No, no, I'm getting the chair warmed up for you.

Where's Greg?

He's coming.

Oh.

Order right.

Um, so I'm going to have one tonight.

There you go.

Good luck.

Okay.

And I do have a comment on the right.

Well.

I mean, if it's okay with the commission, we'll get started.

I hate to hate to interrupt the chit chat.

Everyone out to the Lehigh Planning Commission, December 4th, 2025.

We were officially called the order, and uh we'll go ahead and move on into review and acceptance of the uh planning commission meeting schedule for 2026.

We uh it's kind of crazy.

Uh did we want to say say or do much on that?

It looked I didn't see anything egregious or we vote on this, right?

We do.

Okay, I'll make a motion.

Item two point one twenty twenty-six planning commission meeting schedule.

I move that we approve the meeting schedule.

Second.

Motion has second, all is in favor.

Wonderful.

Okay.

Uh very good.

Moving into the consent agenda.

Uh minutes from the October 23rd meeting.

Thank you.

Uh Mr.

Chairman.

Yes, sir.

I have uh a correction to propose for item 3.2.

I think it's lines 10910.

The vote.

Uh I was present and I did vote for that one.

Okay.

I think Commissioner Roberts was not here.

He didn't vote.

So if we can make that addition, that change, then I would move to approve the consent agenda.

Item 3.13.2.

The meeting minutes from the October 23rd and the November 13th 2025 meetings.

Uh with uh the suggested um correction.

Okay.

Yep.

Okay.

Brent, you're saying you were there?

I was there on the thirteenth, the November 13th.

I was not there for October 23rd.

Okay, gotcha.

I'm talking November 13th.

Gotcha.

I was there for the first item.

I was there for the second item, but I wasn't voting for the second item.

It was just weird, but it'll be correct.

I voted for all of them.

Very good.

I may change that.

I voted on each of them.

I didn't vote for all of them.

Second.

Thank you.

Motion and a second.

All those in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

Any posed.

Wonderful.

Okay, minutes from November 13th.

Oh, that's the one that we just did.

He did both of them together.

I didn't.

Oh my goodness, yeah.

I mean, I technically called for 3.1, but yes.

Very good.

Then we are done and into the regular agenda.

Brightney.

4.1.

4.1.

Public hearing and consideration of Boyd Stewart plat A, a plat amendment of the Stewart subdivision located at 406 West 600 North.

So this um plat was the Stuart subdivision plot was approved in 1951.

Um so it doesn't lot two is a little bit more narrow than what is currently allowed in the code, but since it was back in the 50s.

Um this plat amendment is just moving the lot line.

The home was built so it's over the existing lot line, so it's just moving it so the existing home will be on one lot and then lot two will be a buildable lot.

Um that I'll turn back to the commission for any questions.

Fantastic.

Any questions for staff?

Uh right.

Very good.

Is the applicant present?

Yes.

Sir, you're welcome to speak to it or not, as the case may be.

You you don't have to.

Okay.

Very good.

Uh this is a public hearing.

So if there's anyone from the public who'd like to speak to this item, now is the time.

Come on up to the mic, sir.

And please state your name.

And just give me information.

Um, one of Boyd's neighbors.

Yeah.

The um upload on the map there.

That plot right there.

Not the one next to it, but one right there.

It's mine.

Okay.

And I was wondering because I heard something moving that fence.

Because it's off like five feet or something like that.

Is that true?

That fence line right up there on top of there.

Not that one.

The one this way.

Yeah, that one.

It's Kim, do you have anything that you would add?

I would I would say maybe the applicant could answer that.

Sure.

We we wouldn't require anything to be moved.

Correct.

So it would just be up to it would be between the two property owners.

Yeah.

Okay.

I this is just information because I mean I wouldn't.

I don't it doesn't bother me to move it or anything like that.

I just trying to verify if that's what's happening here or something like that before I you know what I mean.

Just just wondering.

Just finding information to do that.

Because that's like my that's like my backyard right there.

So the plans don't indicate it moving.

They just call it out as an existing.

They don't say like moving it on the plans.

Okay.

Yeah.

Okay.

That's cool.

That's basically only I'm here.

I'm just trying to find out what's happening with it.

Sure.

But um but that's I'm good.

Sir Forgive me.

Did you state your name?

We're oh sorry, James Hall.

Thank you.

Sorry about that.

No, no.

No, no.

All right.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Appreciate it, Mr.

Hall.

Anyone else from the public.

Hi.

My name is Camp Grover.

I have the property immediately to the uh east bordering the lot.

Right there.

Very good.

Um I'm a little puzzled as to why the the jog goes back over and takes some of the front yard of the of the home.

Um the Carolyn's uh sister Annette Sanderson lives around the corner, and she told me that the uh the family's desire was to keep that property uh a showcase, have it as well kept up as Boyd did.

And I would be supportive of that, but uh they're taking part of the front yard from that home, which the prospective buyer is going to probably be a little unhappy about that, and that's gonna restrict uh probably who would be willing to uh to buy that property, aside from the fact that uh virtually the uh the yard is much smaller than than Boyd had it.

Um my biggest concern I suppose is three doors down from a further east is uh a corner property that has become a bit of a junkyard.

And uh I think you're probably aware of that situation, and um it's it's a home business.

Uh the guy has um he does a lot of remodeling for people and then he hangs on to the leftover stuff and uh salvage stuff, and it's become a bit of an eyesore.

And I was concerned that this property might become that same sort of a thing.

I I don't know if they're planning for more than just a home there on this this new lot, or if uh if they're gonna be parking uh business vehicles there.

I was curious to know why the jog back uh if that's to give them more parking for uh business vehicles or whatever.

Uh across the street south, uh there's a there's a large property there that has uh uh a business centered there, and they have people uh a number of cars that that park along the street.

They're they're company business uh vehicles are kept inside the yard and they've fenced that off so it doesn't look all that bad.

But down on the corner uh and around the corner there are uh duplexes that are rental units, and uh two of them adjacent to each other have uh cars cars, trailers, uh far in excess of what they can park on the property, and so they've got they've they park in front of other properties up and down the street.

And that's become a bit of an eyesore.

And I was just wanting to be sure that that isn't what we're going to be getting here.

Okay.

All right.

That's my concern.

I appreciate that.

We'll discuss that with uh with planning here in just a second, and we'll see we'll get you some answers to to the extent that we can here.

I'm sorry, I I don't know.

So we'll we're gonna respond to that in just a minute.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Yep.

Anyone else from the public?

All right.

Brittany, I did see your email and I flashed through my phone.

It was in this one.

I I know that's where I just wanted to check.

I saw that there was an online message I wasn't able to see.

It came in the last 60 minutes.

Which item is it?

Okay, so I will look forward to you sharing that with us when we get there.

All right.

That's flagged, great.

Okay.

Um seeing no further commentary from the public, we'll go ahead and close close the uh public hearing and bring it back to the commission.

Um real quickly, though, let's address what Mr.

Hall and Mr.

Grover uh were both bringing up.

Uh I believe that well I want to make sure we address their concerns that to the extent we can, they are also not technically connected with this application.

Would I be right in that umetheless?

Um it sounds like uh Mr.

Grover, um, if there is uh a business that's operating beyond you know what uh public surface parking permits, that is something that you can bring to the city's attention.

Uh and citations do occur.

Uh we've I I've seen that happen.

So if you've got a neighbor that is um uh that that's chronically doing that, that's something that you'd like to flag for the city.

Uh you're you're welcome to do that.

Um then I guess we we took Mr.

Hall's uh inquiry on on the fence line, but that also uh doesn't touch this jog.

Um so that off all the neighbors.

Is there anything I'm missing in that so to answer the question about the jog in the property line?

Yeah, there's an addition that they put onto this home.

In fact, part of it they they have a deck that they're gonna need to tear down to make the subdivision work.

But the reason the lot line jogs like that is so that they can pick up the required frontage on the front of the lot.

It's this is a kind of an unusual this was actually a subdivided lot years and years ago.

The same person bought both lots and just had one you know kind of a combined yard.

Now they want to split it back off, but because of that addition, it create that's why the jog is in there.

So it widens back out at the street on the frontage on 600 north to pick up the lot frontage.

Into Mr.

Grover's concern, I this would be disclosed to any buyer that there's a funky jog.

Yeah.

Yeah, whoever buys lot one is gonna have to know their front yard tapers a bit.

Yep.

Yeah.

But they do meet the lot size and frontage requirements, so it just takes a little bit of it took a little bit of creativity for them to basically re subdivide this lot.

Okay, very good.

Cam Coda Homey built on that lot too.

Yeah, we did look at the building envelope.

It would, you know, either they'd have to set it back a little bit.

But that goes against our design standards, right?

Uh not for homes.

That's more for commercial businesses.

We don't have a maximum setback as long as they meet the rear yard.

Right.

Uh but they could fit, you know, there are some newer homes that we've been seeing built on some of these uh narrower lots.

You have lots that are 40 feet wide that still accommodate a pretty large single family home.

Um so yeah, even even with the pinch in that it would just have to be a narrower, you know, deep but narrow footprint.

So it is buildable.

It yeah.

Okay.

Mr.

Chair.

So they could they could build a home in the pinch area?

No.

As long as they have the side yards out there.

They could still do it there.

Yeah, yeah.

So it could still be close to the road, or they could do a flag lot essentially, right?

Put a access to the back.

Put it more towards the north.

I mean, for the sake of technicalities, it's it's not a flag lock, but I get what you mean.

Right.

Kind of the idea that it opens up as it goes back.

Yeah.

So yeah, so it it meets code, and I would encourage um uh both of the gentlemen, Mr.

Hall, um Mr.

Grover.

Um the uh uh issues uh raised in not that I heard them necessarily objecting, but wanting to bring up these neighborly issues as as this goes forward.

Um if uh there are concerns about uh parking in excess of what is permitted by by Lehigh do let us know here at the city.

Uh and uh also I'd have that conversation with the neighbors about about the fence there, sir.

Okay.

Um I see it though, it looks like this does indeed meet code.

And I mean I'm happy to entertain a motion, or if there's more discussion, sure, but second motion by all means.

All right, let's make a motion.

Um make a motion that we move to approve the proposed plat amendment.

This is item 4.1.

There we go.

Of the regular agenda.

Uh we move to approve the um proposed plat amendment amendment, include the DRC comments.

Uh we feel that this meets the requirements of the development code and any other findings that came up.

Sorry.

Brent did add it to be fair.

It was it was down to the wire, but I'm gonna let Kate make the decision.

Motion and a second, all is in favor.

Aye.

Any opposed.

Very good.

Motion passes.

So it's 14 single family lots.

Um this is coming to you just for feedback on the layout and lot size.

Um it does not meet the current, well, so it's currently zone TH5.

So before any development can happen, it'll have to be rezoned.

The general plan is very low density residential agriculture, BLDRA, which would allow for R122 zoning, so 22,000 square foot, like half acre lots.

And um the applicant is showing lots that are more in the range of RA1, 15,000 square foot lots.

Um there's a range of sizes, the smallest is 15,000, but going up from there.

And um the applicant feels like this would fit well in the area because college farms surrounds it and college farms is a PRD.

So they did the 10% open space as part of that.

Um this is only 7.17 acres, so it's smaller than the 10 acres.

It'd be hard to put open space in this, but um they feel like it's fits into the surrounding area and could be good.

So this is kind of an interesting one where um it doesn't meet the general planner of the zoning right now.

Kind of more just seeking feedback on if you like the idea and the concept of it.

Um that I'll turn it back to the commission for any questions.

All right, questions for staff.

What is the sorry, I have a question for staff.

I have to apologize.

Um what is the TH5 that's I don't know which direction we're going.

Is this east?

It's just holding T T.

Yeah.

No, what what is the one?

Not not their parcel, but the one that's surrounding area like that.

Yeah, the surrounding area that's TH5.

Um I believe that that is all R122.

Because they did um they did it as a PRD, so it keeps like the underlying zoning, but then they cluster density so that it um they have flexibility with lot size and setbacks so that they can do the open space as well.

But yeah, let's see what we're doing.

I I'm not talking about the final spur concept.

Um college farms around it, yeah.

Is that is that the the other TH5 over there?

Oh, this TH5?

Yes, that one.

Um and your question with that.

Yeah, like what is that transitional holding?

But who does does someone else have a plan for for that area?

So in in their proposal, they're saying we're surrounded by similar.

But this is pretty close.

It's touching and it's undevelopment.

It's open space.

And I'm wondering if if someone else has a concept coming for that.

No.

Yeah.

That hasn't been proposed for any development, and it's all VLDRA in that area.

So would we require a stub for connectivity to the other transitional holding?

Or why wouldn't we require a stub, I guess.

Yeah.

Um I'm trying to remember if there's an existing home.

If if there's existing development and it, you know, if the road would end up going into a home, which it sounds like there is, that would be why it our connectivity standards do allow exceptions for existing development.

So say though those were subdivided lots, it just closes off that opportunity for a stub street.

Normally that would, but yeah, because of existing development.

I think I'm trying to remember if we flag that in our DRC comments.

But that property right there.

So there's there's no connecting that little parcel that's on 900 with the uh with the main those those are not connected by any roads, right?

Yeah.

The only entrance is 20 250?

And college drive.

And college drive.

Yeah.

Is that 250?

What does that say?

Uh 2500.

2550.

I think as far as roadways, this is there's there's really no other alternatives.

Because it's been surrounded with subdivision or that existing home.

So it's really just a matter of lot size.

They're this concept, like Brittany said, has lots smaller than what would be allowed under the general plan.

Um so they would have to uh come through with a general plan amendment.

They actually filed a general plan amendment concurrent with this.

But when it got to DRC, um we're not in that window yet.

Uh February will be when we consider general plan amendments again.

So we just put that application on hold, or you know, told them you'll you'll have to bring that back in a couple of months.

So essentially they're asking for a density boost.

What what are they asking for?

What are they allowed and what are they asking for?

So 22,000 square feet is what the minimum would be under today's general plan.

They're asking for this uh you know, more like third acre RA1 type.

So it'll go from 22,000 if if they go the if we changed the general plan and they rezoned it to RA1, the minimum lot size is uh 15,000 square feet versus 22,000.

So our leven lots at 22,000 to 14 lots with the variable size of some large.

Yeah, roughly, yeah, I think 12 to 14.

Right.

So are we are we giving final approval or just no, this is just concept, just a recommendation, but it is kind of a weird one because you can't really approve it because it doesn't meet the general plan or the zoning.

And the required action is keep in mind we could we've done this dance.

It's a concept plan.

So it's only concept, but if we approve, that also gives some best things so it's beware unintentional.

Exactly.

Exactly.

So on that ominous no.

If there are no further questions for staff, shall we uh oh there is go ahead, go ahead.

No, no, no.

No applicant is.

Let's do it.

Let's do it.

The applicants present, sir.

Please state your name.

My name my name is Jaron Davis.

I'm from Holiday in Salt Lake County.

I'm a friend of the Bishop family who has asked me to help them with the subdivision.

And I think it would be helpful first for the commission to understand a little bit of the history here.

In the early 1990s, the Bishop family living on State Street in American Fort decided they wanted to live out a life dream, which was to raise cattle.

So they bought this acreage here and have raised as many as 30 cows on the property and had horses.

And that has been a glorious opportunity for the family kept beef in the freezer and been something that they've cherished.

But the world grew up around them.

And now they're in a position where having cows and having horses on the property is a little bit of a hindrance.

