Planning Commission

10000 Centennial Parkway Sandy City, Utah Sandy, UT 84070 Phone: 801-568-7256 Meeting Minutes Planning Commission Dave Bromley Michael Christopherson Monica Collard Ron Mortimer Jamie Tsandes Cameron Duncan Jeff Lovell Daniel Schoenfeld (Alternate) Thursday, December 17, 2020 6:30 PM On-line Meeting Meeting procedures are found at the end of this agenda. Electronic Meeting Planning Commission Chairman Statement In accordance with, Utah Code 52-4-207(4) Open and Public Meeting Act, I have determined that to protect the health and welfare of Sandy citizens, an in person Planning Commission meeting, including attendance by the public and the Planning Commission is not practical or prudent. Considering the continued rise of COVID-19 case counts in Utah, meeting in an anchor location presents substantial risk to the health and safety of those in attendance because physical distancing measures may be difficult to maintain in the Sandy City Council Chambers. The Center for Disease Control states that COVID-19 is easily spread from person to person between people who are in close contact with one another. The spread is through respiratory droplets when an infected person coughs, sneezes or talks and may be spread by people who are non-symptomatic. It is my intent to safeguard the lives of Sandy residents, business owners, employees and commission members by meeting remotely through electronic means without an anchor location. Community Development staff are hereby authorized and directed to include a copy of the above notice with each Planning Commission agenda. Jamie Tsandes, Chair Sandy City Planning Commission Sandy City, Utah Page 1 Printed on 1/22/2021 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes December 17, 2020 The December 17, 2020 Sandy City Planning Commission meeting will be conducted via Zoom Webinar. Public comment may be allowed after the presentation of the particular item by the Staff and Applicant, as directed by the Planning Commission Chairman. Each speaker is allowed two minutes. Citizens wishing to comment must access the meeting via the Zoom Webinar link below and must use the “raise hand” feature. The call-in number is for listening only. If a citizen is unable to attend a meeting via Zoom, he or she may e-mail the Planning Director at bmccuistion@sandy.utah.gov by 3:00 PM the day of the Planning Commission meeting to have those comments distributed to the Commission members and/or have them read into the record at the appropriate time. Register in advance for this webinar: https://us02web.zoom.us/s/88532333912 After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar. Or join by phone: Dial (for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location): US: +1 346 248 7799 or +1 669 900 6833 or +1 253 215 8782 or +1 312 626 6799 or +1 929 436 2866 or +1 301 715 8592 Webinar ID: 885 3233 3915 Webinar Password: 995327 FIELD TRIP 20-447 Field Trip for Dec 17, 2020 Attachments: Map for Dec 17, 2020.pdf 5:30 PM EXECUTIVE SESSION - Planning Commission training on Quasi-Judicial Hearings 6:30 PM REGULAR SESSION Roll Call Present 7- Commissioner Dave Bromley Commissioner Monica Collard Commissioner Jamie Tsandes Commissioner Michael Christopherson Commissioner Jeff Lovell Commissioner Cameron Duncan Commissioner Daniel Schoenfeld Absent 1- Commissioner Ron Mortimer Welcome Pledge of Allegiance Introductions Public Meeting Items Sandy City, Utah Page 2 Printed on 1/22/2021 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes December 17, 2020 1. CUP-11-20-5 McKinley Childcare (Conditional Use Permit for Category II Home 946 Occupation) 9694 S. 575 E. [Community #5] Attachments: Staff report, documents and map.pdf David Rodgers presented this item to the Planning Commission. Mary McKinley further presented this item to the Planning Commission. Jamie Tsandes asked if the applicant had read the staff report. Mary McKinley said yes. Cameron Duncan asked what the age range was for the children. Mary McKinley explained that she will have children ages four through twelve. Jamie Tsandes opened this item to public comment. Andrew Edtl has concerns about the traffic in the neighborhood. Jamie Tsandes closed this item to public comment. Jamie Tsandes asked Brittney Ward about traffic concerns. Brittney Ward explained that the daycare would generate 64 trips and will not affect the neighborhood. As for concerns if there is blocking and parking then the police can monitor and enforce parking laws. Mary McKinley answered traffic pattern and where people will be parking to drop off children. Michael Christopherson asked Darien Alcorn if the Planning Commission can take in to account that police are less likely to regularly monitor and enforce parking laws in residential neighborhoods. Darien Alcorn explained CUP impacts and mitigations. The Planning Commission can impose conditions to mitigate traffic concerns, but the enforcement would go through the police and if they aren’t following the conditions then it can come back to the Planning Commission for review. Jamie Tsandes asked if they would need a condition that reads a specific distance from a driveway. Michael Christopherson said there is a condition in the staff report that says that there is to be no parking