahead of a lot of the municipalities we work with in that you have the office staff, your engineering staff, those GIS and asset management staff that have the capability to be able to make some recommendations and be able to quickly look at what is already in that system and use what we've done in the report as a starting point for identifying where those inconsistencies are and then within the next three to six months, making that shift in how we're capturing the data. So I would say within three to six months, you should be able to really shift to capturing more consistent data. So then within 18 months, you would have a full year of better data. You're at a really good starting point to be able to do that. So I think it's a pretty minimal effort to be able to do that.

Excellent. Thank you. And then I know it was mentioned in our meeting that there are still some additional hours, perhaps, to be filled. I know we'll be talking about that in the future. But a wondering I have, and this might be for department heads as well, but a wondering I'm having, I felt that there was a lot of actionable next steps when we did the fire station or the fire department, I should say, management study, we were sort of gifted with this hierarchy of needs, so to speak. And of all of the recommendations that were provided, they were sort of bucketed into act on this now, act on these recommendations within the next short term. They defined that. And then act on these, but build a plan towards it. They're not urgent. Is that something you've thought about and have already communicated, and that's going to be what's brought forward from the department in the future? I would just love to hear a little thoughts on prioritization of these. It was 58, right? Yeah, recommendations. Yeah.

that we did provide to the department as a supplementary item. So we do provide, we call it our implementation roadmap. So we did provide the department with an implementation roadmap that we would be very happy to share with you that does include a prioritization and a responsible party. So we've done that by either a division manager or department head. We've given every recommendation a priority and then a separate timeframe. We realize that sometimes something that we call out as the high priority is not something that can be accomplished in a short timeframe. So we do give that as a priority in a timeframe for implementation separately. And we do deliver that to the department as a roadmap. So we'd be happy to share that.

Excellent. That's exactly the words I was hoping to hear, is an implementation plan or roadmap with roles and responsibilities and timelines. So you have the answer to my question. I appreciate that. All right. I think that, let me just check my notes. Yeah. I think that's everything I had. We'll just quick glance. Are we good? Oh, Ms. Sharkey has another question.

One more thing I just wanted to mention because I found it interesting. Thank you for including it, Jen and Amy. Is this information in the back that's almost like a little bit of an executive summary for us about the cost of running the utilities department in Sandy versus other cities? And once again, it's high level, doesn't have a lot of detail, but it gives us a level of satisfaction that we're also doing a lot for a little. We're operating very lean. We're operating very well. And thank God we're not Salt Lake City. Thank you.

Thank you. I think that is everything. So thank you both so much for joining. Tremendous amount of work went into this. And we look forward to continuing to think through next steps with you as we sort of feel out the remaining hours of the consultation and the project. And again, thank you for your time tonight. Thank you for joining us. We appreciate everything.

Madam Chair.

Thank you for having us.

Can I just add one comment before we hop off? So you mentioned this, but I just want to make sure the council is aware. So we do have some hours left with Matrix. As I understand it, that's kind of a result of the merger. There's some things happening during the merger that maybe we didn't end up needing to look at, which resulted in some extra hours. So we are having conversations with the public work staff, with Martin for sure, about what we might want to have them look at. And so we'll be sure to keep you in the loop on that. And then the second thing is I just wanted to give kudos to Justin. He's back in the corner. He managed this from the very beginning, worked with Matrix, worked with the public utility staff, and just wanted to express thanks to him. let you know how great of a job I feel like he did kind of managing this management study. So thank you.

Thank you. Thank you, Justin, as well. Okay, so with that, we'll say goodbye to both of you. Thank you, Jen. Thank you, Amy. And we're going to move on to our next item, which, again, informational item. Do you want it before we...

Start another. Would you like to take public comment?

Yes, I would. I'm hearing it in stereo. That was perfect. Thank you for stopping me, because this is the right time to stop and take public comment. So we'll pause in our agenda and begin our general citizen comments. So this portion of our meeting is reserved for the public to come and share things with us. It's not a back and forth. It's just our opportunity to listen to residents and hear your thoughts on city matters. So we have Henry Butters, if you'll come up and join us. And as a reminder to everyone, public comment is limited to three minutes.

I don't know how I can hand this out to you guys. This was some stuff. Hey, thank you, Chair, and thank you, everybody, that have helped me out on certain things. Um, one thing I'm concerned about is I feel like Sandy is trying to sweep underneath the rug is what the mayor did in county property. Um, she said it's not against the law in county property. Here's the code for the county says no horses off lanyards or any animals. Okay. There, there is the law. Okay. Mayor, don't tell me there's not a law. Like I got stopped today in a truck for a blinker violation. I broke the law. It was out. That was my problem. I talked to the DOT officer and I said, I'll get it fixed. I had it fixed in two seconds flat. He let me go on my way. You broke the law and you put it all over Facebook. It's our freedom of speech to come hold anybody accountable, even you, Martin, the police chief. And when the police chief got sworn in, he said he would defend our constitutional rights and the laws. This is a law our dear beloved mayor broke. Don't come tell me you broke, did not break the law, okay? If you want to have a conversation, I want Martin involved now. Because if you ever come at me like that again under constitutional rights, I will come and have fun. I just want to tell you thank you to every city council that have helped me. Sharky, anybody at Brooke Christensen, and Brooke Sousa. Sorry. But I want to tell you guys thank you. And this is why I wanted to come bring this to your guys' attention. She said she did not break the law, but she did. Martin has the video. She did break the law. Like I broke the law on a blinker violation. Like she hold them kids accountable for stealing her signs. It's still a crime what she done. Sorry, Mayor. You broke the law. Thank you. Have a great day.

Thank you. I do not see any more blue cards, and no one waving me down in chambers here. So we'll move to online. Mr. Fratto, if you'll give those instructions.

If you're joining us virtually this evening via Zoom and you'd like to comment on any city 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. And Madam Chair while we're waiting I did receive a comment via email that I was asked to read into the record. So if we don't have any raised hands I'll do that in just a moment. Madam chair I don't see any hands raised on line but we do have one other blue card. I'll pass that down to you in just a second. But it's Adele Clark. Miss Clark if you want to come up to the podium you'll have three minutes.

Madam Chair and City Council, I am here on Ms. Clark, could you just take that microphone and put it down so we can hear you?

Thank you so much. Yes.

I'm here on a rezoning issue for Hagen Road. So I want to give you a little background. My husband and I purchased raw land. on Hagen Road in 1991. And it took us three years to build on that property, mostly because there were issues between Sandy City and Salt Lake County. It was a pocket of Salt Lake County. And so it took us three years to get through all of those issues, three lawyers, two title companies, and two engineering firms to get through all of the issues. When we got through the issues, we thought we'd get our building permit, but we had to go back to seven brothers, the Gundersen brothers, two of which were deceased, and five which were between super nice, they'd do anything for you, and some that just didn't want anything to do with us. We had already gone back to them to fix some problems with the property, and we thought we were done. So Sandy City required us to go back and get the road from just south of my property, 11583 Hagen Road, all the way to 114 South. It had been given to Sandy City kind of illegally by the people that we bought the property from, and so we had to go and get that squared away, and we did. So the five Gunderson brothers came down here to Sandy City and they signed a deed in 1994 and they worked with the mayor at that time. We took pictures, it was a great thing. So we got Hagen Road all the way down and we finally got our building permit. My husband and I, had an acre, and we decided to subdivide that acre. And we created what's called the Clark Mini Sub. In that subdivision, we were zoned R120. Sandy City told us we had to be zoned R120. We could not have agricultural rights. So we followed those instructions. We created the mini sub. My husband and I finally built and moved in in 1995. There have been three owners of the property that we sold since that time. The current owner has put sheep on those lands and has chickens, and they're not zoned to have that. So we went, my son, who used to be in code enforcement for another city, went to code enforcement and asked, filed a code enforcement violation, and we asked for the sheep to be removed. Well, Mr. Grant, got permission to keep those sheep. They're still there to this day. I was very distraught because the sheep create a lot of noise. My husband and I, my husband's deceased. He and I did a lot of projects. And one of the projects that we did was creating this incredible backyard. And I can't go out in my backyard now. because of the sheep, I hear them. I can't leave my windows open at night because I hear them. I can't have the windows open in the morning because they wake me up. I can't go out into my greenhouse because I hear them. They have been trotted across my property. They have defecated on my lawn. And they're a nuisance. They have been a nuisance. And the property isn't zoned, never was zoned, never intended to be zoned farmland or agricultural by me and my husband. No one on Hagen Road has farm animals. Nobody does, except Mr. Grant.

We've hit the three-minute mark. We have a three-minute limit on comments. If you have something else, you're welcome to send it in. The email would be the best way to do it.

I've tried that, and unfortunately, it didn't get into the planning and zoning meeting. I don't know why it didn't, but it didn't. That's why I'm here, is to make sure. But I will reach out to each one of you, contact you, and give you the full details. I don't want to live next to a farm. Should never have to live next to a farm. Never intended for there to be farmland. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. I don't see any more. You said you had one to read in.

I do. It's quite a long one. I'm going to set a timer, and we'll end it at a three-minute mark. OK madam chair this comment is from Steve Andrus. Dear mayor and members of the council whether due to budget policy lack of interest or just plain ignorance nothing is getting done to solve the issues of traffic noise and dangerous motoring. I've repeatedly made this problem known to you, the council, the Sandy Police, and UDOT. Some have not even bothered to respond to my concerns. Once again, my issue is unique. The locale and unintelligent road design that borders my backyard, my property, and about 19 other homes, 10 on either side of the street, are directly impacted by this dangerous nuisance. I will yet again explain the absolute design flaws of the road and lack of policing. However, for the past two months, I have been in contact with Chief Nyber and Lieutenant Webb. They state their frustrations and not being able to be more helpful due to budgeting issues and other policing zones deemed to be more important. Ironically, it's like the police are the ones who are handcuffed. I can understand their frustrations, but I'm disgusted by the implication that there isn't any more to be done. I've been a Sandy taxpayer for about 17 years now. My taxes have definitely not been working for me. This issue has never been properly addressed or had any meaningful attempt at correcting the actual problem. I've been given the runaround by this council and UDOT as you pass the buck to each other or someone else. Enough. Just do your jobs. It's been far too long and I've been more than reasonable with my requests for action. My communications have been numerous including in-person attendance to the council meetings, phone calls, texts and emails to every member and the mayor. So you can't say you weren't aware of the problem. Chief Nyberg was good enough to share his results of the recent traffic study above 2500 East. and Little Cottonwood Canyon Road. With all due respect, that stretch of road is nothing like mine, nor is anything below 2300 East. I know that other streets need attention too, but mine is absolutely worse, especially from a dangerous traffic and noise standpoint. I would estimate the average speed here to be in excess of 45. The posted speed limit is 40 and is already too fast. And speeding average is likely closer to 50 miles per hour. That said, there are slow trucks and cyclists, scooters, et cetera, that register a speed but don't actually account for real traffic speeds. However, the majority of everyday drivers are going faster than the posted speed limit, and that's not taking into account the true violators. Anyone going over 55, Chief Niber's study showed 331 violators over the course of two weeks in the neighborhood well above my own. Where and when they are no longer speeding comparatively and someone was even clocked at 78 miles per hour way up there. That's nothing compared to what happens hourly on my 200 yard stretch of road. You have to experience witness it for yourselves to truly know what it's like. I may not have a speed reader or radar gun but I know how fast I know how fast fast is at the very least even a regular. That's the three minute mark on that comment Madam Chair I did send you this full comment last week when we received it. So you should have it in your email as well. And with that Madam Chair I don't see any other blue cards or comments.

All right. Thank you Mr. Frato. So with that I'll go ahead and close public comment and move us to our next item on our agenda. Brian I believe you are presenting this our fraud risk assessment.

Yes, good evening, council members. It's good to be with you tonight. As you mentioned, I'm reporting on the annual fraud risk assessment. This is a state program implemented several years ago from the Office of State Auditor, and it's an annual assessment that we do internally looking at many different measures of how we can how we're doing as an organization to identify undetected fraud or abuse of resources. Kind of at a high level, we scored in the low risk category, similar to previous years. We're one point away from the very low risk. Some of the measures or criteria they look at are staff training and knowledge, skills, and abilities of our staff. the policies that we have in place, the internal controls we have in place. We have a fraud, an anonymous fraud report hotline that the public or employees can report issues that they see. All those add up and contribute to our positive score of low risk. So is there any questions I can address?

I'm not seeing any. I have just one, clarifying. The one point away. Based on what I kind of looked at, that might be something we could adjust with an audit committee. If the city council were to establish an audit committee, which I believe is done in other cities, would that, I know it's one point.

Yeah, that would be, give us 20 points if we had an audit committee, which would be, the way those are usually set up, it's an extension of the governing body. You may have, you would want to have a member that's not part of management on that. And you need to identify other committee members. They would look at a lot of the same things we're already doing. You'd want to make sure we have an external audit that's done, which we currently do. They'd be looking at our policies. So it's an added step. And we could certainly do that if you'd like to. It would probably entail possibly some costs and time. I haven't felt like the cost benefit reward would be there. That's why we haven't done it. But we're happy to look at it if you'd like us to.

It was just a question. I would love your recommendation at some point because I felt like that was something that the council could do to help with the score if we wanted to get that point and it was important enough to us to be in the very low. I also would appreciate a cost-benefit analysis and you come back and let us know. I would be supportive of an audit committee but not at the expense of taxing You and staff in a way that doesn't make sense, but I'm always a fan of Outside eyes other people taking a look. That's why I that's why I appreciate our management studies so much So having a committee that sort of provides some additional oversight. I would be open to but Like you offered cost-benefit analysis if you come back and say I know other cities do it But I'm not sure that's something we need I'd be interested to hear that.

I

Yeah, and one thing I wanted to mention you just brought up is the management studies. One of the other things is having an internal audit function. And I think that would qualify hearing their presentation tonight. So I think for the fiscal year 27, that would qualify because they're looking at processes, policies, best practices. All of those are parts of internal auditing. So I think next year, our report, we would show that we were in the very low risk.

There we go.

And that's something that council is, you know, helping with. You're funding those studies.

Okay, good. Well, that was, I mean, I don't want to be picky over a point, but, like, if we can help, but it sounds like we have a solution potentially for next year. Yeah, I think we do.

Okay. Okay, thank you.

I think that's everything. All right. Thank you. OK, moving on, we will move to our Hagen Road ReZone conversation. Again, this is an informational item. No vote will be taken tonight. Jake, you've got this, I believe.