Occasionally the horses will get out and Terry has to go over and fix some lawn because they'll walk on the neighbor's lawn or do some things like that.

So it's not a matter of them wanting to leave, it's a matter of them being a little bit uncomfortable with the current situation as it relates to having that farm in now a residential community.

One of the reasons we're presenting this to you today is that the bishops really didn't have any input on where these roads came in.

We designed two site plans, engineered site plans for this site.

The one that complied with the zoning.

Actually, that you have, and I don't know if you're able to put that up, Kim.

Um it's not in their packet.

Okay, yeah.

The design that we had that that has the 12 lots honestly isn't something that I think you'd be proud of in Lehigh City.

To get the the lot size were much bigger on that, if you see college road is further north, and so it it puts puts those the frontages of those lots wide, wider than what a nice residential home would be.

So when you when you talk about the this gentleman that talked about the frontage on the road and having it nice, one of the things that happens is when you have too much, then you just kind of forget about that extra piece.

And so we had the engineers design something that complied with as much of that zone as we could.

So we went from 12 lots that the subdivision really doesn't look that wonderful to these 14, and we have no interest in going more than the 14.

Commission chair, I understand the idea of putting yourself in a quagmar as it relates to approving the concept plan.

What we didn't want to do is is spend a lot of time and energy on something that you wouldn't have any taste for at all.

So why we while we would don't expect a vote from what I just heard from you, we would like some feedback as it relates to our ambitions to accomplish something like this, because we'll go to a lot a great deal of expense to be met with resistance versus coming up to something that is friendly that works within the community.

So know that the bishops want to have this be something that that they're able to look back on with pride, having been their family farm.

We we want to have it fit in the community.

Our ambitions are are sincere.

And if we had that other maybe Kim, you could address it.

If you had that other site plan, you'd see exactly what I'm talking about.

We just we we go from 12 lots that have some that are really not very functional to 14 that are very functional that meet today's market demands, etc.

And Gary was very nice to point out to us in the DRC meeting that the roadway width has changed since these roads were put in, and so that one of the things that's wrong on our concept plan is that we need to widen the road, and you might remember Gary's at a couple feet.

I think two feet-ish.

So we we would have to we'd have to go in on those streets and then widen into those.

So do you have any questions for me before I sit down?

I have a question.

Please.

So, Mr.

Davis, I just want to make sure I'm clear that because we haven't seen the 12 lot versus the 14 lot.

I'm trying to imagine why you would say that it wouldn't be very functional in appearance or even utility to have the 12 that fits the zoning currently, and then you don't have to worry about a general plan amendment.

Is it would it pencil with a 12 lot subdivision, or is this the need to get 14 to make it work?

Brent, I don't think that it would be too shocking for you to hear that Terry gets his door beat down and his phone ringing all the time from people wanting to parcel.

It really is a matter of functionality and and having something that is appealing and leaving the community with something that mirrors.

If you could expand out, you'd see that these lots actually fit into the community quite well.

An example of some of the differences between these lots and the other lots besides the ones on the north side of the property that go quite wide in frontage, is that we really are put in a position where we might only have one lot on that corner section.

So there's we we're just with that magic of 20 to 22,000 square feet.

It just puts us in a position where it's very difficult to do something that fits into the subdivision.

And I think the average of the I should have I should have averaged the square footage, but the average of the square footage is we're not that far off.

But the average of the square footage is we're not that far off.

We have a couple lots because of the cul-de-sac that are that you know what's that one at 15,000, one just over 15,000, one at 17, two at 15.

So that yeah, there's a lot of them are really close to what the ideal is.

Does that answer, Brent?

Well, I'm gonna push back a little bit because the surrounding areas um also were required to dedicate 10 percent to open space, even though it's still zone R 122.

And so and I read in the report that you don't feel you have the space to be able to do that.

And so to say that you're comparing it to the ones nearby, maybe lot size on average, but not community in terms of open space availability.

So I I I I kind of want to softly reject that argument for the 14 versus the 12, and we have uh you can do a 12.

I I think it's a matter of opinion on whether or not uh a larger size lot on that north side that's wider is less functional or less appealing.

There are several of neighborhoods in Lehigh that have lots that are wider than they are deep.

And it seems to have uh allowed for beautiful homes to be built.

There's side yard that needs to be taken care of.

But I just I'm trying to wade through the reasons and I'm I don't think you can compare apples to oranges because there was a dedication of open space with some of that college farms area, I believe is that's right, Kim.

Yeah.

Brent, if if I can debate with you without any confrontation, because I'm not sure.

I won't take it personal because I I can see what you're saying.

I actually served in my community on a planning commission.

When we talked about putting in something like that with Katie, which by the way is a remarkable employee of the city.

It would have fallen back behind the three lots and would have been a taut lot.

And in every experience that I've ever had, whether in real estate development or as a community participant, those taut lots just don't quite work.

And so because we're we're small enough under that 10 acres, our own open space doesn't make a lot of sense.

But here's the other point I think that's really important, Brent.

I don't think anyone in those communities is going to say to these 14 people, don't come use the open space that's available in the community.

So while we didn't contribute to those open spaces, our residents would be somebody who participates in those open spaces in a meaningful way, and the lots don't change from what the community has and accepts.

And so my argument, Brent, would be that we can use those spaces.

We don't have enough real estate to use our own, and we don't end up with something that is big and unusable.

And I don't want to say to your community, I've I've been to South Jordan and to Draper who always fought against having the acre lots.

I don't want to fight against that.

But where the market is today is wanting something that is smaller so that you're not spending so much water on uh money on the water and you don't have unusable space.

We still have lots that are very appealing to the marketplace, but haven't been forced to go outside of what would be a norm because of a requirement to have that 22,000 square feet.

Well, I appreciate your explanations.

Yeah.

Well, and thank you for taking it.

That's what this is for.

Yeah.

Yep.

Anything else from Mr.

Davis?

And Mr.

Davis, uh please know that I just want to make sure that more junior members of the commission understand the significance.

We we will vote.

That is absolutely gonna happen here this evening.

Oh, I just want them to always understand uh you know what what their vote is gonna mean.

So may I may I offer one friendly suggestion from our side?

By all means, sir.

What one of one of the one of the positions of the we've we've taken the opportunity to visit with with some of your elected officials.

One thing that we'd be willing to do is say that we don't want more than 14 lots.

Our ambition isn't to do anything different than what we're presenting other than to make the changes that are necessary to meet this the current code.

So we would place on ourselves a restriction.

In other words, if we went to a zoning that allowed for 15,000 square foot lots, we're not going to come back and try to jam more down the throat.

So if if it is something that you can see that is reasonable in our request, place a restriction on us that there will never be more than 14 lots, and we'll we'd be happy with that.

I'm not sure that we can actually do that ourselves.

I would require you to go to city council and uh and hash out there.

But I appreciate that.

All right.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioner Jackson.

That sorry, Chairman Jackson.

That would be a development agreement.

Correct.

Yeah.

Gotta get it right.

What's that?

Gotta get the title right.

I I'm sorry, hash out a deal was not uh was not the technical term.

It is a development agreement.

All right.

Uh this is a public hearing.

So if there's anyone from the public like to speak to this item, now's the time.

I'm Bondell Clement, and I actually uh live just east of where this will be back in the cul-de-sac on the north side.

That's my narrow strip there.

Uh anyway, we still have horses and we still train rope horses uh most of the time in the summertime.

I do have a water system in the arena, so we do try to keep the dust down and everything.

So uh but my main reason here tonight is we would like to be able to have a six-foot fence put in behind us from Brockworthens Place to the north, just on that west area, just so we don't have kids coming in and getting into the animals and getting hurt.

So uh Brock put in a uh cement fence, but uh I'd at least like to have some kind of a six-foot fence or whatever would be there just so we don't have kids get hurt because there's a lot of young kids in that area and will be in that area, and that's that's my concern.

As far as the lots are concerned, uh I know uh the green space isn't in there, but that you know, with the limited amount of space there, that doesn't bother me.

So just so you know, Mr.

Bishop knows that I'm not gonna complain about that.

So anyway, thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Appreciate Mr.

Clint.

Anyone else from the public?

Yes, I'm not technically public, but I'm in between the two.

Well, we'll allow in between the two to speak as well.

So I'm Terry Bishop is my name.

Very good.

Uh one just quick little note that I would like to see pointed out is a lot of these lots do conform to what's uh right now and what it is.

There's I think five or six of those actually conform to the square footage.

Um the two lots that uh Jaron had mentioned uh on that the far west southwest corner there, because of the way those two roads come in.

I either have to sell that as a point nine of an acre single lot or not at all.

If it if it does, if this does not go through because that's the way those roads are, you cannot get two lots in there that would conform to the R22 that the city would like.

Um although they're they're both close, but they they can't be done if that way.

I it's it's put me in a bind with the way the roads are there and and back to uh the one comment that was asked if we could go through if that was going to ever be able to go through.

Um that was originally their plan until Brock Worthen bought his the place and put a big old home at the end of that.

So it it changed the way we could do things with the property.

Uh there's been a lot of decisions made for us by the city.

We moved out there when there was only like eight homes.

Uh Mr.

Clements was one of the only ones out there and with us, and uh and we we appreciate him.

And if uh and the fence is not at all unreasonable, we'd be glad to take care of that.

But thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else from the public or in between?

Of course.

All right.

Seeing none, we'll go ahead and close the public hearing, bring it back to the commission.

Sure.

I mean, on paper 14 12 to 14 is not an unreasonable ask.

But when they brought up the history of the property, that this was a place that had animals, that it that does become more of a significant ask because now you are limiting the animals that could be on this property.

At a half acre and bigger, 22,000 and bigger, you can have an animal on your property.

Any of these lots would be able to have animal rights.

This would significantly reduce that.

This would limit future buyers' potentials to have an animal, a large animal on their property.

So as far as the history and heritage of the property, I think it is a disservice to jump to 14 because it does limit or remove some of that heritage from the area.

That would be my thoughts.

Right.

But so you you'd only want a six-foot fence.

Six is fine.

Yeah, we can only require our agricultural no climb is six feet.

But this is this is like a solid.

This is it.

Um our agricultural no climbing fence isn't uh like a it doesn't have to be cement or something like that.

It just has to have like the privacy slats and stuff.

And they could work out something else.

Fences now too.

They can work it out between between the two of them.

Yeah.

It's actually just an ag fence.

There's no it's it's not a visually obscuring fence.

It's like chain link, but it's two by four vertical mesh.

It has the top rails and posts like a chain link fence.

But the mesh fabric is just it that's why they call it no climb because it's two inches wide, four inches tall, so it's hard to get your feet in it to climb.

But it's just an ag fence is our baseline requirement, unless they as neighbors agree to something different.

Okay, thank you.

Any reactions, thoughts?

Well, it's gonna be contingent upon the changing of the general plan, which that bar can be pretty high for some.

Um I I prefer the 12 lot.

I think you can get it.

I'm trying to figure out the reasoning.

It still still doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

I asked if it would pencil as a 12 lot, didn't get an answer to that.

But that doesn't have to come before us, but I'm just trying to figure out the reality.

Uh to describe a lot as not functional because it's wider, just doesn't make sense to me because I see that we've done that throughout the city in many places with beautiful homes built.

It's just a different perspective from the front to see it wider than it is deep.

And I feel that it's unfortunate that that um road has to be wider and that you know standards change from when they bought the property and the connection to College Drive.

I think that's what it was called, but um I empathize with that, but not to the point where I'm considering changing the general plan.

Yeah, yeah.

Other it looks like uh there's some buildings already on these three lots to the southwest or southeast.

I guess they're gonna have to come.

There's a there's a home uh there's a large hay barn, and there's also three other sheds.

I imagine they will go away to much of my display.

Yeah, the A barn and my dad and I built that one piece of the site.

I'm afraid not, sir.

Public.

We open a can, we do that.

I'll let's just go ahead and do it.

I will go ahead and reopen public comment for it.

Come on out, Mr.

Clement.

As far as the general plan goes, that road that was actually supposedly gonna go to the east, actually went right through my garage.

So you know, I don't know.

I'm just saying that just so you know.

Um because that wasn't the general plan when we build our house that come after.

So if you look at the plan on that thing, it goes right through my garage because it goes to the uh 95 or the yeah, 9550 road across the street, which would have took out my basically my garage and my house.

So that's how come it's this other direction right now.

Real quick, Mr.

Clement.

That that is that's currently on the plan.

That was currently on the plan last time I seen the plan.

Okay.

Yes.

Uh you still have your garage.

Yes, that's another one here.

Okay.

Very good.

Okay.

I would hope uh that would never happen with your without your blessing.

That would require eminent domain, and I that wouldn't not well, it would happen without my blessing.

I'll tell you that right now.

Okay.

Thank you.

Anyone else from the public seeing as public commentary has been reopened.

Ah, come on up, Mr.

Bishop.

I feel you itching what you got.

Ladies and gentlemen, when when we bought this out here, this was none of this was on the general plan.

The whole city ended clear back by the railroad tracks almost.

And we're we're a mile from that.

And we never envisioned being in a subdivision.

We were in the middle of 200 acres of Alfalfa.

And we were encroached upon.

We were, you know, they can everybody came in to us.

But back to, and I appreciate the fact that you opened us back up.

Thank you.

Um, yeah, okay.

That's true.

So you you can technically come in.

Oh, could I be brought up repeatedly?

Yeah, it tells you how naive I was.

No, that's all I'm but Tyson, the the one thing and it does.

I, you know, it breaks my heart about the animals, but the people that have moved in out there, they've made this such a large home, Mecca out there, that the home behind me is like I think 17, 18,000 square feet.

Um the uh the homes across the streets that all the cadence built, there is not one animal, not one large animal in the whole subdivision.

There's eighty-four homes there.

Not one large animal in that whole subdivision.

Um I have right now I have three horses and six cows on this property.

I hate to see it go too.

I really do.

But realistically, as I look around, people are not interested in bringing animals.

The Clemens, I've admired them for years.

We we go out and used to go out and watch them rope all the time because that's what they did.

And so I as much as I'd love to see people be able to have, and myself included.

I my wife's trying to talk me into keeping the hay barns, by the way.

And uh and that lot and building her a house so that I could stay there, but I would keep a single horse there or two.

But most people are not interested in that.

Uh they're interested in pickleball courts and swimming pools and tennis courts and uh all those things, and I appreciate that stuff.

That's fine.

They can afford the the money that that it costs to be there, so they deserve to do what they want to do with it at that point.

But there is uh, as I mentioned, several of the lots that would allow someone to move in there and still have uh and a little large animal.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

Anyone else?

I'll go ahead and officially reclose public hearing.

Commission.

I I don't feel like we should be punishing Mr.

Bishop for being the last one standing in this area.

You know, I mean it like he says every everybody else around him sold out a earlier.

And he was keeping the dream alive.

Um I feel like they've they've done their homework and they've tried to make it fit.

And I can appreciate that, that he's now doing what his all of his neighbors have already done.

Um I'll say uh that Mr.

Bishop is I I did not grow up here.

My father-in-law was um uh he was a fifth generation.

So I uh become well acquainted with the history of this town.

And uh of course, very sympathetic to the way this place has shifted.

Um he remembers the Lehigh that that you remember as well.

Um and uh nonetheless, the um the the general plan, I of course can't speak for what was done in the 60s, 70s, the 80s, and and so on, but it it does it comes up every 10 years and uh sometimes more often than that with uh the intent that we as citizens are supposed to come get our our say at that time.

