Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Recording in progress.

Alright. Welcome everybody to tonight's meeting. It's our March 19 Planning Commission meeting. We'll do a quick pledge of allegiance and then some introductions and go from there. We'll do a quick round of introductions of the Planning Commission and then staff.

Lenny Stavenport. Greg Kicharvin.

Jennifer George. Danny Schoenfeld. Dave Bromley. Steve Wrigley. And James, you want to do introduction of staff?

Yeah, thank you. My name is James Swornson. I'm the community development director. Tonight with us, we have here Darian Alcorn, senior city attorney. Mike Wilcox is the planning director. Brian McHouston, assistant development director. Let's see. I think we have Clinton Spencer, development services manager for the city. Sarah Stringham is a planner. She might have on tonight. Brittany Ward, assistant public works director. Ivan Hooper, transportation going we're going

to

timely as possible. Our first item on the agenda is we're the pink box arcade the use and extended hours of operation. Think Sarah you've got that one. Mike are you doing the introduction first?

Alright. So this item is a as as you stated a conditional use request submitted by the property owner Pink Box Donuts. They are seeking to operate an arcade use from this location in addition to the retail sales business of the donut shop. They're also seeking to operate a little bit earlier than typical before 6AM is required to have a conditional use permit as well. This item is located at 10235 South State Street and the applicant is attending online. Mister Mike Kurz, I believe is speaking for on behalf of the applicant. Mister Kurz, I'm going to allow you to unmute yourself and present to the Planning Commission.

Good evening. Can you guys hear me?

Yes.

Great. Thank you, guys. As Mike mentioned, my name is Mike Kerrs. I'm the VP of construction and facilities for Pink Box Donuts. I wanted to thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight.

Additionally, we're we we at Pink Box were really excited to come join the Sandy community this summer and open our Pink Box Donut shop there on State Street. Tonight, we're requesting approval, like Mike mentioned, for a conditional use permit at our property located at 10235 South State Street. We're currently renovating that property to a pink box donut shop. The request tonight is for arcade use and extended hours of operation. The property the subject property was built in 1996.

It's approximately 4,000 square feet set on approximately 0.68 acres, and it's located in the CBD zone. We're proposing an arcade as an accessory use within the Pink Box Doughnut shop. The arcade is proposed to operate under the same business hours as the doughnut shop and it will occupy the former PlayPlace area the restaurant and is about 1,105 square feet in total. So it's that that area in pink on the on the screen. The the building prior was a Feastbox restaurant and prior to that was a was a Burger King where the play place was was in.

The the total building size is 4,000 square feet. So the arcade spot is is just over 1,100 square feet. We're proposing to have no more than 20 arcade games in the designated arcade area and it will be accessed through the restaurant space. We're not proposing any seating in the arcade. However, we will allow our customers to take food and drink purchased from the donut shop into the arcade area.

Our Pink Box team members will maintain that arcade area of the shop. Additionally, as Mike mentioned, we're proposing to operate a little bit earlier than what's currently allowed. Currently allowed to open at 6AM. We're proposing to open at 5AM just

a little

bit earlier, primarily to sell our donuts at location being a good early morning food. But that's about the scope of our what we're proposing here and please let me know if you have any questions.

Any commissioner questions? Okay.

Steve? So my question on 05:00 in the morning, you have run several of these stores. Is that the typical time that you open?

Correct. That's the typical time that we open our shops. We've just located we just opened a shop in American Fork, Utah and we're proposing to operate the same hours that we're currently doing at American Fork.

Did that answer your questions? Yes. Okay. Sir, did you have any other additional?

I don't think I have anything to add if you guys have any questions for me. But just that I guess one thing, we did receive a comment a phone call earlier this week, and so that was those comments were sent to the planning commission as well as, to the applicant. So I'll mention that. And then staff doesn't have concerns. We are recommending approval of the arcade and then approval to amend the existing conditional use permit with the for the extended hours.

Thank you. I think this item has been noticed to the public. Is there anybody here tonight would like to speak on this item? No? Anybody online, Mike?

If you're joining us via Zoom webinar and would like to comment on this particular item, please use the raise your hand feature now and we'll address one at a time. I'm seeing no hands.

Okay. We'll close that and bring it back to the commission for deliberation and possible action.

Go ahead, Steve. Question on parking. Is there going to be sufficient parking for a donut shop an arcade? They'd probably be the same thing, I would guess, as far as customers.

Yes. Yeah. We looked at the parking uses, we don't consider what's required for the restaurant use is what we would look at. We were we're not gonna say like double park them to say they need like the arcade use and the restaurant use. The restaurant use

It's a square footage, basically.

Yeah. The eye looks at the square footage.

So yes.

Yeah. The other question I have is as far as it says no city means no tables. Will they be able to have chairs and stuff for parents who take their kids to this arcade or they get to stand?

I don't think there's any scene. I don't know if Mike wants to comment online on that, but I believe that there's no tables or seating.

Not currently in good great question. Not not currently in the in the in the plan to have any tables Generally, we're pretty limited on our seating. If we do offer, it might be a small bench to sit down on, but nothing permanently affixed to the floor.

Okay. Yes, small benches. And I'm just trying to think, I'm going to take my kids there to do the arcade after that. I'd want some place to sit down while they're playing their games.

Correct. Nothing permanently affixed to the ground.

Okay. Thank you. With that, is there any other further deliberation questions or possible action?

I'm ready for a motion

unless there's other. Go ahead.

Right, I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission approve a conditional use permit for arcade use in the CBD zone and amending an existing conditional use permit for extended hours as described in staff report for the property located at 10002 And 35 South State Street based on the four findings and the seven conditions detailed in the staff report.

Is there a second?

I'll second it. Steve.

Dave Romley.

Yes.

Steve Wrigley.

Yes.

Lenny Stavenport. Yes. Craig Kitterman.

Yes.

Jennifer George. Yes. Danny Schoenfeld. Yes. This motion carries.

Thank you and good luck with your project. Okay. Next on the agenda are a series of annexations. Just gonna do a quick kind of just general process for how we're gonna hear those tonight and then how we're going to handle each of those. So thank you for everybody that's attended tonight.

We have a lot of items on the calendar. We want to make sure that you understand the role of the Planning Commission. And we also want you to everyone here to. To speak on the public hearing item that you have the opportunity for and to be open to the public hearing to just take a minute to do a couple of housekeeping items. So for the tonight's hearing the public these items are for the city council's ultimate decision both decision ultimately for the annexation and the ultimate planning or the zoning.

Planning commission's role is to make a recommendation to the city council. Utah code requires that the city council hold a public hearing for annexations and the public hearing is currently scheduled for April 7. Utah code also requires the Planning Commission hold a public hearing for this zoning as the notice to the public we are also holding this public hearing this evening. Because the Planning Commission is tasked with forwarding recommendations both on annexation and zoning. It is most efficient to consider both the annexation and zoning together for each of these proposed annexation area.

We will hold one public hearing for with which each item when when a person is called on and when you have an opportunity to speak. If you'd like to speak as the individual, you'll have two minutes to do so. To help the Planning Commission understand and track the comments, I will announce each annexation in order as it appears on the agenda. I will invite owner of the property to to speak on those at one at a time. After we have gone through all the annexation areas and the property owners have had a chance to speak, I will invite other members of the public to speak one at a time.