Thank you madam chair. Good evening council for the public. My name is Jake Warner. Long range planning manager for Sandy City. Sandy City has received a rezone application from Matthew Grant. He is joined by two of his neighbors Barry Evans and Lyle Warner. I am not related as far as I know to Lyle Warner nor any of the other applicants but they have submitted jointly an application to rezone their properties at 1 1 5 6 2. 1-1-5-6-3 and 1-1-5-8-6 Hagen Road. All three are developed residential properties with homes already on them. The total acreage is about 1.79 acres. As was previously mentioned, there are four homes on Hagen Road that are not zoned R120A. Sorry, I should say there are four homes on Hagen Road zoned R120. There are 17 homes to the north zoned R120A and there are 14 homes to the south zoned R110. The properties to the east are also zoned R110. The properties to the west are zoned R120A. Trying to advance the slides here to keep up. The future land use map designates this area as very low density neighborhood or rural neighborhood. The R120 and the R120A zones are both consistent with that future land use designation. I failed to mention that the request is to add the A designation to their existing zoning. So they are requesting the R-120A zone. There was a neighborhood meeting held on August 10th. This application was presented to the Planning Commission on August 20th, and they forwarded a positive recommendation. It is a legislative item, so you as the City Council make the final decision on this. And so it is being presented to you tonight as an informational item and is scheduled to come back to you on September 15th for a decision. With that, staff is available for questions, and the applicant is present and prepared to present as well.

Thank you. Questions from council? Ms. Nickel.

Thank you. I think this has to do with one of the comments that I read in here. It's about any animal having enough space. We have a code. We have something in code that states how much a farm animal needs, like a horse and a cow.

The number of farm animals allowed in a property with an eight- No, the amount of land that they need. We do not specify how much land has to be set aside specifically for those animals. So the number of animals they can have is determined by the size of the property overall. But generally, we do not have any regulations on how much area is required to care for those animals.

I read the code today, and there was something that stated that they needed to have a certain amount.

There is a unique zone, I believe it's for Bell Canyon Acres, that does have that provision. I looked at that too.

I was going to say I'd like that provision to go into land development code. All right, awesome. Thank you.

Other questions? Okay, I will. Okay, so just... clarifying in the in the minutes there the 1988 Christianson annexation it's it's showing that it was adopted as by the council as our our 120 right correct okay And then what we are considering is not necessarily how many sheep. It's kind of in line with what you were asking, the maximum number of animals by type on a half acre lot. And you're saying that's, tell me.

Sorry. You're good. I was starting to. Speak. So without the A designation, they are not allowed to farm animals on the property. As I mentioned, the applicant is here and can speak to that. But my understanding is that he was not aware that their properties did not have farm animal rights. So the rezone application is requesting to add the designation that would allow farm animals on the property and all other rights associated with that designation. There's some flexibility that's allowed for accessory structures, for example, when you have an A designation. So it's not just the farm animals. There's some other provisions in the code as well. But he does have sheep on the property, and so he is seeking the A designation so that those would be there in compliance with his zoning if he were to be approved for the rezone.

And then you hit several of the things that I listed here except what I did not hear is whether or not boarding, so if the A designation was given, whether or not boarding or renting space for other people's animals would be permitted.

I'm not as clear on the board. I believe we allow, I might need to turn to, I might ask a friend here.

That show's no longer on the air. I don't think. Is it still? Phone a friend?

Okay. That's still an option, right? Yes, always. Who wants to be a millionaire?

Always, yes.

Boarding is not allowed except for one area in the city and that's then the Bell Canyon area So generally boarding is not allowed within the same city even with a designation, correct?

Okay, that was a question I had And then this is not a hard and fast question but a curiosity and as much for my colleagues as the two of you Is is there or was there considered some type of like temporary conditional use permit that allows the lambs to be raised but this is not necessarily like an ongoing designation.

We don't. It's kind of an all or nothing in our code. I'm not aware of any way that we could do that within the existing regulations in the code.

So they're like, for example, like I have to read my notes cause I thought this through, but I want to get it right. Um, so draft a tiered farm animal designation, um, rather than gross lot size. Just trying to think of instead of a yes or a no. And if you just tell me, Marcy, it's a yes or a no.

It's a yes or no. We would have to draft a code amendment to come up with it.

Yeah. Anything other than what's before you this evening, which is the request to rezone. And that's an up or down vote on whether to rezone the property or not. Whether you want us to consider other provisions that would create a farm animal set aside area that mandates a minimum area that's required in order to keep animals or other provisions that would allow for temporary occupancy of farm animals on a property. Those are not allowed in our current zone and that's not an option right now.

And it's partially because what is being requested is very specific. It's just what's being requested is add Add agriculture designation to our current zoning correct. That's what's being requested. So it's a yes or no on that request Okay. Oh Sorry, I heard oh, whoa. I think I triggered something So who was first just on the on the code.

I I was reading today and two one eleven three Is Talks about

That is the section that defines the A designation as far as the keeping of farm animals.

Yeah but it also, I printed it so small. Please forgive me. Number three is where it talks about having enough space.

Which provision, which code provision are you in?

I am in 2, 2111-3. 2111-3. Is that the wrong section? No.

So that is the ratio that Jake was referring to earlier. It's in regards to total square footage of lot size. It is not specific to the area dedicated for the keeping of that animal.

What requires a 10,000 square foot? OK, gotcha.

So it's kind of a point system based on the square footage of the property.

So a half acre lot could have a 10,000 square foot allocation for a large animal, and then medium animals at a 400 square foot, or 4,000 square foot, and then small animals at a 400 square foot ratio.

Mr. Sousa. Thank you. I don't really have a question. I just wanted to kind of share my thoughts on this. As I've been on the council, these types of conversations have come up over and over again over the last four and a half years. And so I feel fairly familiar with some of the concerns. This is maybe a different situation because it feels like it's maybe going the other way, where we don't have an allowance and there's a request to add that allowance. And so for me, it's not a secret that farm animals bring with them nuisance, whether it's sound, odor, the flies, the bugs. On the properties where the A designation doesn't exist, you can still have chickens. So there's an allowance for chickens in our city outside of the A designation. And even with that, there's some nuisance that can be problematic. You know, my neighbors, I love my neighbors. They don't have chickens anymore, but they did. And when they did, we had a lot of rats because of the feed and everything, right? And so the nuisance is real. By creating an allowance where one doesn't exist right now, nor has it ever on these particular lots, you know, we are surprising neighbors with nuisance that... could be a material fact and whether or not, you know, they would have bought that home had that existed at the time that they made that decision. Um, I will say in real estate, you know, that it may be helpful for the properties that are getting that designation, but it's not necessarily going to be helpful for the properties surrounding those, um, that are adjacent to or, or touching. Um, even, even dog feces, um, is a problem in that area where we have, people that have dogs, and they don't pick up after themselves. And that smell and the sight of dog feces is a problem for neighboring homes, whether they live there or whether they're selling. So I'm just going to put out there that I'm not inclined to increase the presence of nuisance where it hasn't ever existed. There's more properties that touch. There's like three properties that we're talking about, and there's seven or eight that abut the properties, right? So we are potentially devaluing or creating a situation for eight property owners to solve. I don't even know that it's a problem, right? Because it's never really existed. So those are my thoughts. I'm really worried about increasing or creating nuisance where there wasn't one in the you know, enjoyment of one's property. We talk a lot about zoning. There's been a lot of people that talk about zoning and that you should be able to know what to expect when you purchase a home. And I think this is just a surprise that doesn't seem like the reward for the three properties is worth it. I do think that it's No matter where you go in the city, there's going to be properties that have eight designations, and then there's properties that immediately abut that don't. And so I don't know that having four on a street, the street extends quite a ways, and the rest of those properties don't. Granted, they're smaller, and they wouldn't necessarily qualify anyway, but those are my thoughts. So I wouldn't be in support of this.

Thank you, Mr. Sousa. Ms. Sharkey? No.

Just a question. Obviously, this is just a straight-up rezone request, right? But there was a little bit of a mystery associated with this, and I kind of wanted to ask you about that, Jake, because it seems like you were the one that maybe looked into this a little bit, and that was that you do look at it and you wonder why all the other lots on this street of about the same size have the A designation, but these four don't. And so you wonder how did that condition come to exist, right? And so from what I saw and read, what you found in the record was that the Planning Commission at one time, in terms of, was it when annexing in these properties?

Correct.

The Planning Commission made a recommendation to the City Council for R-128. consistent with all the other properties on the block right that may not have been listed as the rationale but it would have been consistent all we know since this was so long ago is that the city council chose the resolution that was passed shows r120 so we don't know you you made some kind of effort to figure out Did the City Council take the Planning Commission recommendation and decide against it? Or was there a mistake made by chance in the resolution that it just didn't include an A? Did you try to research as well as you could and found that?

So the file was incomplete at the time. I have tracked down with the help of the council office and the city recorder some additional documentation. We had the planning commission minutes. We didn't have the city council minutes. We didn't have the... executed ordinance in the file. We only had a draft ordinance. There was an amendment to the ordinance. We had that amendment, but not the original that was approved. Planning Commission minutes, the Planning Commission did recommend the R-120A zone with the annexation. To clear up one other thing, this annexation happened after the properties to the south, but before the properties to the north. So Planning Commission recommended R120A. I did get the minutes from the City Council meeting, and it basically just says that their motion was per their discussion, but it made clear that the discussion was about the A designation, basically, and they clarified that the motion was per their discussion that all properties annexed would be designated R120.

Okay.

And that's what's in the ordinance, and we go by the ordinance that was approved and submitted to the state.

Okay. That's different than I thought. I'm glad I asked the question.

And we did get the executed ordinance, too. The draft ordinance split and said R120 and R120A, and it wasn't clear which properties were intended to be which in the draft ordinance. the approved signed ordinance just as r120 per the motion that was approved by the city council okay thank you

Ms. Christensen. Thank you for all this information. And we've had a lot of emails about this. Just my thoughts on this. Brooke and I are wildly different on this. I actually think that this is a value add to the neighborhood. I think any neighborhood with animal rights encourages families and more people to come in. actually love this, because I would hate to have someone tell me what I can and cannot do, which I know we do all the time, to my property, especially when an animal situation is so beneficial to our quality of life. So just another opposite side of the coin.

CHRISTIE WOODARD- Yeah, OK, Ms. Chau?

CHRISTIE WOODARD- I was wondering, is the applicant here?

CHRISTIE WOODARD- Who's here?

CHRISTIE WOODARD- OK, yeah, just wondering, OK, yeah, if we could hear that perspective. Perfect.

Okay, I think we've heard all our questions. We'd like to hear from the applicant, please.

