The date is August 26, 2025.

The time is 532.

I apologize for being a couple minutes late here getting underway.

We always like to start this meeting with a prayer, and I ask Heather if she would do that.

Our dear Heavenly Father, we're grateful that we're able to be here tonight to be able to have a city council meeting and be able to do things that are best for our great city.

We're so thankful for the opportunity we have to live here and all the blessings that we have, and for the great people who live in this city.

We ask the Heavenly Father to be with our residents, be with our first responders for our police and fire that they may be safe and protected and have be watching out for over them.

Heavenly Father, please be with our children as they have begun the school year that they'll be able to be safe and be able to aspire to great things and be part of the great city that we have here.

Thank you, Heather.

Okay.

Okay, we have uh three items in our presentations tonight.

Item 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 is uh Perry Holmes uh discussion on possible trends of uh travers mountain area plan amendment.

Uh Gardner Development is the second one discussion on possible amendment uh to the Lehigh Block Agreement, and then Alison is going to present on the discontinuing of the green waste program.

So item 2.1 is first, Perry Holmes who is here to present.

Good evening.

I'm Matt Swain.

Uh I'm representative of the the Perry companies as it relates to the agenda item tonight.

And uh this has been a concept that we've been discussing with staff for some time now and wanted to present to the council and and uh see which direction we can we can go with this concept.

Uh for many years there's been expressed to us an interest uh from the city to get as much density up out of the canyon as possible.

In West Canyon, we currently have entitled rights to approximately 600 units uh in West Canyon.

Um we are proposing to relocate the entirety of those units out of the canyon with the ability to spread those out over our remaining holdings down lower toward SR92.

We have also in conjunction with that concept reached out to um the representatives of Riverbend who remain the owners of uh some raw property, undeveloped property directly south and below the exact ware buildings.

Um they are quite interested in working with us to allow some of that density to go on to their property as part of a conceptual mixed-use project.

So across our remaining land holdings and the riverbend land holdings is is where we would propose to relocate uh the entirety of those entitled rights in West Canyon.

We feel like this could be uh a potential win-win win for for all parties uh uh involved.

We we see that bringing the density out of the canyon, we would then dedicate that property over to whichever entity necessary to have that property in perpetuity be a part of your natural open spaces city, thereby limiting the the amount of long-term development in that canyon, limiting the amount of commercial traffic that would be traveling up those residential streets, past schools and church sites and parks, and in our mind doing a better job of of of densifying the residential uh uh units down closer to SR92, where that type of density would be a more appropriate use of that remaining land around uh the existing commercial and proposed future commercial.

We would also propose as a part of this concept to allow us to have the flexibility to move that density across the remaining properties that we have.

We don't have concepts at this point showing what that density would look like.

But and Kim, I don't know if there's a visual to show kind of which parcels I'm referring to that could be shared with council, but I was going to ask you I had a graphic that we could look at because that'll help.

I think everybody understand.

Okay.

What your proposal is.

Okay.

So West Canyon is everything in the pink, as you can see.

We're proposing that all that density be relocated out of the canyon down on remaining property that we own that's essentially in the brown or the brown outlined by red.

So that property to give you some uh reference point, exact where is kind of in the middle of the purple parcel.

The charter school and the fire station is kind of on the left side of the brown parcel.

That remaining hill side is our uh ground.

There's some remaining ground over to the east of the view apartments, which is kind of under the there you go.

If you can.

So it's on the east side of that brown section there.

The uh proposed uh mixed use shopping center apartments is in that purple, just to the right there, which is the the joint venture with Center Cal.

The property that I'm referring to, river bend is directly west of that property along along SR 92.

So between the river dam riverbend property, the brown parcels that are undeveloped, we would propose to bring that uh those 600 units down uh on that remaining undeveloped property and develop uh in that area exclusively.

With that, we would also ask to be able to flexibly move the density across the properties, giving us the ability to appropriately develop the remaining property.

Some of this property is is very uh topographically challenged, very steep hillsides, where you simply can't develop it with anything less than uh a pretty dense vertical construction type.

Single family, even town homes just wouldn't be uh plausible with some of the steep hillsides that we're dealing with on the remaining property.

Um, and and I know I'm going through these steps pretty quickly.

There was a remaining piece of property that we own, which is directly adjacent to uh Central Utah Bank right there along SR 92.

That piece we would request to be rezoned as as commercial.

With the road improvements that have come across Central Utah Bank and now with the new office building that's under construction, as that continues through over toward the view apartments, that piece of property is going to be primarily highest and best use as a commercial property.

Um it'll be segregated from the other properties that will be residential.

It has frontage along SR-92, it's on the corner of SR-92 and the main north-south connector road there.

And uh we would propose that as a as a part of the uh request for this area map amendment.

So that those are kind of big picture conceptual ideas we're talking about.

Um we've been involved on the mountain for a very long time, and and we feel like this according to our discussions with with Kim and Mike and Brittany and and staff that that this may be a positive step to get density out of the hillside to avoid some of the complications of developing that that hillside as well as properly planning that density down toward the transportation corridors that would be more appropriate for this residential type.

So happy to have a discussion, answer any questions that you may have, but those are kind of the general outline of of the requests that we would propose.

Can you zoom back to your to where you want to move it from that piece again?

I'm trying to make sure I understand.

I'm trying to make sure I understand.

That's that's the hill side that has to be removed, correct?

That is correct.

How many units are we talking about?

600.

600.

It's this right here.

So they're the benefit of the new council members.

This this was an area that was under quite a bit of controversial discussion seven and a half years ago.

Right, right.

Didn't even know what was going on, and I was already being called names on this project here.

So uh yeah, that's uh that's uh existing hill site there, it's next to a church and next to another uh some other the existing subdivision.

And I believe it was approved, and I'm looking at Brad and Kim for an answer here that to be to be developed, right?

For that to be graded.

You're talking about West Canyon?

Yes, West Canyon.

Yes, I think um West Canyon was up there was a lot of grading that was needed to get West Canyon developable like it's shown on that plan.

And and I guess I had one other question is is it just the 600 units coming from West Canyon, or were there other additional units from the flex zone in central?

Or is it are we just talking this bringing that 600 down?

Just well, there's remaining density in um Central Canyon that we can already transition down to what we call D67.

It's those pros uh properties right next to where the Center Cal project is going.

And so we're already assuming that we'll be bringing down about 260 remaining units from Central Canyon to those parcels.

We would probably take 20 to 30 of these units out of West Canyon and and put them on that same location to again get us to the density that that works within that project.

The remaining uh units out of West Canyon would be dispersed across the remaining land holdings that we have as well as the riverbend property.

So just to clarify, your intention is to bring West Canyon all of those units down, plus the additional undeveloped units from Central Swiss.

It's not just 600 coming down.

It's you're it's more like 800 and change.

Right.

But the others out of Central Canyon, we already have the rights to do that under the existing area plan.

How many units was that?

Is that 200?

Is it right?

It's about 230, 240-ish that are remaining in Central Canyon that will be relocated.

West Canyon is what has been being graded over the last year.

That's correct.

So to be blunt, I wish we had you had we had you'd come to us six, seven years ago before you started grading that.

Well, and again, to be clear, with with those that don't have the history there, we're not we're not grading it.

It's Geneva that that owns and and is grading it.

And but they were grading it in preparation for you to go there.

Well, uh that's a that's an entirely different discussion.

Geneva has the rights to grade that completely independent of our area map amendment entitlements.

So I'm not here to say we're gonna stop grading because it we're not grading it.

Geneva is.

So Geneva has every every right under their current uh rights to the property to continue doing what they're doing.

What I'm saying is we're not going to build homes up there.

And once Geneva is contractually done with whatever they're doing up there, we as the property owners would dedicate that to a perpetual uh open space agreement with the city or whichever entity would would need that.

So contractually, who did they get the rights from?

Geneva?

Yes.

That is beyond my history at the company.

That was years and years before I even started the company.

Because my presumption is if Perry is the landowner, they are likely the ones that gave the rights to Geneva to mine and grade that operation.

And so it seems disingenuous to say, hey, we've gotten all the money that we can out of this, and now we'd like to come and approach the council after we've taken that down, had a gradient operation as close to residential properties as Geneva ever has, and now we want to get those residences out there.

Well, uh again I think we're we're talking about two separate items here.

The the grading discussion would need to be taken up with Geneva directly.

That really at this point has nothing to do with whether we have entitled rights there or we don't.

They're gonna do what they're gonna do based upon their contractual rights to do so.

We're simply saying we have the rights to build six hundred units on that property once it's available for us to build.

We're s suggesting that we don't build those homes up there.

I I I understand and bring them down.

I I I just don't think Geneva had native rights to just mine there under someone else's like it's not uh unless I'm mistaken, they didn't have like mineral rights to that land where they could do whatever they wanted without Perry's permission.

So I you know you say you don't understand, but my guess is or you don't know, but my guess is Perry granted those rights to them, allowed them to mine that operation for as long as they have, and now you're like, ah, now that we've taken down the hillside, it's not in its natural vegetative state.

Now we want to now we want to do goodbye the community and move those uh residences out of there.

Well uh you can interpret that uh how how you see fit, but again, I see those as two very separate items.

If Geneva were here, they could they could talk to you more about what their plans are with the mountainside or what the history of of how they got those rights, because again, I I frankly don't know where those came from.

It it's surprising me that as Perry that it's your land that you don't know that.

We can get back to you, but again, we don't have the ability to change that at this point.

So I think that's at this point no because it is a new point.

That was contractually given to them.

Okay.

So I understand that.

So it's probably 25 years ago.

So I'm if I I'm not here to to change the past or change what is contractually in place at this point, nor do I have the authority or power to do that.

All I am doing is suggesting that it has been suggested to us, both by residents and staff and others here at the city, there would be their strong preference not to have homes built in West Canyon.

That was suggested 10, 12 years ago when this area plan was put in place, so it's interesting that it that it they Perry didn't listen to it then.

And now they're listening to it now that the stand and gravel operation is coming to a conclusion.

That's all I'm seeing.

Okay.

So I guess uh somewhat support what you're saying, Paul, as I since I was embroidered embroiled in a very heavy conversation on this one time.

There was a time that a plan uh a grading plan had to be submitted to the city, it only had to be submitted to the public works director, and the public works director had full authority to approve it.

But the question really is the grading plan was approved, if I recall this right, uh, for the future development of homes.

And so that's I think where the question is, and it is for me too, is that permit was granted, and I we changed that process, obvious from how it was done then, because we'd we'd never do it like that anymore.

Uh there's a much uh more uh thorough examination on any grading plans now that has to that an applicant needs to go through.

And this one they just applied that the grading plan was for a specific purpose.

And as I recall, and I'm also looking at Kim and see if Kim and remembers this, it was for the future development of homes.

So and that's that's where I kind of struggle here is you know, we've already felt the pains of a lot of the grading that's going on up there, and we've always understood that the grading was permitted to build the homes up there.

And I'm sorry, but to have you come back and say, well, now we don't want to build the homes, we want to just dedicate it as open space.

That's a little difficult for us to understand.

I hope you can appreciate that.

Okay, yeah.

My question along those same lines is why why all 600?

I I mean it makes sense to me to move some or majority, but why why not keep some up there and move, you know, 400.

What why move all 600 out of there?

That's that's something we can discuss.

We're we're really uh trying to respond to the community saying we really just don't want rooftops up there.

We don't want the future development traffic.

We don't want the people driving up and down our public streets, that many rooftops is gonna be put on our public right-of-ways.

So we've we've heard comments like that for a very long time.

If it's 500, if it's 400, we we can have those discussions, but if it's anything less than the entirety of it, we're still going to be up there developing and having traffic and other things going up to accommodate the development process of building homes in that property.

So we're we're simply suggesting, okay, well, let's just try to solve the problem long term, relocate them down, and we'll develop them out over a uh a marketable period of time on the on the ground closer to SR92.

But it it's if the council feels like it needs to be less than that for whatever reason, we're we're open to those discussions.

Other comments from the council.

Are you done, Chris?

Okay.

I have a question.

So what on your property near SR92?

What is that zone for now?

It's it's a residential use that's defined within the area plan.

So there's already uh allowable density within those brown properties.

Um it's and Kim, you maybe you can tell me the exact zoning on it, but it's a residential zoning with with a designated density.

So it's high high density, this is the brown, and then the bluish, whatever you want to call that purple is commercial, highway commercial.

Right.

So are you moving them just in that outlined red area or in the heavy commercial the highway commercial as well?

Both.

Yeah.

So riverbend, the riverbend property that we don't own currently.

We're just in discussions with them to again try to get some of that density down closer to SR92 would be in the bottom part of that purple section there.

And then the rest would be in the brown, which we do own.

Mr.

Mayer?

Yes.

If I could maybe just one point of interest in uh many of these in order to build on units up in here, up in the West Canyon, there's a significant amount of infrastructure that would have to be installed.

For example, I think the West Canyon area has its own tank, its own water source, and so you know, we do not have currently sourced information, you know, sourced water to get up into there.

So there is a fair amount of infrastructure that would have to be constructed in that area.

I mean, if we look at the area plans for the culinary and PI there, there's a a large amount of infrastructure that would have to be constructed in order to get any units up there.

And would the cost of that infrastructure fall upon?

So it falls upon the developer.

Thank you.

So Brad.

When we were looking at our capacities, the capacity of the water tanks was a uh a critical figure up here on in the traverse mountain area, if you will.

So if we if we move densities from the mountain down off the hill, what are the what are the capacities look like down below?

Because as I recall, we were struggling even adding ADUs there and meeting the capacity just for the ADUs because of our storage capac our capabilities.

So I I've talked to Lauren about this, not knowing exactly what the request was.

Obviously, we're hearing that now.

But in speaking to Lauren about that, whether it be sewer, water, PI, um obviously we need to look into this, but it uh currently with you know, without having spent an awful lot of time, it does seem like that it could probably be done.

We feel like that it's it's very possible.

Um the sewer system goes to the same location generally speaking, it goes down along the freeway.

Um we've made some significant improvements in the systems there.

For example, now we have the new the new Via Little PI reservoir up there, which now takes all of the PI in Traverse Mountain used to be provided through with culinary water through the through that culinary tank, and now we have a reservoir and a tank up there.

So we need to look into it, but generally it just seems like that it probably could be uh supported, though there may be some improvements that they would need to do um to get those units moved down to a different area, but but definitely there would be a lot of infrastructure that's not having to be constructed in West Canyon that would have had to have been, which yeah, I understand that it may be at their expense, but it's also at our future maintenance too.

I'm not trying to be a proponent either way.

I'm just trying to tell you that we have thought about it.

It doesn't seem like it would be super significant, but we'd have to look into it for sure.

I I think it's also of note that the residential type that we would be building would obviously be, you know, without having a full conceptual plan put together would be f far denser, smaller, less intensive on utility usage down here than it would be up in the canyon.

We'd be building very nice exclusive larger homes in West Canyon based upon the topography and and the the cost of development of those lots.

They would be very, very expensive, nicer, bigger homes.

Moving the density down is going to densify it.

It's going to dramatically reduce the impact on utility usage based upon the sizing of the housing unit, its lot, or potentially being in more of uh uh high density development type.

So that's also something we've we discussed with staff is is just the impact on the city infrastructure as it currently exists.

Oh, sorry.

Go ahead.

Go ahead.

So you want to change some of the highway commercial to residential, high density residential, is that right?

Well, it it on the riverbend property would be a mixed use.

So we we would also come to you with a proposed it's very conceptual conceptual right now, but it would be kind of a continuation of what we're doing with Center Cow across the street on Morning Vista.

It would be a commercial residential mixed use extension of of what's already planned uh across the street.

Um quick question, kind of along with what Mayor Paul have said.

What what would your considerations be for remediation of the West Canyon then, since if there's no homes that are gonna be there, and that was the intent behind the grading permit.

Um but yet the mountain's gone.

Um I I guess is there been any thoughts about remediation of that property to some degree?

They're I I think that's something we can discuss.

Um again, that's gonna take a discussion with Geneva as well.

They have some obligations as to how that is is left.

Um so we're we're definitely open to having those conversations between the city, us and Geneva, and seeing if there's a plan that that is more favorable to long-term use.

I mean, obviously you don't want to just have a quarry up there.

You want something that's usable for your your use, whether that's uh I don't know if it's a mountain biking trail or or what that looks like uh and what the city envisions that to be, but I think that's definitely uh a component of discussion.

Well seeing excuse me, seeing what Geneva has done up there is so far it's they've fairly flattened that mountain up in there.

You don't even realize it till you get up on the hill and look down inside and see how much they've done that.

And and if that I mean if they're taking that material out and just flattening the area.

I'm I'm not sure how you make it look natural again.

I do I I'm gonna agree with Chris on this.

I don't know how to how to go uh back and even though it would be nice to have that additional land added to our uh open space up there, it's just not going to look the same, right?

It's not going to be natural.

It's not gonna look like uh a rolling mountainside, no.

It will not count comments.

Um my question then with these 600 units, do we have the the road infrastructure to support that?

You're talking about the neighbors are worried about the amount of traffic on those roads.

Is that what it's in there currently going to be able to support that number of units?

Yeah, I I think that's a discussion for city staff who's here, but we haven't gone in and done any reports or studies or anything.

We're kind of going off of the assumption that it's already zoned of very dense, intense use, being highway commercial and high density residential.

Uh and so the assumption is yes, it can it can accommodate that.

But I meant up in um the canyons.

Yeah.

Oh, I'm sorry, up in the canyons.

Yeah.

So we are you could have to add more roads to be able to support 600 units up there, or it's no, no.

I I mean downstream, those are all existing roads and the traffic will be going up those existing roads.

We'll we'll uh certainly be doing roads within West Canyon to to distribute to the homes, but no, the the roads that are being built or that are built is essentially how that traffic would come and go off of I-15 and SR-92.

I can see why there are potential benefits.

Um along with what Paul and the mayor have said, uh I think maybe this is a conversation that would have been better a decade ago.

Anytime we've considered densifying down below to save the canyons up above, there's been a canyon to save.

And it doesn't sound like that's the case here.

Um not inclined to give up the highway commercial for it either.

Well, we're not suggesting you would give up the highway commercial.

It would be again a a dense mixed-use project where it would likely be a vertical residential mixed use into commercial retail and other commercial uses in that on the riverbend property.

So we that would be again a very nice, densely commercial project with the mixed-use residential component built into it.

Okay.

Um I'm with Heather.

I don't think he'll get 600 units up from that canyon.

And I don't necessarily want to put them down below either without hearing a better conversation about traffic, which I assume Luke could give us.

Looks like me now, me.

Um talking about added traffic down along Temp Highway.

Um I think we would absolutely require traffic study when that were to come through and look at what additional improvements would be needed.

Um the area plan already considers several traffic, you know, traffic signals that will be needed.

Mountain View Road on the on the U Dot corridor agreement, Mountain View Road has a traffic signal.

