[Pre-Meeting 5:30 p.m.] [00:00:11] GOOD EVENING. WE'LL GO AHEAD AND START OUR PRE MEETING FOR THE WEST JORDAN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FOR JULY 15TH, 2025. WE HAVE FOUR COMMISSIONERS PRESENT AT THE TIME. SO WE'LL GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED. FIRST THING ON THE AGENDA IS THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM LAST MEETING. ANY QUESTIONS. OR IT WAS A FAIRLY SHORT MEETING. SO. OKAY. NEXT IS A PUBLIC HEARING WITH [2. Aligned Energy Transmission Line; 6600 West from Wells Park Road to 9800 South; Amended Conditional Use Permit granted on November 19, 2024, relocating the transmission line along 6600 West to the public right-of-way; Aligned Data Centers/Cardell Andrews (applicant) [Megan Jensen/Todd Johnson]] FINAL ACTION BY OUR PLANNING COMMISSION FOR ALIGNED ENERGY TRANSMISSION LINE. MEGAN. YES. SO THIS IS AN AMENDED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. THE ORIGINAL WAS APPROVED IN NOVEMBER OF LAST YEAR. AND THEY ARE JUST LOOKING TO CHANGE THE LOCATION OF THE TRANSMISSION LINE ALONG 6600 WEST. THEY'RE MOVING IT FROM THE WEST SIDE OF THE STREET TO THE EAST SIDE. IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. AND SO THEY'LL HAVE TO MOVE SOME UTILITIES AND STUFF. AND THEY'VE AGREED TO THAT. AND SO THAT'S THE ONLY CONDITION OF APPROVAL. SO IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER. I HAVE ONE QUESTION. MAYBE WE CAN WAIT TO THE MEETING WITH THAT LETTER OF COMPLAINT. OR OPPOSITION. SORRY. AND WITH THE NEW STATE LAW, I IF YOU COULD CLARIFY A LITTLE BIT OF THAT, DUNCAN. YEAH. SO IF THE MAIN ISSUE IS THE STATE LAW THAT'S CITED, IT ALLOWS FOR OPTIONS FOR ENTITIES TO MOVE FORWARD, BUT IT DOESN'T MANDATE THAT THE CITY DO ANY PARTICULAR THING. RIGHT. SO IN ESSENCE, I DON'T THINK THAT'S A. THE STATUTE IS NOT A STATUTE THAT WOULD AFFECT YOUR DECISION. I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT. BUT IT MIGHT BE GERMANE TO THE PARTIES, THE APPLICANT AND OTHER NEARBY LANDOWNERS, BUT NOT GERMANE IN OUR DECISIONS. SOMEONE COULD ARGUE OR REQUEST THAT YOU MAKE A DIFFERENT DECISION BASED UPON IT. I WOULD REMIND YOU THAT THE MOST IMPORTANT STATUTES APPLICABLE TO YOUR DECISION MAKING WITH CUPE'S CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS IN GENERAL, OR SPECIFIC EVEN TO THIS SPECIFIC PERMIT, ARE TEN NINE, A 507, WHICH IS THE MAIN CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS SECTION UNDER STATE LAW, WHICH SAYS THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS ARE ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS. RIGHT. AND THEN IN 509 IT TALKS ABOUT HOW ANY ADMINISTRATIVE CONDITION OR ANY ADMINISTRATIVE APPLICATION, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IF AN APPLICANT HAS MET ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS. AND IN THIS INSTANCE, IF THERE'S CONDITIONS SUFFICIENT TO MITIGATE, THEN YOU ARE REQUIRED UNDER STATE LAW, AS YOU KNOW, TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION. AND THEN 509.5 SPECIFICALLY SAYS THAT YOU HAVE TO APPROVE IT WITHIN A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME, NAMELY 45 DAYS IF THE APPLICANT. USES WHAT WE'VE REFERRED TO AS THE SHOT CLOCK. BUT SO YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO, IF IT'S REQUESTED OR IF YOU SEE A REASON TO DELAY A DECISION. BUT YOU CAN'T DELAY FOREVER, RIGHT? NOT INDEFINITELY. AND IN MY LEGAL OPINION, YOU CANNOT DENY AN APPLICATION IF THERE'S NOT A SPECIFIC LEGAL BASIS FOR DOING IT. AND IN FACT, QUITE THE OPPOSITE. YOU'RE REQUIRED TO APPROVE OF IT IF IT MEETS ALL THE TERMS OF THE CITY CODE AND OTHER REGULATIONS. AND ACCORDING TO THE STAFF REPORT, IT DOES MEET ALL THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS. AND THERE IS ONE PROPOSED CONDITION THAT'S LISTED THERE, WHICH STAFF IS INDICATING THAT IF THAT IS IMPOSED, WOULD SUFFICIENTLY MITIGATE ANY DETRIMENTAL EFFECTS. SO ANY RATE, THAT'S MY THOUGHT. I IT'S IMPORTANT TO TAKE EVERYTHING THAT COMES BEFORE YOU INTO ACCOUNT. BUT FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, LEGALLY DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT YOU GO IN ANY DIRECTION. THE INFORMATION THAT WAS PROVIDED BEFORE THE MEETING AND. BUT I JUST WANTED TO REMIND YOU OF THOSE MAINE STATE STATUTES. WHEN IT COMES TO LAND USE DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT ACT THAT APPLY TO ALL CONDITIONAL [00:05:01] USE PERMITS. IS THAT RESPONSIVE TO YOUR QUESTION? I CAN'T REMEMBER IF YOU SAID ASK SOMETHING ELSE. NO, THAT'S THAT'S PRETTY MUCH WHAT I WAS LOOKING FOR. AND I THINK THAT'S ANSWERED PRETTY MUCH EVERYBODY ELSE'S QUESTION, I THINK. OKAY. NEXT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY. [3. Text Amendment – External Accessory Dwelling Units; Recommendation to the City Council to Amend the West Jordan City Code Title 13-5B-8 Accessory Dwelling Units - Permitting External ADU's on all single family platted residential lots 10,000 square feet or larger and modifying setbacks for consistency; city-wide applicability; West Jordan City Council (applicant)] NEXT IS THE PUBLIC HEARING WITH PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR FINAL ACTION ON THE TEXT AMENDMENT. THE ADUS. AND I GUESS THAT WOULD BE YOU, ALAN. YES. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER. SO THE CITY COUNCIL HAD A WORK SESSION A FEW WEEKS AGO TO DISCUSS EXTERNAL ADUS. CURRENTLY, THE CODE HAS IT SO THAT THEY ARE PERMITTED BY ZONE. BUT AS YOU KNOW, WITH EUCLIDEAN ZONING, LIKE AN R1 EIGHT, R1 TEN, THOSE ARE MINIMUM LOT SIZE. YOU CAN ACTUALLY HAVE LARGER LOT SIZE. AND SO THERE HAVE BEEN SOME INDIVIDUALS THAT HAVE WANTED AT LEAST I'M AWARE OF AT LEAST ONE THAT HAS COME IN TO GET AN EXTERNAL ADU PERMIT. AND ON A THIRD OF AN ACRE, AND THEIR ZONE THEREIN DOES NOT ALLOW THAT FOR THEM TO HAPPEN. SO INSTEAD OF LIMITING BY ZONE, THE CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSED THAT WOULD THEY WOULD RATHER DO IT BY LOT SIZE. SO BASICALLY WHAT IS BEFORE YOU TONIGHT IS ALLOWING EXTERNAL ADUS, ALL THE OTHER PROVISIONS OF ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS ARE STILL IN PLACE, BUT ON ALL LOTS, 10,000FT■!S OR GREATER THAT ARE SINGLE FAMILY. SO THAT WOULD BE LIKE THE R1 TEN, R1 12, R1 14. I'M SORRY I GOT THAT. THOSE ARE THE WRONG ONES. THAT'S WHAT USED TO BE IN IT. AND NOW WE'RE DOING ANY OF THE R1 THAT HAVE AT LEAST 10,000FT■!S THAT THEY CAN BUILD AN EXTERNAL ADU. THE SECOND PART OF THAT IS OUR SETBACKS FOR ADUS BY CODE RIGHT NOW ARE SET AT SIX FEET FROM THE DWELLING, 15FT FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE, 20FT FROM THE INSIDE CORNER PROPERTY LINE. THE COUNCIL WOULD LIKE TO EXPAND THAT. IT'S. THOSE CURRENT MEASUREMENTS ARE SOME OF THE TIGHTEST AMONG OTHER CITIES THAT THE COUNCIL HAS LOOKED AT. AND SO THEY WOULD LIKE TO GO SIX FEET FROM THE BUILDING, SIX FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE, AND AGAIN, KEEP THE 20FT FROM THE INSIDE CORNER LOT. HOWEVER, THAT SIX FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE WOULD INCREASE BY A FOOT FOR EVERY FOOT OVER 17FT. SO IS AN ADU GETS HIGHER. THEY WOULD HAVE TO SET BACK FURTHER AND FURTHER FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE. AND SO THOSE ARE THE TWO THINGS THAT THE COUNCIL DISCUSSED. AND IT'S GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS NOW WHERE IT'S COMING BEFORE YOU TO SEE YOUR RECOMMENDATION. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER ROBERTS, WITH REGARD TO THE ZONING CHANGE, THE LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT, ARE THERE OTHER THINGS THAT WE HAVE THAT WOULD BE APPROVED OR DENIED BASED ON LOT SIZE RATHER THAN ZONING? IF I'M UNDERSTANDING YOUR QUESTION CORRECTLY, IT'S ANY OF THE SINGLE FAMILY ZONES. SO IT WOULD BE GIVE ME JUST ONE SECOND HERE. IT WOULD BE THE ZONES THAT ARE APPLICABLE WOULD BE. ARE ANY R1, R2, R3, P, L, S AND V. THE VERY LOW DENSE. COMMISSIONER ROBERTS, WERE WAS YOUR QUESTION. ARE THERE OTHER LOT IN BULK STANDARDS THAT WOULD WOULD BE LIMITING WHAT I'M WONDERING IF THERE'S IF THERE'S AN EXISTING PRECEDENT THAT WE'RE FOLLOWING HERE. FOR EXAMPLE, YOU CAN'T BUILD A DETACHED GARAGE WITHOUT A 10,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT. OR IF THIS IS TOTALLY NEW TERRITORY WHERE WE'RE DOING SOMETHING BY LOT SIZE RATHER THAN BY ZONING DESIGNATION. SO. YEAH, THERE'S I DON'T KNOW OF ANY OTHER INSTANCE IN WHICH WE'RE GOING ACROSS ALL ZONES, SO TO SPEAK, OR ALL ACROSS MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL ZONES AND SO FORTH, BASED UPON FOR A SPECIFIC REQUIREMENT BASED ON LOT SIZE VERSUS ZONE. SO IT IS KIND OF UNIQUE AND DIFFERENT. AND I MEAN, LARRY GARDNER OR MAYBE EVEN SCOTT HERE MIGHT BE ABLE TO CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT IT IS SOMEWHAT NOVEL OR UNIQUE, BUT IT MAKES SENSE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCE. BUT AND I DON'T SEE THAT THERE'S IT'S REALLY A PRECEDENT FOR REPEATING IT SOMEWHERE ELSE. BUT IT'S THE ONLY OTHER ALTERNATIVE IS TO MAKE THE AMENDMENT IN MULTIPLE PLACES THROUGHOUT THE CODE. AND THEN THE CHALLENGE YOU HAVE IS THEN WHAT IF YOU MISS ONE, SO TO SPEAK, WHEN YOU GO TO AMEND IT [00:10:03] LATER? AND SO I THINK IT IS A GOOD WAY OF ACCOMPLISHING THE RESULT THAT'S INTENDED. YEAH, IT'S UNIQUE AS FAR AS I KNOW. I JUST I JUST WANTED TO KNOW IF WE WERE OPENING A CAN OF WORMS, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE TRYING TO AVOID THE BIGGER CAN OF WORMS. YEAH. THANK YOU, I HOPE I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION ENTIRELY, BUT APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU. DUNCAN. MR. ALLEN, SO KIND OF A RELATED QUESTION, BUT MAYBE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY STATED. ARE THERE SITUATIONS IN THE OTHER ZONES THAT WE'D BE OPENING THIS UP TO? LET'S I'LL GIVE YOU USE AN EXAMPLE, BUT LET'S SAY R1 SIX FOR EXAMPLE, THERE'S A 10,000 FOOT LOT IN THE R1 ZONE. IS THERE ANYTHING WITH THE STREET SIZE UTILITIES, ANYTHING THAT WE PERMIT THERE THAT COULD POTENTIALLY CAUSE AN ISSUE BY ALLOWING AN ADU IN THAT AREA? YEAH, I DON'T THINK THERE IS THAT. I THINK IT'S REALLY A QUESTION OF MATH. RIGHT. YOU MIGHT BE IN AN R1 SIX AND YOU AND YOU START MEASURING EVEN THE SIX FOOT SETBACKS AND SO FORTH, AND YOU REALIZE, DANG, THERE'S NOT EVEN ENOUGH LAND LEFT OVER TO DO EVEN A TINY HOUSE. RIGHT? SO I THINK IT'S JUST A MATTER OF WE'RE THE POTENTIAL USABLE FOOTPRINT IS HIGHER WITH THIS PROPOSAL. RIGHT. AND THAT'S I THINK ALLEN CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT THAT WAS KIND OF THE INTENT OF THE COUNCIL. AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING WAS TO INCREASE THE CHANCE, SO TO SPEAK, OF SOMEBODY BEING ABLE TO FIT A HOUSE, EVEN ON A SMALLER LOT. BUT IT DOESN', DOESN'T GUARANTEE IT. I MEAN, YOU KNOW, AND IT STILL HAS TO HAVE. YEAH. THE, THE 10,000FT■!. BUT YEAH, THE IDEA IS THAT IF YOU HAD AN R1 SIX ZONE, 10,000FT■!S, BUT IT WAS A WEIRD SHAPED LOT AND THERE'S STILL JUST NOT ENOUGH SPACE LEFT OVER BECAUSE OF THE TRIANGULAR SHAPE OR WHATEVER IT MIGHT BE. THERE'S NO GUARANTEE THEY'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO FIT SOMETHING ON THERE. BUT, BUT AND I THINK IT'S A GOOD PRECEDENT IN A WAY, FROM THE SENSE THAT LAND USE TYPICALLY TRIES TO PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR SIMILARLY SITUATED PEOPLE TO EQUALLY ENJOY THEIR PROPERTY. RIGHT. AND IT IT IS KIND OF A WEIRD SITUATION WHERE YOU GOT TWO GUYS, TWO PLACES, TWO HOMEOWNERS, EACH WITH A 10,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT, AND ONE HOMEOWNER JUST HAPPENS TO BE IN AN R1 SIX WITH A LARGER LOT VERSUS THE GUY THAT'S IN THE R1 TEN ZONE. AND WHY IF THEY BOTH HAVE REGULARLY SHAPED LOTS AND SIMILAR FOOTPRINTS, WHY SHOULDN'T THEY BOTH BE ABLE TO BUILD, YOU KNOW, A EXTERNAL ADU IF THEY CAN FIT IT THERE. SO I THINK IS KIND OF THE IDEA WHICH WHICH TO ME IS VERY DEFENSIBLE, ESPECIALLY WHERE THE STATE LEGISLATURE HAS MADE THIS A PRIORITY. I THINK IT PROVES THAT WE'VE DONE OUR DUE DILIGENCE AS A CITY TO TRY TO PROVIDE THIS TYPE OF OPPORTUNITY FOR AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE. SO. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU ALAN. ALL RIGHT. WE'LL GO AHEAD AND TURN THE TIME OVER TO DUNCAN FOR TRAINING OKAY. SO TODAY LARRY GARDNER ASSIGNED ME TO TALK ABOUT REAL PROPERTY RIGHTS. I'VE HANDED OUT A, A KIND OF JUST A ONE PAGE HANDOUT. IT'S POSSIBLE WE COULD MAYBE PROJECT IT UP ON THE SCREEN, BUT NOT NECESSARY. PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE REALLY IMPORTANT IN THE UNITED STATES, RIGHT? I MEAN, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IT BEFORE THAT UNDER OUR CONSTITUTION, WE HAVE THE WE HAVE PROPERTY RIGHTS THAT ARE INSURED. OUR GOVERNING DOCUMENTS BETWEEN OUR DECLARATION AND OUR CONSTITUTION, TALK ABOUT LIFE, LIBERTY AND PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS, PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS, FOR THE MOST PART REFERS TO OR MEANS PROPERTY RIGHTS. AND BUT YOU KNOW WHAT? OUR PROPERTY RIGHTS AND A LOT OF OUR PROPERTY RIGHTS LAW IS FOR REAL PROPERTY COMES FROM THE ENGLISH COMMON LAW. AND IT'S CHANGED A LITTLE BIT. STILL FAIRLY SIMILAR, BUT THE VERY BASIC TYPE OF PROPERTY, RIGHT, THAT WE TALK ABOUT IS FEE SIMPLE. WHEN SOMEBODY SAYS, I OWN A PIECE OF PROPERTY, WHAT THEY'RE REALLY SAYING IS THAT THEY OWN IT IN FEE. SIMPLE, RIGHT? USUALLY THAT'S WHAT THEY MEAN. OR EVEN THOUGH THEY DON'T KNOW THE WORD THAT'S ENGLISH. [00:15:06] JUDGE MADE UP FIVE OR 6 OR 700 YEARS AGO. THAT'S WHAT THEY MEAN. RIGHT. AND BUT WE ALL REALIZE THAT IT'S IN SOME FORM OR ANOTHER, SOME DEGREE OR ANOTHER THAT THAT FEE SIMPLE OWNERSHIP MIGHT BE LIMITED IN SOME WAY. RIGHT? IN FACT, THERE'S WHAT WE CALL FEE SIMPLE ABSOLUTE, WHICH IS WHERE YOU JUST OWN IT. RIGHT? FULL AND PERPETUAL RIGHTS. YOU CAN SELL, LEASE, PUT IT IN YOUR WILL OR TRUST TO GO TO SOMEBODY WHEN YOU PASS AWAY. ALL THOSE KINDS OF THINGS. OF COURSE, EVEN A FEE SIMPLE ABSOLUTE MIGHT BE SUBJECT TO SOMEBODY OWNS THE MINERAL RIGHTS UNDER THE GROUND. SOMEBODY MAYBE I'M IN RIGHT NEXT TO THE WEST JORDAN AIRPORT AND IT'S SUBJECT TO A NAVIGATION EASEMENT. SO I CAN'T BUILD LIKE A, YOU KNOW, A 50 FOOT FLAGPOLE OR SOMETHING. I DON'T KNOW, THERE STILL ARE POTENTIAL RIGHTS THAT MIGHT ENCUMBER MY FEE. SIMPLE. ABSOLUTE. THE OTHER TYPE OF FEE SIMPLE IS FEE SIMPLE DEFEASIBLE, WHICH IS WHERE I CAN LOSE MY FEE SIMPLE OWNERSHIP. IF A SPECIFIC CONDITION IS MET, YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY MIGHT DEED PROPERTY TO SOMEBODY ELSE AND SAY, BUT IF THAT PROPERTY IS NO LONGER USED FOR THIS PURPOSE, I'M GOING TO NEED SOMETHING TO THE CITY. BUT IF THE CITY STOPS USING IT FOR RECREATIONAL USE, IT GOES BACK TO ME OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. IT COULD BE LIKE A FEE. SIMPLE DEFEASIBLE. SO IT'S BASICALLY A FEE SIMPLE AS LONG AS YOU DON'T DO A CERTAIN THING OR NOT DO A CERTAIN THING, A CERTAIN CONDITION. AND THEN OF COURSE, LIKE AS I'VE BEEN REFERRING TO, THERE'S EASEMENTS, RIGHT, THAT ARE STILL PROPERTY RIGHTS. AND SOME OF THE MAIN ONES WE TALK ABOUT IN THE CONTEXT OF LAND USE ARE PUBLIC UTILITIES. BUT IN FACT, ON PLATS. RIGHT. YOU'VE SEEN THEM ALL ALONG THE EDGES OF ROADS AND SO FORTH, WHEN YOU AT LEAST BY THE TIME IT GETS TO A FINAL PLAT, AFTER YOU'VE APPROVED THE PRELIMINARY PLAT AND STAFF APPROVES THE FINAL, AT SOME POINT IT'S GOING TO SHOW THOSE PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTS IN DETAIL, AND IT'S USUALLY A LONG, YOU KNOW, THE FRONT SO MANY FEET OF THE ROADWAY TEN FEET OR WHATEVER. AND SO DIFFERENT UTILITY COMPANIES CAN PUT THEIR THEY CAN PUT THEIR UTILITIES IN THOSE AREAS. AND IN FACT, WE HAVE A LOT OF THE MAIN UTILITY COMPANIES SIGN THE PLATS AS WELL. RIGHT. SO THAT THEY KNOW THAT THEY CAN THEY CAN USE THOSE AREAS. AND THEN WE HAVE MUNICIPAL UTILITY EASEMENTS A LOT OF TIMES FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES FOR POLICE EMERGENCY SERVICES. IT COULD BE. MOST OF THE TIME THEY'RE FOR WATER OR SEWER OR STORM DRAIN. RIGHT. BUT FOR WHATEVER PURPOSE THOSE CAN BE ON THE PLAT. MOST OF THESE EASEMENTS ARE EITHER ON PLATS OR THEY'RE THROUGH AN EASEMENT AGREEMENT THAT'S RECORDED AT THE COUNTY. SOMETIMES IT'S AN EASEMENT AGREEMENT THAT ENDS UP ON THE PLAT AS WELL REFERENCE THERE. THEN THERE'S YOU CAN HAVE EASEMENTS BETWEEN PRIVATE PARTIES. RIGHT. THAT. AND IT MIGHT BE ONE PROPERTY ATTACHED TO ANOTHER SO THAT I HAVE A RIGHT TO CROSS SOMEBODY ELSE'S PROPERTY. AND THAT'S THERE'S A DOMINANT ESTATE. SO ONCE SO I CAN IT BEEN AT ONE PIECE OF LAND SPECIFICALLY BENEFITS THE ADJACENT PIECE OF LAND. OR IT CAN BE AN EASEMENT IN GROSS WHERE IT BENEFITS A SPECIFIC PERSON OR ENTITY RATHER THAN A SPECIFIC PROPERTY, REGARDLESS OF WHO THE OWNER IS. AND RELATED TO THAT IS AN EASEMENT BY NECESSITY THAT'S REFERENCED THERE. AND THAT'S WHERE IF I'M LIKE LANDLOCKED, I CAN'T EVEN GET TO MY PROPERTY WITHOUT CROSSING SOMEBODY ELSE'S LAND. THAT'S CALLED AN EASEMENT BY NECESSITY. WHICH IS SIMILAR IN SOME WAYS TO THESE OTHER THINGS. HERE. THE PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENT, EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT NECESSARY, MAYBE I KEEP CROSSING SOMEBODY'S LAND FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME, LIKE 20 YEARS, AND EVENTUALLY I'VE GOT A RIGHT TO CONTINUE THAT EASEMENT. IF NOBODY STOPS ME. AND THEN THERE'S PUBLIC USE DEDICATION. AND THIS HAPPENS A LOT, ESPECIALLY AS CITIES GROW. AND IT'S HAPPENED A LOT HERE IN WEST JORDAN WHERE WE HAVE CERTAIN PUBLIC ROADS THAT WERE NEVER OFFICIALLY DEDICATED TO THE CITY ON A PLAT, NOR WERE THEY DEEDED TO US BY A DEED. IT'S JUST THAT EVERYBODY DROVE ACROSS THAT AREA FOR DECADES. AND STATE LAW SAYS THAT IF IT'S AT LEAST TEN YEARS, BEEN CONTINUOUSLY USED AS A PUBLIC THOROUGHFARE, THEN IT'S THE CITY. IT'S A CITY STREET. AND THERE'S ALWAYS THE ISSUE OF, YEAH, BUT WHAT'S THE WIDTH OF [00:20:02] THE CITY STREET? AND SO THERE'S SOME OTHER NUANCES, BUT BUT NOBODY CAN STOP THAT USE ONCE IT'S GONE FOR TEN YEARS UNDER STATE LAW. AND THAT CAN EVEN SOMETIMES BE FOR LIKE A TRAIL OF SOMEBODY USED A TRAIL AND THE PUBLIC'S BEEN USING IT FOR LIKE TEN YEARS. WELL, THAT'S A PUBLIC TRAIL NOW. AND SO IN THEORY, A PRIVATE LANDOWNER CAN'T STOP THE USE OF THE PUBLIC TRAIL. AND THEN THERE'S LEASE LEASES, OF COURSE, LEASEHOLD ESTATES WHERE IT'S A PROPERTY. RIGHT. BUT IT'S NOT OWNERSHIP. RIGHT. YOU'RE JUST USING THE LAND FOR A SPECIFIC PROPERTY FOR A SPECIFIC PERIOD OF TIME, ACCORDING TO THE LEASE. ONE THAT UNLESS YOU'VE DONE YOUR OWN WILL OR TRUST OR FAMILIAR WITH SOMEBODY ELSE'S, YOU PROBABLY WOULDN'T KNOW AS MUCH ABOUT. BUT A LIFE ESTATE. SO MAYBE SOMEONE DECIDES THAT A FAMILY MEMBER, A SPOUSE, OR WHOEVER, IF HE OR SHE PASSES AWAY, THEN THAT FAMILY MEMBER GETS TO LIVE IN THE HOUSE FOR THE REST OF HIS OR HER LIFE BEFORE IT GOES TO SOMEONE ELSE PERMANENTLY. AND OF COURSE, YOU GOT THINGS LIKE CONDOMINIUM OWNERSHIP, WHERE YOU MIGHT OWN A CERTAIN UNIT IN THE BUILDING AND, RIGHT, A CERTAIN COMMON OPEN COMMON SPACE OR WHATEVER. BUT ONE OF THE ONES I WANTED TO TYPES OF PROPERTY RIGHTS I WANTED TO FOCUS A LITTLE BIT MORE ON, WAS THE OPTION TO PURCHASE. RIGHT. AND AS I'VE WRITTEN THERE, THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS. ONE PARTY, THE OPTION HOLDER GAINS THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT, BUT NOT THE OBLIGATION. THEY CAN, BUT THEY DON'T HAVE TO BUY A SPECIFIC PROPERTY AT A PREDETERMINED PRICE AND A SPECIFIC