Do you want to start with the the closed meeting?

Yeah, let's do that.

Okay.

So I guess we're starting with the closed meeting.

We're gonna get a motion for that.

Start with an open and get a motion and two-thirds vote.

We're gonna go over this tonight.

I move that we close the meeting.

We need to say the reason why.

For this reason that Tracy says pending litigation strategy regarding pending and reasonably in a imminent litigation.

Or pending litigation strategy.

Yeah, okay.

I'll second.

Okay.

Um, Catherine, how do you vote?

Yes.

Fred, how do you vote?

Yes.

I vote yes.

Closed.

Okay.

So you take some questions.

No, I haven't got to do that.

So what we have next is presentation one, the open one.

The open public meetings.

Yeah.

I didn't I should be excited about that.

Training on the open meetings actually.

I am actually doing it anywhere else.

That's true.

Tracy.

Tracy.

We have the uh we have the PowerPoint up.

She's got a presentation in there and then.

Oh back up.

Okay.

So you want to turn a whole time before you're back training for you.

I got the truth.

Okay.

Okay.

Clicker?

Okay.

Yeah, let's go.

Seems like we just did this just not that long ago, like last year.

Are you all ready for a super exciting training on you open and public meetings act?

Because that's what you're gonna get.

So all right, let's get started on this.

Okay, the purpose of this for you as the council and mayor is just to understand the core requirements of the Utah's open and public meetings act.

Lovingly known as OatM, and this is under Utah College G4.

So the focus on what you as council members and the mayor must do in practice is really to help you build and maintain public trust.

That's what this really is about.

Because you as the city council, you are the representatives of the residents of Traper to us with the city, right?

And so you want to make sure that like you have that trust with your constituents, and then they know that the things that you're doing are out in the open and that the decisions that you're making are there's accountability.

So for you, you want to build and maintain that trust.

But also the purpose of the training is to kind of help you stay away from avoidable legal problems and embarrassing headlines.

And I will tell you right now, from past experience, back in like a long time ago in my practice.

This was 20 years ago, the partner of the law firm that I worked for, he was accountable for a school board, like a school district.

He couldn't go and so we had me fill in one night.

He's like, be careful they don't follow the rules.

So when I went in there, they started discussing, oh, we're gonna hire so-and-so's brother as our janitor, and we're gonna hire so-and-so's like sister as our bus driver.

Like all the sorts of things you're not supposed to be doing, like in they were taking, they were making decisions on stuff, like in that meeting, and it I was like, wait, wait, you guys, you you're not supposed to be doing this because you have a public meeting afterwards where you're supposed to discuss this.

And they did not care.

Did not care at all.

And so then when we went into the public meeting afterwards, reporter was there, and the next day in the paperwork, like in the paper it was like how they had not followed the like open public meeting acts that they had in Indiana at the time.

That was the state.

So it was it was a a different law.

But it would like they clearly had pre-decided, like all of these different things.

It was obvious from their discussion in the way that they voted that they had discussed all of this stuff in their closed meetings, and so that came out in paper.

So I don't know.

They did not really seem to have any shame over it, and they just continue to do whatever they wanted about it, but that stuff will come out in headline.

Like if it looks like you have made a decision in a closed meeting and there's not the type of deliberation that you would normally have on that issue out in front of the public, the press will pick up on that and they should.

So, right, because it is a violation.

So, anyway, so it's to help you avoid any kind of legal challenges and just kind of support you in the better decision making choice.

Yes.

So when we do have a closed meeting, can we make a decision?

Or I guess I don't like so we just had a closed meeting, we didn't make any decisions, but we gave you guidance or something like that.

Yes, then you can, but we didn't bring up anything outside of that, or like one is okay, right?

Like, so you're not voting like so okay, yeah.

You we will have the conversations that are we'll go over the closed meeting, like things that you can go into a closed session and what you can discuss in this closed session that was a city council.

So we will talk about that when you see the discussion.

But there you go.

That's kind of the purpose.

It's just to kind of help you maintain that public trust, stay clear of the like the legal issues that you could potentially walk in, walk into and then just help you with your decision making and the way you engage.

And as a mayor letter alluded to, you have to check off your annual training requirements.

This is in statute.

You have to have annual training on the open and public meetings act.

So we are helping you comply with that with this.

Okay, so why it exists?

This is in the legislature's own words.

This is actually in the statute itself under their declaration of public policy, and it says state, it's agencies and political subdivisions, which is you, your political subdivision exists to aid in the conduct of the people's business.

It is the intent of the legislature that they divisions, agencies, and state, take their actions openly and conduct their deliberations openly.

So that's the key, that's the key word is open.

The state legislatures follows this to I'm just clear.

I I won't speak to that.

Okay, so a little thing didn't come up.

Um what name do we call the open public meetings laws?

Anybody know?

Dork, I guess.

What's the name we call these types of laws?

Oh, there we go.

I came up, which was spaced out of my open meeting laws are called what kind of laws.

Sunshine laws.

That's right.

I just read about it in my law.

Okay, yes, it's sunshine laws, right?

It comes from that phrase from Louis Brandeis, who was the Supreme Court Justice that sunshine is the best disinfected.

Okay.

So let's go through just really quickly with some of the key definitions are in the open and public meeting law act.

Um, so that way you can see what a meeting is and what it is not, right?

So just going through this really quickly, a meeting is defined as a gathering of a public body.

You are a public body, with a quorum present that is convened by an individual with authority to convene the public body, right?

So, like you've got all these steps that it's got to it's got to meet.

Um following the process provided by law for convening the public body for the express purpose of acting as a public body to receive public comment about a relevant matter, deliberate about a relevant matter, take action on a relevant matter.

So, what you'll notice what's not in here is that like it has to be convened by someone with authority.

So, this this means a change, right?

Of the definition.

This was in the not recently, last year, last year.

Yeah, I guess recently I think last year, but not this session.

Um but you'll notice what it isn't, which is like if Bryn and Catherine run into each other at the grocery store, and then Fred, you show up, like that's not a meeting under this act, it wasn't convened by somebody with authority to do any kind of like deliberation on a public matter.

So keep that in mind.

What about the aliens?

What about the alien?

Okay, quorum.

Let's talk about quorum.

The definition in the law is it means a simple majority of the membership of a public body unless otherwise defined by applicable law.

And we have in our own rules of Draper City Council, the meeting rules and procedures that we've defined a quorum as three members of the council shall constitute with the quorum.

So now you know there's our quorum definition.

Public body that is defined as any group of two or more persons officially created that has the power to expend dispersed, or it's supported in whole or in part by tax revenue, and has the authority to do the public's business.

So we meet that definition, a straightforward city, you as city council, and then with your boards, commissions, and committees when you're exercising governmental authority on behalf of the city.

There you go, public body.

Okay, if a public body is convened in a meeting with the quorum president, then that meeting must comply with the act, right?

So you're kind of meeting like what you've got to do, and you've got to comply with the act, and so that means the compliance and three basic areas to keep in mind is going to be notice, public access, and public record key of the meeting.

Okay, and we'll just go through some of this really quickly because we have the benefit of a professional staff and recorder who does so much of this for us that keeps you in compliance with it.

So with regard to notice, one thing to keep in mind is that you have to have a minimum 24-hour public notice requirement for every meeting.

So that is the minimum, you've got to get that notice out at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, and then it's got to include these basic things, and it's really to tell the public whether it can show up to like be present and watch you do your open deliberations.

So it's got to have the agenda, the date, the time, and the place, and then if you have an annual schedule where you're publishing that, then that's got to be put out too if you hold regularly scheduled meetings, which you do, and so we do publish that that um schedule, and then it's got a list of the date, time, and place for all of those meetings.

So there is the notice requirements.

Now, proper notice, this is also you've got to go through what's called a class A method, so it's got to be on the Utah public notice website, and it's got to be on for the full 24 hours.

So it's not like you can go on there, post it 24 hours in advance and then take it off.

I'm sure somebody's tried doing that, and so what they've said is not only does it have to be 24 hours in advance, but it has to be the full duration of that 24 hours as well.

And so then you've got some additional things that you could do, like you can put it up like at city hall, you can notice it.

You we have it on our website, so there's different ways that you can also be in compliance and add to your notice.

Okay, I have not seen this since I've been here.

Have you guys ever done an emergency meeting?

Yes, okay.

So you can do this.

Um, this is the one exception to the 24-hour rule.

It can be waived in under some circumstances that create an emergency or an urgent need.

So, what still has to happen is you have to do the best notice practicable of time, place, and the topic to be considered, and then you have to make a good faith attempt to notify every member of the public body.

So, like, we might have to call something like an emergency council meeting.

We've got to make sure that we do a you know a good faith effort of notifying all of you as council members that this emergency meeting is happening, um, and then a majority of the members must approve the holding of the emergency meeting.

So that's a little bit different than quorum, it's got to be four the way that it would be defined.

So to hold an emergency meeting is we need to have four of you authorized.

So that includes the mayor.

What is it five council?

So it includes okay.

So we're six member, six count playing member, so yeah, so that's but he's not a voting, he's not a voting.

But like because of the way that we're structured, and it just says majority of members, majority of members of the member, no, yeah.

So we just would need four.

And then for us, you can only do final action on the topics that you actually noticed, so you wouldn't be able to do additional things if you hadn't put them on the notice for it.

Okay, so let's talk about public access to meetings because this is a crucial feature of it.

So all meetings of the public body are open to the public unless properly closed under the law.

So, right, the default's always going to be that it's an open meeting, you have a closed meeting, and that's gonna include any workshop or like retreat or executive session or anything like that that you do.

When you have those, you just can't take a vote at those things, and then the public has the right to attend and observe all open meetings.

So let's talk about public comment opportunities.

So just think of the general rule that the public can attend the open meetings and they can listen to the discussions, and um, as long as they are following the valid time, place, manner, and germaneness rules, then they can do that's we have set forth the process for public comment that they have to follow, then that does not constitute like a criminal trespass.

So we do have that all set forth in our um city council rules, policies, procedures, and this is what ours specifically say, just to kind of remind you about what specifically we can do with um public comment.

So under our rules, this is 5.2D, just kind of helpful for you to remember.

So you know, when you have the public come up for the general public comment, and they can just they can go off on whatever.

So under our policies and procedures, it says no formal action can be taken off of that comment.

So when you have somebody come up and they just say, Hey, safety concern over at this intersection, or right, you can follow up with staff on that, and I and you do you do do that, but like you couldn't take formal action at the meeting because it hasn't been noticed.

So that's that's why um no formal action be taken off of that general public comment right at the beginning of the meetings.

We've got a three-minute time limit imposed for public comment, and just as an aside, so I don't know if you know who this guy is.

And apparently he goes to all of the Downey City's like city council meetings, and he specifically like gets really offensive.

You can see I had to like edit this out.

But like he had that sign set up so that the public could see it behind him.

And they decided to reduce their five-minute public comment rule down to three, and then they had some debate about they wanted to go down to two.

Um but he is, I think he's intentionally like kind of trying to troll them with this.

So he's sort of become a fixture of that.

That's why I used him.

But we've got our three minute limits, and now one of the things our rules also says is that when they come up to make their comment, either in the general public comment or during the public hearing portion, their comments are supposed to be directed to the mayor, and they are not supposed to be presenting questions to the council or the staff.

So it's just supposed to be right, their presentation, and you've noticed a lot of times they'll ask questions, they don't seem to understand that like this is for you to present your opinion.

It's really on you to educate yourself on some of this stuff, but they use it as a question and answer period.

And so I think they can raise things for you.

Like if they raise a question and they say, hey, I have a question about this, this, and this, like later on, you can say, Oh, that's actually right, that rings a bell for me.

Let's ask our staff about that.

You guys can ask the questions, but the public comment is just supposed to be directed at Mayor Walker and not to you or the staff.

So the other thing they must do is state their full name and the residential address for the record.

You can require that.

And then what's kind of disqualified would be disruptive conduct, and that's strictly prohibited under our rules.

So no yelling, no gesturing, no applause, no like personal comments, like they couldn't come in and say something you know, mean about one of the council members when it gets personal or slanderous.

So that is against our rules too.

And that person can be escorted out.

So if they do engage in any of this, we could ask um police chief to escort them out.

So immediate removal, and then potentially they could be subject to like civil or criminal laws, depending on the extent of what their behavior is, right?

It could be disorderly conduct if it gets goes too far, and then our public hearing comments they kind of go, it's the same.

Our public hearing comments just follow the same rules as our general public comment.

And on those little cards that they can fill out at the you know in the back, are any of these listed?

Like these like no yelling gestures.

That's on the little card.

I'm not sure it is it, okay.

So the name had to do it.

I think I don't know what we're gonna have to do like two or three times, but we had one guy that just about got taken out by Rich.

Can't remember what it was about, it was corn.

Somebody who's mad and some and I don't think I think it was Pat.

I don't know, I don't know if you've got to take him out, but he got up to take him out and stopped.

Oh well, and then I think too, like when they get into really disrespectful behavior, like it's one thing because you've got a first amendment right to like express your opinion, but when you you start to veer into things that become disruptive, and um, you know, like we had one guy I remember one time who was sitting from the back and he kept on yelling, oh swear swear words.

Yeah, and several people could hear it, and I think I I don't quite know who it was directed to, but as I was thinking through it, I was like, it's disrespected of you as the council, it's disrespected to staff because we're all here putting in work on this, but it's also disruptive to the public because so many of these people have taken time off from their life, right?

Like to they're they're not with their kids here, like they have specifically come to participate in this, and it's a waste of their time to be exposed to it too.

So I think it's disrespectful to the public when we have people who don't follow rules that they're willing to follow.

Okay, I don't know if we have time, but we can't we can't um have a rule though that there's no exclamatives or offensive language.

We do have it is in there, so it like I think it says um personal slanderous comments.

Yeah, I don't know if we get into obscenity, but obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment, right?

So if they start getting into like that kind of stuff, I think you can say we won't tolerate that that you're becoming disrespectful to everybody.

Um we have time, I don't know that we do, we're about a quarter two.

There's a little click.

Has anybody seen this?

Okay, I can do this.

Oh, I don't know how to do this actually.

It's kind of hard with that rule on our president tweets.

Yeah, can you click on that, Kelly?

This one right here.

Different whole different so this is this really happened.

Yeah, it's comment.

All right, just some way.

Microphone, speaking and address for the record, so that's all right.

Thank you.

New Jersey.

Pretty good if we don't do it.

Yeah, say it's name an address for us.

Yeah.

And you'll notice the council handles this really well.

It's surprising that no one else has the thing.

Do you have the classes on this crap?

They're like, what?

Um is everyone's good.

Anyone know any more fun?

I got back and look at the Mexico.

Uh but not I just want to visit the family and uh in La Tour.

There's no feature there.

So it's uh it's a beautiful town with a lot of history.

And um it's like yeah, really nice.

Anyone here afraid of flying?

She's like clearly wasting their time, right?

Well, I guess the um I'm glad you're picking up on that.

We've made him state the name and address.

Yeah, that's all right.

I think they knew who we were.

Did you know I can do the vaccine?

Anyone want you to do the vaccine?

I think we have cards.

Yeah.

I don't know if we could we could we could do that.

He's gonna bring his cardboard in.

So I can give anyone any idea.

That's pretty good.

I think I can testing our patients.

Yeah.

What's his purpose?

That's what I'm trying to do.

You'll see.

Um our taxes go so much.

Uh we were told the referendum was gonna bring it up for an average household all over.

And mine went up like nine on the bus.

And I think we heard we were told like that was schools or something.

But the school of our instead of only go up I said four bus on an hour assessed home.

So uh why it went out.

And uh it also expenses were incurred by the schools that public when we voted on that room.

He's almost done.

You can't room on it, but it's a good one.

Yeah, he's uh good room.

Thank you, Safe.

I like the interpretive dance.

Okay, so we can go back.

Okay.

So what would you do if you got this?

If someone somebody comes up during public comment and they're doing interpretive dance up to it.

Because one, does he follow the time place manner and germaneness rules?

Like he's there at the right time in the right place.

But his actions aren't relevant to what you know.

He's so close to that, and I think he knows that because it's what it's the one thing that you don't have to do is when it's not relevant, then it's right, like you want it to be relevant to the topic at hand.

So he waits as long as possible, and then he brings up the actual like question of like why it's relevant.

So that's why like he barely makes that one.

So would you consider this disruptive?

I think so.

Right under our rules, would you consider that disruptive?

He's so calm, you can tell there's a little bit of performance going on with this, right?

Like, I think he knows what his first amendment rights are, and he's really skirting, like he's right up on the edge.

So I don't know that you have most people that have done this level of analysis in terms of like what is permitted in public comment.

But I wanted you just to see that as like how would you handle something like that, and like what's your tolerance level for something like this.

And I would suggest because he does do it fairly calm and he does make it relevant when he starts asking about the taxes at the end, he's probably within his first amendment rights on this one.

It's really just a question of like how disruptive does that get.

And it didn't seem like he was I mean, he was looking for like some applause or something from like the audience, and that would have been talking back to the audience was disrupted.

Yeah, yeah, asking questions.

I don't know.

Yeah, but anyway, so I just wanted you to kind of think about it, like based on what our rules allow for public comment, and like how would you be able to deal with it?

See, I would think like that if this were in our meeting, and the person started asking questions like he was doing.

I think the mayor, you've always been good at to correct them to say, Hey, your comments are to be directed to me.

I would I I would see you doing that.

So, and one thing is just I'd actually welcome a breakdowns like that though.

Oh, no, close it, maybe but just keep in mind when you see public comments, they have their first amendment rights, right?

To go up and say things, and as long as they follow the time, manner, place, and relevancy or germane rules, they're within their right to say what they're gonna say.

So, and it's really just a question of like but it can't be slanderous though, exactly.

When that's not protected by the first amendment, right?

So okay, so we'll just open this really fast.

Everything's open unless it's legally closed, so the default is always gonna be that we're in open meetings and that closure is the neurodocumented exception, and then these are kind of just the three steps, and I was calling kind of like talk thinking about this as we went into a closed session.

We always started with an open session, so you can't convene in a close, you always have to start in an open and then go to a close.

You need a two-third vote to close and by name, so it's gonna be recorded in the minutes who voted to close.

So we've got to have your name in there, and then here's the reasons that would be applicable to a city council.

So, right, if you're gonna discuss an individual's character, not like a general like um department in your city, it's gotta be an actual individual, and then you can do strategy sessions.