Thank you very much. I was hoping I would get a chance to address the issues here with you all. My name is Matt Grant. I've lived in Sandy for the last 10 years with my wife, Laura, and we have eight children. We've lived in our current home for about six years. Our kids go to Sunrise Elementary and Indian Hills Middle and We love living in Sandy, and I'll just start by thanking you all for your service. I know it's long meetings on weeknights for you all, and I recognize you do a lot to make our community a great place. And sincerely want to thank you for weighing especially contentious issues when there's difficult competing interests on both sides. So I appreciate you hearing what they're all going to say. So as noted, two of my neighbors and I have submitted this application. We do feel strongly that we should have an A designation on our properties, and I'll explain why. As a bit of background, as you've heard, we got these lamps back in April. I did research, and probably relied too much on AI summaries of the code that that was kind of hard to understand. But the summary I got back was that with the half acre lot in our area, we would be able to have lambs. We have neighbors on the street who, in the last couple of years, have had goats. And there's horse properties and lots of chickens. And so I didn't think too much of it. Obviously, it was a mistake. And I apologize for that. But since then, I've learned from the city that we did need an A designation and understood how that worked. And so working with the city, we applied for that. And when we mentioned it to our other neighbors, I asked all three of our neighbors who also don't have the A designation that they'd like to join. Two of them wanted to once they understood it, and one of them you've heard from already, and she chose not to join us on this. I'd just like to highlight a few things. It sounds like you've all read the materials, which I really appreciate, so I won't go into a lot of detail on that. But I would just highlight that If you look at our neighborhood, all of the lots in our broader neighborhood from 13th East to the East that are at least a half an acre in size have the A designation except for these four. They are a significant exception. If you zoom out and look at broader Sandy City, not virtually all, but the vast majority of lots that are at least a half acre in size have an A designation. It's certainly the exception, not the rule, to have properties owned like ours is, of our size, with at least a half an acre. And in fact, many of the R115, which are smaller than an acre, I think a majority of those also have an A designation. So there are thousands of properties in our city that have an A designation. We're seeking to add our three properties to that list. And candidly, we think in the interest of fairness, As I think Ms. D'Souza mentioned, there are abutting properties we certainly respect and understand neighboring properties have rights. Many of those neighboring properties are already zoned R-128. and there's R-138 beyond that. There are many homes in our neighborhood that already raise chickens, and we feel like the zoning request here is really consistent with the existing neighborhood. I'd also highlight the Planning Commission. I think that a very thorough deliberation here. They actually came out on a bus and toured our neighborhood, and they walked our property, and they saw the layout, which I think was helpful to them. They voted 7-0 in favor unanimously of our rezone proposal, I think with the benefit of having seen that and I understand the city council doesn't normally do that, but any one of you would be welcome to, you know, I can send you my contact information to come and see the property if that would be helpful. But I really do think it's a neighborhood that lends itself to having the A designation in particular in broader Sandy where there are thousands of properties that have this. The second point I want to make, similar to Ms. Christensen, is I think and our neighbors broadly think that having this A designation added would be a big positive for our neighborhood and certainly for my own family. As you saw in the media materials, we had, I think, 10 or so neighbors, some of whom I don't know, reached out with emails in support of this. Many more have stopped by. where they see the lovely orange sign posted in our front yard that we've had for a few weeks now. And they ask what's going on. And they're all very supportive. We've had dozens of neighborhood kids coming over and helping feed the lambs. Lots of families come over and visit the lambs. It really has, I think, been a very positive thing for the neighborhood, notwithstanding that we have one neighbor who's opposed to it. Certainly very positive for my kids. In the Sandy City Code, where it talks about the zoning, If I could just quote one line, it says that farm animals on A lots can be held for the purposes of family food production, education, and recreation. These lambs have provided terrific education for my eight children as they've learned to help take care of them and help keep their space clean and do everything we can to make sure there's no nuisance issues there, which is something we're very focused on and try to work closely with our neighbors on. And in a few months, if this zoning is approved, which we hope it will be, then these lands will provide food for our family. And in our view, that's a positive as well. We would like to have the right to be able to make that determination. Again, I'd say that even if this is approved, I don't know that we'll ever have lambs again. Lambs are a short-duration livestock. We do have a few chickens. We've had chickens for a while. Our neighbors just behind us have chickens. We have several neighbors on our street that have chickens. But I don't know if we'll have lambs again. I don't know if my neighbors who are part of the application will ever have farm animals. They haven't told me they're planning to. But we do believe that having the A designation to be consistent with the rest of our neighborhood is fair. And as Mr. Warner mentioned, There are lots of benefits to having an A designation. It's not just about these three lambs that my kids are trying to raise for a few more months. We feel like this is trying to bring the zoning in line with the rest of the neighborhood and what we think is fair. And if we want to build a small greenhouse or a shed or whatever in the future that benefits from having an A designation, all of us believe that that's fair and can be consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. Before I wrap up, I'd like to just address a few of the concerns that I've heard, both from our neighbors and also from some of you. Honestly, the last thing we want is conflict or contention with any of our neighbors. That's not in our nature. We've tried really hard to work things out with our neighbors and address any questions or issues. I don't feel like the lambs are that much of a nuisance personally, but we've done everything we can to make sure that we don't feed them during certain hours to make sure they're quiet and so forth. I would say several of the neighbors and a few of you have asked about kind of the application of the all or nothing with the A, which I think is a true issue and it's maybe one for the council to consider. I don't think it's an appropriate consideration in connection with this limited rezone request. We're one of thousands of properties of this size and we've gone through a lengthy process trying to get this application approved. But I would, you know, I do think it makes sense perhaps for the City Council to consider changing some details about the count and otherwise. Most of our neighbors who have a concern about this, I think it can be summarized as they're worried that we're going to have cattle and horses. I will say, and if it came to our property, I think you'd agree, our lot is not one that makes sense to have horses or cattle. We have a large detached garage in our backyard. We have a basketball court. The three lambs and the handful of chickens we have now is about all we have room for and all we could ever have. And as I said, I don't think we'll even have lambs very much in the future. That said, I don't think the zoning laws as they're written today should be applied to specific properties to try to prevent specific hypothetical future horses or cattle or whatever else. Our view is there's a lot of other laws. The Sandy City Ordinance has details on how many animals you can keep. There's nuisance laws. There's laws about how you have to keep your lot clean. There are laws with setback. There are animal cruelty laws. There's all sorts of laws that I think can kind of restrict someone from putting a horse in a 10 by 10 paddock or whatever on the large lot. And candidly, those laws should apply to the thousands of A lots that are already in existence and not be, in our view, an issue for this limited application for a reason of three properties. Lastly, just to address some of the concerns of our good neighbor, Ms. Clark here, Everyone has a different perception of noise and different tolerances for that. And we appreciate and respect that. Our view is the lambs really aren't that loud. If you have experience with lambs, which I do, they're very quiet at night unless there's a predator attacking them or something. They usually make noise when they're being fed. or if someone goes back to pet them or whatever, but that noise is significantly quieter, I would say, than most dogs in our neighborhood, quieter than the chickens that we have in our neighborhood. And again, as I've said, we do what we can to not be a nuisance and to feed them at least after 7 a.m. or before 7 p.m., and that's kind of when they'll be a little bit loud, but it's, as I said, quieter than dogs. There's some other, I guess, accusations, things we just disagree about. We have taken the lambs on walks around the neighborhood a few times. When we do that, they're always on a halter, on a leash. One of my kids follows with a little bucket and a broom and dustpan. If they do defecate, which doesn't happen that much, it's similar to deer pellets. If any of you are familiar with lambs, it's dry. Around little things, we sweep it up, we take it home, we throw it away. That's been our consistent approach. And frankly, that's a time that brings our neighborhood together. Everyone comes out to see the lambs, and the dog walkers love it. And we think it's positive. But I can promise you they're not walking through people's yards and let loose. They're kept in a secure pen, which we keep as clean as we can in our backyard, which is inside a gated backyard. And when we take them out, we're, I think, very conscientious. It's possible that, you know, If feces has been found in someone's yard, it could be from deer, but I can assure you that it's not us taking our lambs in people's yards. I think, I guess just lastly, I do really respect and appreciate Ms. Clark's history with this property. I didn't know when I acquired the property that she used to own the lot that we're on now that wasn't anywhere in our title or any sorts of covenants or restrictions. We bought this free and clear as any other property owner would. And while she has strong opinions about what we should do in our yard, which includes the lambs and chickens and tree houses and any number of things, ultimately it's our property that we bought. And we feel like this should be viewed and assessed independently by the council of whether these three lots should have an A designation and whether that's fair. And we just respectfully don't think that the ownership history of the land is relevant for who gets to determine now what the zoning should be, which we believe is now the city council. Thank you for your time. I'm happy to answer further questions if there are any before I turn the mic back over.

I don't think we have any questions. Thank you. Okay, so that brings us to our next item on the agenda. Number five, I believe, is Melissa. You will be presenting amendments to land development code.

OK, I'm just waiting for this to, there we go. All right. Thank you very much. Good evening, Madam Chair and the Council. So tonight is a work session. No decision is required tonight. But to give an overview of the proposed code amendments to the Land Development Code to allow for detached accessory dwelling units as well as some other updates to that section of the code. What I'm going to do is go over the state law, SB 284, which was adopted this year, and some policies of the general plan, a summary of the proposed code amendments, such as defining ADUs and extended living areas, the application procedures, where we're recommending locations in Sandy for these detached ADUs and some of the requirements for those. We also have examples of ADUs to show you and also some layouts of building ADUs on different lot sizes to show the feasibility of that. from small lots to larger lots. And lastly, specific recommendation by the Planning Commission. Two weeks ago we had a public hearing with the Planning Commission and they made their formal recommendation to City Council regarding this package. They do have some amendments they would appreciate the council to take into consideration and so that is the minutes were in the packet and we've also included those modifications in the slideshow so Not sure if this is working or if you can help me move it forward.

Justin, you want to click on the screen back there and see if it'll...

Oh, there we go. Thank you. So the new state law is effective October 1st, so in a month. And what it does is it requires cities such as Sandy to allow for detached accessory dwelling units on residential lots that are 11,000 square feet or greater. And in our general plan, we also have adopted policy specifically related to accessory dwelling units. Generally there's support for that in the general plan and it supports ADUs both attached and detached and to encourage a variety of housing options for different types of households. The policies also include requirements for owner occupancy, mitigating impacts on neighboring properties and to ensure ADUs are subordinate to the primary structure or not as large. So it's both the state law as well as implementing our general plan that we have this proposal before you. So first off, a lot of the code relates to whether you're talking about an accessory dwelling unit versus an extended living area. In general, accessory dwelling unit, or ADU, is a rental. It's a self-contained rental. and it's going to be inside or outside the house. So an ADU, self-contained habitable living unit, it includes kitchen, bathroom, sleeping areas that's used as a rental. Now, we used to call them accessory apartments, and we're proposing to call them accessory dwelling units because that's more common terminology as well as consistent with state code. So if it's – and we've been allowing those as attached accessory apartment units. And a number of years ago, the state law required us to do so. So those have been allowed. It's just not the detached that have been addressed to date. So if it's attached, it's incorporated within the existing single-family home, and it will not substantially alter the structure or its appearance. Now, if it was detached, it would be subordinate to and detached from the primary dwelling on the same lot or parcel. So extended living areas are designed for use by the occupants of the primary dwelling on a non-rental basis for family, friends, et cetera. If it's attached, it's additional living facilities within the primary single-family dwelling. It contains a kitchen or a kitchenette that may also have associated living quarters like a bathroom, sleeping areas. And if it's detached, it's additional living facilities detached from the primary single family dwelling that contains a kitchen, bathroom, sleeping area, or other habitable living areas. So the main thing about this is that an extended living area could Not necessarily be totally self-contained, but you may have a kitchen and a half bath. It also could be fully self-contained so that it operates like an apartment and like a rental. And so if an example of if it was detached in this definition it would include things like a pool house that could have cooking facilities for barbecuing as well as a full bath with shower by the pool. We've had a number of examples where people have gymnasiums with a number of things, you know, washing facilities and mini kitchens and things like that, you could have offices with clients coming to visit you. But basically it's habitable where you're going to have more intensive use as opposed to just a shed where you're just going there to store some things. So in that sense, there is a distinguishing between whether it is operating as a self-contained unit that basically could operate like an apartment. You could rent it out or not rent it out. Or it may have some of those habitable features, but it's not totally self-contained. But it's close, and it could easily be changed to something like that. I recently had a two-story detached accessory structure for the pool house, but it was two stories. And the key thing there is that it is the way our code is now, you could be as close as two feet to the property line. Um, Well, if it's two stories, you might have to set back further, but those habitable areas are, they're just more intensive in the way it is now. You could just be really close to the property line, and so we're wanting to mitigate that. So anyway, that's the difference. The main thing is it's a rental or it's not, and you may have your extended family living there, and so you're just wanting to accommodate that for a larger family setting. so application process very similar but extended living areas it's typically through a building permit and at that time we review it and it's an affidavit it doesn't really take any longer than the normal building permit price process An affidavit is signed by the owner and our building staff actually record it for them. Accessory dwelling unit for rental, same process. It's through the building permit. We have an affidavit. It's different if it's for an apartment or, I mean, a rental. But along with that, there's a special use permit and business license that goes along with that. So proposed locations for detached ADUs. So required by state law would be in residential zones on property 11,000 square feet or greater in size. And that's what the current recommendation is in the text proposal. However, staff does support and would like the council to consider expanding eligible areas or smaller lot sizes the future included in the packet here is some maps that show eligible potential properties so this shows if the lot is a residential zone it's 11,000 square feet or larger and these residential zones would be single-family zones Um, and, um, we took out the properties that were like a school, a park that wouldn't, that would have include a lot of acres or, or square feet, but, uh, really wouldn't, uh, be applicable for this exercise. This is an estimate, but it shows those properties that have the potential and it's about 20% of, um, Sandy as this analysis shows. It also shows areas for a transit station because that relates to parking. One of the caveats of this proposal is if you were within half a mile of the station, potentially you could have a reduction in parking. The other map is showing 10,000 square foot lots. And that shows about a 5% increase in the potential area of Sandy that could be accommodated or would be impacted by allowing ADUs on those properties. And then this shows lots that are 8,000 square feet or larger. In Sandy, the R18 zone, which is minimum lot size 8,000 square feet that's our most predominant zone in sandy we do have our 175 r16 as well so it does go smaller but these just shows the areas of sandy that could be accommodating ad use if depending on what areas you want to include So some of the standards that we do now we'd like to or are recommending to continue and those standards would be that a special use permit and business license for the ADU would be required. It would affect those areas that are residential single family areas. The standards would be clear and objective, owner occupancy to be required, only one address and utility meter, and also these affidavits that are recorded on the lot. So in the proposal, we're recommending the maximum number of ADUs allowed on a lot to be one, and that could be either attached inside the home, a rental, or outside the home, detached, but no more than one, one or the other. then if we're looking at the detached only one detached self-contained habitable living unit it could be an ADU or an extended living area because if if you have this rental and it's a detached ADU and then you decide I don't want to rent it anymore the renter has moved on and I've decided I want my children, my adult children to live here or child to live there, then it would be extended living area. It would just revert to that. So only one, as opposed to multiple of these detached on the lot. And inside the home, extended living areas are not limited within the primary dwelling, but only one may be a fully self-contained habitable living unit. So what this is trying to do is to limit the number of potential rentals. Someone could be renting out, oh, this unit, detach this unit inside. So the – and if the – The structure can accommodate it. It's often that someone might use it for that without the proper permitting or the proper license and like that. So this is trying to spell out that there are limits to how many of these that you can have.

Before you move on, if you could go back to that. Ms. Christensen had a question.

Yeah.

Oh, we have more. We have several. Just a second.

I just want to like... When I'm reading through this, and I've got a note about this, I just want to make sure I'm understanding correctly. We're recommending that they're allowed to have one detached ADU, which we have to do, but they're also allowed to have a short-term rental inside their home. Oh, okay. That's what I meant.

I'm not... Yes. Okay, so... This doesn't address, this addresses like how it's constructed. It doesn't necessarily address short-term rentals, but I'll answer first. Short-term rentals are not, the proposal does not allow a short-term rental in a detached ADU. And internally, yes, they are allowed. But you can't have multiple of these. You can do one or the other. You can't have a short-term rental and then another fully apartment self-contained ADU.

OK, because I just, when I read it, Thank you for clarifying that. I just don't see that called out in here anywhere.

Yeah, that's actually a good point. If it's not clear, maybe we need more clarity on that. Because this slide is talking about it, but it doesn't address that. It's another part of the code. But I'd like to make a note of that.

But Brooke's not talking about this slide.

No, I'm talking about the document.

You can have one of each where they are. And what you do with them is the only difference, right? Yeah. So this isn't about short-term rentals. You can have one of each, but not more than one.

You're saying you can't. She's saying either or. You cannot have both.

You can have an ELA or an ADU or both. Extended living area. Yeah. That can be detached or inside. Right.

subject walls yeah so well and a short-term rental is considered we're not talking about short-term rentals oh you are no I'm specifically because in here it says short-term rentals are prohibited in the detached unit but they are allowed within the primary structure right but but so to me that says that you can have an ADU and yeah

Yeah, you wouldn't be able to have, that would basically be two rentals, one a short term. And so you wouldn't be able, the intent is that you would not be able to have both. And so it could be, we could add clarification unless Mike has the text right here.

So just like if that's true, we can only have either or in one property. I might suggest like clarificating. Yeah.

Short-term rentals are already regulated to the amount. So I don't know if we want to liken this with short-term rentals rather than... Well, just because it calls it out. You can have a rental for over 30 days, and that's not a short-term rental.

the amendments in one of our documents. It calls it out in the analysis. So that's why I'm just saying.

Just to clarify, the intent is that you want to ensure that someone that is renting out one of these spaces, whether it's internal or external, if they're having an STR, they can't also have an ADU.

Well, that's my question to you guys. Is that what you're saying? And that you cannot.

That's correct. But you're hoping that it's more clear to make sure that it is clear.

Yes, because the way I read this, I would read this and say I can help out. Oh, right. Yeah.

We can work on some clarifying language.

OK. Thank you.