Um and that is again not to say that it cannot be amended, it absolutely can, and this is your right to to ask for this.

Um for me, I I can't say that I I see something that is so compelling to the best interest of the city that it would call for um making an amendment.

I feel like that your own plan needs to be largely respected unless there's a massively outsized uh reason to to shift it.

Um but uh anyhow that I think that that is where I'm coming down currently and is of course absolutely fine.

My colleagues in a different place.

Um other reactions or does anyone want to put a motion forward?

Where are we at another question if I may so the lots surrounding this piece would these lots would be roughly the same size?

Are they that much smaller?

Trying to figure out the I'm thinking 12 to 14, not that big a difference, but to uh continue the fill the neighborhood.

I think those lots should match what's existing.

Yeah, so um it I guess depends on the area.

You know, these are like 0.38 acres.

There's there's a range of sizes around it.

Um these ones are all 0.5.

It's yeah, so I mean coming up here more, you're getting more to the smaller.

Well, these are still like third acre.

Um yeah.

So I have to apologize for my math skills because I don't have many.

Um but converting from 12,000 square foot lot to a third of an acre.

Does that how what is a third of an acre in square footage?

Um it's about 15,000.

Yeah, about yeah, a little over the fifteen thousand.

Thanks for doing the math.

Okay.

One an exact third of an acre is 14,520.

So basically R112 is 0.25, R115 is 0.34-ish.

And then R122.5, a little over 0.5 acres.

Okay.

So generally, this area is 0.3.

Yeah, a lot of those.

Because Brittany explained it, so PRD, so it has the same underlying half acre zone, but they have uh some open spaces that they dedicated so those lot sizes shrunk.

Because the some of it was preserved as open space.

Yeah, they have this corner.

This is the open space that college farms did.

And it is private, it's HOA, it's not public open space.

So to match what's existing in the neighborhood, they need they need us to say, yeah, this is good.

You can do this without having the open space.

Was by doing the open space.

Yeah.

Am I tracking correctly?

Yeah.

So I guess they would be coming for a general plan amendment in his own change to go to like RA1, um, where this is R 122, but they did it as a PRD with the open space, which is how they got the smaller lots.

Okay.

And I just want to make a comment that I think we gotta be careful what we're saying to match that's already zoned one R 122.

So it matches everything around it.

They want to change that.

It just so happens that because they went to the PRD, some of the neighboring properties have some smaller lots, but they also have some large half acre lots.

And then to go to Commissioner Kuhn's uh point.

Um he has the same opportunity to develop this as an R122 as is all his neighbors did prior to this.

But they prefer a different lot size because they feel it's not as marketable, I guess, uh as the half acre lot wider than it is deep.

And that's their preference, right?

So I just want to make sure that we're talking apples to apples, not apples to oranges.

It's got the same opportunity, it's already zoned.

It might be a little bit different in the PRD, but that's because there's dedicated open space as part of that subdivision.

There they can't do that with the size of the parcel that they have.

So that's the real constraint, I believe.

And then their personal desires for marketability.

So I know I know it's a question of will it pencil wasn't necessarily answered.

So I don't know if a 12 to 14 makes a difference in whether they can make it happen or not.

But I agree with you, Commissioner Jackson, that for a general plan amendment.

I I don't hear of anything for the future, which doesn't matter in my case because I won't be here as to whether or not that would be justification.

Because I think the bar is pretty high for changing the general plan.

We just went through this not long ago.

We changed the general plan, was it 2021?

2022.

2022, three years ago.

So there was an opportunity then for public comment to change that to a future use under that zoning.

Um but the city in its wisdom left it at R122.

Right.

So just to correct the maybe I misunderstood, but it's not zoned, right?

It's transitional holding.

Well, it's TH5.

But it's general plan was.

But it's not zoned.

No, it's not zoned.

No.

Okay.

So yeah, we'll work in.

Yeah, what we're considering would be a concept plan that would require a different zoning from what is called for on the general plan, but it's currently still holding.

Got it.

Yeah.

And that would be an administrative act, and that's an easy bar to change from TH5 to R122.

Yeah.

Because it's already designated that in the case.

It's already designated.

And so yeah, there's the invested right.

Boom.

The water dedication.

Yep.

So Mr.

Davis.

As as applicant, yes, sir.

Come on up, but let's do it to the microphone.

Let's make it nice and public.

Brennan, I love friendly debating you.

I got no dog in this fight other than I care about the city.

We're not, we're not we're designing this around a road being in the wrong location, centering up to the parcel.

So we're we're we're trying to deal with something that was presented to us that's a difficulty.

If that road were centered on the seven acres coming in, we wouldn't have an issue.

But to give you an idea of what I'm talking about on those lots, we're over 170 feet wide and we're 134 feet deep.

And on the corner on the southwest corner, we're 232 feet wide by 130 feet deep.

So if you think about the frontage of your own home, it's just not what is happening in the market today.

We don't have frontages that are 30, 40 feet wider than we are deep.

And it that's that's our issue.

We're we're we're addressing where that road comes in pure and simple.

Well um if there's more discussion to be had, fine.

I I'm happy to entertain a motion.

Um I appreciate very much.

Uh the last point there, Mr.

Davis.

I personally do not find it sufficient to change what's called for in the in the general plan.

But let's have a vote and see uh how all the other commissioners feel, or we can continue to discuss.

But I am nudging.

If if you no one's taking the hint.

Um is that what you're doing?

Well, I of course, let's discuss if if there's more points to be made.

I just it seems to me like well, we've we've hit a point of circular discussion.

All right, I'll make a motion.

Okay.

Item 4.2, public hearing consideration of final spur ranch's concept plan, a 14 lot residential uh development located at 2424 West, 900 north.

Move that we decline or that we deny the concept plan um with the findings that the proposed concept is not consistent with the Lehigh City Development Code, that the proposed concept does not conform to the goals and policies of the general plan.

And I will include any DRC comments.

I'll second that.

Okay.

Motion is second.

All those in favor.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Nay.

Okay.

Four to one.

Thank you, gentlemen.

I'm sorry I didn't cut your way.

Really appreciate you.

Didn't go your way.

Well, this is for feedback.

Yeah.

You've got feedback.

Yes, absolutely.

We look forward to seeing you again.

The vote doesn't really matter much.

Okay.

Item 4.3.

And 4.3 public hearing in consideration of Richard Thurman's request for preliminary subdivision approval of Epiphany Point, a three-lot residential development looking at 913 and 939 East Cedar Hall Road.

So you've seen this before it came for uh conditional use flag lot in November 2024.

Um it has to come back as a preliminary since there's three lots instead of when it's a flag lot that's a two-lot subdivision, it's just administrative approval after that.

So that's why you're seeing it again.

Um the zoning on this is R1 Flex, which all of these lots meet the minimum 8,000 square foot lot size and the 80 feet of frontage.

Um the flag lot has the 20 feet of frontage, which does create a really mega um drive access, but um according to the code, the flag lot has to have the 20 feet.

So um that's the way it is.

Um with that I'll turn it back to the commission for any questions.

Very good.

Questions for staff.

All right.

Very good.

Um get to the applicant then.

The applicant's present.

The applicant's online.

Ah, very good.

Ah, yes.

Now be the time.

Just go ahead and state your name.

Uh we see it there, but you'll say it for the record and feel free to say whatever you like.

Pertinent to the item.

Well, hopefully you can hear me okay.

I'm attending from Arizona.

Uh we'll be in Utah next week.

Very good.

Uh I think uh the my only concern is what was just stated that we're gonna end up with a 40-foot driveway.

Uh part of the uh driveway includes a little easement from lot one.

And the only way around that I see is to maybe move it over a few feet so there's more easement from lot one and uh lead a little more breathing room with the house on lot three.

Uh we are looking forward to taking advantage of the uh placing at the overhead electrical uh supply on Cedar Hollow Road to uh uh re uh re uh uh plumb and re-electrify the this old hundred-year-old how uh uh farmhouse uh uh with access from that easement to the uh west side of the house instead of the rather precarious ten foot high supply that's on the east side now.

Uh but that's my only concern if there's any way we could move that line over a little bit, but I do understand the uh requirements of the flag lot.

Thank you.

I have a question.

Like are you asking about moving it from what is presented here or what are you asking?

I guess.

I'm wanting to know if the uh driveway could be moved to the west.

So there was a little bit more of the ease easement on lot one.

So it's not encroaching so much on the house on lot three.

Kim, do you want to speak to this all?

Kim, how much wiggle room do they have?

Yeah, there's not a lot of wiggle room, and maybe I don't know if Gary wants to add anything else.

I saw the solemn nod from Gary.

Yeah.

The challenge is we've got to keep the the lot frontage on lot one.

Um it still has to meet the frontage requirement.

We can't have two lots that are below the frontage.

So you've got yeah, you gotta keep it's gotta be 80 feet.

So we got I guess 1.42 feet to play with.

And then you've got to have the 20 feet that is owned and dedicated to the flag lot.

So there's just only so much frontage there that you can play with uh adjust.

Uh you know, from a practical standpoint, it would be nice if they could just share the same driveway, but to meet our development code standards for those lots.

Yeah, you've really only got a a foot and some change there to play with.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah.

That is the issue.

And uh that's why we rezoned it.

So I guess we're pretty tight.

I'm making any adjustments.

Well, Mr.

Thurman, you've got uh about a foot.

Well take an inch, you know how it goes.

Wow.

All right.

Uh Mr.

Thurman, anything else at this point.

Uh no, I think everything else has been pretty well hashed out.

We appreciate Brittany's help at this and Scott Carlson, I think has done a great job.

Very good.

Thank you.

All right then.

Uh this is a public hearing.

So let's go ahead and move into move into that.

There's anyone from the public who'd like to speak to this item.

Now is the time.

All right.

Seeing none, we'll go ahead and close public hearing.

Bring it back to the commission for deliberation or a approving vote.

Sorry.

I I I loved the uh the possible motions and findings that that have been stated for us.

The planning commission may provide a positive.

Oh, forgive me.

It did say not good.

My brain read that is I don't know.

It was positive or positive, wasn't it?

You do have to approve it.

You could require any modifications that are required by the code.

And and of course, because it there's no question here, but it meets code.

So I see what's it we may approve or approve with code.

There it is.

Yeah.

It's uh I mean, yes, legally that is exactly right, but it's funny.

Appreciate the sense of humor.

Sorry, never mind you.

Yeah.

I'll make that motion.

Go ahead and make the motion.

Yeah, 4.3 public.

Hearing consideration of Richard Thurman's request for preliminary subdivision approval of Epiphany point.

Uh I move that we offer that we approve.

Yeah.

Yes.

Move that we approve the preliminary subdivision with the proposed or with the findings of the proposed subdivision does meet the frontage and size requirements of the R1 Flex Zone and the previously approved flag lot.

And I will include all DRC comments.

Second.

Motion has second.

All those in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed.

Very good.

Mr.

Thurman.

Come to Utah next week, confident knowing that this is moved forward.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Have a great night.

Okay.

Item 4.4.

Yep.

And um 4.4.

Public hearing and recommendation of stacks request for review of the Thanksgiving Station Development Agreement located on approximately 26 acres in the Thanksgiving point area.

The purpose of this development agreement is it's one of the required elements to getting the HTRZ funding.

So this does that.

And then it also includes some additional requirements over the Thanksgiving stationary plan, I guess.

And we'll mention that staff has some unaddressed concerns with this still.

And it kind of does get into some deep legalese.

So I am not going to try and summarize it.

Very good.

Well, of course, questions for staff, something for any rather those be questions for legal, but okay.

We'll go ahead and get to the applicant.

No, it's I can it was for the application.

Okay, very good.

I'm gonna go on a limb and say the applicant's present.

Hey, good to see you again.

Mark Burdock with the Gardner Group.

201 South Main Street, Salt Lake City.

Tonight with me, I have Brian Thomas and Dave Denison.

Ryan's with Stack and Dave is with Gardner.

And before I turn the time over to them to answer any questions because they know a little bit more of the minutiae than I do on this, is we have been working on this and Lehi has been awesome and Marlin and everybody for about 18 months.

And just to remind everybody, we we worked collectively with Kim and John Bankett from John back at a while ago to get the area plan approved.

So that area plan was approved, and then we went to the HTRZ commission.

And that HTRZ commission for short terminology is a way to set up a TIFF.

Well, when you get that approved, which we did, everybody was great.

We went to go Goyo, everything got approved.

The mayor came, very helpful.

You have to, in association with an HTRZ do a development agreement.

And that is this development agreement that we've been working on for 18 months or so now.

So just to kind of refresh your memory of where we stand and what's been going on.

So I'm gonna turn over to Ryan and Dave if you guys have specific questions, which I'm sure you will, but we can answer them.

So thank you.

Thanks, Mark.

Thanks, Mark.

Hi everyone.

Ryan Thomas, Stack Real Estate.

Excited to be here with you for this final piece of the Thanksgiving station transit-oriented community.

What I had prepared about five slides for, Mark just said in 30 seconds.

I pretty good at still in my thunder that way.

So sorry about that.

No, it's fantastic.

But happy to dive into any questions.

I have some slides here for visuals if that's at all helpful to touch on some of these topics.

But if you guys are good with it, I'd say let's just get right into the questions.

I just had a quick question.

And I left my notes at home, unfortunately, but it talks about the the something or HTRZ, is that what it is?

Yeah, housing and transit reinvestment.

So I went to section 6.3, and I can't really see where there's a definition.

I mean you could easily include the statutory definition because I know this is fairly newly created in state statute.

Um but I I thought for purposes of the public to have that mentioned as being defined somewhere, but not having it actually defined somewhere.

Maybe we could add that definition of some sort.

I think that's a fair point.

I think what it's referring to is the HTRZ act right there, the defined term, which is speaking to the state legislation on the housing transit reinvestment zone.

But if you want us to add it, yeah, totally cleaner if we identify it under definitions.

Doesn't say the act, it says HTRZ to be defined under 6.3.

Yeah.

And so I'm like, I went there.

It's not really defined.

Yeah.

So then I went to the statute.

And to be honest with you, it's not really defined there either.

Gotcha.

And so um we can clean that up, no problem.

Those are the kinds of things.

If you want to spend four or five hours, we can just go right through it right now if you want to.

No, I don't want to do that.

Save that for a January meeting.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Very convenient of you.

Maybe render it on your same.

His term is.

This is his last meeting.

Oh, I don't know.

You might think otherwise later.

Anyway.

Those are that's one.

And then there's um.

Man, this is pretty legal intense.

I I read through it twice.

Yeah.

And I don't know that I have any other specific questions, although there was some reference to Clubhouse Drive.

And I think is the expectation that the city puts that in.

Um happy to add some color to that.

Please explain.

We have been asked by the city to support their efforts in Clubhouse Drive in pushing that forward.

Um what we have agreed to do is provide commercially reasonable efforts.

If we're asked to come to a meeting, speak on behalf for anything that's beneficial for the city, we will gladly do that.

Um we we kind of sit in the middle of that.

So we have agreed to do what we're asked to by the city.

Um I would say it's not us pushing Clubhouse Drive.

Clubhouse Drive is not a project road.

Um based off our area plan that's approved, the traffic triggers within it.

Uh Clubhouse Drive is not needed for this project.

The replacement for that is 2100 north, the freeway, freewayization of that road.

So just doing what we're asked, is what I would say.

And then I have another question I want to get you from your perspective.

Yeah.

Said that if um under this development agreement, if things aren't started up to 10 years out, then the agreement basically doesn't apply.