If you are one of these final speakers. Relate your comments to the specific annexation area and please specify which annexation area you are commenting on. Please specify. Excuse me when there are no more speakers remaining I will close public hearing and the public the Planning Commission will then deliberate and vote. Again, this vote will be for the purposes of vote forwarding a recommendation to the City Council, which Utah code identifies as the decision maker body, both both for the annexation and final zoning of the property.

Just a couple of reminders. If you're here and speaking one here in person, please state your name and address and speak clearly into one of the two mics. Your comment will be time to and limited to two minutes. Please direct your comments to the planning commission, not the staff or audience. Comments to the audience are not appropriate.

Please respect and recognize the planning commission and we'll listen intently to each one of your concerns or items as we speak to them. And just as a matter of business for tonight, two of the items that were noticed for tonight, items twenty five and twenty six, the Alta Approach Annexation. And that's and also the LCR annexation two are both tabled for tonight, so those will not be heard, but they were noticed and we wanted to make sure that we noticed that and we will take action just as a tabling for a future meeting.

Do the tabling at this point, guess?

Yes.

So I'll make a motion that we Planning Commission table Alto approach annexation and the LCR two annexation to a uncertain date uncertain.

Is there a second? Hold on. Sorry. As

the item was noticed to the public, we should be able to take comment.

Oh, sure. Okay. Is there anybody here tonight that would like to speak on either of those two? Please come down and state your name and address. Sorry. I processed question word.

No worries. I wasn't sure if you were gonna do comment. Yeah. Please go ahead.

You'll have

two minutes.

Or not. And I saw something in the procedures that I get a little more than two minutes if I represent the whole HOA that's part of that or no?

Just two minutes.

Two minutes. Yes. Okay. I'll talk I'll talk fast. My name is Josh Cantor. I'm the member of the Granite Community Council, president of the Alta approach homeowners association and homeowner and resident at 3972 Alto Approach Road. Thank you for the opportunity. I'm gonna go really quickly. To begin, I'll I'll note that given the limited timing and information available, I personally and as president of our HOA strongly object to the proposed annexation by Sandy City of the four homes that are located within our HOA, as well as the condominium development and single family homes also proposed for annexation to our east. Those are the properties that make up twenty five and twenty six on today's agenda.

I hope to articulate our reasons for that fairly quickly. First and foremost, these annexations run directly contrary to the wishes of the very property owners who would be subject to them. In the absence of any demonstrable leader hardship to Sandy City and none has been identified, the clear and unified position of the homeowners should decisive. Property owners overwhelmingly do not want this annexation. It's important to clarify that both the Alta Approach and Quarry Drive are private streets, meaning Sandy will have no current or future obligation to maintain them with or without annexation.

The process itself appears to be driven almost exclusively by old water service or annexation letters rather than by any coherent planning principles or the goal of keeping communities intact. The result is, quite frankly, nonsensical. In the Alta Approach PUD, the result is that Sandy would annex the westernmost and easternmost homes in our community while leaving the rest of our neighborhood in unincorporated Salt Lake County. This would literally split our community into two jurisdictions and essentially split our community into three sections. Sandy has also not articulated how its stated interest in serving the public good is met by annexing only selected parcels within a larger peninsula area.

If Sandy believed the entire peninsula area should be within Sandy, we would expect to see that presented. Instead, the patchwork approach suggests that Sandy may know it cannot lawfully annex the entire peninsula under current city initiated annexation law and is relying solely on those old water letter water service letters to justify this partial and fractured expansion. Compounding this, several of the targeted properties do not appear to be contiguous with Sandy's existing borders, while other properties with contiguous borders have been left out. The proposed annexation of the easternmost home in Alta Approach, the condominium development and the homes east of it, would create non contiguous islands of jurisdiction. It's difficult to see how that serves anyone's municipal interests.

HB three thirty also bears mention under that legislation, as you well know, the entire peninsula at the Canyon entrance, including every property in the area now subject to Sandy's annexation effort, was explicitly excluded from the Granite City Incorporation proposal so the area could remain intact within unincorporated Salt Lake County. Preserved the status quo that we as property owners prefer and are asking you to respect.

Sir, your two minutes are up.

Thank you. The rules online say five minutes for somebody representing a group which I represent.

If you Finish what you

have Finish to if you'd allow me to.

Yes. Please finish. Thank you.

Finally, it's far from clear that these water letters and annexation letters are legally enforceable. Many are unrecorded, which would we would assume is customary and legally required process vis a vis the legality of covenants that run with land and are proposed to be binding on successor owners, in some instances, decades after the original agreements were executed. Building a city initiated annexation on such a foundation, particularly if there's no continuity with the city, raises serious procedural concerns. Beyond all these technical issues, I wanna emphasize a more personal note. This annexation effort is breaking up our community.

I've been a member in any number of meetings over the past decades wherein Sandy City officials have explicitly said they would not do this and would respect the wishes of the constituents they annex. Yet that is exactly what is happening here. Until Sandy initiated this process, I had never imagined the city would attempt to divide an established neighborhood without conversation, collaboration, or demonstrated benefit. It makes us feel less like constituents and more like pawns in a strategy that has not been explained. That alone has shifted community sentiment dramatically.

Similarly, it's also probably worth noting that it seems grossly unfair, if not negligent, to surprise neighbors and neighborhoods like ours without reasonable notice, discussion, or opportunity to consult with each other, let alone professionals. Perhaps none of you have ever lived in an HOA, though I doubt that. If you do, then you know that getting the timing and the difficulty and the cost this is causing us is significant. That is not what I would say is an encouraging welcome to Sandy atmosphere. Without foreclosing our willingness to continue collaborative conversations about what is and is not in the interest of the homeowners, Sandy City, and Salt Lake County, for all these reasons, we respectfully request that Sandy discontinue its efforts to annex the Alta Approach and Canyon Engine's properties and allow our neighborhood to remain what already is a cohesive contiguous part of unincorporated Salt Lake County.

Thank you for the additional time. I appreciate it. Thank you for

the opportunity to see. Is there anybody else here tonight on those two items? Anybody online, Mike? Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead. Please come down. You'll have two minutes. Please just state your name and address,

please. My name is John Benfatto. I live at 4086 East Quarry Drive in a condominium complex. I'm here representing the board. I'm a board member.

Is this part of items 24 and or twenty five and twenty six?

Yes.

It's the l c

Okay. Two. You. It's the Thank you.

The one. K. So first

of all,

I just wanna thank Josh for presenting so much information so quickly. We submitted a letter to Brian this afternoon, basically stating that we had no idea that Sandy was gonna try this or attempt this, and we just need more time. And we were not aware of the agreements that were shown to us. They were from the nineteen eighties. We need time to evaluate this and make decision as a community.

And, we're thankful that it appears you guys are gonna table it for for further consideration. And we welcome a conversation with Sandy. If Sandy wants to sit down and talk to us about the benefits of annexation, We have a community that it's we have HOA meetings. We have the owners are engaged. We welcome the opportunity to discuss the pros and cons of annexation with Sandy. But but right now, you you we just feel like we were very surprised with what happened, and and we would request that that the process stop until we can kind of get time to evaluate the options.

So thank you very much. Thank you. Anyone else? Mike, anybody online?

If you're joining us via Zoom webinar and would like to speak on items twenty five and twenty six you may use the raise your hand feature now and we'll address you one at a time. And please note that the Q and A feature on Zoom is not for public comment. Public comment has to be taken during the public comment periods using the raise your hand feature. I'm seeing no hands raised.

