[00:00:01]
STANDARD VERSION. WE WILL START THE PRE-MEETING, THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FOR WEST JORDAN,
[Pre-Meeting 5:30 p.m.]
MARCH 18TH, 2025. WE HAVE GOT. WE'VE GOT NOISE.FIRST ON THE AGENDA IS REVIEW OF THE MINUTES FROM LAST TIME.
ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY. NEXT IS A PUBLIC HEARING WITH FINAL ACTION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR TERRAIN FORMERLY KNOWN AS WOOD RANCH. AND IT LOOKS LIKE RAY.
YEAH. SO THIS IS JUST ANOTHER PLOT IN A LONG SERIES OF PLOTS TO COME.
BUT WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT TONIGHT IS PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL OF TERRAIN PLAT SEVEN, AND THEN ALSO APPROVAL OF THE SUB AREA PLAN FOR THAT PHASE.
PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD. IT'S JUST A CONTINUATION OF WHAT'S OUT THERE.
A LOT OF THE ROADS ARE IN PLACE NOW. THEY'VE GOT HOUSES THERE.
THE THE BISTRO IS IN PLACE, THE COMMUNITY CENTERS THERE, THEY'VE GOT, I THINK THEY CALL IT THE LANTERN BUILDING, WHICH IS ALL GLASS. SO IT'S COMING TOGETHER AND STARTING TO LOOK.
YEAH. ANY QUESTIONS? RAY. YOU'LL NEVER BE ABLE TO RETIRE UNTIL THIS IS DONE.
IT'S GOING TO BE NEXT YEAR. IT WON'T BE OLD. YEAH.
ALL RIGHT. THE NEXT IS THE PUBLIC HEARING WITH PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR FINAL ACTION AND TEXT AMENDMENT ON CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS. AND IT LOOKS LIKE LARRY.
SO IN THE CURRENT ORDINANCE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS RUN WITH THE LAND.
AND WHAT THAT MEANS IS THAT THEY NEVER EXPIRE.
WE FOUND THAT TO BE AN ISSUE. OUR CODE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION IS THEY HAVE A WHAT'S HE CALLED? WHAT'S DAVE MAGOS POSITION? HE'S A NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT OFFICER.
LOOKING AT A LOT OF THESE REALLY OLD CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS THAT HAVE BEEN ISSUED IN THE 80S AND 90S AND EARLY 2000 AND SEEING IF THEY STILL EXIST. AND LO AND BEHOLD, THERE'S MANY OF THEM THAT DON'T.
PROBABLY THE VAST MAJORITY OF THEM DON'T. AND OTHER USES ARE ON THE PROPERTY, THIS AND THAT.
AND THERE'S NO WAY TO REALLY REVOKE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
I THINK THE PLANNING COMMISSION WAS INVOLVED IN A FEW OF THOSE.
WE CHANGED IT A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO, OR MAYBE LAST YEAR TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE.
AND SO THAT'S WHEN MANY MOONS AGO. AND SO WE'VE TALKED TO OUR LEGAL TEAM.
AND AS LONG AS THERE'S AN ESTABLISHED CRITERIA OF WHY SOMETHING AUTOMATIC IS AUTOMATICALLY EXPIRES OR IT'S NOT REVOKED, IT'S JUST AUTOMATICALLY EXPIRES.
THEY FEEL LIKE WE'RE IN A GOOD SOLID GROUND. SOMEBODY CAN'T COME AND SAY, I HAD THIS RIGHT.
IT'S REALLY NOT A RIGHT. IT'S A PERMIT FROM THE CITY.
AND SO WHAT THIS AMENDMENT WILL DO IS PUT BACK IN A THE AUTOMATIC REVOCATION.
AND THAT'LL BE IF, FIRST OF ALL, IF THEY COME TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR ZONING ADMINISTRATOR AND THEY'RE REQUIRED TO BUILD A BUILDING AND THEY GET THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, AND THEY JUST NEVER BUILD THE BUILDING, THAT'S ONE.
THE SECOND IS IF THEY COME AND GET A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FROM EITHER BODY AND THEY NEVER DO IT,
[00:05:04]
NEVER GET A BUSINESS LICENSE. AND THE THIRD IS, OF COURSE, IF THEY DO THE USE, BUT THEY'RE WAY OUTSIDE OF THE BOUNDS OF WHAT THEIR CONDITIONS WERE. NOW THAT THAT'S A FINE LINE BETWEEN A AUTOMATIC REVOCATION OR AN ACTUAL REVOCATION, I THINK IF THEY'RE REALLY NOT FOLLOWING UP TO THE CONDITIONS THEY AGREED TO, THAT PROBABLY WOULD GO TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE FOR HIM TO MAKE A JUDGMENT AT THIS POINT. SO IT REALLY HELPS OUT BECAUSE THEY'VE GOT, I THINK, TWO ON THE NEXT ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DOCKET.ALSO, WHERE IF THIS IS APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, THEN MANY OF THOSE WOULD JUST AUTOMATICALLY EXPIRE BECAUSE A LOT OF THE USES HAVE GONE AWAY, YOU KNOW? AND FOR INSTANCE, THERE WAS A COUPLE IN WELLS PARK ROAD THAT A BUSINESSES ON WELLS PARK ROAD THAT HAVEN'T EXISTED FOR PROBABLY THIS MILLENNIUM. I THINK THEY WERE LONG EXPIRED BEFORE THE YEAR 2000, BUT WHERE THEY ALWAYS RUN WITH THE LAND AND THEY ALWAYS COULD OPERATE SOMETHING THERE AND IT GETS CONCERNING.
AND THE REASON IT'S CONCERNING FOR THE CITY IS THAT, FOR INSTANCE, SAY THAT ON A PIECE OF PROPERTY, A, A SALVAGE YARD WAS APPROVED AND THE CONDITIONS WERE FAIRLY MINIMAL, YOU KNOW, AND THEY WEREN'T REALLY CONDITIONS THAT MITIGATE THE EFFECTS TO THE AREA.
AND THAT'S CONCERNING BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, SALVAGE YARDS ARE ALLOWED IN THE M1 ZONE.
AND AND SO THAT THAT IS ONE, YOU KNOW, TEST CASE WHERE IT WILL BE BENEFICIAL TO THE CITY.
SO DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME? THEY PUT A LOT OF VERBIAGE INTO THIS.
SO I DON'T HAVE TO SAY A LOT IN THE NEXT. I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA.