We don't really run into collective bargaining, but this comes up pending or reasonably imminent litigation, which is the reason we had tonight, and then if you've got um strategy sessions for the purchase or for the sale of real property, so either one, and that includes water rights, and it's because if you make this open, that can drive up the prices on things, and it just so it just causes problems, right?

So that's a valid reason why you can go to a closed session.

You can also do deployment of security personnel devices or systems, right?

Because that obviously is gonna be something that is a security issue, and then investigative proceedings regarding allegations of criminal conduct.

Those are the ones that are gonna apply to you guys as a city council, those are the reasons why we go to a closed session.

Okay, then when we're in there, just make sure you stay.

He says stay on target in Star Wars, but stay on the topic of the permissible topics.

Um public record keeping the minutes we have Nicole, she is our professional at this, but we have to keep them for all of the minutes, they've got some minimal requirements of what they have to contain, so it's gonna be like summary of comments by the public, the record of the votes, so that way anyone can go back and look at it and they can see this is the things that were decided, and this is who voted for it, and this is what the comment the public comment was, and then um if we go into closed, we've got to list on the minutes the reason for the closure, where it was held, the names of those present, and then the vote um by everyone who closed.

And you there's a little exception there, and it's just that don't have to disclose the name of a person that would infringe on the competence necessary to fulfill the purpose of the closed meeting.

So sometimes just the name of the person there would identify the purpose, and so that's when you can click on.

Otherwise, it's actually recorded, and then that recording is classified as a protected document under ground law, and we would not have to disclose it.

Um certain way, but you know, that's kind of the general rule there.

So okay, two more things.

So this is where there are penalties on this one.

If you were to disclose information that you gained in a closed session, that could potentially be a violation.

So this is gonna be a violation of the ethics law, the state ethics law for um governmental employees and elected officers.

So don't use information in a closed session in a way that benefits you personally or somebody that's in your county.

That's kind of the gist of that one.

And then the enforcement of this is generally gonna be by the AG's office.

Now, notice a member of the public who knowingly or intentionally violates it's kind of a high bar, that's more of a criminal side.

This is gonna be a class B misdemeanor if you violate the the um the act.

But the other thing that can happen is the public can bring a lawsuit if they notice that you have violated this act.

And so they have to do it within 90 days of it, which is a really short time frame.

It's 30 days for a bond issue, even shorter.

They can force compliance, and then if they win, they will get their attorney's fees and their code costs for their prevailing party.

So just know that there's the risk if you violate the um the closed provisions.

That's it.

All the all the presentation I have for you.

Okay, I mean I don't have time.

You're two minutes or thank you.

Everybody take a few minutes and we'll just sell it's all bigger with the bigger.

All right, ladies and gentlemen, welcome to our city council meeting this evening.

I'm gonna formally call our meeting to order.

I do want to note for the record that we are we are at a quorum.

Um we have two missing council members.

Uh council member Michael Green is deployed under Title 10 of the United States Code and is not a participant in the meeting or the council proceedings in his deployment.

He's gone, has been gone for a few months.

Councilmember Lowry is out of town with her family and will not be participating.

But we do have a quorum with uh councilmember Dahl and Lowry and Johnson present.

So we can proceed with our city council business.

First item is the Pledge of Allegiance.

Jake Sorenson, our um IT director is going to lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Thank you, Jake.

The next item on our agenda, item number three, is the proclamation for Arbor Day.

I'm in the habit over the years of reading these proclamations, so bear with me.

Um, whereas in 1872, Sterling Morton proposed to the National Board of Agriculture that a special day be set aside for the planting of trees.

And whereas this holiday, known as Arbor Day, was first observed in Nebraska with the planting of more than one million trees and is now celebrated throughout the nation around the world.

And whereas trees reduce the erosion of our precious topsoil by wind and water, cut heating and cooling costs, moderate temperature, clean the air, produce oxygen, and provide habitat for wildlife and whereas trees are a renewable source, giving us paper, wood for our homes, fuel for our fires, and countless other wood products.

And whereas trees in Draper City increase property values, enhance the economic vitality of business areas, beautify our community, and whereas Draper City has been recognized as a tree city USA by the National Arbor Day Foundation and seeks to continue its tree planning practices.

Now, therefore, I Troy K.

Walker, Mayor Draper City, State of Utah, along with the members of the Draper City Council do here prior proclaim April 24th, 2026 as Arbor Day in Draper City and urge all citizens to celebrate Arbor Day and to support efforts to protect our trees and woodlands will be signed this seventh day of April 2026.

That takes us to item number four.

Item number four is an opportunity for the public to make general comments to the council.

If you're here on any of the public hearing items that are coming up, we ask that you wait until those public hearing items are called to keep our record clear.

But if you would like to make a general public comment, is there anyone that would like to make a general public comment?

Let me first see if there's anyone that would like to.

That would be anything you would want to bring up other than what was on the agenda.

All right, I'm not seeing any general public comment, so we'll move on to item number five.

Item number five are items for a vote of consent by our council.

Item 5A is approval of the minutes of the March 24th, 2026 City Council meeting.

Item 5B is approval of resolution 2614.

It's a resolution appointing Joshua Best as the all as an alternate member of the Draper City Planning Commission.

Item 5C is approval of resolution 2615.

A resolution appointing Lindsay Simons as a member of the Draper City Community Engagement and Events Committee.

Item 5D, approval of resolution 2616, a resolution appointing Sandra Gonzalez as a member of the Draper City Historic Preservation Commission.

Item 5E, approval of resolution 2617, a resolution of Draper City Council approving a settlement agreement with parcel construction LC DBA builders resource.

And those are I our those are items are set for consent.

Council members, is there a motion?

Mr.

Mayor, I make a motion to approve the consent items.

I have a motion by Councilmember Johnson to approve the consent items.

I've in items 5A through E.

Is there a second?

I'll second.

Second by Mr.

Lowry.

Any further discussion on the consent items.

All right, hearing none.

Uh councilmember Johnson, how do you vote?

Yes.

Councilmember Lowry.

Yes.

Councilmember Dahlin.

Yes.

All right.

That item, those items are approved by unanimous vote of the quorum 3 to 0.

Next item on our agenda.

These are item, these next two items are the final two items, and they are in fact public.

Not taking that back.

There's a few more.

I apologize.

Item number 6A is next.

It is a public hearing, and it's ordinance number 1716.

It's an ordinance approving the open shock corner development agreement for approximately 1.44 acres of property located approximately 207 east, 13800 south within Draper City.

We'll have a staff report to start that off with Mr.

by Mr.

Todd Draper.

Come on up, Todd.

All right, thank you.

As you mentioned, this is the open shot corner development agreement.

This has been to the planning commission for their recommendation.

And I think you have uh all the different various uh documents uh that were sent to you as part of the packet.

As you see here, we have the vicinity map.

Uh it's located at the corner of 138 south and Bangater Highway.

Uh this is just the aerial.

Uh you'll see that uh it's currently vacant and it's comprised of seven parcels.

And the land use is this commercial office and service use.

Uh there you did pass the ordinance to change that to the regional commercial land use uh should this development agreement be approved, and the same with uh the zoning currently RA1 and OR that would change to the CR zone.

This is the concept site plan that was provided.

Uh, as you'll notice, access uh is intended to come from the neighboring property and be provided uh through reciprocal cross access easements and agreements.

Uh this again is just a concept where this would potentially have two buildings, possible drive-through uh access.

Uh just to note that these drive-throughs do have the minimum stacking distance that we'd require and potentially more.

There are a few things that they are asking for, and I'll I'll kind of go through those here in a minute.

Uh, this is also an alternate site plan that was presented.

Should uh they end up developing before the neighbor and that access not be available.

They did want to have the ability to have a temporary access until that other access was provided, and so that's what's represented here, and and a potential different layout in a different building.

This is one of the things that the city would be getting.

This is just the right-of-way dedication map.

Uh you'll see that there is uh different colors for what would be kind of the construction and grading easement, uh, where the public utility easement would be, uh, and the section here in in kind of brown, which will be the dedication.

There's also a separate uh piece that uh may be vacated and a separate uh um action back to the property owner in the agreement.

They have listed some use restrictions.

This is just the quick list of those.

These are things that that would be excluded from being able to be on the property, uh, with the exception of there is an exception building there for the uh gasoline service station should the neighboring property not build one.

As far as benefits to the city, whenever we do a development agreement, this is required that there is some benefit to the city.

We've identified from the proposed development agreement that there would be, of course, the dedication of the land needed for the right-of-way improvements, the increased property and sales taxes and other potential increases of city revenue through the construction and development of the site.

We would also be getting those use limitations on potentially unacceptable uses at the corner, and then they would agree to restrict their building heights to 30 feet.

As far as benefits of the developer, uh they would get that zone change uh ratified, if you will, to the CR zone.

They would have some assurance that they would have vehicular access to the property by one of those two mechanisms or means.

Uh there would be the public utility uh installation to the property done as part of the roadway improvements, and then there would be uh some uh requests they've made for reductions in landscaping amounts rather than our typical 20 percent, they would like to have 10.

Uh and then they did request um taking the perimeter minimum width from 10 down to 5, and then uh allowing for a complete reduction of landscaping in the parking area.

Uh the other two requests they're making here are to a parking reduction for smaller restaurants to be able to park those at five spaces per thousand and a deviation to allow the building entrances to not have to face the street.

Planning commission did review this, like I had mentioned.

They did forward a positive recommendation recommendation to the city council on the two uh recommendations there that they address the noted concerns of staff that we presented to the planning commission, and then the planning commission did recommend that the perimeter landscaping be kept to a minimum width of 10 feet, and that was uh on a for one vote in favor of that positive recommendation.

So, just as a quick summary of the changes uh that were made to the development agreement between the one that was presented to the planning commission, the one that's been presented to you tonight.

Uh they did make the changes that staff was looking for uh with regards to section 3.1 7.1 section eight was removed and there was some renumbering and the updated uh exhibits uh and D.

Most of those just were technical clerical uh issues.

There was uh a couple of issues that are before you tonight for some additional consideration.

Um their amendment to what staff was looking for for the proposed vehicular and pedestrian cross-access easement, they eliminated almost all of what was in there from the earlier versions, and uh so there were some things that staff thinks should go back in.

I've provided here on this slide uh in in the light blue, there is uh what staff would recommend putting back in to the agreement.

Uh essentially uh that uh they would be allowed that access on to 138th as a temporary if needed, and then just the additional uh specific details about construction of it to meet city standards, and then a time frame for removal of that once they uh acquired uh access through the neighboring property, and that access was constructed.

Uh, and then just another clarification here in this section as well that the master developer would be responsible for those costs uh associated with a temporary access and the removal of that.

So that's just the staff suggested language.

Um, but uh it's uh issue for consideration as to something you may want added into the agreement.

The other outstanding issue, of course, is that minimum width of the landscaping at the perimeter uh that was uh recommended by the planning commission.

Uh staff did not identify this as an issue with the planning commission and and was supportive of the reduction to five feet.

Um we did, however, as staff uh recommend an increase in the planter islands should they be installed from the their requested four feet to five feet, as five feet is the minimum need to accommodate trees in those planter islands.

And this is just what that uh suggested text would look like with the modification addition in blue, and then what would be removed in the in the red?

And just a couple of site photos here.

This is just looking uh kind of towards the uh east, and then this is just looking towards the north there at the corner.

Uh I did put some suggested motions in here whether you want to adopt it as proposed, uh, adopt it with some specific uh language changes that you would like, and then authorizing the city manager and city attorney to make those changes in the agreement before it's presented to the mayor, or a finding for denial.

And with that, do you have any further questions that I can help answer?

Questions from Mr.

Draper.

I do.

I have a question about the across access section.

Um I think that's something that is critical to the success of this um development as well as the adjacent development.

And can you tell me exactly what the status of that is?

I cannot.

The applicant might be able to uh better tell you where they're at.

I know that the two parties have indicated they are are agreed uh to uh some language in a agreement between the two of them for that easement and access, uh but I I don't understand if they've been signed yet or not.

So they would be typically required at the time of the site plan with staff, so we would typically not uh look for those uh as early in the process, but in this case it it's important to make sure that they're going to happen, and so that's why the request to maybe put that language in that states it it will happen as a condition or uh requirement of the master development agreement.

Okay, and my second question is about the reduction in the parking requirement.

with staff so we would typically not uh look for those uh as early in the process but in this case it it's important to make sure that they're um going to happen and so that's why the request to maybe put that language in that states it it will happen as a condition or uh requirement of the master development agreement okay and my second question is about the reduction in the parking requirement um can you explain a little bit like maybe what that might look like so a typical requirement is that seven percent of the parking area here would be in landscaping uh for commercial sites they're requesting to reduce that to be able to reduce that down to zero now obviously they have shown uh some of these planter islands uh in the parking uh this design uh does have some planter islands on the ends typically when we have head to head parking like this our ordinance would require that they put an island down the middle between head to head as well so approval of this would accept the the changes to reduce that landscaping uh as far as um whether the the zero percent they're asking for or not is uh uh appropriate uh I I don't know I can answer that um they they can probably answer what their justifications were for that uh but staff did not see necessarily uh issue in this case given the smaller size of the site uh some of those uh those uh things we've been getting uh from them as far as uh additional land to widen the road and and take care of some traffic problems in the area uh and and I know that uh applicants attorney at the planning commission explained you know we've given up some land that could otherwise have been used for landscaping we're looking to just reduce the landscaping component here to be able to uh utilize the site for uh whatever retail or commercial they uh do eventually develop okay thank you that's helpful and my last question is just the reduction in the parking requirement yes um that went to I I think from 10 to five stalls or spaces per thousand square feet so the idea behind that is that the these would be your smaller uh footprint size restaurants the 2500 square feet uh and they wouldn't necessarily be the type that would have a lot of inside dining area you you'd be taking up uh most of that space with say kitchen and then there would be more of the drive through traffic so in this case where they're actually showing uh an excess of stacking uh that kind of in some ways can also help balance that out so more more stacking spaces for the drive through and then they're looking to reduce the number of spaces uh for those smaller restaurants so more like casual takeout either yeah takeout kind of thing yeah I don't have a specific restaurant right brand or anything like that but uh that's the intent okay thank you Todd any other questions from Mr.

Draper I guess just to emphasize on that parking that's an another important thing about this cross access that would be important because then the parking on the neighboring development would be available not necessarily they could make their own agreements to that uh our ordinance requirement is really about the vehicular maneuvering between the properties and not about the parking the idea being that that it's a benefit to the city when someone does not have to go into a site come back out drive around the city streets to get back to something that's literally on the other side so this this uh helps reduce traffic as well by requiring that cross access and I I want to clarify too with that cross access that that is reviewed there at the site plan phase so we can make this conditional with improving this development agreement on that that cross access is established and signed at the time of the site plan.

Yeah correct yep we can do that I think uh our staff recommendation is simply that it we kind of memorialize it in the agreement that that is a requirement anybody else any questions Mr.

Draper I really quick the the height in this how high are these buildings I would assume it's the same as the rest of the development for the so they are agreeing to limit these to 30 feet in height and Jennifer might correct me if I've missed staking this but I believe the maximum height in the Sierra zone is 45 feet.

So they are they are agreeing to reduction in height.

If this is agreed upon this development agreement, then those are those required to be in there, or if if the zero percent is a part of that, then they wouldn't they could take this out if they wanted, or how does that work?

Uh they could reduce the the landscaping actually in them.

We would still require uh in most of this design some kind of separation, whether that's curbing or something like that between drive aisles, parking spaces.

Um the other component, of course, is the the overall landscape, uh, which they're they're asking to reduce to just 10%.

Um that component within the parking area is also contributes to the overall site landscaping.

So if they in this case and scenario here, um, they might be really close to not meeting the 10% without adding some to the parking.

So they may have to add some to the parking just to meet that 10% requirement.

Um, but obviously there are some limits, especially with such a long uh shared access along that north side.

So even with the zero percent for the parking, there is a ten percent requirement for the whole parcel.

Yes, for the overall site.

Yeah.

Thank you.

The other questions from Mr.

Draper.

All right, thank you, Todd.

Thank you.

Um the way this works, I know probably most of you have been to a meeting before, but because the applicant is applying, they get to speak next.

They also get the final last word and rebuttal.

So we'll take the applicant now on item 6A, ordinance number 1716.

If the applicant wants to address the council.

Who's who's doing it?

Come on up.

Give us your name and address if you would please.

Good evening.

Uh Charlie Open Shaw is my name, 2230 North University Parkway in Provo.

Um, and I'm happy to just answer any questions that that you have.

I know some concern is is if we have an agreement, an access agreement, and I think we're we've we become best friends now with uh with our neighbors.

So I think we we intend to execute that after this meeting, actually.

So I think we can put that to bed finally as far as the access agreement.

And I'm happy to answer any other questions um you might have.

So your access agreement is completed and ready to execute.

Correct.

All right.

Anybody else have any questions for Mr.

Open Shaw?

Right, sir.

We'll give you the last word if you need it or want it.

Thank you.

After the public comment.

All right, next is public comment on this item 6A, ordinance 1716.

Those of you that have been here before, you know how we do it.

The clock to my right is set for three minutes.

Um you get three minutes.

You don't have to use them all, but you certainly can if you want to, but you only get three minutes.

So when your time's up, it'll buzz.

Please then take a seat and let the next person come.

I'll let anyone that wants to address the council on this item speak.

I do have some cards, which I'm gonna call through first.

They're not in any particular order.

I didn't select the order, I just put them together.

Um, our meeting rules, if you haven't been here are simple.

Come to the podium, give us your name and your your full address and draper wherever you live.

That'll start the time.

Um, address your comments to me.

Um, if you want to ask questions, understand their rhetorical.

The council's not gonna engage you in question and answer session.

It's an opportunity for the council to hear you and make your comments.

Um, they may address it later in their deliberations, but they won't engage you in a conversation.

Also remember, we don't do applause or any outbursts from that kind of thing.

Just come up, please be respectful of our our time and process.

Like I say, I'll give everyone an opportunity to speak that wants to.

First person up on the card list is Mr.

Bob Clark.

Bob, come on up, sir.

I'm on the next one.

Oh, all right.

All right.

Oh, you know what?

Maybe that's maybe there's more on that.

Sorry.

My eyes are getting worse.

All right.

Well, I don't I think is there so is there anyone here that would like to address the council on 1760?

Come on up, sir.

Give us your name and address, please.

So my name is David York, and I live at 438 Morning Ridge Circle.

In December, the city council told residents they would only approve a zoning change if three things happen.

First, you required a DA to adequately address four areas: traffic mitigation, roadway improvements, infrastructure funding, and phasing.