I was wondering why such a long time frame and why not a shorter time frame.

It seems like it would be in the best interest of the city to have that as a shorter time frame to get things started under this development agreement than uh uh a 10-year out window.

Does that make sense?

And frankly, if you would have asked me that, I would have said it's five years.

Is that did you remember 10?

I thought it was five.

If it is ten, um it is ten.

Okay.

Then happy to discuss that further, take a recommendation on it.

That's to your point though.

We are trying to start right now.

Yeah.

And we actually couldn't start this year or in this next year, it's a long story.

We have to notify the landowner, but because we don't have this agreement done.

So we actually are hopefully once this gets approved and we move can move forward, we will start designing and start going.

But yeah, uh we're wanting to go is the answer.

Yeah.

So you'd be amenable to changing that language to a shorter time frame.

Absolutely.

Okay.

That's what I wanted to get from your perspective on that.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Good question.

Um I'd love to see the slides.

I'd love for the public to see the slides.

Yeah.

How do I connect to this here?

Uh it's not Britney's first rodeo.

So this is this 4.5.

What's that?

I've learned.

No, no, no, good point.

Do you the visuals put us under item 4.5?

Do they not?

Uh the visuals are for Thanksgiving station.

Okay, yeah.

Okay.

They uh work for both, I would say.

Sure.

Just trying to dot our i's and cross RTs.

T H R Z.

That's right.

Believe we call those um dot lots when we start dotting these consonants.

Two seconds here.

Is that coming through or something?

Yeah.

Nice.

So this is probably on my end.

So that's why am I with the Mac or the He's on the Windows machine?

Yeah.

Yeah.

But adapt.

The joys of adapters.

Oh.

Hey.

We're in business.

Let's do this.

Um so basically these are kind of adapted to be whatever topic you'd like to cover here.

Um this is just kind of an overview of the project there.

Um thing I think that's maybe worth highlighting uh that Mark touched on, like I said, this vision for this project started back in 2018.

Some of you were around to remember those early concepts.

5400 units, density, north to south, all throughout Thanksgiving point.

Uh we heard resoundingly that that is not what the city, and that is certainly what not what the residents wanted.

So we went back to the drawing board, came back with the 2,000 unit concept that was approved in March 2022.

That concept is what vested the 2,000 units that development rights to this project.

After getting the concept plan approved, we were asked to work with the city staff to amend what is the Thanksgiving point area plan.

And that is a 20-plus year old document, a couple hundred pages that needed to be basically made current, brought up today, and future-proof for a development like this that'll last, you know, a decade plus.

Uh so we worked diligently with uh Kim and his team and gotta give them kudos.

They sat down in 62 weekly calls with us.

Um you may have seen this in my narrative.

Um and in those weekly calls, we would go, okay, let's talk about the intro, let's talk about utilities.

We'd go through each section, collaborate, work on that together, then we would take it to DRC.

And every time we'd go into DRC, it felt like you know, almost ready to spike the football, like yes, we just got through one section.

You'd go in that DRC meeting, leave with 30 comments, and it was back to the drawing board, working with consultants, collaborating in the next week's meeting with staff, uh, to work through each section by section of this area plan.

I don't remember how many pages it is, but it's close to 200, and it covers everything from traffic triggers, roadway improvements needed by us, the developer, the city, you.mag and collaboration, um, design standards, ordinances, land uses, you name it.

Incredibly comprehensive.

That is our governing document for this project.

Um, the development agreement, as Brittany touched on, adds additional rules, guidelines, strings to make sure that there is predictability in this project for Lehigh City and us as the developer taking on a project that'll take a decade plus.

Uh so that is the purpose of the development agreement.

As you can see, I just put in some other numbers here just to show you uh what we've spent to date.

When we received that concept plan approval, excuse me, area plan approval.

We were told we needed to purchase all of the water rights for all 2,000 units within 14 days.

That was 5.4 million dollars worth of water that we went ahead and purchased, about an additional 1.4 million dollars in pursuit costs that we've paid to get to this point working with those consultants.

Um as you can see, seven plus years, six point eight million dollars.

We're extremely committed to this project, and like I said, that's where we're very excited to be here today to do this final piece.

So that is the high-level overview of this project, and Mark touched on the HTRZ.

Um, if there's any questions on that, happy to elaborate, but essentially state legislation that densifies that promotes density and smart development around key transit stations.

To be frank, that legislation was pretty much written with a project like this at a key Silicon Slopes transit station in mind.

So there is a high level overview.

This development agreement began in April 2024, 18 plus months ago.

We've gone through 20 drafts involved with this has been everyone from the mayor, city manager, economic development, planning, engineering, in-house city attorney outside council as well.

So this has been vetted front to back many times.

And like any good agreement, there's things that both of us like that we got, and there's certain things that you know not everyone's happy.

That's the mark of a fair agreement, I would say.

Anything else we can cover in that?

No.

Okay.

Okay.

Well, if there's other topics happy to go through.

Yeah.

Fantastic.

Okay.

Very good.

Uh this is a public hearing.

So anyone for the public like to speak to this item?

Now's the time.

All right.

Sir.

Hello, I'm William Harris.

I live in Point Meadows subdivision.

I've lived there since 2013.

So just excited to see stuff moving and hopefully you can iron out the details, the disagreements in the legal language.

Yeah, just want to commend the city on setting the triggers.

Uh 2300 Triumph, the redesign there seems to be working pretty well.

Still backups, but hopefully with the new freeway coming in, that will help that.

So just wanted to give my support and look and I'm excited to see this moving forward.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Rachel Freeman.

Um my sister lives over by there, I think Sweeney Point, and she couldn't come.

And um asked me to come, and I've probably spoken to about a hundred residents in the Thanksgiving Point area and the Holbrook area, which would be affected by Clubhouse Drive.

Um I I know that he said that the city um you know asked them on 6.2 to include Clubhouse Clubhouse Drive.

However, um many residents came out to oppose that previously at a MAG meeting, and MAG still remembers and notes the huge opposition of residents to the Cliff House Drive.

Um so that's something to take into consideration.

Also, uh I've had residents um like other citizens like me be can be a little bit concerned and confused about some things like about the tax transferring the taxing authority to uh a non-elected entity and how that would work, as well as the 50-year and kind of vague um wording on some of the the things um specific obligations placed on the city, whereas uh you know, there's require requirements for infrastructure.

If you have how many thousand units and you're gonna have how many kids in schools, but most majority of the property tax will not be going to help with those schools.

And um, and just some things like that that are that have been brought up to me with questions, and to be honest, I don't know how to answer them.

So I'm bringing those questions to you.

Um and uh with there's not a maximum dollar amount that's uh the city can pledge that that's noted there or in sales tax or anything like that.

Um those are these are just questions that have come to me.

I'm just bringing them to your attention, and uh and you know, maybe some clarity and some would be great in in this situation.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Dear friends, Kenneth Sale here.

So good to see you this evening.

Um yeah, this is uh uh probably is this a surprise to you?

How how many times have you been briefed on the HRTZ zone?

It sounds like it's fairly new to you.

How many times, how many planning meetings or working meetings have you had on PIDs and the taxing authority that's being transferred, or the the tax dollars, 80% of the tax dollars that are gonna be sent to a private organization to the recruit recoup their investment over 25, 45, 50 years, it's a little bit confusing in there.

There's a lot of legal language.

With the amount of questions that there are, it seems like as they'd like to create a context where they've had so many conversations, and this has been going on for so long that it's obviously so well planned out at this point.

We should just be moving forward.

But I'm concerned that there might be a couple people that understand what's going on, but the vast majority of the people don't know what's going on, and that seems to be a problem.

Uh I first started getting involved with city issues about the same time that this was kicking off, and I came to a couple city meetings and in a planning commission meeting, some of you are here for that.

Uh whole bunch of residents around the stack development uh were not happy about this happening.

And the planning commission said, sorry, you're a meeting too late.

We already had one of the meetings previously.

I think you referenced that in March.

Um, and then this was this meeting was later in the in the year.

And so there's nothing you can really do about it.

Goodbye.

And that really solidified to me that once decisions are made, they're really hard to go back on.

And so when you don't have all the information in front of you, you haven't had the working meetings, you haven't had all these discussions, it's not really well planned, then maybe we shouldn't be moving forward in this situation.

And we've seen that in the past as well.

The village overlay was something that got me activated with the city.

And if you remember that property uh off of Pioneer Crossing, it was passed, and a developer came forward and said, Hey, we're ready to go, let's do this.

I went to the city and I talked with Brittany, said Brittany, tell me, show me what's going on.

Tell show me all the documentation about how this is supposed to pan out because they're having a meeting tomorrow.

I need to know how it what's what are the requirements.

Do you remember what you said?

There were no documents to be provided.

It was a black hole.

They approved a village overlay, and then there was nothing behind it.

There was no definitions, there were no rules, no restrictions, all those types of things.

And so when we look at that and go, that's that's not appropriate, and then we hear, oh, the strata networks property and all the things that happened on that was so well done.

In fact, the city council member says that's the best planned project we've ever had.

And we know that there's been other problems with that just recently, and they just finally made a a payment after three and a half years of beating our drum.

So we we see that the planning has been missing over and over and over.

We see that on the west side of Lehigh, we don't have commercial uh properties because we've given it to high-density housing, and now all of our tax revenue from Lehigh residents on the West side go into Saratoga Springs.

This is all to say that we've lacked the planning and the and preparation going forward.

And I don't see that we've had tons of planning and preparation here.

I don't think that you've had all the education and all the legalese and people are hard or are concerned about giving descriptions about it and saying talk to legal about it.

That tells me that there's probably more here that needs to be done, and for that, this is a simple thing.

Let's table this, let it go into the new year, because we just had a vote.

What our residents said in Lehigh was we're not playing insider baseball anymore.

We want honest transparency.

The voters overwhelmingly, overwhelmingly said, we don't like what's been happening in Lehigh lately.

We want change.

It's time to respect the voters, it's time to respect the residents.

Let the process play out.

This may be the best plan the city's ever had.

I don't believe it.

And I don't think a lot of residents believe it either.

So let's simply push it to the new year.

Let's not do 11th hour legislation.

Let's not do 11th hour cram it in there, try to get it passed before a new new administration starts.

We see we saw that just a couple days ago.

We saw it last week, 32 million dollar bond that you and I are now responsible for that are gonna go that's gonna go to Thanksgiving point.

This last minute legislation is dirty, it's shady.

And if the applicants really think this is the best plan forward, what's three weeks between friends?

It's been since 2018.

Let's discuss it in the new year with the new administration that isn't involved, because the residents said we saw the 60 years of experience that the plant that the city council members and the mayor brought, and they rejected that experience and said, we want somebody with no experience.

We don't want what's been happening.

So I ask you to please table this.

It's not saying reject it.

Just say, hey, let's take a minute, let's review this.

This is a lot of legal language, and then we can move forward then.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Gene Rivera.

Um, my husband and I moved to Lehigh in 2018.

We moved from Provo because it had gotten so overdeveloped that it was just a nightmare to live there.

And we saw Lehigh as I mean, it's just perfect.

We love it here.

And we started to get involved because we see the same thing happening here.

And this past uh election, I spent a lot of time vetting all the candidates, ones that were up for re-election, ones that were new to the political game, and I expressed my concerns about this to each one of them.

And the ones that uh are are elected have my full confidence, and I just asked that with a project this huge that they please be allowed time to fully delve into all these issues, and I I fully trust them so I know that once they've given it consideration I can trust them to make the best decisions for Lehigh.

I also have to echo um the concern about the property taxes.

I I recently ran for a school board uh because I was one of the uh residents who was upset about the property tax being raised over and over again.

So as you know, the we're creating these three new school districts and splitting this budget.

So we're already going to be, you know, everything's gonna be tight, and with putting more children in there and not getting and taking that property tax away.

I w worry that property taxes will continue to have to be raised by the new school board.

So I have I have just major concerns.

I really wish that we could just give it some more time.

I think with a project this huge that's looking to affect Lehigh City residents for a couple of decades that um while I appreciate all the the time that um these people have put into this.

I really I just please urge you to give us some more time.

This is our city, we want to make sure that we do the absolute best for it.

Please thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else from the public.

Cody Black.

So I'm here to uh request a negative recommendation for this.

That the slides, there's five slides.

I still don't really know what's going on with their project.

I think um the city attorney uh should go over this with all of us and with you.

Uh it sounded like all the legal stuff was confusing anyways, so I don't know how much you all even understand what's going on with it either.

But you know, some of the points that I've seen is it's a huge liability to the city.

We have to provide the utilities and probably roads and the taxes that we're gonna lose to do that.

So I don't think it's a good deal for us, especially a 10, 15 minute presentation.

I mean, I've been here and the city attorney's gone over the the Peck Park agreement for an hour so that we all understood what was happening, and I just I just don't think this is uh long enough presentation for us to understand what's going on.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Hello.

My name's Bradley Anderson.

I've been a resident of Lehigh for 38 years.

There was a little space between the home we live in now on uh 1200 East, but we have a little bit of property.

We moved down here to get out of Salt Lake City, and the city caught right back up with us.

So I understand some of the sentiment that people have about Lehigh keeping it quality growth, um smart growth, and I think in the last uh decade or so uh we haven't had a lot of smart growth.

It's been explosive growth, and we're not paying attention to some of the things that are going on around us.

We've allowed this growth to overcome our infrastructure.

We're tearing out interchanges, we're tearing out roads to make them bigger after the fact.

Uh but the one thing I want to talk about today is something that's very um important to me, and that's water.

Water sustains civilizations, and we live in the second or third driest most arid state in the U.S.

And we live in the second or third driest most arid state in the U.S.

And we need to remember that.

We see the Great Salt Lake drying up.

We see the condition of Utah Lake.

Everybody's taking from the Provo River.

Salt Lake County's been taking water to the Jordan Valley Conservancy District for decades.

And then, of course, the Central Utah Water Conservancy District.

They are one of our bigger customers now.

Eight years ago, 2018, 6.5% of our water, municipal water needs were, we had to go outside to the Central Utah Water Conservancy District.

Today it's 40%.

We're buying more Central Utah Water Conservancy District water.

And this all has to do not with slowing the flow, but it has to do with not slowing the growth.

And we need to be more prudent and smart about this because we've exceeded our maximum capacity here.

Yeah, I've got a couple of really nice photos.

Governor Henry S.

Blood in a Model A one-ton dually with all the city officials in northern Utah County inspecting the dryness, the cracked lake bottom.

It's unbelievable.

And what they say about that was it was lack of planning and lack of vision.

And do we need to reassess these bigger projects and uh not greenlighting them so easily?

Do we need to examine our water situation, our water sources?

Because I have the graphs from the USGS on all these eight wells, and they have been in a steady continual decline for the last 40 years since the 1980s.

And we're gonna bottom out.

We are tapped out with our underground water sources, and I and I can tell you this because Texas Instruments has now on the former Micron property, they have two 1,000-foot private wells that go into this public aquifer, and they're limited annually as to how much water they can pull.

And then Mayor, the mayor Johnson has created a service agreement with the Central Utah Water Conservancy District and Texas Instruments to purchase excess water above and beyond.

Because they've drilled them down 1,500 feet below these contamination zones of this old 60-year-old operation from World War II, the steel mill plant, and all the hazardous materials and contamination below.

So take that in mind that we are receiving American Fork, Saratoga Springs, and all these communities are receiving some of our municipal drinking waters now from the Geneva Vineyard Wells.