WHEN I WAS GOING THROUGH THE PACKET AND STUFF, I ALWAYS KIND OF WONDERED THAT AFTER THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS EXPIRED AND OR NEW OWNERSHIP TOOK OVER, WHAT EVER HAPPENED WITH THAT? SO IT MAKES SENSE. WELL, A LOT OF ON THOSE TWO ON WELLS PARK ROAD, THE CURRENT PROPERTY OWNER HAD NO IDEA BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT RECORDED ON THE PROPERTY.
THE CITY JUST MAINTAINS A RECORD HERE OF THEM.
AND, YOU KNOW, AS A PLANNING DEPARTMENT, WE'VE PROBABLY BEEN LAX ON GOING THROUGH THOSE OVER THE YEARS BECAUSE PEOPLE CHANGE, STAFF CHANGES, YOU KNOW, AND IT'S JUST SOMETHING YOU FORGET ABOUT ONCE IT'S DONE, IT'S DONE.
SO THAT'S A GOOD THING. ANY QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER ANDERSON? YEAH, I JUST HAD A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS ON THIS ONE.
IS THE INTENTION THAT THEY HAVE TO DO EACH OF THE FOLLOWING WITHIN THE 12 MONTHS WHEN IT SAYS THE WORD TO DO ANY OF THE FOLLOWING WITHIN 12 MONTHS? I FEEL THAT THAT COULD BE INTERPRETED ANY ONE OF THE FOLLOWING.
SO CAN YOU ANSWER THAT BETTER? YOU YOU WROTE THAT PART OF THE ORDINANCE.
YEAH. PROBABLY ANY ONE OF THE FOLLOWING PROBABLY IS A BETTER WAY TO WRITE IT.
THAT'S A GOOD CATCH. THAT'S WHAT THAT KIND OF REMOVES THE AMBIGUITY, RIGHT? YEAH. IF THAT WOULD BE OKAY. THE OTHER QUESTION I HAD, I JUST HAVE TWO MORE ISSUES.
THE SECOND ONE WAS THE 12 MONTHS. I THINK THAT THE REALITY OF CONSTRUCTION POST COVID IS IT'S IT'S PROBABLY A LITTLE DIFFICULT TO GET A BUILDING PERMIT AND A FOUNDATION IN WITHIN 12 MONTHS.
WE COULD GO WHATEVER THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED.
NOW, IF SOMEBODY APPLIED FOR A BUILDING PERMIT, WE'D CONSIDER THAT ALSO, AND THAT WOULD BE GOOD.
APPLYING FOR A BUILDING PERMIT. IT'S JUST THAT FOLLOWING THAT YOU HAVE TO ALSO HAVE THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE FOUNDATION IN, IN ADDITION TO THE BUILDING. YEAH, WE I'M CERTAINLY NOT WEDDED TO ANY OF THIS LANGUAGE YOU HAVE WHATEVER THE PLANNING COMMISSION FEELS IS APPROPRIATE.
I'M FINE WITH. YEAH. AND THEN THE LAST ONE WAS I.
I'M A LITTLE WORRIED ABOUT REVOKING IT WITHOUT NOTICE.
THE CONCEPT IS GOOD. LIKE IF PEOPLE AREN'T USING THESE, THEY NEED TO GO AWAY.
BUT I WONDER IF WE SHOULD STILL GIVE THEM 30 OR 60 DAYS BEFORE IT'S JUST AUTOMATIC.
[00:10:09]
CURRENT PROPERTY OWNER. AND SO YOU KNOW, AND IF IT'S ONLY A YEAR OR TWO OUT, WE COULD NOTICE BOTH THE PROPERTY OWNER AND THE APPLICANT.THAT WOULD BE NO PROBLEM. SO THOSE ARE ALL GOOD CATCHES.
SO DO YOU WANT ME TO BRING THESE UP AGAIN DURING THE MAIN MEETING? SO IT'S ON THE RECORD. I'LL BRING THAT UP SO I'LL DO THAT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? MR. ALLEN? YEAH. AS LONG AS WE'RE ASKING THE QUESTIONS HERE AND DON'T ASK THEM LATER.
THAT'S A POSITIVE THING. THE WHAT OTHER TRIGGERS ARE THERE, IF ANY, FOR UPDATING CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS THAT HAVE BEEN PUT INTO PLACE? WHAT WAS THE QUESTION AGAIN? SO LET'S SAY YOU'VE GOT A PROPERTY OWNER THAT GOT A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
AT WHAT POINT OR WHAT ARE THE TRIGGERS THAT ALLOW THE CITY TO RELOOK AT THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT? IT WOULDN'T BE PROPERTY OWNERSHIP. IT'S JUST IF THEY ARE DOING EXACTLY WHAT WAS APPLIED FOR AND THEY'RE FOLLOWING ALL THE CONDITIONS IMPOSED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
SO IF THEY DON'T DO THAT, I'M NOT SAYING THAT THEY COULDN'T COME BACK AND AMEND THAT WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION, WHICH THEY COULD. SO I'M WONDERING IF IT WOULD BE POSITIVE FOR US TO CONSIDER SOME SORT OF AN UPDATE BECAUSE YOU MENTIONED, YOU KNOW, 30 YEARS AGO, AND WHAT IF THERE'S AN ENTITY THAT'S JUST BEEN GOING FOR 30 YEARS AND DOING THE SAME THING, BUT THERE ARE NEW CONDITIONS UNDER OUR CURRENT STATUS THAT WE OUGHT TO CONSIDER.
AND WE HAVE DONE THOSE A FEW OF THOSE, PROBABLY 2 OR 3 OF THOSE THAT WERE ISSUED BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR THAT NECESSARILY HAVEN'T COME TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. BUT YES, WE HAVE DONE THAT.
WE JUST MAKE THEM AMEND THEIR THEIR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
SO THAT'S NOT A PROBLEM. WE CAN DO THAT. OKAY.
AWESOME. THANKS. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT.
WE'LL GO AHEAD AND TURN THE TIME OVER TO DUNCAN FOR TRAINING.
OKAY. SO LARRY INITIALLY ASSIGNED ME THE TOPIC OF ETHICS IN CONJUNCTION WITH POWERS AND DUTIES. AND THE MORE I THOUGHT ABOUT IT THAT A LOT OF THE ISSUES THAT WE CALL ETHICS AND WHICH ARE ETHICS ARE MORE ACCURATELY. HEY, DUNCAN.
YEAH. I HATE TO BOTHER YOU. MY SCREEN JUST WENT BLANK.
OH. SO BEFORE YOU LEAVE. SEE, I KNEW THAT'S WHAT YOU WERE TRYING TO DO.
AND DUE PROCESS IS A CONSTITUTIONAL TERM. A LOT OF TIMES IT'S IT'S ONE OF THOSE TERMS THAT WE KIND OF SORT OF KNOW WHAT IT MEANS, BUT MAYBE NOT COMPLETELY, BUT IT'S NOT A DIFFICULT TERM, BUT IT'S A VERY IMPORTANT TERM.