I reviewed the DA, not made available public until today.

Traffic mitigation, the DA contains no traffic study and no mitigation plan.

Roadway in improvements, the DA contains no binding commitments with enforceable standards.

Infrastructure funding, no dedicated funding mechanism, no cost determination or allocation, and no construction schedule.

Phasing, the developer can build virtually whatever they want whenever they want, in whatever order they choose.

You required four things.

The DA addresses none of them.

Second, you required the city engineer to determine the necessary right-of-way.

Section four of your ordinance says the rezoning was granted, quote, an express reliance on that determination.

But the city engineer determination does not exist in the record.

So your second condition wasn't met.

Third, in the ordinance, you promised residents four months to review a completed development agreement.

You established a December 29 deadline that for a completed DA that wasn't even released until today, giving zero days for the impacted neighbors to review it.

So your third condition wasn't met.

Here's where we stand.

You set six overall requirements, none have been met.

Your own ordinance says that if the conditions aren't met, the ordinances automatically become null and void, and the property remains are a one.

The developer failed to meet your conditions.

This should be an easy vote.

But if you're still not willing to follow through on what you said you would do, I will personally pay for an independent traffic study by focus engineering, a firm with no ties to the developer or the city based on this exact project and the next and the next one, and I will bring it to the city council at the next meeting.

And unlike the developer, I can meet the deadlines.

So you have two choices tonight.

One, do what your ordinances require, the conditions weren't met, say no.

Two, if for some reason you need more certainty, delay three weeks for independent verification.

Either way, do not approve this tonight based on incomplete information and unmet conditions.

You made three promises to your neighbors in December.

Keep them.

At the end of the day, a city council should represent its citizens and should do so with clarity, transparency, and integrity.

Last year you said if the DA failed, which it does, that you would not sign it, and this project would not proceed.

Do what you said you would do.

Thank you.

No pause, please.

Folks, I'll clear the room if we're gonna do that.

I have my rules on fair.

Is there gonna be any more of it?

I'm gonna we will we'll have you leave if you do.

That's our rules.

Please please abide by them.

Who would like to be next on this item?

Come on up.

Carolyn Phippin, 363 Brown Farm Lane, Draper.

Very little that I can add to what was already said, but a couple little things.

Uh we know that there are issues with the traffic study.

They've been identified.

Um I know what's been brought to you guys.

There have been professionals hired to take a look at the traffic study that was done, and it does not account for all of the drive-throughs on the other property.

Certainly, then adding a whole bunch here will just massively impact traffic on 30s that is already um almost unnavigable during rush hours.

Second thing, landscaping is a really big deal.

I I had a discussion with Bill Keach, who used to be head of USGS for the state.

There are two things that are causing our aquifers to sink in the state of Utah.

Number two is we're not watering enough.

I know no one wants to hear that.

Um, and number one is we are covering everything with concrete and asphalt.

And so we have massive runoff.

Aquifers are actually draining, and we will see sinkage, and it will take generations for those to recharge.

That is something we need to be very aware of.

Anytime we put in a bunch of asphalt, that there is uh enough green space and enough water that can be absorbed into the ground to recharge those aquifers.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Who'd like to be next?

My name is Christina Kessler Day.

I live at 448 Brown Farm Lane.

And I just want to point out that there's connectivity connectivity with this site plan that's up on the screen right now, and Bagular Crossing, and everything that you decide regarding the two affects the other.

And so I want to make sure everybody's aware of that, including in the audience.

There are a few other things I want to mention, and that is that we have gotten together as a neighborhood and met with just about everybody in city government that we could meet with, including the mayor and the city council, including the developer himself.

We have expressed concerns regarding not just Brown Farm but the adjacent neighborhoods to the north and further west of us.

And we have told everybody what we're concerned about regarding this entire corner.

And I also think it's important to bring up the point that this is being done because Draper City is concerned about having to raise uh taxes for property.

They need money.

Um policy has been implemented in Washington DC that is trickling down to local governments.

They need somebody to fund their cops, and they are going to sacrifice our neighborhood so that they can get some commercial property tax and I think it's important that everybody realizes that.

And what Draper said he really needs to do is bite the bullet and raise property taxes instead of making just a small disposable neighborhood pay for it.

I really mean that.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Good luck to be next.

Hello, um, my name is Lane Lewis.

I live at 13726 South Brown Farm Lane.

Um, I can see this development from my kitchen window.

Um I've come to every meeting.

Um I haven't really commented, but I I do need to express my frustration that I don't feel like we have been represented or representative.

Um I don't feel I feel like we've changed this entire, you know, um zoning.

And then after we, you know, made all of those changes, or you know, made that major change.

We've made so many exceptions to the rules, like the lighting, um, the traffic, the landscaping.

Um it seems like those are things that um you know would have been addressed had we kept the zoning in the first place.

Um and now we've we've made changes that are significant.

Um the side of the hot the the uh signs.

Um additionally, um this axis.

If you if you're in this if you're in this uh development and you want to go to um South Mountain, you either got to go up to third east, I go on third east every single day, and sometimes it's difficult for me to turn right.

Now they're gonna try and turn right here and get over all of these lanes of traffic to turn left.

Uh that's not gonna happen.

They're gonna go up to third east, everyone's gonna go up to third east.

Um, and I agree with what was said earlier about the need for a uh uh a traffic study, a significant traffic study.

Um, I appreciate your consideration.

Thank you.

I'd like to be next.

Or if there's no further public comment on 1716, um, I'll close the public comment period.

Mr.

Openshaw, did you want to address uh any of the questions or do you want to have the last word?

You're welcome to if you want.

Come on up.

I I would just say that uh as far as addressing the traffic issue, we've we've we tr we did that once before, you know, years ago uh when the when 138th was widened.

Um we dedicated uh and we conveyed land uh and we actually tore down four houses uh income producing houses to make that happen.

Um and so uh now we're just trying to make sure that we're able to develop our property um if we're going to give up uh or reconvey land again.

So that um I I just thought that context was a was probably maybe helpful to understand.

Hold on a second.

Any questions for Mr.

Open Shaw?

All right, thank you, sir.

Thanks.

All right, council members.

Mr.

Mayor, I want to make a couple of comments here regarding this this parcel and uh Mr.

Openshaw addressed it too as far as some exchange of land uh for traffic mitigation.

Um I want to make it clear that that traffic mitigation has been one of the things that we've looked at on this applicant application and the roadway approvements are going to take place and are taking place, even if this is approved or not.

And there is also the infrastructure funding that is in place for that.

So I want to make everyone clear that there are improvements, and you guys hopefully have seen those plans on 138th and Bangater, uh, that is going to improve the flow of all of this, including an intersection on 300 east and 138 south.

Um, so those are being addressed.

Also, uh I want to make it clear in that uh we are doing what we said we would do, and that we've done our best, or I've done my best to listen to any of you that have come and voiced your concerns or invited me to come to your home and talk, and I sincerely have done my best to listen.

Um this four months to review this development agreement.

We need to understand that there was a deadline for to uh to complete the application for this development agreement by December 31st, and that there would be four months of us to give time to go over this development agreement, not to have it completed and then review exactly what it was on December 31st.

That's what's given us the time for us to talk and listen to everyone and to also work through this uh with this applicant.

And um there is a big important thing here that I was ready to kill this without uh having this even heard today without that cross access agreement that I'm appreciative that Mr.

Openshaw has been able to work out, which is an important thing in hearing what the residents have asked that if we develop this that we develop it smart, and that has been one of the important things that we we do that, and so uh I just want to make it understood that we're doing our best to hear and address the the different concerns that everyone has.

Um thank you, Mr.

Lowry.

I agree with what um you've said about the work and time, especially from our staff that's gone in to analyze this um plan.

I I still do have concerns about that cross access being specifically addressed within this development agreement um because I think that is just imperative for the success of the site.

Um and then I do have some hesitations about the um zero percent uh landscaping.

I do think um that what we're seeing as we done the zero scaping is that it's having negative impact on the um environment and you know um temperatures uh surface temperatures.

So I I would like to see a little bit more flexibility, and then I feel like that zero percent um, you know, it's something that if it's if it's utilized at zero percent, I think that would be uh fairly negative overall.

So those are my two concerns that I have with this.

And I and I would address the the traffic that we we've looked at that um and and I think you'll see that later on this evening is what's being addressed in the other development agreement.

But um, you know, from what I see from this picture, I think that um the city and other entities have done a good job about trying to address the issues that um are currently on 138 south, and that um will be there in the future.

Um I I just wanted to ask the staff if we know so I know there um these improvements are going in no matter what happens with the development agreements.

Do we know the timing for this um 138th dedicated right lane and then also some sort of improvement at third east and 138th south?

The improvements that you're talking about does require uh dedication of property, so that's all part of this is that the the property would be dedicated, and then once that's dedicated, which I'm told will happen very quickly.

Uh construction is ready to go.

And so that would be in advance of something opening here.

It's that's correct.

Okay, thanks.

Now, Mr.

Cooley, the the construction that's ready to go is the road improvements.

We still have to separately work to the light the traffic signal at 30 east and 138.

Correct?

That's correct.

The city will do that.

Uh I believe that it's been recommended that the city do that uh and pay for that design and the construction of that signal uh that will go in at 30 and 138 south.

And can that coincide with the construction season of the other improvements?

That will not coincide, it will be next year.

Okay.

That answer your question.

Mr.

Mayor, I I guess we I do have a question from Mr.

Openshaw regarding the landscaping.

Maybe if you could come up.

I think Brennan you brought up an important point about that landscaping and that can you kind of address you've got some of these areas set aside for the landscaping, but what what can be done to address that?

Well, we hadn't again to give you a little context.

We hadn't we hadn't designed a site plan before we uh made a parking request essentially, um, or sorry, a landscape request.

So as you can see in our site plan, we do have some parking.

The zero percent is just for the parking landscaping.

Um it's not for the site landscaping, it's just for the parking.

But we have uh designed some some landscaping parking or our uh some landscaping within the parking area as well, as you can see on the site plan.

I don't know off the top of my head what percentage that is, um, but we our intent was to design as uh as much park as much landscaping as we could in the parking area um while still being able to uh build something economically and feasibly viable thing staff.

Do you have an idea about what percentage that would be?

Um the council is interested in placing a requirement on the development agreement that landscaping in the parking lot be provided, uh you could word it um to require landscape islands at the ends of parking rows, and then staff when they come in for their site plan would be specifically looking for those parking uh lot islands uh just at the ends of the rows with the the remainder remainder of you know the the standards far as like the strict 7% uh not being required well and then and and there's more than that just at the end of the rows um there's also um you know landscape areas if um next to adjacent to the buildings as well.

So I guess just want to clarify this is not a zero landscape project.

No.

I think it was 10 percent, right?

The 10 percent is in the agreement that there's 10 percent landscape ten percent overall for the entire property.

Um, and then the the code would require seven percent within the parking lot area itself, and that counts towards the the overall site.

So with the the development agreement, the language says um they they're allowed to have zero percent in the parking lot, but if they do islands at the ends of the rows that that the islands only have to be four feet wide.

So that's what it says right now.

So if you want to require the the islands, I think that's something that you can include in your motion but with that the state that that 10% of the landscape, 10% of the entire site consists of landscaping.

Yes, and yeah, and that standard is in the development agreement right now.

But then if we do require the parking landscape, if that um coincides with the overall 10 percent, then we could see less landscaping development overall.

Does that make sense?

Like that it wouldn't maybe wouldn't be like surrounding the perimeter or something because they could have used that percentage into the parking lot, then we would see less around the perimeter.

Whereas if we say zero, we would see more around the perimeter because they would need to fill that 10 percent requirement around the the perimeter or on the actual pad sites, potentially.

Um I mean the overall could be anywhere on the property.

So the overall landscaping percentage, it's what's adjacent to the road, what's in the parking lot, what's along the building frontage?

Um, so it's all the landscaping.

So that overall percentage doesn't really say it has to be in a certain location.

Okay, thank you.

No, thank you.

I guess that the question is do we have landscaping be required at the ends of the parking rows, or do we just state the 10% of the property include landscaping, whether it's at the end of the rows or throughout the property?

Is that 10%?

That 10% is not a concession that's our code.

Our code is 20%.

So the 10% is a reduction.

I see.

But with that, I think the reason why we're saying 10% is because of the amount of land that's been deeded over for us to make these road improvements, which are a very vital and important thing to the city, regardless of what's developed on this property.

And just from the overall concept, so the we would we'll have a sidewalk and a park strip on Bangator, which will have trees, is that correct?

For the overall, so it might just be this parcel on this piece on 138th that had to, you know, be so there won't be a park strip on Bangater.

Okay.

Yeah.

But there'll be a there'll be a sidewalk there, right?

And then the will there'll be street trees on the interior part of the development.

Yeah, so if there's no park strip, our code uh allows the street tree requirements to be on the property, and it so trees within 15 feet of the right-of-way count towards a street tree requirement.

Ask that question to hear exactly what you're saying, maybe yeah.

Let's ask Jan.

Um, would it be possible to do a landscaping um range for this site, depending on um you know what what works is within the site plan rather than saying 10% say 10 to 20 percent you could I don't think that really gets you anything though because their minimum is 10 percent, so as long as they hit that base, staff will will be approving it.

Okay, so I I think what you could do is you could look at um if if you want a bigger percentage, add add that bigger percentage in, or if you want to say um, you know, you're fine with the 10 percent overall, but the the parking lot um landscaping put a percentage.

Our code requires seven.

They've already kind of indicated that that may be difficult for them.

So is four percent or five percent sufficient.

Again, I haven't done the calculation to know what their concept plan shows.

It could also um just reference um that they provide those end landscape islands at the end of parking rows as shown in the concept plan.

So is it feasible to have 10% of the property in landscaping outside of that parking area and then include the landscaping at the ends of the parking rows to not count towards the 10 percent?

Yeah, again, I haven't done the calculations for their concept, but but yeah, if you wanted to do do that, you may want to ask the applicant um their their thoughts on it, but yeah.

Yeah, I think that's a fair question.

Yeah, Mr.

Openshaw extra steps in what's it?

You're ruining my escape plan.

You're doing good.

Um how about if uh we make a the proposal that there's the property is outside of the parking area, ten percent of that is landscaped, and then landscaping provided at the ends of the parking rows does not go towards that 10%.

Especially if we make the concession of saying they don't have to be what did you say, Jen?

It was they could be four feet instead of instead of five feet.

Yes, so the development agreement is calling for those islands to be four feet.

Um staff and Todd's presentation called uh for it to be widened to five.

If we widen, if we widen here's here's why I'm sort of pushing back on widening the uh uh the landscaping at the end of the parking rows is because that if we widen that one more to five feet, we lose uh two parking stalls, four parking stalls.

Um and parking is a premium, uh as we all know, but uh so I think uh with four feet, I think that's I I think the concern was we couldn't plant trees in four feet.

I I think you can still plant trees in four feet, that's our intent.

Um but it's right to tell to tell me your repeat your question one more time, make sure I understand.

Well, landscape and be provided at the ends of the parking rows with in addition to outside of the parking row area that there be ten percent of that property be landscaped.

I think we're probably okay.

I'm hesitant because I I don't we're I don't remember what our exact parking ratio or landscape ratios are.

I think we're okay with that, especially as we count the landscaping around the buildings.

Yeah, right.

So I I probably pretty comfortable with that, but so just the parking stalls is what we're talking about, and we're not talking about what's around the what's around the buildings will not count towards the parking.

No, but what's around landscaping around the buildings would count towards the 10 percent of landscaping.

Right, but not with the but so it would be the 10 percent plus the the parking end caps.

Correct.

So then it's more than 10 percent, but it's there's not then then you're losing the requirement.

Yeah, I think that that makes a lot of sense if that yeah.

May I yeah, so the current proposed language is is the overall minimum percentage required landscaping.

Um the perimeter is is five feet of uh perimeter landscaping, and then the current proposed language in the development agreement is to reduce the landscaping percentage in the parking lot to zero, but in the event that they put the end caps is uh shown on this concept site plan on the landscaping islands may be as narrow as four percent.

Now I don't know why that would not count to the overall ten percent if they so the way it's word is they could go without anything in the parking lot, or they can put something in the parking lot, but I'm not sure I understand why that would not count to the overall ten percent of the I the reason why we're saying is to be able to increase this landscaping beyond ten percent.

Right.

Is the is our reasoning okay.

And and and remember you'd also have a minimum of five percent on the on the perimeter.

That adds towards the ten percent.

Wait, can you repeat that?

What did you just say?

Five feet along the perimeter.

Yeah.

So the uh development agreement is calling for five feet of landscaping width along the property perimeter, so along the road.

Yeah, that that accounts for part of the ten percent landscaping, though.

Yeah, yeah.

And because it's five feet, then we can have trees in that right.

And and as has been pointed out, the trade-off for this particular site is as Mr.

Lowry has pointed out the dedication along 138th, but also part of the concession is that cross access really takes out the northern boundary of his development in which you could put landscape.

So the actual area in which you can put landscape has been greatly diminished to meet um the city's needs as well as create a better flowing project overall.

I think that cross access is I think like um Bryn said earlier, like a requirement of the success of this and making it a positive um uh development for the city, and so that to me is a rationale for some reduction in the landscaping to make sure that that cross access is there.

Okay, so are we good with the wording?

That landscape be provided at the ends of the parking rows that do not count towards the 10% of the required landscaping on the rest of the property.

Um I like that.

But and I don't know if do we if we're do it that way.

Can we keep them at four feet and not have trees but have other you know water wise landscaping?

Yeah, I mean that's that's up to you.

Um if you're comfortable with the four-foot width um with uh you know shrubs and and that kind of thing, then that's that's fine.

Um staff can't prov require trees with anything less than five feet.

But but they could they could require a tree in a four-foot planter.

They don't they don't grow.

Well, they grow in the in the diamonds, you know, in the parking lot diamonds you see that are that's that's way smaller than than four feet.

Which I agree with you, they don't grow there, but they most cities still require them.

With the just with the four feet at the end of the parking, if they have trees.

So you're saying that we can't require trees, but if they plant, I mean they can plant trees if they want to.

They they could, yes.

Interesting.

But we can require trees along the five feet along the perimeter of the property.

And is that required right now in the yes?

Our our code requires requiring those trees.

So I I think whatever the developer wants to plant in those rows of the parking, as long as we have the landscaping, that's that's the key in my view.

So are you okay to keep them at four feet?

I think it's important that it's I mean that that's a compromise.

You've got to keep some parking there too, in my opinion.