or blocking in driveways entrances. Cameron Duncan explained that in the code there is a limit to 24 vehicular stops per day and if there are 16 kids then four of those kids would have siblings and so it ends up feeling like 32 stops rather than 34. Sandy City, Utah Page 3 Printed on 1/22/2021 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes December 17, 2020 Brian McCuistion explained that the intent is that they want the children to come from within the neighborhood and carpool as much as they can, so it is not overloading the neighborhood with the trips. A motion was made by Monica Collard, seconded by Michael Christopherson that the Planning Commission approve a Conditional Use Permit for Mary McKinley for the property located at 9694 S. 575 E. to operate a Category II Home Occupation as described in the application materials based on the two findings and subject to the four conditions outlined in the staff report. Yes: 6- Monica Collard Jamie Tsandes Michael Christopherson Jeff Lovell Cameron Duncan Daniel Schoenfeld Absent: 1- Ron Mortimer 2. CUP-11-20-5 Latimer Accessory Apartment (Conditional Use Permit) 595 11038 S. Foxmoor Dr. [Community #26] Attachments: Staff report, documents and map.pdf Claire Hague presented this item to the Planning Commission. Patrick Latimer further presented this item to the Planning Commission. Jamie Tsandes opened this item to public comment. Jamie Tsandes closed this item to public comment. A motion was made by Monica Collard, seconded by Jeff Lovell that the Planning Commission approve a Conditional Use Permit for Patrick Latimer to allow for an 800 square foot accessory apartment on the property located at 11038 S. Foxmoor Dr. based upon the three findings and three conditions listed in the staff report. Yes: 6- Monica Collard Jamie Tsandes Michael Christopherson Jeff Lovell Cameron Duncan Daniel Schoenfeld Absent: 1- Ron Mortimer Sandy City, Utah Page 4 Printed on 1/22/2021 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes December 17, 2020 3. CUP-11-20-5 Kair Accessory Apartment (Conditional Use Permit) 657 8161 S. 865 E. [Community #6 - High Point] Attachments: Staff report, documents and map.pdf Claire Hague presented this item to the Planning Commission. Jamie Tsandes asked if the existing home was one story and the addition will be two stories. Claire Hague explained that the existing home is two stories and the addition will be one. Kathryn Kair further presented this item to the Planning Commission. Jamie Tsandes opened this item to public comment. Raquel Vargas has concerns that this addition will change the feel of the neighborhood. Steve Van Maren suggested the structure use similar materials to look like one building as opposed to two. Jamie Tsandes closed this item to public comment. Jamie Tsandes is concerned about the architecture and if the Planning Commission has the authority to have this come back to determine if it will blend with the home. Dave Bromley had the same concerns of maintaining the single-family feel of the home and neighborhood, but that staff would be able to determine design and materials for the addition. Michael Christopherson has no issue with the use but does think that materials need to be the same as the home. Monica Collard asked if the Planning Commission had ever approved an accessory apartment with a second driveway. Brian McCuistion explained that this is a corner lot and there are some homes that have a second garage. The applicant hasn't had a contractor come back with costs, so she wanted the option to do either one. Claire Hague explained that, that is correct, and part of the suggested motion would approve both designs. Brian McCuistion explained that the requirements are that it looks like a single-family home, and that the entrance be at the side or the rear of the home and the applicant is proposing a side entrance with a second garage. Michael Christopherson asked about previous approvals and what the motion is asking and if the Planning Commission is approving the site plan or is it only for the CUP to allow for the use. James Sorenson explained that the Planning Commission is not the deciding body for the building permit process and that is something that would be worked out with staff based Sandy City, Utah Page 5 Printed on 1/22/2021 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes December 17, 2020 off of what is allowed in the R-1-8 zone and that the Planning Commission is only approving the use. Michael Christopherson asked if two driveways is normally allowed with a curb cut permit. Claire Hague said it is allowed with a curb cut permit. Kathryn Kair already has the curb cut permit and has talked to Britney Ward about it from the first design. Cameron Duncan explained that he agrees with Michael Christopherson and is not opposed to the use but does has concerns with the architecture and that it feels like a duplex. Michael Christopherson asked if the Planning Commission was able to come up with language in the conditions that addresses the architectural designs, they would feel comfortable approving this item or are there other concerns around the driveway. Jamie Tsandes explained that it looks like she already has the approval for the driveway for the first design of the