Mr. Sousa. Thank you. My question is kind of around what the discussion has been, because it's not completely clear to me either. So when we talk about an ADU, are we using that term to define the, like to name the structure or are we naming like the rental aspect, the purpose? Because having one doesn't necessarily mean that it's going, that it's actively being rented to, right? And so the only one ADU on an attached law, are we saying only one self-contained structure or are we saying we can only have one in operation as a rental?

Yeah. In the definition, that is helpful if you want to scroll to the actual specific language of the definition, because we tried to work hard on that. I'd say it's both. And let's take the example that is just detached from the home. that you may start out where you do want to rent it out. And the idea is that it's fully self-contained. It doesn't have just a mini kitchen. It has the kitchen or mini kitchen. It has a full bathroom, sleeping area, so it can function self-contained to support someone to live there. And you may start out renting it, and then a year later you may decide, I don't want to rent anymore because my daughter's moving back and I want her to live there. Then you wouldn't renew your permit or business license, and it would just revert to an extended living area for your family.

We do this now for internal ADUs. So it's the same process that we do for accessory apartments, which is what we're called an internal accessory apartment, or ADU is classified that way. And the same structure as far as extended living areas, we're just applying to detached structures.

OK, so a home that has a mother-in-law apartment, let's say, that is fully self-contained, separate, could be rented out, going through the process. But this household or property owner would like to, build a structure detached that may also serve this purpose. The allowance of that structure, there's an allowance for that structure, but only one can be rented, right? I do think that the way that we're talking about this is really confusing, because to me, the accessory dwelling unit more of like the structure not doesn't have anything to do with the the active rental aspect and so even like in real estate when you're when you're listing homes you would say like there's a there's been new provisions now that this home has an accessory dwelling unit but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's actively being rented it's just an accessory structure that's used for that could be used for dwelling or habitable in that way and so

In our code, our definitions clearly map out that it's intended for rental use. And in code, it's very common that we are piecing things together. And so when we are not sure what that term, we'll go to that definition, and then that informs us. Some of that is reducing repetition and like that. There's just different, you know.

And part of that is because of the owner occupancy requirement, I would, any time a realtor calls and asks whether an ADU is potential on this property, because they have an existing kitchen area in the basement and they want to be able to rent it out, I always clarify that it is not pre-approved for an ADU.

Right.

Because it depends on whether they get a permit. And they have to show that it's owner occupied. And they can't just turn it into a duplex and rent out both the top and the bottom.

I guess I'm asking the practicality of I come to the city and I say, I want to build an accessory structure. What are you going to require of me? Do I have to have a special use permit to even build that?

Well, yeah, building permit initially.

I didn't say building. I said special use permit because – It depends on your intent. Yeah.

It depends on how they plan to use the structure.

Well, okay. So a detached extended living – there could be a detached extended living area? Mm-hmm. Oh, yeah. Yeah.

That's part of the definitional changes that we're talking about.

Right.

There's four different definitions. That's what she – It's okay.

I'm just going to say my opinion, and I'm going to read through this, and maybe that may change. Read through it again, I should say. But the way that we're talking about it isn't necessarily consistent with how people are using the terminology, and it is really confusing to consider the structure as a purpose in the way that we are. So those are my thoughts. Doesn't necessarily need to be responded to now, but it's confusing.

Some of it is complicated just because we were having to spell it out.

So my question, I can have both, but only rent one. Go back. Is that Mike? I can have both, but I can only rent one?

Correct. You can have a detached structure that accommodates.

And an internal, but only rent one of them. That is correct.

Ms. Christensen.

How are we going to police that?

Just like you police it now.

So we don't? No, well, it's complaint-based. And how do we prove that? What does the state allow us to do for proving that?

Same thing that we've done for internal apartments. Same thing we do for short-term rentals.

It is challenging, but typically, we would only know is if we have a building permit. If people go and make renovations without building permits, we would not necessarily know. And then if there is a complaint, then we would research about that property. Or if they're selling it and then they're needing to know what's legal, what's not. But just as Mike was saying, it's just as we do now, that at the building permit, we're going to be looking at the floor plans, the building, the additions, everything. And, oh, if this is an extended living area, then that's what we will default to. But if they want to rent it out, we say you need a special use permit with business license. And it's at that time that we communicate and administer that.

So if someone has a large enough property that they can have two structures on it, like a garage and an ADU, and they decide they don't want to rent out their ADU anymore, can they build another one?

And now they're detached?

Yeah. If they've got a big enough lot.

No.

They can only build one self-contained. One garage or one shed. Like, remind me how this goes. And one ADU.

So you're allowed to have up to two accessory structures on a single-family residential property. The only exception to that is A-designated properties.

So someone could, if they didn't have a shed, build two accessory dwelling units and only rent out one?

No. No. Only because it's only one self-contained, habitable, detached unit.

So one detached ADU would be allowed. You could have a detached office. or workout room or something like that. It would be a detached extended living area. But only one could be a fully self-contained ADU that met that definition of a detached ADU.

I know I'm skipping a little bit, but is this something that would go through the administrative court judge? Oh, you mean if it was an enforcement case? Yeah. I mean, are we going to put in penalties into this? Should we be adding penalties into this? So if you start renting out an approved ADU that you're fined X amount of dollars per day or whatever we choose, should we be adding this to that?

Well, I can have James speak to that.

I think we're getting a little bit ahead of ourselves.

I think we first need to get an ordinance in place and see how it runs and see how it works. And if we find violations, we could certainly come to you to tighten things up if that's what the council wants to do.

And I totally respect that.

And we could go to the ALJ or we could do whatever. But I think for what we're trying to accomplish here, we're just trying to get an ordinance in place first. to comply with state law and then see how it works. Totally understand that. And let's run it for a while before we decide how to kill it.

Yeah, I just am not willing to personally not put an ordinance in place for this without the penalties for breaking it. I think that's very important for someone. In terms of the illegal. And like enforcement and so that.

Well, when we put the code in place, obviously we're going to have a code that we're going to look at. And once the code is in place and once the council has decided, we have a code that we have to enforce. the coding itself is enforceable, and if people aren't living by that, then we enforce that code. So I wouldn't worry as much about putting extra stuff in it right now. Let's get the code in place and see if it works, and then determine if we're having a lot of problems, we can tighten it up. But once we have a code, we can enforce that code. And that is good enough for us to take it to an ALJ or wherever our process is.

We won't have any penalties laid out. So we have to add it to our fee schedule.

If you want financial penalties, then that's certainly something the city council could look at and do.

Okay. Thank you. Ms. Sharkey? Hey, James. Don't go. Well.

And it may be helpful to get through the rest of the presentation, and then we can start answering some of these questions as they come up. But.

You know what's confusing? You know what? Okay. So we all understand STRs and why and how that happened. We all understand ADUs and why and how that happened. Now we were told we were going to have to comply with detached ADUs. We get it, right? STR, ADU, DADU. You know what's the most confusing part? ELAs. So why did we decide? that we had to define limit control living areas that were not rented but just part of the intended use of the homeowner, why did we need to fold that in here? It seems like that is the complicating and confusing factor.

That's part of our original code. Before the IADU ordinance by the state was imposed, we had an accessory apartment standard. We allowed that for years, well before the state told us we had to. And we've also had a definition for extended living areas and that was always defined based on how it was used It was fine to have a mother-in-law apartment if it was for your mother-in-law It was for your family for extended family occupancy, but once it was used for the purpose of renting it out It became an accessory apartment. That's how our current code is written We're extending that same paradigm, that same splitting of how those spaces are utilized for detached. That's the only thing that we're adding is a detached. And we're changing the name from accessory apartment to the more commonly used ADU. because that's what people are using for whether it's internal or external. Detached accessory dwelling is what people are using for that term. So that's the more commonly used terminology. Everything else within the home or external to the home, it depends on how it's being utilized. And if it's being used for a purpose of rental, that's when it also requires a permit to be obtained for that use.

I still don't see calling that out anymore. If you're saying it's been there forever and it's part of our code and we're just trying to clarify. Because an ELA could or could not be an ADU depending on how it was designed, right? If it's completely freestanding, habitable, you could use it as an ADU or you could use it as an ELA It's both a matter of how it is configured and designed and who's going to occupy it. Are they paying rent or are they not paying rent?

Yeah, as its owner occupying.

And I think the other side of it is the market has kind of changed in how people are utilizing their properties, especially since COVID, as far as having these accessory buildings that used to be primarily just a shed or a garage. But we're seeing a lot of people wanting to have a detached gym or a detached office or other living areas that would normally just be part of the house. But they're utilizing these accessory structures for different purposes, for living and occupying those spaces. And we felt like those also needed to be part of this amendment so that those uses and how those are being lived in are not set two feet from the property line. They have a greater impact than just having a shed in the corner of the lot if they're utilized for occupancy and living of the family that is on the lot.

You know, that's a good clarification. That's part of it. We care about them more if they're detached than if they're attached, ELAs. OK.

I'm sorry, I know I missed part of this from last year. How does the city collect revenue to offset the cost of administering this? I'm assuming they're not going to be commercial properties now if you have an ADU, so we're not getting 100% of your tax revenue. You're still only getting the residential discount, right?

I mean, through the building permit, it's just our plan review.

Is there a standard, like, increase the county's going to apply to?

It's the same as building a home.

Yeah.

So they're going to, everyone who applies for an ADU, in theory, the county's going to increase the value of their homes on their property taxes?

Yeah, my wife just said you could have a license. I mean, we're getting some value from licensing now.

We don't have any control how the county is assessing.

No, I'm just asking if this has been something that's come in with this discussion. Has the state given the county a path forward on that?

I'm not sure of the question. Could you?

So when someone decides to build an ADU on their property, an attached ADU, I'm assuming then the county, because we have business licenses, will increase the value of their homes so they'll pay more property taxes.

Yeah, I mean they could assess the home differently and increase the value of it hasn't been brought up No, we're not really looking at that part.

Ours is just the land use part right now And how much are we charging for a business license?

We would have to determine that.

It's just the same as what we do now. We have a small fee when we have a building permit coming in, in terms of our planning review, as well as the fees for our inspectors, just like building anything else.

It's also additional people in the city and roads and water. There's a lot of things. That answered my question. Thank you.

I'm going to hold mine because you said you'd like to finish the presentation. Oh, oh, Mr. DeKaiser, I see you. No, you changed your mind? You're going to wait till the end of the presentation, too?

I just wanted to see the presentation continue. Thank you.

Yep.