We'll close that to public comment and bring that back to the Commission for the underlying motion.

Okay, so my motion stands. Do I need to repeat it or we good?

Sorry, second and there was a second Jennifer seconded.

Dave Bromley. Yes. Jennifer George. Yes. Steve Wrigley. Yes. Lanise Davenport. Yes. Craig Kitterman.

Yes.

Danny Schoenfeld? Yes. This motion carries.

Thank you. The first item going back to the original order was the Walter's Annexation. Brian, you wanna take that one first?

Thank you, chair. The Walter's Annexation is located at 2587 East Lower Cottonwood Road. You can see that on the map here. So the property owner signed a consent to annex into Sandy City in June 2024. This property currently zoned a one in the county, which is historically been similar to our R 110 zone in the in Sandy City. Just to make a quick note that this is a legal nonconforming lot. I included a little snippet of the plat in the staff report that the county approved this with a note that this would be a legal nonconforming lot. So, we would recommend the Planning Commission for a recommendation at the appropriate time.

Thank you. Is there is the property owner here for this item? Okay. We'll close that to public comment or excuse me is there anybody online Mike?

If you're joining us via Zoom webinar and would like to speak to this particular item, please use the raise your hand feature now and we'll address you one at a time. I'm seeing no hands raised.

Okay. We'll close that to public comment. Then. Next is the

Kessel annexation. Yeah. The Kessel annexation. This includes three different properties. Two of them are off of a subdivision called the Larkin Mini Subdivision. That's 2802 East and 2798 East Casale Drive. And then the third one is south of those two properties located at 9538 Deer Run Place. And the county zoning is r 11010

as well. Thank you. Is the property owner here tonight that would like to speak to this? If you could please come down and state your name and address for the record. You'll have two minutes.

Yeah. My name is Rod Glover. I own the property at 2802 East Cassell Drive. Brian's correct that we are off of Cassell as far as access to our lane. On the property map, it shows that we're hooked up to Deer Run Place, which is not the case.

Deer Run Place dead ends, basically at our property line. I can there's two concerns. One is, of course, the pending or not pending, anticipation of getting incorporated into Granite City. If that does happen, then and I get annexed into Sandy City prior to that being resolved, I will then be an island of Sandy City in the middle of Granite Incorporation. So the reverse will happen to me.

So right now, I everything's through the through the county, my sewer, my garbage, and everything goes that way. Sandy City stops at the West side of Cassell Drive, I guess Sandy's down below there. I'm not really sure. But I would propose or like that anything on my property and my neighbors not be acted upon as far as zoning until there is the the permanent items are in place for either incorporation of Granite City or if Sandy City ends up annexing the rest of the property around me, then I I guess I'd be going into it. I do support the Granite Incorporation.

I donated to it, and I signed the deal. So I am involved in it through that manner. So I would like to see that carried forward first before anything action is done on my property. Thank you.

Anybody online, Mike?

If you're joining us via Zoom webinar and would like to speak to this particular item, please use the raise your hand feature now and we'll address you one at a time. I'm seeing no other hands.

Okay, we'll close that to public comment. We'll do the next one clerk annexation.

So the Clark annexation is just further east up the road. Twenty eight seventy five east ninety four sixty south. Property owner signed a consent back in 2017. The county zone is R 110, proposed to be R 110 in Sandy as well.

Is the property owner here and would like to speak to this item tonight? Please come down and state your name and address for the record, please. You'll have two minutes.

My name is Caroline Clark. I live at 2875 East Cassell or 9460. I'm I really just don't know enough information. And so I don't know exactly can I just ask questions or is that is this how this works?

Staff would be able to help you after this

Okay.

Meeting to answer any of those additional questions.

Okay. Sure. So do I just call them or is is that

for you? Yeah. Brian.

I can

talk to you. Yeah,

call me tomorrow.

Okay. Okay. I'll talk to them then.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else to this item? Property owner spoken. Anybody online?

If you would like to comment on this particular item, please use the raise your hand feature now. If you're joining us via Zoom and we'll address you one at a time. I am seeing no other hands raised.

Okay. We'll close that to public comment. Next item is the Hidden Pine Annexation.

Yeah. These properties are 95169535 South Hidden Pine Lane. Property owners signed an annexation letter back in 2025 and 2023. The county zoning is R115. Sandy City would be R115 as well. And if possible, I'd like to do the next one as well because it's the neighbor at 9516 South, the Smith annexation. Once he saw the other signs for the two other properties, he called and request to be annexed in as well. So he signed a consent on 03/09/2026. Thank you. On these two items of six and seven, are is there anybody here in the audience would like

to speak on this topic? Mike, anybody online?

If you are joining us via Zoom webinar and would like to speak on the Smith annexation or the Hidden Pine annexation, please use the raise your hand feature now and we'll address you one at a time. I am seeing no hands raised.

We'll close that to public comment and go on to the next one, the Pingree Annexation.

Yeah. Pingree Annexation located at 9620 South 3100 East. Property owner signed the consent back in 2020. The current property or current zoning in the county is R121. Sandy does not have an R 121. The closest thing is R 120. So we would propose the R 120 zone.

Is the property owner here tonight that would like to speak on this topic? Please come down. And if you'll just state your name and address for the record, please. You'll have two minutes.

Yes. I'm Duffy Pingree. I live at 9620 South 3100 East. My question, guess, is is my

wife

Joan. So it says that we consented to it, but I'm was when we rebuilt our house on that property, we were told we had no choice. We had to sign that document in order to connect the house up to the exact same pipe that we had connected with the prior house. So I I guess that's my number one question. And also, we're interested in this Granite City development that they're creating. And so I wanna know if this annexation overrides that, if I have the possibility of still being in

the Granite City. Staff would be able to answer those questions offline for you absolutely. My question. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Mike, anybody online on this top item?

If you're joining us via Zoom webinar, I would like to speak to this particular item on the Pingree Annexation. Please use the raise your hand feature now and we'll address you one at a time. I'm seeing no other hands raised.

Okay, we'll close that to public comment on item number 10 is the Anderson annexation.

Yeah, just down the road at 9635 South 3100 East. Signed the petition back in 2005. County zoning is r one fifteen. Proposal in Sandy is r one fifteen. I will mention that missus Anderson did call me and email me, and she expressed an interest to stay within. She would like to be part of the Granite community if that incorporates so just wanted to make a record of that. Thank you.

Is the property owner here tonight that would like to speak on this item? Anybody online, Mike?

If you're joining us via Zoom webinar and would like to speak on the Anderson annexation, please use the raise your hand feature now and we'll address you one at a time. I am seeing no hands raised.

Thank you. Next item on the agenda is the Miller annexation number 10.

This one's located at 3017 East Granite Meadow Lane. Properly on signed the consent back in 2020. The county's only R 121, so we would propose R 120 here in Sandy City.

Is the property owner here tonight and would like to speak on this item? Anybody online, Mike?

If you're joining us via Zoom webinar and would like to speak to this particular item for the Miller annexation, please use the raise your hand feature now and we'll address you one at a time. I'm seeing no hands raised.

Thank you. We'll close that to public comment. The next item number 11 is the parish annexation.

Located at 2995 East Mount Jordan Road. Property owner signed the consent back in 2018. Current zoning in the county is R 115 proposed to be R 115 in Sandy City.

This item has been noticed to the public. Is there the property owner here tonight would like to speak to this item? Mike, anybody online?