two-story addition. Claire Hague clarified that the applicant has approval for a CUP for a two-story accessory apartment. Jamie Tsandes clarified that the Planning Commission is only approving an option for a single-story accessory structure. Brian McCuistion explained that the first approval was a two-story with a side entrance with a garage, but the garage did not face 865 east which helped maintain the feel of a single-family home. Monica Collard asked Claire Hague if the property was zoned for single-family not multi-family homes and if that is the case, what is to stop multiple people from doing multiple driveways on all corner type lots. Claire Hague explained that if it is an accessory apartment then it has to be ancillary to the primary dwelling so it would need to be smaller and would have to be owner occupied and has to meet all of the setback requirements and zoning requirements. Dave Bromley asked if the applicant was looking to do a basement in the addition as well. Claire Hague said no it is only proposed for one story. Dave Bromley explained that he is on board for the use and allowing them to rent out the space but thinks that the Planning Commission should be looking at the single-family nature aspect and the dropping of the elevation and the one-story with the garage doesn’t fall into the nature of a single-family home. Jamie Tsandes clarified that the third garage structure was not on the previous design because the garage looped through back of the house. Claire Hague said that was correct. Sandy City, Utah Page 6 Printed on 1/22/2021 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes December 17, 2020 Michael Christopherson asked if the previous CUP was in place and approving this one would mean that the applicant would be able to do either design. Claire Hague said yes. Michael Christopherson explained that maybe the Planning Commission should just bolster the language in the conditions and motion to make sure the building materials are the same as the home in order to maintain the single-family feel of the home unless the Planning Commission denies the CUP but the applicant already has the previous one. Jamie Tsandes explained that she felt like this design takes up more land and the other design is more visible. Claire Hague explained that the applicant requested to change a little bit of the original approval. The original approval was 800 square feet and she is asking for 860 square feet on top of the approval for this conditional use. Jamie Tsandes clarified that the Planning Commission would be approving an increase for the original and the CUP for this layout. Claire Hague said that was correct. Michael Christopherson said that was confusing because there is no reference in the recommended motion of either proposal but that the suggested motion is only to approve a CUP for a structure of 860 square feet. Claire Hague explained that the applicant requested for the increase on the original approval this week and that is why it is not in the staff report. Michael Christopherson explained that the language of this motion does not specify how many stories at all so now we have two conditional uses that are the same with no references to the number of stories and height. Brian McCuistion explained that it comes down to whether we are comfortable with an 860 square foot accessory apartment on this property or not and then come up with the best language to make this look like a single-family home. Michael Christopherson explained that his inclination would be to revoke the original CUP that was based on the two-story addition and approve this CUP with language that supports a single-story addition that maintains the single-family nature. Darien Alcorn explained that the condition is not stated as a requirement of an addition, it is stated as a determination of the Planning Commission that the addition maintain the character of a single-family home and that they might want to have a requirement for an addition with a certain size before an apartment be allowed. Michael Christopherson clarified that a condition that an addition be constructed to allow for appropriate percentages and to allow for the 860 square feet. Darien Alcorn explained that the staff report right now says that the Planning Commission is making that determination and if the Planning Commission is not going to see this again, then that needs to be revised. Daniel Schoenfeld expressed that he felt there was a lot of confusion with this item and Sandy City, Utah Page 7 Printed on 1/22/2021 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes December 17, 2020 suggested that they table this item in order to get clarification from staff and they applicant. Michael Christopherson expressed that he did not want to table it, but it was an option. Dave Bromley agreed with Michael Christopherson. A motion was made by Michael Christopherson, seconded by Dave Bromley that the Planning Commission approve a Conditional Use Permit for Kathleen Kair to allow for an 860 square foot accessory apartment on the property located at 8161 S. 865 E. based on the two findings and seven conditions outlined in the staff report with the following modifications: Condition 1: That a single-story addition be constructed consistent with