There's not one there now.

Um but 600 homes, that's roughly that's roughly 6,000 vehicles a day that we'll be adding.

Um it's it's 600 peak hour trips in the morning and 600 peak hour trips in the evening.

Um which you know isn't nothing, but it's it's also it's also I think it's something we could accommodate just offhand on Tim down on Temp Highway.

What if there were a fire?

Are you talking about up in the canyon?

That's a good question.

Um that's a good question.

I wish Gary and were here to discuss that exactly.

But I know I know we've talked a lot about fire up in Fox Canyon.

Um Gary and has said that it, you know, it's not it's grass, it's sagebrush.

Um they're usually able they're able to respond very quickly.

They know about the fire before any residents know about the fire.

Um and the worst impact is likely to be a melt, you know, melted vinyl fences.

They also have homes along the fire, um along where there's they have special requirements for the homes along the wildlands to be more fire protected.

Um but Gary and could speak to that more.

But that's that is what he said about Fox Canyon.

He has fire.

You know, we have had issues before with uh fire, I think back before I was at the city, was it back five years ago?

Yeah, was it five years ago just before I was at the city, yeah.

And what happened was Fox Canyon itself evacuated, and of course it made you know it was awful traffic and horrible.

Um they weren't evacuated officially.

If they were evacuated officially, they would have been managed much better.

But um with that without you know, documents or anything like that.

I mean, I've been typing and stuff, but yeah.

I it sounds like there have been considerable discussions with the planning department about these options.

We've met a couple of times, and that was when we said, you know, this maybe we take this big picture idea before you chase this any more and file a concept plan, let's just talk about generalities.

I think it's an interesting proposal.

I mean there are definitely pros and cons, right?

And the and I totally get where Geneva has and is receiving benefit from the removing the material.

I think about what has happened in Central Canyon, and I think with the right people that know what they're doing, you can regrade.

I mean, I think it could potentially be a really valuable piece to our 900 acres of conservation area if we and I think that would have to be at least in my view regrading, revegetation, shaping it so that it's more natural.

But if you look at some of those cuts that were up in Central Canyon, they actually did a really good job of reshaping and now that it's been a year or two, things are growing back.

You know, it's you you know, if you know what you're looking at, you can still see, okay, this was an original hill, this wasn't.

But I don't think, you know, I don't think you have to visualize this as just this flat, sterile old, you know.

I mean, look at Family Park, that's built in a former gravel pit, right?

So but yeah, I I do, you know, over the years we've said, you know, anything that we could do, we've always tried as staff to say, let's move those units down closer to the highway.

It would be closer to transit.

We we'll have a station there by Adobe.

Um, but yeah, I don't know, maybe maybe the preference is to leave them here, but those 6,000 trips would be traveling through the community versus you know, exiting probably almost immediately onto Tempanogas Highway, so there might be less impacts.

The utilities would probably be a little bit easier.

So I don't know.

It's there's pros and cons for sure.

Do you know how many units are allowed in the brown that hasn't been developed yet?

And then plus the the 200 that you can also bring down left over.

Yeah, so it on that map it actually shows it of of what the existing entitlement rights are on those properties.

So my eyes are getting bad, Jake.

I'll zoom in.

There we go.

I think it's not to exceed 900 something off to the if you scroll the other.

That's that's over kind of uh a number of of different properties, but per parcel you can actually see it um how many units.

So it looks like about 250 here.

Yeah, 250 across those two properties.

Um then 260 there, and this is an older map.

I'm not sure that's totally accurate on what's remaining to be built there.

Yeah, you though that's the equipment right now.

That that's inclusive of the view apartments.

Um and we have uh a whole breakdown that we've gone through and verified with staff to say, okay, here's how many units Perry has left based upon the area map amendment.

This is where they can all go according to the the existing rights.

Um so we can we can go through that in a lot of detail if if we're inclined to kind of take the next steps with you and the the 230 or 240 out of Central Canyon would go on the top end of that 27.3 acre parcel as a part of the mixed use project with Center Cal.

And if we were to come to an accommodation here, we would take another probably 30 units out of West Canyon and and add them to that parcel right there.

So we're th that 230 is already part of that project that it is.

So there is no other units that are coming down if we don't move any of the six.

That's correct.

Okay, yeah, so we would just do the 230, 240, whatever it is, and and leave it at that.

Um based upon the the model and the and the design of the property, it would accommodate and be better designed if we had 260-ish units on that project.

But we don't have the rights to do that right now.

We're not claiming that.

So what kind of discussions have you had with Geneva on their future plans because you know they're leveling their excuse me, they're leveling their area out for future development.

They've come in, they presented the plans to us in the past a couple times.

Uh the nice thing about keeping this housing where it is is as that develops, there's going to be another major arterial that's going to go through there that's gonna connect I-15, both north and south.

So have you have you talked to them to find out how that would mesh together because I I guess just as I look at it, my raw thought is I'd I'd rather have this neighborhood tie into that road where it can go north and south there instead of having to enter Tempanogas Highway, then get to I-15 in an area that's already has uh sees a lot of congestion every day.

We we have not had any recent discussions with Geneva.

Um they're moving forward under their current uh rights to do so and we're sitting here.

So there's there's the entitled rights are there.

It's a it's a matter of a timeline of when those contractual obligations are fulfilled, but we've not had any uh near-term discussions with them about right-of-ways or access or or anything of that nature.

I know I I think for me, Brad, tell me if I'm wrong, it'd be nice to see uh you know a future, you know, transportation plan of this whole area up here.

Yeah, it definitely would.

And um just just for your information with the with the approval of the VISA at the point development.

I'm trying to remember Kim, was that 400 and 404?

404, 404 units.

Um, we are in the process of of um, you know, flight park road currently is paved for part of the distance, but is gravel the rest of the distance.

So we've been working with Geneva um on an agreement to get that paved.

Um we we've actually budgeted to pave that in this budget cycle.

So, you know, we're definitely planning for the widening and and the construction of Flight Park Road, but I see what you're saying, Mayor.

Um, the future extension of let's just call it Flight Park Road up and over the point is definitely in our interest, right?

We're we're planning for that now.

We're planning to pave that road.

Currently is a three-lane roadway, flight park.

But but definitely West Canyon, as you look at the map.

If those 600 units were put up into West Canyon as planned, we had at least two roads, you know, in and out of there.

Um so new roads that would have had to have been built.

Um new units up in West Canyon that would have, you know, I guess she's Chief Crafts here, he could weigh in as to as to how hard it would be to get up into there.

Obviously, you can't see the roads yet, but um, you know, there's definitely I would imagine there's definitely increased response times to get up into there, but I don't know, maybe it would warrant another fire station.

But um, you know, is that I'm rambling, I guess a little bit, but definitely roadways, extension of roadways into the future Geneva parcel to the north, definitely.

I guess I feel it'd be uh important to have all that information and and be communicating with them because they're you know they do certainly have development plans, you do too.

Uh and look at a master transportation plan or at least develop one for that area now.

Because I'd much rather see future density have an additional right way out instead of just Tempanogas Highway.

We will engage those discussions with Geneva.

I'd involve the city in that too, because we need to we need to see an updated plan.

It's been probably quite some time, probably two or three years since we've seen their last plan.

But I do know we have that major arterial plan through there.

Okay.

Any other comment.

I I just want to clarify.

So those numbers you showed us in the brown area, those are vested rights that you can develop now.

That's not including the additional 600.

That's correct.

Okay.

That's that's a lot of vehicles to put on Morning Vista Road, and they're already having issues up there.

If we have it up in the canyon, higher up, traffic can disperse through different roads.

If you consolidate it in this one location, it's pretty much gonna hit that one road.

And among other things, that's what it might be a concern.

And again, it would it would also be there's morning visa, and then I forget the road to the east as well, but it would it would be basically from the charter school over to the eastern prop river by central Utah Bank is where the land holdings would be to to disperse that density.

Okay.

Uh Mr.

Mayor, if I could say, please, um, one thing that would help with with the further development of this property.

Currently, the road that accesses by the fire station does not punch across.

You know, that road dead ends right now.

And so that an additional east-west uh connector it does help the area to kind of drain east and west.

Um right now that road does not connect through, it's above exact where correct.

That's right.

So the road between exact part of exact where the fire station yeah, as as a part of our development, we would obviously be obligated to push that through.

Of course, it would develop with the current plan too.

It would, one way or another.

Yeah.

That's gonna get punched through.

Any other questions?

I think there's a lot more work to do.

Yep.

So we agree.

Okay.

Thank you for your input.

Okay.

Item 2.2 is Gardner's development discussion on possible amendment to the Lehigh block development agreement.

Good evening, everyone.

Um it's good to see everybody.

This is the uh I'm Dave Denison with Gardner Group, and this is the uh old Lehigh Block site where M Bold and Starbucks and Maverick are.

And what we we we've we've had a few discussions with council and staff, and we've just kind of gone gone back and forth a little bit, and we've tried to listen uh to some of the comments, and before what we had is um we were asking for too too many units.

And what we're trying to do is because of the current situation, we want to maintain some flexibility with the with the office.

If the office comes back, we want to do more office, but if it doesn't and it takes longer, we want to maintain some uh do some additional uh residential and we also want to increase the the uh uh retail.

And right now I believe our retail, we've only got about 5,000 square feet, but we're proposing about five times that amount with 25,000.

And to do that, um, as we've discussed, we need some more rooftops, we need more uh a critical mass of you know, people to activate the area to get it.

Is it not going to be you know we're trying to activate the you know some of the retail area, uh make this mixed use area.

Um still not going.

I apologize for that.

I don't know if it's my computer.

Um but I believe we we had a packet sent over and do you have Apple TV or can you air to Apple T.

Um yeah, I believe so.

If not, I can pull it up on my head.

There we go.

So you see what we're trying to do is just create a little bit more of a walkable retail area to get some of this area.

Um right now there's I believe it's 232 units in in bold in that development that's uh leased out really well.

And we're proposing you know an additional maybe 350 units.

I think I think last time we came we came with almost you know over I think came out was like over 450 units.

So we've reduced that down a little bit, and and like I said, we want to maintain um some flexibility with you know when the office comes back.

Um but still we we are asking for some additional uh density in this area.

We believe it would help the retail, help support the retail, and we really want to just keep a little bit of momentum on this, and that's why we're you know, we want to kind of keep this discussion going with staff and with council and you know get some additional feedback and and answer any questions.

Um I am joined tonight with our partners.

We're partners, um I've got Ryan Simmons with uh Boyer Group and Adam Lankford with uh Wasatch Residential Group as well.

So we're all uh we're all partners in this project.

So do you does the council have any questions or I have a quick question because are you talking about the TOD?

I guess I haven't been part of the discussions because I'm not even sure what area you're talking about.

Yeah, you know where the the Maverick and the Starbucks and the M Bold project is and we've off a 1200 west.

Okay, so one of our stationary plans so what he's this is close to a stationary plan.

This is a little bit um west of the the hospital slash 2100 north stationary plan that we just adopted a few months ago.

This is just outside of that half mile area.

So well, and I guess uh it's kind of in between the two stations.

So I think we looked at this area.

Uh it was it showed up on the maps and things like that, but it's yeah, you've got a station next to the hospital to the north, and then you'd have the one over on 2100 north.

So this is kind of it's a general area in between.

Gotcha.

Okay.

That helps.

Do you do you have a chart showing the what you're transferring, the amount of retail that's increasing?

Yeah.

And then office, is this grade A office space that you're top tier office that you're what's the figure for residential density per acre on the proposed?

46.

It does go up a little bit based on the number of acres we would need to to activate the that many units.

But it does it's not going up, you know, like uh HTRZ like 50 60 per acre.

But we've we do feel like, you know, to really activate the retail and you know, we need we you know, we'd like some more density there.

Um it's uh embold has been leasing out really well.

The it's it seems to be a uh popular location.

And you know, proximity to to transit helps, you know, walkability, all that.

So just so I'm clear, uh, if I could, the the current, is that what is currently there, or is that what is currently slotted to be built out at full building?

That's currently what's there.

We've got 232 existing units.

We've got 5,000 feet of retail and about 400,000 of office.

And if nothing were changed, what would have been you know, let's say we we were amenable to change to this proposed amount, what what would it be changing from a full build out?

In other words, uh what was the full retail amount?

You're saying it's going from 5,000 now to 25,000, what was proposed?

We're asking to uh to amend the development agreement, so it's uh it's a little bit different, but I think then as far as the residential, we only have I think an additional 18 units left that are approved, depending on how you count an ERU if it's a one-to-one ratio or you know, that's another discussion.

So you're approved at 250 essentially.

And you're asking for another hundred.

Another three hundred and fifty.

Oh, and so it would be three hundred and fifty on top of that.

Okay.

Yeah, the proposed is an additional three fifty.

And then so you have five thousand and you're proposing another twenty-five to be thirty thousand total?

Okay.

Yeah, I wish we had that third column.

Well, and that was it.

You know, last time we came at that third column because the the office, we like I said, we do want to maintain some flexibility between you know, office and residential are are you know, we'd love to do do some more office.

Um but we want to have some you know flexibility to do some additional residential as well.

Paul, did you have something?

Yeah, so so it uh maybe maybe I wasn't clear, but that helps if so if you are currently approved up to 250 units, so 18, what you know you currently have 5,000 retail, what was approved for retail.

Um I I think this is about all that's uh that's approved.

I mean that we're trying to amend it to make it a more of a mixed use and to make to make it a mixed use, you need more of a mix.

You need some additional retail.

So we don't really need any retail as approved currently.

Okay, and I guess leave it as well.

If 5,000 is where you were capped or where you were, you know, initially in the development agreement.

Then going to 25,000 more is a significant increase.

I'll see if I can find the original agreement.

I don't remember if it specified or if it just said you can have this much residential, the rest is commercial, whether it's office or retail.

I don't know if we actually said it had to be delicious.

Yeah, and and we knew we'd want a little retail, but you know, the mavericks gone in there, Starbucks, which works really well for office and residential, but to to really activate and get more retail, you really need more rooftops.

And that's what we're that's what we're proposing is some additional retail and additional residential.

Yeah, because I'm trying to remember that chart because it seemed like you were taking away office, some amount of office, which was going to go to residential and increase the retail.

And I can't remember how much it is confusing because it's in it's you know, we're working through it.

We don't know exactly how many we can get, what we can do.

We're trying to land on okay, how much re residential we can have and then we can kind of fill in the blanks.

Okay.

You bet Adam Langford with Was Edge Residential Group, uh, we're the builders of in bold.

Um so just to add to what Dave's explaining, um what we have approved now is really and more of an office park, right?

You have in bold kind of on that east edge, the five thousand retail that's existing is Starbucks and Maverick.

So uh right now you've got it's it's pretty much more or less an office park with a little bit of fringe uses on the edge.

What we're trying to do is create with the land that's left more crunch this from more of an office park into more of a kind of a mixed use walkable I mean if you know what what we've talked about before was creating what's left as more of a little um mixed use district.

So we're trying to build on the mixes that we have because we've been really successful with what we've got, and so we want to keep going with that mix of uses.

I mean we think we can create some really cool retail, um, but we do need a little bit more density to support that, but we're still open to that office in the future.

We're not saying let's get rid of that.

We're just saying let's have some flexibility.

Um so hopefully that answers questions and makes sense.

Thank you guys.

I guess my question still is though, is if if there was no change to the proposed any proposed increase, what would the remaining square footage of office be to be built out in that area that's you're wanting to switch?

You know, I think we've got room here with the Warrior Company.

About 360,000 more.

You've got to come out to the microphone.

Sorry.

Yeah, what's exist?

We can build uh two more buildings, about 360,000 more feet.

So the the weave building picture two more of those.

So you're you're taking half of that and you're saying let's let's convert half of that into retail and residential.

Correct.

Possibly more of that, depending on how we're gonna do that.

Well, the one ninety would be another weave building, correct?

That would be hopeful we can build another one of those.

Yeah.

So I I guess but and and to make sure I understood what you said earlier, the 232 would actually become so 250 plus 350, what, 600?

600 units.

You'd have three, thirty thousand square feet of retail.

Um I I guess my question on the retail, understanding you're you don't know who or what would come in, what what kind of retail are you trying to attract with the additional 25,000 square feet?

Because we've heard before, you know, retail will come if we put the space for it, but and we've heard the rooftop thing before too.

We just need rooftops, but that doesn't always seem to equate to retail coming in.

Yeah, I mean I mean you're right, but we are trying to attract uh more retail, which would bring, you know, some restaurants, um, you know, possibly some smaller businesses.

Um, you know, so uh I just don't know exactly what it would do.

I mean, I know what's happening in some of the other places.

The re the you know, the food service has been really popular lately.

So and is this something that the retail would be mostly for the area here, or do you see it because I I think uh I'm gonna get it wrong.

Is it Serenity or the 500 and some units of sanctuary?

Thank you.

I knew it's an S.

We really need to just name it Serenity.

Because I think I've said that five times, right?

I know they've said that hey, people outside of that community are welcome to come and partake of the retail and the restaurants and is that the same idea here, or is this just trying to get it to where it's for the retailers will definitely look at the overall area.

They're gonna look at not only the rooftops in this place, they're gonna look next door, adjacent, they're gonna look, you know, what are the neighborhoods?

Yeah, they're gonna look at look at the entire area for you know what what it will support for sure, you're right.

Okay.

Um in the discussion when this first went through the development agreement in 2020, um, there was concern about adding residential density at all.

Um and apparently there was a traffic study at that time um done by Hills Engineering that I'd be interested in knowing more about if this were to come through.

Um the other thing was there was a question about whether or not there was sewer capacity at that time because this was originally industrial and then went to commercial.

Um adding that many residential units.

In the minutes from back in that other meeting, you actually brought up that same concern.

The same statement.

The exact same thing.

Mayor Johnson expressed concerns.

Yeah, because um it talks about how long it might be before.

Yeah, uh, hang on, I'll pull it up.

Counselor Hancock stated he was comfortable allowing 250 residential units without the light rail in place.

Even if it takes a long time for the transit to arrive, the area can handle that amount of density.

That's uh way back then.

We're like any minute now.

Yeah, I think I think if we if we were to go down this path, we'd just have to assume that it needs to work without the transit.

When the transit does come, I mean hopefully it'll come at some point.

How are we gonna know if it'll work without the transit?

And yeah, we'd have to do a traffic study for sure.

To look at 1200 West and the freeway interchange, all that digital drive.

Yeah, I think like Brad said, you know, with with probably even the traffic somewhat, you know, if if we're increasing our overall cap, you know, right now we have that density map.

If you remember when we adopted the general plan, and it and it does show some density in this area, but it's over on the east side of 1200 West on the old refractories property, and it has 550 units that that's owned by a different entity.

But yeah, our I think what Lauren's thought was was if if rather than say we're just gonna add another 350 on top of what we'd identified on that map, that starts to tip the scale on the utilities and things.