If you're joining us via Zoom webinar and would like to speak on the parish annexation, please use the raise your hand feature now and we'll address you one at a time. I am seeing no hands.

Thank you. We'll close that to public comment. The next item number 12 is the Sievertz annexation.

Located at 9876 South 2700 East. Signed a consent back in 2020. County zoning is R143. We don't have an r one forty three but we do have an r 40. So that would be our recommendation. And included in your packet, we did get an email from Anna Sievertz asking for withdrawal letter from the from this annexation. Thank you. Is the this item has

been noticed to the public. Is there anybody here that would like to speak on this item? Please come down and state your name and address for the record, please. You'll have two minutes.

My name excuse me. My name is Von Cox. My address is 9906 South 27 Northeast. I'm the parcel that is just south of the Sieverts property. And I have I wanna comment on several annexations that I've written them up in a letter that I could hopefully

if you wanna give it to the staff?

I I want to object to this annexation for two reasons. The first is that it doesn't have a border that's contiguous with Sandy City. You're essentially making a island within an island. And there are actually five of the total annex parcels that have this situation where they don't have contiguous boundary within Sandy City, and they're listed in my letter. That's objection is this parcel used to be serviced for culinary water by the North Dry Creek Irrigation Culinary System, which Sandy City purchased in 1992.

In the contract, there is a clause that says Sandy agrees not to use culinary water to justify any annexations of any of the properties that were on the North Dry Creek system prior to Sandy's purchase of the water system. So based on that contract, if Sandy were to annex this this property, they would be in violation of that covenant of the contract. So those are the two reasons why I object to this. There's another parcel, the Evanston property. If you go to the second page of my use water for the justification for that annexation.

And that's all I have to say about those two. I have comments on some others that I'll be back up later on.

Okay. Thank you. You if and if it's if you're not directly to the property owner, I would say that you would need to wait till after all of the. Annexation, so we'll know

when you when you mention that at the property, I'll come up at that time, right?

But if you're if you're not directly the property owner itself, we're asking just the property owner to make comment on that. And then if you have general comments for all of these other related ones, can wait till after. Till the very end? Yes. Yeah, please. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else related to that property online?

If you're joining us via Zoom webinar and would like to speak on the Sievertz annexation, please use the raise your hand feature now and we'll we'll address you one at a time. I'm seeing no hands raised.

Okay, we'll close that to the public comment. We'll go on to item number 13, the Jadkin annexation. I probably mispronounced that.

Yeah. This one's located at 2627 East 10000 South. Former property owner signed a letter and consent back in April 2024. Property is on R 143 in the county, proposed to be R 140 in Sandy City.

Thank you. Is there is the property owner here present that would like to speak on this item? Seeing none, Mike is the property owner possibly online.

If you're joining us via Zoom webinar and would like to speak on this particular item, please use the raise your hand feature now and we'll address you one at a time. I am seeing no hands.

We'll close that to public comment. Item item number 14, the ninth annexation.

Yeah. Located at 10116 South Alta Villa Drive. Property owner signed back in 2004. R 143 is the current zoning property current zoning in the county. We would propose R 140 in Sandy City.

Thank you. Is the property owner here tonight that would like to speak on this? Please come down. Please come down. You have two minutes.

Yes. My name is Douglas Knight. I live at 10116 Alta Villa Drive in Sandy, so Salt Lake County, whatever. Couple comments. First, that, your slide should be amended to say property owner was forced to sign a consent petition back in 2004. Twenty two years ago we signed that because the only way, the only way we could get culinary water was to sign that petition. It was very vague. Didn't really spell out things. There was no inbound date. That's twenty two years ago.

And now all of a sudden, it's coming up because the Granite initiative is, like, coming back with their little information here. So change that because I was forced. And I'm gonna ask I'm gonna petition to have my name removed from that petition as well. Second of all, your map is also inaccurate. You show all that red is contiguous.

If you look at the real properties on that street that are being forced, you know, being asked to annex, it is not one big continuous block of red there like you have on your diagram. In fact, it breaks it up into islands. So the question starts coming around municipal service services and how they're gonna be delivered to us. You know, it's like myself and my neighbor across the street, we get annexed. It's gonna create an island to the other properties.

So is the snowplow gonna lift its plow up when it comes to my street? And then all of sudden drop it in front of my house and then lift it up when it gets to the Burgess' house and continue down the street, then drop in front of Taylor's house, then pick up, and then drop in front of Miller's house. You know, not contiguous. So thank you for your time. I appreciate you listening to

me. Thank you. Mike, anybody else online to speak to this item?

If you're joining us via Zoom webinar, would like to speak on this item, please use the raise your hand feature now and we'll address you one at a time. Seeing no hands raised.

Item number 15, the Alta Villa number one annexation annexation.

This is property located at 10093 South Alta Villa Drive as well as 10058 South and 10088 South Grass Creek Circle. You've got the information on when the consent were signed somewhere back in 1982, others were in 2018. Current zoning in the county is R 143. Sandy was proposed to be R 140 and R 140 a. So the R 140 a stands for animal rights, so they would be allowed to have large farm animals. And that would be at 10093 South Alpekula Drive. Thank you. Are any of

the property owners here that would like to on this item? Anybody online, Mike?

If you're joining us via Zoom webinar, we would like to speak on this particular annexation. Please use the raise your hand feature now and we'll address you one at a time. I'm seeing no hands.

Thank you. Next item number 16, Altaville Villa Number 2 annexation.

Yeah. So this includes two properties. One owner sign the address is 10149 And 10181 South Altavilla Drive. Property owner signed the consent back in 2015. Zoning in the county is R143. Proposal to be r 140 in Sandy City.

Thank you. This item has been noticed with public. Is there any of the property owner that here to tonight to speak to this item? Anybody online, Mike?

This item has been noticed and for anyone attending via Zoom webinar and would like to speak on Alpha Villa 2 Annexation, please use your the raise be

we're

to

comment. Item number 17, Alta Villa number three annexation.

We'll do seventeen and eighteen together. Thank you. Since they're similar situations. Alta Villa 3 is 10184 South Alta Villa Drive and Altavilla 4 is 10274 and 10302 South Altavilla Drive. So on both situations, both property owners saw the signs out there, called me, expressed an interest in annexing into Sandy. So they signed a consent just in on March 9. Again, the zoning is the same R-one 143 in the county proposed R-one 140

here in Sandy. Thank you on item or any any property owners here for item number 17 or 18 tonight? Anybody online, Mike?

If you're joining us via Zoom webinar on these items, seventeen and eighteen, please use the raise your hand feature now and we'll address you one at a time. I am not seeing any hands.

Thank you. We'll close that to public comment. Number 19, South Miller Annexation. Number 19.

So this is located at 10345 South Altavilla Drive. Property owner signed the consent in 2016. Similar zoning R 143 in the county, R 140 in Sandy City.

Thank you. This item has been noticed to the public. Is there anybody here tonight would like to speak on this item? Anybody online, Mike?

If you're joining us via Zoom webinar and would like to speak on this particular item, please use the raise your hand feature now and we'll address you one at a time. I am seeing no hands.

Thank you. We'll close that to public comment. Number 20, the Frick's annexation.

Located at 10364 South Altavula Drive, signed the consent back in 2013. R one forty three in the county and R 1 proposed to be R 140 in Sandy City.

Is there anybody here tonight on on this item who would like to speak to this item? Anybody online, Mike?