And I think we've reached maximum capacity.

We go into a restaurant, we see maximum seating, right?

I drive an alpine school bus, 84 passengers maximum seating.

Get onto an elevator, same thing.

I think Lehigh uh is becoming open spaces filled with rooftops, and we need to consider the high density problem and also uh being smarter about our growth in the next coming decade or so about uh not so easily greenlighting some of these bigger projects, and we all know that the the old micron area plan became from 2012 became the sky development plan in 2021, and now it's been greenlighted in spring of 2025.

And we all know that the the old micron area plan became from 2012 became the sky development plan in 2021.

And now it's been greenlighted in spring of 2025.

It's taken 13 years for this project to go underway.

Why?

Water was always the problem.

There was no water, and now I've got uh a 1,000 foot well bought and paid for by DR Horton, uh 200 feet south of my house in Cedar Hollow, and there's one at Family Park that have been drilled a thousand feet down, a fifth of a mile down, twenty inches in diameter, and the groundwater tested at 2023 was 188 feet below land surface in those areas in the Cedar Hollow well.

So I I've done a lot of checking on this.

I've had a natural pond in our neighborhood that dried up all of a sudden after 75 plus years, it's dried up.

It dried up, and it's it was all about the water table.

It wasn't about any hypothetical about the cedar or about the Murdoch Canal leaking, because that had been capped and sealed 13 years before.

So we need to consider and look, check into.

I think we needed to look at our water situation and talk to the experts about our situation and where do we want to be with the water because we have to have the water.

And I don't want to see Lehigh dry up any more than it is now.

And it's not sustainable, it's not sustainable when we're purchasing more of our outside water from outside Lehigh.

And that's all I had to say.

Thank you.

Uh just one second, ma'am.

Uh Craig just uh legal check on uh can I allow uh Ms.

Revere revere Rivera.

I'm reading a comment for our another resident, if that's okay.

It's at your discretion, is the chair.

Sure.

Reading for someone else.

Is this the email that was sent to us?

Okay.

Oh, her name is Laura Stevens.

Okay.

Okay.

She says, I have some concerns with the Thanksgiving Station Developers Agreement coming before Commission today.

There are components which are confusing and difficult for many of us residents to fully understand, particularly those involving the long-term financial commitments found in Article 3 of the agreement.

The transfer of taxing authority given by creating a PDI found in Article 4 of the agreement and specific obligations which are placed on the city listed in Article 6 of the agreement.

Since this agreement will directly impact impact taxes, infrastructure, schools, and future city budgets, it would be extremely helpful for the public to have a clearer picture of this agreement with additional input from each of the department heads.

Some type of legal review or comments and put more time for public input.

This process seems to be rushed, although I understand that much of this has been discussed between city staff and developer for months.

And now the public needs to be allowed some time to see and understand how it may affect them.

Thank you for listening and for your consideration.

Thank you.

Hi, Planning Commission.

My name is James Harrison.

Um I just want to express a couple of concerns.

Most of them have been covered already, and I appreciate uh Brent's earlier comments and questions.

Uh same same ones that I shared as well, so thank you for asking those.

Um I'm concerned about the tax implications, uh, specifically the taxing authority, the the city would be surrendering to a private entity, and how much we could control that over time, and what is the time limit, what are the boundaries of that?

I'm not sure.

I I understand that or can see that in the agreement.

Um I'm also somewhat concerned uh that the city is asking stack development to promote Clubhouse Drive.

I think we're in a chicken and the egg cycle right now where we don't have a high demand, especially with 2100 uh being finished in a couple years.

I don't think there's the demand for a clubhouse drive extension.

So if we build 2,000 units, then there will be a demand, and it's a very unpopular road.

Um I've also met with hundreds of residents in the area, and it's uh I have a very, very hard time finding anybody that would want Clubhouse Drive, especially with 2100 being completed.

So I'm concerned that the city is asking stack to promote that.

Um I'm glad Mr.

Anderson brought up water.

I would like to see a little more as a as a resident uh more analysis on the impact of these developments on our water supply.

I've also spoken with the water department, and um that's the number one cause of water use is more development.

Um then I'm also you know, I live in Jordan Willows uh near Tyson.

And uh my daughter was, or I guess I was informed, which then I informed my daughter who goes to to River Rock that she's likely going to be moving to Snow Springs Elementary.

And it's um due to North Point being overwhelmed with students.

Uh North Point is absorbing most of the new development.

Um we spoken with the school district.

Is there a plan?

Is there an analysis of even if there were 0.5 students per unit of 2,000 units?

That's that's still a thousand children, which is an entirely new elementary school.

Um it's not going to be out by cold springs, right?

It's gonna be uh by Thanksgiving point.

So, what impact does that have on the nearby schools?

I would like to understand the impact a little more on that.

So I just wanted to share those thoughts.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else from the public?

Brittany, would you like to share the online comment, please?

Yeah, and I don't know if you all saw the one that um Bo sent over as well.

If you want to review that one as well.

Um this first one is from Earl Laurel Stevens.

Um said, Dear commissioners, I appreciate your time and effort dedicated to reviewing complex applications on behalf of Lehigh residents.

I'm writing concerning the proposed Thanksgiving station develop developer agreement coming before you December 4th, 2025.

It raises several significant questions that I believe need additional clarification, which would help the public planning commission and legislative bodies feel more confident in whatever recommendation is ultimately made.

As it stands, many key components are difficult for residents to fully understand, particularly those involving the long-term financial commitments found in Article 3 of the agreement, the transfer of taxing authority by creating a PID found in Article 4 of the agreement, and specific obligations placed on the city listed in Article 6 of the agreement.

This agreement also seems to give Thanksgiving station autonomy from the city, taking oversight and policing responsibility from the city and giving it to the PID, especially when taxing is concerned.

Since this agreement will directly impact taxes, infrastructure, schools, and future city budgets, it would be extremely helpful for the public to have a clearer picture of how each part functions.

Some areas that I feel require further explanation and consideration include one tax incentives and financial structures, the amount duration and expiration of the tax incentives involved are vague and open-ended.

How the RDA and HDRZ function together, especially the provision allowing up to 80% of property tax to be re redirected for up to 50 years with no stated maximum dollar amount, and the requirement that the city pledges its sales in use tax to help secure bonds, creating debt for the city for the benefit of a private developer.

Article 6 of the agreement, more specifically, point 6.3A and B.

Whether the creation of a public infrastructure district PID effectively allows a developer-controlled district to raise and retain its own taxes.

Utah Code 17 D4203.

How will this affect the residents of the development and the city?

Does the PID designation buying future councils violating Utah Code 1025082A?

How the development and its related structures will impact existing high residence schools and other taxing entities.

What effect will it have on the funding of the needed schools and other infrastructure requirements in the area, especially considering the long agreement term being listed as 50 years?

City obligations, water sewer roads.

Section 6.1 and 6.2 of the agreement reference the city being obligated to provide water sewer and direct road access within the developer's timeline.

It would be helpful to understand what the financial and legal implications are for the city.

More specifically, does this violate Utah Code 102508 to AIA through B.

Whether this will affect the city's ability to manage its own infrastructure priorities with its obligations to respond to infrastructure requests by the developer, given the city's limited budget.

Why languages included restricting negative comments about the construction of Clubhouse Drive, 6.2 of the agreement.

And in the DRC comment by Marlin requesting teeth for disparaging remarks about Clubhouse Drive, and is this a violation of the First Amendment of the U.S.

Constitution?

Interdepartment review.

Several of the recent developer agreements have contained repeated no comments from crucial departments.

Given the magnitude of this project, I would request that each department be required to provide actual feedback, even if it's simply no significant impact or a similar statement.

I believe that this would help give the public greater confidence.

One example is of this development.

We'll have up to 2,000 housing units, yet there is no comment by the transportation department with 2,000 housing units.

There will obviously be some impact if it's foot traffic impeding or slowing vehicle traffic at road crossing to this train or bus stations.

Legal review.

Since this agreement includes the creation of taxing entities, public funding mechanisms, and public or multi multi-decade obligations.

It also seems appropriate that the legal council provide for public review, written comments, and/or clarification for both the planning commission, legislative bodies, and residents to better understand the legal implications and constitutionality of the agreement.

Community impact and public input.

Residents affected most by the project, those living along Clubhouse Drive near the future RDA slash HTRZ zone, and those concerned about traffic have not had sufficient time or clarity to understand what this means for their neighborhoods.

Given the constitutional questions around the around delegating taxing authority to a developer-controlled district, the community would benefit from clearer guidance before any long-term commitments are made.

At this stage, I feel like there are more questions than answers, and I believe that taking time to thoroughly review these matters would build greater trust and help ensure that the planning commission, legislative bodies, and the public have complete and solid understanding of all that is being considered.

Thank you for your attention to these concerns.

I know these issues are complex, and I appreciate your commitment to making decisions that reflect due diligence, transparency, and the best interests of Lehigh residents.

And then the other one.

Sorry for the long list of questions, but here it goes.

With the developer capturing the taxes, how will that affect the city budget, school, county, and other taxing entities?

If the developer fit falls short on delivering their side of the agreement, what happens to the diverted tax revenue?

If the city commits to no new taxes for this project, can that be reversed without a legal without illegal issues if the developer falls short?

With the increased demands on Leehight infrastructure for the 1300 plus housing units, how will this be offset by the city?

Will there be additional tax dollars needed for roads, water, sewer, et cetera?

Are there any guarantees that the developer will provide improvements, or is it just intent in the agreement?

Uh, what is binding them financially to uphold their end?

What guarantees does the city have that the developer will fulfill their side of the agreement and not have it drag out for years with partially built infrastructure projects?

Do we have a full and clear fiscal impact report on this proposed project?

Does the developer have guarantees or bonds to cover any public service burdens if projects fail?

And we're doing a lot of questions.

I am just concerned that several similar projects in Salt Lake City and Ogden have done similar things, and within a few years of the development filed bankruptcy, and the cities were left holding the bag.

I would love to see more discussion before making any recommendations on the plans.

That's it.

Very good.

Uh anyone else from the public.

Okay.

Seeing none, we'll go ahead and close uh public commentary.

Um I imagine applicants.

You've heard I'm happy to go through a number of these things.

I imagine you were taking a bit of note yourself.

Um let's go ahead and tackle some of this.

Yeah.

First and foremost, I would just like to apologize for any brevity of the uh presentation and just remind everyone that that's a fact of 16 planning commission and city council meetings that we've had before.

So by no means am I trying to gloss over anything there.

Uh the first thing I think that's maybe worth addressing is that this project is approved.

The development rights are vested for the 2,000 units, the HTRZ has been approved as well.

It ran through the proper channels, was approved by city council Goyo.

Um, so all of those are in place here.

The the beauty and the design and the intent of the HTRZ is just that that while yes, the the project captures a portion of the tax increment, meaning the property taxes it generates, um, it also incentivizes a level of density that is above and beyond what would typically be built in a development.

So that the whole design of the HTRZ is that yes, while you do capture that portion of the property taxes because of the increased density there, it net net is positive to what market-driven development would do.

And so by capturing that property taxes, it allows you to then pull that money forward, bond against it, build a denser project in the right locations, like a transit station, and everyone comes out ahead for the taxing authorities.

And after that 25 year tranche window is over, then all the cream goes to the taxing entities there.

In a way it can be thought of as an investment where typically you don't lose anything through that 25 year window, and then it's very, very beneficial thereafter.

Why does it talk about 50 years?

Because an HTRZ around a front runner station has a 45 year window, but the tranches call those the phases are 25 year tranches.

But so say you had three tranches, right?

Those all have to finish in 45 years.

So it made sense with a five excuse me, it made sense with the five year start to the agreement and a 45 year HTRZ to give it a 50-year window.

So that's the reason for that there.

Um I'm happy to talk more about the safeguards of the bonds, but the intent of the HTRZ is well, it's nice to get a property tax discount.

That doesn't help a project come out of the ground unless you can pull that forward and put that capital into parking structures, horizontal improvements, um, and on the note of infrastructure and roadways, all of those things are taken on by the project.

All of our roadways in throughout this project are private roads, meaning we plow them, we maintain them, we do all of that.

So can I just reiterate one thing?

So one thing I think that's pretty important.

Sir, oh sorry.

Sergeant member, this is sure.

These Roberts rules is how we're gonna slide from having a lot of people.

One thing for everybody, and the and just for everybody just knows that we pay our taxes, the project pays its taxes, and we only get rebated from what we pay.

We are not taking taxes from other parts of the city, it's just this project area.

I think there's a misnomer that we're taking funds from the public school district or things like that.

No, no, no.

It is just this project area.

So how many acres are we?

26.

On this 26 acres, that's it.

I just wanted to clarify that.

That's a great point.

Great point.

So I have questions because I'm dumb.

Okay, so I need you to talk to me like I'm dumb.

You can sit down.

Okay.

I'm happy with that.

25 years.

There's a tranche, there's an event, there's something that happens.

For those 25 years, you were getting an 80% return from the taxes that you pay.

Do I understand that correctly?

That's correct.

It's the HTRZ.

You pay 100% of your taxes, 80% of that comes back to you directly.

Okay.

After 25 years, what happens?

It rolls off.

It's now full tax rate.

Yep.

100% goes to the county, the county and then face the city.

Yeah.

That's what happens.

School district, etc.

District, then it goes to all those little line items.

Yeah.

But the overall entity has a 50-year window.

The development agreement has a 50-year window.

The HTRZ has a 45-year window, and that's just because it takes time to build projects.

So we're talking 50, 45, and 25.

Yep.

Talk clearly.

I'm dumb.

No, no, let me just so for example, the first project we'll do will be like 300 units of apartments, for example.

That is one project, one tranche.

That 300 unit project will have a 25 years that we can collect taxes on that one.

After that, it's done.

Then fast forward three more years.

We start another 300 unit project.

That project will have a new start date, but it also has 25 years.

After the 25 years, it's done.

So it's like this one starts, it has 25 years.

This one starts as 25 years.

We can only start those within a 50-year window.

That's it.

And if after that, it's over.

Hypothetically, just to clarify, if you started a project in year 40, even though you have a 25-year tranche, it's been going for 40 years, you only get five years.

You won't get all your taxes, basically.

Five or ten.

Five, because the HTRZ is 45 years.

The development agreement is 50 years.

I get it's sorry.

I hopefully it's fine.

I just don't think they understood it.

No, and I don't understand.

I will fully admit tax removal financing.

There's a lot to it.

Sure.

The 80% what's happening?

Let's talk about that.

What about the 80%?

Well, just it goes city.

So let's talk it through that.

Let me flip to a slide here real quick.

Um because this was part of our HTRZ presentation that was approved then by Goyo here.

Um this one right there.

This one right there.

So the purpose of the HTRZ is to promote and create a pathway to smart development by densifying around key transit stations.

We said that, right?

Um in order to apply for an HTRZ, which is vetted by Goyo, vetted by Zions Public Finance, everyone, third parties coming in and reviewing your numbers and making sure what you're putting in front of them is real, which is what the bar that we pass.

The gap to build this project is 237 million dollars between what typical market-driven development is versus what's needed to densify and build this project right.

If you don't build around key transit stations right the first time, they're impaired for 30, 40 years before they can be redeveloped.

That's the tool there.

So that strictly is earmarked in this project to go to infrastructure and parking structures.

That's now I'm just gonna put it in the plainer English, if if I may, if I'm not if that's not condescending me to suggest.