Yeah, I agree.

We're talking one foot.

Yeah.

So I think the parking there becomes important to make it.

Especially if there's because there's a reduction in parking, I think we want to keep parking.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

I would like to remind the council uh staff's recommended uh language changes on the cross access access and temporary access.

Any motion uh would need to include that language.

I also think it sounds like the agreement is I I don't know if the language covers it.

It sounds like the agreement is like imminent, but but I would think that that needs to be um content.

This needs to be contingent on that.

And maybe that's what the staff the staff recommended language is it makes it an absolute requirement that it happen.

Okay.

If uh Kyle, if you want to bring that up, I'll sign that in front of them so they can see that how imminent it is.

But my recommendation to them is that I won't sign anything unless the cross access agreement is executed.

So you might want to break that out of the briefcase if that's what you're gonna do, if that's what they want to do.

Sure.

I have no problem with it.

Well, and it won't be won't be approved at the with the site plan without it being signed.

Yeah, yeah.

So um section 2.5 of the agreement, um, just in any motion that you make uh include the uh recommended staff changes.

This really is just adding back in uh the language on the temporary access and the requirements for uh when they're allowed to have the temporary access and when that temporary access goes away.

Well, I feel like that's pretty clearly worded there on the the access there.

So thank you, Mr.

Oldenshaw.

Unless we call you back.

Oldenshaw unless we call you back that be followed Mr.

Mayor I'm gonna make a motion go ahead sir and I'm asking other council members to correct me if I don't word this in the way that we're intending I'd make a motion that we approve ordinance 1716 which is item sixa on the condition that also that we follow the the wording that's been provided by staff as far as in sections 2.5 and 2.92 in addition that the landscaping that landscaping be provided at the end of the parking rows in addition to 10 percent of landscaping being provided in other areas of the property that's a motion to approve based up with the conditions of adopting the language of 2.5 and 2.92 and that whole landscaping discussion you had frankly on motion and one other motion that mayor you won't sign this agreement until the cross access agreement has been signed and executed condition being I'm not authorized to sign it until the I see an executed cross access agreement correct.

All right that's the motion is there second all second second by Ms.

Johnson.

Any further discussion on the motion I just want to make sure that motion like cover cover staff is comfortable that that covers what we're trying to say I think there's just the clarification on that 2.9 point two you do want the suggested language in I don't know if we can roll two slides forward the motion yes and the suggested language of 2.92 yes 2.5 and 2.92 so you have to think that's that one I'm sorry maybe I'd yeah so you two point nine two you don't want to include that based on the conversation.

Correct it needs to be net to four feet instead of five feet yeah so um no so the the change that you've included for the discussion on landscape islands being provided in addition to the 10% um 2.92 and 2.93 will need to be amended to include that language not what's shown here that's what you want yes correct that's the motion to amend the language yes to accept 2.5 but amend the language to 2.9 point two and 2.9 point three yes your second stands on that or second does okay any further discussion our hearing on Fred how do you vote yes um brand how do you vote yes Catherine how do you vote yes items approved unanimously three to zero with the quorum present that takes us to item number six B is also as a public hearing it's ordinance number 1717 it's an ordinance approving the Banger crossroads development agreement for approximately 17.88 acres of property located approximately one three seven eight two south three hundred east within Draper City we'll have another staff report again by Mr.

Todd Draper go ahead Mr.

Draper all right thank you uh like the last one here located in the same area in vicinity at 138th and Bangar highway uh also vacant uh slightly larger uh I believe it was uh 17.88 acres also seven parcels uh that it's comprised of it is in the residential medium density and residential low medium density land use again ordinances uh have been approved to change that to the regional commercial land use designation and then also currently this is all RA1 uh with the ordinances that would allow it to go to the CR zone should the development agreement be approved this is the master site plan that was submitted with the application you'll note uh a couple of things here has access points on 300 east uh the one that we were just discussing over here on 138 south uh and then uh one over on Bangater Highway that uh is uh a turn a left hand turn as you come in from the freeway and then also a ride in right out over here on 150 east uh

The one that we were just discussing over here on 138 south.

And then one over on Bangater Highway that is a turn, a left hand turn as you come in from the freeway, and then also a ride in right out over here on 150 east.

And then the three pad sites.

And I've kind of outlined that in the staff report to the planning commission as well.

They are looking to acquire that.

And if they are able to do that, the development agreement contemplates that this would extend to that property at that time.

Also a fuel center here with we'll call the cells shack that will be manned.

And then just you can see just some of the different parking layout islands at the ends, but without the landscaping between the head to head rows.

I think there's about 20 21 approximately additional stalls with the plan presented to you tonight.

And then they did have a little bit of a different recommendation, or I should say, request for the fencing.

The planning commission recommended eight-foot fencing along all residential properties.

This portion.

Besides, this is their fence.

Here instead of the eight recommended by the planning commission.

We have the full 20 feet of width.

And you'll notice here as well.

Even at this, we still have more than the 20 feet.

We do require the eight-foot fence in ordinance.

So in this case, even though there's the 20 feet of landscaping here, they are proposing a small reduction to 3.6 feet, and then they will install an eight-foot fence.

And so they've simply just shown that at the 10 here.

Again, the six-foot high fence or wall, and the additional deciduous and evergreen trees for screening.

So continue on with the screening along 300 east.

This is not that residential land use buffer, but is the buffer between the rear of the main anchor tenant and 300 east.

This is the cross section of that proposal where they would have a park strip sidewalk.

They would place a berm between this wall and the property line.

So you can kind of see with that wall gone, there is still a wall for the screening of the dock that's behind that.

So that might help kind of visualize that there's still an access behind here between those two.

And then this is just another rendering a little further back, and then a rendering kind of showing how that would potentially look at it during the evening or nighttime hours.

Again, this is we have not really looked at this as whether it also complies with all the components in their lighting plan.

This is just kind of a representative example of what that would look like.

Again, in the development agreement, they've included request to have some outdoor sales and display area.

That's indicated on this plan.

You'll see most of that is uh along the front of the building.

There's a small section out in the parking lot.

And then they are proposing some EV charging stations kind of towards the front of the store on that south side.

And then, of course, they will have sales outdoor at the fuel canopy as well.

This is the lighting plan.

I will emphasize it's conceptual.

And they did comply with the request initially.

They had the this is a photometric plan, which is usually given to us at the site plan level.

So this is a little bit beyond that, but they did we did want to kind of look at uh light, light trespass, things like that.

Uh, with this revised plan from what was presented to the planning commission, they have effectively shown that uh at the boundary with the residential uh properties.

This will be at the point two foot candles in ordinance, so it will be reduced to the uh level that's considered acceptable.

They are still requesting an increase in the uh illumination under the fuel canopy.

Uh the initial request is for 60 foot candles, they have reduced that to 57.

And moving on here to the master signage plan.

They are also asking for some deviations from our from strict compliance with our code with regards to signage.

Uh between the planning commission and now they did reduce the height of the pylon sign down to to or tower sign down to 20 feet.

They had it initially at 25, and that does comply with our ordinance.

Um they would still have this, uh, they're calling it a five-foot directional, but I believe it's just under six feet, maybe five and a half.

Uh monument sign uh indicating that there would be no truck traffic back to 300 east, uh, and that sign actually also complies with our ordinance.

Uh the requested uh increases in sign size and height would be for these uh remaining signs, uh, a small increase for the fuel sign, and then the larger increases for sign C and D, both to the height and then the overall size of the signs.

So these are just kind of some cut sheets that would uh kind of give you an idea of what those would look like.

Again, this is that monument directional.

You'll see it's about five and a half feet by the time you add the cap in there, but that's still compliant with ordinance as is uh what what we're seeing here with the tower sign.

I know they've labeled it monument sign, but it's a tower sign.

And then these would be the other monument signs, C and D.

They would be uh approximately 15, uh 15 and a half feet tall, and then I know this shows 138.

I don't know if that's really uh quite an accurate measurement, uh, but uh they would look similar to what you see there, and then again with that uh fuel monument sign, it is a little bit uh wider, a little bit taller.

They are proposing some use restrictions, much like the last uh development agreement.

Uh, they are looking to restrict car washes and vehicle repair, which would also include oil change, things like that.

As far as the development agreement benefits to the city, they are doing some dedication of land needed for right-of-way improvements.

There's also the dedication of the land for the uh detention pond that would uh take some city water as well.

Uh the same increase to property tax sales tax and other potential revenues.

Uh they have we would be getting those use limitations.

Uh they're proposing to restrict building heights to 35 feet from the finished floor, so it's a little bit of a different way we from how we would typically measure it, but it's still within kind of the realm of what can be done.

Um they've got their pedestrian vehicular connections throughout the commercial center, and they do have in the development agreement the requests we had for uh the reciprocal cross-access uh agreement.

They as the developer would get uh that ratification of the zone change to CR.

They'd have their approved locations for for their vehicular and pedestrian access.

They do also request a reduction of the landscape amount from our 20 down to 15.

They would also have some increased uh light pole heights in the main parking area.

Uh, those would essentially go from a 20-foot pole, which is our maximum in ordinance to a 22 and a half foot pole.

They would still have 20 foot tall poles around uh, I'd say the periphery, if you will, but around the areas adjacent to residential, so they would not be putting those taller poles next to the residential.

So they would not be putting those taller poles next to the residential.

They are asking for that allowance for the higher illumination level under the proposed fuel canopy and the deviation to allow those building entrances to face the parking rather than out to the street.

They are asking for a deviation to provide more parking than is required by our ordinance.

So that is a little different.

And that may help with other impacts.

And then I'll just kind of go over briefly the planning commission recommendation here to the council.

They did also on a 4-1 vote for the positive recommendation.

There were 10 conditions or recommendations, I guess, not really conditions that they put into that.

So what we've highlighted there in the yellow are those that they actually they put these in there in the agreement they're taking care of 100%.

The ones in the orange have they've done some or part, uh maybe not completely, uh, but I'll go over those just so that you're aware where where that kind of maybe uh medium ground was, and then the two uh here just left in white.

Those are the ones that uh were not specifically addressed in the revised development agreement.

Oop.

There we go.

So just kind of taking these one at a time.

Uh I mentioned this before the site illumination, they'll comply with the site illumination requirements of ordinance, uh, except for the request to have the additional illumination under the canopy.

And then for the perimeter fencing, again, as I discussed, uh, they are looking to not necessarily follow the planning commission recommendation to do eight feet on all areas, but to do eight feet in in the area just north of the anchor tenant, and then uh six feet uh uh on the other portion of the north.

Uh and so uh their proposal is compliant uh more or less with uh or compatible with the current ordinance with the landscaping, of course.

Uh they they were asked by the planning commission to just kind of mirror that or at least comply with city code, they are close.

Um it's matter of a couple of trees possibly again.

Without this being this is still conceptual, we don't know all the specific amounts at the end, it may actually comply, uh, but it is real close.

And then we just have that small section of landscape buffer uh with that they're requesting the reduction to that is still within the plan.

Uh and then again with the signage, um, they are still requesting those deviations for the taller uh and larger signs than would otherwise be permitted.

Uh and then, like I mentioned, an increase of about 21 parking stalls uh from the last plan, but they are actually going even beyond uh our maximum allowed natural deviation in the code.

So they are providing more parking than would be required for the types of uses that they've uh indicated they would like to put in those buildings.

Um again, just that other remaining issue, just the boundary line overlaps, those are best dealt with at the site plan review.

And so that's why we're we're addressing that.

We know that they're there now.

Uh they may need to make adjustments when we hit the hit the site plan level, but if they're successful in working those out with those neighbors, um there shouldn't be an issue with the concept as proposed.

And then just a couple of site photos.

This is just along the north.

Uh, you can see the existing pond.

Well, the proposed pond that is existing uh that they've already installed, uh, and then this is just kind of looking from that same kind of point towards the south.

You'll see the UDOT property, which is the current detention basin, but that water would be also moved over to this other pond.

And then this is just uh over there on 300 uh east, looking towards the south, and again looking towards the north again.

Again, the three suggested motions either to adopt as proposed, uh, adopt subject to additional changes that you would uh delegate to the city manager and attorney to make those changes or for denial.

With that, are there additional questions that I might be able to help answer?

I I've got just a quick starter.

Um can you help me understand on the south side, the south side of the anchor one?

Um you talked about uh there's some land disputes or some things going on there, but if we're comparing um to get back to the comparing the yes, these two what happened in planning, and then I so I see there's a lot more trees, but it looks like it's more narrow.

Did that space get more narrow after planning?

So in this case, they have drawn it as more narrow.

So if you see in this top corner, on the plan presented to the planning commission, they indicated that they were going to do the full 20-foot width here, uh, but potentially not there because of deed overlaps.

Um subsequently, and the applicant can correct us.

Uh our understanding from them is that that that deed overlap actually was continued through these other properties, but they had already worked out some agreements with them, and so that's why they showed it in this manner.

But in this case, they they kind of went the more conservative route and just showed it all potentially not being there.

And so they just uh made that change there.

Uh with this one on the other side.

Actually, as staff, we did not catch this one because it was so subtle, but there is also that uh deed overlap there.

You also notice there's a deed gap on the other side, so they're working to resolve that with the neighbor as well.

It it may go in any number of directions, we don't know if for some reason they were not able to acquire that um uh or or uh take care of that overlap.

Uh when we come to this plan, it would really say cut that down to 10 feet, it would still have the eight-foot fence, would still comply with ordinance.

Um we would have to probably address something at that point to make sure that we still have the connection with the sidewalk that could potentially be uh at the site plan level, removing parking stalls and and extending that.

But that could be done at the site plan level.

Again, this is a concept.

Uh so uh if changes are needed to meet certain things, or if uh if there's something specific that you'd like to add to say a motion uh that gets put into the development agreement, that's also an option.

Uh but in this case, uh staff is confident that uh that will be able to be resolved in one of the two ways.

Thanks.

Just to clarify then, uh Todd on that south end by 138.

Is that an eight-foot concrete wall?

Yes.

Okay.

But I figured we better look it up.

Yeah.

And then we've got a couple of other quen, you do too, I'm sure.

Um, a couple of other questions.

I'll come to that.

Well, let's talk about that with the fence on the north side of the property where uh it goes eight feet, and then right now at six feet.

Um you stated that the developer said that the residents there preferred to keep it as a six-foot fence.

Um I'm hoping that I hear some comment that helps us know if they want six foot or eight foot height.

So I hope people are hearing what I'm saying on that.

Um, and then another question I have on the elevations on 300 east, uh, that buffer, we're basically looking at when you add that landscape buffer going up three and a half feet and a six-foot fence.

That's close to almost ten feet of a height buffer with also landscaping, correct?

I just want to make sure I'm understanding that correctly.

Uh nine feet.

Yeah, nine or eight.

Um, they do mention in the agreement, and that kind of goes back to that wall.

Uh obviously at this conceptual phase, they don't know if they will need to kind of put a retaining wall there or not, or if some section of it may need it or not.

So there may be some fluctuation in the berm height.

I think the uh intent is to kind of keep it all at the same elevation.

Uh but that may look different as you go down the street, make it taller on one end, shorter on the other.

Um somewhere between eight and nine.

If I can chime in, I've I've got the development agreement document open here.

So the development agreement says that that berm along third will be two and a half feet tall.

So it says approximately two and a half feet tall, plus there'll be the six-foot fence on top of that.

Um so that berm will have to be two and a half feet tall along the length of third going there.

Um so the kind of what we potentially don't know is or the developer doesn't know if they'll need the retaining wall or not on the back end, but that won't impact the landscaping and the wall and the berm along third.

Yeah.

But you're saying two and a half feet here.

We that's just a three.

About two and a half feet.

So we're stalking about an eight and a half foot wall buffer.

Which would which would be approximately the same as on that when it uh here we are, as it comes into this far end where we would have the eight-foot fence on the south.

Okay.

So it would be approximately the same height.

Okay.

And then the reduced sign height to 20 feet, that is a be similar in height, those the Harman's signs across the I think Jen looked at that.

I don't yeah, I believe so.

I wasn't able to find the original building permits for those signs, not saying that they don't have them, saying that they're they're old enough that they're they're we don't have them digitally.

Um but looking at them, I do believe the signs of the Harman's meets our code.

Uh yeah, they should meet our code.

Yeah.

But 20 feet, they're actually reducing it than what they could have in that area, right?

They're reducing it to comply with ordinance.

Okay, we're asking for something taller.

They're gonna reduce that one to comply.

And then a question about increasing the light poles in the middle area to 22 and a half feet.

What's what's the reason why they need two and a half more feet?

They can probably explain that better.

Uh it is probably dealing a little bit with the light coverage of the parking lot, um, number of poles, things like that.

They are asking for an increase in the number of poles uh than what we would otherwise allow.

Um is it because of the fi is the fixture because of it just the downward illumination?

So the fix the fixture height would be at 25 feet, so they would still have like a two and a half foot concrete base underneath them.

Our ordinance just looks at the height of the pole, not the base.

Okay.

And then one other question, um, the illumination of the gas station canopy.

Yes.

What would normally be allowed?

I know you said they asked for 60, they reduced it to 56 or whatever.

What would be our code?

What would we normally allow?

Code would be 15 foot candles.

Um recommendations of other organizations would put fuel canopies, say for a dark sky kind of a thing at between 20 and 30.

Um, but uh we have noted that there are a number of fuel canopies that are in that 40 to 60 range.

Um that's not unusual for uh other fuel canopies.

We can't always speak to to each and every one of them.

Some of them predated things, some of them may have just put them in.

We've kind of looked at other cities as well.

I don't know if there's anything Jen would want to add.

She looked at a bunch of them as well.

No, I we did look at some different uh lighting plans from different um uh gas stations in the city, mostly gas stations frankly predate our current lighting code, so they don't comply and there are gonna be higher uh foot candle levels than what our current code allows.

So that's all I have.

Sorry, thank you.

Okay, I have some questions.

Um I mean you kind of address this though.

If there's the overlap question on the north section by retail anchor one, um is there a a way to to include language at this?

There will still be a sidewalk regardless of what that ends up being.

You you could include that in a motion.

Kind of make that an express point.

Okay.

Some of these deviations for the lighting standards.

Are any of these requested deviations adjacent to residential properties that are they more in the center and yeah, the development agreement makes it clear that they're going to comply with city code with respect to things that are adjacent to the residential.

That includes the illumination, that includes the light pull height, uh, and the other standards and ordinance.

Really, where their requested deviations probably shall we say take hold is more in the centralized area here of the parking lot.

They would have a few additional polls uh over what our our code would allow.