If you're joining us via Zoom webinar and would like to speak to this particular item, please use the raise your hand feature now and we'll address you one at a time. I am seeing no hands.

Thank you. We'll close that to public comment. Item number 21, Brown Annexation.

Located at 3149 East 9800 South. Former property owner signed back in 2004. I have talked to the current property owner. He has expressed interest in annexing into Sandy City. Current zoning in the county is R 115. Proposed Sandy at R 115 as well. Thank you. This item has been noticed to the public. Anyone here would like to speak on this item?

The property owner? Anybody online, Mike?

If you're joining us via Zoom webinar on the Brown Annexation, please use the raise your hand feature. We'll address you one at a time. I'm seeing no hands.

Thank you. We'll close that to public comment. Item number 22, LCR 1 annexation.

Yeah, this includes three different properties, 32, 49, 3251, and 3269. Right now, the county's zoning is R 21, proposed to be R 120 in Sandy City. I did talk with the property owner at 3251 and she requested the animal rights. So we would request to include the R 128 for 3251 East Liliko.

Thank you. This item has been noticed to the public. Anybody here that would like to speak on this item? Mike, anybody online?

If you're joining us via Zoom webinar to speak on this particular item, please use the raise your hand feature now and we'll address you one at a time. I'm seeing no hands.

We'll close that to public comment. Item number 23, the MSMR annexation.

At ninety six eighty two South Oakwood Lane. Former owner of property former property owner signed the annexation. I did not put the date, so I don't remember off the top of my head. But this was zoned R 121 in the county and proposed to be R 120 in Sandy City. Thank you. This item has been noticed to

the public. Anyone here tonight at the property owner, please come down. You'll have two minutes. State your name and address.

Do I need to state the address again?

Yeah. I unfortunately, that's just part of the process.

682 South Oakwood Lane. I have no problem being in Sandy, but as you can see from that map, all of my neighbors are not, and they were all part of the same development. So I would like to know how we just have one letter from a former from the former developer, and we don't have the rest of them. Like the previous person said, I'm a little concerned about services. One of my neighbors there, they saw a house on fire across the lane.

You know, the Wasatch goes down. There's kind of a gully there. And on the other side, you can see the houses. And they called Sandy City Fire Department. They called, you you know, that they said, no. No. We we we don't handle that. It it's united or unified and unified. They came to the house. They said, how the hell do we get across that gully?

And it's like, we're supposed to tell you that? And by the time they figured it all out, the house had burned out. And so I'm a little concerned that if something happens, all my neighbors are in a different city. Like I said, I I I have no problem being in Sandy, but I'd kinda like all the neighbors around me to be in the same city, you know, for services and whatever. If they call, who do they call? Anyway, that's my comments.

Thank you very much.

Yeah. And how do I find out how come the rest of

Mark be Brian McKusenwiccan.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody online that would like to speak to this

item? Yeah. If you're joining us via Zoom webinar and would like to speak on this particular item, please use the raise your hand feature now and we'll address you one at a time. I am seeing no hands on this one.

Thank you. We'll close that to public comment. Item number 24, the Lekai annexation.

This is located at 9565 South Wassets Boulevard. We have a consent back by back signed in 2021. This property currently has two zonings in the county, R 143 and c and c two. And then there's another little box c two slash z c, which is a zoning condition which allowed them to sell wine. And so Sandy is proposing to zone this to R 140 and the CC which is our community commercial zone.

Thank you. Anybody with is the property here? Please come down and state your name and address record. You'll have two minutes.

My address or the address of the property?

Address of the property. Yes, sir.

My address of the property is 9565 South Wasatch Boulevard.

And your name

is And your name? My name is Robert Taylor. I'm an attorney.

Sir, could you speak right into one of the mics? If you could pick one of the two mics, just pull it closer to your

Either or. Which one?

You can pick either or. Okay. Yeah.

Just one or the other.

First of all, I should note that that the consent that was referred to Sir,

if you could just speak real closely into that mic. Yeah. Like it's your best friend.

That was referred to has already been withdrawn. And and so that would be part of the protest that I understand we can file sometime before the council meeting on the seventh, not tonight. We don't need to protest tonight.

That is not part of this process. That is correct.

Correct. Good. My understanding is is that the process tonight is primarily to consider zoning assuming that Lacai is annexed into Sandy. My message is is pretty short. We've been working on that. We've been talking to to staff. We are not yet ready. We need a little bit more time, and and our recommendation and and hope is that you will defer it long enough to let us complete that process. There are a number of activities, as I'm sure you understand, that take place at LeCai and that are are allowed now. We don't wanna find ourselves out of compliance should the annexation occur.

We have a number of liquor licenses, for example, that need to be addressed. Significantly for you is that the notice that that includes that parcel up there with the cross hatch is not a parcel. It was before it looks like, but it's not now. It only takes part of some parcels which are outside of that area. And so don't think that you can do this particular annexation anyway. That'll be addressed if we need to, hopefully, just with with staff. But if if not with staff, excuse me, then we would certainly address that in our protest too. Unless you have questions

of me. Any questions? No, thank you.

I will just mention that his questions that he brought up obviously are for the City Council to decide as far as when it gets to them on April 7. Sure. Thank

you for your time. Anybody else online, Mike? If you're joining us via Zoom webinar and want to speak on this particular item, please use the raise your hand feature now and we'll address you one at a time. I am seeing no hands.

Thank you. We'll close that to public comment. Again, items twenty five and twenty six were tabled. Item number 27, the TP real estate annexation.

Yeah. This one's located at 10209 South Dimple Dale Road. Consent was signed back in 2004. The zoning is r one twenty one, proposed to be R 120 in Sandy.

Thank you. This item has been noticed to the public. Is there with the property owner here tonight in person who would like to speak to this item? Mike, anybody online?

If you're joining us via Zoom webinar on the TP Real Estate Annexation, please use the raise your hand feature now and we'll address you one at a time. I am seeing no hands.

Thank you. We'll close that to public comment. The next item number 28, the Gene Miller annexation.

Yeah. This is located at 10324 South Dimplevale Dimplevale Road. Property owner signed this consent back in 2024. County county zoning is R121. Proposed to be R 120 in Sandy.

Thank you. As this item's been noticed to the public, anybody here tonight that would like to speak on this item? Thank you. Anybody online, Mike?

If you're joining us us via Zoom webinar and would like to speak on this particular item, please use the raise your hand feature now and we'll address you one at a time. I am seeing no hands.

Thank you. We'll close that to public comment. Item number 29, the Scrub Oak Annexation.

Located at 2998 East Apple Hollow Cove. Property owner consigned the consent from 2002. Zoning is r one twenty one in the county proposed to be R 120 in Sandy.

This item has been noticed to the public.

Is there anybody here tonight or the property owner would like to speak on this item? Mike, anybody online? If you're joining us via Zoom webinar and would like to speak on the Scrub Oak annexation, please use the raise your hand feature now and we'll address you one at a time. I'm seeing no hands.

Thank you. We'll close that to public comment. Next one is the Janke Flats Annexation.

Yeah. This is for a four lot subdivision, 32 or 302030233030, and 3033 East Flats Lane. The developer signed the consent for these for the subdivision in 2014. Current zoning in the county is r 121. We would propose them to be R 120 in Sandy City. Two of those lots would be legal nonconforming because they are under 20,000 square feet currently.

This item has been noticed to the public. Is anybody here tonight would like to speak on this item? Please come down and state your name and address for the record. And just speak really in one of those two mics.