So if there's a way to pull densities from, you know, you have the the Thanksgiving point area, the 520 is already committed with sanctuary.

Um and then you have that 550 on that other side of 1200 West.

But that part is in the station area plan.

Yes.

So we'd pull from that to a non-stationary so is that I think we'd want to keep those units as close to the station as we can.

I mean, the idea is you know, to increase ridership, the best way to do that is have people living as close to the station as we can get them.

So I in the date, and I wasn't sure if this was the latest uh development agreement, but it was April 14th, 2020.

Yes.

Um I get I'm guessing that's when that's before my time.

And so, like Paige, I listened to the meeting earlier today and was reading through the minutes, and originally it was commercial with a little bit of housing.

And the commercial we got is what the maverick and something else there, Starbucks.

I thought it was industrial first.

I must have missed it.

It was industrial.

Um industrial to commercial.

Number seven, general plan amendment.

Um we gave the units you asked for at that time, but the commercial hasn't really panned out.

Um and now you want more units saying with promises again that we've heard many times that give us a rooftops, we'll give you the commercial, and we tend to give a lot of rooftops out and don't see too much of that commercial.

And I don't know.

I I mean I'd like to see the commercial and it probably you know the retail retail.

Yes, yes.

Sales tax revenue is what I'm looking at.

Um I don't know.

We just we get a lot of asked with promises, and I I'd like to see uh the promises fulfilled, I guess, first.

Um it is a problem with the market when you have a five-year development, five and a half year development agreement.

I mean, market fluctuations mean that what made a whole lot of sense back then, maybe doesn't have to be a good idea.

In 2020, things were different, and yeah, you're right.

Um yeah, so uh for me it's more the density and the infrastructure concerns.

Yeah, and and what we do is is I mean, you know, five five years ago we wouldn't have anticipated we'd be we'd be here today, actually.

We I mean as we as we meet with staff, we do our best when we make these these area plans, these development agreements, but then you know, after time and then you start to talk to staff and say, okay, what what is working, what could we put there?

You know, we'd like to build on that that you know, those vacant lots and really activate it.

And as we've we've talked as a partnership, we thought, well, if we put we could bring more retail if we can get more rooftops.

And you know, in a perfect world, we could just build more office buildings, be done and they'd all be office.

But you know, things things change, the markets change, and in five more years it could be different again.

It could.

It could.

Um interesting, I had a conversation with our economic developer yesterday.

And I'm putting him on the spot.

Maybe I shouldn't quote him, but it was interesting that he pointed out that residential is easy to do.

And we always get developers asking for residential.

Commercial is a little bit harder, I get it, you know, marking conditions, but it does seem to be coming back somewhat.

Um my opinion, I'd like to see more retail the commercial.

I mean, again, looking back at the original development agreement, that was the intention here.

I don't want to pull density from where we've already given it, um, where we know that it our infrastructure can handle it.

Um, I guess that's where I'm at.

Just stick to the original one.

Quick question.

Can you go into a little bit as how you came up with 350 units?

Well, last time we asked for like 450, and so we're trying to lower it.

See what sticks.

But we still have an economy of scale when we build them that you know you need an economy of scale of anywhere from 250 to 350 to make it pencil.

Once you get down into the one 150 additional, it's it's it just doesn't pencil.

I add to that, Dave.

Okay.

Um so Ryan Simmons again with the Boyer Company.

I think to answer that question, I wish I could pull up the overall map here, and maybe you can.

Um, how did we come up with that density?

Was was really we're just starting holistically saying we're in between a freeway, a one-way ride of uh a one-way road, a couple of gas stations, a bunch of office buildings, and we have acreage, how should we best utilize that acreage?

There's utilities running through PAL Way and along uh both the front end roads, so we're kind of landlocked on what do we do?

How do we make this feel good enough that we can attract retail?

Um, you know, is is 300 units going to attract a restaurant when just 100 won't?

No, I don't think so.

It's it's if you look at the imagery, how does this feel?

How does it walk?

How does it behave?

And I think that uh both Wasatch and our architects came up with a plan to append the retail to the residential so that you're not just having the typical residential conversation of man, there's a balcony right there and I can see inside that person's kitchen.

You know, we tried to be thoughtful and say, let's line this and let's build the retail at the same time.

Who was it that said about promises at the same time?

Let's build the retail at the same time so that we don't have to have this conversation in three years.

Why didn't you build the retail?

Um it's it's a manageable enough amount of retail that we can do that.

Um does that answer a question of why we came to that.

We we just we like how it feels and looks, and and I don't think it was like hey, make our pro forma work.

It's just we have land, it's by a freeway.

Ideally we build another weave, maybe they expand, you know.

I mean, Gardner just built an awesome Zions Bank corporation, so those people do exist.

There are unicorns out there.

Um and we'll keep looking for them.

But if that doesn't come, do we want to sit and wait?

Or what would council like to see here?

That's really the question.

Because we're not asking for anything tonight.

We're just simply saying, what do you see?

How do you feel about this area?

Well, I think and we're running out of time.

Yeah.

But I mean, what has always been our concern here is having the appropriate infrastructure, water, sewer, you know, power, everything we need to do to perform.

And uh that is where we get a lot of complaints and we could handle a lot of additional traffic if it was if we just had to worry about our traffic.

Problem is we have to worry about a whole bunch of traffic that comes through Lehigh City every day.

And that's that's traffic we have no financial mechanism other than begging the federal government for uh transportation funding to help solve that.

So that is a real concern we have.

It's real concern, I think I can speak for the council, is we have to we have to think about the infrastructure and what the impact is going to be.

The reality is we don't know, right?

Uh we know where we have limitations and and Brad talked a little bit about that.

We know how many ERUs we can support based on our capacities.

Uh but the problem is is we're so tight on that and we know that number so well that when we when we deliver ERUs, additional ERUs in an area such as this, we end up being forced to take ERUs from another another parcel.

And then we have to balance the whole idea of fairness.

Where where's the best place for that?

And are we being uh are we leaning towards one property developer over another?

You know, and we have to we have to look at that and consider that and what is the right thing to do.

We don't have those answers right now.

I wish we did.

And we often look at developers to say, okay, take your best shot, do your best analysis.

We're gonna probably always ask for more, right?

Because we do, because we need some assurances.

And uh I I don't mind, and I think it's your it's your total right to to throw out new proposals uh by nature of your application, and that's okay.

The problem is the council is going to be always a little uncomfortable in these areas that we're already dealing with some of these transportation and uh water and sewer issues already, right?

I wish I had the answer.

I don't uh none of us up here do.

It's safe to say that.

None of us have that answer.

Uh engineering, I know struggles with it every day.

And uh I think we can get closer with some serious analysis, but we're gonna have to look at the applicant for that analysis.

Okay.

Yeah, thanks for your feedback.

We really appreciate it.

Appreciate your time and it's it's helpful to hear the comments and uh kind of regroup, so we appreciate it.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, item 2.3 uh is uh discontinuing the green waste program, Allison.

You're up.

Sorry you took this a little while.

You have three minutes.

I can do that.

Um as you guys know, waste management hasn't had a waste uh green waste facility for a few years.

Um so we've worked to get the rates for green waste and the second can rate to the same price.

And so we're at that point.

So um residents will start paying all year round for green waste starting in December of this year, since they've been able to use their cans all year round, and we've been paying waste management for that since they kind of discontinued the program a few years ago.

So we're just gonna discontinue the program as it is here.

If residents don't want to pay the additional $27 a year, they can request to have their can picked up.

We'll send letters out to the green waste customers probably the beginning of October.

How far are we out from TSSD uh completing their green waste facility over there so we can start contributing to that again?

I don't have any idea.

Does anybody know?

Anyone where's uh Dave's not here because he sits on the board.

Give him up, he's in the planning conference room waiting to come in for closed session, so maybe he'd come in and answer that question.

Why don't we I'd like to know the answer to that?

Yeah, if you want to go grab him.

Because I know I went to uh uh you know their kickoff for that seems like two years now since they did that.

So I'm just wondering what the progress is.

Yeah, I don't know.

You're saying it's just gonna be twenty-seven a year for a second.

So right now, well, for their green waste can right now they pay for it nine months of the year.

Yeah.

So it'll just be an additional three months that they'll be charged.

So it's nine dollars a month for their green waste can, so it'll be additional twenty-seven dollars a year for those customers.

And they're a regular can.

And they use it as a regular can.

Yeah, the second can has been charged all year round all along.

Okay.

And they're both gonna be 950 a month.

They'll both they'll both be nine dollars.

Okay.

Yeah.

Dave, the question I had, sorry.

Yep, you're gonna since you're on the board now over at TSSD.

It seems like it was two years ago that we had the kickoff for their new you know, uh green waste facility concept.

I have not been on the board very long, and it honestly has not even come up since I've been on the board.

So there's so much going on with their plan expansion that that's been the compet topic of discussion all the board meetings I've been in the last six months.

Okay, but this is part of that expansion.

Very possibly, but it hasn't been I haven't specifically heard them talk about the green waste facility.

So I'm happy to broach that and get an answer.

I just don't have an answer today because it hasn't honestly been discussed in the case.

I think we probably need to know because I'm hoping one day again we'll be able to have that green waste, you know, uh can.

Right.

It's just whether waste management will do the program again.

Because right now they're not.

They just don't want to do it.

No, they started billing us year round for the cans.

Okay.

Like the year that they stopped having a green, even though they said they were gonna try and get a facility, they started billing us all year round.

Well, I think part of our increase is to pay for that facility over there.

So hopefully we can use it.

So yeah.

Okay.

Any other questions?

Thanks for the budget.

We probably how are we going to get that information out there?

Just we'll we'll prepare a letter for green waste customers and they'll just get a letter probably the beginning of October.

That just lets them know that they'll start being charged in December, and if they don't want to be charged the extra, they can have their can picked up.

You know, the one advantage of the We're just hoping that all 8,000 don't want to have them picked up because I don't know how to manage that.

I was gonna say the one advantage of being an empty nester is I can put all my garbage and all my green waste in one can now if I want to.

There you go.

There you go.

I love mine too.

So I will be paying the additional m money a month.

So thanks.

Thanks.

All right.

Are there any questions on the agenda?

Okay, hearing none.

Administrative report.

Nothing at this time, okay.

Council, do you have any reports on your assignments?

Uh Mr.

Mayor, I just have one report.

Um last week I did attend the um uh representative Burgess Owens event and was able to speak with him and give him uh express gratitude on behalf of you and the city for his efforts and uh to get the funding in place for to be voted on for the uh transportation funds.

Yes, for transportation funds, sorry, I'm losing.

But anyway, but he was very grateful for that and uh just wanted to share that I was able to do that for you.

And I'm glad I was traveling, so I was glad you were able to pick that up on the short and and attend that.

So thank you very much.

Anything else?

Heritage Days this Monday.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So we sent you an email, let me know if you could come and so we can have a car for you.

I'll be there.

Yeah, I hope so.

All right.

Anything else?

Okay.

We do have uh uh we have what should be a short closed door session that we can go to right now and hopefully be back close to seven.

Uh I'll I would like to take a motion for uh to go in an executive session for the purpose of uh discussing imminent litigation.

And real estate, please.

And and real estate.

So moved.

Okay.

Uh consideration to hold a closed session to discuss pending a reasonably imminent litigation and purchase of real property.

Okay.

I have a motion.

Do I have a second?

Second.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Okay.

We'll see everybody here right around seven.

Um August 26, 2025.

Lee I city council meeting.

It is 720, and uh apologize for the delay, especially considering we have such a long agenda tonight as it is.

Uh but we did have to take care of uh a couple other matters, and they ran a little longer than I had anticipated.

Uh one thing to note, well, a couple of things to note.

First of all, as a matter of roll call, all our council members are are here.

They are now.

So uh in attendance tonight.

Uh one of the items on the agenda, which is item number twelve has been pulled off, and this is the Beckstrom issue.

If you came here for that, understand that it will not be heard tonight.

That was there was a request from uh attorney to uh pull that for tonight and and move that to a later date.

We also will have an RDA hearing between items seven and eighteen tonight as well, so I'll just uh be aware of that.

We are going to start this meeting as we do all our regular sessions with a pledge of allegiance, and I asked Chris Conde if he would lead us in that for the audience, please rise.

I pledge allegiance of the United States of America and the Republic for which the stands one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you, Chris.

Okay.

Uh we have uh a few presentations here this tonight.

Uh and item 2.1 is our water wise yard of the month presentation.

Todd is here uh with that, so Todd, it seems like you were just here at their last meeting.

You're giving an idea two two a month now, right?

I'd be welcome to help the just a shout out to those using their metal water bottles.

Thank you.

We appreciate that.

I'm going to recycle this.

Um we are here today to congratulate uh Ram and Deepa for their for the August Water Wise Landscape Award.

And here are a couple of reasons why they have chosen to have a water-friendly yard.

Um they don't go not yet.

We'll do it very yet.

Um, yeah, he said he was gonna stay out of the way, but he won't.

I don't know what to do.

Um they're committed to a sustainable living, and they may have mentioned that they really don't like cutting the grass.

So maybe that's a reason.

Um they also chose water efficient landscape.

Um low water plants.

We appreciate that they are um an example to our community.

Todd, show me really quick, right?

Oh, thank you.

All right.

Let me just go there.

I just wanted to show you their yard, part of that yard right there.

And that's the address.

Um let's move on to this one.

So here's the criteria for our water-wise landscape award.

We look uh for yards that have native or drought tolerant plants, um, efficient irrigation, and sustainable practices.

And of course, my favorite, it has to be beautiful.

Um we also the benefits of having uh for the environment in the community is it enhances the biodiversity, reduces the urban heat, improves air quality, and boosts the community of well-being.

And here is a little bit of a description of their landscape.

You see another picture there.

They have the native plants, which of course reduces the water use, and then they've designed to enhance the beauty of the landscape while still serving practical purpose for the users.

Yeah, and um part of that too, with that criteria is achieving that water efficiency that we taught uh that Susan mentioned here.

And a big part of that is using Utah native plants, uh the plants that uh require less water and still beautify the area.

Um those include like ornamental grasses, uh sage, yarrow, um, and along with this is irrigation um techniques that can be improved upon with uh so sprinkling water isn't wasted, but using drip irrigation that is more efficient at delivering the water uh directly more to the plants' roots and then last long with that is the soil management and that having self healthy soil and everything actually helps retain that water better too.

So like that's having that uh improvement soil also improves the water wiseless of the of the lawn.

Susan, thank you.

Um so we love to share the community impact and inspiration.

Um so we talked about what is that positive impact as you can see.

Here's another picture of their home.

Um it increases that neighborhood beauty and makes it more inviting.

And then, of course, they get our awesome award, and they can proudly have that in their yard.

It also helps us to educate uh Lehigh citizens of our water wise um landscape project highlights.

So these are some of the things that we consider is with our education is water conservation awareness, sustainable landscaping engagement, and of course, educational tools.

We want to empower our citizens in Lehigh to have sustainability knowledge.

We appreciate Ram and Deppa to inspire the residents by setting that example of being committed to sustainability and also just being environmentally responsible.

So I'm gonna let Chad uh present that award.

Yes, if Ram and Deepa would like to come up.

So thank you for the um water wise landscaping that you've done and the the care that you've taken into your lawn.

Um so we present uh $50 to Lowe's.

And then also along with that, we have some kind of like some gardening uh things that help out with that, so you don't have to mow, but you may have to pull some weeds.

So uh these are like the pads and everything, so you can your knees aren't destroyed.

And I think we have something like a water wise sprinkler heads or hose nozzle, thank you.

But and a few other like little nicknames, like some sunglasses to keep your eyes protected and whatnot.

So I'd like to present that to you guys.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you for the one that I don't like the mowing part, but all of that beautification was on that idea, so we just spent time with that.

Happy to play a part outroll and beautifying and sustainability as well.

Oh, we appreciate you.

Thank you.

Congratulations.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I don't think I'll ever get that award, no matter how trying.

Yeah, that's just like that's a good reason right there.

Okay.

Item 2.2.

So why don't you come up here?

He's going to uh present this uh award.

I'm just gonna turn it over to you, Chief.

Thank you, Mayor and Council.

Just uh want to make a real quick uh recognition to our chaplain, Phil Wazden.

Um I first met Phil about 10 years ago in 2015.

I was at the Legacy Center, and I saw this guy walking around the track, and I thought, who is this guy?

He was he was talking to everybody, and uh nobody could keep up with him.

And anyway, long story short, the more I got to know about Phil, I approached him one day and I asked him about the the possibility as serving as a volunteer uh police chaplain in our organization, given his military background, the way he connected with people, and his the way that he just uh seems so outgoing.

So uh we we talked about it, he gave it some thought, and he uh agreed.

And since that time, I just want to read a few things.

I don't want to forget anything, so I gotta get my glasses.

Since 2015, chaplain Phil Wazan has selfishly selflessly served as a Lehigh Police and Fire Department as a dedicated volunteer, offering countless hours without expectation of recognition.

His unwavering commitment to supporting the emotional and spiritual well-being of public safety personnel has made a lasting impact, especially during critical incidents ceremonies and specialized training that he's attended.

Phil's spirit of volunteerism extends beyond public safety.

He's also given his time to civic organizations like the Lehigh Historical Society and to his local religious congregation.

His service is marked by compassion, humility, and a deep commitment to the community.

Tonight we'd like to recognize Phil for obtaining his master chaplain designation.

We'll hold that up for them to see.

So this is ten years in the making here, ten years uh of uh serving with the International Conference of Police Chaplains, where he has served on the ICPC ethics committee and has completed a ton of training.

He had another plaque I left it in my car because I was back and forth on details, but he just recently completed some training related to uh a chaplain's role and and the uh constitutional role of a chaplain.

Uh anyway, we wanted to to just thank him for his time both on behalf of the police and the fire, uh, Chief Kraft and myself.

We're grateful for his service and just want to take a few minutes and recognize him for that.

So if I may, I'd like to say a couple of words.

Yes, please.

Um Lehigh is very well served with these two men.

They're warriors, these guys are warriors.

I don't know of any community in the United States that has two, a fireman, a fire and a police officer, who are deemed the epitome of awards.

And I think we're going to have Chief Kraft have an award shortly.

Um but I want to say about these two men.

First of all, a chaplain can have a lot of credentials, but unless they're invited into the department, they're outsiders.

These gentlemen have invited me in and uh into the department.

I serve the finest men and women in our community.

And just something about Chief Kraft.

Uh he's going to get in a lot of accolades in a minute, but I want to say something about him.

These men serve by example.

Uh there's nothing that they would ask for anyone in their departments that they wouldn't do themselves.

I've seen Chief Kraft haul hoses, drag mannequins, climb ladders, and physical fitness keep up with people in his department that are half his age.

And about Chief Paul.

Um he's the only chief that I know of that has single-handedly apprehended a fugitive without drawing his weapon and without use of restraints.