Um, and I don't know what the latest calculation was.

Um, but I think we we allow one for every 10,000 square feet.

I think they were looking for one for every 8,000 square feet initially.

Uh I don't know what the calculation is.

The applicant might know what that is now.

Uh but then the increased height uh also helps them to use less poles uh because it can spread the light out further.

Um but that would be again in the central area.

We actually do have a portion of our code that allows you to tier or step the lights higher, even up to 30 feet of pole height.

Um, but they didn't necessarily mimic it to that.

They're just looking to request additional pull height for the design that they have.

Uh it does it does follow it generally uh to have the additional pull height in the center.

And then of course the the last one is just the increase uh that they feel they need for the illumination under the fuel canopy.

Okay, thank you.

And I have a question about um the reduction of strict compliance regarding the trees.

Is there are they substituting a different language in there or just saying we don't have to abide by the that's more based on just trying to do a uh the rough count of the trees, the area, what would typically be required, how many they have.

Again, not knowing what the end result of uh their negotiations with the deed overlaps is it could meet it, or it could be just short a couple of trees.

And so is reduction kind of implies that it's gonna be close, that language then.

Yeah, in this case it's very close.

Okay, so it's uh in the in the previous one to the planning commission, it was more obvious that it was not going to get very close with this new one.

Um I dare say it probably will comply in the end.

Okay, um, and just a couple more.

Um I think you know, traffic is obviously a big concern.

Uh so for this um development agreement, we should should we also include that that cross ass access.

They've already got it included in the proposal.

That's already in there.

It's already included in there.

So it was removed from the last one, but this one was kept in okay.

Um and then uh again with the the um traffic.

There is in the agreement, there is language for a traffic study, an additional traffic study.

Is that correct?

Yes.

It ties it to a few different things.

Typically, we're not gonna look for a traffic study again until the site plan.

Uh they have done uh and Scott may be bet better to answer, but they have done some initial preliminary traffic studies to try and uh figure out what they need to design to.

Uh but ultimately we're going to kind of look for that final one uh at the with the site plan.

Okay.

Um I know one issue that has been brought up is the the we don't want trucks to be coming on third east.

You mentioned that there'll be a sign, but that sign face into the development and not out, or will it face both ways?

Well, we have that.

So my understanding I know this probably doesn't show up very well.

It's kind of gonna run east-west, so it's kind of visible.

Um it will not be illuminated.

That's probably another uh big thing to point out there.

It's not gonna have illumination or anything like that.

There'd be no illumination, any other signs on the back, anything that would uh potentially impact the adjacent residences across the street.

But uh yeah, the idea there is that the sign is kind of a regulatory sign, if you will.

That's how they've uh characterized it as well, uh just indicating that there's no truck traffic, and then uh let's see, I went the wrong way.

Um you'll see on the site plan there, they're looking to also uh install some kind of uh pork chop or or other uh similar mechanism to indicate that this is really just to write in and write out uh not and it would would kind of impede the truck traffic, if you will.

So it wouldn't be something they would be looking to do uh in the first place.

We would still want it uh to comply with fire code and whatnot so that emergency vehicles are able to get in and out as needed.

Is that pork chop listed in the development agreement?

Hmm.

Or is that something we need to add?

I think it's it's in the development agreement by the fact that the site plan is there.

We've had the discussions with them, I know.

Um engineering has, so uh it is part of that.

We don't want to get it mixed up with the meat department, so yeah.

Come on, lighten up you guys.

So do we need to maybe be specific about mentioning the pork chop?

I I would I just did a search in the document for the word pork chop and it didn't come up.

Uh they may be calling it something different, but um include that in your motion and then we can double check, make sure that it is in there.

There's another Brandy, do you have any more questions?

Another quick question.

Um we talked about a Hawkeye crossing.

Um and I know that there needs to be a study done to determine where that would go.

Um it can't go right at an intersection, from what I understand.

Um so I know there's been a lot of discussion about wanting to have one like at Stokes Avenue, but because there's that's an intersection stop sign.

We can't do a Hawkeye crossing there.

So can you guide us on where that could possibly go and what the how that what the process would be in having that installed?

I'm gonna turn to Scott there because I know he's way more knowledgeable on that than I am.

So a Hawk signal would need to be warranted, so that would be the first step is to do a warrant analysis, and uh then just determining where that would be located, and then the funding would have to be a provided, and then we could uh install it, assuming that it did warrant.

Uh but I can't answer that question until we actually do warrant analysis.

So it could go near Stokes, it could go somewhere else.

And then is there something I I don't recall in the agreement?

We'd had discussions that the developer would help in sharing part of the cost of that Hawkeye signal.

I can handle that.

Mike, do you have someone there?

I spoke to their representative today, and they would if it's warranted, they are willing to pay half of that cost.

So we would need to put that in this agreement too, then say so.

I think the Hawk signal is indicated in the development agreement as a as a possibility, but we just need to change that.

Um the contribution will be split.

Okay.

Can I ask about on the signage?

So actually, one quick question on your elevations out parcel building slide.

You have a pad D.

But I don't see a pad D on here.

Is that maybe the fuel screen?

The fuel okay, so it just hasn't gone.

There isn't one that I don't know about.

Maybe it's the old fuels what it was gonna be.

And that may also just be uh some changes between iterations over time.

Okay, yeah, I know what you're you're talking about.

We have maybe I went too far back the other way.

Right.

Yeah, pad C and Pad D.

Yeah.

A, B, C and D.

So there's an A, B, and C on the plan, but not a so a previous rendition of the concept site plan showed a small pad building next to the fuel center.

So I believe with the latest rendition, they eliminated that uh pad site in favor of additional parking.

Okay.

Yep.

Great.

And on the signs on the uh variances for the signs, I'm just looking on that.

And the it looks like the sign on a hundred and thirty-eight.

Um that C sign is the same as the D sign.

So I that's a big sign right next to a couple uh right next to the uh residential area, as opposed to you know the D that's out there at Bangater at 150.

That makes sense that that would be a big one.

Um but I think it's a little would be on the interior.

Uh and as you can see, a setback approximately uh same as as the adjacent residential home.

It would still have to meet our typical code for setbacks, things like that from and and clear view at the intersection as well.

So although this is representative of the conceptual location we go, and we would would probably hold them to that as far as it would need to go on the interior, not that exterior.

Uh so that sign they're not asking for a variance on the high they could answer why they're asking for that.

I don't know.

Okay.

The on C, they are asking for additional height.

Yes.

Yes.

And what's the height on C I believe it's the 15 and a half?

Okay.

15 and a half.

I I don't think it exceeds Harmon's height signs, though.

I think that's a different one.

Yeah.

Yeah.

But I I don't know.

Not on the yeah, on the Bangator Highway side, those those are the yeah, like the A one is the 20 foot, and yeah, that makes sense.

Any further questions for Mr.

Draper.

You want to make a motion to take a break?

All right.

Motion to take a five minute break.

Mr.

Mayor, can I make a motion to take a five-minute break?

Second.

All right, we have a motion to second, take a five minute break.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Are there any opposed?

All right, we'll be in recess for five minutes.

All right, ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to call our moving back to order.

If we could council members, are there any more questions for Mr.

Draper?

All right.

Mr.

Rasmussen, I don't see you.

I see you now.

Come on, up, sir.

Mayor, members of the council, my name is Dwayne Rasmussen, address 1224 West Samuel Holt Drive in South Jordan, Utah.

Appreciate the opportunity to be here tonight and discuss this development agreement with you.

Appreciate the fact that uh you passed the zoning contingent on this development agreement, and I think we've done as much as we can possibly do to reach out to the recommendations that the planning commission made to you.

And I think Jen and the staff have been very, very thorough in their explanation of that.

My compliments to your staff for working so hard and tirelessly on this development agreement over the last 60 to 90 days, as we have submitted red lines and exchanged uh ideas and so forth as to how to get to an acceptable agreement here.

Uh I think they've been very thorough in presenting to you the changes from the planning commission plan to this plan, which involves a lot more planting along the uh north property, our north property line, our east property line, our north property line going out to third east, and more planting along the uh 138 south as well.

Um this is Troy Wilverton with AWA, he is the engineer for the major tenant, and he may add some things when I'm done here if that's okay with you.

Um the planning commission, I thought was very deliberate in their uh recommendations to you and passing along the concerns that they had.

And we have been again, like I say, over the last week and a half to two weeks working with the staff to get those implemented.

Um the lighting, I'm gonna have Mr.

Wilverton address.

The staff has mentioned boundary line issues, and there are a few overlaps and gaps that will need to be adjusted before we go to site plan.

Uh, one other thing I'd like to make a comment on, and that is we are clearly in agreement with Mr.

Openshaw about a reciprocal asset's agreement on the corner.

Uh, and that is ready to be signed, and we've heard the mayor say he won't sign an agreement until he gets it.

So we have a there's a small boundary line issue there that we are addressing right now.

Otherwise, it'd be signed and recorded immediately.

One other thing for your uh edification, and that is along with the improvement or the right-of-way that Mr.

Openshaw is dedicating.

Mr.

Lloyd is also dedicating a significant amount of fundage along Bangetter for the widening of Bangater Highway.

I did have a meeting last night with the two neighbors up at the north end of the project on the east side in that little subdivision up there with Mr.

Staggs and his father-in-law Gus.

There's a retention basin behind that wall.

I think I may have misspoke.

I don't know that I did.

They never said they didn't want an eight-foot fence.

I talked them into a six-foot fence with a planting that's being shown there right now.

They made it clear to me here that they'd prefer to have the eight-foot fence along that wall, and that's okay with us.

Uh the problem that I explained to them last night is that six-foot fence that is there is their fence and belongs on their property line, is on their property line.

So we'll have to put a double fence in there, and we'll put an eight-foot wall on this side of it if that's what they want.

And we'll so plant it according to this plan here.

One neighbor caught me this morning, and he wasn't here during the planning commission or the this evening, and I told him that we'd gone to a six-foot fence along his property line, which is a north property line there north of that retention basin.

He was a little concerned until he saw the planting plan.

I'm not speaking for him, but on his way out, he said, I'd rather have green than I would an eight-foot wall.

Because I think he doesn't want to feel like he's enclosed.

I'm not speaking for him.

If I misinterpreted it, I'm sure you'll hear from him.

Um I think the signs speak for themselves.

Uh we we prefer the deviation on the monument signs.

We got the uh the tall center sign down to comply with your code.

Uh, and then to move to the hock signal.

Um, we have told Mr.

Barker that once it's warranted and you could decide on a location for it, we will participate in the installation of that hawk signal.

Uh, and I told the neighbors that last night as well.

Troy, do you want to answer a couple of questions on the lighting?

Troy Wolverton, 1020 North Redwood Road.

Wait, 2010.

It's always confused me with the name and address for your Troy Wolverton, 2010 North Redwood Road.

Sorry, I said 1020, which is the address here.

It still comes out sometimes.

Uh Jen, do you have that uh couple of slides that I can just kind of walk through with the council.

I mean it's uh the 6B applicant.

Yeah.

Oh, yes, that's right.

So, real quick, just running through these uh got the site plan that you've seen before.

Uh, I think signage has been pretty well covered, but just wanted to show the 30-foot of the Day Dairy.

The one at the corner there in front of the five guys is a 20-foot sign, which is very comparable to what we're asking for at this time.

This is another one that is greater than 24 feet that just kind of shows these panels to give you a feeling of size, are 30 inches in height.

The main issue that we wanted to cover was the lighting under the fuel canopy.

This is the chevron at uh 123rd South.

For those that know, most civil engineers don't have much of a social life, so this is what we do in our evenings is we go around and measure the foot candles underneath fuel canopies.

And uh, this particular holiday oil has 31 foot candles under its canopy.

The 7-Eleven is kind of interesting.

This one has 31 under the canopy, but you'll notice there's a little wider or brighter strip of light around the outer portion of the canopy, and I'll show you what that is in just a moment.

This one uh is one of my personal favorites.

It's an older holiday, and uh many of you I'm sure have purchased gas there.

I have, and uh, it's at 86-foot candles.

This uh one here is where, if you notice that wider bright light that comes down from this strip, it's not under the canopy, so it complies, or at least may comply, but it's 53 under the canopy foot candles and 77-foot candles if you're in this brighter strip along the outside.

And most of you are familiar with the 711 at the corner of 7th East and 123rd.

So, again, to give you kind of a feel of how bright are we really talking about.

This one is the Chevron up on Draper Parkway.

It's at 86 foot candles.

This one is the one who started your ordinance to change.

This is the Chevron at Traverse Ridge Road.

Jim Bolzer was receiving many complaints at that time.

Some might remember his name as a planner, used to serve here.

Uh this was up on Traverse Ridge before the uh other construction around here.

You could see this from the interstate.

And mostly it's just because I took the picture purposefully.

When you're down in the valley and you're looking up, you see the lights under the canopy.

And while you're not standing in 53 foot candles down on the interstate, you can see the lighting.

And again, most of you I think are familiar with this chevron as well.

Purchase gas here many times.

Across the way is the uh 711, which does comply with the current code at 23 foot candles.

This appears much brighter than it really is on my phone camera, and just wanted to point out the yellow darker lighting is uh more in compliance with closer to what the code would require now.

This one is a Sinclair that's on Bangar Parkway at 56 foot candles.

This is Harman's at 31 foot candles.

This is an America First Credit Union, which is the main reason I wanted to show this.

Similar with cameras and security associated with uh credit union.

They have 51 foot candles under their drive-through.

And the reason for that is for facial recognition, which is what Smith's or what the grocer here is asking for.

This is a picture from the bridge at Bangater in Redwood of a fuel canopy that's over in um Bluffdale.

And the intent here is to kind of just give you an idea of what does the canopy look like if you're looking from above down on the canopy.

Well lit, of course, under the canopy.

And my phone uh camera doesn't take a great picture of the Wendy sign or the Golden West Credit Union.

This is a credit union at night as well, as well as the Wendy's building.

What I did want to point out that may be of interest to the council is the clearance height on this canopy is at 16 feet.

These lights are at a fixture height, we refer to, and the fixture height is just two and a half feet taller than the pole height.

That's a 35-foot pole or a 37 and a half foot canopy is uh has been explained you or sorry, the the fixture height.

As has been explained, we just wanted the buildings to block the lighting, and which is why we went from the request of originally being 30 feet in height down to 25.

So the buildings can block those lights.

This is a close-up picture of that fuel canopy in uh Bluffdale, and to give you kind of an idea of what it looks like and and how bright it would be if you compare it to the other photos.

Same phone camera.

This uh has again there is some cameras.

I should probably shouldn't point out where the cameras are, but anyway, for security reasons, there are cameras here.

There is outdoors concession sales that are sold here, and the purpose of that is to added security.

There's other places where you can see other concession type sales around the fix the pumps there, the product dispensers.

Lastly, I wanted to show this one.

If you compare it to the previous one, this is uh this color of these columns is called essential gray.

And in the evening, this tends to look rather sterile or almost white.

And uh what had been done in California for a fuel center of a similar nature.

Uh, the city had asked for it to be changed a little bit, and they asked for it to be painted brown underneath.

I just wanted to show you that to see if there's a concern about maybe reducing some of the reflective light.

This is another possible option that would be considered or offered by the the tenants here.

And then lastly, this kind of shows the canopy at night.

Same foot candle request, same uh security issues and so forth.

It just shows what that darker paint would look like to reduce against some of the reflectivity on the light.

And this is in Indio, California, where this was required.

That's the information that I have about the lighting.

Any questions for Mr.

Wolverton?

Thank you.

Go ahead.

You're now as well educated on lighting as I as I am.

Um it's it's quite a science.

I think the important thing to say about under the fuel canopy here is it's all about security late at night when people are buying gas and making sure that they're safe.

Uh and I think we Troy has pointed out uh the importance of it here.

So there are some changes that we can make, but it still needs to be uh bright enough to make people feel secure to come out and buy their gas, reach into their wallet, pull out their credit card, and then the the uh ancillary sales.

I think Todd has done a great job of presenting to you our our case for the development agreement.

I'm happy to answer any questions you may have regarding what he said or what I said or choice.

I just thought of a question.

Um Todd with the foot candles.

How bright of a foot candle do you need to have for the facial recognition to be effective?

Similar to what you saw at the America First Credit Union, which showed 51, it's it's in that range.

So we're asking for 57.

And that's just uh based on the photometric study that's completed for that canopy.

That's what it's reading.

Um if it's somewhere in that range, that's what we're looking for.

So and I mean, if there was a concern about that lighting, it would just mean that they would reduce to the next level of lighting for that under canopy lighting.

Okay.

Thanks.

Any questions for Mr.

Rasmussen?

All right, we'll give you the last word, sir.

Thank you.

All right, this is a public hearing ordinance 1617.

All right format.

Sorry.

Ordinance uh is a public hearing ordinance 1717.

It's an ordinance approving the Bangor Crossroads Development Agreement of approximately 17.88 acres of property located at approximately 1378 to South 300 East in Draper City.

I have cards, Mr.

Clark.

Come on up, sir.

Can you show a map showing that Johnson?

I mean the the Smiths or the uh park that's north of here, along with this where this traffic is going to flow.

Yeah, just the part north of that shows the the where the traffic's gonna flow on the 150 over to Smith's Park.

Bob Clark 13590 South 30 East.

I'm finding myself on a traffic island, which I would call a traffic um tornado.

You've got a ride in, ride out thing going into this thing, and everything is gonna go around in a big circle here.

Think what it's gonna do to you when somebody has to get out of this development who lives east of this area, and they have to go up past a school that drops 700 kids off a day.

They go past the uh the uh water park where kids are at, they go across it, go past the traffic stop, they turn up on Smith's Park and go past the skate park and they go past a um dog park, and then you got to go around to get out of there.

I just think you're creating a disaster if you're gonna have to live with the rest of your life.

I would suggest that you do something with a traffic study that's not done by the developer, because I think you'll find the numbers are double what they're telling you they're gonna be as far as traffic on this thing, and it's not gonna work for us.

Second thing I asked Mr.

Barker when I met with him, and I appreciate the opportunity to meet.

I said, if you ever do anything, just do a survey to see what you're gonna lose when you take an anchor off of 123rd and stuff it down here on on the 138th and put it next to another grocery store.

There ought to be a survey.

Most big companies that before they move into a big uh business with a business like an RC Willie or uh IKEA, they do a survey to see what they're what's gonna happen to their budget as far as what's gonna go on with that.

And I I believe that what's gonna I mean I've spent 48 years calling on retail dealers as a wholesaler.

