The Sandy City Council voted to adopt Ordinance 25‑01, the draft Pace of Progress: Sandy General Plan 2050, following several hours of staff presentation and council debate on Jan. 17.

The ordinance passed on a roll‑call vote, 4‑2, with Council Member Aaron DeKeyser moving approval and Council Member Meekum seconding. Council Member Brooke D'Souza and Council Members Allison Stroud, Zach Robinson and DeKeyser voted yes; Council Members Brooke D'Souza and others discussed; Council Members Brooke D'Souza and Allison Stroud joined the majority. Council Members Brooke D'Souza and Allison Stroud previously spoke in favor; Council Members Brooke D'Souza and Allison Stroud were among those recorded as voting yes. Council Members Brooke D'Souza and Cindy Sharkey voted no. (See vote record below.)

The council had received an extended presentation from Jake Warner, long‑range planning manager for Sandy's Community Development Department, and a summary from GSBS, the consultant team that wrote the draft plan. Warner told the council the ordinance would adopt the draft that had been available since Oct. 21 and “includes all of the amendments the council has approved to date.” He said staff recommended approval and that GSBS would complete final edits and deliver a final draft within about two weeks, including PDFs, InDesign files and GIS layers for the city to maintain.

Council debate focused on a new very‑low‑density designation (referred to by speakers as RLM or LN in discussion) that several members said treats some property owners differently. In remarks captured on the record, Council Member Cindy Sharkey said she could not vote yes because she believed the plan “treats property owners in Sandy unfairly” and cited density allocations in the future land‑use map. Sharkey said she had offered an amendment to change densities in that zone that “narrowly failed on a 4 to 3 vote.”

Council Member Brooke D'Souza also opposed the plan, saying she could not reconcile the new very‑low‑density designation with statewide discussions about housing supply and affordability and that the designation created a new category “lower than low” that she did not believe other cities used. Several other council members who voted yes said they supported adoption now, noting the plan is a guiding document that can be amended later. Council Member Meekum said he viewed the plan as a legislative starting point and that future amendments are possible.

The adopted plan contains statutory components required of municipal general plans, including land use, transportation and traffic circulation, moderate‑income housing guidance and water use/preservation chapters, and also includes implementation steps and station/center plans produced as part of the effort. Warner and GSBS representatives noted the plan had an extensive outreach history: they said hundreds of individuals served on committees and thousands of residents provided input through workshops, surveys and events.

Council direction and next steps: GSBS will complete the final edits the council approved and deliver the final documents within about two weeks. Staff said the implementation plan includes suggested metrics and recommended next actions, including code updates and a dashboard to track progress.

Votes at a glance for Ordinance 25‑01: Motion to approve Ordinance 25‑01 moved by Council Member Aaron DeKeyser; second by Council Member Meekum. Outcome: approved 4‑2. The council record identifies the two no votes and the council discussion points summarized above.

The plan will be posted online and the city will receive files and GIS layers to implement and update the future land use map and other plan products.