Okay. Yeah. I'll be brief. So my name is David Sheffings. I live at 3033 East Yankee Flats Lane. So one of those nonconforming lots. Myself, I actually have no problems. Actually, I'm in full support of the annexation. I've actually sent questions to Brian. He's answered all those questions. And talking with the neighbors, I know I can't really represent the neighbors, but we've discussed this proposal, and nobody actually has any issues with it. The only two things that really came up, which I think Brian has actually answered, one was about the Bell Canyon irrigation rights, and it sounds like there's no change to that. Those will continue. Another question that we had, all the homeowners would really like to see the road taken over by Sandy City. Been talking with Brian that was not possible because of the size of the lots would be reduced.

So if that was ever a consideration in the future, we would like to that to be considered just more for snow plowing than anything else. The only other last question I have is I'm a little unsure why the crosshatch goes down Dimpledale Road. I didn't actually get a chance to ask Brian about that.

Please please. Please yeah he can answer that after.

Yeah, we will as homeowners we will wear aware of that zone going down the the road there so. Other than that no no other issues.

Thank you for

your time.

Anybody else online Mike?

If you're joining us via Zoom webinar and would like to speak on the Jenky Flats annexation please use the raise your hand feature now and we'll address you one at a time. I'm seeing no hands.

We'll close out to public comment. Item number 31, the Hilton annexation.

This is located at 10424 South Temple Dale Road. Property owner signed a consent in 2015. Current zoning is R 121, proposed to be R 120 in Sandy City.

Thank you. Is the property owner here that would like to speak on this item? Anybody online?

If you're joining us via Zoom webinar and would like to speak on the Hilton annexation, please use the raise your hand feature now and we'll address you one at a time. I am seeing no hands.

Thank you. We'll close that to public comment. Item number 32, the Southwick annexation.

Located at 10524 South Temple Dale Road. Property owner signed a consent in 2016. Current zoning is R143. Proposed to be R one forty a in Sandy because he does have large animals on-site.

Thank you. Is the property owner here tonight would like to speak to this item? Anybody online, Mike?

If you're joining us via Zoom webinar and would like to speak on the Southwick annexation, please use the raise your hand feature now and we'll address you one at a time. I am seeing no hands.

Thank you. We'll close that to public comment. Item number 33, the Turning Point annexation.

So, this is a subdivision with five lots. You see the addresses on the screen. The developer signed a consent back in 2016. Current zoning is R 143 proposed to be R 140 in Sandy.

Thank you. Is the I is the property owner here tonight would like to speak to this item? Anybody online, Mike?

If you're joining us via Zoom webinar and would like to speak on the Turning Point Annexation, please use the raise your hand feature now and we'll address you one at a time. I am seeing no hands.

We'll close that to public comment. Item number 34, Newman annexation.

So this annexation includes four properties located on 20th East. This is a group of individuals that wanted to annex in. We gave their consent forms back in January. So just as the timing went, we included this as part of all the others. They signed their consent like I said in January. Current zoning is R one twenty eight twenty one proposed to be R 120 in Sandy.

Is any of the property owners here that would like to speak to this item tonight? Anybody online, Mike?

If you are joining us via Zoom webinar and would like to speak to this particular item, please use the raise your hand feature now and we'll address you one at a time. We do have Linda Newman. You may unmute unmute yourself.

Linda, if you could state your name and address for the record, you'll have two minutes.

My name is Linda Newman and my address is 10715 South 2000 East in Sandy. But our question is, we have pasture and place for large animals. We don't have any right now, but we've had that zoning, and I want to keep that. Is there I noticed one of them had an A at the end. Is that something that we can request or

Yes. That we will include that as part of the motion for tonight. Thank you. Anybody else online, Mike?

I am seeing no other hands raised.

Thank you. We'll close that to public comment. And the last one

is the Findlay Mini Annexation. Located at 2030 And 2060 East, the developer of this two lot subdivision consigned the consent back in 1999, proposed zoning in or it is currently zoned r one twenty one in the county, proposed to Be

R 120 in Sandy City. Thank you. Is the property owner here tonight who would like to speak this item? Anybody online, Mike?

If you're joining us via Zoom webinar and would like to speak to this particular Findlay mini annexation, please use the raise your hand feature now and we'll address you one at a time. I am seeing no hands raised.

Thank you. We'll close that to public comment and we'll bring that back to just general public comment. If there's anybody else that would like to speak tonight to this item, you're welcome. Please come down. You'll have two minutes. Again, please just state your name and address for the record, please.

My name is Von Cox. My address is 9906 South 2700 East. You have a copy of the letter that I have given you before. I wanna make just a couple of comments. First, has anyone really considered how these annexations are gonna break up the current islands? I look at the island I live in. It's about three quarters of a mile long. From the top to the bottom, it changes from unincorporated county to Sandy back to unincorporated county nine times. Nine times. And as I talk with people in Sandy, I feel like those kind of common sense things fall on deaf ears.

So I wanna ask the question, what is the real motivation for these annexations? It's probably above the pay grade of everybody in this room. But the message delivered by Sandy City is that the city has a contractual right to complete these annexations. Perhaps they do. Perhaps they don't.

While there are many legal arguments that the annexation clauses are not enforceable, no one knows how a court would rule in this k issue. But in all candor, these 29 annexation rule resolutions, these actions that would annex 53 parcels of land within the Granite community are not really about annexation at all. They are about Sandy City's efforts to stop the incorporation of the city of Granite. If these annexations go through, the map of Granite will change, and those that are trying to incorporate Granite will have to start over. The deadline is July 2027, and there's not enough time to start over and complete it.

So this is an effort to stop that effort. If these annexations go through, the incorporation effort will likely die or be on life support. Through these annexation actions, the Sandy City is actually working to, number one, silence the voice of the Granite community and its residents. Number two, stop a valid and legally authorized election where the residents of Granite can voice make their own decision. And number three, deny the residents of Granite their right of self determination.

It's hard for me to find an example in Utah government of anything more undemocratic and un American than using tech technicalities and trickery to silence the voice of an entire community. And that's what's happening here. Two minutes are up. You know, I don't know what to say, but it's unconscionable what's happening here. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else that would like to speak tonight that hasn't already? Please come down. If you'd state your name and address for the record, please.

I I'm Rob Alston. I live at 10575 Dimple Dell Road, currently a resident of Sandy City. Wasn't always that. So I lived in Sandy City for twenty years over on Segal Lily. Moved to on to Dimple Dell about twenty years ago.

So I was a member of Granite Community. Joined the Granite Community Board for about four or five years. Really didn't think that Granite Community was particularly well run, and there was a lot of people who had hostility to Sandy City for what I thought were really good reasons. So fifteen years ago, I voluntarily left Granite City or Granite Community annexed into Sandy. In that fifteen years, I've had a lot of dealings with Sandy City.

They've been nothing but positive. I love the people that I've worked with, whether it's been in public utilities, planning, development. I built added onto my house. I did an ADU, all kinds of things where I've had to deal with Sandy City, including police. Quick response for police as opposed to being in the county. Anyway, I'm really happy with being in Sandy City, and I support these annexations because I think it makes no sense whatsoever to have the current checkerboard of county and Sandy City that we have on Dippledale. And it only makes sense to create have it be one city, and I think Sandy City is the right city for that.

Thank you for your time. Anybody else that would like to speak tonight? Anybody online, Mike?