And I believe what will happen here is if you pull an anchor out of that area or there, you're gonna diminish that that that tax space that you're chasing, bring it down here and try to have them compete with each other and see who's gonna survive in it.

So I think it'd be worth your while to find somebody that we could do a survey that said, what are we doing?

Are we really doing a good job for our constituents, which is the citizens, or are we just chasing tax dollars that are gonna hurt us in the long run?

So I'd appreciate you considering both those things.

We've had several people ask you to do a traffic study before you pass this thing off, and I think that would be the right issue.

So appreciate it.

Thank you, Paul.

Next, Rosemary Thomas Rosemary Thomas, 13703 Brown Farm Lane.

I want to begin with process and public notice because that is foundational to everything else.

Draper City has not properly informed residents of this meeting.

No required signage has been posted along 300 east, one of the most significantly impacted roadways.

City code clearly states that all sides of the subject property must have signage at least 10 days in advance.

Under Draper City Code 95060 and state code, these requirements are explicit.

At least one sign must be placed on every street the property touches, and if it does not directly abut a street, a nearby location must be designated.

The city is also responsible for maintaining these signs and ensuring they remain visible even if they fall over or are stolen.

The city cannot allow this to be another exception in the long list of code exceptions agreed upon for this development.

Signs were posted along Bangetar and 138 high traffic corridors, where it's very difficult to read, but not within the neighborhood most directly impacted.

And we have evidence to show this.

The city cannot prevent Draper residents who daily travel down through 30 east from having a fair and reasonable opportunity to be informed and participate.

Yes, notices may have been mailed to those within 300 feet of the site, but those who will be affected daily will not be were not informed.

I personally had to search for this meeting on the city's website because no signs were posted where I would be able to see and read them.

The land use decision must be postponed until the city properly notifies affected residents in accordance with its own code.

Third East is not a commercial corridor.

It is a neighborhood street.

It serves families and children who rely on it for safe, consistent access to their homes.

Converting it into a route that supports commercial traffic would change the character of this area in ways that cannot be undone.

And the reality is this with no left turn access onto Bangetur, this project shifts even more burden onto Third East.

Traffic doesn't disappear, it gets redirected.

That means more pressure on a street that was never designed to handle this level of volume or intensity.

And now we talk about the port shop that Dwayne Rasmussen assured us would be installed, and that's a question that we still don't know.

Thus leaving third east open to truck access and left turns into the property.

If this project moves forward, there must be meaningful enforceable protections, not just ideas, but physical solutions that prevent trucks from entering third east.

Not signage that can be ignored, but design features that make it impossible.

Buffering must also be done correctly.

We need mature trees, at least 20 feet tall at installation, not saplings that will take decades to grow if they even survive.

The buffer needs to function immediately, not in 20 years.

I am very frustrated with the council considering a proposal where you give a long list of exceptions to establish codes to enable an oversized commercial project to proceed.

Given the concerns already identified and the issues raised again tonight.

By code you must delay this decision until proper notice is given.

Thank you.

Next is Robbie Stag.

I said that right.

Come on up.

Um usually I fly by seat in my pants with this, but your name and address, please.

Yep, my name's Robbie Stag.

I live at 13598 Sheer Lane.

Um if we'll go to exhibit H for me, please.

Um of the things that I want to address real quick, and it was addressed by Mr.

Rasmussen, is that we never said that we don't want the eight-foot wall.

All right.

We want the eight-foot wall, and we want all the tree plantings for the new this new landscape plan that they have put forward for them.

Um I know that he said that it will have to be built adjacent to our six-foot wall, which is perfectly fine.

But as long as it started at the base of the six-foot wall and not two feet down, so the eight-foot wall comes to the height of the six-foot wall because there was talk of grading for this area, which potentially could who knows what it will be.

They don't want to truck in a lot of dirt, that's fine.

But the base of that wall needs to start at the base of our six-foot wall, so it is actually an eight-foot wall and another six-foot wall.

Um, that's kind of what our request is with that.

And then once again, just all the landscaping there.

I did send an email to Mr.

Barker earlier this morning, and he has read over it with our concerns about a lot of this.

Um, and then the other thing that I want to address is um, like Bob Clark said, with everybody kind of in a circular motion around here.

Um, it is gonna up the traffic on 300 east, and I know you've heard a lot about it.

The Hawk system, yes, I am the one that pretty much put that forward because it is gonna increase traffic on 300 East.

Um, I do know that studies need to be done, needs to be in compliance with certain standards for it to meet with highway traffic safety and all that.

Um I know that there was some not wanting it on Brown Farm Lake, so it would be too close to that eventual light.

Who knows when that will be in?

Um, so hence why I think the Stokes Avenue in 300 East is the better spot for it because it is right across from Channing Hall.

Uh, a lot of homes, churches, and uh kids walking to Willow Springs.

Um, that's pretty much all I have.

Just once again reiterate that the words of we don't want the eight-foot wall never came out of my mouth, because that really kind of set me off.

I've been pretty good at this, but that wasn't what was ever said.

So yeah, and like I said, I am willing to help out with the Hawk system, however, whatever needs to be done to help with that.

I think it's vitally important for the kids and the surrounding area to be able to access that.

I know there are several people in the neighborhood to the north that use that and they are scared for their kids to cross the lane, even they are because people just don't pay attention there.

So thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Gus Fernando.

I see that right.

Come on up.

Uh Gus Bernardo at 13608 South Charlene.

Um, I just want to bring it up one item here very quick.

How about uh the light uh traffic light is going to be installed 1383?

I think it's being talked about previously.

This item is uh that it will be stalled during the uh the planning commission was saying that 138 and 300 uh east uh light it was gonna be stalled in the phase two of the construction if I'm not correct uh mistaken, or if it's gonna be done on the phase one.

I'd just like to have some clear clear and understanding about this.

And if it is considered on plan two, is this gonna be just to stop signing there during the construction period into a certain period?

I just would like to the residents here, myself to be able to understand a part of the traffic light when they actually will be installed during what phase of the construction or planning or uh and uh and I'd like just to very quickly uh pretty much go agree with Robbie Stagg about the the uh A-foot fence and what we needed to make sure we all see compliance with everyone else in the area right here along with this side and this back fence right here.

It should be all eight feet fence fall uh a fancy eight feet fancy right there all the way around.

And uh, if you could uh make sure you uh don't strongly ask you to if you can uh motion that on your definite decision, that would be great.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Who'd like to be next?

Come on up.

Good evening, council.

My name is Matt Smith, 329 East Brown Farm Lane.

I realize that Hale's Engineering has responded to my concerns uh to the city regarding the traffic study, but frankly, their response is irrelevant to the concerns I'm raising tonight.

The Hale study, let me be clear, does not revise the trip generation numbers, recalculate the level of service analysis, acknowledge any error in the original study, or commit to any corrective analysis.

Those deficiencies absolutely matter, but they're not the main reason I'm concerned tonight.

What concerns me is that the city council is voting on this agreement and zoning change before the additional analysis that we've talked about and you said would occur.

Between January and February, we share deficiencies in the Hill study with city council members in face-to-face meetings.

We are very pleased that a new traffic study will be prepared for the property.

However, voting before the new traffic study makes absolutely no sense.

How will you control the outcome of that study?

Additionally, we requested in each of these meetings with city council members that a peer review of the Hill study be conducted.

And even Mr.

York said he would be willing to fund that.

At the March 26th planning commission meeting, city staff, I think that was you, Mike, said that an independent peer review would be conducted of that study.

And tonight we're voting to change this zone before that peer review happens.

So why is why are we doing that?

Where is the peer review and when will that be done?

To me, approving the development tonight is entirely out of sequence.

Maybe not by strict code, but certainly by logic, analysis, and good judgment.

From the perspective of residents, it feels very much like those earlier commitments were meant to placate concerns rather than really to address them.

We elected the city council to act in the best interest of Draper citizens.

Approving the development before the promised traffic study and peer review are completed does not meet that responsibility.

As I've said before, approving the zoning change based on such a thin traffic analysis risks becoming a breach of public trust.

Look, we all support responsible commercial growth, but growth cannot come at the expense of safety, livability, and sound analysis.

The obligation here is to all Draper citizens who travel these roads, not just the property owner who seeks approval.

And this is not about being for or against development.

It's about making decisions with complete and credible information.

Please, City Council, deny the ordinance tonight.

Complete the new traffic study.

Conduct the independent peer review.

Then make the decision regarding this change.

We, the citizens of Draper, deserve that level of due diligence from our city council.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'd like to be next.

Come on up.

Hi, my name is Brandon Thomas, live at 366 East Brown Farm Lane.

I just have three points I want to make.

My main contention is about the entrance on 300 East.

I believe that that will be the primary uh access point for almost anyone attempting to travel east.

All the other uh exits will require you to go through multiple lights to get there.

And I just think it'll be the easiest way and where the traffic will flow.

I request the city mandate the uh pork chop as part of the final agreement.

Also uh consider installing a height restrictor that would make it impossible for semi-trucks and the large vehicles to access or exit at that point, and then finally uh to mandate in the agreement that the berm along 300 east plus the wall equals at least eight and a half feet.

Uh and that's all my points.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Who'd like to be next?

David York, uh, same conditional approval, same four conditions, same result.

None of them met.

On traffic, the proposed ordinance you're voting on tonight says the DA adequately addresses traffic, and yet section 2.3.3 of the new DA requires a traffic impact study based on what they're actually going to build only after you give them vested rights.

Why do you need a post DA traffic study if the DA has already adequately addressed traffic?

And what are you gonna do when the traffic study fails?

On roadway improvements and infrastructure funding, all of that funding by the city is deferred to a separate reimbursement agreement that per section 22 takes legal precedence over this DA.

You are approving a DA that is subject to another agreement that's not even before you.

And section 9.9 waves the city's right to sue for monetary damages if the developer breaches this agreement.

On phasing, there is no plan for phasing.

Now I want to talk about what this project does to the people who live next to it, because that's what this is really about.

Three residential properties sit directly south of this development.

When this is built, those properties will be orphaned, surrounded on all sides by commercial development, cut off from residential neighborhood that they've been a part of for years with drive-throughs in their backyard, subjected to commercial traffic, constant noise, lighting, and delivery trucks.

Those families will lose hundreds of thousands of dollars in property value, exposed to loading docks, dumpsters, and drive-through lanes, not to not for a few months during construction, but permanently.

Neighboring homeowners to the east, north, and west will face noise and light pollution and dramatic changes to traffic forever.

And the ordinances which exist to protect residential property values, lighting standards, buffer zones, area, service area orientation away from residential, are all being violated or waived in this DA.

Thirteen separate significant code exceptions are being granted to the developer.

The developer profits and moves on.

The city allegedly gets increased tax revenue.

And the neighbors, they will pay the price when their home values and home enjoyment take the hit.

These are real families, real homes, real financial devastation.

Just like OpenShaw, residents have had no time to review these impacts or understand what their future will look like.

So here's where we are.

Same four requirements that you said you would meet, all unmet.

A traffic study based on a fictional project.

Neighbors who will bear the cost of this development for the rest of their lives while the developer is long gone.

It's said between good, fast, and cheap, you can usually only get two.

In this case, you're only getting fast because this won't be good for the neighbors and it won't be cheap for the city.

Thank you.

Who'd like to be next?

I'm with Kavey.

13691 South Brown Farm Lane.

I really just want to say hi to my neighbor Troy Walker.

I haven't seen you for a while.

You're always at meetings like this.

Um hard decision, obviously, you guys are making.

Uh, it seems like it's been made, but um, but I just want to address um I was there, I sold all these homes to everybody, Troy as well, and helped Ivory Homes develop just just uh east of Third East.

And I was there in the meeting when we decided on trees, and I didn't think anything of it because I was new at the company and I didn't know anything.

And we didn't, we chose not to do the sycamores in Fred's neighborhood.

Beautiful neighborhood.

I love our neighborhood.

But we did these flowering plums, I think it is.

And um it makes a difference.

You feel it.

And so the decisions you have in front of you, these little things, the uh um the city council version is a big deal.

The pork chop is a big deal.

Um just those little trees and the and the the height and hold them to it.

Uh you you know, uh, Mr.

Rasmussen, it affects his margins for sure, but if you hold him to those details as a council, it feels different, it's better.

And um, all those little things you're looking at.

If this is gonna happen, it's gonna happen and it will be hard.

But um please hold on to those details and and focus on that because uh you feel it, and and Fred, you feel it in your neighborhood, and Troy, you feel it in your his neighborhood.

They're both beautiful, but it does make a big difference, these the the berms, the walls, and and um and if you've worked with Todd Draper before, he's bam.

It's it's exact, it's details.

Every single thing he requires if he's detailed.

This is seems a little vague.

It seems like we're floating.

Please pin it down, pin Mr.

Rasmussen down, and make sure you get the details and get it in writing and make sure it's on the plans, and it makes a big difference.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next.

Good evening.

Uh Fernando Lucher, 13, 720 South, 300 East.

Um, I own this piece of land is neighboring, you know, the north section of the Ancor tenant.

Um, I would like to point out a couple things, uh, discussing the previous planning meeting.

Uh the green bill to you know, the buffer area uh surrounding all the residential area is obviously incomplete.

And I think these from different perspectives is not acceptable.

You know, noise and light, uh, you know, obviously prevention, but also like being able to limit uh you know outdoor sales and any activity on this area.

So that will be the first thing.

The second thing is not um, you know, it is not detailed.

The characteristics of the air of the trees uh uh planted there.

I mean, those will be evergreens, but I was mentioned previously, those need to be uh you're mature, big enough trees to serve the purpose of uh of a living screen right right out of the box.

Um that will be my my two comments, and I would like to ask uh that you consider that uh removing these rows of parking spaces, extending the green belt, and protecting the neighborhood the neighborhood uh you know better.

If you do the count, I think there's a net positive gain uh between the different versions uh while they included these area of parking, and they just gave a little bit here and a little bit here, if I'm not mistaken.

So there should be enough room to sacrifice uh and and commit these parking spaces to that objective.

Oh thanks.

Thank you.

Next thank you.

Uh Ben Jones, 13572 South Meadow Heights Lane.

Uh, just a few a few things to add.

Um, most of what the gentleman prior to me stated, I completely agree with.

Um, I'm not sure exactly who Mr.

Rasmussen spoke to, but I live directly to the north of the uh detention pond.

Um no one has ever spoken to me about it.

Um I do want an eight-foot wall.

I do want those trees, and as rosemary said, I we need not just saplings, we need large trees.

Uh we don't want to know that this property is there, essentially.

Um, with respect to the lighting, I'd love for the uh developer to address uh why it's necessary to have 91 pole lights as opposed to 73 uh seems a bit superfluo to me.

Um the other issue, if you want to take notes, uh Mr.

Rasmussen, um what are what is the height of any wall pack lights on these buildings?

What type of lights are they on these buildings?

What direction are these lights being faced?

Um again, we don't want to know this property is there, and lastly, in regards to the traffic, please explain how it is that you think this circular uh ingress and egress thing is something that would work.

When does that ever work with any commercial property?

You only can go clockwise around this thing.

It makes no sense to be able to do this.

Uh, with that, thank you.

Thank you.

Who's next?

Trent Jarman, 314 East Brown Farm Lane.

This is my house right here.

And we've talked about a pork shop.

That sounds great, but how many people turning right at night?

Their lights are gonna be shining into my yard into my windows, destroying my home.

Um I'm just curious.

Do any of you guys want to buy my house and live there?

Uh it'd be nice if we had a traffic study, but we don't, not an accurate one, but we're pretty much toast there.

It was said this council, you had time to study this and make a smart decision, but I really don't see anything smart here plunking a big giant commercial uh development right next to a uh major neighborhood area, especially when you have the big sandbox on the other side of the freeway where you can do whatever you want over there.

Um but there is one good thing that comes out of this when Soonis moves over here every fall, we'll be able to be able to have a spirit Halloween store.

So that'll be nice.

Thank you.

Who'd like to be next?

Hi, I'm Darcy Anderson.

I live at 248 East 1380 South.

Um, going forward, I'm hoping the city can answer a couple of questions for us.

Why is this land not staying residential?

Why is housing not being built here?

Why do we need another grocery store in this area or a gas station?

We're already surrounded by large shopping center, grocery store, and many gas stations.

Turnover and vacancies are already high on 123rd South, and even over at the Harman's shopping center.

How will this be any different unless you approve something different?

If you go through with making this commercial, can it be something different?

Can it be high-end individual shopping options that we don't already have in Draper?

More of a walking destination for families to stay for dinner and be outside.

And now I have a couple of requests.

138th South can already sound like a racetrack with sounds of revving and racing, especially during the hours of 11 p.m.

and 2 a.m.

So if this goes through, could the city reduce the speed limit on 138th South and enforce the speed and a sound restriction?

If you do proceed with all of these busy commercial spaces, please, please, please do not allow a Smiths or a gas station or any fast food drive-throughs, and please reduce the city's operating, or I'm sorry, the business operating hours to help the evenings be as quiet as possible.

And lastly, as soon as possible, please extend the left turn green arrow from Bangater southbound on to 138th south, as currently only three cars can get through that green arrow.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Who'd like to be next?

My name is Christina Kessler Day, and I live at 448 Brown Farm Lane.

And would Cabee sold me my house?

And he sold Lane Lewis his house.

And he sold Rosemary and Jeff Thomas their house.

And there's a reason why we don't need these lights to be like the lights at America First, because America First does not have residential housing.

Surrounding it on three sides.

And if if if Kroger wants to put in these little computer and whatever stores, and they need lighting to do it, but that lighting's gonna destroy our our quality of life, then maybe they should think twice about putting that in.

I feel like nobody cares what's happening to our community except for the people who live in it.

And what I really want to know is what's the rush?

Who's pushing you guys?

It's kind of a rhetorical question.

I know we can't ask you questions, but who is pushing Draper City so hard that you have to break all of your codes to make this thing go through?

Like what David Damon brought up.

He's a brilliant lawyer, by the way.

He knows how to do research, and he's right on everything he said.

You are breaking all your codes, and your presidents, and you are making me lose any amount of respect for local government that I may have had.

This hurts us.

This is too big.

This does not belong here.

Kroger should not build this store here.

It is a piece of crap property with no good egress, no good ingress, and every developer in the state knows it, which is why it's taken so long for something to happen.

I spoke with a developer.

I said, Do you know this property?

And he said, Yes.

Every developer in the state of Utah has looked at this property.

And they don't take it on because they know what a piece of crap it is.