the drawings and materials in the application to allow for the additional square footage. Added Condition 8: That the architecture and materials used in the construction of the addition be architecturally consistent with the previous structure and maintain the sing-family home appearance as determined by staff. Michael Christopherson - Yes Dave Bromley - Yes Monica Collard - No Daniel Shoenfeld - No Jeff Lovell - No Cameron Duncan - No Jamie Tsandes - No This motion failed and was opened back up for additional discussion. Daniel Schoenfeld suggested that the Planning Commission recommend that staff go back and work with the applicant to gain clarification of the conditions and the site plan of the project in order to maintain the single-family feel of the home and decide which CUP the applicant wants to move forward with. Jamie Tsandes agreed and explained that she thought that is very important that the architecture match in order to maintain the single-family home opposed to a multi-family home and that one plan should move forward, not two. Cameron Duncan explained that he thought that the applicant has an approval for 800 square foot accessory apartment, no matter if it is a single story or two story that must meet the single-family style. If the applicant wants to come back and request and amend that to increase it to 860 square feet than she can but not for a whole new conditional use permit. Jeff Lovell agreed. A motion was made by Daniel Schoenfeld, seconded by Cameron Duncan that the Planning Commission table this item and recommend that city staff go back Sandy City, Utah Page 8 Printed on 1/22/2021 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes December 17, 2020 and work with the applicant to revise the current application and make a determination between the two different Conditional Use Permits. Yes: 6- Dave Bromley Monica Collard Jamie Tsandes Jeff Lovell Cameron Duncan Daniel Schoenfeld No: 1- Michael Christopherson Absent: 1- Ron Mortimer Sandy City, Utah Page 9 Printed on 1/22/2021 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes December 17, 2020 4. SPR-11-20-5 Water Pro Storage Facility (Preliminary Site Plan Review) 949 2555 E. Wasatch Blvd. [Community #27 - Lone Peak] Attachments: Staff Report.pdf PC Map and Materials.pdf Craig Evans presented this item to the Planning Commission. Jamie Tsandes asked about materials they are selecting and if they are intended to match what the other structures were built with. Craig Explained that he believed that they are but will check with the applicant. John Whitaker further presented this item to the Planning Commission. Cameron Duncan asked about the elevation and why in one corner there is eight feet of concrete. John Whitaker explained that to the south there are a few deep-water wells and in order to reduce any additional loads that would impose on them they had to go down deeper. Jamie Tsandes opened this item to public comment. Steve Van Maren asked about how the garage doors will be used and is curious why there is no driveway and the zoning of the property. Jamie Tsandes closed this item to public comment. Jamie Tsandes asked if anyone could answer Steve Van Maren’s question. John Whitaker explained that the roll up door on the south is where the backhoe will be coming in and out and the east elevation garage door will be where the smaller vehicles will park. Craig Evans explained the zoning of the property. A motion was made by Cameron Duncan, seconded by Dave Bromley that the Planning Commission determine that the preliminary site plan review is complete for the Water Pro public utility station, based on the three findings, and three conditions outlined in the staff report. Yes: 7- Dave Bromley Monica Collard Jamie Tsandes Michael Christopherson Jeff Lovell Cameron Duncan Daniel Schoenfeld Absent: 1- Ron Mortimer Sandy City, Utah Page 10 Printed on 1/22/2021 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes December 17, 2020 5. CUP-11-20-5 Water Pro Storage Facility (Amended Conditional Use Permit) 950 2555 E. Wasatch Blvd. [Community #27 - Lone Peak] Attachments: Staff Report.pdf PC Map and Materials.pdf See previous comments. A motion was made by Cameron Duncan, seconded by Daniel Shoenfeld that the Planning Commission approve a modified conditional use permit for a storage facility at the Water Pro public utility station in the PUD(2) Zone, based upon the four findings, and the four conditions detailed in the staff report. Yes: 7- Dave Bromley Monica Collard Jamie Tsandes Michael Christopherson Jeff Lovell Cameron Duncan Daniel Schoenfeld Absent: 1- Ron Mortimer Sandy City, Utah Page 11 Printed on 1/22/2021 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes December 17, 2020 6. SUB-11-20-5 Pebble Hills Subdivision (Preliminary Review) 961 1165 E. 8600 S. [Community #6 - HIgh Point] Attachments: Staff Report.pdf PC Map and Materials.pdf Craig Evens presented this item to the Planning Commission. Duaine Rasmussen further presented this item to the Planning Commission. Craig Evans explained condition number five, which was related to submitting full elevations and full landscaping plans. Jamie Tsandes opened this item to public comment. Melody Stauffer had concerns about an underground water system, vinyl