TIME FRAME. SO AND YOU SEE THIS A LOT IN DEVELOPMENT, RIGHT? WHERE SOMEBODY WORKS WITH A DEVELOPER, SIGNS AN AGREEMENT WITH THEM. DEVELOPER HAS AN OPTION TO PURCHASE, BUT ISN'T GOING TO PURCHASE UNTIL THE PROPERTY IS REZONED, MAYBE WITH A MASTER DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. AND THAT'S A WAY TO KIND OF MATCH UP PEOPLE THAT OWN LAND WITH PEOPLE THAT HAVE THE EXPERTISE TO DEVELOP LAND, BECAUSE VERY RARE IS IT THAT SOMEBODY BOTH. RIGHT. UNLESS THE DEVELOPER BUYS THE LAND AND THEN DEVELOPS IT THEMSELVES AS THE OWNER. BUT MORE AND MORE, I THINK WE SEE THIS MORE OPTION TO PURCHASE ARRANGEMENT. RIGHT. AND THAT IS JUST AN ARRANGEMENT. THAT CONTRACT IS JUST BETWEEN THE PROPERTY OWNER AND THE DEVELOPER. AND THEN WHAT WE WANT TO BE CAREFUL OF AS A CITY IS WE'RE NOT A PARTY TO THAT AGREEMENT. RIGHT. AND FOR US, IT'S WE RECEIVE APPLICATIONS FROM LANDOWNERS OR PEOPLE THAT HAVE AN OPTION TO PURCHASE, BUT WE STILL WANT TO HAVE BE ON BOARD THAT THE OWNER REALLY DOES HAVE AN AGREEMENT. WE DON'T WANT TO SEE THE AGREEMENT, BUT WE WANT TO SEE THAT THEY AGREE THAT THAT PERSON CAN REPRESENT THEM IN THE APPLICATION PROCESS AND THE WAY THAT WE GET PAST THAT IS WITH AN OWNER AFFIDAVIT. RIGHT. VERY IMPORTANT DOCUMENT FOR US IN THE APPLICATION PROCESS. SO SOMEBODY COMES IN, THEY WANT TO DEVELOP PROPERTY OWNED BY SOMEBODY ELSE. THEY HAVE AN OPTION TO PURCHASE. THAT'S GREAT. BUT THEN WHEN THEY SIGN THE APPLICATION THEY ALSO HAVE THE OWNER SIGN AN OWNER AFFIDAVIT. SO YEP IT'S SAYING YES I UNDERSTAND. AND THAT THIS APPLICATION IS IN PROCESS. AND I'M THE OWNER AND I'M OKAY WITH IT. AND THIS PERSON IS ALLOWED TO APPLY ON MY BEHALF OR WHATEVER. AND THAT PROTECTS US AS A CITY, RIGHT? THAT WE REALLY ARE WORKING, AT LEAST INDIRECTLY, WITH THE CURRENT ACTUAL PROPERTY OWNER. AND THEN IF THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS GOES ALL THE WAY THROUGH AND THERE'S AN MDA AND A ZONE CHANGE OR WHATEVER, AND YOU'VE RECOMMENDED IT, IT GOES TO THE COUNCIL, THEY APPROVE OF IT, THEN WE ALSO WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IN THOSE DOCUMENTS WE HAVE THE ACTUAL OWNER'S APPROVAL. RIGHT. AND SO IN THE MDA THAT I DRAFT, IN ADDITION TO HAVING THE DEVELOPER SIGN AND THE CITY SIGN, IN ADDITION TO THE DEVELOPER, THEN THE OWNER OR OWNERS WILL EACH SIGN AN OWNER CONSENT, USUALLY NOTARIZED SIGNATURE SAYING, YES, WE UNDERSTAND THE TERMS OF THE MASTER DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND REZONE AND SO FORTH, AND WE AGREE TO THEM, IN ADDITION TO THE DEVELOPER AGREEING TO THEM. WE AS THE OWNERS AGREE TO IT AS WELL. AND THEN EVERYBODY'S JUST ALL PROTECTED, RIGHT? EVERYBODY'S SIGNED AN AGREEMENT. EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS WHAT THE TERMS ARE AND SO FORTH. BUT REALLY AN IMPORTANT PARTS OF THE PROCESS ARE THE OWNER AFFIDAVIT AND OWNER CONSENT, SO THAT JUST EVERYBODY'S ON THE SAME PAGE. AND NOBODY CAN ARGUE THAT THEY DIDN'T UNDERSTAND OR WHATEVER IT MIGHT BE. ANY QUESTIONS ON ANY OF THOSE TYPES OF THINGS, REAL PROPERTY RIGHTS IN GENERAL, OR [00:25:08] THAT MDA AND REZONE PROCESS AND SO FORTH AND OR. APPLICANTS BEING OWNERS, BUT THEN SOMEONE ELSE CAN APPLY ON THEIR BEHALF. ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT? OKAY. EITHER. I'VE BEEN VERY SUCCINCT AND ARTICULATE OR I'VE BORED YOU OR OR ANY OTHER COMBINATION. I HAVE A COMMISSIONER. ALAN. WANT TO GO FIRST? GO AHEAD. WHAT IF WE HAVE THE SAME QUESTION? THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT. SO THE ITEM THAT IS BEFORE US THIS EVENING WITH THE EASEMENT, THAT'S A PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT THAT THERE ACTING ON TO CHANGE IN THE ITEM FOR THIS EVENING. SO YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE ALIGNED APPLICATION. IS THAT A PUBLIC. IS THAT IN YOUR QUESTION IS, IS THAT AN EXISTING PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT FOR THIS EVENING'S APPLICATION, NOT THE PAST ONE. IT SAYS THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT AN EASEMENT IN HERE. AND I JUST DIDN'T KNOW WHAT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE PROPOSAL IS THAT IT BE AND MEGAN CAN CORRECT ME. IT'S NOT AN EASEMENT. IT'S ACTUALLY IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. RIGHT. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THAT THAT BECAUSE THE PREVIOUS COMMISSIONER, THE PREVIOUS APPROVAL FROM LAST YEAR WOULD HAVE PUT PUT THIS UTILITY IN AN EASEMENT OUTSIDE OF THE RIGHT OF WAY. SO THAT'S THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE. YEAH. SO THAT THAT'S ACTUALLY A REALLY PERTINENT QUESTION TO TIE IN SOME OF OUR APPLICATIONS TONIGHT AND IN THE PAST WITH THE TRAINING IS THREE DIFFERENT TYPES OF APPROACHES THAT CAN BE USED. RIGHT. SOMETIMES SOMEBODY MIGHT TRY TO NEGOTIATE AN EASEMENT ON PRIVATE LAND, WHICH IS, I THINK, WHAT THE PRIOR APPLICATION, THE ORIGINAL CONDITIONAL USE WAS, RIGHT, THAT IT WOULD BE AN EASEMENT NEGOTIATED ON PRIVATE LAND. AND THAT'S ONE WAY TO, YOU KNOW, TO PUT IT IN ANOTHER WAY, WOULD BE THROUGH, IN SOME INSTANCES, A PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT, DEPENDING ON WHAT TYPES OF THINGS ARE GOING IN IT. AND THEN ALSO SOMETIMES WE CAN USE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, WHICH THEN REQUIRES THE CITY'S APPROVAL. RIGHT. THREE DIFFERENT TYPES OF PROPERTY OWNERSHIP RIGHTS. AND EACH ONE HAS ITS OWN LITTLE NUANCES. RIGHT. BECAUSE IF FOR INSTANCE. IF IT WAS TRADITIONAL TYPE OF INFRASTRUCTURE LIKE WATER AND SEWER VERSUS THE TYPE OF INFRASTRUCTURE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE, LONG TERM, THAT HAS TO BE. ON CITY PROPERTY OR IN A CITY EASEMENT. RIGHT. AND SO A LOT OF TIMES WHAT WILL HAPPEN IS OUR I'LL WORK WITH DAVID CLEMENTS, WHO'S OUR REAL PROPERTY ADMINISTRATOR AT THE CITY AND THE DEVELOPER. AND SO IF THE DEVELOPER IS TRYING TO ACQUIRE AN EASEMENT WHERE A WATER OR SEWER LINE IS GOING TO GO, WE GET INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS AND BASICALLY ARE ASKED THE QUESTION, IF WE ACQUIRED THIS EASEMENT FROM THIS OTHER PROPERTY OWNER, AND IF WE PUT THE WATER AND SEWER LINE IN IT, IS THIS EASEMENT IN A PROPER FORM THAT YOU, THE CITY, WOULD ACCEPT LATER, KNOWING THAT YOU, THE CITY, HAVE TO END UP AT LEAST HAVING IT IN AN EASEMENT THAT YOU OWN. AND WE'LL LOOK AT IT AND DAVE WILL SAY, YEAH, AS LONG AS YOU CHANGE THIS WORD AND THAT WORD, THAT'S ACCEPTABLE TO US LATER, EVEN THOUGH WE'RE NOT GOING TO OWN IT, MAYBE FOR A WHILE. RIGHT. AND THEN SO THEY ACQUIRE THE EASEMENT WITH THAT PARTY, IT GOES INTO THE DEVELOPER'S NAME. AND THEN LATER WHEN THEY DEDICATE EVERYTHING TO THE CITY, WE GET THAT EASEMENT KNOWING IN ADVANCE THAT WE'RE GOING TO ACCEPT IT BECAUSE IT MEETS OUR TERMS. SO THAT'S THE ONE ADVANTAGE OF A PRIVATE PROPERTY. IF IT'S IF IT'S THE TYPE OF UTILITY OR INFRASTRUCTURE THAT PROPERTY GOES IN A PEW, THAT'S KIND OF A NON-ISSUE WHEN IT COMES TO PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. IT'S TOUGH BECAUSE THERE'S ONLY SO MUCH SPACE, RIGHT? VERY LIMITED, ESPECIALLY WHEN WE PUT A LOT OF THESE SMALL CELL TOWERS STUFF ON POLES IN THE AND WE GOT AND THEN WHEN THE SPACE IS GONE, IT'S GONE. RIGHT. AND SO SOMETIMES IT REQUIRES THAT ARRANGEMENTS IF SOMETHING POTENTIALLY GOES IN THAT RIGHT OF WAY CAUSING OTHER THINGS TO NOT FIT, THEN THEY HAVE TO GO SOMEWHERE ELSE AND BE RELOCATED. RIGHT. SO BUT IT'S UP TO THE, THE MAIN THING IS DOES THE CITY STAFF, PARTICULARLY PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING AND ESPECIALLY PUBLIC UTILITIES ENGINEERING, CAN THEY FIND A IS [00:30:01] THERE ENOUGH ROOM LEFT OVER, OR ARE THERE OTHER LOCATIONS TO PLACE THINGS? AND IF THERE ARE, THEN IT BECOMES A NON-ISSUE. BUT AT LEAST IT'S A QUESTION THAT GETS ASKED, RIGHT? SO AND THEN DID WAS YOUR QUESTION SAME OR DIFFERENT? COMMISSIONER, I YOU KNOW, WE'RE OUT OF TIME, BUT I WAS JUST GOING TO ASK ABOUT THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, MY RUDIMENTARY UNDERSTANDING WHEN IT COMES TO PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, IT IS CITY PROPERTY. SO UNDER SOME CIRCUMSTANCES IT FALLS UNDER FEE. SIMPLE. BUT AT THE SAME POINT THERE ARE A LOT OF REGULATIONS REGARDING THAT, RIGHT? THE CITY CAN'T JUST SELL IT TO ANOTHER PERSON. IT IT CAN ONLY TRANSFER INTEREST IF THE CITY IS, IF THAT SECTION IS ANNEXED INTO ANOTHER ORGANIZATION OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. IN SOME CASES, LIKE WITH SMALL CELL TOWERS, THEN THE STATE MANDATES THAT WE ALLOW CERTAIN THINGS IN OUR RIGHT OF WAY. SO YEAH, BUT YEAH, THAT'S MAYBE ANOTHER COUPLE OF QUESTIONS THAT WE COULD TIE INTO A FUTURE TRAINING. YEAH. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. WELL IT IS [GENERAL MEETING 6:00 p.m.] TIME. SO WE'LL GO AHEAD AND START OUR REGULAR MEETING. THIS IS THE WEST JORDAN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 15TH, 2025. WE WILL EXCUSE COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ. ALL OTHER COMMISSIONERS ARE PRESENT WITH COMMISSIONER ANDERSON ON ZOOM. SO WE'LL GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED WITH 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. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. NEXT IS ON THE [Consent Calendar] CONSENT CALENDAR. APPROVAL FROM MINUTES FROM JULY 1ST. DO I HAVE ANY COMMENTS AND OR MOTIONS? MOTION TO APPROVE. OKAY. COMMISSIONER. COMMISSIONER. ALLEN. COMMISSIONER ROBERTS I'LL SECOND THAT MOTION. BOY, YOU GUYS ARE FAST. OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION. AND SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? ANY OPPOSED? OKAY. CARRIES SIX. NOTHING. NEXT IS A PUBLIC HEARING WITH FINAL ACTION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR ALIGNED ENERGY TRANSMISSION LINE 6600 WEST FROM WELLS PARK ROAD TO 9800 SOUTH. AMENDED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT GRANTED ON NOVEMBER 19TH, 2020, FOR RELOCATING THE TRANSMISSION LINE ALONG 20 OR 6600 WEST TO THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. ALIGNED DATA CENTERS, AND IT LOOKS LIKE CORDELL ANDREWS, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK. COMMISSIONER ANDERSON. YES. THANK YOU. I JUST WANTED TO DISCLOSE, FOR THE RECORD, I HAVE TO ABSTAIN FROM THIS ONE. NOVA HAS TAKEN A PUBLIC POSITION, AND NOVA IS A CLIENT OF MY FIRM'S ONE OF THE ATTORNEYS AT MY FIRM, SO I'M ABSTAINING FROM THIS ISSUE. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON. OKAY. DO WE HAVE. CORDELL, OR IF YOU'RE NOT CORDELL, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME. GOOD EVENING. MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, WEST JORDAN. MY NAME IS CHRISTOPHER COUGHLIN. I AM HERE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT, ALIGN DATA CENTERS. WOULD YOU RAISE THE MIC UP JUST A LITTLE BIT? THERE YOU GO. HOW'S THE SOUND NOW? BETTER. PERFECT. EXCELLENT. THANKS. CHRISTOPHER COUGHLIN, COO WITH ALIGN DATA CENTERS WITH A CORPORATE ADDRESS OF 2800 SUMMIT AVENUE, PLANO, TEXAS. OF COURSE, WE HAVE OFFICES HERE IN AND DATA CENTERS HERE IN WEST JORDAN. SO AS YOU KNOW, WE WERE HERE IN NOVEMBER, AS IS STATED TO SEEK A COPY. AND WE'VE NOW COME TO AN IMPASSE ON SECTION OF THAT EASEMENT ROUTE THAT WE HAD UNDER THE CFP ON PRIVATE LAND AND THEREFORE HAVE WORKED WITH THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT TO COME UP WITH A PLAN TO GO IN THE CITY RIGHT OF WAY, AS THE APPLICATION DOES OUTLINE, AS WELL AS THE STAFF REPORT, THE APPLICATION MEETS ALL THE STANDARDS FOR APPROVAL. WE CERTAINLY HOPE THAT THE THIS COMMISSION AGREES WITH THAT OPINION. AND I ALSO HAVE WITH ME MY COLLEAGUE HERE WHO IS A CIVIL ENGINEER, CAN ANSWER ANY SPECIFIC ENGINEERING QUESTIONS, BUT I WOULD RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT YOU APPROVE THIS APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED THIS EVENING, AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE, ANY [00:35:03] QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT. OKAY. WE'LL CALL YOU IF WE HAVE ANY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU SIR. MEGAN. THANK YOU CHAIR. SO THIS AS WAS STATED, THE ORIGINAL CUP WAS APPROVED LAST NOVEMBER IN 2024. AND THERE REQUESTING TO CHANGE THE LOCATION OF THE TRANSMISSION LINE ALONG 6600 WEST. THAT'S THE ONLY PORTION THAT'S CHANGING WITH THIS AMENDMENT. YOU CAN SEE IT HIGHLIGHTED ON THE SCREEN. THIS IS JUST OUTLINING. THIS IS PULLING OFF THE PULLED OFF THE PREVIOUS APPROVED PLAN. THE CIRCLED AREA IS THE ONLY AREA THAT'S CHANGING. THIS IS THEIR PROPOSED PLAN. AND I'VE TRIED TO ZOOM IN AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE BUT. YES, I'VE TAKEN A CROSS SECTION HERE SO YOU CAN SEE THEY'RE JUST GOING TO BE GOING INSTEAD OF ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ON THE WEST SIDE AS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED. THEY WOULD LIKE TO PUT IT IN PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE STREET IN A LANDSCAPING AREA. IT'S ABOUT TEN FEET WIDE AND THERE IS A WATER LINE GOING DOWN THAT SECTION CURRENTLY. AND SO WE'VE TALKED WITH THE APPLICANT AND OUR UTILITIES AND PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERS. AND THEY'VE PROPOSED THIS PLAN WHICH SHOWS YOU CAN SEE THE TWO BLACK LINES ARE WHERE THEY WOULD MOVE THE WATER LINE AND THE SEWER LINE TO MEET STATE CODE AND UTILITY REQUIREMENTS. AND. SO THEY'RE HAVE AGREED TO FOLLOW THAT PLAN AND DO EVERYTHING THAT'S REQUIRED OF THEM TO MAKE THAT WORK. SO. THAT IS OUR ONLY CONDITION OF APPROVAL THAT WE ARE RECOMMENDING IS TO HAVE THAT PLAN APPROVED BY UTILITIES AND PUBLIC WORKS AND MAKE SURE ALL THEIR REQUIREMENTS ARE MET. AND WITH THAT, I AM RECOMMENDING APPROVAL AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. MEGAN, COULD YOU CLARIFY WHAT WHAT SIDE OF THE STREET? BECAUSE I THINK YOU SAID WEST SIDE OF THE 66 IS GOING TO BE ACTUALLY ON THE EAST SIDE, RIGHT? YES. SORRY. IT WILL. IT'S MOVING FROM THE WEST SIDE TO THE EAST SIDE. THEY'RE PROPOSING TO BE ON THE EAST SIDE. THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF, COMMISSIONER ALLEN? I JUST WANT TO FURTHER UP ON THAT, THAT CLARIFICATION. IT WAS ON THE WEST SIDE OUTSIDE OF THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY IN A PROPOSED. PRIVATE EASEMENT. NOW IT'S INSIDE THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, BUT ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE ROAD. YES. OKAY. THAT HELPS. SO I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS. I MAY NOT BE FAIR. I'M SURE YOU'VE PROBABLY TALKED TO THE REST OF THE PUBLIC UTILITIES GROUP ON THIS ONE. MOVING THE WATER LINE. NOT AN ISSUE. STORM DRAINS GOING TO MOVE AS A RESULT OF THAT. WE'RE OKAY WITH THE LIMITATIONS ON THE REST OF THE WIDTH. I LOOKED AT THIS AND I JUST NOTICED THE ROAD IS ACTUALLY A LITTLE BIT MORE NARROW. THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY IS MORE NARROW HERE THAN IT IS ON SOME OF THE SURROUNDING ROADS. WE FEEL CONFIDENT THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE ANY NEED FOR THIS AREA THAT THE POLES WANT TO GO IN. YEAH, THEY DON'T SEEM TO HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH BEING ABLE TO RELOCATE THESE LINES AND THE WIDTH OR ANYTHING. AND AS FOR THE POLES THEMSELVES IN THAT LANDSCAPING, THERE SHOULDN'T BE AN ISSUE. WE DON'T SEE ANY ISSUE WITH THAT. SO OKAY. FOLLOW UP ON THAT IS DOES THE CITY THIS IS ONE OF THE QUESTIONS I CAN ASK ON THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. DUNCAN. BUT DOES THE CITY HAVE THE AUTHORITY IN THE FUTURE? IF WE DO NEED THAT AREA TO REQUIRE THEM TO RELOCATE THOSE POWER LINES? PROBABLY NOT, BECAUSE ESPECIALLY WHEN SOMETHING THAT. EXPENSIVE IS PUT IN PLACE AND IT'S EVERYTHING ELSE IS BASED UPON IT. AND YEAH, THE FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES, UNLESS IT WAS VOLUNTARY OR THERE WAS SOME ARRANGEMENT WORKED OUT, I DON'T SEE THAT THEY WOULD EVER BE MOVED. YEAH, I THINK AS A CITY, WE RECOGNIZE THAT IF THIS IS APPROVED AND IF THAT CONDITION IS MET AND THE OUR CITY ENGINEERS CAN RELOCATE THE LINES, AND IF THAT THEN IS DONE, THAT THAT IS A PERMANENT ARRANGEMENT. AS A CITY, I DON'T THINK WE WOULD EVER UNILATERALLY MAKE A CHANGE. IT WOULD PROBABLY BE AT THE BEHEST, OR AT LEAST WITH THE APPROVAL OF, YOU KNOW, THE OTHER INVOLVED PARTIES. SO IT'S A PERMANENT THING FOR THE CITY. AND THEN ONE LAST QUESTION [00:40:09] I HAD ON IT IS WE PUT THIS THIS ALIGNMENT. I'M SORRY, I'M GOING TO ASK TWO MORE QUESTIONS. FIRST ONE IS DO MAYBE I SHOULD HAVE ASKED THE APPLICANT, BUT I'LL ASK STAFF WHAT WHY WAS THIS NOT PURSUED ORIGINALLY, IT BEING MOST LIKELY THE CHEAPER OF THE TWO OPTIONS. YOU'RE SAYING THIS WOULD BE THE CHEAPER OF THE TWO OPTIONS? I WOULD ASSUME THAT PUTTING IT IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, NOT HAVING TO ACQUIRE PERPETUAL PRIVATE EASEMENT WOULD HAVE BEEN CHEAPER. MAYBE I'M OFF BASE ON THAT. YEAH, I'M NOT ENTIRELY SURE. MAYBE BECAUSE THE UTILITY ISSUES, YOU KNOW, ARE GOING TO ARE GOING TO BE AN EXPENSE TO THE DEVELOPER. I WOULD ASSUME THAT WOULD BE WHY IT MAY HAVE BEEN EASIER TO BE ON THE WEST SIDE TO AVOID THOSE ISSUES, BUT MIGHT BE BETTER TO ASK THE APPLICANT THAT FIRST. THINK OF THAT TOO. WE'LL PAUSE ON THAT QUESTION FOR A MINUTE. SO THEN THE LAST ONE IS I'M LOOKING AT THIS CORRIDOR AND I'M CURIOUS FROM THE COMMENT THAT WE DID RECEIVE THROUGH THE EMAIL, IF NOW IS NOT THE TIME, WE WANT TO DO THIS AFTER PUBLIC COMMENT. BUT THE QUESTION I HAVE IS IT IS STILL RUNS NORTH AND SOUTH, ONE'S JUST ON THE EAST AND THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY VERSUS ON THE WEST, AND A PRIVATE EASEMENT. I'M NOT ENTIRELY UNDERSTANDING WHAT THE CONCERN IS FROM THE ONE COMMENT THAT WE RECEIVED. SPECIFICALLY THE COMMENT WE RECEIVED. MEGAN I, I WOULDN'T ADDRESS THAT. I'D LET I'D LET THE PERSON COMMENT. I BELIEVE NOVA IS HERE AND MAYBE THEY CAN SPEAK TO THAT. OKAY. USUALLY WHEN WE GET THE EMAIL, IT'S JUST UNDERSTOOD THAT THEY'RE NOT COMING IN. SO WONDERFUL. I'LL WAIT TO LISTEN. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? I JUST HAVE A CONCERN BASED ON WHAT COMMISSIONER ALLEN BROUGHT UP, THAT THESE POLES CAN'T BE MOVED OR IT WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT. I THINK IN WEST JORDAN, WE'RE SEEING A LOT OF DECISIONS THAT WERE MADE IN PREVIOUS DECADES THAT WE'RE NOW DEALING WITH BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T WELL THOUGHT OUT, AND I CAN SEE GROWTH HAPPENING IN THIS COMMUNITY. IT'S REALLY I MEAN, I KNOW IT'S MANUFACTURING, BUT OUR VALLEY IS GROWING. AND IF WE PUT SOMETHING IN THAT'S NOT EASILY MODIFIED BASED ON THE GROWTH, THEN I THINK WE'RE JUST CREATING HEADACHES DOWN THE ROAD FOR THE NEXT, NEXT GENERATION OF PLANNERS AND COUNCIL PEOPLE. SO, I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW IF I REALLY HAVE A QUESTION OTHER THAN JUST A STATEMENT THAT I MAYBE THE CITY COUNCIL CAN ADDRESS THIS WHEN THEY OH, WE ARE THE FINAL ACTION. NEVER MIND. THIS IS FOR US. YEAH. SO THAT'S JUST MY ONE CONCERN IS IF WE'RE CREATING A HEADACHE FOR SOMEBODY TEN, 15, 20 YEARS DOWN THE ROAD. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER HOLLINGSWORTH? SO WITH THIS RELOCATION OF THE WATER AND SEWAGE TO THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD, ARE THERE GOING TO BE OTHER UTILITIES THAT ARE IMPACTED BY THAT MOVE? SO THE WATER LINE IS GOING TO BE MOVED, WHICH WOULD IMPACT THE CURRENT LOCATION OF THE SEWER. SO THE SEWER LINE IS BEING MOVED AS WELL. SO THEY ARE ADDRESSING ALL THE IMPACTS OF MOVING THE TWO LINES. OKAY. I WAS JUST CONFUSED BECAUSE I'M SEEING THESE RED AND GREEN LINES ASSOCIATED WITH THAT ON YOUR CROSS SECTION. AND IT'S LIKE, ARE WE PUTTING A SEWAGE LINE OR A WATER LINE ON TOP OF ANOTHER UTILITY? NO. SO THE YOU CAN'T SEE IT. WELL, BECAUSE I'M ZOOMED IN, BUT THE BLACK LINES WILL BE THE, THE NEW WATER LINE ON THE RIGHT AND, AND THE NEW SEWER LINE ON THE LEFT. AND SO THERE ARE SPACING REQUIREMENTS FOR WATER AND SEWER. SO THAT'S WHY THEY'RE MOVING BOTH LINES. SO IT SHOULD BE YOU KNOW ALL THE EFFECTS SHOULD BE ADDRESSED THERE OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. OKAY. THIS HAS BEEN NOTICED AS A PUBLIC HEARING. SO IF ANYBODY IS WANTS TO COME UP AND SPEAK ON THIS YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME. HI, I'M CHANDLER SWENSON. I AM WITH NOVA DATACENTERS. I DID PUT IN A COMMENT AND I KNOW IT'S UNUSUAL TO SHOW UP, BUT IT WAS HARD FOR ME TO ARTICULATE VERY MUCH IN A WRITTEN EMAIL THAT I THOUGHT WOULD BE BETTER PRESENTED [00:45:02] VERBALLY. I HAVE A COUPLE OF POINTS I WANT TO MAKE, AND THE REASON THAT I HAD REFERENCED THE NEW STATE LAW ALLOWING ALTERNATE PATHS TO TRANSMIT POWER IS BECAUSE NOVA IS PLANNING TO EXPAND ONTO THE WEST SIDE OF 6600 WEST. THAT NEW STATE LEGISLATION ALLOWS US TO DO THAT. AND THE REASON WE HAVE BEEN AT AN IMPASSE WITH ALIGNED ON COMING TO AN AGREEMENT ON A PRIVATE EASEMENT, IS THAT WE JUST NEED MORE TIME TO ENGINEER WHAT THAT PATHWAY LOOKS LIKE, SO IT COULD COME ALONG WELLS PARK ROAD AND DOWN 6600 WEST. AND IF THAT'S THE CASE, WE NEED TIME TO WORK THROUGH ENGINEERING WITH THE UTILITY PROVIDER TO MAKE SURE THAT THESE POLES, AS THEY ARE BIG AND EXPENSIVE AND ONLY GOING ONCE, THEY ARE BIG ENOUGH TO ACCOMMODATE BOTH USERS. THE OTHER OPTION IS IF WE COME THROUGH OUR OWN CAMPUS AND CROSS 6600 WEST, RUNNING EAST TO WEST VERSUS NORTH AND SOUTH, WHICH WE WOULD DO PRIVATELY. BUT AGAIN, THESE POWER POLES THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED WOULD ENCUMBER OUR ABILITY TO DO THAT. AND LIKE IT'S BEEN DISCUSSED SEVERAL TIMES IN THIS MEETING, A UTILITY IMPROVEMENT OF THIS SIZE REALLY ONLY HAPPENS ONCE. THERE'S NOT ANOTHER BITE AT THE APPLE. AND ALLOWING THESE TO GO IN AND NOT ENSURING THE COMPATIBILITY FOR OUR FUTURE USE IS REALLY LIMITING US TO OUR CURRENT BOX AND PREVENTING US FROM MAKING OUR EXPANSION. WE ESTIMATE THAT OUR EXPANDED DATA CENTERS ON THE WEST SIDE OF 6600 WEST WILL GENERATE APPROXIMATELY APPROXIMATELY $1 MILLION EVERY MONTH IN REVENUE TO THE CITY THROUGH THE STATE TAXES ON UTILITIES. SO IT'S A SIGNIFICANT FOR NOT JUST US IN GROWING OUR BUSINESS, BUT FOR THE CITY AS WELL. AND I JUST WANT TO REFERENCE IN THE WEST JORDAN CITY CODE, SORRY, THIS IS YOUR DESIGN, NOT MINE. TITLE 13, CHAPTER SEVEN ARTICLE SUBSECTION L, NUMERAL SIX SAYS TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, IT MUST NOT UNREASONABLY INTERFERE WITH THE LAWFUL USE OF PROPERTIES WITHIN THE VICINITY THAT CANNOT BE MITIGATED BY REASONABLE CONDITIONS. WE FEEL THAT THERE ARE NO REASONABLE CONDITIONS THAT COULD MITIGATE FOR US TO GET POWERFUL IN ONE SPOT TO THE OTHER, WITHOUT A BETTER LOOK AT COOPERATIVE AND COORDINATED ENGINEERING FOR WHAT THESE POWER POLES WILL SUPPORT NOW AND IN THE FUTURE. I'M ABOUT UP ON MY TIME AND I THINK I'LL LEAVE IT THERE. SO THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR TIME. THANKS FOR HEARING ME. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANYBODY ELSE WISH TO SPEAK? IF YOU ARE ONLINE, RAISE YOUR HAND OR IF YOU'RE ON THE PHONE. STAR NINE. THERE'S ONE PERSON ON LINE, BUT THEY DON'T HAVE THEIR HAND RAISED. OKAY, THEN WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT BACK UP TO THE COMMISSION FOR COMMENT. AND OUR MOTIONS. SO DID YOU WANT TO BRING UP THE. I WOULD IF EVERYBODY'S ON BOARD WITH THAT, I'D LIKE TO BRING THE APPLICANT BACK UP AND HEAR ON THAT. SO I THINK IN PARTICULAR, THE HANDFUL OF QUESTIONS THAT WE ASKED IS TO I THINK WE'RE CLEAR AS TO WHY IT WANTS TO MOVE INSIDE THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. NOW, MAYBE A LITTLE BIT OF DISCUSSION ON THE TIMING, WHY THIS NEEDS TO PROCEED NOW, ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOU MAY HAVE HEARD THAT YOU CAN ADDRESS? SURE. BACKING UP TO THE NOVEMBER HEARING. WHEN WE WERE HERE AT THAT TIME, WE WERE IN DISCUSSIONS WITH THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, THE PRIVATE EASEMENT IN THE SECTION THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING RIGHT NOW. WITH THE EXPECTATION THAT WE WOULD OBTAIN AN EASEMENT, PRIVATE EASEMENT. AND THAT'S NO LONGER IN PART OF OUR NEGOTIATIONS. SO THAT'S WHY WE HAVE HAD TO MOVE SIMPLY THAT THAT LAND, IN OUR UNDERSTANDING IS NO LONGER AVAILABLE FOR CONSIDERATION. IF WE HAD OTHER INFORMATION TO CONTRADICT THAT, WE WOULD BE IN DISCUSSIONS WITH THE OWNERS OF THAT PROPERTY OR THE FUTURE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY, IF THAT WERE THE CASE. BUT. AS I STAND HERE TODAY AND COMING TO THIS MEETING, THAT WAS NOT MY UNDERSTANDING IN ANY WAY THAT WE HAD ACCESS TO THAT PRIVATE LAND AT ANY, AT ANY FUTURE TIME. AND BUT THAT WAS THE GENESIS WE THOUGHT WE DID IN NOVEMBER. AND WE DON'T NOW. SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE, TO REQUEST A ROUTE THAT DOES WORK FOR US. AND AS WAS MENTIONED, WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THE CITY PUBLIC WORKS. WE BELIEVE THAT FROM AN ENGINEERING PERSPECTIVE, THIS WILL MEET ALL THE STANDARDS OF [00:50:05] THE STATE CODE FOR THE, THE, THE PROXIMITY OF THE SEWER AND THE WATER AND THE MOVE. WE'D STILL BE WITHIN WITHIN STATE CODE FOR THOSE FACILITIES. SO OFTENTIMES NOT OFTENTIMES I THINK ALMOST ALWAYS WHEN A POLE GOES UP, OF COURSE SOME ENTITY PUTS IT IN AND EVERY OTHER ENTITY SEES IT AND STARTS HANGING THINGS. SO EVENTUALLY WE'LL END UP WITH COMMUNICATIONS LINES AND OTHERS THAT TYPICALLY HANG A LITTLE BIT LOWER THAN EVEN THAN THE POWER LINES. HOW WILL YOU BE ENFORCING THAT? I ASSUME THAT YOUR ENTITY WILL CONTINUE TO OWN THE POLES. THESE WOULD ACTUALLY, IN FACT, BE OWNED BY PACIFIC OR ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER WOULD OWN THE POLES. SO THEY WOULD IN THE IN THE FINAL APPROVALS THAT NEED TO GO FORWARD TO THE CITY, THEY WOULD BE THE. IT WOULDN'T BE THE GRANTEE, BUT THE, THE BENEFACTOR OF THE RIGHT OF WAY PERMIT WOULD BE FOR ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER. SO TO THAT EXTENT, IF ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER WERE TO SERVE ANOTHER CUSTOMER FROM THOSE LINES, THAT WOULD BE THEIR PREROGATIVE. THIS WOULD NOT BE PRIVATELY OWNED BY ALIGNED. IF IT WERE SOMETIMES LIKE THERE CAN BE PRIVATE UTILITY RUNS, THIS ONE WOULD BE WOULD BE WOULD NOT BE A PRIVATE. IN OTHER WORDS, WHATEVER ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER'S PREROGATIVE IS IN TERMS OF ADDITIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE ON THOSE POLES, THEY WOULD BE ENGINEERED, OF COURSE, WITH SOME LIMITATIONS. MAY I ASK A QUESTION OF STAFF WHILE THE APPLICANT IS UP? IF THIS IS ULTIMATELY A ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER PACIFIC CORE PROJECT, ALBEIT FOR THE APPLICANT THE APPLICANT IS PAYING, ESSENTIALLY, AND THEN ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER OWNS ALL OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE. THEY HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO BE IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. SO I'M WONDERING WHY IT'S COMING FORWARD TO US. SO YOUR QUESTION IS, WHY IS THE APPLICATION IN FRONT OF YOU AS A PLANNING COMMISSION? AND IT'S MAINLY BECAUSE THIS TYPE OF USE AND THIS ZONE IS LISTED ON THE LAND USE TABLE AS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, AS A MAJOR UTILITY, AS A MAJOR UTILITY. RIGHT. SO THIS USES WHAT A MAJOR UTILITY. RIGHT. YEAH. SO IT IS AN AGENT UTILITY OR A MAJOR MAJOR, MAJOR MAJOR UTILITY. EVEN IF, IF THIS ENTIRE SITUATION WAS GOING IN PACIFIC CORPS ON THEIR OWN, DECIDED THEY WANTED TO PUT POWER POLES ALONG HERE, THEY WOULD STILL BE IN FRONT OF US. THAT'S RIGHT. YEAH. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO THE APPLICANT IS, IT'S THAT USE AND THAT THIS MAJOR UTILITY USE IN THIS ZONE REQUIRES A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, WHETHER IT'S A SUBSTATION OR MAJOR TRANSMISSION LINES. THAT'S HOW THE CITY HAS HANDLED THESE THESE FACILITIES IN THE PAST. I SHOULD HAVE LOOKED AT THE OUR CODE MORE EFFECTIVELY PRIOR TO THIS MEETING. I DIDN'T REALIZE THAT LITTLE NUANCE. BUT WHAT DEFINES THEN IS IT THE SIZE, THE KILOVOLT ON THE. YEAH. SO SCOTT'S LOOKING AT THE DEFINITION IN 13. DASH 2-3. YEAH. NO. COMPUTERS ARE SLOW TODAY. I'M WONDERING IF WE EVEN NEED TO LOOK IT UP. IT'S AN INTERESTING THOUGHT. I DO APPRECIATE IT. WHAT WE'VE IDENTIFIED IS GOING TO BE AT LEAST ABOVE THAT AMOUNT. THAT PUTS IT INTO A MAJOR UTILITY. YEAH, IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S TRYING TO REMEMBER. IS IT UNDER UTILIT, COMMA MAJOR I KNOW THERE'S A KILOWATT. SO HERE COMING UP IF I MAY 69TH KV AND ABOVE. IT REQUIRES A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. YOU'RE UNDER ARREST FOR PROFESSOR. YES. A MAJOR UTILITY IS A FACILITY OTHER THAN COLLECTION OR DISTRIBUTION LINES UNDER PUBLIC FRANCHISE OR OWNERSHIP, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH PROVIDES THE GENERAL PUBLIC ELECTRICITY, GAS AND SO FORTH. SO IT'S A YEAH SIGNIFICANT. YEAH. THAT'S RIGHT. SO WHAT WHAT EVENTUALLY GOES ON TO THIS ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER IS USING IT. I'M USING THE TWO NAMES INTERMITTENT OR ANYWAY. YEAH. EVENTUALLY THEY COULD CONTINUE TO EXPAND ITS USE. IT JUST BECOMES PART OF THEIR SYSTEM. OKAY. WELL MY UNDERSTANDING IS JUST A REGULAR TRANSMISSION LINE WITH THESE GUYS BEING THE BENEFICIARY. SO ANYBODY COULD