And this is not a great story.

I will let him finish telling that story privately.

But I do want to say what an honor and a privilege it is for me to serve these departments.

The city of Lehigh is very well served, and I say God bless the departments and their leaders.

They train hard.

God bless the city of Lehigh, the state of Utah, and God bless America.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

Appreciate that.

That's awesome.

Item 2.3 is another recognition.

Jason, I want you to go ahead and take over this one.

Mayor Council, thank you.

Um Phil's a hard guy to follow, so I'll try my best.

Um I'd like to invite Chief Kraft up, if you would.

So we got to uh we got to attend a conference recently with Chief Kraft, the International Association of Fire Chiefs, where Chief Kraft was awarded um the Fire Chief of the Year internationally for the whole planet.

And the number one chief.

But he uh everywhere we went, he was he was recognized, he was congratulated.

He's certainly respected by all of his peers.

Um that's not the only award he ended up walking away with, so he got that award.

He was also elected as the Western Fire Chiefs president, and and he also received the president's award after we went home.

So he just kept collecting all this hardware.

Um he's been dubbed the Michael Phelps of the International Fire Chief Association of Association of Fire Chiefs.

But um, Chief was uh recognized for this award for amongst many things, but in particular his uh hard work on behalf of the men and women and the fire service helping them with um cancer uh care, um diagnosis and care.

Um that was key uh for changing legislation in Utah, but will also be critical for changing legislation potentially nationwide.

So all the while battling his own uh cancer battle himself.

So anyway, um so proud of Chief, so proud that he was uh recognized by his peers, and uh, we're so happy to have him as as the head of our fire department here in Lehigh.

So please join me in a round of applause for Chief Travis.

How'd you get that through security at the airport issue?

Do you want to say anything further?

Yeah, I'm I'm gonna take uh a note from Phil and say a few words if you don't mind.

Um I'm deeply honored for this, and uh the the battle for cancer for firefighters is uh definitely uh a righteous cause.

But for me, these things don't happen in a vacuum.

Uh you don't get an award like that by yourself.

And first and foremost, and I I just want to thank the men and women of my department.

They're they're all hiding back there, that's what they do.

Um we love them for it.

But if they weren't out there serving this community at a at a high level, then it doesn't allow for the work that um I did at the state and regional level.

Council Jason for understanding and you know um what's again understanding that there's bigger work to be done and and knowing that it I'm gonna be away for a little while.

Uh my deputy chief, who is you guys know um get emotional if I talk too much about him, and then my wife gets upset.

So uh just say he's really great.

And uh finally my wife who's sitting there who uh through all of this, right?

She uh puts up with phone calls at date night and uh helped me through my my cancer battle.

So really for me um this award is for everybody.

Um it's just uh a recognition of an amazing working department with great support.

So thank you.

Thank you, Chief.

I I like Jason.

I was kind of shocked because we both went down there for the presentation.

We were told you can't tell anybody anything, right?

So we had to be quiet about it and get down there.

But the awards just kept piling on.

I mean it was just it was really it was fun and interesting at the same time.

So congratulations, Chief.

Appreciate it.

All righty.

Next item on our agenda is item number three.

Uh this time we set aside for uh citizen input.

Uh we do limit this to 20 minutes.

Uh because we, as mentioned earlier, we do, especially tonight have a very long agenda that I hope does not keep us here till early in the morning sometime.

Uh but we do like to hear from our citizens about something that uh uh staff and the council or myself uh may not be aware of, something that we can address and put them to work on uh uh to find out what the uh the details are of something that uh may need to be uh I guess either adjusted or addressed in some manner, and our staff is usually pretty good at doing a pretty thorough uh well they're thorough at analyzing any situation and seeing okay, what we can we do to make that better.

So I appreciate our great staff for that.

Uh we do limit the comments to two minutes.

Uh is there anybody here who would like to speak tonight?

Okay.

Seeing none, I'll bring this back up here to the uh to the council.

The next item is item number four, which is the consent agenda.

Uh item 4.1, which is approval of the minutes and 4.2 is approval of the purchase orders.

The consent agenda item is an item where uh we just uh can take a couple different issues uh that are just primarily clerical issues, and we can just vote on those.

Uh council, do you have any questions on the consent agenda?

Okay, hearing none, I'll take a motion on item number four.

Mr.

Mayor, make a motion that we approve the consent agenda as presented.

I have a motion to approve by Chris.

Do I have a second?

Second.

And a second by Heather.

Any questions on that motion?

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed.

Okay.

Both item 4.1 and 4.2 are approved.

Item number five is consideration of resolution 2025-61.

This is a resolution of the Board of Canvassers certifying the official Canvas report of the August 12th, 2025 municipal primary election.

Tisha.

Yeah, you all received the reports this afternoon.

For voter turnout, we ended up with 22 percent, which is much better than we had in uh 2023, which was 14 percent.

So we did increase the voter turnout.

Um do you have any questions about the report?

Okay council.

Okay.

Council, I'll need to take a motion to uh uh approve this.

Would someone like to make the motion on item number five?

Mr.

Mayor, I move that we approve resolution 2025-61, a resolution of the Board of Canvases certifying the official canvas report of all the August 12th, 2025 municipal primary election.

I have a motion to approve by Paul.

Do I have a second?

I'll second.

And a second by Chris.

Are there any questions on that motion as given?

Okay.

This is by resolution, and so the audience understands any any action we take on a resolution or an ordinance.

We do take a roll call vote.

And I will start with Paige.

Yes.

Uh Paul.

Yes.

Heather?

Yes.

Chris.

Yes.

And Michelle.

Yes.

Okay.

That passes.

Item number six is consideration resolution resolution 2025-60.

This is authorizing the issuance of water bonds.

He's speaking on this.

Okay.

Dean.

Okay.

In our 2026 budget, we had a couple items in the water fund.

One was their first phase of their uh yard improvement.

So it's a building, it's not an office building, it's a building really to uh store equipment and things like that that right now are being stored outside.

So this will be good for that.

Um there's the other project involved is uh the expansion and uh improvements on a pressurized irrigation storage facility.

So our budget has a uh issue bonds to borrow money to build those two two facilities.

This resolution is just to kick that off, setting parameters on how much we could borrow and at what interest rate and for how long.

And uh kind of starts the process to issue those bonds.

Is there any questions?

Questions for Dean.

Yeah, is it this is the current public works facility?

It's in their yard, but it's a new structure on their current yard.

In the current yard, okay.

With the issuance of water bonds, we always have it allocated towards a specific project.

Is that right?

Or do we ever do bonding just in in a general water?

We would never bond just uh in general.

It's always for a specific project.

Now, there are times when you issue the bonds.

I don't see it happening in this case, but a project something changes with that project and it needs to put it put on hold so you do a different project or something like that.

Okay.

Possible.

I don't see it with this one because we have two very specific projects that are ready to go.

Okay.

Any other questions?

Go ahead and have a Cold.

I will take a motion on item number six.

I probably should say since he drove all the way down here.

Brandon Johnson is our bond counsel on this, our attorney helping, and he's here to answer questions that would be better for him to answer if you have any.

Do we have any questions that Dean can't answer?

Not that we found.

But thank you for driving down here anyway.

Your time is a long way that I hope from Highlands.

Okay, I'll take a motion on item number six.

Mr.

Mayor, I move that we approve resolution 2025-60 authorizing the issuance of water bonds.

Okay.

Uh motion by Heather to approve.

Do I have a second?

I'll second.

And a second uh by Paige.

Any questions on that motion as stated?

Hearing none, this is also by resolution.

I will start the voting with Paul.

Yes.

Heather?

Yes.

Chris?

Yes.

Michelle?

Yes.

And Paige.

Yes.

Okay.

There you go.

Drive safe on that long ride home.

Okay.

Item number seven is consideration of resolution 2025-59.

This approving an interlocal cooperation agreement with American Fork City for the extension of Pony Express Parkway.

That's 1900 South in Lehigh.

Brad.

Uh yes, um, Mayor and Council.

Good evening.

Um back in June, you approved uh an agreement with Utah County for the design and construction of the Pony Express Parkway extension, which is 1900 South into American Fork.

That roadway is intended to extend uh 1900 south from about Center Street to about 700 west in American Fork.

So you approve that agreement.

Um as part of that agreement, um we are teaming with American Fork on this project, and the contract in front of the agreement in front of you this evening relates to our cost sharing with American Fork of that project.

So in a s in essence, we're cost sharing that um 5050.

Um and we just pay our match.

So currently our match is intended to be um I believe it's roughly 430,000 a piece on that one.

Um, you know, assuming that the that the project doesn't go over budget, but essentially this is just our interlocal agreement between American Fork and us.

It just took us a couple months to kind of iron out some of the fine details with them.

Okay.

So just clarify it's a 12 million dollar project funded by MAG is Utah County.

County by funded by Utah County.

Utah County's okay.

Okay.

Any other questions?

It's good to see us at this point.

So it is I have a just out of curiosity.

So it's funded by Utah County.

What revenue are you they using?

Um road tax funds.

Road tax, and it comes from the county for regional.

Yeah, so so essentially the the project we went through MAG and the TAC committee to get this an MPO to get the money, but then they usually they will usually assign either county funds or state funds.

Oh in this case, they assigned this project to state funds.

I'm sorry, county county.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions?

I'll take a motion on this item.

Mr.

Mayor, I'll make a motion that we approve resolution 2025-59.

Um, an interlocal cooperation uh cooperation agreement with American Fork City for the extension of Pony Express Parkway.

Um include any DRC comments, if any.

I have a motion to approve by Chris.

Do I have a second?

Second.

And a second by Heather.

Any questions on that motion?

Okay, I'll move to the vote.

Heather?

Yes.

Chris?

Yes.

Michelle?

Yes.

Paige?

Yes.

And Paul.

Yes.

Okay.

Item eight is also Brad's.

This is consideration of resolution 2025-58.

This approving a master agreement with UDOT for the relocation protection adjustment of water sewer irrigation and storm drain improvements as part of the 2100 North project.

Uh thank you, Mayor and Council.

So this project, this is an agreement with a standard agreement with UDOT related to the construction of twenty the 2100 North Freeway.

Um major change that was made to this from what what we originally had submitted to the council was um we had some very technical data related to the acceptable settlement of infrastructure above our main utilities, such as water lines and sewer lanes and whatnot.

So we worked with um UDOT on this one.

I think it's exhibit E in the in your agreement to further define maximum settlement potential above some of our utility um lines.

So this is I don't see it as much different from what you reviewed in the past, but I believe after it was uh reviewed and approved in back in June, you do made that change.

And so I felt like I needed to bring it back to you for that.

So any questions.

You said it was exhibit E, right?

Yeah, that's sort of the max.

I think it's almost near the very end of the packet.

Yeah, the top it basically talks about each one of our utility crossings that cross beneath um the freeway and our very specific settlement criteria that the design builder will have to take into account as they design above those utilities.

I think I scrolled through it and I appreciated your knowledge and expertise.

This is the whole project, isn't it?

So okay.

Yes, it is.

Yeah.

So the agreement essentially specifies all the utility requirements that the design builder has to design to.

Um my understanding from UDOT is that um they're currently in the process of receiving bids from their contractors.

Um I think we expect a final decision as to which contractor they choose as the build design build contractor in late October, early November.

Okay.

Any questions?

I'll take a motion.

Mayor I move that we approve resolution number 2025.

Resolution of Lehigh City 58, sorry.

That's on here.

Different.

Sorry.

Lehigh City Council approving a master agreement with UDOT for the relocation protection or adjustment of water sewer irrigation and strawberry improvements as part of the 2100 North Project.

It's presented here this evening.

Okay.

I have a motion to approve by Paige.

Do I have a second?

Not three.

I'll take Michelle's.

So only because she's first in line here.

Okay.

Any questions on that motion?

Start the uh voting with Chris.

Yes.

Michelle.

Yes.

Paige.

Yes.

Paul.

Yes.

And Heather.

Yes.

All right.

Thank you.

Item nine is consideration of ordinance 52 for 2025 approving an amendment to the Lehigh Municipal Code, Title 7, Chapter 1, eliminating the no parking restrictions during the winter.

Luke, tell us what we're doing here.

Okay.

So our our current current winter code has two parts.

It has a part that prohibits parking overnight from November 1st to March 30th.

That's about 150 days, five months.

And then it has another part that prohibits parking during snowstorms and within 24 hour hours after a snowstorm.

So our proposal is to remove the overnight parking rule and strengthen the storm parking rule to no parking during snowstorms or up to 48 hours after a snowstorm.

And um and also add no parking when there's accumulation of one inch or more of snow or ice on the traveled portion of the roadway.

What we found BJ uh Benson Streets Manager has told me they they plow about 15 to 30 days a year on our you know some of course some winners are more than others, some are less.

Right.

Um and let's see.

Um enforcing that overnight parking rule is very burdensome on police.

Um they if you imagine their workload for parking enforcement, it stays steady, then they hit November and it goes every road in the city, even state roads.

If you know state street on parking, every road in the city they have to enforce, and it it is burdensome and they are unable to keep up with that.

Um and I wanted to share.

I did an inventory of municipal codes.

Hopefully that comes up.

In all of Salt Lake Can County and Utah County, and of course I'm presenting with the spreadsheet.

I'm an engineer.

So um so we see Salt Lake City, they have actually no code, no laws for winter parking.

West Valley just has a storm parking, West Jordan just storm provo has none.

Lehigh, we have both, as I just described.

Orham city has none.

Sandy Sandy City is like us, they have both.

I reached out to their traffic engineer, and this is was his response to me.

He says we don't enforce either.

It's a point of contention throughout the community.

Removing the overnight portion of your code makes sense to me and only pushing enforcement during the major storm events.

Most complaints we see aren't concerned about snowplow access.

They are using the winter code as an excuse to get their neighbor neighbors' cars out of the street.

We have a few HOAs with public roads.

They really beat on us regarding this issue.

And this is what we're experiencing as well in Lehigh City.

Um where we have some neighborhoods really pushing for the winter enforcement.

Um to get their neighbors off their street for during that time period.

Um I want to walk through the rest of these.

Um, all of these, they just have storm codes and no overnight winter, so uh I won't go through all the cities until you get to a smaller city.

So Pleasant Grove has both and so on.

And I kind of what I gather from this is that overnight winter code works well, potentially with smaller cities.

Um, but I think we're at a point where we're we've we've overgrown it and it's just too much and too unmanageable.

Um with our new code, our new cord just for storms and after the storms, the police have committed to um enforce you know, up their enforcement during that time and help snow plows.

Uh and again, it's streets, police, and Lehigh City are our are no sorry, streets, police and uh engineering are in support of this of this c change and we think it's needed.

Any questions?

Yeah, Luke, solved it.

I grew up here I spent you know pretty much my whole life here, and I notice a lot of storms hit in the middle of the night.

What do you what do you do about that?

Do you know are residents expected to watch the weather every night and make sure they're not parked out in that because I think that's what we would expect of people.

Um it's important to know that right, if there are car parked cars, we're still able to remove the snow.

What we do is we run into issues with cars getting damaged.

Um and when that happens, you know, get damaged by ice and snow hitting their car.

So when that happens, um there the car owner is liable for the damage is not the cities.

Um I think I think we could make an effort to maybe we watch the forecast and broadcast, hey, a storm's coming, don't park on the street.

Um so there's some things we could do there, but I think we will count on residents more like you said, watching the weather and getting their cars off the street when the storm's coming.

So let me follow up with this because maybe Ryan can help clarify because I understood it was because we had the code that we weren't liable if a snowplow hit a mayor or something and knocked it off a car.

You know.

And they're liable.

So what if if that ordinance is not in place, what happens then?

How is that the same?

It's not necessarily the code itself, although that would certainly help if someone's in violation of the code.

As long as this is in other words, as long as the snow plow wasn't driving, didn't do anything negligent, then the cool the code would help protect us from liability.

But just because there's the there's a code, if a snowplow drove in a negligent manner, the city would still be liable even with the code.

But we are protected if a car gets hit and he's not being negligent.

Right.

So if it's just because let's say it's just because of a slippery road, and so there's nothing the snowplow driver doesn't do anything unreasonable and slides into a car that's parked there, then because we have a code that says you shouldn't be parked there, then we wouldn't be held liable for that.

Okay claim.

Okay.

We just want to make sure we're covered.

Yeah.

And the mayor, we're we're doing away with the overnight code.

We still have this other code during and after storms that would hold still hold up for that same reason.

Okay.

All right.

Other questions.

Okay.

Thanks, Luke.

Uh would someone like to make a motion on item number nine.

Mr.

Mayor, I'll make a motion that we approve ordinance 52-2025, approving an amendment to the Lehigh City Municipal Code, Title 7, Chapter 1, Eliminating the No Parking Restriction During the Winter.

Uh during the winter.

Okay.

Second.

And will you include the DRC too?

Yeah.

Oh, man to yep.

Okay.

Have a second with an amendment.

Uh any other any other questions or comments.

Okay.

We'll start the voting with uh Michelle.

Yes.

Paige.

Yes.

Paul?

Yes.

Heather.

Yes.

And Chris.

Yes.

Okay.

Item 10 of uh uh is yeah, consideration of ordinance number 45, 2025, approving the Hammond zone change on 0.83 acres located approximately 600 West State Street, changing the zoning from mixed use to heavy commercial.

Justin Hammond is the applicant.

You just tell us what you're doing.

I'm trying to get the zone changed to heavy commercial from mixed use, uh, which is in line with the general plan.

And um it appears to make the most sense for that parcel, despite the fact that it we received a negative recommendation from the planning commission.

Um my understanding of that was because we weren't really there to comment on anything during the planning and uh the planning commission meeting.

Um we were under the impression it would be a pretty easy change.

And I was out of town, so I didn't get the chance to speak my piece about it.

But some of the some of the neighbors um voice some valid opinions pertaining to the the rise in traffic counts if that were to happen.

Um my my rebuttal to that is basically that the traffic counts should decrease significantly from if we're going from mixed use to heavy commercial.

Um you know that the the mixed use optionality that we have on there calls for certain property types that have multiples more traffic counts uh as opposed to heavy commercial there.

Um so just given the the general plan and and our uh desire to change the zone in line with that, um we feel it would be better for the neighboring residences as well as um us as property owners.

Okay.

So what are you planning on doing on this property here?

Uh I mean uh nothing's nothing's for sure yet.

My intention would be to build a office warehouse building there for my business.

Um but I don't have any building plans or any site plan or anything for that.

Okay.

Council questions.

Just question for Kim.

I when this came through is mixed use.

I was on planning commission at the time.

I remember it was gonna be drive-throughs and had a lot of neighbors out at the time.

I just can't remember was it changed, was it general plan and then changed to mixed use or how at what point did it become mixed use?

