Aug 28, 2025
Key Topics Discussed
Public comment on the Residential Lighting Ordinance, including grandfathering provisions and potential vendor discount options for voluntary compliance.
Appeal by Christian and Amanda Hansen regarding the Subdivision and Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval at 4867 South Floribunda Drive, including:
Alleged omission of 14 mature trees along the shared northeastern property border from the applicant's Tree Study
Concerns about setback standards applied to an existing non-conforming accessory structure (shed) on the northeastern property line
Whether the Planning Commission followed proper procedures and had complete, accurate information when approving the Subdivision and PUD
The appropriate calculation of lot width for setback determination (inscribed circle method)
Consistency of setback treatment between the southern and northeastern property borders
The distinction (or lack thereof) between primary and secondary structure setbacks under the PUD
Decisions Made
No formal decisions or resolutions were recorded in the portion of the minutes provided. The appeal discussion (Item IV) was ongoing at the point the document ends.
Council Member Fotheringham recused himself from all discussion and voting on Item IV due to a potential conflict of interest (his senior campaign advisor lives adjacent to the subject property).
Votes
No votes were recorded in the portion of the minutes provided.
Council Member Fotheringham announced his recusal from the vote on Item IV prior to deliberations.
Action Items
| Action | Responsible Party | Notes |
| Possible remand of PUD setback question back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration | City Council / Jayme Blakesley | Blakesley noted this as an option if the Council has concerns about application of setback standards |
| Clarification of northeastern border tree canopy treatment relative to PUD approval | Pending Council determination | Hansen requested equal 10-foot average setback protection for northeast trees as was given to southern trees |
| Review of lot width calculation method and applicable setback table for secondary structures | Jonathan Teerlink / City Council | Dispute over whether 4-foot or 6-foot setback applies based on lot size (~24,000 sq ft vs. ~10,000 sq ft standard) |
*Note: These are potential action items raised during discussion; no formal assignments were confirmed in the text provided.*
Other Notable Items
Public Comment — Andy White (5690 Pheasant Lane):
Thanked the Council for considering the Residential Lighting Ordinance and for grandfathering existing residences.
Suggested the City explore a 10% vendor discount program to encourage grandfathered property owners to voluntarily come into compliance with the new ordinance.
Quasi-Judicial Role: Mayor Dahle reminded the Council that in hearing the Hansen appeal, the Council is acting as a quasi-judicial body, limited to determining whether the Planning Commission followed proper procedures and had sufficient information to make its decision.
Recusal — Council Member Fotheringham: Recused himself from Item IV discussion and vote, citing that his senior campaign advisor resides next door to the subject property; he did not want any appearance of conflict of interest.
Planning Commission History of the Application:
First Planning Commission meeting: May 6, 2025 — item continued for applicant clarification.
Second Planning Commission meeting: July 15, 2025 — Subdivision approved; PUD concept hearing held and approved, including flexibility on setbacks.
Some Commissioners visited the site in person during the review process.
Key Factual Dispute: The appellants contend that 14 mature trees along the northeastern shared border were omitted from the applicant's Tree Study, and that the Planning Commission therefore made its decision based on incomplete and potentially misleading information. City Staff indicated aerial imagery and existing conditions were presented at both Planning Commission meetings.
Non-Conforming Shed: The existing accessory structure on the northeastern border originated under County jurisdiction prior to Holladay's incorporation and was described as a legal non-conforming use. The approved 4-foot setback was tied to this pre-existing condition. Appellants argue that a non-compliant structure cannot be used to justify a setback smaller than what the Code requires for a lot of approximately 24,000 square feet (which they assert should be 6 feet).
⚠️ Document Incomplete: The minutes end mid-sentence during Council Member Quinn's questioning in Item IV. Summary reflects only the content available.