But in other words, the 237 figure that's been vetted by third parties is what they've assessed.

The market on its own is not going to bring to the table that would be required up front in order for this to have the infrastructure that we all want out the gate as opposed to having it kicked down the road, dealing with more of the traffic issues that plague.

And um so we're front loading with that 237.

That's well said, and that's the gap.

Uh what the HTRZ covers pales in comparison to that.

Just want to make that very clear.

It's well into the nine figures short to cover that gap.

One more minor clarification.

We are paying for the utilities.

We are paying for the water, we are paying for the sewer, we are paying for the parking structures, we are paying for the electric electrical.

We are paying for everything.

We are going to use the HTRZ to help us reimburse for part of that.

But it is not an expectation.

The city is not writing a check day one for this for this.

No.

No.

You're paying for the for it to go in, but the city is still on the hook for the maintenance of everything.

Sure.

Yeah, but everything.

I think there was a comment that that the city was going to be required to pay and front load stuff.

And no, we are we are the ones with our project.

We will, like every development that goes on, we will be installing everything.

But correct.

There's a water main break, if something needs to be cleaned out, correct.

Which is where taxes are important, right?

That's why we collect taxes.

I think we're just talking about the property taxes of those developments, correct?

Yeah, the 30 acres.

It's not sales tax from nearby.

I mean, that's the whole idea is we bring in residents that will spend their money at other places, the revenue is sales tax that we recoup as a city to encourage that.

That's that's a trade-off.

Yeah.

My understanding.

Exactly right.

And tips are done all over the place.

Uh I can't say they're always successful, but they certainly are tools that are used to be.

Oh, and you they bring up good points.

There have been some that have been stalled.

I mean, hopefully, we've been working here for 20 years.

We've done Adobe, we've done a lot of large projects.

We feel like we're gonna confidently can finish this one.

Let's talk worst-case scenarios.

I want to make sure the public has a chance to do that.

You you guys just fall apart.

Okay.

Perfect.

Uh basics when it happens.

Nothing happens.

Uh the city is at zero risk if that happens.

Let me uh kind of walk through some safeguards in these bonds.

Um so I heard a lot of comments about transfer of taxing authority.

Uh a PID, you know, certainly that's common.

That's how PIDs work right there.

But let's walk through these bonds and let me tell you why that track transfer of taxing authority is actually to the benefit of Lehigh and it's massive downside protection in this.

Uh so first, in order to get a bond, we have to bring a project, right?

And before we can even apply for a bond, we have to have debt and equity lined up.

That means banks underwrite this, say that's a viable project, we'll lend on this.

Investors say that's a viable project, we'll invest millions of dollars into this.

In order to get that bank financing, I'm sorry if this is one-on-one, but just wanted to walk through all the steps.

I want you to talk one-on-one.

Perfect.

Um, in order to get that bank financing, the developers will have to sign a personal guarantee, putting our net worth, our house, our vehicles, everything we own on the line, guaranteeing that we will build this project, we will make full repayment of the loan, and we will complete the project.

It's a financial guarantee and it's a completion guarantee.

So those two things happen.

Investors, bank debt lined up.

Then we go to the city, the city goes to a third-party investment bank.

An investment bank then looks at the project and says, okay, this project and the property tax incremental spit-off can um support $2 million in bonds, three million dollars in bonds like that.

They underwrite the project themselves, those investment banks take it out to the market.

The investors that buy these bonds are the major institutional corporations of America.

So they're smart money buying these bonds.

So you've had banks, investors, investment bank, capital allocator investors buying these bonds there.

So it has been vetted four to five times just to get to that process.

So now it goes out for the actual bonding process.

In these bonds, they are structured so that there are interest reserves, there are working capital reserves, and there are construction interest reserves.

All that means is 25% of the bond give or take is set aside for a rainy day that if for some reason the property taxes didn't cover this bond, again, highly unlikely, it's been underwritten many times, that 25% of the proceeds can then be paid back to the bond to pay that down.

Okay.

Beyond that, Marlin and his team here, Jason, uh negotiated an additional debt service reserve of 10 percent.

So an additional 10 percent of those bonds are set aside.

We're now at about give or take 35 percent of those bonds set aside for an emergency fund, rainy day fund.

So now we get to the PID.

And one full just belt and suspenders addition to this that is highly uncommon, but was added here is we were actually instructed by the city to do the PID.

We were asked that hey, if you want to set up these bonds and do this HTRZ, we need to set up a PID because we want to establish a mill levy if we need to, where in that event that property taxes came in lower than the bonds, and again, that's not gonna happen because the bonds are sized conservatively.

But we can come in and we can add 15 mills to your project.

I think the mill rate in Lehigh is 8.4 or something like that.

Call it, you know, eight tenths of a percent.

They can add another 150, you know, 15 mills, however you want to look at it, to this property.

I'm sorry if this is getting complicated, it's just kind of hard to do.

Yeah, carry on.

So Lehigh City can then lever up our property taxes, call it essentially 200 percent to make sure that any shortfall is now covered by those property taxes.

So we're now at the sixth layer of protection, okay?

Say for some reason, none of that worked right there in the year that there's a shortage on paying these bond payments.

Okay, that is when the Lehigh City Sales Tax Pledge would step in and cover the deficit.

So we're now at the seventh layer where Lehigh City actually comes in and they're taxed all the subordinate sales and use tax, subordinate to all city obligations, current and future, subordinate to all of those, steps in, pays that debt service.

The year after that, that PID mill levy, the tax rate increase is triggered.

We pay back the city every dollar that came out of the sales tax fund, and then we replenish that debt service reserve that was used to pay these bonds here.

So as you can see, there are numerous safeguards, and at the end of the day, Lehigh City has a 100% repayment guarantee from the developer from the project.

And the only way that ever, ever goes bad is if we do not pay our property taxes.

And what happens if you don't pay your property taxes?

You lose your property.

And if that happens, we go back to number one, you trigger your personal guarantee.

So not only is the project in jeopardy, personally, us as developers are now in jeopardy with our homes, our vehicles, everything we own.

So those are the belt and suspenders approach to make sure that Lehigh City sees significant upside by unlocking this, you know, critical TOD and massive economic asset here, but also has immense downside protection where they're made whole in any event.

So if that's that's helpful context, that that is why transferring that taxing authority to the PID and Lehigh City essentially is actually a very good thing for Lehigh City itself.

So I hope that addresses that.

If there's follow-up questions, I can touch on that, or I can go into some of the other questions that we heard there.

I know the PIDs are fairly common, and I can't say I know legislation off the top of my head to the point, but you have any swing at uh constitutionality.

Uh if you gave me some time, I could cite it.

Um but one thing I wanted to say earlier that I didn't quite get to is I understand there's many questions on this from residents, and I am more than happy to hang around and do my best to explain every single one of these.

Um I have a six-week-old daughter at home, so I'm sure my wife would be a little upset with that, but I will stay here as long as I need to.

I also work right here in Lehigh City.

I'm available tomorrow if any of these residents want to come to our office, uh, more than happy to explain this further.

I'll say I do know that it is ruled as constitutional for the Supreme Court, but I don't know legislation off the top of my head that uh I do know it's legal um obviously because there are numerous examples.

I'm just hitting everything you know.

That's fantastic.

A couple I'd point to is just station park, daybreak, Bingham Junction, Midbell, all of these are exact amp exact examples of this being used.

Um worst case scenario again.

You fail to pay your property taxes, you get your property repossessed.

Yeah.

The owners are then the banks, right?

They're not they're not the city.

Cities didn't nothing.

And what's a bank gonna do?

They're gonna pay the property taxes, right?

Because why would they forego a tens of million dollar mortgage on a property, their position in that for a couple thousand dollars in property taxes, say, give or take, right?

It's it's a rounding error compared to the loan that would be on the property.

You see it all the time when there's pre-tax sales uh of homes.

The bank always steps in and satisfies the lien on property taxes because it's in their best interest too.

So call that the eighth layer of protection.

Sure.

Okay.

Okay.

And uh Chairman Jackson, it's under Utah Code 17 D4103 where the PIDs are allowed.

Thank you.

And the what provisions and what what is allowed, how they're created and everything is.

Utah code 17 D for 103.

Okay.

Did you have something that somebody wanted you to tell us?

Well, should we just mention that?

Well, you'll explain it better, but the when we issue the bond, the people who take out the bonds all are also clearly taking risk.

So they're they're the ones that are actually the ones taking the risk.

So be clear, we're not these are project by project bonds.

They're not secured across the whole property.

That's another insulation layer that it's one vertical project.

It's not a project 15 years down the road.

And we're not talking bonds the size of 30 million dollars here.

We're talking bonds in the three to maybe five million dollar range for a project.

So these are these are not massive by any means.

Um why don't we drill down on city obligations?

Okay.

Um I'm gonna let you go ahead.

Just start firing.

Obligations?

Yeah.

Um I it's pretty much all outlined in our area plan.

Just give us our standard due process to submit site plan applications, go forward.

Is is that kind of what you're talking about?

The only things I think we're trying to protect is just predictability in our project, which I think is understandable when you're talking a long-term multi-phase project.

Um policing, um, other uh you know functions that are typically done by the city.

Yeah.

Speak to that.

Yeah.

Those um yeah, this is in Lehigh City's boundaries there, so police fire, all of that stuff.

That's what our property taxes sells tax from the residents, you know, spending money in the city, franchise tax on utilities, all of those things go to pay for that stuff there.

Um roadways, like I said, we have private roadways, we plow them, we maintain them.

That is extremely unusual, I would say for most development within Lehigh City.

Uh and that's a burden we took on to make sure that this is walkable and something that we can control the maintenance on.

Well, the city does a fantastic job at that stuff.

We we want to hold it to a certain standard there.

So we took that on.

Um a large chunk of my property taxes go towards the schools.

That's right.

Yeah.

How does that get reconciled?

How is the schools still be able to get what they need to maintain and to grow and to educate our children?

Yeah.

And all of that was squared away when we got our HTRZ approval.

Uh the school district was there at all of the HTRZ meetings.

Um if you'll remember in our original 5,000 concept plan, we had land for a school here.

As we shrunk that down, the school district was involved, and they basically said we can absorb what we predict this project will add.

So going back to my original point of when you densify 5x, right, of what traditional dense development would be, and you take 80% of the property taxes, that 20% is what typical market-driven development would still provide.

So at that sense, you're getting that.

And and frankly, it's more because there's sales tax and franchise tax, like I said, because you're getting um you're getting more economic activity from it.

Questions about other examples of of these that have been implemented, right?

They're already available.

HTRZ.

Yeah.

We've already talked about some of them being successful, some of them not.

Are the numbers that we're talking about here unique?

Or is every HTRZ different?

Or is every one of them 80, 20 percent split, 50 year long?

I mean, what what are we talking about?

They the legislation has changed year to year minorly.

Um and the main difference is just if it's a BRT station, a track station, or a front runner station.

Front runner station being the you know heavy rail people mover, those do have a longer window.

Um but I I do want to say they're all 80%.

Uh as well.

You want to, or you do see?

I'm quite certain they're all 80%.

Um the one what do they bottom out at?

Do they bottom out at 50%?

Like let's talk about that.

No, they're you said they max at 80.

What's the bottom?

So historically, for example, if you click on that list, I did Bingham Junction right there in Midville.

It was a 75% at the time.

Um that was before HTR.

That was before HCRZ.

HTRZ was brought on to kind of supercharge the smart growth and next attracts front runner stations.

Just to give you a small example, that Midville one, it was a super fun site.

If you guys know where the top golf is, 100, 200 acres right there.

The tax value at that time was four million dollars.

Okay.

Fast forward nine years now, after we've done that, you go out there, there's overstock, there's CHG, all these companies have gone there, it's 700 million dollars.

That's the new tax value.

So that is what we're trying to accomplish is if if we would have just if we would have had no RDA there, we wouldn't have been able to do the things we needed to do.

But because Midville City, and you guys have done this in other spots, did an RDA and this this time the term's HGRZ, we were able to supercharge and finish that site.

That's the concept.

But I'd like I still like to know the figures from some of these other HTRZs, right?

You're saying a max of 80, and I I appreciate that.

A max of eight.

I like that there's a there's a ceiling, right?

I under that's something I can understand.

Remember, I'm dumb.

Okay.

That is not true.

I am.

So this like our other are other cities, other HTRZs, are they coming up with 6040 splits?

No, no, no, it is a state code.

It is set by it was a state regulation.

A couple examples, Vineyard Daybreak, the Smith Entertainment Group downtown project, South Salt Lake has established one as well.

I know I'm missing several here.

Uh South Jordan front runner station.

Um I would say they are they're probably can't.

Cairns district just did one.

There are probably 10 of these at least, and more being added every few months.

Um just have to meet the requirements of being within a certain amount of distance to the transit station.

So the state defines the state what is allowable for this.

And then GoEO determines it.

The city is the applicant.

So Lehigh City was the applicant for this HTRZ.

They set up this place.

If there's other developers in this land area, they get the exact same benefits.

It's a city application, not a developer application.

Okay.

Sorry.

No.

Do you have nothing to apologize for?

Uh let's see.

Text applications, 13 houses.

Bonds, the time limit.

Um Clubhouse Drive was brought up.

Um which we touched on.

That's more of a Kim question.

It is.

Um we'll let you generally catch your breath for a second.

Kim, Clubhouse Drive.

Can we drill down?

Clubhouse Drive is needed for the ultimate build out of the Thanksgiving point area plan.

It's identified in the plan, but it's one of the very last needed roadways uh per the uh transportation study that was done.

So as a city, we want to make sure that stays on everybody's radar.

That's why it's in the agreement.

We want to make sure uh that they if it needs to be built for Thanksgiving point traffic to be successful long term, we feel like they should be you know equally participating, I guess, or at least supportive.

And so there's some language in there that says that they w won't withhold support.

Anyways, I don't know.

You guys could probably speak more.

I I would say a lot of that was great.

Uh the one thing I would disagree with is this is our approved traffic triggers table in here.

And you'll see where it says, you know, Lehigh City projects, which credit to Lehigh, you've pretty much done all of these already.

Um project roadway improvements, meaning the developer needs to do it.

UDOT projects.

Um and what you'll see down here in the bottom section is Thanksgiving point uh completed.

These are beyond 2031 projects that are not the developer-led projects.

These are Lehigh City, Mag U Dot, and Clubhouse Drive is in that one down there.

So it's kind of a long, if I'm speaking correctly, it's a long range plan.

Um beyond the project, those are roads that at the time were projected to need to be finished, but they are not within our traffic triggers there.

2100 north is the one that landed in our traffic trigger, and again, that's U dot road.

Is that how you remember that, Kim?

Yeah, I don't disagree what with what you're saying, but it is noted that at some point, you know, even though it's way out there in the future, the transportation study did note that in order for Thanksgiving point, and you know, beyond what your project might build, it's still needed.

I don't know.

With the expectation that background growth is going to continue to happen in Saratoga.

Yeah, it's just for that area.

The the traffic study when it was done, they felt like that should still be part of the overall full build out.

You know, when Thanksgiving point is a hundred percent completed, that roadway is still necessary.

That's why it's mentioned in the agreement.

Yeah.

I think this has been said that the freeway to freeway, 2100, whatever the right term is for that.

That is the one that is gonna make the biggest difference, though, in in our opinion, in my opinion.

That's the one in club.

I'm not arguing clubhouse.

I'm not trying to say one way or the other.

I'm just saying that's the one that's really gonna make the difference.