If you're joining us via Zoom webinar and would like to speak on any of the annexation items, please use the raise your hand feature now and we'll address you one at a time. You have one raised hand. Mr. Steve Van Maren, you may unmute yourself.

Steve, you'll have two minutes.

Thank you. Steve Van Maren, 1400178 South Bangor Parkway. I am totally impressed with the chairs getting through this agenda so quickly. I totally understand what you're trying to do. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Steve. Anybody else online or in person would like to speak to these items tonight?

I'm seeing no other hands.

Okay, we're going to close that to public comment and we're going to bring that back to the Commission for action. Let's see going back to the Walters annexation that would be number. Oh sure absolutely sorry Deliberation. Do we are there specific questions on any of the annexations or process? What would you like to discuss?

It appears as though we're creating all these islands.

But Can you speak into your mic?

Appears as though we're

Darian, did you want to take that one?

Can you hear me okay? Yes. Sorry, I'm a little under the weather. So the state law allows annexation of contiguous property that's within an island or a peninsula in Sandy. So if it's already an island and there's a property within that island that's contiguous to Sandy, Sandy is allowed under state law to annex that.

It's the city council that makes the determination that it's in the best interest of the city to annex only a portion of that island or peninsula when they annex the property or, you know, multiple properties. They're not creating the island because it already exists as an island today. They adopted that intent to annex resolution previously and within that resolution they made the determination that it was in the best interest of Sandy City to only annex a portion.

I'm not

sure I understood that answer actually. So did you say that there was not these annexations wouldn't create any instances where that property does not touch Sandy City after it's annexed? Is that I thought that was the intention as as far as islands go. And do do any of these annexations not meet that or is my understanding not correct?

So that each property that's being annexed is contiguous to Sandy City. Just isn't the entire island that's being annexed. Okay. I I understand. It's a portion of an island that's being annexed.

Okay. Craig, does that answer your question?

Is there not a deadline that the state has given us? So

there is a the state has adopted an an automatic annexation date in 2027 that these properties have annexation agreements of various forms that are already in place. And so Sandy City is annexing them in advance of that automatic annexation time frame based on the water

state's deadline. I'm not sure if the audience understands that.

And by what Brennan mentioned there were a few that aren't that are coming in just as a consent. Correct. And not as part of a water letter as well. There were several there were several of those too.

Believe that when the state adopted the automatic annexation, there actually were quite a few properties that began to just request annexation in advance of that date.

And we have done some of those already

as part of

Yeah. We've seen several of those already.

One last question about the granite situation. Are we hampering something there in the granite area?

So the granite area performed a feasibility study. And they that feasibility study included some of these properties. So that feasibility study would be would need to be amended if the city council determines to amex these properties. But that determination is going to be made by the city council. Mister

chair, I have a question. Yeah. Regarding the there was a lot of questions on services. And so if we could just put on record how services will be tackled in these new annexed areas, that would be helpful.

Do you want to yeah, Brian, you want to talk about that for a minute?

Yeah. In talking with our public works folks. They are already current agreements with the county on some of these areas because this isn't unfortunately not a new thing. I mean, we have areas that are part, you know, you can have portions of the same street that are part in Sandy and partly in the county. And so there are agreements in some of those locations where either Sandy performs the service on the snowplow or the county does. And so we would have similar agreements in place in some of these areas.

Jim, I got a couple of questions. We've had a lot regarding the water. From my understanding, the people that had the water letters whatever, they sent us something saying that they are they would like to move forward with this, but now someone to drop out of that. Is that what I heard?

So there are a couple of properties that have signed a consent, and there was language on former consents that had language on being able to withdraw from the annexation. And so on the Seabridge property, we did get one of those letters where they formally requested to withdraw from the annexation.

Okay, because I heard a couple of people say they may be submitting that that withdraw. They said that would be okay. And there's a couple up here that said, hey, yes, we need to go forward on that.

Like I said, it was on certain there was a certain time period that that language is on the consent. We'll have to look at each one of those individually.

There was also a question if Sandy annexes them in and Granite goes through, can Granite annex them back into Granite? Or is that once it's in

the Sandy, they can't go back? Yeah, once it's in the Sandy, it's in Sandy.

Because I sort of heard some of that concern going on there. From my understanding, we're making a recommendation basically just to move forward with these to the city council and the city council make a decision basically answer all the concerns that this audience had today.

Yeah, there will be a public hearing on April 7 and that starts at 05:15 in front of the city council, same location.

Thank you. Any other questions?

Yeah. Right. Maybe just stay there. So on mister Cox's document here, these items here were it's talked about the water annexation contractually forbidden documentation. So do we have any of these items on here tonight? They're still on the agenda that

I haven't seen his letter so I don't know what property is referring to and I don't know enough information on that contract. We would have to have our legal.

Okay. If we went ahead and and and had provided a recommendation obviously this is City Council makes the final comment.

That's correct. Anything on these would be so we would just make a recommendation.

At this point. Yeah. And then all that would be figured out afterwards.

Correct. That's correct.

Yeah. Be probably going

to our attorneys before it came to the city council probably. Okay.

And then there was that question about the Dimpletoe Road cross hatch. Maybe if you could provide some additional clarity on Was that part of the map, the plot previously? Yes.

In a number of annexations we've done since the state passed that bill, you know others have expressed interest. They have to be contiguous and we have included sections of Dimpledale Road on the past. And so we just did that same same process on Okay. This

And then we had some general discussion prior, we all visited these properties as a planning commission on a bus and we had some general discussion about R140 A versus R140 and these R140 A recommend sorry sorry the R140 recommendations they'll had R143 designation in the county and that designation also offered animal rights. Correct. Correct. And I think as a planning commission, we talked about particularly those properties that were near the Granite Park and Dimple Dell recreational park areas that were zoned R140 A sorry R1 recommended to be R140 to I think to come in at R140 A is the how we generally discuss that. So I think we'll see that in some of the motions.

Did that complete your? That's all I had. Denise, did you have some questions?

Nope, I don't have any questions.

Okay. Are we ready to kind of make some motions or? Okay. Going to item three, which is the Walters annexation.

Mr. Chair, I'll make that motion.

Okay.

I recommend that the Planning Commission send a positive recommendation to the city council that the Walters annexation be approved in zoned r 110 based on the five findings in the staff report.

Is there a second?

Lenny Stavenport? Yes. Craig Kitterman?

Yes.

Dave Bromley?

Yes.

Steve Wrigley?

Yes.

Jennifer George? Yes. Danny Schoenfeld? Yes. This motion carries.

Thank you. Next item is the Cassell annexation number four.

Mister chair, I'll make the motion on that.

Go

ahead. Realizing that the council will take the final action on this. I recommend that the Planning Commission send a positive recommendation to the City Council that the Cassell annexation be approved and zoned R110 based on the five findings of the staff report.

Is there a sec second? I'll second.

Lenny Stafford? Yes. Steve Wrigley?

Yes.

Dave Bromley?

Yes.

Craig Kitterman? Yes. Jennifer George? Yes. Danny Schoenfeld? Yes. This This motion carries.

Next is the Clark annexation.

Mister Charles, make a motion that the Planning Commission send a positive recommendation to the city council that the Clark annexation be approved and zoned r one ten based on the five findings in the staff report.

Is there a second? Second.

Lenny Stafford? Yes. Craig Kitterman? Yes. Dave Bromley?

Yes.

Steve Wrigley?

Yes.

Jennifer George? Yes. Danny Schoenfeld? Yes. This motion carries.