OK. Here. Okay, parking spaces. So the state allows us to require additional parking space for a detached ADU. Now it's good to know the context because all single family homes are required to have four spaces on site already. And actually the state limits us from requiring any more than those four spaces. except for the detached adu so two are in the garage and two are in the driveway that's the the baseline requirement and even if they have you know apartment inside that that's as many as we can require but for detached adus they allow us to uh require additional and so a maximum of one parking space if the detached adu is less than 650 square feet and if it's more than that we can require two additional and they also can be tandem so if you put one behind the other. It doesn't have to be covered or in a garage. You can do that. It has to be paved on site for them to park there. So the proposal is going with what the state allows us to. And it would be one parking space for a smaller one and two parking spaces if it's 650 square feet or larger. But if you're within a half a mile of a transit station and on one of those those slides that showed the transit stations which were really more down in closer to this area as opposed to closer to the mountains is would you could reduce it by one parking space So that's the parking requirement. And so maximum size. One of the policies is that it be subordinate in size, detached ADUs. So our proposal is that it be no more than 75% or less than the size of the primary building, primary dwelling footprint. So we're not taking like every square inch of each story, it's just that footprint because what we're using it as is a lot coverage as well. So no more than 75% of the main house on the footprint So let's say if the footprint of the main house was 1,000 square feet, you couldn't go any more than 750 square feet. That's 75% of that. But it also has to meet the standards of building coverage for accessory structures. So if we were administering this, we would calculate one and then we calculate the other and figure out which one's less. So in this slide, it shows in the accessory structure chapter because we're trying to measure it with what we already allow now in terms of accessory structures, which is you're allowed up to two and one or both of them cannot exceed more than a set square footage depending on your lot size. So if your lot was, for example, 11,000 square feet based on this table, it could not be any more than 750 square feet if that was the only accessory structure on the lot just like if it was a storage shed we wouldn't allow more more than that so the lot coverage is commensurate and also it could not be any more than 75% of the primary dwelling building coverage. So we basically would use both of these, whichever is less, and that is what their maximum would be. The next is location. Could you put it in the front yard or just the rear yard? So the proposal proposes the detached ADU would only be allowed on the side in the rear yard and behind the front plane of the house. Basically, it wouldn't be allowed in what is defined as the front yard. It has to be no further forward than that main house. But if the lot was larger, if the lot was 40,000 square feet or larger, the proposal would allow a detached ADU to be in front of that house, but it has to meet the front setback. We have different definitions for front setback and front yard, but that's the proposal. building height and setback. So the height and setback is really tied together. So in our table of standards, we included those which are if we would allow up to a 15-foot building height, but it would have to be at least 10 feet from the side and the rear setback. And that's basically a one-story. And so these are just kind of some images of what a one-story little ADU would be like. So that would be a maximum of 15 feet measured to the peak of the roof and has to be 10 feet from the side and the rear. But if it was taller than 15 feet, It could not be taller than the primary dwelling and it would also have to meet the setbacks of the primary structure. Just like the main house has basic setbacks, it would have to meet those setbacks. In addition, it could be no less than 10 feet from the side and the rear. So if it was two-story as an example, because in 15 feet you're not going to get two stories, but if it was two stories, it would have to meet the setbacks just like the main home. then it would be allowed in it on the side for example you could not be less than 10 feet so that's what is proposed right now these are just some image examples of two-story structures balconies and decks would not be allowed unless they are it meets the setbacks of the main dwelling so if it was just like if it was part of the main house you could have a balcony you could have you know upper decks so basically if it's meeting those setbacks just like the main house well then then you could but also we have provisions where on this detached adu you couldn't encroach into that setback so that balcony cannot go go in there so that's part of that with the policies of the general plan it does say mitigating impacts to neighbors and so these are just some of the standards that have been put in trying to do mitigate for that we have allowed for basements so it could be you know full story underground basement or one and a half stories but they would be allowed in this proposal and conversions the state requires that we allow for a path to convert an existing accessory structure to an ADU. And so our proposal would be that It would be a legal structure, but the habitable area has to meet the standards of the detached ADUs. So this slide tries to show where, well, there's a portion of this existing structure that's really close to the property line, but that first 10 feet, you wouldn't be able to use that as the habitable area of your ADU. You could turn it into, depending on the size and the location, you could turn it into maybe storage area or garage but it cannot be the habitable area and so if you're going to convert that you may have to wall things off or make storage areas on the outer side that's in that setback Examples, here are just some examples of illustrations showing size. So you get a feel for this illustration is showing a two bedroom, one bath. It's only 535 square feet and another 800 square feet with two full bedrooms and bathrooms. And a two-story, this is 600 square feet, one bedroom, one bath. 1,000 square foot in size would accommodate a three bedroom, two bath. And then there's several slides here that gives an analysis of, well, what if it was a smaller lot in an R16 zone? It's a 6,000 square foot lot. If we use the same standards and calculations, would they even be able to have an ADU, and what would that look like, or how big would that be? And so Mike Wilcox had prepared these in evaluating you know, what size of an ADU that they could do. So here's some examples in the R16 zone where you could accommodate like a 611 square foot ADU. square foot ADU. Another one where an ADU would absolutely not be practical in terms of the amount of area that they could use. And in the R18 zone where you have lot sizes typically 8,000 square feet or a little more, where you could have ADUs anywhere from 516 square feet An example, 394, and another is 405 square feet, I believe. So this just shows that if it was allowed on smaller lot sizes, it is possible, but they have to meet the setbacks, the height, size, et cetera, of the standards. The proposal doesn't propose that right now, but it does – encourage in the future, maybe looking at smaller lot sizes. And this is R110 zone, where they could accommodate some larger ADUs, 575 square feet. One is 750 square feet. And then going up to R115 and R120 zones, 1,000 square foot ADU, 1,500 square foot ADU. And then lastly, R140A examples, there's one that's 1,250 square foot or another one, because of what they already have on their property, it would only be a 400 square foot ADU, but within an existing structure. Oh, R140, here's some other examples, 1,800 square foot. The largest one is a 2,000 square foot ADU. So the Planning Commission had their recommendation to support the proposal but with some modifications. I'd like to run through those and that will complete the presentation. In the minutes as well, outlined in the motion that included all of the proposed modifications was some findings or the rationale behind the reasoning behind that. And so I'd encourage you, if you haven't already, to look at the minutes where they're proposing a specific modification to the text and why. And so that's spelled out in the minutes in detail. So the number permitted is the Planning Commission had wanted to add that if it's within the primary dwelling, you could have any number of extended living areas, but only two could be self-contained habitable living units as opposed to one. They would allow two, but only if there are no detached ADUs on the property. So that's one of the changes that they're hoping for. On the entrances right now, and this is existing text in terms of the entrance, that it's only allowed on the front of the house, I mean the side and the rear of the house, not on the front, but the recommendation is to modify that on corner lots to allow an entrance to the ADU if it faces the street that's opposite of the primary entrance. A third one is in terms of design, that in terms of connection to the home, this would be where you're adding an ADU or extended living area to your home. And you're doing an addition. as opposed to requiring it to be a common wall where you have a minimum amount that has to be connected to the primary structure. The minimum width is currently specified in this text to be at least 20% of the perimeter of the addition. So through building permit review, we take those measurements and make the calculation. But it wouldn't be allowed through a breezeway or a garage. That's the way the text is now, but the Planning Commission has proposed an amendment where the addition could be connected to the existing home by means of a common wall or breezeway that may be attached to a non-habitable space garage. And these are some examples of attached breezeways where there is a connection, but these are pretty large lots too. It's a pretty expansive addition that they've done. So those are just some examples too. To show that so lighting this was just a typo to add the word be shall be dark sky compliant That's already in the text also The Planning Commission is recommending that the minimum lot size for detached a to use instead of 11,000 square feet or larger is to bring that down to 10,000 square feet or larger lots. We do have several areas that are R110 zones, so it's similar to that zone. The Planning Commission also recommended that this be revisited in the future to consider lower minimum lot sizes for detached ADUs. And so the next modification is for the location. Right now, the location is just on the rear and the side and behind the front of the house, out of the front yard. But the proposal is for properties that are larger. as well as new subdivisions of five or more lots to allow the ADU to be in front of that house, but it has to meet the front setback. So this can't be right up to the sidewalk, but it'll meet the setback, but it could be in front of that house. So the change is to add new subdivisions of five or more lots where they're designing it from scratch to meet those standards. Another one is for building heightened setbacks from the side and rear property lines. The existing text is where you have a detached ADU that's more than 15 feet in height. Um, it can't be taller than the building height of the primary dwelling. Uh, but, uh, the recommendation is to only apply that to properties that are 20,000 square feet in size or less. So anything over 20,000 square feet that it could be taller, the detached ADU could be taller than the primary dwelling. And. Oh and then there was a comment that came in during our Planning Commission public hearing process and they had an example of a one-story existing detached accessory structure and they were concerned that the way it was written that they wouldn't be able to do and convert that to an ADU for their family either rental or non-rental. But they were concerned about that, and so the Planning Commission recommended some clarification, and so the recommended language is to add, when you're doing a conversion, add the language that if it's an existing legal accessory structure, that is one story, there's no loft or upper area living, but it is taller than 15 feet. This example that we had was only 17 feet, but it was taller than 15 feet. It could still be considered for an ADU or extended living area, if the converted habitable space meets the 10-foot side mirror setback. So they recommended just clarifying that to make sure that people have a path forward, which is what the state requires us, that there is a path, there is a process for conversions. um lastly there's no uh specific code change on this one but the the planning commission wanted us to consider in the future this section of the code was not publicly noticed so we are unable to unless we go back and start the process again and doing the notice But they had wanted to look at the accessory structure section to not on larger lots of like 40,000 square feet or 60,000 square feet or more, just larger lots to not have when you have an ADU to have that take up the square footage allowance that you're allowed. So that's not something that's in the proposal now or that we can amend now. But in the future, if you directed us, we could go back and look at that.

I think that is enough. Thank you, Melissa. OK. So additional? Ms. Christensen.

Let's hope these make sense now that I've scrawled them everywhere. OK. Rear yard percentage, in our code we say it can only be 25%. We're keeping that. Just confirming.

There are some alternative maximums as well. I don't know if we have that chart in here.

I thought it was the smaller of the two. It is the smaller of the two. So the maximum it would be is 25% of your yard.

25% or 750 square feet, whichever is less in most lots in Sandy. It does scale up as you move up in lot size to 1,000 or 1,500.

Totally. Okay. Yeah. Conversion. I'm hearing that's required of us.

That there's a path, some type of a process for conversion.

I would prefer our path to be that they move their existing structure or cut that part off. Because I don't think... Like, it doesn't make any sense in my head to say that you can have the same spot. You can keep your shed against the fence line, but you can't use the 10 feet of it. Like, I just don't think that's realistic.

So the intent there is that it retains its existing use and purpose as a shed or garage or storage.

That's fine, but then they're not converting it.

That portion could not be converted. it would have to be at least 10 feet away in order for some of that space to be converted. So what that means is the entirety of that existing accessory building could not be converted if it encroached within that 10 foot setback.

So I don't like that.

OK.

It's OK. Yeah. I don't want to, like if it's that close, I don't want them to be able to put an ADU that close to the wall. No, they could keep it there. They would just say this 10 feet is storage. And the rest of the building is for you to live in. It just doesn't seem realistic to me. So you know my thoughts. It doesn't mean much. I don't like balconies or decks at all. I don't think that if we're allowing people to build detached ADUs in their yards and I'm living next to them, it's the animal situation from being a nuisance. I don't want someone 15 feet up or whatever the rule is looking into my yard. I don't like that at all, so I would prefer we get rid of those. The parking reduction near transit, I don't want to reduce the parking. I don't think that if it's within half a mile of transit, the only area that affects is District 1, and there's not a lot of areas that qualify that are over 11,000 square feet. But we already have a problem with parking in those areas. And so I do not want to reduce that. I would rather keep it at two. OK, the 40,000 square feet. It says if you have a lot at 40,000 square feet, you can have the ADU in the front yard, as long as it meets the front yard setback. So you'd be driving along. You'd have a home there that's on a 40,000 square foot lot. And then right next to it, you'd have a tiny home, right? And it looked like there were two homes on the same lot. Is that what we're seeing?

That's why we did these. Oh, went too far. replacing there we go so in this image you can see these darker colored boxes so 10542 what what it says is that within this dashed line is where the building setbacks for the primary structure are on that lot meaning that home could be built up to that red line In this instance, that home is set way far back from that front property line. So what this says is that you could have a detached ADU in that area, but it would have to meet the primary setbacks of the primary structure, meaning they could do an addition now and extend their home all the way forward.

So you're making your own house a flat lot, basically.

I'm sorry?

You're making your own house a flat lot. Now your home is like, we have a couple in historic area, and they're awful. And I don't think they promote your neighborhood at all. And so I don't like that requirement. I don't want them to be able to be in front of the homes.

Yeah, and it only would apply for lots of 40,000 square feet or larger.

Totally understand. Don't like it. Sure. The lot coverage, you said something on a slide. Don't ask me which one. That a shed plus an ADU would equal your total amount of like the 750 square feet you could build. So if your shed was like 200 square feet, you could only have a 550 square foot ADU? Total, right? Okay, I just want to make sure I understand that. On a smaller lot. Yeah.

It starts eating into your total potential size.

Okay.

Because you still can't exceed the total of 750 square feet or 25% of the rear yard.

Okay. And that's – if someone had two accessory structures, not even an ADU, but just two storage – I still would like to see penalties come forward at the same time for people who don't comply. I do like the 11,000 square feet. That's quarter acre lots only and larger, right?

That's a quarter acre, right? Yeah, roughly. As for the planning, I'm just giving you my rundown here. As for the planning commission recommendations, I don't like number one or two. I don't like number three because I think that's just a detached ADU. I don't know. Yeah, like the breezeway just makes it a detached ADU, in my opinion, so I don't like that. Number four, I don't have any problems with. Number five, I don't like. Number eight, I don't like. Number nine, I don't like. And number seven, did you mean that you wanted to, like I know it's future, but like with an animal rights, like it would make it so that it, because they're larger lots, it doesn't scale? Which way?

So they're looking to expand for lots that exceed 40,000 square feet. Right now, the maximum by right is 2,000 square feet of accessory building size. What the Planning Commission expressed was wanting to re-look at that to allow for additional square footage by right. So through a conditional use permit, they can seek a 25% increase beyond that 2,000 square feet. But they feel like those are too tight or too restrictive for large lots like 40,000 square feet or six. There's no bracket for 60 or 80 or or such Yeah, they're on the same scale there so they wanted us to relook at that especially considering these ad use and not wanting to Constrain them further Yes

That's to drop it to 10,000, right? I want to keep it at 11. Okay. And number six?

No.

No.

Eight? No. I'm a lot of no's. Sorry.

But this is one person.

Yeah, it's just one person. I know. They're going to get seven at this information, I'm assuming. And nine was a no as well. Okay. Thank you. Thanks. Just taking notes. Thank you.

OK, so I'd love to share just thoughts. I have a couple of questions, most of my questions you've already addressed. So I'm going to skip over those. Let me make sure I start with, I'm not going to even ask that one. I don't think it's a good use of our time. I can do that one separately. Let me make sure I'm not, yeah, I'm going to hold off. That one can wait too. So I'm just going to share high level, because I know what you're hoping or seeking is just where are we in response to what you've presented, and what might you need to hear from us, and then what might you do with what you hear, which could be very diverse from one to another. So overall as I reviewed all of these things that I'm gonna kind of tailor my feedback to the recommendations towards the end that the Planning Commission encouraged because I feel like that would be the most helpful to you is Kind of relative to what they were already thinking my goal And I feel, to a large degree, you're accomplishing the goal. My goal is twofold. We need to provide as much flexibility as we can within what we feel comfortable doing. The whole reason we are considering these things is because we have a housing crisis and Sandy City is trying to do its part and we have to be responsive to what state law is doing my understanding is if we don't do anything then by October 1st state law just kicks in and then we lose any of our ability to shape this correct

More or less, yes. We just have to adopt their minimum standards. And so we'd like to get our standards put in place as far as other placement design setback articulated prior to their code going into effect. All of the mays that we can do, we want to ensure that we have in place.

Yeah, that's true. Correct. OK. So for me, flexibility for homeowners within what we feel is appropriate is the lens through which I am seeing all of the recommendations from the Planning Commission. And then thinking also about construction costs. As we are looking to give homeowners flexibility within the parameters we design, are we also considering how we make these additional structures possible at the lowest cost possible? So I saw some recommendations that I felt like aligned to both of those that I think are the priorities for me. So I like number three. I'm just calling it the breezeway. I feel like it has the opportunity to touch every single lot in Sandy. And because I'm after flexibility.

This would apply to interior IEDUs, interior accessory dwelling units. So it does apply to all single family homes.

Yeah, that's what I'm clarifying. So again, if one of my criteria, if one of the things I'm looking for is flexibility and helping homeowners see potential in staying in Sandy, in their children potentially living in Sandy, all of the things that we've been discussing for several years now. So that's one of the reasons I like that. And I think that one also is a lower cost. It helps them accomplish the goal as a lower cost, as long as it's done within our parameters. So I like, OK. I like number five. I like the 10,000 threshold. I think that, based on what I calculated, that increases eligibility by about 5% of the homes, right? That's what you said in the report. Yeah. The one thing I would recommend is perhaps we identify a specific date by which we will revisit this. And what is the data we will use as the criteria by which we determine, yes, this is working or no, it is not. And I know that doesn't necessarily get written into the ordinance. But it is. I think that would be helpful. So for example, we're looking at permit volume, complaints received, billed costs, averages, et cetera. So just a thought there. I also feel like, with my criteria in mind, I feel like number nine The Planning Commission's recommendation number nine is a good one, clarifying that a single story shed garage workshop can convert. Again, habitable space, I totally understand that, meets the setback. I think this is a cost savings for the homeowner while operating within what we feel is appropriate. because it allows several pieces of the build to, I guess, be skipped because we already have a structure that we can work from. So I like those. So those are the ones I feel like, and I think, again, this is a first pass. You're coming back, so I won't belabor, but I wanted to at least signal what's important to me. And I know I'm one of seven. But I want to be thinking about homeowners and what we can allow them to do with their property and how we can help them maximize that property in a way that provides some flexibility and low cost should they decide this is something that could help meet their needs. And I see Mr. DeKeyser's hand. Mr. DeKeyser?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to echo a lot of those comments. I really like where Chair Haussmann is going. It seems to me reminiscent of outcomes-based philosophies that she's talked about before. And so I think we need to think about this in terms of what is the outcome that we want as a city, what is most likely to happen, and where are we going to allow that? So with that in mind, there's just two comments I wanted to make in addition. I would love to see an exception on lot sizes for parcels within a station area. I think that outside of that, you're going to have these set up by the wealthy east side residents who are looking to downsize to age in place. That's what's gonna happen, because they're super expensive. To meet affordability type housing goals, I think it would be really great to have a station area exception built in. The only other thing I wanted to address is parking. I've said before, I'm on the way progressive end of the parking scale. But I do not think that it should be based on square footage. Instead, it should be based on bedrooms. Parking demand is based on the number of people living in a place, not the size of the unit. So for example, an 800 square foot one bedroom ADU shouldn't necessitate an additional parking spot compared to a 600 square foot ADU that's also one bedroom. And I just think that bedrooms are a better metric for potential occupancy and thus regulating parking demand. Thank you.