Well, don't argue it, because apparently uh we we want to have teeth to go against if you do, which I think is weird.

I have come to learn.

So just be careful what you say.

Yeah.

What other questions?

I'm gonna actually start crossing out.

Notes are by commenters.

Yes.

It has it has it's run out.

Hold the pen right now.

Yeah.

Oh yeah.

Okay, you got six.

Thank you.

It's all right.

Uh time limit.

I feel like we talked about that sufficiently.

Um tax implications, we talked talk tax.

Um school district.

Uh, I know we already talked about that a little bit.

Let's go ahead and drill down more on that.

That's apparently gonna be my phrase of the evening is drill down.

Um school school district, I mean this is a past, but I think it's worth noting that um all these different branches of government don't always um they don't trigger one another per se.

They they do work independently.

But uh so while the school district has its own board and makes its own decisions and we are in the midst of a split, uh nonetheless.

If you uh mentioned discussions uh previously uh with um about them being able to absorb um students, absorb kids with uh five times greater density, um where's that math come from to be able to absorb without building another school?

Yeah.

Um that was just at the time that we were preparing for this project here with the concept plan working through the area plan and then the HTRZ as well.

All of those, uh the school district was involved in all of this and aware of everything that's going on.

I'm not trying to portray that we have some partnership with the school district by any means.

And I want to note that I know how very separate these things are.

Exactly.

And uh there's certainly been changes in the district and all of that.

Yeah, I think we you were also just to reiterate is when we went in front of Goyo, which is the approving body of the HTRZ, because it's already approved, the school district was in the room though, and they voted and they had their say, and they uh that's all yeah.

Okay.

Does the splitting of Alpine School District change any of those metrics?

I'm not that we're aware of that.

And and again, those are I I mean, I guess those are things more related to the already approved concept plan, the already already approved HTRZ.

Yeah, yeah.

No, I recognize that.

Um there's a line of uh wanting to first of all we want to make sure we're addressing what the public wants to hear and know, right?

Um but at the same time, yes, it's important to also be clear on the delineation of factors that can actually be taken into account in any decisions tonight versus invested rights versus former decisions that are.

I can see if someone was coming tonight thinking, oh, this is something new.

I mean, these are like we keep saying, approved rights.

The area plans actually been recorded.

There's no question as to vested rights.

Okay, bonds.

Um water.

There's a lot of talk about water.

I know you got over five mil in uh in in water.

Love to talk about water.

Let's talk water.

Um there is no more efficient use of water than high density housing, uh, water wise landscaping, less square footage, like uh previous applications seeing you know, third acre, half acre lots, compare that to density of this scale and just how many more homes would be able to stack in the same place there without yards on all of those.

So by far the most efficient water wise development you could do.

Um I would stand by that confidently.

And we've paid for all of we had many third parties who used to be involved with kind of the water commission of Utah involved in all this here.

And like I said, we've bought 5.4 million dollars worth of water that's in Lehigh City wells today, and we haven't built a single unit.

So I would argue that um we're net positive in that regard.

Because the water use will still go up, even though it's a better use of the water, right?

With that many more people.

We will use the 5.4 million that we pay for.

That's correct.

I think that was part of it.

Yes, no, they're right.

We'll definitely use water, but that's not like we're going hunting for the water.

We've we've paid for and dedicated the shares of the city already.

And and that's assuming that every resident that moves in here is net new resident into Lehigh City.

If they were moving from something less efficient, then it's a net positive, right?

If someone moved from uh quarter acre into a nice apartment, that would be a positive.

So someone else would move into that quarter acre possible.

Uh Kim, I want to throw it to you.

What does it mean when there's no comment on DRC?

Um especially from traffic.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Let's talk about that.

So it did public asked, right?

Raising concern that there was no comment.

Yeah.

Would you comment on no comment?

Yes, I would love to.

Great.

Um my best answer would be the previous slide where you saw all those DRC meetings.

All of the infrastructure that's needed for this project has already been vetted, identified.

It's in the area plan.

So this development agreement, we're not reopening that.

We're not trying to establish, well, where is the sewer going to come from or how how are these cars going to be handled?

Where's the traffic going?

It's in the area plans.

So the DRC, when they reviewed this agreement, they were only looking at the agreement language itself.

We're not re-assessing the development itself.

Does that hopefully that makes sense?

So if they said no comment, it mean means they had no comment on this agreement.

They had oodles of comments over a year plus when the area plan was going through.

So that was the graph that we just had up there, the traffic study that took you know a year to go through all the you know what roads are needed, what's not, how much how many troops are being generated.

So, yeah, the they just didn't have any comments on the agreement language itself because a lot of it, like the fire marshal, for example, there's nothing really in there that that jumped out at him.

You know, they're not exempting themselves from the international fire code, they're not asking for exceptions on fire access.

So he has no comment on this agreement.

He's already done all of his comments with the area plan.

Hopefully that answers that question.

And maybe I can give a little bit of clarity.

This is kind of one of those unique development agreements that the the state has created because a few years ago the legislature changed in and we changed our policy on how we do development agreements.

They used to not come to the planning commission all the time.

Um the state legislature said, hey, if you're gonna if you're gonna enter into a development agreement that touches on property or property rights, it it has to go through the same process that a land use ordinance would go through.

And so those you guys see, and those are those are kind of run of the mill.

The problem is when you have an RDA or a PID or this HTRZ, it's a different it's different, and not all RDAs affect land use or any type of that.

And you don't see those.

Those those typically go to a work session uh for the city council, and then they go directly to the city council.

This one I know there was some discussion as to whether it should come here first or whether it should go directly to council because it's kind of in that gray area.

And so the city wanted to make sure actually it was them that recommended that this come here first to make sure that it's done appropriately.

Can I say one thing about the no comments too?

Because I think it's important for this one, but also like all DRC comment sheets is this was a second review of DRC.

So there were more comments the first time, and there was a lot more individuals at DRC who had comments, but then they resubmitted and so it was cleaned up.

And every time we have something come to planning commission, we've gone through enough reviews to where it's pretty cleaned up.

So when it says no comments, it doesn't mean they never had comments, it's just the comments were addressed sufficiently.

That gets through every question I noted.

Please.

And if any of you caught something that I missed, a lot of those were fired quick.

Okay.

Brittany, you opened up this presentation saying we as staff are a little uncomfortable with some of the legalese as well or have questions.

I'd like to know more about that.

What are you guys concerned with from a staff perspective?

Yeah, I think most of them are addressed in the DRC comments.

And um, yeah, there's just continual conversations, I guess, and wanting to make sure that some of the language that's proposed is we come to an understanding.

There's just some concern about the language if it's yeah, like binding our hands or um creating future problems.

Because you know, I think the hard thing is intent versus what can then be construed with legal language, right?

And we want to make sure that the city is bound by language.

No, and and I understand it the you want to speak to that, Craig?

Yeah, the the the issue and kind of the interesting thing on this one is it it originated from the applicant.

Uh it's my understanding they worked with Randy Larson to have this drafted and Marlin.

Uh Randy Larson represented the city.

Okay, yeah.

So he was he was representing us working with Marlin.

Uh and if for those don't know, Randy Larson typically deals with he's a bond counsel, he deals with these RDA and all of these tax increment financing.

That's his specialty.

He's an expert.

He lives in Hebrew, I know him very well.

Um he was at City Council last week for some other bonding issues.

That's kind of his expertise.

So he was working with Marlin on that, and I know they are still working on it and still going through some questions with that.

Our office was bro brought aware of it, and both Ryan and I have reviewed it.

I know that Ryan has met with staff as well as uh city council members to discuss discuss issues on other questions that they have.

Um so it's not that we haven't looked at it or gone over it.

Um yes, there is some legal ease, and we're doing our best to explain that to the council.

No, not dumb people uh to go through that with the council.

And I appreciate you know the outreach from the city council members that have brought their questions to our office and given us an opportunity to to sit down with them on that.

Um approving tonight's uh items, are we green lighting anything that is still ambiguous in legalese?

At this point I would say no, and uh they are it's still under review and going through it.

So as we meet with the city council with the mayor, with Jason, um with Kim, I know that there are there are still ongoing meetings where we are working uh through the language.

Um and if there is any red flags that appear, uh then they will be addressed.

We're also a recommendation.

I know.

We're not approving anything.

I realize that.

Okay, I have a couple questions.

First one, um, when does this go before the council?

I guess that's dependent on tonight's outcome.

If you choose to make a recommendation tonight, either approval or denial, it would be the next city council meeting is on December 16th.

It's their last neutral meeting of the year.

Oh, would be it would be on that one.

Yeah, if if for whatever reason you table it or you yeah, there's not an action tonight, then it would go into the new year to January.

Thank you.

Um as far as some of the language in the in this uh recital C where the city finds developments such as the project to be in the public interest of its citizens and thus desires to encourage and support the project.

I guess I'm uncomfortable, and there's a similar clause asking you guys to support Clubhouse Drive, which sounds like you don't support it.

Do you support you know there's this careful?

Careful.

Yeah, no, I'm just saying why are these two things in there when it's just makes the city oh now you're legally required to support this.

Like, yeah, up front we've supported, but behind closed doors we don't like it.

Same for you, right?

Same kind of question.

I'm uncomfortable with that.

I don't know if you've got an answer for it.

No, and that's a great that's a great recommendation or something that you can put in a motion um to the city council.

Because yeah, I mean the beauty of being uh in-house attorney for a city is you know, whether we like something or not, our our job is to determine whether or not something is legal or not legal uh with regards to you know sentiment or you know, my position on anything, that has to, you know, right?

And I our job is not to be political, but to to tell the council here's this con contract, this agreement.

It meets within the bounds of the the Utah law and City of Lehigh Law.

Now how they want to take that and run with it is is up to them.

But our job is to be the gatekeepers with regards to whether it's legal or not.

Thank you.

And then these two questions are more geared at your guys.

Uh will the units be owner-occupied or are you guys planning to rent them or lease them?

They're rentals as of now.

So possibility for other options, but the HDRT is kind of structured.

The HRZ requires for a portion of it to be affordable housing and to be yeah, so that concerns me.

1,300 units rentals, we have a housing participating in the totally get it.

American dream is part of what we're doing this not to ever shut it down or anything, but the that this that part's already been approved with the area plan.

So all that's been done.

Yeah, I just understand what you're saying.

It annoys me because the uh Utah City and Vineyard, same idea.

We're gonna have 5,000 units, they're leasing.

Like that seems uh some ethical questions and then so in HOA, there'll be some private roads and private amenities.

There'll be C C and Rs and HOAs, but then if you would please one more time talk about transferring the taxing authority to the developer.

Because I think that's that was a big one that everybody hit on.

I'd love to have a little bit more discussion there.

Okay, I'll let you take over, but just to reiterate one more time.

What normally happens is we pay our taxes in November, right?

And first phase, like I talked about 300 units, that will pay its taxes.

Call it 400,000, whatever that number is.

Then they come through the next spring, they reassess, and initially let's just start let me back up and just say nothing's built there right now.

You go out there, the taxes are twelve thousand dollars because it's just raw ground.

Well, we build the 300 unit project, we fast forward it now.

We get 400,000 in taxes, right?

We pay that.

That money that we pay goes to Utah County.

The county then in turn turns around and pays Lehigh City their portion, they pay the the you know, everybody their little portion.

School district, there's like 17 items in there.

In this case, and I know this isn't exactly what you're asking, but in this case, we do get a portion of that.

We get 80% of that to help supercharge this site, okay?

Now, in order, I'll let you take over to do the PID, but it's only once again, I'm just trying to reiterate, it's on the projects that we're building.

So think of it this way property taxes get paid to the county.

The county then pushes that 80% back to the Lehigh City RDA.

The Lehigh City RDA funnels that money into the PID and the PID pays the bond payments.

That was structured at advice of Gilmore Bell bond council for Lehigh City, because instead of Lehigh City RDA issuing the bonds, this allows the PID to issue the bonds, which again puts more onus and burden with the exactly.

So the whole reason of a PID PID costs us money, like 100,000 a year to maintain and do budgets and reviews and everything like that.

So it would be way better for us to just do it through the RDA, but the city felt strongly that it should go through the PID to further insulate the city.

Because I think the concern is, right, and the language that I used, transferring the taxing authority.

But net it is a benefit for that reason.

And I think council would speak to that.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

And then reminded me of one other thing about the school districts.

So if you guys are getting 80% of that tax revenue back to help you out, but we're increasing the density, the overall population of the schools will go up.

So I I don't and you did mention something about the offset.

You know, yeah, we're going to get more tax money for the more for more students.

But 80% of that tax money is going back to help for the project.

You're right.

I think the thought is where it was $12,000 before, in my example of just raw ground, and now and now we're paying $400,000.

Well, 20% of $400,000 is better than 80%.

Sure, but there's not one student project.

And I we're not here to speak on behalf of the school district, but I'm just speaking to the map.

That's all I'm referring to.

But I can see that that people are, yeah, there's gonna be more students, and they're right, there will be.

You know what I mean?

That is the same.

So that was my that's my point.

Yeah, you were that is totally right.

We're increasing the population, but and and when we went through the area plan, and I know I keep going back to this, but that that is when we met with the school district, they weighed in, we went to the Goyo.

I mean, I guess we're just trying to point out they were involved in the decision.

Right.

That's all I'm trying to say.

Yeah.

Yeah, thank you.

I appreciate that.

Yeah.

I have a question.

Uh so does this help the the city's housing attainability mandate from the state.

Yeah, there is one of the um required goals if you have a fixed transit station is to have to create like an HTRZ.

So yeah, it is one of our goals.

Okay.

So um in 2018 when you first brought this.

Well, I wanted to point out that you've been in many meetings.

You've you said that, but since 2018, and all of these meetings are available on the city's website.

Good point.

Under the government tab.

Yeah, it's good for it.

Meeting public meetings and notices.

It's also covered in the Lehigh Free Press on their website.

You can I I did it here.

It was very quick.

So you can see pictures of all the all the presentations, you can see what what they're proposing.

Um, yeah, exactly.

So I so I'm I've missing a lot of things.

Yeah, back in the uh press days.

So um anyway, so they're available.

So this isn't this is not a new thing.

This is not something that we've never seen before and haven't discussed at length.

Um I also looked up the population of Lehigh in 2018.

It was 66,000, and today we're approaching a hundred thousand.

So in seven years, we added thirty-four thousand roughly people.

And this is a transit station that already exists.

That's what we always say when when a TOD comes up.

Well, if we don't have the station there, we can't build the housing, and if we don't have the housing, the station won't come.

The station is there.

This is where it makes sense and where the best use of the water.

I just there's a lot of negative comments tonight, but but I would also wonder if this, you know, now that we've gone through all these iterations, if this isn't approved, what happens?

Um we can develop the project as is.

Um we have vested rights to build the two thousand units.

That's that's it's a it's a good point though.

It would it would I mean we'll we would have to talk.

But I mean I'm just saying like it would be a less dense project, it would not do all the things that the HTRZ and the state mandates were meant to do.

Going back to the 237 million dollar gap, if if there's not help for that, then kind of the the incentive to build that density from financial perspective obviously starts to dissipate the.

I want to make the point that the density is coming.

And if we're if we can put them all right there by a transit station, um then I think Lehigh will be better off than spreading it out.

That's the same thing.

Well, we we agree.

And it's the supercharging of the infrastructure.

So I'm a humanities guy.

But the math.

You put in some development, jumps up to 400.

So that 400 to finish out with the example you're getting, 80% of that goes to you, and 20% goes to the city.