Number six, the Hidden Pine annexation.

Mister Terrell make a motion that the Pine and Commission send a positive recommendation to the city council that the Hidden Pine annexation be approved in Zone R 115 based on the five findings of the staff report.

Is there a second? Yes. I'll be second to it.

Sorry, who was the second? Steve.

I did.

Thank you. Lenny Stavenport? Yes. Steve Wrigley?

Yes.

Dave Bromley?

Yes.

Craig Kitterman?

Yes.

Jennifer George? Yes. Danny Schoenfeld? Yes. This motion carries.

Number seven, the Smith annexation.

Mister Cherry recommend that the planning commission send a positive recommendation to the city council that the Smith annexation be approved in Zoned R 115 based on the four findings of the staff report.

Is there a second?

I'll second.

Lanise Davenport. Yes. Jennifer George. Yes. Dave Bromley.

Yes.

Steve Wrigley.

Yes.

Craig Kitterman. Yes. Danny Schoenfeld. Yes. This motion carries.

Number eight, Pingree annexation.

Mister Chair, this is my final motion of the evening. Okay. I recommend that the planning commission send a positive recommendation to the city council that the Pingree annexation be approved in Zone R 120 based on the five findings of the staff report.

Is there a second? Second.

Lenny Stavenport? Yes. Craig Kitterman?

Yes.

Dave Bromley?

Yes.

Steve Wrigley? Yes. Jennifer George? Yes. Danny Schoenfeld? Yes. This motion

quite ready to make a motion on that. Does someone else want to do that one for number nine?

Conflicted.

I'd like to make a motion that the Planning Commission send a positive recommendation to see.

Miss George, is your microphone on?

Yeah.

Okay.

Yeah, close. Here we go.

Like to make a recommendation that the Planning Commission send a positive recommendation to city council that the Anderson annexation be approved and zoned R 115 based on the five recommendations.

Is there

a second? Second.

Jennifer George? Yes. Dave Bromley? Yes. Steve Wrigley?

Yes.

Lenny Davenport? Yes. Craig Kitterman? No. Danny Schoenfeld? Yes. This motion carries.

Number 10, the Anderson annexation.

Miller. Miller.

Excuse me. I'm sorry. Number 10, Miller annexation. Sorry.

I'd like to make a recommendation there. Okay. I move that the Planning Commission send a positive recommendation in the City Council at the Miller annexation be approved and zoned R120 based upon the five findings in the staff report.

Is there a second? I'll second.

Craig Hitterman?

Yes.

Steve Wrigley?

Yes.

Dave Bromley?

Yes.

Lanise Davenport? Yes. Jennifer George? Yes. Danny Schoenfeld? Yes. This motion carries.

Number 11, the parish annexation.

I'd like to make a motion.

Okay.

I recommended the planning commission send a positive recommendation to the city council at the Paris annexation be approved and Zone R 115 based upon the five findings.

Is there a second? I'll second it.

Craig Kitterman? Yes. Steve Wrigley?

Yes.

Dave Bromley?

Yes.

Lenny Stavenport? Yes. Jennifer George? Yes. Danny Schoenfeld? Yes. This motion carries.

The Sievert annexation number 12.

I move that the Planning Commission send positive recommendation to the City Council that the Sievertz annexation be approved and zoned R140A based upon four of the findings with number four being altered instead of r one forty to the r one forty a.

Is there a second?

Second. Craig Hitterman? Yes. Lanise Davenport? Yes. Dave Bromley?

Yes.

Steve Brickley?

Yes.

Jennifer George? Yes. Danny Schoenfeld? Yes. This motion carries.

Number 13, the Jake annexation.

I recommend that the Planning Commission send a positive recommendation to the city council that the annexation be approved and zoned R140A based upon the findings except altering item number four to be R140A.

Is there a second?

I'll second.

Craig Kitterman?

Yes.

Lanise Davenport? Yes. Dave Bromley?

Yes.

Steve Wrigley?

Yes.

Jennifer George? Yes. Danny Schoenfeld?

Yes. This motion carries. Number 14, night annexation.

Recommend that the planning commission send a positive recommendation to the city council at the night annexation be approved and zoned r one forty a best of based upon the four findings with the fifth finding r one forty be amended to be r one forty a.

Is there a second? I'll second that.

Craig Kitterman?

Yes.

Steve Brickley?

Yes.

Dave Bromley?

Yes.

Lanise Davenport? Yes. Jennifer George? Yes. Danny Schoenfeld? Yes. This motion carries.

Number 15, Alta Villa number one annexation.

I'd like to make a recommendation that the planning commission send a positive recommendation to the city council that the Alta Villa one annexation be approved in Zone R 140 A based on the five findings with changing item number four to R 148.

Is there a second? Second.

Jennifer George? Yes. Dave Bromley?

Yes.

Steve Wrigley? Yes. Lanise Davenport? Yes. Craig Kitterman?

Yes.

Danny Schoenfeld? Yes. This motion carries.

Number 16, Alta View number two, Alta Villa number two annexation.

I'd like to recommend that the Planning Commission send a positive recommendation to city council that Altavilla 2 annexation be approved and zoned for R140A based on the five findings changing item number four to one forty eight.

Is there a second? Second.

Jennifer George? Yes. Dave Bromley?

Yes.

Steve Wrigley?

Yes.

Lanise Davenport? Yes. Craig Kitterman? Yes. Danny Schoenfeld? Yes. This motion carries.

Number 17, Alta Villa number three annexation.

I'd like to recommend that the planning commission send a positive recommendation to city council and the Alta Villa 3 annexation be approved and zoned for R 140 A based on the four findings changing item four to R 140 A.

Is there a second? Second.

Jennifer George? Yes. Dave Bromley? Yes. Steve Wrigley? Yes. Lanise Davenport? Yes. Craig Kitterman? Yes. Danny Schoenfeld? Yes. This motion carries.

Number 18, Alta Villa number four annexation.

I'd like to recommend that the Planning Commission send a positive recommendation to city council that the Alta Villa 4 annexation be approved and zoned R one forty A based on the four findings changing the fourth item to R one forty eight.

Is there a second? Second.

Jennifer George? Yes. Dave Bromley?

Yes.

Steve Wrigley?

Yes.

Lanise Davenport? Yes. Craig Kitterman? Yes. Danny Schoenfeld? Yes. This motion carries.

Number 19, South Miller annexation.

I'd like to recommend that the planning commission send a positive recommendation to city council that the S Miller annexation be approved and zoned r one forty a based on the five findings changing item four to r one forty a.

Second.

Ahead and thing. I'm

same

city city council council that that the the Frick's annexation be approved and zoned R140A based on the five findings with fourth modified to be r one forty a.

Is there a second? I'll second.

Dave Bromley?

Yes.

Steve Wrigley? Yes. Lenny Stavenport? Yes. Craig Kitterman? Yes. Jennifer George? Yes. Danny Schoenfeld?

Yes.

This motion carries.

Number 21, Brown Annexation.

Make a recommendation that the Planning Commission send a positive recommendation to the city council that the Brown Annexation be approved and zoned R115 based on the five findings detailed in the staff report.

Is there a second?

Question yeah animals. Was that the one?

Second.

Sorry, was that Craig?

Craig.

Dave Bromley?

Yes.

Craig Kitterman?

Yes.

Steve Wrigley?

Yes.

Lenny Stafford? Yes. Jennifer George?

Yes.