And Lloyd is making us pay for his choice to buy it.

And that's wrong.

That is wrong.

And Kroger, I will never forget that you are doing this to our community.

I would love to be able to say, forgive.

I hope I'd like to be next.

Mike Henry, I live at 403 Brown Farm Lane.

Could you pull that mic up just a little bit?

Sorry, is that better?

Maybe, yes.

Uh this will be a little bit redundant, so I'll be brief.

Um it has been stated multiple times that our wishes, our wish is that the council not approve rezoning before proper steps have been taken.

But at the very least, I would ask the following of the city council.

First, I live in the neighborhood directly east of this development.

We're going to look at the back of this store every single day.

I would ask that you ensure that the berm and the wall that are built be at a minimum of eight feet, and that the trees be at a minimum height necessary to cover the height of the building, and that these not be trees that will be at mature height in 15 to 20 years when many of us may not even you know live here any longer.

But that they the trees be mature and at a reasonable height at planting.

Is this going to be like enforcing a stop sign in a parking lot?

Um, where trucks will just find their way in and out anyway.

Um if this development proceeds short of doing away with a third east access, um, please develop it in a way that ensures that no the no truck entry will be enforced and that ensures safe passage for our kids as they uh wander out onto third east and likely across third east.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Who would like to be next?

I'm James Rogers, 382 East Brown Farm Lane.

Um I can't really say much more than's already been said, but one thing that I think has been missed on the uh exit from our neighborhood right here on 300 East.

For we only have two exits out of this neighborhood.

One is right here, and then the other is out on Stokes Avenue.

Uh so if you're getting on the freeway, you're making that left there, and we're talking about increasing that uh and it's already getting backed up.

Part of it might be solved by the light that we're putting at the end that's gonna eventually go in the end.

But you gotta consider as we we build up the traffic's gonna go down third east, we can't get out of our neighborhood, right?

Or we're gonna be sitting there uh waiting to get out.

And so, you know, this this uh uh the access right here, you know, I understand why it's there, but you know, even the the pork shop that we've talked been talking about is kind of a little bit of a slippery slope, especially where it's directly across from Brown Farm Lane.

All we need is for this clockwise piece that we've been talking about to not work and people needing to go left out of here for that pork chop to go away, and then we end up with an intersection right there.

So anyway, thank you.

Thank you.

Who's next?

My name is Greg Wall, uh 134 West, 131st South.

I'm with uh Land X development.

And I our company has the land immediately to the north of the anchor tenant grocery store under contract, and we developed the eight-lot subdivision called Concord Farm Lane, just north of that.

And we would like to um build more homes on this parcel right here.

So um the comments that I have is we think that the store will be uh uh convenient for the the people who live there.

We're not opposed to it being built, but we want to make sure that there are um mitigating factors in place to mitigate um negative impacts to the neighbors.

Uh the deed overlap is the the first thing.

There's uh it's not on this slide, it was on the one of the planning commission.

But um, if you plot the uh deed of that parcel, it includes nine feet where they have uh drawn uh on their site plan, and we have our uh title company and surveyors studying that to resolve it.

But we would like that to be a condition of approval that that's resolved before the site plan is approved.

Um the buffer is uh the thing that I'm most concerned about.

And if you can go to exhibit L that shows the zoom in on the north side of uh the anchor tenant, the grocery store, it's right here in the way it's configured north is to your left.

But um they did uh they used to have 13 spots right here in their site plan at the planning commission, and the planning commission in recommendation number six asked that that go the buffer go all the way around everywhere.

There's a residential um uh property boundary, but there's still 12 parking spaces right here, and it sticks out kind of like a sore thumb when you go back to the the overall view.

Um, and we're asking that uh there be a condition of approval that those parking spots are removed and the the trees go all the way around.

Otherwise, this residential lot is gonna be the only one that has a 3.6 foot separation.

But if you look at this sidewalk right here, if a car parks there, it'll overhang the sidewalk and someone in a wheelchair would not have ADA access through there.

And so we feel strongly that one of the conditions of approval needs to be to remove those uh those parking spaces.

Umicipal code, and I'll do it quickly.

Um it says there shall be a 20-foot horizontal buffer.

The buffer is to buffer sound sight uh heat from the heat island effect, and uh it can the at the most be reduced to 10 feet.

If it's reduced to 10 feet, it requires an eight-foot wall, but it says under in no event shall structures or uses such as but not limited to parking lots and vehicular use areas be permitted in land use buffers.

So please remove those parking spaces.

Thank you.

Thanks, sir.

Who'd like to be next?

Hi, my name is Wilson Simons.

I live at 189 East, 13560 South.

Uh, I like to speak plainly today about the traffic situation in the area.

It's not just inconvenient, it's failing the people who live there currently, even without any development.

Mornings uh around the school, which I live just by Channing Hall, which is crazy in the mornings and the afternoons.

Uh I do not suggest driving around at that time.

Um it it is difficult and dangerous to leave in the mornings and the afternoons.

Uh that's for both 150 east and uh 300 east.

In the afternoons, traffic can back up all the way to the roundabout and even beyond that, which just becomes a headache and becomes dangerous for the kids and the pedestrians who are trying to get around in that area.

Um Saturdays are also consistently bad with the sports that are going on at Smithfield's park that backs up all over the place and becomes a nightmare to to drive around.

And again, this is all without a development, just a reminder.

Um, and then also out of my uh kitchen window, I can see 150 east every night.

I see bumper to bumper traffic.

It's um every night, like consistently.

I can hear the honking.

Um, it's horrible.

Uh I've got four young kids, and it's not safe for them to cross third east.

It's never been, um, even at the marked uh crosswalks.

Uh as a parent, when I don't feel comfortable sending my kids anywhere around my home, either to 150 east or a third, like that's a problem, and I don't like it.

I grew up on the streets of Draper, and I used to go wherever I wanted to go.

And now with our kids, we just want to keep them in and close because we feel it's so dangerous.

And if there's ever a question, if if around our street or on third east needs a hawk system, I will be the first to be in line to show everybody how dangerous it is.

Um, I'm sure my wife was right there with me.

So all of these things need to be considered before we start uh developing the area.

Let's see, I'm trying to jump ahead real quick.

Uh one question I do have was the study, the traffic study that was completed.

Um did it have Chick-fil-A and the new hotel accounted for in that traffic study.

I'm not entirely sure.

I'd love an answer on that because if it was that the conclusions don't match what residents are experiencing now, and if it wasn't, then we're making decisions based on outdated assumptions, which is a major concern.

I also want to address the current development discussions in the area.

Seems like the developer is asking for multiple deviations from the code, primarily around lighting and parking, and from a residence perspective, that doesn't seem to be much of a give and take.

It feels like a lot of uh of us giving and not taking.

Um that's not great to be a part of in a community, and it just sucks to have a deal to deal with that.

Um I think that's all that I have.

I just hope that what we have to say is being considered, and we appreciate your time.

Thank you.

Would I be next?

My name's Eileen Duffield Wolf, address 1368 South 5th 500 East.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

Um I agree with many of the things that have already been said.

Um we already know we have a housing issue.

So why are we trying to go with something commercial rather than more homes for people that need them?

That's really what makes the most sense for that piece of land right there.

Um yeah, I mean, really truly everything everybody has spoken about so far.

I I really hope you guys listen to it and don't make a decision upon this tonight that you wait for the studies, make a good decision later, because I think you're gonna regret it otherwise.

Um you're supposed to represent us.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hold on just a minute.

I need a motion by the council to extend this meeting past 10 p.m.

I'll make motion by Fred.

Second by Catherine.

Any discussion?

No.

Red out of your vote.

Yes.

Catherine?

Yes.

Red?

Yes.

All right, go ahead.

Go on up next.

I'm Kristen Thomas.

I live at 366 East Brown Farm Lane.

And I just have a question about any future uh traffic study if 150 East and 134th South will be involved in that traffic study since we're forced into this circular traffic pattern in those intersections who are already pretty burdened, will be heavily impacted by this.

That's all I have.

Thank you.

Who's next?

Hi, my name is Susie Covey.

I live at 13691 South Brown Farm Lane.

I've grown up on 300 East almost my entire life.

I've lived here.

I've lived in Draper my entire life, 46 years off of 300 East.

My original address, 1277 South 300 East, which is now 415 Pheasant View Lane, due to all of the development.

My great-grandparents, 100-acre farm is Bellevue.

Uh I'm very accustomed to the changes in Draper, and uh, and I don't normally fight them because they happened my entire life.

But I am here to say that I don't believe the council has listened to my neighborhood.

My neighbors have done most of the fighting.

I sit back because I feel like um draper is not the draper I've grown up in.

And I'm asking the council to postpone their vote until a real traffic study has been done.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Who's next?

Nobody else.

Right.

We'll close the public comment period.

Bring this back to the council.

Well, Mr.

Mayor, we've have a lot to consider, and I appreciate all of the public and appreciate everyone taking their time to share your concerns.

And it is a difficult issue.

Um and uh I'm sorry if many of you feel like you aren't being heard.

I keep in mind this is a city of 55,000 residents.

And uh we aren't just considering one neighborhood, we're also considering the entire neighborhood, the entire city.

Um I know for me personally uh when I look at this development, um the six years I've been on the council, there's been other proposed developments on this, which uh we haven't moved forward on because we've listened to the residents of that area.

And um there is a housing crisis.

My concern is this isn't a place for apartment buildings or for townhomes.

And we have an ability with the development agreement here to be able to control more what we have there.

If we allow residential there, the state legislature is easily gonna take away our zoning authority, and let me hold you on that.

I got a little out of order.

I did offer Mr.

Raspison, the last word.

I apologize.

Let me help if you want to say more, come on up, Dwayne.

And then we'll go back to that.

I apologize.

Again, Dwayne Rasmussen, no need to apologize, Mr.

Mayor.

It's been a long night.

I'll be brief.

I know this is a hard decision, as commission as uh councilman Lowry said, it is going to be a difficult decision for you, and you've got the all of Draper to consider.

Uh I would make a comment on the traffic studies.

There have been several traffic studies done and updated as this process has gone along.

It always started with a major anchor tenant, similar in size to what's on here right now without buildings and out outside out parcels as well.

So it's not as it's not as though things have changed dramatically.

They bring people out when they do this traffic studies at peak times and take traffic counts on everything that's going on in the neighborhood, and it's been updated two or three times.

I think the point in updating it between now and the site plan is to make sure that we haven't missed anything, and if something does need to be perhaps downsized.

But I think your traffic engineer and your city engineer will both tell you uh that they have reviewed these traffic studies, and they are in compli they're in they're in concurrence with what the what the traffic studies say with regard to no tra no access on the third east.

We simply left the pork chop off in the planning commission uh version, and it has been reinstated.

We have no problem with the pork shop there.

We're looking willing to look at more aggressive ways to limit traffic coming in there, be no truck traffic.

The only reason we didn't illuminate that sign, and it will be no trucks on both sides is because we didn't want it to face the neighborhood as illuminated.

So I I think that we have addressed that as well.

Um the height of the wall pack signs that one resident raised, we're gonna we're in compliance with the city code there.

Can't remember exactly what that is off the top of my head, but we're not asking for any variations there.

Uh 15 feet, Troy tells me.

Um so I I think that kind of concludes where we are.

We have worked really hard to implement the uh concerns raised by the planning commission.

We've heard as many of the neighbors, and we've made the best possible case we can here to make this fit as well as we can.

Anything I'm missing, uh just construction for starting in the fall of 2006.

Yeah, the construction schedule uh Troy points out is that if this were approved, we would start this fall and try and have the anchor tenant open by the fall of 2027.

So during that time we'd be putting in these uh these improvements, etc.

And it sounds to me like we're building an eight-foot wall on the north side as well, so it'll be eight feet all the way around.

Can I ask you a couple of questions if that's okay?

Um just to kind of reiterate, as you know, we've been um listening to the um residents.

Um there are some issues that I think you've kind of touched on, but just so that we're on the same page.

Um we've talked about a hawk signal that would be um implemented if needed.

And just to confirm that you are willing to contribute financially to that um installing.

Okay.

Um you discuss the pork chop.

So on this, I think it's on this exhibit one, or yeah, right here.

With this the decrease in the buffer, are you willing to increase that as well as keep the sidewalk for that space that is less than the 20 in 100?

Well, with an eight-foot wall there, we feel like we've met the code in relationship to those to those stalls.

That's the reason we reduced it.

We we increase the landscaping coming into those few stalls along there, and feel like that was a that was a compromise, and the eight-foot wall does uh uh mitigate a lot of the the concerns with regard to lights and noise, etc.

Okay.

Um what about then keeping okay?

So you'll go ahead and be willing to extend that landscaping so that it covers the entire property.

But I don't think there's space.

You'd have to you have to get rid of those parking spaces.

Yeah, those parking stalls were important to us, uh, and because it's where employees can park and go in the side entrance there.

So we gave up 13 of them, as Greg pointed out, but wanted to keep those in that neighborhood there so that people can park there and walk into the the side entrance, and it's also closer to the front of the store.

But we will continue to have discussions with that neighbor, both the existing owner as well as the people that are under contract.

We have a good relationship with them, and we'll see if we can work something out between now and the site plan approval.

A lot of these issues that were raised, particularly with regard to landscaping.

A landscape plan is required with the site plan, but not now.

So we've tried to demonstrate particularly what this will look like, but we'll be in with the firm landscaping plan.

And I can promise you if we're missing a tree or two, Jen will make that clear.

Um, and I'd just like to point the to the west end of the retention pond there where it comes in at 150 east.

And my conversations with with Robbie and uh Gus last night, I did promise them a hedge at the south end of that so that it would block headlights coming in to their uh homes further north.

Right.

He's asked me to pull the mouse out here, and I can't find the mouse.

There it is.

Right there.

That's where we build that hedge on top of it.

Anything else, Commissioner uh Councilman Johnson?

Uh no, that was everything.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The other questions from Mr.

Rasmussen.

I have a question about the the foot candles for the canopy.

Um you're asking for 57.

Um I really think it's reasonable to ask that.

I mean, we've got Harman's across the street that's at 31 foot candles.

I get that we you want from a security standpoint, and it is right there on Bangar, so it's not as close, but I think a minimum of 51 foot candles would be more inappropriate.

I think 51 in the on the presentation you showed was 51 is what is just right up the street, it looked like on the um what's the one where Jimmy John's is.

Sinclair.

At the Sinclair.

And so I agree if that's possible.

What well, and I think also the painting of the canopy, if we do a dark canopy like that, that does make it less obtrusive, too.

I think we'd consider both of those things, councilman, and and uh make see if we can make it work.

If we can't, we'll come back and tell you we can't.

But we we hope we can.

This boat anchor color right here, that would be the color.

That would be a color there that he's pointing out in the very middle that we could we could do in instead of the the gray or the white.

It'll blend in better, probably look then also, you know.

We've had more than one comment, which I think is more than fair, asking about making sure that landscape berm is eight and a half or eight feet in height between the berm and the fence.

Is there a way that we can make sure that that's how Troy speak to that real quick?

We just on the building side of that landscaping, we just need that space to be able to run a gas line and a power line to the back of the store.

The the interest there is on the retaining wall.

The power company, the gas company won't let us run those utilities under that wall.

So what we're gonna try to do is put all the retention into the into the post and panel wall itself.

We can retain four to five feet there.

If if that will work, and that hasn't been engineered yet, but we'll continue to work with Olympus Precast, then that other wall won't be built.

The retention can all happen there.

We can make that up a little bit higher, and we should be fine.

The the reason why we put two and a half in is because we thought we could easily get to the two and a half.

The three to one's a little tougher.

Um as you go to the south, uh third east rises up, and of course the building stays flat.

So there's kind of some gain just in the street elevation gain, and that's another reason for the two and a half versus the full three feet.

You know, obviously the biggest concern is the east side of this wall, and the south the north end of it is probably much more important than it would be than the the south end.

Yeah.

And and that I think that can be accommodated.

It's just we're just not to that level of detail, which does come at site plan, and that's kind of why a lot of these things are pushed to site plan because that's when we get into more detail.

But those are things we're gonna probably we're gonna request in a development agreement.

It's okay.

Which is an important thing to note here.

A development agreement does not ensure that you can just build anything you want.

That was the reason why it's been noted.

And so did you.

Um that's the reason why we do this development agreement so that it's it ensures what will be built.

So yeah, just to clarify on that fence.

So if I'm on third east on that side of the fence, and I'm looking, you it is in the agreement that that that from that street level, it's eight and a half feet high for the berm fence combo.

Let me try to get really exact.

So from the back of walk elevation, the berm would raise up two and a half feet, and then there'll be at least six feet of fence there.

If we can get that a little taller, it's not that big a deal to do that.

It's just again working with those grades along the road.

We just haven't dialed into that level of detail.

Yeah, yeah, no, and that makes sense.

I just want to make sure that the that because and I think the the concern that a number of people raised was just because of the difference in elevation, like maybe it's lower on the west side of, but if you're one of those people that lives on Brown Farm and you're looking there, then for sure it is from the ground up, at least eight and a half feet.

Right.

You got two and a half plus six at least.

I think that that just being sure of that as an important minimum you just described from from sidewalk up is easily easily achievable right across from Browns farm.

Perfect.

No, you're fine.

I'm just making sure I don't uh have addressed all the questions.

We have a lot of redundancy here.

So I want to make sure is there anything Britain you have?

Um, I think those were all the questions that I had.

Um again, like what you were saying, I'd like a lot of these to be incorporated into what we you know, if we approve something tonight that there these conditions are added weren't it's specifically addressed within the agreement.

And I do recognize that this is different than a site plan, but I feel like you know, for the last several months, we've had these concerns brought to us from the residents over and over again.

And it is hard to hear that they you know they're still frustrated, they feel like we're not listening because I know that we've had communications and said that these are the concerns our residents have.

Can you address them?

So I want to make sure we're addressing as many of those as we can at this phase because I think a lot of residents may not actually see the site plan, and so I'm hoping that they can walk away tonight feeling like some of their issues were actually addressed tonight.

I can appreciate where you're coming from.

I hope you realize that we've really leaned in as well, and we're open to whatever you put in this motion.

Can can I ask about the the hawkeye, and maybe this is for Scott or for staff.

So I drive on third 300 east all the time, and like and it is crowded in there, it's impossible to cross, you know.

And I know a lot of people have those concerns.

And so when you say if it is warranted, so you'll do a traffic study.

Um, but what like I basically just want to feel secure that we're gonna get a Hawkeye over there.

And so I know you can't guarantee it, but I'm curious what that process is and how um yeah, how likely that is.