IN FACT, THERE'S SEVERAL CONCEPTS IN OUR CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM THAT YOU WOULD PROBABLY REFER TO AS THE MOST IMPORTANT CONSTITUTIONAL CONCEPTS. AND THIS IS ONE OF THOSE. RIGHT. IT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WHY OUR CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC ENJOYS MORE FREEDOM THAN THAN MANY OF THE OTHER COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD.
IS THAT WE HAVE THIS NOTION OF DUE PROCESS. WE JUST ASSUME THAT EVERYBODY HAS IT EVERYWHERE, BUT THEY DON'T. THERE ARE A LOT OF TIMES IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD, INCLUDING COUNTRIES CURRENTLY IN THE WORLD, THAT THAT WOULD LOVE TO HAVE DUE PROCESS, BUT THEY DON'T HAVE IT.
SO FIRST OF ALL, I THOUGHT LET'S, LET'S DEFINE WHAT DUE PROCESS IS.
AND SOMETIMES I LIKE TO COME UP WITH JUST MY OWN SIMPLIFIED DEFINITION.
AND THIS THE SIMPLIFIED DEFINITION MAY NOT BE COMPLETE, BUT IT'S EASY TO REMEMBER.
RIGHT. AND IT'S ANY TIME THAT YOUR LIFE, LIBERTY OR PROPERTY IS AT ISSUE.
AND THAT'S A CONSTITUTIONAL CONCEPT THAT WE ALL KNOW ABOUT, RIGHT? LIFE, LIBERTY AND PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS OR LIFE? LIBERTY AND PROPERTY. AND A LOT OF IT WASN'T NAILED DOWN COMPLETELY IN THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION.
[00:15:01]
BUT IN THE 14TH AMENDMENT, THERE IS THIS LANGUAGE THAT YOU'RE GUARANTEED.DUE PROCESS AS FAR AS LIFE, LIBERTY AND PROPERTY.
AND IN FACT, IN OUR STATE CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE ONE, SECTION SEVEN, WE ALSO HAVE A DUE PROCESS CLAUSE WHICH GIVES US THE RIGHT TO HEARING AND NOTICE OF THE HEARING FOR LIFE, LIBERTY AND PROPERTY.
AND A LOT OF TIMES THAT'S, YOU KNOW, IN A CRIMINAL SETTING, RIGHT? I MEAN, IF YOU'RE BEING CHARGED WITH SOMETHING, ESPECIALLY IF YOU'RE BEING CHARGED WITH SOMETHING THAT AGGRAVATED MURDER, SOMETHING WHERE MAYBE THE DEATH PENALTY IS POSSIBLE.
THEN OF COURSE, YOU GET ALL KINDS OF EXTRA RIGHTS TO A FAIR HEARING AND SO FORTH.
RIGHT. OR IF YOU'RE LIBERTY IS AT STAKE IN SOME WAY.
BUT WHAT WE'RE FOCUSED ON TONIGHT IS PROPERTY, RIGHT? AND PARTICULAR REAL PROPERTY, REAL PROPERTY RIGHTS IN OUR LAND USE SETTING WHERE YOU'RE A LAND USE AUTHORITY PEOPLE SOMETIMES FORGET THAT PROPERTY RIGHTS AREN'T JUST PIECES OF LAND, RIGHT? I MEAN, I OWN AN ACRE, AND IF SOMEBODY TAKES AWAY MY 10TH OF AN ACRE, THEY'RE DEPRIVING ME OF MY PROPERTY, RIGHT? BUT I MIGHT STILL HAVE MY FULL ACRE OF PROPERTY.
BUT SOMEBODY STOPS ME FROM DOING SOMETHING WITH MY PROPERTY, OR TAKES AWAY MY MINERAL RIGHTS, OR TAKES AWAY WHATEVER. WRITE ANY OF THOSE THINGS CONNECTED WITH MY PROPERTY IS STILL A PROPERTY, RIGHT? NOT JUST A PIECE OF THE LAND ITSELF, BUT SOME RIGHT ASSOCIATED WITH IT.
AND EVERY TIME THERE'S AN APPLICATION THAT COMES BEFORE YOU AS A LAND USE AUTHORITY CAN AFFECT WHAT SOMEBODY CAN DO WITH THAT PROPERTY. RIGHT. ESPECIALLY LIKE A SUBDIVISION, IF IT'S DIVIDED, THERE'S DIFFERENT RIGHTS THAN PEOPLE HAVE TO THE DIFFERENT LOTS CREATED IN THE SUBDIVISION. SO THAT GIVES YOU A LITTLE CONTEXT, RIGHT, OF WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
SO, SO IF AN APPLICANT COMES BEFORE YOU THEN FOR THEIR SUBDIVISION OR THEIR SITE PLAN, THEN THEY'VE GOT A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A FAIR HEARING, FAIR NOTICE OF THE HEARING AND MAYBE ANOTHER.
AND IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, MAYBE NOT JUST THE APPLICANT, BUT ALSO ANY OTHER PARTY THAT MIGHT BE DIRECTLY AFFECTED BY THE OUTCOME, RIGHT? SO THAT'S WHY, EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT REQUIRED BY STATE LAW TO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING FOR EVERY SUBDIVISION OR SITE PLAN, I LOVE THE IDEA THAT WE HAVE IT BECAUSE IT JUST AFFORDS THAT EXTRA ABILITY TO SHOW.
NO, WE REALLY DID GIVE THAT PERSON HIS DUE PROCESS.
WE REALLY DID GIVE HIM OR HER A FAIR HEARING, AND WE REALLY DID GIVE FAIR NOTICE, ESPECIALLY WHERE WE SEND NOTICES OUT WITHIN 300FT, EVEN WHEN WE DON'T HAVE TO, AND SO FORTH. I MEAN, DON'T HAVE TO BY STATE LAW, BUT DO BY OUR BY OUR OWN REGULATIONS.
SO SO WHEN SOMEBODY SAYS DUE PROCESS, WHAT IS DUE PROCESS? AGAIN, FAIR HEARING AND FAIR NOTICE OF THAT HEARING.
RIGHT. HEARING AND NOTICE. ALL RIGHT. SO AND IT'S IN THE 14TH AMENDMENT OF THE US CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE ONE, SECTION SEVEN, STATE CONSTITUTION.
AND YOU CAN GO THROUGH A LOT OF THIS ON YOUR OWN.
IT'S IT'S THE CHAPTER. IT'S CRAIG CALL'S BOOK.