fence maintenance, placement of single story and two-story homes and asked if there will be other opportunities for residents to express concerns during the rest of the building process. Jamie Tsandes explained that it sounds like the applicant was willing to work with surrounding residents throughout the process. Steve Van Maren expressed that he liked the five-foot sidewalk. Laura Brown has concerns about water retention, flooding and losing mountain views from two-story homes. Jamie Tsandes closed this item to public comment. Alexander Stewart, project engineer, explained the retention pond plan and drainage on 8600 south. Dave Bromley asked if there will be an HOA. Duaine Rasmussen explained that there will be. Dave Bromley asked if the storm drain will be using the existing piping along the retaining wall. Alexander Stewart explained that it will be all new piping from 8600 south. Dave Bromley asked if the new piping will be maintained by the HOA. Duaine Rasmussen explained that it would be. Dave Bromley asked about the chain link fencing along the retaining wall on the west side. Duaine Rasmussen explained that they would work with those neighbors to put in whatever screening they are wanting and will make sure the fencing on the north side is fixed and taken care of. Sandy City, Utah Page 12 Printed on 1/22/2021 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes December 17, 2020 Dave Bromley asked if the concrete wall on the north side will be maintained by the HOA. Duaine Rasmussen explained that he was not sure because he hasn’t seen a survey for it yet. Alexander Stewart explained that he will investigate it and get back to the Planning Commission. Dave Bromley asked Ryan Kump about the retention wall and if it is full of water providing extra weight along the wall. Ryan Kump explained that they have not looked at it specifically since it is an existing wall, but he isn’t concerned about it since there is already a parking lot with concrete and soil that creates significantly more weight than the water would, Duaine Rasmussen expressed that he committed to put a rambler on lot 4 and one other lot to be determined by the builder along the west side. Daniel Schoenfeld asked if it is anticipated that all the new homes have two-car garages. Duaine Rasmussen said they would. Cameron Duncan asked if the Planning Commission would like to see the elevations or if we are comfortable with staff to look at the elevations. Ryan Kump explained how the ramblers will look with the elevations and that a rambler will have a two-story appearance in the rear and a two-story will have a three-story appearance in the rear. Jeff Lovell asked if a separate motion is needed for condition six. Brian McCuistion said that it could be kept as a condition and further explained the elevations and asked if Craig Evans could show some example photos. Craig Evans showed more of the elevations and examples of what the homes that the applicant intends to model after. Dave Bromley asked if they want to see elevations or leave it to staff. Cameron Duncan expressed that he is okay with leaving it to staff. Jeff Lovell agreed. Daniel Schoenfeld agreed. Craig Evans clarified that the ordinance says that predominate materials like brick, stone or masonry must be used and that the Planning Commission could limit the amount or percentage on each side of stucco. Dave Bromley asked for clarification on what is a predominate materials. Craig Evans read the ordinance. Sandy City, Utah Page 13 Printed on 1/22/2021 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes December 17, 2020 Dave Bromley asked how the Planning Commission can determine how much is predominate. Craig Evans explained the fifty percent is the obvious starting point. A motion was made by Dave Bromley, seconded by Michael Christopherson that the Planning Commission determine that Preliminary Subdivision Review is complete for the Pebble Hills Subdivision, located at 1165 E. 8600 S., based upon the four findings and seven conditions detailed in the staff report with a modification to condition five as follows: 5: The applicant work with staff to address and submit elevation plans. Yes: 7- Dave Bromley Monica Collard Jamie Tsandes Michael Christopherson Jeff Lovell Cameron Duncan Daniel Schoenfeld Absent: 1- Ron Mortimer Sandy City, Utah Page 14 Printed on 1/22/2021 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes December 17, 2020 7. CUP-07-18-5 Planning Commission review of CUP#-07-18-5462, Conditional Use 462(3) Permit for the 7-Eleven store, granting 7 day a week, 24 hour a day business operation within 250 feet of a residential zone 711 W. 9000 S. [Community#2 - Civic Center] Attachments: Staff report memo.pdf Exhibit 1 Applicant Materials.pdf Exhibit 2 Photometric and Noise Analyses (BNA).pdf Exhibit 3 Staff report and minutes from October 18, 2018.pdf Exhibit 4 Staff report and minutes from March 21, 2019.pdf Exhibit 5 Vicinity Map.pdf Site Plan Exhibits for 10-18-2018.pdf Site Plan Exhibits for 3-21-2019.pdf Approved Site Plan.pdf Photometric plans and elevations.pdf Additional information received from Jen Archuleta 12-15-2020 Video Video_1 IMG_2067 IMG_2932 Brian McCuistion presented this item to the Planning Commission. Jamie Tsandes