Ms. Nickel?

Thank you. A couple questions. Okay. I know what a conditional use permit is. What is a special use permit? What does that entail?

It's basically a permitted use, but we are reviewing the criteria to make sure they have everything. There might be conditions of approval, but it's basically a permitted use, administrative review by staff. And the turnaround time is pretty quick. We don't need to go to the planning commission. The criteria is not subjective.

It is clear and objective. The state says we cannot require conditional use, but we are getting special use permits.

And we do that now for accessory apartments or internal ADUs.

They're permitted use as long as all of the criteria are met.

Can variances be given on an ADU or the other thing?

Not on a use. ELA? Well, uses are broadly not allowed as a variance. Variance, OK. A land use. If there's features on the lot that strictly prohibit you from meeting a standard, then there's potential if you can meet all the criteria for variance. You can always apply, but the Board of Adjustment must go by the strict criteria in the state law.

Which is very difficult to achieve. It's a very high bar.

And we're removing guest house and the definition of guest house. That's correct.

It's being replaced by the detached ADU definition.

I got a lot of comments. I'll put some others. Those were just some things I wanted to get out of way, so I had other questions. But go to somebody else for a minute.

Let me go to Ms. Stroud. Okay, Ms. Stroud.

Thank you. I am on the very opposite end of the spectrum of a lot of comments here. I really think this has the potential to dramatically change our neighborhoods. I would much prefer to say, let's take the state minimums and let's fill it out. Let's see where we're at. To start adjusting that, to build a brand new external ADU, a cottage, whatever it is, $200,000 to $400,000 to do that here in Sandy, Utah. There is no zero part of me that says somebody is going to say, this is going to make this home affordable for me. I'm going to build a 400. I'm going to buy this home, and I'm going to build an affordable housing unit in the back for $400,000, and I'm going to add that to my mortgage. There's no part of me that thinks that. We have a problem, a housing problem. I get that. But that's, I mean, to start reducing and to make a lot of changes right off the bat to me is unwise. I mean, that's the state did a lot of consideration on this. They spent a lot of time. And we have seen the state do some pretty dramatic things and things that we don't care for as a city. And we've said, the state's stepping on our toes. They're stepping on our toes. They have been more progressive than the council has wanted to at certain times. And I think we look at this and we go, well, they were a little hesitant on some of this and said, this is what we think. Let's see what this does. Because we know if the state thinks, oh, you know what, we want to go down to 5,000 square foot lots and we want to allow this, they're going to mandate it. They're going to require us to do that. And then we have to do that. But right now, let's take what they have done and let's run with it for a couple of years. Let's see what it does. How much will it really impact our neighborhoods? And maybe it doesn't. Maybe somebody looks and says, there is no way I'm spending $200,000 to $400,000 on an external ADU. I'm just not going to do it. So it doesn't provide a significant impact to us. And I know I am way off on an island by myself. But I'm like, you know what? Let's just go with what the state says. Let's see what it does. Let's watch. Let's learn. I like the idea of coming back and revisiting this, giving it a year or 18 months, whatever it takes. Take a look at it, and let's evaluate it at that point. What has it done to these lots? How many have we had? Have we had people come in and say, Here's my, I have $300,000, I wanna go right in the middle there, yet I can't because I only have an 8,000 square foot home, or a lot. Let's track that data. Let's see how many people are wanting or desiring this, and if we're not getting that, okay then maybe we've landed in the right area and maybe the state what they have put forward and their research their input is is sufficient so I know I'm on that far into it but for me like you know what let's just take it you can't roll it back you can't say you know what we're going to debt to loosen all of this these these different suggestions we're gonna loosen it up and And then, oh boy, what did we do? We didn't realize this problem and this complication and how this has impacted this area. How do we tighten it up? We can't do that. So let's just start with small incremental steps. This is a step. This is a big step. So I'm more of that. Here we go. There's my two cents on it, which I know the penny is now out of. So, hey, maybe it's not worth anything, but say we go with the state stuff.

Ms. Nichol.

I think I've pinned down what my problem is. I think it is the ELA. And I think they're different enough that they both need a section in code because – So in ELA, you can add additional square footage, whereas an ADU in an existing structure has to be within the original structure. It has to be contained within, right?

No, we can do additions.

On the ADU? Or in an internal? Because didn't it say in an existing space?

It can be within the existing, but it can also be attached.

but can you make it bigger?

Like an addition.

Oh, okay. Yeah. Okay. And so ELA is, it can be a pool house with a wet bar.

Well, if it's external, yeah. It would be a habitable space external if that was the detached, yeah.

It would be a pool house or a gym, right? Could have a shower. Yes. That would be considered an ELA. I think

I mean, we get the building permits that oftentimes they are disguised as one thing, but they end up being used as another. But the main thing is that this structure is being used as a habitable space and is more intensive use. And if we just regulate it as a normal accessory structure, you can be very, very close to the property.

But an ELA that's a gym. You're going to have somebody go in there three times a week, impact low, relatively low. You have an ELA that's a two-bedroom, two-bath, that's a higher intensity, and it's the same, listed as the same in our code. So it's the use that is critical for me and the amount of intensity of that use that is going to increase to the neighborhood. It's not necessarily a club, a pool house, something like that. So the intensity, very low. So that's the way I look at it in my mind is how big is this impact going to be on the neighbors. So I just wanted to get that out there kind of when I had it in my mind. But that's the way I'm kind of looking at it right now. Did you have one? Not yet. Sorry. Oh.

Okay.

So I guess with a broad brush here, because there's a lot of detail in here, right? I am going to side with Councilmember Stroud on what I see as the wisdom of taking the conservative approach in terms of implementation and learning lessons along the way. So I'd rather dial back to what the state has mandated. And again, like I said, learn those lessons. I doubt that floodgates of construction are going to open up overnight, but I think we do have a lot to learn. And I'd like to take... this education that we're about to embark on and make some good decisions for our community and maybe even hone in on those decisions about where we might have gone too far. So I think I too would start at 11,000 square feet. Just parking. So parking, if you're within a half mile of a transit station on a 650 square foot DADU, you wouldn't have to increase parking at all, period. I don't like that, right? So I am with Ms. Christensen on this. No one's going to build a garage or a carport or something for a one-bedroom ADU. So what you're going to wind up with is a spot on the driveway. And that's not a bad thing. Again, it's one of those things I think we can watch for and learn and refine. But I'd rather... It would be great if we could come up with a perfect parking calculation, but I'd rather over-park than under-park, starting out and then make decisions along the way. And regarding, isn't that the one parking space for 652 for over 60? That came from state code, right?

That's as much as we can require, yes.

But that came from state code. Correct. So as to Mr. DeKeyser's, statement that we ought to match it to bedrooms, we have to match it to state code on this, correct?

You could tie a little bit to bedrooms. But what it says is that you can't regulate or require more than one additional stall. for DADU that's under 650, and you can't require more than two for something that's over 650.

So that's the way I'd like our code to read.

And it's giving us the maximum we're allowed. We don't have to require any parking.

But I don't want to do the reduction on proximity to a transit station.

And I noted that down.

Just a question for staff. When we first looked at this back in April, when you came to us with some concepts and just random bias, we were talking about the maximum building... coverage, was it coverage or size? Or size, yeah. Was it size or was it? It's coverage. Of 50 to 75. Now we didn't, I even watched the meeting all over again, 50 to 75%. We didn't really directly answer the question, but it's coming back to us now at 75.

75% of the footprint of the main building. Yeah. Primary dwellings. Well, actually, I did go through that as to previous – because there was some different opinions, so it was kind of generally – But I did notice that our proposal was consistent with everything we heard as a kind of majority in general from the council originally. The only thing different was if you wanted to specify a maximum square footage number flat out like no more than 1,500 square feet, no more than 1,000 square feet period. You know, that's the one thing that it's more of a relative size relative to the size of the main home, but it's also relative to the lot coverage of the rear yard, similar to accessory structures.

So once again, it's the either-or equation that you have.

You've included in here, OK. Yeah, so they are considered accessory structures and would count towards the total number of accessory buildings and the total coverage of the rear yard. But this would just state that in no case could it be more than 75% of the main dwelling's footprint. And again, that's trying to get it to the point where we're not approving a structure that is both taller and bigger than the primary structure, that they are by design ancillary to and subordinate to.

Which is consistent with the general plan direction policies adopted.

Okay I'm good with that then. Thank you for that. I think I had it a little bit twisted.

We had talked about like instituting the maximum size or something like that but we decided as we were viewing this that it would be better to regulate it based on the context of the lot and the coverage of the total rear yard area. than throwing out an arbitrary maximum.

But you could have a secondary structure that is 75% of the primary dwelling building coverage and that is also 75% of the square footage of the primary dwelling. Could it wind up that way? So let's say you had a, your primary home is 4,000 square feet. Could you have a detached ADU that was 3,000 square feet under this rule?

Depending on the lot.

No, 2,000 square feet is the max here. Lots that are over 4,000 square feet, there's 25% of rear lot coverage or 2,000 square feet, whichever is less.

And that's the footprint of the ADU.

Yeah, the footprint. But then you'd also have... Yeah, then you'd still be, if you had a 4,000 square foot home, you'd still have a, you'd be able to meet that 75% of the footprint of the main home. That is if the footprint of the main home was.

2,000 square feet is the footprint, not the total square footage.

Exactly.

Okay.

So if you had a basement, you could double that. And so.

And if you had a second story on top of that you could. And met all the setbacks. To 6,000 square feet. And the height.

If you met all of those criteria. You could. But if you had a single story home under our proposed regulations it couldn't be taller than the primary.

And I want to stick with that. I think I saw something from the planning commission that on a large lot you could.

For 20,000 square foot or larger they didn't want to apply that rule.

Yeah. I. I would want to keep it. It's either accessory and it's subservient or it's not, right? And so...

It is possible for the council if you want to have a set, you know, the total habitable area may not exceed, you know. We can have multiple criteria that they meet in a building permit. We just calculate those out to make sure they meet those. Other cities do have a maximum amount. Right now, as the proposal is, it's... trying to have it scaled to the size of the lot, making sure the footprint is no bigger than the main house footprint. It's going to be no taller than the main house. And it's, you know, so anyway, it's ultimately up to the council in terms of that size. But it's very good that you understand we're talking about the footprint. Well, yeah.

Yeah. Well, it's good to understand that because that's not the maximum size of the structure. That's right. It's just the maximum size of the footprint of the structure, which could also have a basement and a second story.

And that's why we did those test fits to kind of illustrate to you all to see how these rules would apply.

Yeah, so later at your leisure, if you look closely at those slides, it calculates out that Mike had gone through what would be the feasible footprint.

And note that they can't go to a second story unless that box is fully within the allowable setback area of a primary structure, as though it were attached.

And to that issue, the subject of decks and balconies, I don't know why we would restrict the DADU from something that the main, provided that the setbacks are met, right? Restrict the DADU from something that would be granted to the main building.

That was the logic behind that.

So the breezeway issue, disconnecting the ADU or extended living area by a breezeway. Does that make it attached instead of detached?

Correct.

So that could be a problem. That could be a problem.

Yeah, you could go, technically you could have a breezeway and then it could be twice the size of the main. It could be considered as part of the main house.

It could be the workaround for wanting to give yourself more accessory dwellings, units in the backyard, right? Yeah. So that could be a problem.

They'd still only be limited to one detached ADU, but you can have one attached ADU.

But if you're in a larger lot or an A designation, then it gives you, I think what we want to do is prevent filling up the yard with structures, right? It would be really limited on the smaller lots, but on the larger lots, it might be. It might be a workaround just to get more buildings.

That's why we attach these examples because these have been workarounds that have been used in the past which is why the code was written the way it is as far as an internal ADU or an attached ADU needing to have some measure of attachment or connection that wasn't kind of a cheap way to try to get a much, much larger building.

Is it also to give the main home more continuity so it looked like all one structure?

It remains the character of a single family home. Whereas these examples, I think, start making it look like it's not a single family home. Those look like two single family homes on a lot as opposed to a single home.

So I think the breezeway needs to go away I don't think we need to have it any type of breezeway requirement Nowadays we have so many other options To for them to build and I think they can build an addition or whatever. It's The concept of a breezeway is kind of dated right now as we look at this in particular So I have a question the parking on an interior area and exterior is the same?

No.

I think it needs to be. That's just what I'm thinking.

So state law restricts us from having additional parking for an internal ADU.

I'm doing the Brook thing and being targeted with my likes and dislikes. I think it needs to be the same, the parking on an internal and external. You're creating the same amount, right?

However, we are prohibited by the state from requiring additional parking on an internal ADU. So we can require four off street parking. So for example, in Historic Sandy, We have a lot of homes that are not compliant with our parking requirements for a two-car attached garage and a two-car off-street parking. In order to have an ADU in those situations, they have to bring it up to the standard, two-car attached or detached, and then two-car off-street, in order to have an internal ADU.

I hear you.

I got you.

OK. I think that we limit any parcel to one ADU and one ELA period, no more than one. I don't know. I think that this is kind of on the extreme, and I would like to talk about letting ADUs within the existing structure everywhere in the city. So you're not in – there's – within the footprint, right, where I think that reaches a whole bunch –

Are you talking detached ADUs or attached?

No, it's not. OK. OK, never. OK. Yeah, they're all there. Well, I think I want to go down to R18. Maybe not quickly, but I think we're missing the mark when we put it only at 11,000 square feet. It's not helping the people that this kind of was targeted around from the legislature. I know I'm kind of off on that, but I'm not. I would like to explore that one day, but I think 10,000 is reasonable. So that's all for right now. OK. Good.