PRETTY MUCH REQUEST THEIR PRODUCT RIGHT THERE. THE INITIAL BENEFACTOR BECAUSE AND SO THEREFORE THEY HAVE TO PAY ALL EFFORT TO GET IT INTO PLACE. OKAY. WHICH MEANS IT [00:55:06] MEETS ALL OF THE OVERHEAD REQUIREMENTS. VEHICLES ARE GOING TO BE PASSED UNDER IT. IF WE DECIDED TO DO DRIVE APPROACHES ON EITHER SIDE OF THAT ROAD, THEY'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO GET UNDERNEATH IT. OKAY. GIVE ME A SHOT. MEGAN, REGARDING THE ITEM THAT WAS BROUGHT UP OR THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DETERMINATION NUMBER SIX THAT WAS BROUGHT UP BY THE NOVA. WHAT WHAT RESEARCH IS WEST JORDAN DONE ON THAT DETERMINATION TO COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT YOU MADE, THAT IT WILL NOT INTERFERE WITH OTHER PROPERTIES AND THEIR RIGHTFUL USE OF THEIR OWN LAND? YEAH. WELL, IF IT INDEED IS GOING TO INTERFERE WITH THEIR USE OF THEIR PROPERTY AND THEY THEY'VE BROUGHT IT BEFORE US HERE AT THIS MEETING, THAT'S WHEN WE WOULD HAVE LEARNED ABOUT IT AS WELL. SO YEAH, THAT'S THE FIRST TIME KIND OF HEARING THAT EXPLANATION ON THEIR END. SO WHEN YOU DO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION, YOU'RE MAKING IT BASED ON WHAT INFORMATION. JUST THE INFORMATION, YOU KNOW, THAT'S BROUGHT FORWARD TO US. ANY COMMENTS THAT WE GET AS WELL AS, YOU KNOW, GOING OUT TO THE SITE AND ANYTHING THAT WE CAN SEE AND OTHER RECORDS THAT WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, SITE PLANS. AND DO YOU DO YOU TALK TO THE OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS AROUND THAT AREA, OR IS IT JUST BASED ON WEST JORDAN UTILITY PEOPLE AND YOUR OWN OBSERVATION? YEAH. WE DIDN'T TALK TO THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS FOR THIS ONE, BUT YEAH. THANK YOU. THIS WASN'T SUPPOSED TO BE THIS HARD. WALKING INTO THE MEETING TODAY. SO I'VE GOT ONE ONE COMMENT AND THEN ONE OUTSTANDING QUESTION. THE COMMENT IS, YOU KNOW, IF WE'VE GOT SOMEBODY THAT OWNS TWO PIECES OF PROPERTY AND IT HAPPENS TO BE SEPARATED BY A ROAD OR HOWEVER THIS IS, IT'S NOT REALLY UP TO US TO SAY THEY CAN DRIVE ACROSS THE PUBLIC ROAD TO GET ONE PROPERTY TOGETHER. THEY'VE GOT TO FIGURE THAT KIND OF THING OUT. AND I THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE IN PLACE. ON THE OTHER HAND, WE'VE JUST RECEIVED A PUBLIC COMMENT THAT SAYS WE'RE WILLING AND INTERESTED IN ENGAGING IN THIS. WE JUST NEED A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME TO SET EVERYTHING OUT. AND A FOLLOW UP THAT SAYS, WE DIDN'T REALIZE THAT WAS EVEN PART OF THIS. I HAVE A HARD TIME SAYING, WELL, LET'S GO AHEAD AND APPROVE IT KNOWING THAT THAT'S STILL ON THE TABLE. SO THAT'S JUST MY THOUGHT. COMMISSIONER ROBERTS. WELL, COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONER ALAN JUST TOTALLY SET THE STAGE FOR ME. I'VE BEEN DEBATING MAKING THIS COMMENT AND TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO GO ABOUT IT. SO I'M GOING TO START THIS BY SAYING, DUNCAN, KEEP YOUR EARS OPEN AND CUT ME OFF AT ANY POINT. IF I GO OVERBOARD BECAUSE I'M PLAYING WITH FIRE. BUT MUCH LIKE COMMISSIONER ALAN JUST SAID, I HAVE THIS IMPRESSION THAT READING BETWEEN THE LINES, IT SOUNDS LIKE ALIGNED WAS INITIALLY NEGOTIATING WITH THAT PROPERTY OWNER ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE STREET, AND NOVA ENTERED INTO CONTRACT WITH THAT. AND HOWEVER THAT HAPPENED, THEIR NEGOTIATIONS FELL APART. BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE RIGHT NOW WE'RE IN A POSITION WHERE NOVA IS INCENTIVIZED TO RESUME NEGOTIATIONS. AND WE'RE LIKE YOU SAID, WE DON'T HAVE WE DON'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO INTERFERE THERE. BUT I'M WONDERING, DO WE HAVE ANY ABILITY TO SHELVE THIS AND TRY TO LET THEM PROCEED IN THEIR NEGOTIATIONS WITHOUT, YOU KNOW, WITHOUT DENYING IT, BASICALLY JUST PUT IT ON THE SHELF. SO THAT WAY ALIGNED MAINTAINS THEIR THEIR LEVERAGE TIME LIMIT THOUGH. AND 45 DAYS. RIGHT. YEP. THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT. YOU CAN TABLE IT FOR UP TO 45 DAYS. YEAH. SO MY THINKING IS IF WE TABLE IT A LINE MAINTAINS THEIR LEVERAGE KNOWING THAT THEY CAN COME BACK BEFORE US AND HAVE US APPROVE IT. SO THAT THAT MAINTAINS THE NOVA'S FEET TO THE FIRE IN ORDER TO NEGOTIATE SOMETHING AND FIGURE SOMETHING ELSE OUT, BUT SOMETHING THAT'S MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL RATHER THAN UNILATERALLY BENEFICIAL. SO I JUST WANTED TO PUT THAT OUT THERE, YOU KNOW, SEE IF THE APPLICANT HAS ANY RESPONSE TO THAT OR, YOU KNOW, I GUESS FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, WE COULD DO THAT UNILATERALLY. WE CAN GO AHEAD AND TABLE IT FOR UP TO 45 DAYS WITHOUT EVEN. HAVING THE APPLICATION. AND SORRY. NO, GO AHEAD. YOU HAD THE TABLE. I JUST WAS SAYING THAT TO ME. THAT MAKES MORE OF A LOGICAL SOLUTION TO THIS, AT LEAST FOR A TEMPORARY, BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THERE'S SOME NUANCES THAT WE WERE NOT AWARE OF UNTIL THIS MEETING. AND NOW I THINK WITH THE LIGHT BEING SHINED A LITTLE BIT MORE, I THINK HONESTLY, THAT [01:00:04] IF WE GAVE THAT 45 DAYS, I THINK THAT'S A REASONABLE TIME. I THINK THAT NEGOTIATIONS COULD HAPPEN, AND I THINK EVERYBODY COULD BE HAPPY. SO I MEAN, THAT'S JUST MY TWO. YEAH. SO I MEAN THAT'S JUST MY $0.02. SO AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY. SO WHAT COMMISSIONER HATCH SAID EARLIER ABOUT MAKING SURE THAT WE DON'T MAKE A MISTAKE, RIGHT. YES. WE DON'T NECESSARILY THINK THIS COULD BE A MISTAKE, BUT WHAT WE'RE NOTICING IS THE REQUEST IS PROBABLY 100% APPROVAL WITHIN THE POLICIES. SEEMS LIKE IT'S MAKES SENSE, RIGHT? EVERYBODY HERE IS NOW HEARD. THAT SOUNDS LIKE SOMETHING ELSE IS ON THE TABLE. BUT I WANT TO AVOID IS THE POTENTIAL OF. NOW WE'VE GOT ANY POWER POLES ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ROAD, OR SOME OTHER THING COMES UP. EXACTLY. AND BY DOING THIS, MAYBE, HOPEFULLY WE'RE SAVING FOLKS MONEY AND BUILDING RELATIONSHIPS AND SOME OF THOSE KINDS OF THINGS. I'M NOT 100% SURE THAT'S GOING TO BE THE CASE, BUT IF WE WENT AHEAD AND TABLED IT, I DON'T KNOW IF WE SAY TO A DATE UNCERTAIN WITHIN 45 DAYS AND THEN ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO COME BACK AND SAY, OKAY, I'VE BEEN WORKING FOR TWO WEEKS, IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE IT'S GOING TO WORK OUT. GO AHEAD AND GET IT ON THE NEXT AGENDA, OR, HEY, WE'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS. WE'RE MOVING FORWARD. SO ONE MORE QUESTION TO DUNCAN. 45 DAYS FOR TABLING. IF IT TURNS OUT THAT THEY ARE MAKING PROGRESS AND THINGS ARE LOOKING GREAT, CAN THE CAN THE REVISIONS, THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BE REMOVED AND THEN THEY CAN APPLY FOR IT. AGAIN, IF THINGS GO SOUTH, SAY IN 60 DAYS YOU CAN GO PAST THE 45 DAYS IF THE APPLICANT IS NOT OPPOSED TO IT. SO IT'S THEIR CHOICE. SO THE 45 DAY LIMIT IS, IS CAN BE CALLED FOR BY THE APPLICANT. IT'S NOT ABSOLUTELY REQUIRED. IT'S JUST IF THE APPLICANT WANTS IT. RIGHT. SO WE'VE GOT A MEETING IN THREE WEEKS. IT'S PROBABLY TOO QUICK BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A AGENDA HERE PROBABLY TOMORROW BECAUSE JULIA IN AUGUST. OH WAS THERE ONLY. THERE IS ONLY ONE IN AUGUST ISN'T THERE IN AUGUST. AND TYPICALLY YOU KNOW THE TWO ROUTES YOU GO UNDER OUR PROCEDURES ARE YOU CAN YOU CAN YOU COULD TABLE IT TO A DATE UNCERTAIN AND THEN THAT ENDS THE PUBLIC HEARING. OR YOU COULD PICK A SPECIFIC DATE AND ALLOW ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT AT THAT NEW DATE. AS YOU SAW TONIGHT, THE ADVANTAGE TO THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS YOU ALLOWED YOU WERE ABLE TO HEAR FROM OTHER PARTIES OTHER THAN THE APPLICANT, AND SOMETHING LIKE THIS PROBABLY ISN'T IS PROBABLY BEST TO PICK A DATE CERTAIN ANYWAY. AND I'M TRYING TO REMEMBER. SO THEN WHAT ARE THE MEETING DATES IN AUGUST? IT'S JUST THE FIFTH. SO THAT'S RIGHT. THERE IS NO BECAUSE OF THE ELECTIONS AND EVERYTHING'S HAPPENING. THERE IS NO SECOND MEETING IN AUGUST, SO WE'D END UP ON SEPTEMBER 2ND. IS THAT WITHIN THE 45 DAYS THAT WOULD BE 47 DAYS. YEAH. THAT'S THE APPLICANT'S OKAY WITH IT. IT'S FINE. SO THAT'S PROBABLY YOUR NEXT QUESTION IS MAYBE TO ASK THE APPLICANT. MANAGER, WOULD YOU LIKE TO COME UP FOR ONE MORE TIME? AS MANY TIMES AS IT TAKES. THANK YOU. OF COURSE. ALIGN WANTS TO BE A FRIENDLY NEIGHBOR WITH EVERYONE WITHIN THE CITY OF WEST JORDAN. AND IN THE INTEREST OF COLLABORATION, WE CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'VE ALL CONTEMPLATED HERE. I JUST WOULD REITERATE, AS YOU KNOW, BEFORE WALKING UP TO THE PODIUM TONIGHT, I HAD NO INDICATION THAT THERE WAS SOME OTHER OPTIONS. THE AND I WANTED TO JUST. SO WITH REGARDS TO THE 45 DAYS, IS FROM THE DATE OF THE APPLICATION BEING DEEMED COMPLETE, IS THAT THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN OR IS IT 45 DAYS? THE WAY WE'VE INTERPRETED IT IS. YEAH. THE WAY WE'RE APPLYING IT IN THIS INSTANCE IS FROM THE DATE OF THE MEETING TODAY. RIGHT. AND THAT'S HOW YOU DID THE MATH. YEAH. SO AND SO YOU'RE SAYING AUGUST 5TH IT IN SEPTEMBER, THE FIRST MEETING IN SEPTEMBER, WE ONLY HAVE ONE MEETING IN AUGUST BECAUSE OF THE ELECTIONS AND STUFF. BUT SO IF WE AGREE TO THAT SOMETHING A LITTLE BIT BEYOND THE 45 DAYS, ARE WE SURRENDERING ANY OTHER RIGHTS? JUST JUST SAY THAT RATHER THAN THE JUST JUST PROCEDURAL THAT YOU'RE IF YOU'RE NOT OPPOSED TO IT, THEN THE PLANNING COMMISSION COULD JUST SET THAT DATE, OKAY. AND ON ONE MORE TIME ON THE DATE BECAUSE I, I'M HAVING A HARD TIME HEARING. YEAH. WHAT WAS IT, SEPTEMBER 2ND. SEPTEMBER 2ND, WHICH IS 47 DAYS FROM TODAY. THAT WAY WE DON'T JUST TABLE IT FOR AN UNDETERMINED DATE. WE ACTUALLY GIVE YOU A SPECIFIC DATE. AND THAT WAY IT GIVES YOU KIND OF BOTH A TIMELINE TO SIT DOWN AND NEGOTIATE. AND I THINK THAT'S ALSO ENOUGH TIME TO IF THINGS [01:05:02] DON'T WORK OUT, THAT WE CAN JUST GO AHEAD AND PROCEED WITH THE ORIGINAL REQUEST. UNDERSTOOD. YES. AND YEAH, ONCE AGAIN, IN THE INTEREST OF BEING A GOOD NEIGHBOR AND A GOOD, GOOD MEMBER OF THE COMMUNITY, WE'D BE WILLING TO ACCEPT THE CONTINUATION TO SEPTEMBER 2ND AND EITHER COME BACK WITH AN AMENDED APPLICATION OR WITHDRAW THIS APPLICATION, OR PROCEED WITH THE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED AND PRESENTED TO YOU THIS EVENING. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU. SO ONE MORE CLARIFICATION, DUNCAN, BY TABLING IT TO A DATE CERTAIN IT MEANS THE PUBLIC HEARING HAS ALREADY BEEN HELD. AND WE'LL JUST GO RIGHT INTO A APPROVAL NEXT TIME. NO, THERE IS ANOTHER PUBLIC HEARING. YOU COULD CONTINUE TO KEEP IT OPEN, RIGHT? UNDER OUR RULES, AT WHICH PROBABLY IS THE BETTER WAY TO DO IT. BECAUSE IF THERE'S OTHER ISSUES OR FACTS THAT COME UP, YOU DON'T WANT TO PREVENT YOURSELF FROM BEING ABLE TO HEAR THAT PERTINENT INFORMATION, ESPECIALLY AS YOU SAW TONIGHT, EVEN IT WAS HELPFUL TO GET INFORMATION FROM MULTIPLE PARTIES. SO I WOULD SUGGEST IN YOUR MOTION THAT YOU MENTIONED THAT SEPTEMBER 2ND DATE CERTAIN AND THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENTS, THE PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE CONTINUED AND WILL BE AVAILABLE AT THAT SEPTEMBER 2ND DATE AS WELL. AND I JUST WANTED TO MENTION, TOO, THAT THE DETERMINATION SIX THAT WAS REFERENCED WAS AT LEAST ADDRESSED IN THE STAFF REPORT. BOTTOM OF PAGE FOUR. TOP OF PAGE FIVE. YOU KNOW, NOT A LOT OF LANGUAGE THERE, BUT IT DID MENTION THAT THAT WAS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT. AND IN THE STAFF REPORT TO YOU. SO. DO YOU WANT COMMISSIONER ROBERTS? I JUST WANTED TO COMMENT FOR THE RECORD, WE'VE MENTIONED 47 DAYS A COUPLE TIMES, BUT I JUST REALIZED THERE'S 31 DAYS IN JULY, SO I THINK IT'S ACTUALLY 48 DAYS. AND SO SINCE WE'RE ON THE RECORD, I FIGURED WE MIGHT AS WELL CLARIFY THAT THERE HAS TO BE ONE IN EVERY PANEL, DOESN'T THERE? I JUST DIDN'T, YEAH. THAT'S WHY I WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE SET A DATE SO THAT THEN. BUT YEAH. THANK YOU. I WOULDN'T HAVE THOUGHT OF THAT EITHER. SO. SO. ALL RIGHT, ANYBODY WANT TO MAKE A MOTION? I MOVE THAT WE TABLE THIS AGENDA ITEM UNTIL SEPTEMBER 2ND MEETING. AND AT WHICH POINT WE HOLD OR KEEP THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN, AND WE HEAR WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN AT THAT POINT IN TIME. COMMISSIONER ROBERTS, I SECOND THAT. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. ANY OPPOSED? OKAY. CARRIES FIVE. NOTHING. SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. OKAY. NEXT ON THE AGENDA IS PUBLIC HEARING WITH PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR FINAL ACTION. AND THIS IS A TEXT AMENDMENT. THE EXTERNAL ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS OR E D USE RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO AMEND THE WEST JORDAN CITY CODE, TITLE 13, DASH FIVE, B-8 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS PERMITTING EXTERNAL ADUS ON A SINGLE FAMILY PLATTED RESIDENTIAL LOTS 10,000FT■!S OR LARGER, AND MODIFYING THE SETBACKS FOR CONSISTENCY CITYWIDE. AND ALAN ANDERSON IS GOING TO LEAD US. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS. AS MENTIONED IN THE PRE MEETING, CITY COUNCIL HAD A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE WORK SESSION A FEW WEEKS AGO TO DISCUSS SOME MODIFICATIONS TO THE EXTERNAL ADU ORDINANCE. CURRENTLY, AS IT'S DRAFTED, IT'S PERMITTED IN CERTAIN ZONES. AND AS YOU REMEMBER, UNDER EUCLIDEAN ZONING, WHEN YOU HAVE AN R18R AND R 110, THAT'S A MINIMUM LOT SIZE. YOU CAN HAVE LOTS THAT ARE LARGER. THERE HAVE BEEN A COUPLE REQUESTS MADE OF THE CITY TO BUILD ADUS, AT LEAST ONE THAT I'M AWARE OF ON A THIRD ACRE LOT THAT'S IN AN R18. THE WAY IT IT'S ONE OF THE TRIANGULAR LOTS, KIND OF IN A CUL DE SAC OR A 90 DEGREE TURN, BUT THEY WERE DENIED BECAUSE THEY WERE IN THE WRONG ZONE. IN A ZONE THAT DIDN'T SUPPORT ADUS, EXTERNAL ADUS. SO WHAT THE COUNCIL DECIDED IN THE WORK SESSION WAS A MAJORITY SUPPORT FROM THEM IS TO REMOVE THE ZONE RESTRICTIONS THAT ARE CURRENTLY IN THE CODE AND MAKE IT SINGLE FAMILY HOMES THAT ARE ON 10,000FT■!S, LOTS OR LARGER. DOING SOME COMPARISON RESEARCH. IT LOOKS LIKE SALT LAKE COUNTY'S EXTERNAL ADUS ARE PERMITTED ON LOT 7000FT■!S OR LARGER, MILL CREEK 8000FT■!S OR LARGER. SO THIS IS A LITTLE BIT LARGER THAN THAT. IT'S BASICALLY A QUARTER ACRE LOT. AS LONG AS YOU RETAIN THE SETBACKS. SO BASICALLY WHAT IT WOULD MEAN IS IF YOU'RE IN ANY R1 ZONE, AN RR ZONE, AN RE ZONE, A PC ZONE, [01:10:01] WHICH WOULD HAVE AN MDA TO REGULATE THAT YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO BUILD AN EXTERNAL ADU AS LONG AS YOUR LOT IS 10,000FT■!S OR LARGER. THE SECOND PART OF THIS THAT THEY WANTED TO ADDRESS IS THE SETBACKS. SO CURRENTLY IN THE CODE, THE SETBACKS ARE SIX FEET FROM THE PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT. AND THAT'S PART OF THE BUILDING CODE AS WELL AS THE. FIRE CODE. IN MEETING WITH THE. WHAT IS HIS PAUL. WHAT IS PAUL FIRE MARSHAL. FIRE MARSHAL. THANK YOU. AND DOUG. RALPH. SIX FEET MEANS YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE FIREWALLS BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT TOO CLOSE TO AN EXISTING STRUCTURE. THE REAR SETBACK IS 15FT, AND THE SIDE CORNER SIDE PROPERTY IS 20FT. HERE'S KIND OF AN EXAMPLE WITH THOSE SETBACKS OF WHERE AN ADU WOULD BE PERMITTED IN WEST JORDAN. I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE OTHER CITIES IN THERE. DO WE HAVE OTHER GO, GO? WELL, AT THIS, THIS PROBABLY THE ONLY ONE. OKAY. GO BACK TO THE NEXT ONE. SO THIS IS QUITE SMALL COMPARED TO SOME OF THE OTHER CITIES THAT WE HAD AT THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING ON THIS, ON THE KIND OF A GRAPH THAT WOULD SHOW WHERE ADUS ARE PERMITTED. WHAT THE COUNCIL WOULD LIKE TO DO IS KEEP THE SIX FEET FROM THE EXISTING STRUCTURE, WHICH MAKES IT A LITTLE MORE AFFORDABLE. YOU DON'T NEED THE FIREWALL THAT THE FIRE MARSHAL REQUESTED, AND SIX FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE MAKES THE AREA A LITTLE BIT LARGER, WHERE YOU COULD POSITION AN EXTERNAL ADU, AND IT WOULD STILL BE 20FT FROM THE SIDE. THE SIDE SETBACK. SO IT KIND OF PRESERVES IT INTO THE REAR SPACE. THAT'S KIND OF LIKE WHAT PROVO HAS IS JUST HAS TO BE IN THE IN THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY. AND THE OTHER THING THAT THEY WANTED TO DO IS BECAUSE THEY ARE MOVING A LITTLE CLOSER TO THE COUNCIL, IS MOVING A LITTLE CLOSER TO THE REAR PROPERTY LINE. A TYPICAL STRUCTURE IS ROUGHLY 17FT, WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH OUR EXISTING CODE FOR LIKE GARAGES AND SUCH. AND SO IF A EXTERNAL ADU WENT HIGHER THAN 17FT FOR EVERY FOOT IN HEIGHT OVER 17FT, IT WOULD INCREASE THE SETBACK FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE BY A FOOT. AND SO THAT'S COMING TO YOU TODAY. THE COUNCIL WOULD APPRECIATE A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION AS THEY CONTINUE TO TRY AND HELP HOUSING IN THE CITY OF WEST JORDAN. COMMISSIONER HOLLINGSWORTH'S, GOT A QUESTION FOR YOU, ROBERT. EXCUSE ME. WELL, ACTUALLY, BOTH ON THEIR HAULING WORK IN FRONT OF ME. I WAS WONDERING IF YOU COULD EXPLAIN THE 20 FOOT INSIDE CORNER SETBACK, BECAUSE SINCE THAT'S NOT DEMONSTRATED ANYWHERE. YEAH. THE WHAT WAS DISCUSSED IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE WORK SESSION IS THEY FELT THAT MOST OF THE SIDE YARDS WOULDN'T WORK ON THAT, ON THAT POSITIONING AS WELL AS THEY WANTED TO MAINTAIN THE SAME SETBACK FOR THE PRIMARY DWELLING. SO HOW IS THAT ACTUALLY CALCULATED SINCE SINCE IT'S NOT DEMONSTRATED, I'M JUST I'M CURIOUS HOW THAT DIDN'T YOU HAVE A DIAGRAM FOR THAT IN THERE, A SLIDE. YEAH. THAT'S IT. YEAH. THAT THAT RED SPACE. SO THIS ONE ON THE CORNER SIDE YARD. IT WOULD BE SET BACK 20FT. SO IT WOULD BE CONSIDERED IN THAT REAR YARD. IF YOU LOOK AT THE PROPERTY ON YOUR LEFT OKAY. SO IT WOULDN'T COME OUT TOWARDS THE SIDEWALK. IT WOULD BE OKAY. SO THE CORNER SIDE YARD MEANS AWAY FROM THE STREET, NOT AWAY FROM THE INTERIOR CORNER OF THE LOT. YEAH, I WAS THINKING INTERIOR CORNER BETWEEN TWO HOUSES. YEAH, IT'S REALLY KIND OF CONFUSING. IT WAS CONFUSING FOR THE COUNCIL AND I TO KIND OF DESCRIBE IT. SO THIS GRAPHIC REALLY HELPS IF YOU LOOK UP AT THE VERY TOP IN THAT LIGHT GREEN IT SAYS INSIDE YARD THAT DOESN'T HAVE ANY FRONTAGE. SO WHAT WE'RE SPECIFICALLY TALKING ABOUT IS THE CORNER SIDE YARD, THAT KIND OF ORANGE RED DOWN AT THE BOTTOM OF THAT LEFT SIDE PICTURE A TRADITIONAL NON CORNER PROPERTY IS THE RIGHT ONE. SO IT WOULDN'T BE ALLOWED IN THE FRONT YARD OR THE TWO YELLOW SIDE YARDS JUST IN THAT PURPLE REAR YARD. IF THAT HELPS CLARIFY, I WAS ENVISIONING THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF THAT THINKING IT WAS THE INTERIOR CORNER OR INTERIOR SIDE YARD. THAT'S THE RADIUS FROM THE BACK CORNER FRONTAGE SIDE. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. I DON'T KNOW A BETTER TERM. OKAY. SO MY QUESTION IS BASED UPON WE'RE DOING THIS BASED UPON LOT SIZE. BUT DO WE TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION ANY OTHER, YOU KNOW, THE SIZE OF THE MAIN STRUCTURE AND ANY OTHER ADDITIONAL STRUCTURES LIKE SHEDS, DO THEY IMPACT THIS IN ANY WAY THEY WOULD AS FAR AS THE SETBACKS AND THE POSITIONING STATE LAW REQUIRES EXTERNALLY TO USE TO BE SMALLER THAN THE PRIMARY DWELLING. AND CURRENTLY WE REQUIRE I THINK IT'S WE ARE THE STATE REQUIRES THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS TO RESIDE IN EITHER [01:15:07] THE PRIMARY DWELLING OR THE ADU, BUT YOU CAN'T RENT BOTH THE OTHER LOT IN BULK STANDARDS THAT WOULD DETERMINE THE SIZE OF THIS EXTERNAL ADU WOULD BE THE LOT. WELL TOTAL LOT COVERAGE. AND THEN WE HAVE ALSO HAVE A SECOND PORTION OF OUR CODE THAT TALKS ABOUT NO MORE THAN 20% OF THAT REAR YARD COULD BE COVERED. OKAY. SO THERE ARE OTHER OTHER MEASUREMENTS THAT WE WILL REVIEW WHEN WE LOOK AT THESE BUILDING PERMITS AS THEY COME IN. ALL RIGHT. HEY. THANK YOU. SO WITH REGARD TO LAUGHTON BULK STANDARDS, IS THERE IS THERE A BENEFIT OR A REASON FOR SETTING THE 10,000 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM AS OPPOSED TO JUST GOING BASED ON LOT BULK AND SETBACKS? THEY DIDN'T REALLY DISCUSS THAT. SO I DON'T REALLY HAVE AN ANSWER FOR THAT. THE 10,000FT■!S WAS DISCUSSED PRIMARILY, THAT THAT WOULD BE ENOUGH SPACE TO BUILD AN ADEQUATE EXTERNAL ADU TO JUST HELP KIND OF SOME OF THE HOUSING CRUNCH THAT'S GOING ON WITHIN THE STATE OF UTAH. UNDERSTOOD. YEAH. I JUST HAVE A I, I'M JUST THINKING ABOUT THE FRINGE CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE, YOU KNOW, THE PERSON WITH 9900FT■!S WHO CN EASILY MAKE IT WORK WITH LOT AND BULK, BUT THEIR 100FT■!S SHY OF THE ARBITRARY STANDARD. YEAH, IT'S AS YOU WELL KNOW, LAND USE IS A VERY COMPLICATED ISSUE. AND THE COUNCIL DEALS DEALS A LOT WITH JUST TRYING TO BALANCE DIFFERENT PROPERTY RIGHTS. WHAT WAS THE REASONING FOR THE SIX FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE? THAT SEEMS REALLY CLOSE TO I REALIZED THE OTHER HOME, IF THE OTHER HOME HAD AN ADU AS WELL, AND THEY THEIR BACKYARDS BORDERED, I MEAN, THAT'S THEY'RE CLOSE. I MEAN THE CHANCES OF THAT HAPPENING ARE 1 MILLION TO 1. BUT IT WOULD HAPPEN IF WE ADD THAT JUST SIX FEET JUST SEEMS TOO CLOSE TO ME. IT CAN FEEL CLOSE LIKE THAT WHEN YOU LOOK AT LIKE SHEDS AND GARAGES, THEY HAVE SETBACKS THAT ARE SIMILAR TO THAT. AND SO WHAT THE COUNCIL WANTED TO BE IS KIND OF CONSISTENT, THAT IF YOU CAN BUILD A GARAGE, AN EXTERNAL GARAGE OR A LARGE SHED IN THE BACKYARD AND HAVE 3 OR 5 FOOT SETBACKS, SIX FEET SEEMED REASONABLE TO WHAT OTHER PEOPLE, WHAT PEOPLE COULD DO WITH THEIR PROPERTY WITH ADDITIONAL STRUCTURES. BUT BUT YOU DON'T HAVE WINDOWS AND PEOPLE LIVING IN YOUR GARAGE OR YOUR SHED. AND TO ME, IT JUST. THIS IS COMPLETELY OFF TOPIC, BUT MY SISTER LIVES IN EDMONTON AND IF THEIR YARDS ARE TEN FEET CLOSE SIDE YARDS, THEY HAVE TO HAVE OPAQUE WINDOWS SO THEY CAN'T EVEN LOOK OUT THEIR WINDOWS TO SEE THE SIDE YARD, WHICH IS EXTREME, BUT IT FEELS TO ME LIKE SIX FEET IS WITH WITH INHABITANTS IS CLOSE. THAT'S JUST MY PERSONAL OPINION. THOSE ARE VERY GOOD QUESTIONS. THE ONE ABOUT THE OPAQUE WINDOWS CAME UP DURING THE COMMITTEE OF WORK SESSION, AND THE RESPONSE WAS THE HOMEOWNER AND THE ADU COULD OPEN THE WINDOW AND IT'S JUST A SCREEN. OH, THAT'S THAT'S HOW THEY DISCUSSED IT. I WILL SHARE A PERSONAL EXAMPLE. I LIVE IN WEST JORDAN, AND MY NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR BUILT AN ADU THIS PAST YEAR, AND IT IS PROBABLY SIX FEET FROM MY FENCE. THE IT'S ON A SIDE YARD, WELL, REAR REAR YARD BECAUSE THEY'RE TURNED THE OTHER WAY. ANYWAY, IT'S BY MY DRIVEWAY, BUT IT'S JUST SIX FEET AWAY. AND THEY DO HAVE A WINDOW FROM A BEDROOM THAT'S IN THE HOUSE. I'VE BEEN IN THE HOUSE LOOKED AT IT, BUT IT'S ELEVATED BECAUSE THEY HAVE A BED THERE, AND WHAT THEY WOULD SEE IS THE SIDE OF MY GARAGE AND THE CARS IN THE DRIVEWAY IS WHAT THEY WOULD SEE. I CAN SEE THAT IT MAY BE CLOSE AND THE SIX FEET. AND THAT'S WHERE THE COUNCIL DECIDED THAT, YOU KNOW, IF YOU WANTED TO GO HIGHER, THAT YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE A GREATER SETBACK FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE. I DON'T KNOW THE EASY ANSWER TO THAT. AS FAR AS WINDOWS, IT WAS DISCUSSED ABOUT HAVING OPAQUE AND I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT WOULD WORK. I DO KIND OF HAVE AN IDEA OF HOW THAT WOULD WORK IF IT WERE LIKE A BEDROOM WHERE YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE A SEPARATE EGRESS BESIDES JUST A DOOR. THANK YOU, IF I MAY, IS JUST TO ADD ON TO WHAT MR. ANDERSON WAS SAYING, THE REASON WHY WE CIRCLED BACK TO THE SIX FOOT SETBACK HAS TO DO WITH BUILDING AND FIRE CODE ISSUES. IF YOU'RE LESS THAN, THAN THAN 5FT OR 5FT OR LESS TO THE PROPERTY LINE, THEN YOU GET ALL SORTS OF EXTRA, EXTRA CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS THAT YOU'VE GOT TO FOLLOW TO MEET FIRE CODE AND, AND THE AND THE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE AS WELL. AND SO TO AVOID GETTING CREEPING TOO CLOSE TO THAT LINE, [01:20:04] THEY SETTLED ON THE SIX FOOT SIX FOOT SETBACK. AND SO. THEY WANTED TO REDUCE THE RESTRICTIONS AS FAR AS THEY COULD. AND SO THAT'S HOW THEY ENDED UP WITH THE SIX FEET. I UNDERSTAND AND I AGREE WE NEED TO ADDRESS OUR HOUSING SHORTAGE. I'M GOING TO ASK OUR RESIDENT FIREMAN HERE ON HOW FAR EMBERS TRAVEL. DOES SIX FEET MAKE A DIFFERENCE? YEAH, IT WILL TRAVEL MORE THAN SIX FEET RIGHT. SO I MEAN THAT'S WHY YOU'RE YOU'RE ROOFING MATERIAL AND STUFF HAS TO BE FIRE RESISTANT AND STUFF. AND THAT'S WHY IF YOU BUILD CLOSER THEN THERE'S ACTUALLY MORE REQUIREMENTS FOR FIRE CODE, THICKER WALLS AND WHATNOT SO THAT IT DOES RAISE THE COST UP A LOT. AND SIX FEET IS ENOUGH OF A BUFFER TO I MEAN, I'M LOOKING I MEAN I'M NOW TALKING, NOT SETBACK, I'M TALKING. YOU DON'T GET A NORMAL PRIMARY RESIDENCE. I WOULD SAY IN A, IN A NORMAL. NEIGHBORHOOD, PROBABLY. BUT IF YOU GET UP INTO SOME OF THE FOOTHILLS WHERE YOU'VE GOT SOME OF THE WILDLAND FEATURES, WHICH NOW THAT ALSO HAS A DIFFERENT CRITERIA, THEN THAT WOULD BE A LITTLE BIT EVEN MORE OF AN ISSUE. BUT. YEAH, I MEAN, THE EMBERS DO CARRY MORE THAN SIX, SIX FEET. HOWEVER, IT I THINK IT'S REASONABLE AND IT DOES MEET WITHIN THE FIRE CODE AND THE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE. SO THANK YOU COMMISSIONER. WE ALSO YOU MAY NOT KNOW BUT DEPUTY FIRE MARSHAL JENSEN IS HERE. SO IF YOU HAD SOME SOME SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT, HE'S HERE. IT WAS KIND OF JUST A MOOT POINT BECAUSE I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY EMBERS ARE GOING TO TRAVEL AS FAR AS THEY WANTED. SIX FEET JUST SEEMS ARBITRARY. BUT I UNDERSTAND WITH AS FAR AS BUILDING AND SAFETY AND CONSTRUCTION AND HOPE I DIDN'T SPEAK OUT OF TURN IN A FORMER LIFE, I WAS YOU. COMMISSIONER HATCH. IF I IF I MAY ADD, WHEN THE STAFF MET WITH FIRE MARSHAL BROCK BANK AND DOUG ROLFE, THE BUILDING INSPECTOR, OR BUILDING OFFICIAL, I GOTTA I GOTTA LEARN THIS. WE DISCUSSED FIVE FEET AND SET AND SIX FEET AND THE CURRENT BUILDING CODE. AND THE FIRE SAFETY CODE IS IF YOU'RE FIVE FEET OR CLOSER, YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE A FIRE WALL WHICH ADDS COST. SIX FEET IS THE CLOSEST WE CAN GET TO NOT HAVE TO GO THROUGH THOSE EXTRA COSTS IN BUILDING EXTERNAL ADUS. AND I DO UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S SIX FEET, IS CLOSE TO A BACKYARD. THE COUNCIL WOULD REALLY LIKE TO BE ABLE TO ALLOW MORE HOMES TO BE ABLE TO ADD EXTERNAL ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS FOR FAMILY MEMBERS. THE ONE THAT'S BY MY NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR. IT'S HIS IN-LAWS THAT ARE MOVING IN SO THAT THEY CAN BE CARED FOR BY FAMILY. I THINK IT'S A TERRIFIC IDEA. I'M ALL IN FAVOR. I'M JUST TRYING TO SEE WHAT'S GOING TO BITE US DOWN THE ROAD. AND IF THERE'S ANYTHING WE CAN DO TO MITIGATE WHAT COULD POTENTIALLY BE AN ISSUE. SO I'M WELL, ONE OF MY BIGGEST FEARS TOO, IS THE STATE GETS INVOLVED AND THEN WE DON'T HAVE A CHOICE. AND THAT'S BEEN AND THAT'S BEEN I'VE SEEN MORE AND MORE. SO. THIS THIS WILL BE A POSITIVE THING LEGISLATIVELY. MICHELIN I'VE GOT SIMILAR CONCERNS. BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, I HOPE THAT SOMEBODY AT LEAST HOPEFULLY ALL OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS LISTEN TO THIS AND LISTEN TO THIS DIALOG BEFORE CONCERNS I HAVE SIMILAR. THE SIX FOOT SETBACK SEEMS WEIRD THAT WE WOULD ALLOW PEOPLE TO LIVE IN A BUILDING THAT HAS A SMALLER SETBACK THAN THE PRIMARY HOME, SO I THINK AT A MINIMUM, IT SHOULD HAVE THE SAME SIDE SETBACKS AS A PRIMARY RESIDENCE. THE OTHER ASPECT IS BY PUTTING THAT SIX FOOT IN, WHAT DOES THAT DO WITH PUGH? I SEE SOMETIMES THAT PUGH IS FIVE FEET, SOMETIMES IT'S 7.5FT, SEVEN AND A HALF. WE'VE JUST ALLOWED AN ADU INSIDE OF A PUGH. SO JUST LITTLE THINGS LIKE THAT THAT I THINK NEED TO BE STRONGLY CONSIDERED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AS THEY CONSIDER THIS. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF BEFORE WE OPEN IT UP FOR PUBLIC HEARING? OKAY. THIS HAS BEEN NOTICED AS A PUBLIC HEARING. IF YOU'RE HERE TO SPEAK ON IT, PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM. YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES. IF YOU'RE ONLINE, RAISE YOUR HAND ON THE PHONE. STAR NINE. I DON'T [01:25:02] SEE ANY HANDS RAISED. OKAY. WITH THAT, WE WILL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT UP TO THE COMMISSION FOR COMMENT AND OR MOTIONS. NOT EVERYBODY JUMP AT ONCE, COMMISSIONER. I'LL MAKE A MOTION. OH, I THINK DO I HAVE THE RIGHT ONE? OH, I DO OKAY. BASED ON THE INFORMATION AND FINDINGS SET FORTH IN THE STAFF REPORT AND UPON THE EVIDENCE AND EXPLANATIONS RECEIVED TODAY, I MOVE THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION FORWARD A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THIS APPLICATION. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? COMMISSIONER HOLLINGSWORTH? I SECOND THAT WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. ANY OPPOSED? COMMISSIONER ANDERSON? I'M IN FAVOR. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY, THEN. THANK YOU. CARRIES SIX. NOTHING. AND THAT WILL CONCLUDE OUR MEETING TONIGHT TO. I'LL MAKE. GO. GO AHEAD. CAN I MAKE A MOTION TO ADJOURN? YES. WE ARE NOW * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.