explained that the Planning Commission may not make a decision or have a resolution by the end of tonight. Jen Archuleta further presented this item to the Planning Commission. She explained concerns about safety, issues with lighting, deliveries and other anecdotal information. Andrew Hickman, 7-11 representative responded and explained that he can’t answer to the light and that they have concerns with lack of lighting because without it they will not know if someone is doing something wrong and explained that deliveries can be moved to before 10:00 pm and that the trash moved to after 7:00 am. Jen Archuleta explained that 7-11 should know the code and what is expected by the city, at the end of the day the adverse effects of the business are impacting their privacy, safety and community. Andrew Hickman responded and explained that he was not aware of delivery restrictions but will continue to investigate and try and get it taken care of. Michael Christopherson suggested that the Planning Commission should hear from the consulting firm for the light and acoustic studies that the city has provided. Richard Bradley, light study consultant, explained the light study he performed and its results. Sandy City, Utah Page 15 Printed on 1/22/2021 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes December 17, 2020 Michael Christopherson asked what time the study was taken, since it is the later evening hours and into the early morning hours and if that study would accurately provide results for the hours in question. Richard Bradley explained that the study was done at 10:00 pm and that the headlights at 10:00 pm will have the same effect as 3:00 am. Michael Christopherson asked if the light is measured by volume or frequency. Richard Bradley explained that they both come in to play because 20 cars are going to have a higher impact than two cars would at night but there are headlights hitting the homes regardless. Cameron Duncan asked if Richard was able to look at the photometric plan and if the lighting from the lights and the pole lights were installed and working the way they were approved in the original plan. Richard Bradley said they were consistent, but the building lights on the back side are directed down, but you can see the bottom of the lens because of the topography of the land which creates glare. Michael Christopherson asked if the extent of the detrimental impacts here exceed what would be permitted without the 24-7 conditional use. Richard Bradley explained that you wouldn’t have the car traffic and headlights and the business would not shut off all of their exterior lights but the owner could certainly dim them down to fifty percent to help reduce any impact because turning lights off completely would be dangerous and attract people. Andrew Hickman explained that the costumer level between these hours is minimal. Jen Archuleta explained that she just wants the 7-11 to be closed from 12:00 am to 6:00 am. Joe Morris, sound engineer consultant, explained his study for ambient sound levels and the results. Jamie Tsandes asked if the Planning Commission could see any graphics of the study. Brian McCuistion showed the graphics from the study. Joe Morris explained that at the end of the day, if you can see the source of the noise then you will hear it. Michael Christopherson asked if Joe Morris has access to the original study from 2019 and if it was consistent with what he was seeing now. Joe Morris explained that he did not have that study and was not able to compare the two. Jamie Tsandes opened this item to public comment. Eric Calhoun is frustrated with the light and sounds from the slope of the land and has Sandy City, Utah Page 16 Printed on 1/22/2021 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes December 17, 2020 concerns about safety. He doesn’t mind the business but is not okay with the 24-7 business hours. Raju Pusapati explained that he doesn’t have a wall along the back of his property like his neighbors and doesn’t have a buffer for any incoming headlights or light glares. He also has concerns about the increase in crime and break-ins that have occurred at his home. Dan Christensen explained that it might be an insignificant portion of business but it’s not for the residents and that’s unreasonable for the business to ask of the neighboring residents when there is increase in crime, light pollution and foot traffic. Jeremiah Johnson lives right behind the 7-11, has had to add extra cameras to his home, the light shields were not installed until December 9, 2020 but they don’t shield anything because of the difference in elevations, you can see the bottom of the asphalt from his living room and the fence isn’t helping with privacy because it is not ten feet from the grade. Shauib Din has concerns about the increase in crime, the trees are very small and do not provide any screening, the fences that were installed are all different and not high enough. Rob Archuleta explained that the light and sound studies do not accurately show what the residents are experiencing because everything can be seen and heard and there is no privacy. Jen Archuleta reiterated that they are not opposed to 7-11 being there but are opposed to the 24-7 business hours. Josh Schlaich moved out of the