I THINK MOST OF YOU HAVE A COPY OF THIS BOOK, RIGHT? GROUND RULES. THIS IS CHAPTER 18 ON ON THE DUE PROCESS OF LAW.
YES. OKAY. YEAH. OBVIOUSLY, THE WHOLE BOOK IS AWESOME.
IT SAYS A PERSON HAS A CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED PROPERTY INTEREST, FOR EXAMPLE, IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE APPLICATION, LIKE A SUBDIVISION OR SITE PLAN PENDING BEFORE THE CITY FOR REVIEW, IF AND ONLY IF THE PROPERTY OWNER IS ENTITLED TO APPROVAL OF THE APPLICATION. AND WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS BEFORE, BUT AND TEN 98509 IN THE STATE CODE.
IF SOMEONE'S SUBDIVISION OR SITE PLAN APPLICATION COMPLETELY, WHICH IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE APPLICATION, COMPLETELY CONFORMS TO ALL THE REGULATIONS, ALL THE CITY CODE.
THEN YOU HAVE TO GRANT IT, RIGHT? THERE'S NO DISCRETION.
[00:20:02]
IT HAS TO BE GRANTED. AND BECAUSE OF THAT STATE LAW THAT SAYS WE HAVE TO GRANT IT IF THEY MEET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS AND IF THEY DO MEET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS, THAT'S WHAT KICKS IN THIS CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION.RIGHT? BECAUSE IT'S ONE THING IF YOU COULD GRANT SOMETHING AND DON'T VERSUS YOU HAVE TO GRANT IT BECAUSE THEY MEET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS, THEN THAT IS A TAKING OF PROPERTY IN A WAY. RIGHT.
BECAUSE WE'VE ALREADY ADOPTED THE RULES. THE RULES SAY SOMEBODY CAN DO THEIR TEN LOT SUBDIVISION.
THEY'VE MET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS. YOU CAN'T SAY NO.
THEREFORE, IT'S A DENIAL OF THEIR DUE PROCESS.
IF YOU JUST ARBITRARILY SAY NO. RIGHT. THAT'S YOU'RE NOT PROTECTING THEIR PROPERTY.
AND THEY'RE GUARANTEED UNDER THE FEDERAL AND STATE CONSTITUTION TO HAVE THEIR PROPERTY RIGHTS.
ALL RIGHT. SO THE THE OTHER ISSUE I WANTED TO KIND OF FOCUS ON A LITTLE BIT IS, OH, AND LET'S GO TO THE BOTTOM OF PAGE 241. IT TALKS ABOUT BASIC DUE PROCESS AND ADDITIONAL TO THE NOTICE.
AND THE HEARING DUE PROCESS ALSO INCLUDES AT THAT HEARING TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE OR TO CONFRONT OTHER EVIDENCE THAT SOMEBODY ELSE PROVIDED. RIGHT.
BUT IT'S THAT OPPORTUNITY TO, TO KIND OF PRESENT YOUR POSITION.
NOW, IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE HAVE TO GIVE THEM A, YOU KNOW, A FULL HOUR OR WHATEVER, BUT WE HAVE TO GIVE THEM SOME REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE OR SOMETHING CONTRARY TO SOMEBODY ELSE'S EVIDENCE.
IT IS NOT FOR SOMEONE AT A PUBLIC HEARING. THEY HAVE NO DUE PROCESS.
WILL THEY? THEY REALLY DO NOT HAVE A DUE PROCESS, RIGHT? IT'S ONLY THE PROPERTY OWNER OR THE APPLICANT FOR THE PROPERTY.
NOW THERE THERE'S KIND OF AN EXCEPTION TO THAT, BUT IT'S REALLY NOT AN EXCEPTION.
IT'S IF THERE'S A NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNER THAT WOULD BE ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THE APPLICATION, BUT IT'S NOT REALLY AN AN EXCEPTION BECAUSE HE'S ALSO OR SHE'S ALSO A PROPERTY OWNER.
RIGHT. THAT HAS A PROPERTY. RIGHT. BUT YEAH, IT IS IT'S FOR PROPERTY OWNERS.
SO THE LAST CONCEPT I WANTED TO KIND OF DEAL WITH THAT GOES ALONG WITH THIS.
AND BECAUSE IT'S OFTEN MISUNDERSTOOD BY SOME OUTSIDE PARTIES, ESPECIALLY THAT DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT WE DO BECAUSE IT'S NOT, YOU KNOW, IMMEDIATELY SELF-EVIDENT WHAT WE DO.
BUT ON PAGE TWO, 2242, IT TALKS ABOUT EX PARTE COMMUNICATION, RIGHT? WHICH IS A FANCY WAY OF JUST SAYING COMMUNICATION OUTSIDE OF THE MEETING.
RIGHT. ESPECIALLY LIKE TWO PEOPLE TALKING TO EACH OTHER AT, AT WALMART OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
RIGHT? AND USUALLY THE TWO PEOPLE IS ONE PERSON IS A PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER, AND THE OTHER PERSON COULD BE THE APPLICANT OR A CONCERNED NEIGHBOR OR ANOTHER RESIDENT OR A COUNCIL MEMBER OR ANOTHER CITY OFFICIAL.
IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER WHO THE OTHER PERSON IS.
THAT IF YOU'RE A PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER AND YOU'RE AT WALMART YOU'RE AT SOME OTHER STORE, YOU'RE AT CHURCH, YOU'RE AT A CLUB, WHATEVER, WHEREVER YOU'RE AT.
EX PARTE COMMUNICATION. BEST PRACTICE IS NOT A GOOD IDEA, RIGHT? AND BUT A LOT OF TIMES PEOPLE SAY, WELL, WHY? WELL, WHY IS BECAUSE WHAT IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER IS TALKING TO ANOTHER PERSON, A NEIGHBOR OR WHOEVER? THEN THE LANDOWNER WHO HAS THE PROPERTY, RIGHT, LIKE LARRY WAS TALKING ABOUT ISN'T A PARTY TO THAT DISCUSSION, RIGHT? HE DOESN'T GET TO HEAR WHAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER AND THE NEIGHBOR ARE TALKING ABOUT.
AND BUT IF IT'S DONE IN THE OPEN MEETING, THEN EVERYBODY CAN HEAR AND THEN NOBODY, NOBODY'S PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE AFFECTED, AND EVERYBODY HAS A CHANCE TO HEAR AND PARTICIPATE IN AND PRESENT OPPOSING OR TO CONFRONT THAT EVIDENCE, RIGHT? IF THE APPLICANT OR THE PROPERTY OWNER IS HERE IN THE MEETING AND HE HEARS A NEIGHBOR SAY SOMETHING, HE CAN PROVIDE EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY AND SAY, OH, THAT'S NOT TRUE.