It's it's more of a liability issue in meeting the warrant.

If we put one in without meeting the warrant, um it becomes more of a liability than a help.

So I would be pretty comfortable saying that it's very likely that it will meet warrant, but without doing the warrant analysis, I can't definitively say that.

Okay, that that's helpful.

Thank you.

Um also I'd love um to know it it sounded like from people on that north um sorry, east, east north corner, um, that they would prefer the eight-foot fence to the six-foot fence.

And so I think that that's I mean, I haven't talked to the other people, but I think that that's something that I would like to see.

I think when I said I was up here earlier, we will do that, and we'll also put an eight-foot fence along the along the our north property line too.

Okay.

Yeah, it's it's gonna be eight feet all the way around.

My partners will probably kick me for doing that, but we're gonna do that.

Feels more track.

Okay.

Um so it's not saplings.

I I I hear that concern and uh frankly share it.

So there's a balance there, Mr.

Mayor, between uh sapling and a full grown tree.

And I think Todd or Jennifer at the planning commission raised this saying that if you put a larger tree in, you have a much greater degree of loss of that tree.

Uh and and so you've got to find just that sweet spot that is as big as it can be without being too big that you lose it after you've planted.

And we'll work with the staff on that and take some recommendations from them.

Okay, there are a couple other things that I want to bring up.

I think it was um Rosemary Thomas mentioned that she was concerned that there was no signage or no notice on 300 east, which I thought was concerning.

Do you can you tell us more about that?

Yeah, so there was a sign post posted on 300 east.

We do have um images that we take of the signs as as we post them.

Um it's possible that it blew away in the wind, came down.

Um if staff notices a sign is missing or somebody uh calls and lets us know a sign is missing, we get it replaced.

Um I I just don't know but there was a why the sign disappeared when it disappeared.

I did I did I was uh on both 138th and Banger today and saw the sign in both of those, but I didn't.

I wish I had uh yeah, so we we do have the confirmation photo that it was posted.

Um just don't know when it uh disappeared.

So if we're we're notified of signs missing, we do replace them.

Okay, thank you.

And if I may add to that, typically the presence and participation of anyone here this evening constitutes actual notice, and that typically waives any potential claim regarding defective notice.

Thank you.

Um okay, then there was another question.

Um Gus Bernardo, I think brought up he said, so at what phase would the light at 300 east and 138th be going in?

And I don't think that uh I think Scott, you asked that, or you sort of answered that earlier when you said that would be happening happening next year.

It is not um it is not related to their timeline, correct?

That is on Draper City's timeline.

It's it's not on a phase of this development.

It's not part of this development per se.

It's not a responsibility of the developer.

It's it'll become the city's responsibility to design and install that that signal at that intersection.

So we are in the process of starting that with all the other projects that we have going on.

Um I anticipate that that will uh the construction of that would start next year and probably be finished by the end of the year.

Similar timing for the project.

Okay, thank you.

And the when you say starting all the projects that we're starting, you mean like we've got a bunch around this area, and some are starting right away with the within the no, not just this.

And the when you say starting all the projects that were starting, you mean like we've got a bunch around this area and some are starting right away with the within the just this I'm talking about all of those the capital projects that engineering is doing right now for this year throughout the city.

So it kind of just goes in line with all of these projects that have to get done.

So you anticipate the timing would be similar to their timing that that light would be.

Pretty close.

Okay.

Thank you.

Couple other questions.

First of all, what is the height?

Troy, you're probably gonna answer this.

What's the heights of the light packs?

That was a question that someone asked.

Fifteen feet uh is is city code on the wall and then shining directly down.

Just to be clear the the light packs.

Jen, am I right?

Yes, so I think I'm wrong.

Yeah, the wall packs or the light of the parking lot light.

So the light packs are the lights that are on the building themselves.

So then what about the light?

Um so that would be you know the lights that are are placed on the building.

Yes.

And shine directly down.

And and I may add to that just a little bit here.

Uh that is a deviation from ordinance, the number and the placement on the wall.

Um but that's not atypical for what you would see on other buildings.

Our ordinance looks to place these primarily over entrances.

Uh but in this case, rather than doing taller parking lot polls, they're uh requesting just put them on the building at that 15-foot height.

And then they do.

And it's it's necessary to have those.

We need those from a security standpoint.

That's what I was gonna say, uh, councilman.

So and then another question about with the pork chop, that's the that's the word of the night.

Meat department.

When we talk about the pork chop being installed, there is this concern about you know, how are we gonna enforce no truck, you know, truck traffic in that area, which is a fair fair question.

Are there other options or things that can be installed to limit the height of that entrance?

We do need to limit, I think it's important from a fire safety standpoint that in an emergency you may need to access it from that area, but a pork chop would not prevent you from doing that if you had to access it.

As long as it meets engineering standards, then it will meet the standards for access in terms of radius as for fire department.

Okay.

We'll work with with Scott and Brian uh and see if there's anything else we can devise to make that more enforceable.

Obviously, we don't have the ability to write tickets.

Uh and uh we'll just try and do that.

But the logical truck route into and out of this site comes off of Bangar, goes around the south part of the building and backs into the truck dock and then comes out back out to Bangator.

And go right to go back onto the freeway.

Correct.

Okay.

Mr.

Mayor.

But but your your tenants have the authority to tell their deliveries, the anchor tenant and all the the other.

Indeed, they do, Mr.

Barker, and they will.

I have another question based on one of the the residents' concerns.

There are some leftover property line um disagreements, and those are I don't know how that's addressed in the development agreement.

None of those affect it, or do they affect uh they just affect how it looks?

I I don't think you can address it in the development agreement.

I think it's a site plan issue, and we are endeavoring to solve those right now.

They're not big, but they need to be solved both for this development and for the county recorder.

Some of them are overlaps, some of them are gaps, and some of them are are uh different kinds of issues, but they're not big and they're resolvable.

Okay, yeah, they have they look resolvable, yeah.

Yeah, we ever went with the corner property, Mr.

Openshaw, and he picks up a little property and loses a little property.

Uh and there are solutions like that all the way around the site.

Okay.

Uh Mr.

Mayor, I would like to just I'd like to just list off the conditions that I'd like to propose, and I want to just list them right now because then you can ask questions if that's all right, is that uh these conditions would include the wording that's provided by staff in the presentation, the pork chop be installed on the 300 east access, and it would look at other areas to mitigate truck access on 300 east.

Also that a sidewalk be provided on that cross section along the northeast section of the property where you've extended the landscaping just to make sure that that sidewalk continues along that northeast side.

That a hawk signal be evaluated and if warranted the cost will be shared between the developer and the city.

Also that the lighting canopy at the gas station will be painted at the the darker the dark, the darker um it's called boat anchor coloring the professional color and that the uh lighting be at a maximum of 51 foot candles.

Also that there will be an eight-foot wall or fence built along the north portion, actually an eight-foot wall surrounding all the way around neighbors.

And the landscape berm be up to eight and a half feet.

Not the berm, but the berm plus.

And that the buffer should be compliant uh along all of the adjacent uh residential properties.

And that the cross access, you know, be signed prior to the mayor signing the agreement.

Is there anything else that you guys see that would be of a question to the you've you've got the porch.

Okay, I don't know if we have any other questions, Dwayne.

Well, also down here if you need me, I'll be right here.

I I I want to make a comment before I forget, Mayor.

Um, as I was talking, I think it was Suzanne Covey, and maybe she's left now, but she made a comment that that kind of hit me.

Um when you talk about I mean, she grew up right here on 300 East.

And uh I grew up in this area.

You need to understand I I think of Stokes Avenue.

Every time I drive down it, I miss when it was a dirt road, and I miss when 300 East was a a farm road that I drove a lot.

And um I I miss those days.

Uh, but I'm grateful too that there was a developer that was willing to develop a neighborhood that I was able to raise my six kids here, and uh, and to be able to have fun memories.

It's it's hard to see land that we've enjoyed throughout years and that we have memories with and and it's difficult.

And I I feel for the those of you that are impacted by this development, but it part of change is part of life too, and we truly want to make this as workable as possible.

It's not perfect, there's no question.

But for me personally, this is a lot better than an apartment complex that would be even worse, and we look at the traffic that that would create and the inability to even control what kind of access and everything that would happen there.

So that's how I feel.

I also really appreciate everyone who's taken the time to come and make comments and come and meet with us.

I came into this discussion late because I just started in January, so but having listened to it over the last um, but I think there have been a lot of really positive changes made that will make this better.

Um and I think that I it is I some people have said that they haven't felt heard.

I have really appreciated the people who have reached out, the people have come and made comments.

Um I listened to the comments at the planning commission as well, and I think that there are really helpful suggestions, and this is better because of those um things that have been raised, and so I really appreciate everyone making this better.

I mean, I'll just echo what's been said.

I I appreciate the public involvement.

I agree with what uh Ms.

Dallin has said that you know, again for months we've been listening and and taking your um comments and passing them on and trying to make sure that they're addressed in the development agreement.

The staff has been incredible and going through this development agreement, making changes.

Um it's been it's been a several month process.

This is not something that happened over the weekend.

Um, and there's been a lot of work.

Um, you know, I drive by this site every day, and you know, we're really working hard to try to make it something that the whole city can be proud of Ms.

Mayor.

I'd like to make a motion that we approve ordinance 1717 with the following conditions that we include the wording that's been provided by the staff, that a pork chop be installed on 300 east on the 300 ease access, and that the developer will also look at mitigating and uh limiting truck access to that area, also that a sidewalk be provided on the cost cross section along the northeast section of the property, that a hock signal be evaluated and if warranted, the cost will be shared equally between the developer and the city.

Also that the lighting canopy of the gas station will be painted at a at a collar that has been designated boat anchor color, and that the maximum of the lighting would be 51 foot candles, also that an eight-foot wall will be built along all of the residential portions of the property, and to be built along at the base of the six-foot fence along the the north end of the property, also the landscape berm landscape berm plus fencing will be at least eight and a half feet, and that the buffer should be a complement should be a compliant for all of the adjacent residential properties, also that the cross access between this property and the property to the south, the open shop property be signed prior to the mayor signing this agreement, and that the deed overlay of properties also be completed and finalized before this agreement is completed with the site plan.

Sir, are you to start to clarify?

Are you asking that the deed gaps be resolved?

With the site plan with the site plan, and also with the landscaping that the largest trees uh possible that can uh have the best longevity be installed on the property, and I don't think I've ever made a motion with this many items.

All right, that's a motion by Mr.

Lowry to approve with those stated conditions.

Do I have a second?

I'll second.

Second by Bryn.

Is there any further discussion on the motion?

Our hearing on Brad, how do you vote?

Yes.

Brent.

Yes, Catherine.

Yes.

All right.

The motion is approved unanimously three to zero on the present quorum.

The next item on our agenda.

We have three more.

It's ordinance number 1715.

It's an ordinance of Draper City Council amending the text of the land use and development code of the Drapery municipal code relating to private schools.

We have a staff report by Jennifer Jasramsky.

Jennifer, go ahead.

Great, thank you.

Okay, so this is a text amendment um by Juan Diego for private schools within residential zones.

The original application when it came in looked at adding private schools as a conditional use in all residential zones.

Staff worked with the uh applicant on some uh modifications to that language, um, and then took some modifications to the planning commission to review.

So um the planning commission uh so planning so this what's here includes planning commission's recommendation and the language staff took to planning commission.

So we're proposing uh private schools as a conditional use in the R3 zone only with um some limitations.

Um private schools have to be ancillary to an existing private school and be on properties of one acre in size or less, and then uh site coverage with buildings and structures be limited to 2,000 square feet with a maximum height of 25 feet.

So this is um geared towards reducing impact on adjacent residential properties.

Um planning commission's recommended change to this language was uh adding a definition for ancillary within the code.

Um they just wanted to make sure that it was very clear what we mean by that.

Um and then planning commission did make a recommendation for a positive on a five to zero vote.

So happy to answer any questions.

I have a question just about it.

It talks about um that the buildings and structures are limited to uh 2,000 square feet.

Um is it is there like a proportion that we could maybe designate rather than then the number?

Because I think if it's you know about one acre, two thousand doesn't seem very big, but if it's you know you you could look at doing that.

Um typically with the site coverage, it's either gonna be you know, an actual square footage amount or percentage of the lot.

So you can look at saying we want to allow up to 10 percent of the lot or 20 percent of the lot to be covered in a building.

Um yeah, I because I I just feel like if you've got a quarter acre versus you know, maybe three-fourths of an acre to both have that two thousand square foot size is is gonna affect that differently, if that makes sense.

So I think in this, what we're we're only considering it for at least a third of an acre, but I think you make a good point, but we're not considering it for quarter acres or smaller or bigger, very targeted.

Any other questions for Jennifer?

Right, thank you, Jennifer.

So the applicant want to address the council uh Joe Colosmo 11745 South Tatlin Rose Lane Draper.

Um this is really specific to the piece of property that we bought just north of our campus, owned by Jeff Lamb.

Uh we tore his house down and planted grass, and now we want to incorporate it into our mission statement.

And instead of instead of taking ball fields and converting them to this garden concept, we feel like this is a good use across the street to plan a garden and do a farm to table concept.

And so all these requirements fit nicely on that piece of property.

Um we're always trying to expand our campus, and so I'm wondering if we can tie some proximity to, for example, we're trying to buy the northeast corner of our campus.

Um eventually, hopefully, we can buy that.

That would sit inside the boundary of our current campus, and we're wondering if maybe some of these things won't apply there.

Uh the piece being across the street, we're fine with these conditions applying to it because it's really not attached to the campus and uh and the garden concept or that even these requirements would work fine there.

If we're lucky enough to buy this two acres in the northeast corner of our campus, these these conditions are a little bit restrictive, and maybe we cross that bridge when we buy it.

But if we could address if if we could have some proximity clause that if it sits within side our current footprint, which it would, then this wouldn't apply, it would only apply if it's across the street or or not in close proximity.

And so that's all I would ask you to consider tonight.

All these are fine for the current piece, it's just if we could have some kind of a proximity clause that would address what I just mentioned.

Questions from Mr.

Colossumo.

Thank you, sir.

We'll give you the last word.

This is a public hearing.

It's ordinance 1715.

Is there anyone from the public like to address the council on item 6C, ordinance 1715?

I see no public comment on this item, so close the public hearing.

Bring it back to the council.

Don't everybody jump at once.

It's only 1040.

Go ahead, sir.

Mr.

Mayor, I make a motion that we approve ordinance 1715.

Motion by Mr.

Lowry to approve ordinance 1715, sir.

Second.

Oh second.

Second by Ms.

Dollin.

How do you uh any further discussion?

No, I think this is a great land use for this property, and I think it is a it complements what the school is doing.

All right.

Any further discussion?

All right.

Mr.

Lowry, how do you vote?

Yes.

Stallin', how do you vote?

Yes.

Ms.

Johnson.

Yes.

Items approved unanimously three to zero with the quorum present.

Item six D is next.

It's a public hearing ordinance number 1712.

It's an ordinance of Draper City Council adjusting the common boundaries between Draper City and Alpine City.

We'll have this report by Ms.

Chalbert.

Go ahead.

All right.

Can you go to the other one, Jake?

So this is just an adjustment between the boundaries between Draper City and Alpine City.

It's one of those deed gaps that was mentioned.

Um maybe that 60 right there.

That that's um but um it's just where this the city which is a Draper City.

Okay, so if you look at this map, this right line is the Draper City boundary, and this line right here was uh platted and deeded and um monumented to these plots here.

So it's just a little overlap at the biggest section, it's sixteen feet wide right there, and it affects all three of those parcels.

So we just want to make that correct correct that ambiguity and line up the property line.

And Alpine is doing the same, it's going to their council on May 12th, just to correct that ambiguity.

And we do have the surveyor here if you have any questions.

Any questions for Mr.

Albert?

Can't blame this on the Draperville plat.

No.

Although it's somewhat similar to the Draperville Platting world.

Went back to like 1855, right?

Dana.

So all right.

Any questions?

No questions.

Thank you.

Is there anyone from the public that would like to address the council on 6D public hearing 17 ordinance 1712?

All right, seeing no public comment, I'll close the public hearing, bring it back to the council.

Mr.

Mayor, I'd like to make a motion that we I'm not sure how to say it actually, that we accept ordinance 1712.

That we pass that.

All right.

We have a motion by Catherine to approve ordinance or six D ordinance 1712 second.

I'll second.

Second by Brenn.

Any further discussion?

All right, hearing none.

Catherine, how do you vote?

Yes.

Bren?

Yes.

Fred, yes.

I'm approved, but unanimously three to zero with the quorum present.

Item six D is it six E is next public hearing.

Ordinance number seventeen thirteen and ordinance number seventeen fourteen.

It's an ordin an ordinance amending the official land use map of Draper City and an ordinance amending the official zoning map of Draper City for approximately 0.45 acres of property located approximately 16001 south, 3500 east, also known as the city initiated alpine draper boundary adjustment, land use map and zoning map amendments.

We haven't seen you for an hour.

Go ahead, sir.

And in deference to how much I've spoken tonight as well, we'll make this one quick as well.

Uh this is the exact same property as the last uh ordinance.

Uh there next Alpine.

Uh same gap.

All this uh is doing with these two ordinances is removing the uh underlying zoning and land use designations from our maps.

So this would remove that hillside low density land use designation from the uh land use map and would remove uh the our R22 zoning and uh the hillside sensitive overlay zone from the property as well.

There's a site photo with uh approximation there, and the Draper City Planning Commission forward unanimous positive recommendations for both ordinances at their March 12th meeting.

Are there any other questions you have for me?

All right, any questions for Mr.

Draper?

All right.

This is a public hearing ordinances uh item 6C ordinance 1713 and 1714.

Is there anyone from the public who'd like to address the council on this on these items?

I see no public comment.

I'll close the public hearing, bring it back to the council.

Mr.

Mayor.

Go ahead.

I move that we adopt ordinances 1713 and 1714.

A motion by uh Brent to adopt ordinance 1713 and 1714.

Is there second?

I'll second.

Second by Fred.

Any further discussion?

Hearing none.

Brin, how do you vote?

Yes.

Fred?

Yes.

Catherine.

Yes.

Items passed unanimously three to zero with the quorum that's present.

That takes us to item number seven.

And I hope that none of you want to make this meeting last any longer.

So would someone like to make a motion to adjourn?

Uh motion to adjourn.

Second.

Second, aye.

All in favor of adjournment say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Uh we stand adjourned.

I don't care what all your