Yeah, I think it was originally I want to say maybe commercial, and then it our general plan at the time showed it as mixed use, and with our la the latest revision, because so much of that area has really gone to more of the heavy commercial you have alpine gas and a lot of those um heavier uses already, we changed it to now where it's designated as heavy commercial.

So they changed it to mixed use, which conformed at that time, and now they want to go to the newest general plan designation.

Okay, that's what I thought.

I remember that there was a there was a plan for it to be mixed use at the time.

Okay.

Questions?

Yes, please.

Do you want to move on to stack?

Um Ryan.

From the minutes from the planning commission meeting, um Mr.

Chambers explained that the commission would have to argue that it wasn't arbitrary or capricious to deny the change.

Um can you think of any circumstances surrounding this that would be egregious enough to warrant that?

That's a good question.

Um it's just a zone change though, right?

Yeah, and so it if it's just a zone change, I'm not sure that's the right standard.

Um it's to your it's up to your legislative discretion.

Um just you know, just so the arbitrary and capricious standard is more of an administrative one, and so I don't know what what he based that on, but I'd without talking to him, I'd have to say that that's not the correct standard that it would be legislative discretion on a zone change.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Other questions.

Just someone you sit down for a lot of a minute.

Is there anybody in the audience who'd like to speak to this item on the agenda?

Okay.

Hearing none, we'll close out, bring it back up here.

Council, any other questions?

Oh, yeah, all come on up.

I'm Rachel.

I'm Rachel Freeman.

I noticed on the plan that was submitted by the applicant, is there is residential bordering part of that.

To me, that's concerning if we are changing it because I've just seen and I'm sure you're all aware of issues that have come up with zone and count incompatibilities.

When without having even if there's a buffer, if we don't have natural transitions, and we do have residential right next to something like that, there just seems to be some issues that come up for the city.

And and for those people that are existing their existing residents there.

So that's something that I just saw on that item that I think we might want to that might you might want to take into consideration.

Okay.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Um in the planning commission meeting, they discussed the buffering.

And currently with mixed use, and I I read through the code.

I guess I should pull it up.

Um the way it reads is if it's next to uh agricultural or residential zone, then it has to be buffered.

This the residents there aren't in a residential zone.

They're illegal nonconforming use, is what I understand.

So they're not entitled to buffering.

Yes, that's correct.

And I think that's what where the planning commission's discussion kind of went is even though we're you know really should be focusing on just the zone change, but it started to get into those land use issues.

But but you're absolutely correct.

The their concern was if we change the zone, that buffering isn't uh a guarantee, there's no code requirement for it.

So they wanted to recommend denial and give time to you know, and we are working on those buffering standards, but I think they feel like the buffering should still apply even for existing or legal non-conforming residential to protect those.

Yes, and I I agree, and I think I've brought this up in the past as we're working on fixing or updating the buffering, is that I think it should apply to residential uses, not necessarily residential zoning district.

And I I think that's my concern is that the applicant is correct.

Our general plan shows it intended for heavy commercial, but we still have residential homes at least on two sides in the street on the other and then residents across the street, I believe.

Um so I guess my big concern with this one is I know the that area is going that direction anyway.

Um, but with the residents still there, I kind of balk at changing it to heavy commercial because I think the applicant, and I've talked to him, his intended use is to have uh office warehouse with indoor storage, um, which I think would be fine, but if we change the entire zoning district, it opened of course opens it up to any number of heavy commercial uses that might not be appropriate next to residential homes.

Um and I talked to the applicant um prior to the meeting about possibly doing a development agreement where we would allow specifically that use, which is is a heavy commercial use, also business park use, interestingly.

Um the office warehouse with indoor storage and um and if he comes back up, maybe he could speak to this.

I think one of his concerns if he does if he decided not to do that, if we did do a development agreement and allowed that use, and I would want to include buffering requirements too.

Um if he decided to do something else, but the development agreement passed, what would happen?

Do we uh include something in the development agreement for you know it would if you chose not to do that, that it would go back to mixed use.

Could we table the heavy commercial um zone change?

You see what we're saying?

Try the development agreement first.

If that doesn't work, then he could come back and just ask for the flat out heavy commercial zone change, or is that how it works or I think you could that's an option for sure.

Okay.

That's the direction I'm leading.

Yeah, please.

So with the the mixed use that he's entitled to right now, what kind of buffering requirements does that have?

Uh they still wouldn't apply.

So the buffering, it's any non-residential use next to a residential zone or an agricultural zone.

So because they're mixed use, that's not considered a purely residential or agricultural zone.

So even the zoning he has today would not require the buffer.

And I guess any kind of setbacks between mixed use or heavy commercial, is it gonna be the same?

Um the building setbacks on a lot of our I all double check, but I think they're all just whatever the international building code requires.

We're we're pretty so it'd be pretty similar if he was.

Yeah, you can, you know, depending on how you know you can't go right up to the property line unless you do some fire braided walls and things like that.

But they're yeah, they we follow the IBC.

Um I think the only time we require setbacks on state street, there would be a setback just to keep the building back from the state right of way a little bit in case that ever needs to be widened.

I think it's 15 feet.

So I'm inclined to kind of lock up what could actually be there because it is next to residential.

Um I definitely like this office warehouse a lot better than I mean that was like a three-hour long meeting when I was on planning commission with the number of neighbors that were in, knowing that if that is developed with what he's entitled to right now in the drive-thru plan, that would have been sending traffic through their neighborhood at late hours with lights.

So I'm like, I I like that this would be a much lower impact, but I also agree with um Michelle that that does open the door to things that would be a much heavier impact than just having an office warehouse storage there too.

So other comments.

Yeah, but can do you want to respond to these comments.

Yeah, just to respond to some of Michelle's comments that uh I I don't think this is really an issue of um like if if we're discussing what's what's invasive to neighboring residences.

Um I mean the existing zoning, just to list a couple of things we could put there, restaurant, retail sales, a veterinary clinic, a movie theater, a nightclub, a laundromat, a hotel, a health and fitness club, a funeral home, and a healthcare facility.

Um to me, as if if I'm a residence that's neighboring there, whether we discuss buffering or not, which it sounds like is is relevant here because the the buffering is is the same.

Um those to me seem significantly more invasive to a neighboring residence, which which I'm I'm sympathetic towards.

Uh you know, I don't I don't want to turn a blind eye to that, but but if we have to find the highest and best use for this property under the current zoning, we're we're likely going to end up with something that's less favorable to neighboring residences than than more favorable.

And so if if we can get an approval to change the zoning, like Heather was saying, we kind of lock in what we're planning on doing, relatively a benign project.

There's probably going to be 10 parking spots in the entire project, and um as opposed to hundreds of cars coming in and out of there every single day.

Um so that that would be kind of my final comment there.

Thank you.

Any other comments?

Yeah, I I just want to point out we we could lock it in with a development agreement.

If we rezone it heavy commercial, we're gonna get we can the neighbors can get light manufacturing processing, assembly, um, a recycling center, a warehouse, wholesale distribution, a welding shop.

I mean, it's heavy commercial is much more intense than uh mixed use.

Um can I ask the applicant a question?

Can we call him back up here really quick?

So would you be very opposed if this is my intent for a motion is table this so you can always come back.

Um but do a development agreement where you're allowed to do the office warehouse with indoor storage, and then I would also include the buffering requirements that are typically uh uh required for a residential zone.

Would that be something you'd want to go towards?

Uh I'm less familiar with what that means.

So if we do that, um is the optionality still available for me to try to get the zoning changed to the so with the development agreement.

You would have to be a party to that contract, so you wouldn't have to enter into it if you didn't feel comfortable with it.

And if we table this, that you can always come back and ask for the the heavy commercial.

If we do that, do we have to go back to planning and zoning?

If we tabled this, the development.

The development agreement would yeah, the zone change could stay here until but yeah, the development agreement would have to go back through and then we'd bring them both back.

My my concern with that is mainly about time.

Yeah.

It's mainly about going back and forth however many times um ironing out the finer details of a development agreement and then having to go get planning commission to accept it and then getting city council to accept it.

Whereas if we move the the zone change, I can begin building plans right away.

If it passes.

If it passes.

And if it doesn't, we'll look to creating a project that's more in line with the mixed use.

Um let me oh, so you would just go, you're not interested in development agreement at all then.

Uh not you just you need to move on the property one way or another.

Is that the timing?

That's that's kind of what I'm getting after, yeah.

Is that I would rather know which direction I need to go than continuing to have some gray area of unknown.

I I I see I totally see the points of the development agreement and and in theory I don't have a anything against the concept of, hey, well, why don't we just have these separate agreements that we have to stick within?

Uh my you know, we we intend to be extremely reasonable as far as that goes, but for timing reasons, I don't think I want to pursue a development agreement on it.

Okay.

And just be aware I'm not comfortable changing this to heavy commercial because there are still residents there, and that is a huge transition.

That's a big jump from the intensity of the uses.

So the other council may be up.

Just to answer maybe his concern about timing.

Kind of crafted to planning commission and back to us.

Yeah, let's see.

So if we gave ourselves, you know, let's say next week to create the agreement and do a little bit of, you know, checking back and forth.

Uh we'd probably put it on we could put it on DRC for we we always run everything through the DRC just to make sure we get all the input from staff.

Yeah, I'm thinking DRC uh September 17th.

Uh that would put it put it on planning commission.

I think we're gonna miss the second meeting in September, so to probably put it into October 16th for or let's see the ninth for planning commission.

And then we could try and see if we could meet your last meeting in October, which would be the 28th.

That's probably reasonable.

So talking talk basically talking two months, uh I mean would it's two months too long to wait.

The alternative is we either pass or fail on the zone change.

Is that the alternative?

Yeah.

Um here's a question.

If you and and he and here's my thought on it.

Just uh I I I kind of agree with Michelle and Heather on this a little bit, although I'll I'll disagree a little bit with Michelle on part of it.

One is I I I and I agree with your statement that mixed use could be way more impactful and invasive on the residents, depending on what you put there from a mixed use perspective.

So if we could lock down to the w uh office warehouse, I think that's a less impactful uh item uh for the re for the for the area, but I th but it would be helpful to lock it down to just that for the heavy commercial so there it doesn't open the up open up the other things.

Uh where I might disagree with you a little bit, Michelle, while I appreciate the desire to have the buffer there, there's not a buffer requirement now.

And to me that there's still benefit from having the office warehouse com as opposed to the mixed use uh options.

And so I I I wouldn't necessarily die on the hill of having the buffer requirement be part of the uh any uh my mind's lost uh development agreement.

Thank you.

So if we have a development agreement, whether the buffering is an aspect of that or not is up for negotiation.

That's correct.

Yeah.

I mean we can direct staff to work with you on that, but if you're like, no, it's gonna cost too much, I'm absolutely not going to do this, then you can leave it out of the development agreement.

It would come before us, and then at that point, we could and I also like the idea that you had I'm sorry, uh of if you decide not to go forward with that, it just reverts back to mixed use.

If it reverts back to mixed use, uh is the optionality of a development agreement forever off the table, or is that something that can be brought up again?

Can I can I offer a solution?

Sure, potential solution.

I don't know if we can we can do this, but I believe we've done this in the past.

If we could approve this tonight, pending a future development agreement.

If you understand, I mean there's one home to the north of your one property that would could potentially benefit from that buffer.

So if you're willing to not uh tonight to say, yeah, I agree to create some kind of buffer, you know, a distance buffer, we could talk about that distance.

Uh but if it passes, we can do it pending that you'll come back later uh to get with the developer's agreement and you could start working on your project now.

Because you would have you would have your zoning, but you'd be also under an agreement in that zoning to bring forward a developer agreement that would establish that buffer between that northern neighbor and you.

I I'm a little bit I I don't know enough about what's at stake for buffering.

I don't know what that means necessarily.

I don't know.

But let me we can answer that camera.

Yeah, what would uh what would a typical buffer be here for that home north of that?

Uh so the minimum is twelve feet, and then if the building goes over twenty feet, you add an additional foot to that twelve feet for every foot above twenty.

So if it's a building's twenty-four feet, it would be uh sixteen foot buffer.

So I'm less concerned about the building being right up against the boundary, and I'm more concerned about anything else like you can't have a land like any landscaping or or parking far enough away.

Um our plan is likely not to put a building that far up against the north side anyway.

So I'm more I want to make sure I'm not signing my death certificate, so to speak, regarding like okay, I can't.

That's what I'd like to define now.

Let me just finish.

If you understand that code.

So the buffering is limited to the sp the distance between that property line and your building.

Would you be comfortable moving forward with that?

Repeat the so it the footage of the the building, if the building is 30 feet high.

Yeah.

Yeah, you'd add another 10 feet.

So then it would be 22 feet of buffer.

And it does specify at least the first 12 feet has to be landscaping.

So you couldn't put parking.

It has to be a 12-foot landscape buffer.

And then the 12 feet landscape plus 22 feet, or is it 12, 22 feet inclusive of the 12th?

Total.

Yeah, and then 50 percent of the additional so you're sure you're at 12 foot minimum landscaping, and then it would be 22 feet total.

So that other 10 feet could include parking uh and drive aisles and things like that.

Just because to just kind of keep make sure the building is farther away because it's taller.

Yeah, that initial 12 feet, you couldn't have parking or drive aisles.

It would have to be landscaped.

Can I jump in here?

Sorry, Chris, really quick.

And again, it's a development agreement.

Right now they have no buffering.

So at this point, I'm like, you put up a fence and parking, I might be good with that.

So I'm just saying our own.

Yeah, that's what it currently says, yeah.

Um but right now I'm uh just trying to look out for the residents since something is better than nothing.

So that's something you can look at, find out what you're comfortable with and put it in the development agreement.

You know.

I would rather keep the zoning as mixed use and go off of a development agreement with the zoning the way it is, so that I know that if I can't get what I'm trying to build done, then I can always revert back to make to mixed use.

I'd rather not revert back to a heavy commercial zone if I can't build what I'm trying to build there.

Gotcha.

Does that make sense?

Yeah.

So I I I guess that means that your initial suggestion is you know what you could do.

So if you can risk it and and have us just vote up or down on heavy commercial.

Or you can start the development agreement process.

Um again, that's what I would vote for.

I want to and then if it doesn't work, you could just, hey, I already got mixed use.

I don't even have to come back here and I can build what I want.

If everybody votes no.

Then you're back to the can I still do a development agreement potentially for an office warehouse?

Under my scenario, no.

Okay.

What I what I was offering is you'd have to enter an agreement here and have to be part of the motion that you come back with a developer's agreement.

Okay.

Under heavy commercial, right?

We just like some clear definition on what you that buffering should be.

And if you'd agree to that buffering, right, then you can move forward with the commercial heavy commercial with what your intent is.

The problem is we don't know what your intent is right now.

And I doesn't sound like you're really no either exactly.

So Mayor, if I I I would be uncomfortable negotiating, I mean if if you're saying you know, have them agree to the buffer now, we're essentially negotiating the development agreement here on the spot on the council, which I don't think is appropriate.

I'd I'd be much more comfortable saying, look, let's table it.

Let's have you know, spend the next week working on a development agreement.

If if as you're working with staff in the next week, it's like, yeah, there we're so far apart it's never going to happen.

Then your mixed use and you're good to go.

I'm fine with that.

And it and if you if over the next week it's it looks like there's some traction there, you may not get the conversion to heavy commercial with that development agreement in place for two months.

Yeah.

But at any point in time you can pull the plug and say, yeah, this is just too much.

I I I need to move forward with mixed use.

I like that.

That's fine.

Mayor Johnson, I mean, r regarding whether or not I know what I'm doing, you're you're you're right.

I mean, I don't but I don't know if there is nothing wrong with that.

I don't know very many people that would come in with full building plans not having any zoning.

I mean, we you know we sit down with planning commission and they say, yeah, if you want to do an office warehouse, go get zone change first.

So here I am.

You have a unique situation.

Yeah.

So I I'm fine with that.

Okay.

Um that's and Michelle, what you what you said about like a fence and a little bit of parking, like I I I'm with you.

Like it doesn't need to match what the traditional buffer would be.

Anything is better than what's there in place.

It so yeah, uh that's where I think there's a lot of leeway, at least in my mind as far as what that buffer would actually be defined as.

Well, I think that's all I was suggesting as well.

I just so what is that?

Are we done then?

Well, so we're gonna vote on this item tonight.

Okay.

So you might get an uh it sounds like you may have some work to do over the next week based on if this motion to table and development agreement moves forward.

Okay.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Quick question from my standpoint.

Since I'll be the one trying to decipher what we want to do.

It sounds like and we did this with the the project over by the rodeo grounds, grants corner.

It almost sounds like to me the way we would want to craft the development agreement is to say we're gonna leave the zoning mixed use, but we're just gonna add the office warehouse use as an additional potential use in that way he's got that ability, but if he doesn't choose that, it goes it just defaults back to the mixed use and then try to address the buffering as best as we can.

But I think that and and we'll table this.

It'll come back if if everybody agrees with what I've kind of described, then you could deny the heavy commercial, but that agreement goes into place that opens up that one other use on that property.

So did you understand that?

Yes.

Okay.

So Justin, I I for one don't want to don't want to prevent anybody from developing your property, right?

That that's a key constitutional right.

So we want to make sure something works, but we do have to have some sensibilities to some of the neighbors, right?

Is per particularly if that serve residents.

Uh unfortunately in a mixed use, we we've kind of already thrown that out the window for a lot of mixed use because that's why they're classified as uh you know an illegal use, if you will, but not technically illegal.

So council, uh I I like the motion is suggested by Kim if somebody would like to make a motion or something similar to that.

I'll give it a shot.

I could just say what Kim said, but I'll try.

Um I move that we table, oh, let me pull it up.

Uh we table ordinance 45-2025, approving the Hammond zone change on.83 acres located at approximately 600 West 8 Street, um, changing from zoning from mixed use to heavy commercial.

Um direct staff to work with the applicant on crafting a development agreement to allow um uh the use of office warehouse with no outdoor outside storage, but allowing indoor storage.

Um then to um discuss with the applicants some appropriate buffering for the residential uses surrounding their property.

Does that sound right?

I'm just you look like you just weren't a hundred percent certain.

So they one use and then look at buffering as well.

I have a motion to table.

Uh do I have a second?

I'll second that.

Uh I have a second.

Any questions on that motion?

I do have a question but for staff real quick if I can.

Well, I'm glad you're gonna because I might have a few too, but go ahead.

Is heavy commercial allowed right now according to the general plan?

Yes.

It is, right?

So we're basically asking the applicant to go and negotiate for lesser rights than what he's asking for.

I'm I'm asking stuff.

I'm sorry.

Thanks.

Um I guess depending on how you want to consider what lesser rights is I was the reason I'm gonna be him to add buffering and things like that.

That's true.

Potentially that don't require buffering, correct?

Yeah, and I guess just depending on what his preference is for development, it sounded like he actually sees mixed use as you know, a viable option if he but yeah, I think that's the same.

The other question I guess really I'm not gonna ask him to come out and but it doesn't really sound like you know what you want to build.