HERE'S HERE'S THE EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY. BUT IF HE DOESN'T KNOW ABOUT THE DISCUSSION AT A RANDOM STORE, HE CAN'T CONFRONT IT, RIGHT? BECAUSE HE'S NOT THERE.
THAT'S THE ISSUE. AND SO LIKE IT SAYS ON HERE, I JUST LOVE HOW IT'S WRITTEN.
[00:25:06]
IT SAYS EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS ARE TO BE AVOIDED IN ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS.BUT THERE'S YOU GOT THE WHOLE APPLICATION OF CONDITIONS.
SO IT'S NOT AS GOOD AN EXAMPLE. BUT IT SAYS EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS ARE TO BE AVOIDED IN ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS, THEY ARE APPROPRIATE. HOWEVER, WHEN LEGISLATIVE ISSUES ARE CONCERNED.
SO AND THEN IT'S YOU KNOW BECAUSE SO IF IT'S A GENERAL PLAN, CITY CODE, TEXT AMENDMENT MAP, AMENDMENT FOR ZONING OR WHATEVER DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, THOSE THINGS, THE RULES AREN'T MADE YET.
YOU'RE MAKING THE RULES OR YOU'RE RECOMMENDING TO THE COUNCIL THE RULES THAT SHOULD BE MADE.
AND IF A COUNCIL MEMBER WANTS TO TALK TO SOMEBODY AT WALMART OR AT CHURCH OR AT A CLUB, THEY CAN WRITE OR ONE ON ONE PHONE CALL AT HOME. BECAUSE IT'S NOT APPLYING THE RULES THAT ARE ALREADY IN PLACE.
RIGHT. IT'S EITHER CREATING NEW RULES OR FLESHING OUT THE THE REST OF THE EXISTING RULES.
EVEN STILL WHEN YOU, AS PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS ARE RECOMMENDING TO THE COUNCIL THOSE THINGS.
CITY CODE, TEXT AMENDMENTS, MAP AMENDMENTS, DEVELOPMENT PLANS AND AGREEMENTS AND SO FORTH.
BECAUSE OF THE WAY OUR CITY CODE IS WRITTEN AND YOU YOU LOOK AT CERTAIN CRITERIA AND YOU PASS YOUR RECOMMENDATION ALONG TO THE COUNCIL. BY USING THOSE CRITERIA, IT'S STILL A GOOD IDEA, EVEN THOUGH THAT'S NOT ADMINISTRATIVE, TO NOT HAVE EX PARTE COMMUNICATION. RIGHT. AND THE REASON BEING IS THAT IT'S STILL YOUR FOCUS, EVEN THOUGH YOU'VE GOT YOU DO HAVE DISCRETION, RIGHT? WHEN IT COMES TO RECOMMENDING THOSE THINGS TO THE COUNCIL, BUT YOU DON'T WANT SOMEBODY TO MAKE THE ARGUMENT THAT ALL YOU MADE THAT RECOMMENDATION TO THE COUNCIL, NOT BECAUSE OF THE FACTS AND THE LAW AND THE CRITERIA.
YOU MADE THAT RECOMMENDATION BECAUSE OF THE 3 OR 4 MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY THAT TALKED TO YOU OUTSIDE OF THE MAIN MEETING, IT'S MUCH EASIER TO BE ABLE TO SAY, NOPE, DIDN'T TALK TO ANYBODY.
TOTALLY FOCUSED AND I MADE MY DECISION OR MY RECOMMENDATION, YOU KNOW, BASED PURELY ON THE FACTS, THE LAW, THE CRITERIA AND SO FORTH. AND IT MENTIONS IN HERE, YOU KNOW, THAT A LOT OF TIMES SOME COMMUNITIES WILL ACTUALLY GIVE TIME AT THE BEGINNING OF AN AGENDA ITEM TO LET PEOPLE DISCLOSE IF THEY HAVE HAD ANY EX PARTY COMMUNICATIONS. SO IT'S NOT TECHNICALLY ILLEGAL TO HAVE EX PARTE COMMUNICATION.
IT'S JUST NOT BEST PRACTICE. BUT AS A AS A FALLBACK, I THINK IT IS AN EXCELLENT IDEA TO AT LEAST DISCLOSE IT IN THE MEETING, RIGHT? IF YOU'VE DONE ONE OR THE OTHER, AVOIDED IT OR COULDN'T AVOID IT, AND STILL DISCLOSED IT HERE IN THIS MEETING, YOU'RE IN GOOD SHAPE, RIGHT? ANY QUESTIONS? THINK I'M OUT OF TIME? OKAY, WE'LL HAVE A QUIZ NEXT TIME ON DUE PROCESS.
CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC AND OUR CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC.
YEAH. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. DUNCAN. WE'VE GOT ONE MINUTE.
I'VE GOT A QUESTION REALLY QUICK. OH, YEP. I'VE GOT A QUESTION FOR YOU, DUNCAN.
SO YOU TALKED ABOUT SOME EXAMPLES OF EX PARTE COMMUNICATION.
I WAS THINKING ABOUT WHAT ABOUT OUR INTERACTIONS WITH CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS.
SO SUPPOSE SOMETHING COMES THROUGH US AND WE HAVE QUESTIONS THAT DIDN'T GET ADDRESSED OR CONCERNS OR WHATEVER, AND WANT TO REACH OUT TO A COUNCIL MEMBER TO TALK TO THEM.
WOULD THAT FALL UNDER EX PARTE OR AND WHAT KIND OF PRECAUTIONS SHOULD WE MAYBE TAKE THERE? THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION. AND I THINK IT'S A QUESTION OF TIMING.
IF IT'S AFTER WHEN YOU'VE MADE THE RECOMMENDATION.
HAVE AT IT. I THINK YOU'RE FINE BECAUSE AT THAT POINT, THEY'RE OKAY.
SO, YEAH, I'D SAY AFTER YOU'VE MADE THE RECOMMENDATION, AFTER YOU LEAVE THE MEETING, ANYTIME AFTER THAT, YOU'RE A BEST PRACTICE. YOU'RE PERFECTLY FINE TALKING TO A COUNCIL MEMBER.
AWESOME. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT.
[GENERAL MEETING 6:00 p.m.]
[00:30:01]
2025. ALL COMMISSIONERS ARE PRESENT. AND WE'LL START OFF WITH NATHAN ALLEN LEADING US WITH THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.WELL, EVERYBODY, PLEASE RISE FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.
THANK YOU. NATHAN. OKAY. NEXT IS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR.