Ms. D'Souza. Thank you. OK. So my list of questions and comments. My first question is, and I think I know the answer, but I just want to confirm. Do we require a traditional rental of a home? Do we require a business license be obtained? We don't even have a business license for a regular rental, right?

Not for the whole house.

Yeah.

Not for the whole house, no.

OK.

We require a commercial business license if they have four units or more.

OK. So just so there's no surprise, is that something that I will be working on this year? And I've kind of mentioned it, but I do want to look at creating a rental business license for all rental homes in the city. Because I mean, we're covering it here with the short-term rental and even the accessory structure, which acts as a regular Extended more than 30 day rental. It doesn't make sense that there's disparity there Okay, so on the breezeway if this is considered Internal or excuse me attached. I'm gonna start using that terminology attached How does that affect like the setbacks? I guess what setbacks would this attached structure be working in because it's for all intents and purposes in my opinion It's a detached structure. That's you know, I Yeah. So what kind of setbacks would the breezeway allow for? Would it be different than the detached?

Oh, if you had an addition, but it was only attached by the breezeway, then it would be considered part of the main house. If that was the way it was structured in the code and thus would have to meet the main house setbacks.

Are they similar to the detached then, or no? Are they more restrictive? Are the setbacks greater in that circumstance?

Yeah. So you have to be further away. So like on this example, the dashed red line on these houses shows where the primary structure setbacks are set. For a detached, they can go as close as 10 feet to any habitable living area. But in most cases they're 20 to 30 feet away from a rear property line and could be no closer than 10 or well if it's attached they could go as close as 8 to 12 or 15 depending on the zone that you're in.

OK. And this is maybe more philosophical, this question slash comment. Bedrooms. So these are accessory structures that have an intended purpose. And they are supposed to be accessory to, with a smaller footprint, serving a smaller situation. But we don't, like, limit the number of bedrooms. So, I mean, there could be six bedrooms in one, and they could all potentially be filled up by different people or, you know, multiple people, right? And so the intent behind this and the use of these, like, are we... intending to potentially have like a full leather you know extended large family occupying these these accessory structures is that like because that's a i don't know like i said it's kind of a philosophical question but um i i haven't seen any conversation or thought given to like maybe limiting the number of bedrooms that could be allowed

You could. It's not currently within the proposal, but that is something that could be instituted to either limit the total square footage, meaning basement, main level, institute, some sort of maximum, or some sort of maximum number of bedrooms.

CARRIE LAURENO- Bedrooms, the state allows us to regulate size. I'm not sure. I'd want to check with our attorney if we could regulate the number of bedrooms. I like the idea, but I just want to check that legality. But there are ways in which, just in the total habitable square footage, that could be limited too. But I'm sure we could accommodate the intent of what you're inquiring about.

And I'm not necessarily saying that bedrooms is the answer, but I do think that We need to be intentional with how we intend for these structures to be used. I think that they're completely appropriate and they do serve a legitimate need, but I also think that we need to be intentional with capping the potential impact to the surrounding neighbors in either square footage or bedrooms. Because council, go ahead. Did you have something you wanted to say? I'll let you interrupt me.

Well, I was just going through the list of thou shalt nots by the state. And one of those is number or type of rooms that we can't regulate. But we can institute a maximum square footage. So if there is some maximum size that you don't want to see these go beyond, There are numerous communities that have instituted that from a range of, you know, very small to quite flexible.

Okay. Because, you know, Council Member DeKaiser, I generally agree with his idea of parking in bedrooms being correlated. You know, I understand that the state has a very specific, you know, calculation for at least, you know, well in some way for the 650 square feet and under, but bedrooms do tend to lead to more vehicles. And so I think that we need to be considerate of that and the types of impacts that those potential decisions have on our neighborhoods and parking and all of that, especially if we can only require x amount of off-street parking. Anyway, I mean, gosh, my neighborhood is full of teenagers right now. And every space everywhere is kind of taken up by multiple cars. And so you compound that with you know, a four or five bedroom accessory dwelling unit And you don't have to mandate or you can't mandate, you know specific parking that could be problematic So you could only mandate up to two. Yeah, so additional I think that we need to cap square footage not just coverage because again if you have a basement that's a problem and again does not meet my thought process on this being accessory with a specific use. Anyway, OK, so that's my thought there. Occupancy restrictions. In your exhibit A, number eight, this is just like a really weird little definition. ADUs shall be used and rented by an additional single family. I don't know that that's like the right way to,

define our word that? I think that is existing language, but there may be another way that we can.

Okay, like persons, and then you have the occupants. It's either occupant or occupants, right? Like we're not necessarily mandating that it be more than one. Anyway, I would just read.

So the phrasing of the language in occupancy is what it's under?

Yeah, 8B is kind of weird. So then I see another potential problem in duration of approval and transferability. So the accessory dwelling unit, the special use permit, does not transfer if the house is sold.

That's right.

I could see that being problematic. When you sell a house, if you have a lease in place and you're two separate households, How do you move? Leases have to be honored, generally, for legal reasons. So you have a lease in place with somebody renting your accessory dwelling, but you have to move for whatever reason. You're a separate household with separate needs. And if that doesn't transfer, then they're living in a place that you can't necessarily kick them out of without taking legal liability because you've broken a lease agreement. So I think that if you are selling and you had it, I don't understand why who buys the place matters. I think it should transfer.

Owner occupancy is the answer to that question.

We have to make sure. Well, OK, but still.

Because if you sold it to a corporate conglomerate that buys up single family homes and then rents that home and continues to rent out the basement, we have a problem.

So transferable provided that the new owner is owner occupied.

So the new owner would have to get their own permit is the way it's currently done. And that's what we're doing for internal ADUs right now. Our existing accessory apartment permits are set up this exact same way. We have not run into this as an issue since we started doing the permits.

OK. So there shouldn't be any issue because it's been permitted and it's really about the owner occupancy and then the structure met the criteria because they had it previously.

Yeah, and I think the sellers are setting up their sales agreements and their lease agreements to not create those issues or conflicts.

They're not. or not necessarily.

Well, at least we haven't been apprised of any issues of this coming up or sellers coming to us or buyers coming to us with issues.

Well, when you have a bunch of owner occupants doing rentals that aren't really familiar with all of the laws and regulations and rules, you're bound to, have uneducated people out there doing things that they should or shouldn't do.

You might have that issue with people that are selling their house in Sandy that don't have a legal accessory apartment, because they are apprised of those regulations when they come in for that permit. So they know exactly what they're getting permission for and what they're not getting permission for.

So long as when a house is sold and the future buyer is intending to and will use it as a primary residence, that they are not going to have an issue taking on that lease and the tenant that's in the place when they buy it. So you're saying that that's not going to be a problem, so long as they're owner occupied.

Correct. And there's ways for that new owner to get a permit

How long does the process take? Not long. And then, let's see, what was my note here? Conversion. I really do. I think the ELA is a problem in our language. I know that it's old, and I know that it's maybe in other places, and it needs to be cleaned up. That would be a recommendation that I have for the work group for the code. ELA is a, I think of it as English language arts. That's what my sense is, my ELA class. Anyway, but I didn't know what it meant for a moment. It kind of stunned my brain. But it's an older term. The terminology has changed with the prevalence and use of these accessory dwelling units or structures. And so if it's meant to be... If it's meant to be inhabited separate from the rest of it, then it's an accessory dwelling unit. And then you've got the rental aspect. Using ADU for a purpose is the wrong terminology. So I think ELA is confusing. But with that, conversion. So existing legal accessory structures constructed prior to blah, blah, blah may be converted to a detached ADU or ELA, right? So ELA is missing from that. I just want to make sure that we're being consistent in the Permits and building of these structures because again the it's it's all about the use I I'm building this but maybe one day I change the use and they should conform to Whatever, you know, we're doing. Otherwise you have people that are doing it under an ELA that Aren't using you know aren't using it that way and then it converts and nobody knows right and then we have a bunch of non-conforming That was a good catch. Thank you and then One of the other things that came up when we first started talking about this, and I don't know how I feel about it, but I'm going to bring it up because we talked about it, like limiting windows in areas that adjoin or abut. I know it kind of says that they'll maintain the appearance of the primary dwelling, yada, yada. What was, we initially talked about maybe like not having windows, like look into somebody else's backyard or like the bedrooms or stuff. What was the thought process about that?

The way the code is right now, but it's up to you, any amendments that you think are appropriate. is that the setbacks, as they are, would address that. If it's just one story, it's 15 feet tall, that it would have a 10-foot setback minimum. And then any taller than that, yeah, you could have windows, but you have to meet the setbacks of the main... Just like the main house would have to meet setbacks. So that was the intent. And so if we can regulate windows through setbacks, basically, with a certain setback, then they're allowed to do certain things.

Well, but you said that 10 feet is... is less than the original footprint of the house setback, like the attached portion of the house. And so I don't know that I feel like it's completely taken care of because the home could have, because we're reducing the setbacks in the detached situation. Is that accurate?

Yes.

By how much? Do you know? I guess it depends.

It depends on the lot and the zoning. But anywhere from 20 to 30 feet is your rear setback for the primary structure. And then on the side, it can range from 8 to 15 feet on the side as a minimum. For a detached ADU, what we're saying is 10 and 10. Can I ask a- And it's limited to a single story.

Can I ask a silly question and anybody can answer? I have a really difficult time determining distance. So from the front of the dais right here, what's approximately 10 feet?

That's how close the two-story building will be.

Okay, so this is like again where I wrestle with like I understand the point of it and I understand that the building still has to conform to like fire code there has to be egress, you know from certain areas and you do that through windows, but I do again like my initial concerns were maintaining the The privacy of the surrounding neighbors as much as possible and I We initially talked about maybe doing that through requiring or restricting windows in certain areas. And so, yes.

We did look at that. You're correct. But as we got further guidance on the state mandates, one of the thou shalt nots is thou shalt not dictate location, design, placement, or architectural styling of a window or door. for a detached ADU?

Well, maybe size. I don't know. Height.

Height. So again, design, placement. So what we can do is- It says design? Yeah. Design and placement.

Well, then how can we dictate that it matches the windows of the main home? Isn't that design?

We're talking attached ADUs. This is talking about detached ADUs. So there's a different set of regulations that we can dictate. So for an attached ADU internal, if they're doing an addition, it still has to maintain character of the existing single family dwelling. For a detached, it does not.

OK, let me ask this. And again, I suck at distances. And how big is 15 feet? And is it possible to inhabit an attic space in that situation, or a loft? Like if you're going to the, so, no.

Under this provision, it's limited to a single story.

There's a possibility of clarifying, you know, just like in the conversion saying, you know, one story, no upper living, no loft space, that, you know, 15 feet with the assumption that you're not using that upper level.

Yeah, I mean, like, it makes sense for, you know, design or vaulted ceilings or whatnot and attic space, but I just, again, if we're trying to Think through this and be intentional then I don't know that we intend for people to inhabit the upper areas of a home Mm-hmm. Anyway, okay. So those are my thoughts. I know that it's late and I'm sorry I'm trying to be quick the Planning Commission I'm fine with number one I'm fine with number two I'm not sure about the breezeway. Maybe. Lighting's fine. I'm fine going to 10,000 square feet even. Six seems to make sense because you're not retrofitting. I don't, I'm not, I'm a no on eight. And number nine, I'm not sure about either. I think I get it. So if there is a garage, so they can't inhabit space. Maybe it's a two-story garage. I don't know. Or what's our building height, 35 feet or something like that?

Typical is 15 to 20 feet for an accessory building, but they could get a conditional use permit to go beyond that.

Okay, so I'm thinking of a specific situation, and it's pretty gosh darn tall, and they have a loft in there that they use for storage and whatnot. You know, that's different because, like Councilmember Nickel said, the frequency of the occupancy is considerably less, given that they're using it as storage space, you know, and extended for a garage. But if it were a retrofit into a garage that's going to be inhabit anyway habitable Inhabited whatever the word is then I think that we need to I get a little bit worried about Retrofitting some of those structures anyway, so I'm not sure about nine and Nine would not allow that scenario that you described. Okay so So but okay, so say they are two feet from whatever They're two feet from the property line and so they have to have a dead space of eight feet from the back of the building to where the The habitable space is but then you can't put windows Necessarily, I mean, I guess you can but you're kind of covered dark area. It just seems weird. I'm not sure that I agree with nine from a practical standpoint and Okay. I think that's, I think I've covered it right. Okay. Those were, okay. Thank you. Those are my questions and comments. Ms. Christensen?

Really quick. I loved your suggestion about limiting square footage. I think that actually solves At least most of my concerns. I don't know if other people, it kind of feels like other people in the council are feeling that way as well. The average size of an apartment is between 600 and 1,200 square feet. So why would we allow an ADU that's like 4,000 square feet? That's way bigger than my house. So I think that if we want to, if we could consider that, that would be really helpful. Mm-hmm. and solve a lot of the issues.

I like that. Does that include above grade and below grade, like basement?

Yeah.

Okay, that would include total square footage. Total square footage. Finished square footage, I guess.

Yeah, finished, yeah.

Okay, I've honed in on the rest of my comments. Is that okay, Marcy? Okay. I'm looking at the red line right now.

Mm-hmm.

And section... D to transfer deed or fee title owner. I don't know if those are the correct terms. Would it be trust deed and lease? I don't think it's fee title. Is it pre-de Sousa? It says the ownership type is free title owner. Yeah, wouldn't it be fee simple? And then are those the – I'm just – those are two legal questions. I don't know if you guys know that.

It's fee title. Really? Yeah.

I looked it up in the dictionary. It wasn't there. Okay. No worries. And on the next section – B, there's no date in the utility statement, like the others all have dates. Would you put dated within the calendar year on that one?

OK, good.

And the utility hookups, so you can't have You're saying you can't have secondary or the subordinate unit can't have its own electricity, right?

Yeah, separate meters. That's what we have right now.

You couldn't sell the unit if it wasn't separately metered. So I don't think the section about selling in here, you won't be able to sell it, shall not be sold separately or subdivided is really necessary.

I think it's important to include. Okay. No worries. You get people that will go and take a deed down to the county without city approval and record it to create an illegal subdivision. We want it to be implicitly clear that that is not an OK. That's not the intent.

Gotcha.

All right. At least not right now.

Not right now.

OK. Modular homes are OK?

if they're on a permanent foundation. So if it's a prefab, that's another way to reduce costs that are much cheaper than building brand new. Prefab units is the great way to get these into a property without exorbitant costs.

And I think I already said this, but I just want 15 feet tall period, no two straight structures. like this on any property. Okay, very good.