So we're gonna add ask you to go and spend time in that office warehouse.

But I don't even know that you know that you want to build an office for sure.

Would that be fair?

My my intention is I guess plan A is build an office warehouse.

And plan B is if I can't build the office warehouse that pencils for me to maximize the value of the property and and move on.

Right.

Um and I feel like plan A is is office warehouse one way or another for me, because I could put my business there.

But if I can't do that the way that it makes sense, then I would like to it make sense to keep it as mixed use because there's so many other uses than with heavy commercial.

But yeah, that's why I want to just change the zoning is I figured I'll just build an office warehouse.

Okay.

And then I have to that.

Well the last comment I had just real quick is 0.83 acres.

I mean, I don't know how much of a how high I mean you can go high, right?

I mean go high, but I don't think you're gonna go that high on point eight three acres.

And I I'm just wondering, you know, on point eight three acres, do we have any property that that's small of a size with an intense use of heavy commercial on it?

I mean, really, when you think of the list of uses and heavy commercial, how much of those heavy intense uses could he really put on 0.83 acre.

I I don't think it's very likely.

But anyway, if you're comfortable with it, uh you know, that's that's fine.

But I just I I feel like we're asking him to negotiate for something less than what he could be entitled to at his expense.

But that's just my thought.

And that's where my inexperience maybe comes in.

Is that I hope I'm not doing that.

Like I don't the buffering thing, I'm not sure what that is and how to do that.

Well, like like Councilman Hancock said, if you feel like you're not getting to where you want to be with the develop then just say you're done and you can come back and then I'm then I'm okay with that outcome.

Thank you though.

I appreciate your help.

I I just have a couple of questions on the motion.

Um referring back to Grant's corner, which is actually a fairly similar situation.

I mean, that was 1.4 acres, so this is quite a bit smaller than that.

Um couple of things that I pulled out though.

Um says that a DRC review is not required for a development agreement, and this has already been through DS DRC for something sort of the same, right?

Is that true?

Uh this request tonight.

Uh because it was a zone change.

Zone changes do go through DRC.

No, I know, but um, when Grant's corner went through and we approved the development agreement, it's under date of DRC review, it says not required for a development agreement.

Oh, at the time that that was done before the state legislation changed, and now they require any development agreement that deals with land use, which is ninety-nine percent of the ones we do.

It now and so w it's n it's definitely requires planning commission, but it it only takes a week to eat on DRC.

We like to just get everybody's comments.

So and the other question I had was um with Grants Corner, we did have the benefit of a concept plan that had been approved.

Right and then sort of guiding that a little bit.

Um I don't know how advanced of a concept plan you need, but I assume with the development agreement it would need to be a little bit more than just some sort of office warehouse, you know.

Yeah, yeah, this is a little different situation where they had a really good idea of what they wanted.

I mean, he has an idea, it's just a little bit more, you know, I know generally what I want to put on this property, but I haven't really spatially arranged it yet.

I don't think that's required for the development agreement necessarily, but we just need to build in, you know, so that when he does go to design it, if we think we can get some kind of fencing and buffering, we could specify those things.

Or if you're not comfortable with that, you could elect not to approve the agreement.

Well, and that's I mean, a little more specificity than what's been presented here would would be go a long way for me.

I mean it wouldn't necessarily cut it out if we didn't have that, but it might be helpful.

Yeah.

And maybe he can produce a concept plan between you know, as part of that development agreement, we could include it as an exhibit and he could present that when he comes back.

Yeah, just rough, yeah.

Okay, yeah.

All right.

Thank you.

Just process wise.

Uh I'm assuming, you know, let's say this gets all the way through the process and it comes before us again in a couple months here.

I'm assuming this would still come before us.

We'd untable it, and assuming that we were amenable to whatever development agreement came forward, we'd deny this and approve the other.

Yes.

Because it would essentially be a separate application.

Yeah, yeah, there'd be two items.

Um we'd probably put the development agreement first.

And then you can untable and if the development agreement had passed, then you could just move on to deny the zone change.

Okay.

Well, I have a motion.

I can't remember if we had a second.

Did we have a second on the motion?

Okay.

We had a second.

That's what we're doing.

We have comments.

I don't think we're changing anything in the motion, so we're okay there.

Uh I'd like to move this forward to a vote.

And uh so we're gonna be voting once again on item 10, quite frankly.

It's been so long, I don't remember where I was starting, but I think it was you, Paige.

Yes.

You're gonna vote?

I said yes.

Oh, yes.

Sorry.

I'm also yes, I'm gonna do that.

Yes, it's me, and I go yes.

Okay.

Didn't I sorry I didn't hear you?

Yes, Heather.

Yes.

Chris.

No.

And Michelle.

Yes.

Okay.

I hope that makes sense.

We'll do our best to understand it.

Okay.

Well, we do we do from time to time try to help.

So we under we understand your situation and you know, good luck with this.

Yeah, that that parcel is sat there like that for quite a while now.

So it'd be nice to see something happen there.

Okay.

Item eleven is consideration of approving uh uh revisions to the uh Inverness preliminary plat the adding twelve lots from Inverness plat six.

DR Horton, who is representing that.

I don't know why I have such a hard time with the name Inverness.

Inverness.

Um I'm Landon with DR Horton.

Um just looking to move 12 lots up to the upper portion of Inverness there from Plas 6.

Um just too much topography there in plat six.

We had to remove those 12 lots.

So just looking to move them up above.

Council, any questions?

Any questions for staff?

I I just want to clarify this is allowed in the area plan.

Yeah, the area that these are going to is still within the the density that we've identified in the area plan.

Yep, just reallocating or shifting looks.

Moving them around.

Okay.

Understanding.

Okay, I'll take a motion on item number eleven.

Mr.

Mayer, I move that we approve the revisions to the Inverness preliminary plat D, adding 12 lots from Inverness plat six, and it include all DRC comments.

Okay, I have a motion by Heather.

Do I have a second?

A second by Paige.

Any questions on that motion?

Hearing none, I'll start the voting with Paul.

Yes.

Heather?

Yes.

Chris?

Yes.

Michelle and Paige.

Yes.

Okay.

There you go.

Thank you.

Uh item, as I mentioned earlier, item number 12 has been pulled from the agenda.

It will come back later.

Item number 13 is consideration of resolution 2025-63.

This approving the intent to annex the JDH Olson annexation, approximately 5.08 acres located at 7730 north, 8730 west, or approximately 1500 south, 1100 west, with our 122 zoning.

Austin Cooper is the applicant.

Kim.

Yeah, I'm happy to try and answer any questions that you have.

Uh council, do you want to move forward or do we want to just the initial process?

Yeah, this just starts the the resolution process happening.

They'll have to go back to planning commission.

They'll review the zoning and make sure it complies with our general plan, and then we'll come back for a final meeting.

But whatever your your preferences, if you'd rather have them here in case you have questions where you can go ahead and adopt the resolution.

That was my question to the council.

What do you want to do?

Okay.

Okay.

I'll take a motion on this item.

Oh, wait a minute.

This is uh, yeah.

Is there anybody here that came tonight who wanted to speak on this?

This annexation.

Come on up and speak.

Hi, my name's Lisa Cummings.

Um I lived in Lehigh for about 15 years.

I own a business here, but I think what's relevant here is that my house is uh this property that we're talking about as a backyard of where I reside.

Um it sounds like the zoning, they want to change it so it's a higher density.

Um, as we all know, and I know that the T word, the traffic word is like kind of a swear word here in Lehigh.

Um but we've been here before with the traffic on 1100, and our concerns are that if we increase the amount of cars coming into this.

Not to mention that this plan for building is surrounded by half acre lots.

So it would seem odd to then write behind that put in a higher density um housing unit to also add traffic um to the already problematic traffic of the two singles wards where everybody drives an individual car.

It's almost impossible to get out of my driveway and on to Pioneer Crossing on a Sunday slash a Monday slash a Wednesday, depending on when activities are.

And then we've already talked about it, but Dry Creek traffic is now backing up into 1400 South, so it's now a three-lane backup.

And so I think we're just concerned.

Like we're not opposed to having things built out, even though I think it's gonna take out a few hundred year trees, which I think is a personal travesty, since those are pretty rare here in Lehigh.

But um that's my concern is adding a higher level of build just increases traffic, and there doesn't seem to be a resolution for fixing traffic on 1100, and this project absolutely doesn't fix it.

If anything, it's just going to add to the problem.

So I'll let other people come up and uh I I think to clarify, Kim.

This is still for it's R122, so it's still half acre lots, right?

Yes, it would match the zoning of the subdivision to the north.

So it's not same zoning.

It's not additional density, it's what it's already generally.

And then they ask for more later, but that's a fairly good.

I think that's like our concern because we've seen it happen before.

So I think we're here like, hey, we support it.

Minus the trees are limp gone.

Um just making sure that this isn't increased, is a really important piece to us because of the traffic.

So bad.

Okay.

Thanks.

Understand.

And I'll I'll take the comments, but it would be another application for him to change the zoning.

Good evening.

Tyson Hodges.

Um, like Lisa, I live just right north of this property.

My backyard borders this property.

Um I in favor of the annexation of this property into the city with the zoning R122.

Um, but uh it'd be nice to see this get developed and get rid of a little bit of the dust bowl we've got behind our house at some point.

And anyway, that's what I have to say about it.

Okay, thank you.

Other comment.

Hi there, my name's Dan Ames, and I'm actually located roughly between these two that just spoke.

Um so I also have uh the house is just one of the houses that borders this just to the north, and echo my neighbors in supporting the the annexation.

It makes sense to get rid of a county island that's kind of all these stuck in there.

Um and also gives us the opportunity as a city to have a little bit more say about what goes on back there.

And we just want to have it on the record that we as neighbors love and support the idea that you are all pointing out that it is zoned and kind of master plan for that R1 uh 22 zoning, and that will fit in appropriately.

Um unfortunately there will still be the traffic issues, and please if we could uh get somebody to agree not to cut down those trees, also put that also put that on the record.

But it is uh but but just one more voice um in favor of the annexation and recognizing that pre preferred uh proposed zoning.

Okay.

Thanks.

Kenneth Glade, have a great opportunity together as a council and as a mayor to support this property coming into the city.

Would love to hear your voices and agreeing that this should come into the city and support the underlying general plan.

It it and support the R122 zoning that is commensurate with this property, very low density residential agricultural.

So it would be great to hear you voice your support for this, and we can all hold hands with the developers, the council, the developer, and and the residents all together sing cumbaya and welcome them to build half acre development in the neighborhood.

So thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Other comment.

Okay, I'll bring it back up here.

Council, uh I'll take a motion on on this item number 13.

Mr.

Mayor, I make a motion that we approve resolution 2025-63, approving the intent to annex the JDH Olson annexation, approximately 5.08 acres located at 7730 north 8730 west, or approximately 1500 south, 1100 west with our 122 zoning and include um uh uh DRC comments.

Okay, I have a motion to approve by Chris.

Do I have a second?

I'll second.

And a second by Paige.

Any questions?

Hearing none, I'll start with Heather.

Yes.

Chris?

Yes, Michelle?

Yes.

Paige?

Yes and Paul.

Yes.

Okay.

Item 14 is consideration of ordinance number 46, 2025, approving the uh college farms plat F zone change, changing the zoning from TH5 to R122 on 5.2 acres at approximately 3850 west.

Excuse me, 1500 north.

Symphony homes is the applicant who is here representing this project.

Good evening, Mayor.

Council, thank you for your time tonight.

If you'll bear with me, I have a quick PowerPoint that might help explain a few parts of our applications.

Let's see.

Oh, yeah.

Did you state your name?

Oh, yes, sorry.

My name is Russ Wilson.

I work for Symphony Development.

And it turns out I'm actually a resident of Lehigh and the College Farms neighborhood, which I'll be talking a little bit about tonight.

So we we have two applications.

One is for the rezone of this property that I'll talk about in a second, and then we've also presented a concept plan as well.

But I first, if I could, I just wanted to talk a little bit about the uh college farms neighborhood.

Uh the college farms neighborhood, it was incepted in 2017.

It was developed in uh five phases.

Uh we called them A through E, and we've been building homes in this neighborhood over the last eight years, and and we're just finishing our our last homes in the neighborhood.

Um there were a total of 98 lots that were uh planned and approved.

Um the average lot size in this neighborhood.

Uh well, first of all, I'll mention this was R122 zoning.

It was a PRD.

Um the average lot size in here is a little over 18,000 square feet, so about 0.41 of an acre.

Um lot sizes ranging from 14,000 square feet all the way up to 22,000 square feet.

Um as part of this neighborhood uh we're required to dedicate some open space for the community.

So there is a large uh open space park that's a little over two acres, and then we also dedicated 10 plus acres to Lehigh City, which is west of the Jordan River Trail.

It's kind of a sensitive land area uh that borders the trail.

Um going back to the the open space area.

Um we do have an HOA in this in the college farms community, and it's um you know obviously the open space is owned and maintained by by DHOA.

Um I also wanted to point out that we we added some amenities to this subdivision.

Uh we added a pool and a uh playground um which wasn't a requirement of the PRD, but something we wanted to do for this large of a community.

Um the property, oh here's just here's a picture of some homes, just a few homes as a sample of what we've built in the in the neighborhood.

And here are some pictures of the open space.

Um the applications before you tonight.

So we we're Symphony Homes is acquiring a little over five acres of land, which is adjacent to the college farms neighborhood.

Uh so it's between the it's shown in red here on the map, but it's it's located in between the north boundary of the college farms neighborhood and 1500 north.

The current zoning of the property is TH5.

Um it is obviously in the general plan shown as VLDR, and uh I think the anticipated zoning for that is R122.

There's a stub street that we were required to put in college farms stubbing into this property, and the my understanding of the intent of that stub street was to connect eventually to 1500 north uh for the cities to comply with this the city's connectivity plans.

Um thank you connectivity plans and uh block length ordinances, cold sec length ordinances, that sort of thing.

So we have a proposed concept plan, which I'll show.

We are proposing nine lots under the R122 zone, and what we're what we're hoping to get with this is to be included in the same PRD for college farms.

Um the lot sizes the the average lot size in what we're proposing is actually slightly larger than the college farms neighborhood.

Um just a little over 18,000 square feet or 0.42 acres.

Um the density, the overall density is 1.73 units per acre, which is actually under the the max density that's allowed by the R122 zone.

Um the reason we would like to include it in the PRD is number one, it's it seems to make sense because it's adjacent to the college farms neighborhood.

The same builder will be building the homes here, and we wanted to build a commute a community that's compatible and harmonious with what we're what we've already built there.

The homes will be be very similar in size and in value, and like I said before, the the lot sizes will be very similar as well.

So going to this slide, this is this is what we're calling a base plan, which the city staff asked us to prepare.

This is showing how many lots we can get with the straight R122 zone, not in the PRD, and it and it came out to seven lots.

And if we are going to make the connection from our existing neighborhood to line up with the intersection on the existing intersection on 1500 north, this is how many lots we get that are 22,000 square feet and and meet all of the other standards of the R122 zone.

The ones on the left are almost three quarters of an acre.

Which to us just gives us you know more side yard, kind of some more unusable space.

Uh, we'd prefer it in the depth of the lots, but obviously we're not able to get that with the uh constraints of the property.

Um so in talking with city staff, I I think we've I think they're supportive of getting an additional lot for uh some right-of-way dedication and improvement that we'll be doing to 15 1500 north.

Uh but then the question is the ninth lot that we're asking for, how do how do we get there?

So we've we've bounced around a lot of ideas and haven't landed on anything with staff, but um a couple of things that we'd like to propose are a adding adding a more aesthetically pleasing entrance uh to the neighborhood.

So uh giving giving the entrance off of 1500 north a landscape buffer and adding some entrance monuments.

Um this will also mean that uh in addition to the buffer, the park strip along 1500 north will be landscaped and it will will be maintained at the same time by the HOA.

We're planning to do some waterwise landscaping, so it's um so it complies with with city ordinance that way.

Um this is what's these are some pictures of what's currently um across to from us and next to us on 1500 north.

It's it's not uh doesn't have the best aesthetics.

We're we're thinking something more along the lines of what we did at our Lehigh Terrace community off 12th West, um, a landscape buffer and and uh landscaping in the park strip similar similar to what you see here.

Um there's been a lot of um talk and interaction with the neighbors, the the existing uh homeowners within the community.

We've bounced around ideas of maybe we we add something to the amenity uh package within the neighborhood.

So we've we've talked about uh maybe a pickleball court.

Um I'm not sure that's a that's a popular idea just because a lot of people have pickle golf courts in the neighborhood.

So um just listening to some of the other things some of the residents have been saying they've they've talked a lot about adding two existing amenities, and and one thing that was brought up is possibly adding a shade structure structure at the pool, and we've we've thought about that, and um we think that makes sense.

It's um the pool could could definitely use more shade and and some more seeding as well.

So that's something we'd like to as being the developer and still the declarant of the HUA in the neighborhood, that's something that we'd like to propose as well to kind of help the neighborhood help the neighborhood out.

That is that's all I have, um, but I'm happy to answer any questions that any of you may have for me.

Council.

Questions.

Um in talking with neighbors, one thing that was brought up that uh that I liked and is the oral, I say they're they're concerned that as you add on to the development, it extends how much longer the developer holds on to the HOA.

So is that something that if this is brought in that wouldn't extend one that HOA that that would then be turned over to the to the residents before this is completed?

Yeah, so so we've talked quite a bit about that internally.

And um I the intent is to include this additional phase in the HOA, but we've talked a lot about um putting together a um an owner or resident advisory committee.

We we probably wouldn't turn it over quite yet till most of the homes are built, and one of the reasons for that is just to be able to maintain maintain control of the architecture, um architectural approvals and and things that need to be done within the community.

So we're trying to hold on to that for a little while longer, but we do want resident input, and we're we're talking about creating an advisory committee where members can voice their concerns and their opinions, and we can adopt and adapt things.

On that note, is the concern from an architectural advisory uh on the new homes that are coming in?

Yes.

So could there be a scenario where you you know hand over the HOA, but on the new homes, like just that piece, that element of it.

Everything else is controlled by the existing homeowners, it doesn't extend the HOA ownership, but on that piece, Symfony has kind of dictates that.

So it's kind of so kind of a hybrid.

Yes, that is an option.

Um it is it is riskier for the developer if the HOA decides to um change things, amend things after the fact, but it is it is possible to do that.

Isn't there a set percentage of completion that that you do have to turn the HOA over?

Yeah, so the C the C C and Rs of the subdivision call for I think it's four months after 100% of the homes have been closed in the community.

So uh we are we're probably a year out from that right now with the existing lots that we have in college farms, but yeah, obviously adding you know nine more lots would extend it for however long it takes us to build those and and sell those.

Yeah.

Okay.

Any other questions?

I'm sure everyone got the same emails and comments that I did, so I'm ready to hear from the residents.