neighborhood because of these issues as it was not inhabitable and would like to see some change for everyone. Jamie Tsandes closed this item to public comment Michael Christopherson explained that the Planning Commission now has a lot more studies, objective data and anecdotal information that they need to organize those facts into some categories that can help the Planning Commission reach a conclusion and help inform whether the Planning Commission can modify, revoke or sustain this conditional use permit. Michael Christopherson asked if he could talk through those categories and tee-up the facts that we have heard so that they can translate into some review and generating some conclusions based on those facts in possibly a subsequent meeting. Jamie Tsandes said yes. Michael Christopherson read through the factors that need to be considered and the facts that fall into them: (1) The first ones says that we have to determine whether there have been facts presented to us that show the actual detrimental effect or impacts of this conditionally permitted use are greater than anticipated, and I think we have heard or at least from neighbors quite a lot of anecdotal information that suggests that the actual detrimental effects are significantly greater than anticipated. Sandy City, Utah Page 17 Printed on 1/22/2021 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes December 17, 2020 (2) I haven’t heard anyone suggest that the permit was obtained by misrepresentation or fraud, maybe some of the neighbors feel that way but I think there was a good faith effort made by both parties involved in the first two meetings to present as much information, to get studies and to forecast what impact this was going to have. (3) I don’t think number three is relevant, the use for which the permit was granted has now ceased, so I think we can take that one off the table. (4) One or more of the conditions of the permit have not been met. As I have been looking back at the last conditional use permit we have granted, it was pretty specific about some of this stuff and I think there is at least a suggestion that there are facts that demonstrate that one or more of those conditions haven’t been met, like the ten-foot fence, few deliveries and dumping of trash be limited from 7:00 am to 10:00 pm. There was some suggestion that operations manager that they were not aware of that restriction in the code but it is right there in the conditional use permit and I know there appears to be a disconnect between the representatives and the 7-11 that presented at the time of the original permits and now but that is just right there in the permit. It is in red in the condition that the permit for extended 24-7 hours be reviewed upon future legitimate citizen complaint and I think that we have heard a lot of that tonight, so 7-11 knew full well that when they got this conditional use permit it was not ironclad and was subject to future complaint. (5) There may be some argument that the holder of the permit has failed to comply with law, especially if there are laws around delivery times and so forth. (6) The holder or user of the permit has failed to construct or maintain the site as shown on the approved plan. Again, I think we have heard anecdotal suggestion that there are elements which that is the case. (7) The general standards open additional categories and evaluations like whether the detrimental impacts are worse than a permitted use would be in this zone and whether the impact burden is in excess of what could reasonably be expected from a permitted use. Are you comparing to what we expected based upon the presentation, or are we comparing to what these residents would have to live with, without the conditional use permit of some other business had come in and operated. Michael Christopherson explained that he would love to see what others would have to say before we wrap up but thinks we have heard a lot of factual information that frankly supports a lot of those items that we need to review and come to some consensus on our conclusions, but in his view he would suggest we table this or continue this for further discussion and review and that is what we want in our record as we conclude tonight, so that we can then build on that without having to reinvent the wheel in our next discussion. Jamie Tsandes agreed with Michael Christopherson and that we should table it because there is more discussion that needs to be had and would like to see a comparison. Michael Christopherson suggested that they could ask for additional facts related to the studies and if that will inform our conclusions ultimately. If others on the Commission think there are more facts they need to hear before they can really reach then we should have that on the record now so that in our next discussion we can begin to gather those facts and review them. Sandy City, Utah Page 18 Printed on 1/22/2021 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes December 17, 2020 Daniel Shoenfeld explained that he would like to see a little bit more information on the fence line and would like to know what was occurring there and what was cited in the original permit and what has been put in as well as the trees. Michael Christopherson agreed since there is