[Consent Calendar]
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM MARCH 4TH. ANY QUESTIONS OR MOTIONS, COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ? IF THERE ARE NO QUESTIONS, I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM MARCH 4TH.COMMISSIONER ROBERTS. I'LL SECOND THAT. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. ANY OPPOSED? OKAY. CARRIES SEVEN.
[2. Terraine (Formerly Wood Ranch) Plat 7 Subdivision; 7400 South and SR-111; Preliminary Subdivision Plat (101 residential lots, 1 Transferred Development Open Space (TDOS) Lots and 6 Park Lots on 19.339 acres) and Sub Area Development Plan; PCH/MDA Zone; Third Cadence/Gary Langston (applicant) [Ray McCandless/Nathan Nelson #34320 and #34321; parcel 20-28-200-009-0000]]
AND THIS IS FOR THE TERRAIN FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE WOOD RANCH PLAT SEVEN, SUBDIVISION 7400 SOUTH AND SR 111, PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION, PLAT 101. RESIDENTIAL LOTS LOT ONE TRANSFERRED DEVELOPMENT OPEN SPACE TO OS.LOTS AND SIX PARK LOTS ON 19.33 ACRES AND SUB AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN PCH MDA ZONE AND LOOKS LIKE. IS IT GARY? I ASSUME THIS IS ON. GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS I'M GARY LANGSTON WITH THIRD CADENCE ALSO THE DEVELOPER FOR ON BEHALF OF TERRAIN.
I'LL KEEP MY COMMENTS PRETTY BRIEF BUT HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
THIS IS OBVIOUSLY PLAT NUMBER SEVEN THAT YOU'RE SEEING AND WE'RE CONTINUING TO MOVE ALONG THIS PLAT CONTAINS 107 RESIDENTIAL LOTS. YOU'LL NOTICE THAT THERE'S LARGELY LOCATED ON THE WESTERN SIDE, WHICH IS THE LARGER SINGLE FAMILY LOTS.
WE HAVE THREE DIFFERENT TOWNHOME SEGMENTS, FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH.
AND THEN WE HAVE SEVEN SINGLE FAMILY HOME SEGMENTS.
SO WE'RE STARTING TO GET TO THE POINT WHERE WE HAVE OUR FULL OFFERING OF LOT TYPES.
THE ONLY THING THAT WE'VE YET TO BRING BEFORE YOU WOULD BE APARTMENTS.
AND AS I'VE THOUGHT THROUGH ALL THE DIFFERENT STEPS AND THE COMPONENTS OF THE MASTER PLAN, I FEEL LIKE WE'RE COMPLIANT WITH THE MDA WITH THE PCH ZONE.
THIS IS A LOGICAL EXTENSION OF THE EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE THAT IS EITHER CURRENTLY BUILT OR TO BE BUILT SHORTLY, AND I BELIEVE THAT IT MEETS ALL OF THE OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE MDA.
AND WE WOULD FORMALLY REQUEST YOUR APPROVAL. SO WITH THAT, I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE SPECIFIC TO THE PLAT OR EVEN JUST GENERAL QUESTIONS ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? COMMISSIONER ALLEN, HOW ARE THINGS SELLING OVER PLAT SEVEN NOW? IT SEEMS LIKE EVERY COUPLE OF MONTHS YOU'RE BACK AND.
AND WE'LL WE'RE SEEING SOME ACCELERATION IN THAT.
SO THERE'S DEFINITELY A DEMAND IN THE MARKET FOR SOME OF THE BIGGER HOMES.
HAD SOME FUN STORIES ABOUT HOW PEOPLE BECAME AWARE THEY WERE ON THEIR WAY TO SIGN A CONTRACT FOR A DIFFERENT HOME, AND DROVE ALONG THE ROAD AND SAW THE BIG TERRAIN SIGN AND SAID, WELL, I DON'T KNOW, WHAT'S THAT ALL ABOUT? LET'S DRIVE IN THERE FIRST AND CHANGE THEIR MIND. SO WE THINK WE'LL HAVE MORE OF THAT AS AS THINGS CONTINUE TO ACCELERATE.
GOOD. CONGRATULATIONS. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON.
CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. WAS THIS THE ONE THAT HAD ALLEYWAYS THAT WERE KIND OF UNIQUE TO THE SURROUNDING HOMES? BUT WE'RE GOING TO BE OWNED BY THE CITY? YES.
SO WITHIN THE TERRAIN DEVELOPMENT, ALL ROADS, WHETHER THEY'RE LANES OR ALLEYWAYS IN THIS, IN THIS CASE, ALL OF THOSE ARE PUBLIC STREETS.
IN THE CASE OF LANES IN OUR DEVELOPMENT, THEY'RE OWNED BY THE CITY BUT MAINTAINED BY THE HOA.
YEAH, THEY CAN'T PARK ON THEM. THEY CAN'T BLOCK THEM, HAVE TO MAINTAIN FIRE ACCESS AND EMERGENCY SERVICES, GARBAGE PICKUP, ALL THAT SORT OF STUFF. SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IN THE PAST IS THAT WE DESIGN THE DRIVEWAYS TO BE EITHER LONG ENOUGH TO PARK
[00:35:09]
CARS PERPENDICULAR TO THE DOOR OR NOT AT ALL.THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY. WE'LL CALL YOU UP IF WE HAVE ANY MORE.
RAY. THANK YOU. AGAIN, I THINK THIS IS FOR, AS I MENTIONED IN THE PRE MEETING, THIS IS FOR, FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL FOR THE SUBDIVISION AND THEN FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF THE SUB AREA PLAN FOR THE TERRAIN PLAT SEVEN. IT MEETS ALL THE CRITERIA, AS GARY SAID, UNDER THE MASTER DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL.
SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR TONIGHT. WE DON'T HAVE ANY ISSUES.
AND OUR RECOMMENDATION IS TO IS IS TO APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT AND SUB AREA PLAN.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? COMMISSIONER ANDERSON? I SHOULD HAVE ASKED THIS BEFORE, I APOLOGIZE. SO SINCE WE'RE AT PLAT SEVEN, ARE WE GOING IN ORDER? SO ONE THROUGH SIX HAVE ALREADY BEEN DONE? OR IS THIS SKIPPING AROUND WHAT WE'VE WE'VE IT'S GOING IN SEQUENTIAL ORDER.
GOING IN SEQUENTIAL ORDER. SO ONE THROUGH SIX HAVE ALREADY BEEN APPROVED. OKAY. OKAY.
ANY QUESTIONS. OKAY. THIS HAS BEEN NOTICED AS A PUBLIC HEARING.
SO IF ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON IT, YOU'LL BE GIVEN THREE MINUTES.
STATE YOUR NAME AND YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES.
IF YOU'RE ONLINE, RAISE YOUR HAND. OR IF YOU'RE ON THE PHONE.