Brooke also seems to like that idea. And Allison also seems to like that idea.

About it last time, we talked about one or one and a half, but not two when we talked about it back in April. Where we came to this was if it was allowed as an attached,

with meaning that if they attach the ADU within that footprint of the home, wouldn't we allow it as a detached as long as it met those same setbacks? That's where we came to as our conclusion. But you can disagree, and you can motion something different. But I'm just explaining. You said within the footprint. I'm sorry?

You said within the footprint.

Sorry, within the allowable area of the primary dwelling where it can go. So if it's attached to the house or detached, as long as it's within that footprint, we thought if you would allow it for an attached addition to the home, why wouldn't you allow it as a detached?

Not on a detached. Let me specify. Not over 15 on a detached.

And you can specify that. I'm just explaining the staff's recommendation.

Anything else?

Actually, can I so just I don't have a question but the process What is the expectation here?

So it has to be done by the first and we don't have a meeting next week So we're scheduled on the agenda for the 15th to come back And that's when you could you could make a decision then Okay, that's perfect just what's on the record the 22nd is the other date that's tentatively scheduled if you need an extra week and

I think we're done.

Okay.

Thank you both very much for being so thorough with all those, answering all those questions. Okay, do we need a break or? I need a solid yes, yes, yes. Yeah, let's take a break. We'll be back in. Okay, it has to be 10, though. Oh, yeah. Don't stretch 10.

OK. So we're going to take a 10 minute recess. Is that accurate? OK. Great.

Recording stopped.

We are moving on. Oh, no we're not, because we're not recording yet.

Recording in progress.

All right. We are continuing. Thank you, everyone, as we took our break. I see movement over here. So as we move on to our consent calendar. Go ahead.

Motion to approve the consent calendar.

Second. All right. We have a motion and a second. And we can just do a voice vote on this. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? And just checking if Mr. DeKaiser is back with us. Not. Not yet? OK, but that passed. Oh, yes, Ms. Edwards.

Madam Chair, who was the second on that since we had multiple?

We'll call Ms. Stroud. Thank you for clarifying. OK, so we're going to move on to our next item. Mr. Mecham, I believe, is presenting our argument in favor of the general obligation bond.

Thank you very much. That is correct. All right, so we added some items in the packet, and the objective tonight is to talk about the items. I put a memo in, and I have an update. So we wrote the memo on Friday morning, and since the memo was written, we received two notices to put an argument in. So one came from a resident for an argument for, and another came for an argument against. So then what will happen is, is those were just notices. We haven't received the actual arguments yet. So the one that you have in your packet is an argument for. It's incumbent upon the city to create an argument for, assuming that no one else does. So if there's an argument for that's drafted, that's the one in your packet. then by September 4th, which is Friday, we should have another argument for. Since there are two argument fors, then it's up by state statute, it's up to the city elections official, which is Wendy Downs, to select between the two arguments. Then also by September 4th, on Friday, the argument against should be received. Then the recorder has one day to turn those around. So once we have an argument for and an argument against, then they are swapped and given to the authors of the arguments. And then there's a period of time where they have to write a rebuttal, 250 words. So then that all goes into the pamphlet that you're looking at. So the pamphlet, the eight-page pamphlet is what will contain the arguments, but 1,500 words have to fit into that pamphlet that's going out. So that's the update to the memo. I'll pause, see if there's any questions about that before we move on.

MS. Ms. Christensen? MS. So if two, four arguments are being submitted,

We have to adopt one tonight, but Wendy Downs would compare the one that's being submitted to the one that we adopt and then decide.

And then she would solely decide? Correct.

As per state statute.

Not the county?

No. Oh, okay. Yeah, yeah. It was the city election official who would decide between the two argument floors.

Can they only take two, or can they combine them? Well, now they can only...

I mean, you know what I mean? Can they... No. No, I don't mean this. Just this one or this one. Okay. That's all she's doing.

Okay. I think we're... Oh, no. Go ahead, Ms. Sharkey.

So... Well, so... Just the law states that we have to, that the city has to come up with an argument for, correct? The law states that. So despite the fact that we've received one from a resident, we still have to produce one. What if we can't agree? What if tonight on this argument we cannot agree and we cannot pass a resolution that adopting an argument in favor? Is there any world in which that could happen?

Predicting the future, I would say that Wendy would select the residents as the argument for it.

Well, so, you know, the chair just made the comment we have to adopt. Do we have to? What if we're unable to? Is that okay?

I think you have a proposal in front of you. I assume I haven't seen it. Correct. If there's no effort to amend that, no consensus on amending it, then the statement you have before you will be presented to the election official as the statement from the city.

So the resolution, the vote on a resolution is not necessary?

Well, if the... I think the reason Ryan is here tonight is to get the council feedback on what you want. If there's no consensus on what you want, the city will still draft a statement. And they have.

My 800 friend Brian is here.

Yeah, so I'm just reading from state statute 59-1, 16-04, which was referenced by our bond counsel. It says, the governing body of a taxing entity shall submit to the election officer an argument in favor of a ballot proposition. So that, to me, says we must do it. And if two or more eligible voters wish to submit an argument for or an argument against a ballot proposition, the election officer shall designate one of the eligible voters to submit the argument.

Madam chair can I comment on this because I had a conversation with Randy Larson our bond counsel about this exact question last week you know on Friday actually and I asked that same question what happens if the council can't come to a conclusion on the resolution and he said essentially what Brian said he said the city shall submit an argument and so The resolution isn't necessary. I included a resolution because the last time we did a general obligation bond, you adopted it by resolution. And there's an argument for continuity. Let's do it the same way that we've done it. And the next time, let's do it the same way again. But you may notice that in the staff report, and this was also what I discussed with bond counsel, they said, hey, if there's been an argument created, and if the council doesn't adopt a resolution to select one or to amend it, then the one that was provided should be submitted. Because again, the state statute doesn't necessarily describe that a resolution is required So it's a little foggy because it does say the governing body shall do it. And I wish I had a better Better news for you on that. But I think that one will have to get submitted, whether you make changes to the one presented tonight, whether you adopt it, whether you don't adopt it. I think it's incumbent on us to do so. And that's the same, exactly what bond counsel told me on Friday as well. I don't want to speak for them, but that's what I was told.

I'm wondering why the pessimism. No? Isn't the council just going to agree on language and we're going to pass it in about 15 minutes and move to the next item? Yes.

Are you a comedian all of a sudden, Tracy?

Yes is the answer to that rhetorical question.

Was bond council, did they advise you on who chose the ones, like Wendy? Because I didn't see that in anything that the bond council said.

Yeah, it's in the state statute. It's the city election official.

Can we get that verified through the bond council?

We did talk to Randy about it. And he said that almost without exception that the one that's selected is the one that the city's drafted.

I'm not asking that. I'm asking if Wendy, if there's more than one, who does the choosing? If you could, Dustin, would you verify that with?

Yeah, I just read. We have verified that with bond counsel. We have verified that. I'm sorry.

Yeah, that's part of what I just read. It says the election officer shall designate one of the eligible voters to submit.

So that's the first item. So the one that what Dustin did in the resolution was refer to the argument. And so we pulled that argument out so it's a one pager so you can see that separate from everything else. then the next thing that's in your packet then is the Gilmore Bell memo that they gave to us with the dates. And so what that says is that then the resident who said that they will put an argument for has until September 4th, and the resident said that they have an argument against, they have until September 4th. So assuming that that takes place, you know, let's call it the end of the day on September 4th they arrive, Wendy would turn that around. the Monday, and send them to, you know, make a decision, send them, and then they have until September 18 to do the rebuttals. And so that then holds up the whole voter information pamphlet. that this goes inside can't go out to the voters until all that's received and closed out. So September 18, all that has to be received and what that equals then is basically 1,500 words. 750 words for, 750 words against. And all of that gets put into the voter information pamphlet, which is the other copy that you have in here. And a lot of what's in the voter information pamphlet is also driven by statute. We've run this by a bond council, so the public meeting, the dates, the election dates, the verbiage on those things have been run by council. Then there's a blank spot in here for the argument for and against. Now there will be an argument for, argument against, a rebuttal to the for, and a rebuttal to the against. So this will morph. What I'm saying is that the voter information pamphlet will morph because only once we get those in It'll have to be readjusted to make room for that. So that's the overall plan of what we're doing regarding the arguments and the voter information pamphlet.

Questions? I don't have a question. I think it's pretty straightforward. But I do have some thoughts to share with my colleagues. So I think we're good.

Great.

Yeah. OK. So earlier we did receive some recommendations from staff as well. which I think is part of tonight's conversation. So I'm going to just kind of kick off the conversation about what's been shared, because there was a lot in what staff drafted that I really, really like. So I'm going to kick off those conversations. I did share some little, you know, the teacher in me shared a few things. So there were a few typo things that I've already shared. But I want to just say that I support the adjustments that Dustin and Justin have recommended. And I think it's important that I share a little bit why and then would love to hear from council colleagues. At first, some of the changes that they shared might be interpreted as weakening the argument. I think they actually do the opposite. I think they strengthen it. So as we all know, because it was just shared, exactly this process, what this argument is not just a standalone. The argument that gets published is printed in the voter pamphlet directly beside the argument that will be, because we are anticipating an argument against. And so every claim we make. is beyond what is just in the argument itself. And so I think there's a few things that I I really like about the new version. I'll just call it the recommended, whatever we want to call it. I think the original draft, it states Canyons will sell it to developers. And though I understand that there's offers and that could be likely, I feel like we cannot prove intent. The eventual buyer might be somebody else. I think it's important that... everything that we put in the argument is just very, very fact-based and not necessarily causing alarm unnecessarily, et cetera. So that's one change that I really liked. Let's see. And I believe the language of something like a private buyer will decide how the land is used, or something like that. Anyway, I also want to strike, and I think the new version is closer to what I think reflects just fact-based language. I had some concerns around language like dictated by outside interests, gone for good, somewhere our children can touch grass. I understand why that might have been put in there, but I feel like it was perhaps unnecessarily emotional language. And so I kind of like the staff version. I feel like it's really the same argument but done in kind of a fact-based way so I think it's important that we we stick to facts not emotion I also really like that we are we are saying plainly that this is a 30 million dollar ceiling we're very clear about issuing only a portion I think again disclosing that that's the ceiling and that we're asking voters to decide I like that. So for those reasons, there's other pieces, but those are the things I wanted to pull out. I would like to support the staff language that has been shared with us. I'd like to see that be what we end up adopting tonight. I recognize we've been told that Wendy will have the final say because there will be another Yeah argument for to be considered but in terms of the action that we would take tonight I kind of would like to adopt the The language that was presented to us with with from staff So those are my thoughts Pull that up so everyone can see it.

I agree or no I Yeah. Okay. Just so everyone knows what we're talking about. I agree with Ms. Hausman. Like, I think that I prefer the second option for many of the same reasons. I don't want to vilify our partners in any way. And I don't want it to.

Oh, yes, please. I'm so sorry.

Absolutely. Yes. Would you like me to pull up a red line version or a clean version? Red line?

Red line sounds like because then we're seeing contrast.

When I whispered, I didn't realize my mic was hot. I apologize.

But, yeah. I didn't realize I had signaled yes. I had not signaled yes, so thank you.

But, yeah, I agree with those things. And also, I don't want the for argument to be locking us into an option in the future that we may not be doing. And so... We don't know if we'll keep the whole thing or if we'll have to sell parts. But we don't know what the future holds. And so I don't want to lock us into something and then for voters to come back and be like, oh, you didn't say that. So do you want to ?

Other thoughts? Questions about the? Oh, let me wait and get the council to weigh in on this. Ms. Sharkey.

I really appreciate those comments and I agree with them and it sounds like as council members reviewed the packet there was some level of discomfort about the tones and suggestions and I totally and wholeheartedly agree with Even though this is an argument in favor, so it is biased, let's just make it very, very, very factual. Let's just stick to the facts. Let's have no insinuations, no fear mongering, nothing like that, if we can strip away stuff like that. I do really like these changes. I have even a couple more to suggest to run by you guys and see how you feel about it. I really like this new first sentence, introductory sentence. I think it's really good. I was a little bit uncomfortable with the original. I had my own set of changes. I like this one best. The paragraph that talks about the community has used this for generations. Open space our community has used for generations. It's 40 years. Generations to me triggers 75, 100 years. A generation is generally seen to be 25 years, although it's not well defined. But I just think it's only been 40 years. So my thought would either be to use that, you know, something the community has used for 40 years, or maybe decades, generations to me evokes a much longer period of time than the period of time that's actually lapsed. Yeah.

Are we just changing this as we go?

I mean, we're happy to edit it as you go. What I would suggest is I don't want to make edits that just one person is suggesting without agreement right from the group. And so I don't know that it needs to be a motion or anything like that. But if somebody suggests an edit, you know, if we could get a, you know, yes or no, you know, a hand up if you agree, that would help.

Can we go maybe like paragraph by paragraph and just sort of, are we good? Okay. How's that sound? Okay. Sounds great. So, and we're talking about the red line version reflecting the changes. Yeah. So paragraph, paragraph, the first one starts with a yes vote. Are we good with that?

I would like to strike the opportunity is gone and then a no vote. I would like to strike all that language. Wait, where are you? Paragraph. We're on the first one.

A yes vote on the Crescent View bond ensures Sandy City directly controls the future of this property. If the city does not purchase it, then it will be sold to a?

A private buyer.

Private buyer.

And that buyer will decide how the land is utilized. So thumbs up, are we good with that? OK. I like that. I'll just read for everybody. Is that OK? That is the choice before a voter stays. So looking at the next one. A yes vote gives Sandy the ability to secure this property before the opportunity is gone. A no vote means the city misses out and the fields, gyms, and open space our community has used for decades will have their futures directed by outside interests.

I would like to strike that a no vote means that entire language. I think there's too much emotion and could be or have their futures directed by outside interests. I think that's a little, because we still have a say in what goes on. No matter what goes on, it's going to come to the council. So I don't necessarily see that being outside interests.

I still think we need to put in the no portion of it, though, just because, like, it's a yes or a no. Okay.

The truth is that the city will miss out on the fields.

But it will also miss out on everything else that the residency has been told about what could possibly go there. And we didn't want to put too much in there about what could go there because we don't know what's going there. So if we can take out the fields and gyms, a no vote means the city misses out on the opportunity.

Is the their futures part the part that is troubling you, like clarity around?

Well, their futures, that's fine. I can go with that one and then end it right there. by outside interests I think needs to be stricken.