a finding in the original CUP that the ten-foot high buffer wall would provide substantial mitigation of reasonably anticipated detrimental impacts and it sounds like that has not been the case. Dave Bromley suggested that they look to see if there is any change to the elevation of the grading plan and how the approach into the 7-11 was constructed as well as if there was any height variance from what the plan was from the grading plan vs the installation because it seems that there is some kind of variance from what was modeled vs whatever was installed and the onsite evaluations are different than what was planned because that could come into play and as stated before if you can see it then any light or noise is going to have an impact so the elevations are key on this decision and it would be nice to know if they were installed as planned. Jamie Tsandes agreed and that she was the one who encouraged the landscaping and asked for more vegetation and bigger vegetation even though you can go up to a certain limit of size, and may have even stated it in that meeting that trees that went in were not going to be at full maturity and it would take some time to get that screen, but does want to make sure they installed in the quantity and size that was requested. Jeff Lovell explained that he thought that if the wall were more adequate which it sounds like it’s not, then maybe vegetation screening wouldn’t be as big as an issue as it is right now. He agreed with Daniel Schoenfeld that the wall is a big concern because when the Planning Commission issued the conditional use permit, they expected that these mitigations would be put in place and it certainly sounds like they weren’t. Cameron Duncan agreed with Jeff Lovell and would like to dive into more of what the original plan was and how close the construction meets that. Michael Christopherson explained that it sounds like there are enough of the Commissioners that probably want to dive deeper into some of these fact questions before we finalize our conclusions and that we need to first articulate findings of facts that we all or most of us will agree that certain facts have been presented and mean something and then we articulate corresponding conclusion then inform the outcome that we will acknowledge whether its modifying the conditions, revoking the condition or upholding the condition. A motion was made by Michael Christopherson, seconded by Monica Collard that the Planning Commission continue this meeting once they receive additional information and have Michael Christopherson work with staff to identify facts that are needed based off of the discussion from tonight. Yes: 7- Dave Bromley Monica Collard Jamie Tsandes Michael Christopherson Jeff Lovell Cameron Duncan Daniel Schoenfeld Sandy City, Utah Page 19 Printed on 1/22/2021 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes December 17, 2020 Absent: 1- Ron Mortimer Administrative Business 1. 20-448 Planning Commission minutes 12.03.2020 (DRAFT) Attachments: PC Minutes 12.03.2020 (DRAFT).pdf An all in favor motion was made by Monica Collard to approve the meeting minutes for 12.03.2020 Yes: 7- Dave Bromley Monica Collard Jamie Tsandes Michael Christopherson Jeff Lovell Cameron Duncan Daniel Schoenfeld Absent: 1- Ron Mortimer 2. 20-457 Election of Chair and Vice Chair for next six months A vote was taken by secret ballot for Chair and Vice Chair for the Planning Commission. Chair: Cameron Duncan Vice Chair: Jeff Lovell 3. Sandy City Development Report 4. Director's Report Adjournment A unanimous vote was taken to adjourn. Sandy City, Utah Page 20 Printed on 1/22/2021 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes December 17, 2020 Meeting Procedure 1. Staff Introduction 2. Developer/Project Applicant presentation 3. Staff Presentation 4. Open Public Comment (if item has been noticed to the public) 5. Close Public Comment 6. Planning Commission Deliberation 7. Planning Commission Motion In order to be considerate of everyone attending the meeting and to more closely follow the published agenda times, public comments will be limited to 2 minutes per person per item. A spokesperson who has been asked by a group to summarize their concerns will be allowed 5 minutes to speak. Comments which cannot be made within these time limits should be submitted in writing to the Community Development Department prior to noon the day before the scheduled meeting. Planning Commission applications may be tabled if: 1) Additional information is needed in order to take action on the item; OR 2) The Planning Commission feels there are unresolved issues that may need further attention before the Commission is ready to make a motion. No agenda item will begin after 11 pm without a unanimous vote of the Commission. The Commission may carry over agenda items, scheduled late in the evening and not heard, to the next regular scheduled meeting. In compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act, reasonable accommodations for individuals with disabilities will be provided upon request. For assistance, or if you have any questions regarding the Planning Commission Agenda or any of the items, please call the Sandy City Planning Department at (801) 568-7256 Sandy City, Utah Page 21 Printed on 1/22/2021