STAR NINE. GOING ONCE. TWICE. OKAY. WE WILL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT BACK UP TO THE COMMISSION FOR COMMENT AND OR MOTION. NOT ANYBODY JUMP AT ONCE.
COMMISSIONER HATCH. I WILL MAKE A MOTION UNLESS THERE'S MORE TO BE SAID.
I MOVE THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED THE PRELIMINARY MAJOR SUBDIVISION PLAT AND PRELIMINARY SUBAREA PLAN FOR TERRAIN PLAT SEVEN SUBDIVISION, LOCATED ON APPROXIMATELY 19.339 ACRES AT 7400 SOUTH AND SR 111.
WITH THE CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS OF APPROVAL LISTED ON THIS REPORT.
COMMISSIONER HOLLINGSWORTH. I SECOND THAT MOTION.
WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.
ANY OPPOSED? OKAY. CARRIES SEVEN. NOTHING. OKAY.
[ 3. Text Amendment – Conditional Use Permits; Amend the West Jordan Code Section 13-7E-10 Status of Conditional Use Permit, adding automatic revocation language for non-use of conditional use permit; City-wide applicability; City of West Jordan (applicant) [Larry Gardner #34450]]
IT'S A TEXT AMENDMENT. CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS.AMEND THE WEST JORDAN CODE, SECTION 13, DASH SEVEN E, DASH TEN.
STATUS OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS. ADDING AUTOMATED AUTOMATIC REVOCATION REVOCATION LANGUAGE FOR THE NONUSE OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS. LARRY. ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU. COMMISSION. AS I SAID IN THE PRE MEETING THE COMMISSIONER AND IN THE ORDINANCE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS RUN WITH THE LAND AND AND THAT THAT STILL WILL BE THE CASE IF THEY LIVE UP TO ALL THE CONDITIONS THAT THAT THEY ASKED FOR OR WERE GRANTED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR ZONING ADMINISTRATOR.
BUT WHAT WE'VE RUN INTO IS THAT RUN WITH THE LAND, THERE'S NO WAY TO THE ONLY WAY THAT WE CAN TERMINATE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS TO REVOKE IT. AND THE CURRENT THE CURRENT PROCESS IS TO GO TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE.
AND WE HAVE SEVERAL THAT ARE DECADES OLD THAT EVEN THE CURRENT PROPERTY OWNERS, NOT EVEN AWARE THAT THERE IS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ON THE PROPERTY THAT THEY COULD USE. AND THE ONES THAT WE REVOKED LAST WEEK THAT I SPOKE OF IN THE PRE MEETING.
THE PROPERTY OWNER DIDN'T HAVE ANY. THEY HAD NO DESIRE TO USE THAT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
AND ALSO THE OTHER THING IS WHEN A CONDITIONAL USE GETS ABANDONED SAY IT WAS ISSUED IN 1992.
THERE REALLY COULD BE DIFFERENT MITIGATION EFFORTS.
IN 2025 FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SO WHAT WE HAVE FOUND IS RATHER THAN HAVING TO GO THROUGH A PROCESS OF GOING TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE TO REVOKE CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS THAT ARE NO LONGER BEING USED.
[00:40:11]
WE, YOU KNOW, AND I'VE TALKED TO OUR LEGAL TEAM AND THEY SAID AS LONG AS THERE'S A A CRITERIA WE GO THROUGH, EXCUSE ME TO REVOKE THOSE AUTOMATICALLY, THEN WE SHOULD BE FINE LEGALLY.AND SO WHAT THIS AMENDMENT WILL DO IS IT PUTS IN A, AN AUTOMATIC TERMINATION PROVISION IN THE CODE THAT, YOU KNOW, FOR INSTANCE, NUMBER ONE SAYS IF CONSTRUCTION IS PROPOSED, OBTAIN A BUILDING PERMIT FOR AND COMPLETE THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE FOUNDATION OF AT LEAST PRIMARY ONE PRIMARY BUILDING IF REQUIRED TO OBTAIN A BUSINESS LICENSE.
IF THE APPROVED USE OR ACTIVITY SHOULD CEASE FOR ANY REASON FOR A CONTINUOUS PERIOD OF 12 MONTHS.
THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SHALL AUTOMATICALLY TERMINATE WITHOUT NOTICE.
AND AND ONE OF THOSE THAT I SPOKE OF THAT WE REVOKED LAST WEEK, WAS ONE OF THE RECEPTION CENTERS THAT WAS APPROVED YEARS AGO IN ONE OF OUR SC2 ZONES, WHICH, BY THE WAY, WE DON'T ALLOW THEM IN ANYMORE.
BUT IT HAD BEEN OUT OF BUSINESS FOR MORE THAN TWO YEARS.
AND SO THAT SO THAT HAD TO TAKE THAT TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE TO BE REVOKED.
BUT IF THIS CODE IS APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, THEN THEY WOULD AUTOMATICALLY TERMINATE.
AND SO IT GETS RID OF KIND OF AN UNWIELDY AND UNNECESSARY PROCESS.
I THINK IT IT MAKES IT CLEANER. AND NOW THAT WE HAVE SOMEBODY ACTUALLY TRACKING THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS OUT THERE IN THE CITY, AND THERE'S A LOT OF THEM, YOU KNOW, IT DOESN'T DOESN'T APPLY TO THOSE APPLICANTS THAT ARE LIVING UP TO WHAT THEY AGREED TO, AND THEY'RE STILL DOING IT AND STILL DOING THE SAME USE.
AND. AND ANYWAY, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF ME? I KNOW THAT SOME OF YOU OR THERE WAS A COUPLE OF CHANGES TO THIS THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO, TO MAKE AND, AND PLEASE STATE THAT IN THE RECORD SO I CAN KNOW WHAT WE WANT TO CHANGE.
SO. OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON? THANK YOU. YES, I HAVE JUST THREE SUGGESTED CHANGES.
SO IF WE LOOK AT THE NEW SUBPART A I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE CHANGE THE LANGUAGE TO SAY A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SHALL AUTOMATICALLY TERMINATE WITHOUT NOTICE IF THE APPLICANT FAILS TO DO ANY ONE OF THE FOLLOWING.
SO INSERT THE WORD ONE BETWEEN ANY AND OF. MY NEXT SUGGESTED CHANGE IS TO CHANGE THE 12 MONTHS TO BE 24 MONTHS. OKAY. BECAUSE MY CONCERN IS THAT CONSTRUCTION OF THE FOUNDATION MIGHT TAKE A LITTLE LONGER THAN 12 MONTHS.