Yeah, why don't you have a seat and I'll see if there's any public comment on this.

Thank you.

Anyone here who would like to speak on this item tonight?

Come on up.

You do have to state your name when you come up as a reminder.

Hi, my name is Candice Jones.

I am an adjacent homeowner to this lot that they are trying to develop.

Um I just wanted to remind you that the planning commission did send a denied motion for this.

Uh their concern was that um this is setting a precedence for developers to just annex um additional purchase LAN into current PRDs.

Um like um like you there's only four lots left to develop right now in the current PRD of 98 of dish um initial lots that uh when they were um set forth.

So they're yeah, so they are really close to turning that over to the homeowners.

Um that's probably a good um probably about a year.

But um there's a couple of things that are concerning.

One is it is a VLDRA designation.

It does supposed to allow animal rights.

The um builder-controlled HOA revoked those animal rights, so we are not able to have chickens.

Um that's something that we can take up with the HOA, but um they they do not honor that.

Also, he stated that the um the lot sizes in the whole entire neighborhood are more um similar to these lot sizes.

Every single lot surrounding this area is around 0.45, 0.46, 0.50.

So there is quite a change between a.39 lot and a point um five lot uh there.

Um that was something that you just heard tonight with um agenda item 13 about keeping it a VLDRA designation and keeping it 0.5.

This is an example of trying to change that designation and kind of fudging the uh size of these lots.

So um just want to bring that to your attention.

Um I did send an email earlier today.

I apologize, I did not release 1030 a.m.

was the um the cutoff time.

I'm just wondering if there was other points that you had questions on my email that I sent earlier today.

I think we got your email.

Okay.

Um and then just like in um he talked about talking to the residents about additional amenities, that has not happened at all.

Um so I know a lot of the residents are frustrated.

Uh a lot of the pictures he showed was not our swimming pool.

Our swimming pool is probably about half the size of that, and there's been lots of complaints.

I know they're not so have to put a swimming pool in, but that's what brings these 1.2.5 million dollar homes to this neighborhood.

And um so anyways, that's all I have to say.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Other comments.

Okay, I'll close it and bring it back up here.

Council.

Any other questions for the applicant or for staff?

I assume we're addressing these separately.

That will be a good idea.

They're two different items, so I assume that's what we're doing.

Yeah.

Okay.

I have a question for staff and yeah, this is probably more for 15.

Um sounds like we're discussing them together, but voting on separately.

Uh well, I was gonna vote on have you ask you to vote on 14 first and then have the discussion on 15.

Okay.

Yeah.

I was gonna treat them separately.

Okay, but we can discuss it failed.

So one of engineering was okay with granting one extra lot for the right-of-way in the curb side walk and gutter and the road expansion.

Curb and s curbside walk and gutter, that would be required anyway, right?

Yes, so um the allowance um, the potential allowance for lot density is related to the widening of the road um for additional right-away and pavement.

Okay.

Curb gutter, sidewalk, they're normally required anyways.

Okay.

So this so any density that we could support, which you are correct, we would feel comfortable supporting only one additional lot, and that's because you know, the the width or the their frontage along 1500 north is just so wide, right?

It just we don't feel like that it supports um and a full additional two lots.

But um is that answer your question?

Yes.

And would impact fees cover the cost of doing that anyway.

I think if we chose not to do the additional lot, would impact fees cover that?

Okay.

Yeah, I mean, essentially, like as the code reads, if we choose not to give any density, then we simply reimburse them for the right-of-way that we've required additional of them along 1500 north.

So it's obviously your at your discretion whether you choose to even go with our allowance of one lot or just stick with the base density.

So if we reimburse them for that cost, it would come from impact fees.

Which impact fee would that come?

It comes from the road impact fee, and we do have a line item specifically for road widening.

One more question.

Okay, so this was a PRD that was approved almost 10 years ago, 2016.

And I know this is this issue has kind of come up before a developer wants to years later add to a PRD or plan community or something, and then look back on I mean, what was allowed then?

You know, is there any I couldn't find anything in our code that addressed that issue.

Um so it wasn't approved in the original, you know, boundary of the the original PRD, but now they want to add it.

So how does that work?

Or does it, or do we just say yeah, sure.

Or I think it's just at your discretion.

I mean, either way, they're gonna subdivide it, right?

Whether it becomes another phase of college farms or they call it elementary farms or whatever we want to call.

Yeah, it they could it's at your discretion if you are comfortable adding that in and just incorporating it, or they could just do a standard subdivision.

So yeah, it's just amending the preliminary plat would be and and we we just amended a preliminary plat for DR Horton.

You know, I mean things move around, things change over time.

This is what they're proposing.

Um it's at your discretion.

I would love to say something, yes.

Um from an in from strictly an engineering standpoint, we feel that it would be extremely problematic to go back into the past, open up area plans, grab units that were not built for whatever reason that might be, and then include them in other developments.

We find we feel like that would be extremely problematic and the unintended consequences could be extreme, right?

But you know, if that's just our general thoughts that once an area plan has been completed and built out, we don't go back to it and open it back up and try to grab those density units and bring them up.

I I understand that that's not exactly what they're proposing at this point in time, but but we would see that as a big problem.

I agree.

I just what was approved years and years ago is what was approved, you know, and um I I yeah, I think we're opening setting a precedence that could be very problematic, and I personally would just go with approving the R 122 and leave it at that.

But okay.

Well, I'd like to take a motion unless there's other comments.

I'd like to have a promotion on an item of 14.

I mean talk about 15 afterwards.

But Mr.

Mayor, I make a motion on ordinance 46-2025 approving the college farms plat F zone change, changing the zoning from TH5 to R122 on 5.2 acres at approximately 3850 west, 1500 north, include DRC and Planning Commission comments.

Okay, I have a motion to approve by Chris.

Do I have a second?

I'll second that.

A second by Paul.

Any questions on that motion?

I think I'm starting to vote with Chris.

Yes.

Uh Michelle.

Yes.

Uh Paige.

Yes.

Paul?

Yes.

And Heather.

Yes.

Okay.

That brings us to 15, which is a consideration of the concept plan for the college farms planned residential development plat F.

And this is they're asking for a nine lot subdivision located approximately 2850 west, 1500 north, including one lot is density in lieu of.

Okay, clarify that.

I because I thought one lot would make it eight lots, right?

That's I think that it's confusing the way it's written.

But the base density was seven lots.

One lot would be eight.

Okay.

And they're asking for nine.

Yeah.

Okay.

If the rest of the council note that that, you know, one additional lot in lieu of would be eight, not nine.

And I guess I just want to clarify that ninth lot, if if that's the decision you like, that would widen the what right away be even beyond the normal required widening.

That that's what would get you that nicer entry feature and the additional landscaping.

That's there they would be going beyond our minimum required right away for 1500 north.

But we're not re there's no requirement to do that.

Yeah.

Right?

So either one is not required.

Question of aesthetics, I'm not sure why we would consider that.

So I mean it looks nice, but that's to me that's up to the developer.

That's not our decision.

So go ahead.

That's a question.

Yeah.

Um, do we know what density bonuses were granted with the first development?

Because if they have lots that are under the 2200, does is there was something part of that with well, so any PRD when you you know, when you use that tool in our zoning toolbox, they dedicated some open space.

Part of it is the little park that they've put in the pool, and then they dedicated actually a fairly large piece over by the river.

So by just by nature of a PRD, your lot size basically what you're doing is taking those standard lots, they all shrink because now you have open space that all yeah.

Yeah, and I'm sure they remember if there was any.

I guess I'd have to look back in the yeah, maybe the applicant remembers.

I don't remember if we gave a bonus.

I think they dedicated more than the required open space.

I I I could look at that.

But was the ESA buildable?

Um not necessarily, but we do allow that to count as part of the 20%.

They maybe could have pursued, you know, with the wetlands or the floodplain.

I mean, we've seen that happen on down by the lake where they try to reclaim some of that and make it buildable.

So some of their open space was definitely buildable where the clubhouse and they have a an area along the Jordan River Trail, and then west of the tr of the trail, there's a fairly large wetland floodplain.

But those still have some value, so our PRD ordinance allows those lands to count.

That's how we you know we'd rather have it in the city's ownership and you know, it still has I guess passive value, passive recreation.

So Kim, along your line, Heather, um, isn't a PRD though, aren't they already maxed at their capacity?

Right.

That's the whole point of the PU PRD or PUD, and that's why we asked them to dedicate open space to us because we're going to allow them to build out to maximum capacity.

Yeah.

So the overall density that I think they maxed it out to the 1.75.

And then, you know, to his point earlier, they did remove a lot at uh I think it was in 2022 or something like that.

Somebody wanted a bigger home, so they turned two lots into one, and I think that's part of what they're feeling like maybe a justification, but again, I I mean just my opinion, but that was a decision, a business decision made by them.

And they probably made additional money by combining the two lots and things like that, right?

So did they not dedicate uh property on 1500 because that is a wider road?

It didn't uh the original college forms project did not extend up to 1500 north.

Yeah, there's another side of it.

Oh that's a different subject.

Yeah, to the west is River Park, I think it's called.

So it's it that one probably did have some consideration for 1500, but this college farms didn't touch and to the east is the church parcel.

So yeah, I'm just looking at the I got up here.

I'm looking at the one in the west, and they've obviously dedicated additional roadway.

Which one?

Oh, I think it's worth barge.

Yeah, churches.

Brad, is is is your concern from engineering on the PRD more around the PRD opening it up, or is it around the extra lot going from eight to nine or a combination of both?

I think our if moving from eight to nine was because they open opened up the previous um PRD, that would be our concern.

Um yeah, I just it just seems like a super slippery slope to open up past PRDs and grab units out of them and use them.

Um but I mean we definitely support um the additional lot.

We I think we've been clear on that.

We do support um the use uh in you know, one lot in lieu of us paying um impact fees that we could be using on other roadways and and whatnot to make improvements.

It we just didn't feel like that with the frontage that was along that they had along 1500 north that um we could support any more than one lot for for that reason only.

Gotcha.

So in the packet, is there a design for eight lots?

There is not.

I don't think it's do the non-cul de sax side where it shows three to put the eighth one.

I'm just wondering what the sizes of those lots were.

No, not in the packet.

The ones with the non-cultic side, I think he said were nearly three quarters of an acre.

Yeah, just put those under the three.

Yeah.

Brad, sorry to harp on this again.

So with the PRD, your concerns about opening it up again.

Is that mainly just because of transferring density across, like, do you have any concerns of like adding on to a development with an HOA that they're gonna share the, you know, you're putting in these eight or nine homes to be able to be part of the pool in the HOA.

You don't have a concern with that.

No, not necessarily, but but say for example, just in principle, if someone were to come back and say, say, for example, Ivory Ridge, and say, oh, we we didn't we weren't able to build all of the units that we had in the in Ivory Ridge.

If someone were to come back and say, say for example, Ivory Ridge and say, oh, we we didn't we weren't able to build all of the units that we had in the in Ivory Ridge.

We want to grab those extra five or ten units that we weren't able to build.

Yeah.

And now we want to put them somewhere in the city.

I think just we just feel that generally it's a super slippery slope to be doing that.

Yeah, no, I I totally agree with you.

I I feel like that that lot's gone.

I mean, yeah, you can argue to the point that we have one less you know, home that's putting traffic on the road, but that's really as far as that extends.

Um otherwise I think they got whatever value out of that lot that they want to get out of it.

Um but yeah, I also feel like if there was if you're immuneable to the adding on to an HOA, I think those new homes need to bring more amenity, more benefit to that development if they're coming into it, because I can understand from the neighbors standpoint that they thought they bought into a community with X number of homes, maximum number of homes, and then you're now adding on to it.

You're kind of expecting that they're gonna also add on to the benefits that are there.

Yeah, I don't think we were necessarily looking at it from the perspective of oh, these lots will be in the HOA also it was mostly from the standpoint of and and we've been here many times, right?

And we we looked at it grandeur estates.

I think Michelle, you might have had that same question on grandeur when we were down south.

But it's just we simply looked at it from the standpoint of 1500 north and that frontage that they had, and did it would it really justify two lots?

And we just felt like it's probably even a it's not a stretch, but but we felt like that we could easily easily support one, but just not two.

And that's what I kind of gathered from planning commission was the concern over the idea of transferring a lot in that wasn't built, and that I I do share your concern and their concern with that, but I it kind of seems like that would that conversation was moved away from and like they were trying to add a density or add a an extra lot based on amenity that was added rather than I just have another question and I appreciate the residents' concerns about the HOA issue.

Um so just from my understanding, so I can understand it better.

Do we as a city have any say or control over those kind of HOA issues, or is that just private agreements?

Yeah, C CNRs or Yeah, well, just turning it over or and I get you're adding more people, so you should it seems like you should add more amenities or something, but is that anything that we don't know if we can require one way or the other that they have to be part of it or they can't be a part of it?

I think it's just the developer will elect whether they want to.

I'm just I don't think I've ever come across anything about HOA, so I'm just wondering for myself is did I miss something do we have just for my I don't the code is silent on it as far as I know?

Yeah.

Okay.

The only the only thing where it does require an HOA is if they have common area, then uh they need an HOE.

You're right.

So it's maintain their common area.

Some entities maintain, yeah.

Yeah, but that's the only time the code ever says it's required because if they have privately owned, commonly owned open space, somebody an entity has to take responsibility for that ownership and maintenance.

Okay.

Council, I'm ready to take a motion on this if somebody willing to make one.

Quick question.

Should the address in here read 3850 west, 1500 north on item 15.

So make it sure that the typo.

No, it should be 20, the other one, the one above the other one's 3850.

Yeah, and they should be 2850.

Oh, they both should both the month.

They both should be 2850.

Well, I imagine, yeah.

Yeah, it's 3850 would be the other side of the way.

No, I know what it is.

That's approximately right.

Yeah.

I can take the stab at the motion if you want to do that.

Um I make a motion that we deny concept plan approval for the college farms planned residential development, PRD, plat F and nine lot subdivision located 20 approximately 2850 west, 1500 north, including uh the one lot as density and leak Lieu.

Um reasons for the denial is that it um it uh the justification for the additional lots does not match um the city standard and um the increase um capacity on uh amenities and such would exceed the capacity of those amenities.

Okay, I have a motion to have a second.

Can I ask a question on the motion because I wasn't sure.

Yeah, you're denying nine.

Are you suggesting eight or only seven lots?

I'm suggest it's just state whatever it is, so it's seven, it'd be seven lots, I guess, right?

So the city will be paying for that extra road right away.

Yeah.

Well, we didn't see a eight lot option, so you could you put that in your motion if you wanted it.

So I'm just saying.

So the motion could include that we would entertain an eight lot option.

Yes.

Even though we don't have a concept plan reflecting that.

I don't see a problem with that.

Yeah.

Yeah, I think as long as you're clear that you're comfortable, at least looking at that one lot for the road right away.

But I yeah, if council member caught I'll leave the motion as is, and then if it's if it doesn't pass, then someone can make a motion.

If you take one out of the the six of the call to second change of it too, there's still point four three six acres each one, which matches some of the other equivalent but it's a lot of things.

Yeah.

If we keep it at seven, then the lot size will match the R the 22.

They all have to be 22,000 or more.

Right.

And that's my understanding is that it's more the lot size that's the issue rather than the density.

Yeah.

Right.

And I think your point is if you go with eight lots, your your point four five, which is but if you go with seven lots, they'll all be twenty-two thousand.

Uh requirements, yeah.

Yeah.

Actually, my point is I'm concerned if we start establishing using impact fees to pay for uh something like this because we haven't done it historically.

Road impact fees, we usually need those uh for other roads throughout town, not just not just yeah, not local.

So that's why behind we can use not have to pay from the city for this, and yeah.

So I I support the eight and not having the city pay for that.

Well, I do have a motion.

And uh I have a second, right?

Chris, would you consider amending that to eight?

Yeah.

No.

Okay.

Starting with uh I think Michelle.

Yes.

Paige.

No.

Uh Paul.

No.

Heather.

No.

Chris.

Yes.

Okay.

I'll entertain another motion.

Mr.

Mayor, I uh move that we take Chris's motion and add an eighth lot.

So uh is it it's a denial.

But with uh direction.

Denial with direction to uh allow for an eight lot to in lieu of can we do that?

That's not what's firmly.

We can do that, right?

Okay, you need to.

I mean, something's got to approve the item, right?

What what was so the motion before was to approve it deny it?

It was denied.

But it failed.

Yeah, so it's just a completely new motion approving it with the addition of an eighth lot.

Approval with an eight lot, not a nine lot.

Okay.

Right.

Yeah, yeah.

So uh if that's the case.

Uh I move that we approve uh college farms planned residential development of PRD plat F but have it be an eight lot subdivision located at approximately twenty-eight fifty west, fifteen hundred north, including one lot in density in lieu, include all of the DRC and planning commission comments.

Okay.

I have a motion to go to eight lots.

Do I have a second?

Second.

A second.

Any questions on that?

Yeah, start with Paige.

Yes.

Paul.

Yes, Heather.

Yes.

Chris.

No.

And Michelle.

No.

Okay.

That uh passes three to two.

All right.

Item 16 is consideration of ordinance 51-2025 approving a development code amendment to chapter 12 to add requirements for retaining walls.

Gary.

Yes.

Mayor Council, thank you for your time for being here tonight.

I will be brief in my comments, giving the length of the agenda today.

So as you know, Lehigh City does not currently have a uh part of the development code that addresses the design and detailing of retaining walls.

And as the city builds out and builds up into these steeper slopes, the need for that is becoming ever increasingly important.

So that this retaining wall code, part of the development code addresses and fills that hole that's within the the um the development code there.

It kind of establishes what we expect as a city designers and developers to bring to the city when they come in for uh a building permit for these retaining retaining walls.

It addresses as things like what we um expect them to do for design standards, safety factors, um, submittal packages, drainage, and all those kinds of things that we want to see when they come in.

And it helps protect other C people's rights.

Um it tells them where they can and can't build, things like that.

So it just kind of it's a big and a nutshell uh addresses all the questions that a developer and engineer should have when they submit a package to the city.

This is what we expect them to submit to the city.

So with that, I'll make any questions that you might have.

I have a quick question.

So what what have we done in the past?

We just look at the international building code and what is it in there or I know we've done retaining walls.

Yeah, yeah, we sure have.

I think in the past, the building department when I've talked to the building official down there, they just relied on the engineers that submit the plans because they didn't have the expertise to like review those plans.

So they just relied on those engineering companies to say, well, they stamped it.

I guess it's good.

So structural engineer wouldn't do that, Gary.

No, certainly not.

You guys don't know Gary's a structural engineer.

I figured what comment yeah.

Yeah.

Sounds like it's not a structural engineer, so this we're taking your word on this.

There you go.

If I should have stamped the time, sounds great.

I think we can trust Gary.

Well, I hope so.