AND THEN FINALLY IN B, IF THEY CEASE TO USE IT FOR CONTINUOUS PERIOD OF 12 MONTHS OR MORE, THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SHALL AUTOMATICALLY TERMINATE, I WOULD SAY, UPON 60 DAYS NOTICE TO THE PROPERTY OWNER.
OKAY. SEE, DUNCAN, YOU'RE TRAINING ALREADY KICKED IN.
I LOVE IT. YEAH, THAT'S ALL THAT I. THAT I HAD ON THOSE.
COMMISSIONER ROBERTS. SO MY I HAD A QUESTION, BUT IT MIGHT BE MOOT IF WE ADOPT COMMISSIONER ANDERSON'S SUGGESTIONS, WHICH WAS THE AUTOMATIC AUTOMATIC TERMINATION IF IT'S NOT USED FOR 12 MONTHS.
WHAT ABOUT IN THE EVENT OF A CATASTROPHE OR, YOU KNOW, A FIRE OR SOMETHING.
DUNCAN, IS THERE SOME KIND OF DISCLAIMER WE COULD PUT, YOU KNOW, OR IS IT NEEDED, DO YOU THINK? YEAH. LIKE SCOTT WAS JUST DESCRIBING, WE COULD ADD SOME KIND OF ACT OF GOD OR FORCE MAJEURE TYPE CLAUSE IN THERE.
[00:45:07]
1516 MONTHS. WE DON'T HAVE OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS BREATHING DOWN OUR NECK THAT WE'RE IN VIOLATION OF THE STATUTE.OR YOU COULD PUT SHALL TERMINATE ON LESS AND THEN PUT THAT OTHER LANGUAGE IN.
YEAH. SO IF THEY HAD AN EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCE SITUATION, THAT'S THEIR TIME TO LET THE CITY KNOW, RIGHT? WE COULD JUST REMOVE THE WORD AUTOMATICALLY BECAUSE IT'S NOT AUTOMATIC BECAUSE THEY'RE GIVEN THE NOTICE PRIOR TO.
OKAY. GOTCHA. YEAH. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON. OKAY.
ON TO THAT POINT. I THINK I THINK THE CONCEPT IS CORRECT TO GIVE THE CITY SOME FLEXIBILITY.
SO IF YOU WERE TO SAY THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT MAY BE TERMINATED BY THE CITY UPON 60 DAYS NOTICE, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT COULD GIVE YOU THE THE LEEWAY YOU NEED.
I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. THE ONE ISSUE I THINK THAT LARRY WAS TRYING TO DEAL WITH IS THAT IF IT'S NOT AUTOMATIC, YOU HAVE TO HAVE A DOCUMENT OR A METHOD THAT EFFECTUATES THE TERMINATION, RIGHT? AUTOMATIC IS AUTOMATIC. YOU DON'T EVEN NEED A DOCUMENT TO SAY IT.
IF IT'S NOT AUTOMATIC, THEN YOU'VE GOT TO DO SOMETHING AT A MINIMUM FILE SOME KIND OF NOTICE OF TERMINATION RECORD THAT AGAINST THE PROPERTY AT THE COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE. MAYBE, BUT IT COULD BE DONE.
BUT I THINK THAT WAS THE ISSUE WASN'T SO MUCH THE AUTOMATIC NATURE OF IT AS AVOIDING AN EXTRA PROCEDURAL STEP MAYBE, LARRY, BUT WE COULD. IT COULD BE DONE. A SIMPLE NOTICE RECORDED AGAINST PROPERTY WOULD NOT BE DIFFICULT.
RIGHT. AND SO SO PERHAPS YOU WOULD DO A SOME LANGUAGE THAT SAYS THAT IT TERMINATES, YOU KNOW, WITHOUT WITHOUT FURTHER FILING OR WITHOUT FURTHER ACTION BY THE CITY UPON 60 DAYS NOTICE TO THE APPLICANT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, JUST TO RELIEVE YOU FROM THE OBLIGATION TO DO ANYTHING FURTHER THAN GIVE THEM A LETTER.
I LIKE THAT LANGUAGE. THAT'S A LOT MORE ACCURATE.
IT'S NOT SO MUCH THE AUTOMATIC THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR, BUT WITHOUT FURTHER CITY ACTION.
YOU COULD ALWAYS SEND ANY APPEAL AT ANY TIME IN THE PROCESS TO HIM.
SO IS THAT DESCRIBED SOMEWHERE IN THIS SECTION OUTSIDE OF THE IT'S IN THAT SAME SET OF SECTIONS.
YES, IT'S IN THIS IT'S FURTHER ONE OF THE OTHER PARTS OF THE STATUTE.
SO BUT THEY ALWAYS HAVE AN APPEAL, RIGHT. OKAY.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. OKAY. THIS HAS BEEN NOTICED AS A PUBLIC HEARING.
SO IF YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM PLEASE APPROACH THE MIC.
STATE YOUR NAME. YOU'LL BE GIVEN THREE MINUTES.
IF YOU'RE ONLINE, RAISE YOUR HAND. DON'T EVERYBODY COME RUSHING UP AT ONCE.
OKAY, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT BACK UP TO THE COMMISSION FOR A MOTION AND OR COMMENTS, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON. SO I'LL MAKE A MOTION.
BUT FIRST I WANTED TO TALK PROCEDURALLY. DO YOU THINK THE BEST WAY TO DO THIS IS TO CHANGE THE LANGUAGE, BRING IT BACK TO US AT THE NEXT MEETING, AND THEN WE JUST MOVE TO APPROVE THE NEW LANGUAGE.
THAT'S FINE WITH ME. IT'LL PROBABLY BE AT A A FUTURE MEETING.
IT WON'T BE THE NEXT ONE. I WON'T BE HERE AT THE NEXT MEETING.
BUT IF YOU DO THE SECOND MEETING IN APRIL, THAT'S FINE.
JUST YOU COULD JUST. THIS IS IT. TABLE IT OR BRING IT BACK OR WHATEVER.
[00:50:03]
YEAH. FORGET IT. IF YOU DO THAT, JUST MAKE A MOTION FOR A MOTION FOR A SPECIFIC DATE OR BY WHATEVER TIMELINE.CONVENIENT TO THE COMMISSION. APRIL 15TH. JULIE'S RECOMMENDING APRIL 15TH WITH THE REVISED LANGUAGE.
OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION. I'LL SECOND THAT. AND THE SECOND.
ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. ANY OPPOSED? OKAY. WE WILL GO AHEAD AND TABLE THAT UNTIL THE 15TH OF APRIL.
THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON. AND WITH THAT, THAT IS OUR FINAL ITEM.
AND, COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ, I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO ADJOURN OUR MEETING.
WE ARE NOW ADJOURNED.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.