His dad actually did a number of projects for me in that.

So yeah, yeah.

So I'll take a motion.

Thank you.

Mr.

Mayor, I move that we approve ordinance 51-2025, approving the development code amendment to chapter 12 to add requirements for retaining walls, and include all DRC comments.

Okay, motion to approve.

Do I have a second?

I'll second.

Second motion by Heather, second by Paige.

Any questions on the motion?

I am I think I'm starting with Paul.

Yes.

Heather.

Yes.

Chris?

Yes.

Michelle.

Yes.

And Paige.

Yes.

Okay.

Uh item 17 is consideration of ordinance 47, 2025, approving a development code, amendment to chapter 26, accessory uses, changing requirements for detached, accessory dwelling units.

Uh Lehigh City.

Who's addressing this one?

Kim?

Yep.

Yeah.

So this request is actually was initiated by the city council a month or two ago.

Um this development code amendment would change the minimum lot size for a detached accessory dwelling unit from the current size of 15,000 square feet even to what's uh a true one-third of an acre, which is 14,520.

So just a slight decrease in the minimum lot size.

Uh and kind of attached to this amendment.

We we also we've had some um concerns in the past about, especially on steeper areas.

Uh are people gonna want to put detached units in areas that we really would prefer not to have grading and additional development?

It might actually be related to what we just were talking about, right, with retaining walls.

So associated with that change in the lot size would be a limitation that you could not build a detached ADU on anything steeper than 20 percent.

So associated with that change in the lot size would be a limitation that you could not build a detached ADU on anything steeper than 20%, and we would require a grading plan on anything between 10 and 20 percent so that we still make sure that it's done properly and safely and if meets our new retaining wall standards.

So I know in planning commission's discussion they'd they had a little bit of debate in their motion coming forward for they recommended approval, but they did feel a little bit uncertain should that 20% limitation be there, or should we consider maybe going steeper?

So anyways, that is the in a nutshell the code amendment that we're looking at on 17.

That's a question.

So how do you fill then?

I I saw that Gary thought maybe going to 30 percent.

I just kind of consensus from staff, should it be 20, should it be 30?

Um I think from planning, we think 20 is a better standard just to really keep it out of those steep slopes.

And I'll I'll let Brad speak for his position.

Yeah, I guess um our feeling is that um, we're engineers, right?

Um I mean our feeling is that um the restriction of the simple restriction to say you cannot build a building on a certain slope within a lot is arbitrary and um an infringement upon uh the property rights of an owner.

We'll feel we feel like that um that with correct engineering principles and through correct design principles that um we should not be restricting the building of a home or in this case a detached accessory unit on a lot simply due to grade, right?

We just feel like that's uh an infringement upon someone's rights and that it that if it's done correctly, it can be it can be designed and built to code just like a home can be built on a lot that's steeper than 20 percent.

Uh you know, a detached accessory dwelling can be done the same.

So engineers are like challenge accepted.

That's right.

Yeah, okay.

Well, I think they're saying the same thing for homes, right?

Yeah.

I mean, home builders build on lots that are steeper than 20 percent, and we just don't see the difference here.

Um obviously there need to be restrictions.

I mean, as far as as long as things are done to code and per structural and geotechnical requirements are met, we just feel like that it would be an infringement upon someone's property rights to develop their property within accessory dwelling unit if they choose to do so and it's otherwise approved within the size of the lot and whatnot.

If I could I would just add, I think our counter a little bit of a counter-argument would be it it's one thing for the primary dwelling where you have really good access to the street when you get to these detached units, you may be a hundred feet back from the street.

So I you know, we have concerns with access, public safety where you know the part the required parking, it just starts to create a really big footprint for grading and things to occur.

So yeah, I I that's our position.

Could we do something that if it was greater than 20 percent that they would have to have some kind of sign off on that to show that they can actually meet the requirements?

You know, the your concerns that that could be mitigated.

Sounds like that's right, there's a lot of different things.

You know, retaining and there's adequate emergency access, things like that.

So and I think from engineering's perspective, our feeling is that um, you know, these aren't just people out putting a best shed up, right, and just kind of slapping it in there.

Um these accessory, these detached accessory dwelling units need to go through a building permit process and a process where this is all approved, you know.

Um they have structural and geotechnical if needed that w that we have the we have the policies in place through our building department to make sure this done correctly.

My my guess is because we're already at a third acre, to some extent, even the setback requirements themselves would limit some of those issues uh as far as you know some of that some of that grade situation.

So it might be self-regulating.

So Brad, um we didn't have code that regulated retaining walls, right?

Do we have code that will require the geotechnical engineering or studies for AD use?

Do you know what I mean?

I mean I don't know.

I know like when you grade or you well, I know if you bring in dirt, you have to pack it and you know, it and is it the entire lot that has to be that way or just where the house is going, and then years later they decide to build an ADU and it's not settled or and again I'm not in engineers, I have no idea what I'm talking about.

That's part of the reason why I asked Gary to stay here.

You know, he was the one that crafted the code.

But I mean, just for example, let's just say uh the grading was into the hill on the back side.

And I mean I believe um from an engineering standpoint, and Gary can um can weigh in too, but you know, for example, they could maybe they wanted to put a detached ADU, the back portion of the walls could be the retainage for the you know, for the hillside, and I just believe that we they have that ability.

We do have the grading code now.

We we approved it this evening, and I mean Gary can weigh in better than I can uh to the structural nature, the geotechnical, the drainage, all of this has to be taken into account.

We just feel like that it's um we have those codes for the building of the homes and and they're the same for the building of a detached unit.

Would it be okay if I asked Gary to come up and do you understand my concern though?

Do we have it in code to protect whoever is going to live in that home that it will be a stable structure?

And I I think um I think when they come in for a building permit, those things will be looked at, right?

I mean, if we work with geotechnical engineering companies all the time, and if one is required, we'd say we need to see a geotechnical report and see what the compaction studies were and things like that, so that it is insured that it is built safely and adequately.

Um there are measures and standards and things that we would require them to stick to.

So but it's a good question though.

So is you feel comfortable that if we get rid of or maybe tweak the slope issue that we have the code in place or the eyes on it to make sure it's I mean, is that your that might not even be your concern?

What is your concern with the gra the slope?

I'm I'm thinking struct on the case.

Yeah, there's I think there's a structural component of it, and uh to me there's uh the property rights ownership component of it too.

Um course I'm an engineer, I like to engineer things, challenge accepted, I think was the thing there.

Like here's a here's a problem.

Engineers are problem solvers, right?

So how do we put an ADU here and make it work?

And so we give these now retaining wall requirements, maybe they need retaining walls, like Brad said, maybe part of the building is part of the retaining wall structure, and they build the building on top of that, that could be done.

Um there's there's ways to engineer around steep slopes.

Um and drainage is another factor you have to take into consideration on that too.

So but there are ways to engineer problems.

And if the owner is willing to fork out the dollars and the money for it, then I guess my opinion is why should we not allow him to do that?

Can I can I ask a question to follow up on so are you familiar with the Draper situation about a year or year and a half ago with the home sliding down?

Um the reason the reason I'm bringing it up is I mean, yes, we have a responsibility as a city to ensure that proper code is being followed, that plans are submitted and such, right?

But um with that situation, what happened there?

Because the it still got approved because even though the city said, hey, this may not be safe, but something was turned and done that allowed them to build the homes eventually the home slid.

Um is it is it absolutely our job to say, hey, even if we approve these, the meet code that we guarantee that your home will or your ADU will not, you know, that it will be stable.

I guess.

Are you saying as a city we guarantee that?

Yeah, we that's not our job.

I mean, our job is to say, hey, we enforce it's not structural, we we enforce good code, but if a geotechnical uh firm comes along and stamps and says, hey, this this meets the standard, and and we we agree, but it doesn't you know something happens.

That's not the city's responsibility to guarantee.

But I guess with the Draper situation, do you know what happened there?

Because there was something there with a disagreement between the city and the engineer, but the engineers stamped off on it, so they were allowed to build.

I don't know exactly what that situation was.

Um I think it was a a wall failure.

Um if I understand correctly, that's what it was, which precipitated the ones going down the city.

They built on an existing swale.

Oh, is that what it was?

And they didn't mitigate for it.

So Troy and I have had a number of conversations on that.

And I would imagine, right?

That there was something there, the city said, hey, you you've got to account for this.

They did, and the problem was is the builder insisted that they had done everything and and followed the code.

The city had to approve it, right?

They because the engineer had signed off on it, but the failure happened because they built right where an existing swell was.

And that's where it failed.

So I guess my point is, right?

At some point the homeowner and the builder are taking the risk.

It's it's the city does what they do up to a point, but it's the builder and the the buyer that are taking that risk, correct?

Uh and the engineer I'd say too.

Yeah.

Yeah.

And in fact, in the retaining law code there, there's a thing right on there that says acceptance of or approval of plans through the city does not transfer liability to the city for those.

That is solely on the design professional on that.

So that's a good point.

Thank you.

Yeah.

I sorry, I just have a quick comment.

Um I understand what you're saying about the Draper homes.

Um what you're saying about the release of liability.

Um obviously liability is a concern, but I do wonder what would have happened if people had been in those in the middle of the night.

And I think that the planning department is correct that the level of engineering that goes into an entire development done by professional developers, is probably better than what an individual homeowner is going to put into something.

I mean, I don't think we're doing best sheds, but I I don't think it would be engineered to the same standard as an entire development or someone professional that was building it.

Um is my fear.

So beyond just legal liability, I I I would have safety concerns in addition to that.

And then as a side comment, I attended the legislative policy committee for the league yesterday, and my guess is the legislature is about to make all of this irrelevant.

But they wouldn't do that.

I do have a video somewhere of them houses rolling off the hill.

Yeah.

The people inside got out.

So it doesn't happen just it didn't just happen immediately.

There is plenty of warning beforehand.

So I I've seen other ones that didn't go quite so much with the plenty of warning.

Okay, I'll take a motion.

Anybody?

I will anybody.

It's a hard one.

Yeah.

I am we need a break here between Chris and I, so we're waiting for a motion.

Yeah.

I I move that we approve ordinance 47-2025, approving a development code amendment to Chapter 26 accessory uses changing requirements for detached accessory dwelling units.

Okay, I have a motion.

Do I have a second?

I'll second that.

I have a motion and a second.

Any questions on that?

Yeah, I think I start with Michelle.

Yes.

Paige?

Yes.

Paul?

Yes.

Heather.

Um I missed my chance to miss my chance, yeah.

Well, I'm I'm looking at some of the DRC comments.

And I don't know if it matters.

So we're okay.

Okay, now you better bring it up.

So just already been approved, though.

It's approved.

I think we're okay.

So are you voting yes or no?

You what are you voting yes or no?

Yes.

Okay.

Is it bad to go back and I don't I don't think so because it's grading on planned slopes greater than equal to five percent, which I think is already in there.

That was uh Glade's comment.

And then Gary's, we wouldn't want in there because he says to remove the less than 20 percent.

So I think we're okay.

And the on and the sufficient off-street parking is already included as part of the code.

So I think we're I think we're okay.

I guess we're good.

Sorry, no, it's really looking at the I don't believe that the RC comments were included, correct?

They weren't.

They were not.

Yeah, that's why I was like looking to see if there's anything we needed to include.

Okay, but it's passed.

Yeah.

Okay.

Mr.

Mayor, I think Chris would like to request a break before we go into the sky view.

He's been kicking me under the table here.

So uh before we go on to the RDA in that, because there's gonna be some discussion.

Okay.

I'd like to welcome everybody to the Lehigh Redevelopment Agency.

The date is August 26, 2026 or 2025.

Just leaped forward a year.

As a matter of roll call, all our council members are here and in attendance for this meeting.

The uh item number two is the Skyview project area plan for a community reinvestment project area.

This requires A public hearing and B consideration of resolution R 2025-10 adopting the Skyridge project area plan for community reinvestment project area.

Marlin, you want to come up and uh explain this uh economic development program to us?

Well, first before I start, uh are there any general questions that the council has with regards to the Skyview Community Reinvestment Project Area Plan?

We don't have a graphic for this, do we, Kim?

The graphic like where it is?

An overhead, yeah.

Um if you go look in the uh the project area plan that should have been posted.

Uh page 12 has the description of the area, or if Kim would like to pull it up.

What would you prefer, Mayor?

Well, just a minute.

I'm trying to pull it up here, so I'll just give me a moment.

Under appendix A project area map.

I did not remember this pretty well.

Unfortunately, I do.

We can state it chapter and verse.

Well, he's doing that, Marlon.

I couldn't find the development agreement in the packet.

Is that something we'll get to see or which one are you looking at?

The development agreements?

Which line did you call that up?

Are you seeing that?

Yeah, I am.

No, I'm on the council.

Yeah.

Which development is that we're going to be able to do that.

It was for the Skyview Development Remusal.

Are you doing Michelle?

You're talking about the Skyview Development Agreement?

We're at in the RDA.

Which one are you looking at?

The second one.

The plan draft?

All right, hold on.

Oh, right there, that one.

Okay, he found you find agenda.

There we go.

Page 13.

Okay.

So those who are looking at it for it is on page 13 under item number uh two.

So this is on the uh the north side of SR 92.

Uh Center Street is the street that's on the left hand side.

If you can continue up Center Street, um I believe that goes up to the uh the schools, uh the elementary school, middle school, and then if you continue up further to the north, that's where the uh location of the new LDS temple will be.

Uh so this is in uh encompassing uh 28.84 acres.

Uh it's encompassing a little bit on the uh west side of center street, uh where there's gonna be some out parcels there for uh some type of restaurant pads and or um retail pad sites, and then the 28 uh the remaining of the acreage will be for the retail pad sites as well as for the uh um higher end fitness center going in and then the property itself goes uh over to the Texas Instruments uh property line.

Okay.

Um the community reinvestment area um it consists of uh uh retail project area um to include uh grocery chain, smaller grocery chain going in there, uh multiple retail outlets going in there, as well as a um higher end fitness facility uh going in on the the property itself.

Uh the developer is currently working on letters of intent or LOIs uh for these retail developments, and they've been working for the last probably eight months with the uh fitness facility and are currently working forward uh working on that as well.

Um I do not have a definitive date of when they'll be into DRC, uh, but they are working towards uh all of that coming together.

Okay.

Is there anything specific within the plan that the council would like to go over?

Council, any questions for Marlon?

I think we've gone over it quite a bit.

Okay.

Martin, why don't you sit down and we'll take uh we'll open the public hearing for item two?

Is there anyone here who would like to comment on item 2A?

Okay.

Hearing none, I'll close public hearing of that.

Uh Council.

Any questions?

For staff or well, Marlon and staff.

Marlon and or Sherry.

I'd love to get Sherry up here.

No, it's not.

I I know it doesn't argue in favor of what you would like, but appendix C of public benefit analysis.

Yes, ma'am.

I would really like to see an appendix D potential risks.

Things like, you know, just in the future for when we're doing these, I I would like to analyze maybe the pitfalls, potential pitfalls of things like this, like what if it doesn't happen?

What if it goes to other zoning?

What if it etc.

etc., et cetera.

No, I mean risks of entering into the RDA, like like if the retail patterns don't continue and the retail doesn't pan out the way we, you know, stuff like that.

Um I mean, I'm in favor of it.

I think there's substantial benefit, but um, I I do think there are some risks involved that maybe are not outlined in this document.

And you're correct.

You are correct.

Um I'm just trying to think how we could put those together.

Would it be okay if after this, irrespective of this, maybe you and I can sit down and visit and talk a little bit more about what could we include in that.

I have no issues.

I would again, I've told council I would rather be an open book and talk about what are the pitfalls, what are the issues, what the good, the bad, the ugly.

Um, so that you do go into this with your eyes wide open.

So I'm more than happy to put that report together.

I would like to maybe put a little more parameter around what exactly you would like to see.

And based on that conversation, I can come up with some more ideas of what we'd like to put in that report.

Okay.

And I'm I just ran a quick slot and it identified some things that you know I think are worth thinking about.

I'm still in favor of it.

But well, and maybe what we do even after this, it whether this gets passed or not tonight, maybe we still sit down, and that would be a good exercise.

Let's put together a quick SWOT on this and you know, take a look at it and say, okay, what what is it?

Maybe put in the back for a year or two and see what comes to fruition and and uh how it develops.

That'd be good.

Thank you.

Okay.

Any other questions from council?

Uh I do have a question in the Yes, Michelle.

It's the one I forgot to ask you the other day.

Too late to email you, so I'm sorry.

No, you're fine.

Um it's a concern I brought up quite a while ago when you first bought it before us.

Um this one doesn't include moderate income housing, low to moderate income housing component, right?

That is correct.

Okay.

And the reason is because it is a retail facility that's um less than 20,000 square feet, right?

That is correct.

And so again, I and I noticed that you it seems like there's different different iterations of this.

It was polled and it was that is correct.

Right?

Because the the the first iteration of this did include 125,000 square foot end user, which would require um the low to moderate income housing, which the it I think it equated to like 26, I think it was 26 units uh would have to be low to moderate income.

Um the development of this project and the developer of the uh housing are partners, but they're two separate entities.

And the housing developer took a look at this and said, I get no benefit, yet I'm taking I have to include this.

And the um cost benefit for him didn't outweigh the project itself.

So he declined to do the load moderate income.

So that iteration went away because there was no housing component.

So the second iteration, so we pretty much kind of said, well, this is where we're at.

So the second iteration that did come before you tonight uh was that piece taken out and just the rest of it left in.

And what does that look like?

Okay.

Did it uh so in part of state code it has the exceptions because typically the state legislature doesn't want us to pursue retail community reinvestment acts, but they do grant a few exceptions, and one of them was tied to housing, the load of moderate income housing.

And the other one, from my understanding, is was intended for smaller cities or towns that were desperate to bring in retail.

Um and that's why they allowed if it's under this certain amount of square feet, then it will allow it.

Um so it has under 20,000, but then the second part says um no other retail facility with a gross sales for floor area of more than 20,000 square feet is located within the same development.

So and I look to how do you define a development, right?

So are you looking at it just as how would how do you look at it?

Because I in that mixed use number one mixed use area, whatever pod you want to call it, it covers a larger chunk and it includes retail that is above that twenty thousand square foot.

No, it does not.

So in the mixed use, but not so how are you?

Not in this project area.

Right.

So are you no create the project area, it only encompasses this area.

So does the project itself yes, it does, the project for the developer, but this project area does not include any parcels that are larger than 20,000 square foot.

Okay, and that's in square four uh floor plate.

That was my question.

Um this might be for you, Ryan, too.

Um it says located within the same development, it doesn't specify project area, and you think it would, right?

Because it's a CRA.

Um so Ryan, typically in state code, if it doesn't define development, what it's chapter 41, if you want to look down.

What's the title 11, chapter 41, so 1141-103 question is if it doesn't define development?

Yeah, so there is exceptions to retail CRAs.