So the city gets 80 grand for that land as opposed to the 12 grand it got before.

That's how the city ends up.

That's a good way to and a fun exercise I did is just looked at some of the major taxpayers within Lehigh City and multifamily housing is by far the highest property taxes per acre within the city if you start to look at it.

Um the high tech apartments about sixty thousand dollars net to the net property taxes to the city there.

Um Costco is about eighteen thousand when you start to look at it.

So when the HTRZ rolls off, it's a significant boom.

You're just saying down the road.

Yeah.

But your your your math is that's that's what we're trying to do.

What do you know?

Yeah.

I can do some math on occasion.

So but what's that?

You're not the double.

I know I'll I'll I'll say that.

I I like your leaning into that uh Tyson.

You I think you're plenty intelligent, but I appreciate your insistence as it should be with uh when we're you know speaking publicly to make sure that we are dialing things down to the simplest terms possible, not in a kind of city in a rude way, but to facilitate understanding.

And uh I'd hope that it's it's at least from my perspective, it's been made amply clear that I mean we can talk about increased revenue to the city.

That's that's great.

That's not the be all end all, right?

Quality of life is the be all end all.

Um and uh of course the invested rights is um right, it goes forward.

Um this is um uh the this is about getting the infrastructure for the heavily populated part of our city rather than continuing it this supercharging helps us get there rather than continuing to be lagging, which is the constant frustration of any municipality trying to deal with the various other entities that get to make those decisions when UDOT decides to grant their great blessing of roads on roads that we don't have control over.

Um anyhow uh I I think I've run my mouth off uh to to the extent um by it.

What brand has been quiet and I've been I appreciate the education on a lot of things.

I I I've been familiar with TIFF projects, uh especially BM Junction in particular.

And so I appreciate the the conversation we've had and the answers to the questions that you've all posed.

Um I know this is coming.

This is not changing the project.

That's that's a done deal.

They they're they have vested rights for the development through the area plan amendment that I think took place.

My only concern is this should have been a work session item, in my opinion, where we could be brought up to speed on the level of this development agreement.

And there's another one I think we still have to discuss, but I hope that goes much faster because it's pretty much the same.

Um and that's what I'm thinking is, you know, the public certainly has some questions.

Uh hopefully most of those were answered tonight.

That's the purpose of bringing it before this body was the intention that it has a public hearing in front of the planning commission.

Yeah, and that it's it's double, right?

I mean, questions are addressed, uh, but then it will still go to city council, and there's time to further for the public to further reflect uh and even refine their questions.

Um I just wish that we'd had a a bite at this apple for this particular development agreement.

We've certainly been involved in the planning commission meetings, at least I have.

Those of you that came later, not as many, but um I just think it seems like we're trying to get something done tonight.

And I I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the timing of it.

I'm certainly in agreement with it, but I think the public deserves more opportunity, I guess.

I don't know.

I don't know what to say.

That's what I've been ruminating on.

Okay.

This was one of the very first projects that I ever heard on the commission I've been on here for eight years.

And yeah, I mean, I've you've been here all that time and you've been here most of that time.

Most of it.

Yeah.

But yeah.

And development group is I I'm not a lawyer, right?

So I have to have some trust that the city legal council has done their job to protect the interests of the city.

Yeah.

I mean we have to none of us are experts in any much of this.

And you know, like I said, I read it twice.

Picked up a few things that I recommend we probably see change a little bit, that 10 year to five year if we're gonna proceed with this.

And um but I I'm just concerned about the the time frame of our ability to to digest this and really provide positive feedback or negative feedback or any feedback, just because this is the first we've heard it and seen it was when I got posted online just the other day.

So those are my thoughts.

Well motions that uh that can reflect that.

I don't really have the appetite to make the motion.

Somebody else.

Well, I there I think the states put the planning commission in a difficult spot, to be honest with you.

But I personally don't know that I'm prepared to give a positive or a negative recommendation.

I would probably punt it as a neutral recommendation.

Neutral.

Because this is more for city council.

But that is there was points raised.

We're at the end of the year, there's a change.

With the current, and I you know, they were elected with the trust of the public through the end of their term.

You certainly have seen uh others elected to begin in January.

So I I'm not saying that the that there isn't trust in the current administration because they were elected and have served their terms and their terms aren't over yet.

So um I'm content to push it as a neutral.

So uh if you with that said, I'll I'll make a rec uh make a motion, Mr.

Chairman.

Absolutely.

Okay.

For item 4.4 hearing and recommendation of stacks request for review of the Thanksgiving Station Development Agreement located on approximately 26 acres in the Thanksgiving point area.

That we provide a neutral recommendation to the city council with the findings that as a body uh we feel as a planning commission wasn't given uh a lot of time to review this particular agreement.

Um but th this was held at the requirement of the state code to have it come before the planning commission as a public comment opportunity, which we fulfilled that function.

Um that I think with the recommendation that uh there are changes to the text to remove the paragraph you were concerned with and the about the I can't remember which one we have it on your note.

Recital C.

Yeah.

And then the uh you guys having to support it publicly, but whatever that means.

Yeah, thank you.

Yeah, with the uh recommended changes that Commissioner Roberts has suggested and with the changing of the beginning of the project duration or the start time from ten years to five years that those will be considered by city council if they were to continue to uh pursue this development agreement.

Um with the finding that a development agreement is between developers and the city council, and is not necessarily required of the planning commission to approve or disapprove.

I'm sort of I'm sort of apart from legal the legality that needs to come be before us.

Uh if you want to register discontent that at that requirement, a disagreement.

I I I think that would make sense.

Restate that for me, please.

Noting um discontent at uh the state requiring planning commission to comment or weigh in on what is essentially a city council issue.

Yeah, I don't wouldn't call it discontent, but the re the the requirement that it we fulfilled our function by hearing it and having the public hearing.

Uh-huh.

Um so with the finding that that element of what's required in state code has been met.

Does that answer your concern?

Take it from the top there.

Uh okay that we I uh the motion is to provide a neutral recommendation to the city council with a recommendation that there be some changes made to some of the text that we've identified that Commissioner Roberts has pointed out that I pointed out.

Um with the finding that this hearing tonight has met the requirement of state code.

But the final decision is up to the city council, and so that's why we're pushing it forward with an that's why we're passing I can't get the right words.

That's why I'm recommending a neutral recommendation to the city council for their consideration with the comments and the and the public comments that have been part of the record now, and that would that will be for them to decide.

Craig is itching.

And with all of the uh add all the DRC comments of which I don't know that there were many, but Craig, feel free to correct me.

No, I just wanted to be clear.

Our code allows for you to make a positive or a negative recommendation.

Obviously, you can make your motion um for a neutral recommendation.

That language will go to the council, but I believe under By law it must be under our code that'll be be deemed as a negative recommendation.

Okay.

But you can still you can still say it's neutral word, isn't it?

You can still say whatever you want, but if it's not an a positive or a negative recommendation, then the default is to the negative.

Okay, well I was just trying to appease I where I think I you are sitting.

So um I I'll stay with the neutral recommendation.

Well, I I'll I'll tell you I'd by all means go go forward with it.

I'll probably vote against that, but that if that that's of course the the where the commission's at do it.

Well, you could exercise your one more line, right?

Was there a second on that?

There wasn't.

Was there no second?

Let it die.

Yeah.

I mean you don't have to second.

If it doesn't get seconded, it dies.

Yep.

That's fine.

I want to hear it, but I'll second that.

Okay.

All right.

Well, we we have a motion in a second.

All was in favor.

I I vote on the neutral recommendation.

I'm the only one.

Okay.

And yes, that those against I know I second something to name.

So uh that puts you in a position as a board, planning commission, just so people understand that you can if if there is desire to make a new motion, a renewed motion or a different motion, that motion failed, you can do that.

Um if no one brings forth another new motion, then it will go forward as a negative recommendation as well.

Okay.

Don't look I tried the first time.

No, you did, I did.

I say it just goes forward as negative.

Right?

That's what you're saying.

It just goes forward as a negative recommendation?

Yeah, I mean it would be cleaner if you were to make a motion, but you're not required took a vote and it would.

I'm trying to double check our bylaws on that, but I'm I'm comfortable with it sitting and just going forward negative.

In an unclean manner.

I mean, I would recommend it.

As this whole process has been.

I would recommend against that, but it's a good idea.

Okay, well, that's how he's he's gonna take a bite at it.

Well, uh no no one's clearly comfortable and Craig our is recommending that we clean it up.

So I'll uh we'll see where people stand on this one.

All right.

So I move that we provide a negative recommendation to the city council on this particular agreement.

With the finding that um negative, yeah.

Uh that's where we get into the problems here, right?

Uh include all the DRC comments with the finding that based on public comment that we've received tonight, there was overwhelming concern about the timing and opportunity for getting questions answered by the public who are affected by the decision.

And that we would recommend some language changes that were in the previous motion to be considered that would maybe help make this a better development agreement.

And um include the consideration of the public comments that were expressed concern about the timing but questions on understanding the whole the TIFF PID uh structure.

And it would give the public more opportunity to have those questions answered prior to a city council action.

Can I add a finding?

For me, I would add a finding this again, this is me.

I'd add a finding that knowing that this does not stop or halt the developer from being able to develop their property.

If it did, I would feel very uncomfortable.

But the fact that this does not halt or stop the developer from being able to move forward with an approved project already.

It doesn't stop the development.

Well, I don't know.

And two to that to that extent.

I issues that that have been raised.

I we have gone over this for years.

And um I I do feel that I understand it and I do feel that it is in the best interests of the city, and I would feel uh that I'm going against my moral compass to shoot it down.

So I I'm absolutely going to respect and appreciate whatever motion it comes forward, but my vote would be to send a positive recommendation, uh the warts and all.

So crap craft away.

Um I'm I'll I'm just gonna be very clear.

Yeah, I've taken two stabs at the end.

If there's not a second on that one, then uh then it dies and someone else can make another motion.

So okay.

Second that you know, not necessarily with what I said.

Let me go ahead and make a motion.

This is getting kicked around too much.

Um Brett's motion fails.

Okay.

If no one I'm 0-2.

If no one if no one seconded it, just trying to keep the Roberts rules going.

Absolutely.

We all we always try to abide.

Um all right.

Item item 4.4.

Uh Ken, I'm gonna ask you to walk me through.

We'll do a little bit motion by community to make sure I capture all the concerns that have been raised by item 4.4 public hearing recommendation of stacks request for review of the Thanksgiving Station Development Agreement uh located on approximately 26 acres in the Thanksgiving point area.

Uh I move that we send a positive recommendation to uh city council, notwithstanding the planning commission notes uh are uh uh first of all we include all DRC comments, uh second um agreed you uh legisl legislation things do not stop um midterm at any at any point, but is that a consideration for council to be you know to to bear in mind uh can uh clubhouse drive, what was your language exactly language exactly on that one?

Here we go.

Okay.

Um that I don't clarify.

Yeah, clarify why the developer has to support that there's a requirement in the agreement for the support of the developer for that drive for a clubhouse drive.

Okay.

And then also along with that recital C was asking for the city to where to go.

Um was asking for the city to support projects such as these for the benefit of the city.

Uh and then uh Brent, you noted uh shortening the window from ten years to five years for the start for the start of project okay.

I think that is my motion.

Motion and a second, all is in favor.

Aye.

Those opposed?

Nay.

Okay, three to two.

That sends a message in and of itself.

It's always uh it's always fun when we can we do that.

That's right.

Okay, thank you for taking the time to go over this.

We really appreciate it.

Thank you.

And uh we continue on here, no?

Isn't 4.5 uh you you do know 4.5 is still related, Mr.

Murdoch, right?

Uh this one's just a property.

Right, right, right.

Okay.

Uh could I ask that someone make a motion for a little five-minute breather uh for motion to adjourn until 1011.

12, 1012.

We'll say 1012 gives a few seconds.

There you go.

Sorry.

Okay, motion second.

All's in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Great.

I will be right back.

That was weird.

That was weird.

It was weird.

I'm actually four.

Did we say 1012?

I apologize.

Everybody has 60 seconds.

Enjoy the conversation.

Up to 60 seconds.

Well, I've run out of room, so I'm gonna start taking notes.

Brittany, how are we doing?

Aw.

I didn't.

What's that?

How are we doing?

Is it 10 30 or is it 11 that we're doing?

Oh no.

If if we don't finish at 10 30, we're returned to dust, right?

Yeah, extend after 10.

I understand.

All the 130.

Yeah.

It's one of those, dude.

Yeah.

Yep.

And yeah, we're hearing it separately.

Back out.

Back out.

Check in with the wife.

Uh no, I did not.

Shoot the text.

Shoot the text.

Yeah.

Different?

This is a separate development on the maximum.

Oh, we're good.

1012.

All right.

Excuse me.

Thank you.

Okay.

We'll go ahead and call us back to order.

Another break in an hour.

Brittany.

Oh, Ritney.

Item 4.5, my friend.

Item 4.5.

Public hearing and recommendation of stacks request for a view of the Stack Soccer Field property development agreement located on 3.64 acres at 3197 North Ashton Boulevard.

And this is very, very similar to what we the item we just heard.

Just a separate property, but the language in the agreement and everything is pretty similar, also just for the HTRZ.

Yeah.

Can I ask why is it a separate agreement?

I uh answer that one.

Different owner.

Okay.

Okay.

Got it.

Thank you.

All right.

Um questions for staff.

Seeing none.

Uh we've talked through a number of them.

Uh we know the applicant is present.

Care to speak to the item?

Yeah.

State the name and do all the formal things.

Right.

Ryan Thomas, Stack Real Estate 4101 North Thanksgiving way.

Um excited to be here again.

Uh talk about the soccer code.

Uh I would just say this uh development agreement is mirrored completely after the first one.

Um I'm trying to think there's no clubhouse drive language in this document.

Um we left that out.

We left that out.

Um yeah.

Um I would say it is very, very similar to what we just reviewed there.

But if there are any comments or questions, happy to address those.

Very good.

Thank you.

I assume we have no questions at this point.

But no, fire away.

Sorry, I do.

Yep.

All right.

Right out the gate.

Concerning that uh the the tenure or five-year start plan, is that the same?

I would think it's probably the same.

Uh yeah, if it's then same stance from our same position.

I'm happy to change that.

Okay.

Anything else for the applicant.

All right.

Uh this is a public hearing.

So if anyone from the public would like to speak to the item.

Now's the time.

Mr.

Blake.

These games.

Kenneth Glade.

Ugh.

The math does not math.

They're talking about 400,000.

It's now we're gonna get 80,000 as a city.

But yeah, they're gonna add 300 units for that, 900 residents.

We can't even pay uh a police officer for three months for that much.

And we all know that rental units drive a lot more police action.

And so the costs are going up.

They are lying to you.

They did a piss poor job of presenting the the plan, and then you cut off our access to speak on what they said afterwards, and you let them talk and talk and talk, and you don't let the public come back and re-comment.

This is inappropriate, what just happened.

You had to wordsmith your way through this through this approval.

We've got people here saying we we got this just a couple days ago.

We have other people over here.

It's like this has been going on for years, we've known about this forever.

Commissioner's saying, Oh, we've known about all these details.

We didn't, because it wasn't posted.

This is a development agreement, is new.

So you're wordsmithing trying to push this through, and it's shady.

You're trying to push it through tonight when the developer, the appointment uh the applicant here says, no problem, we'll answer all these questions.

We're so open.

We really, really, really want to be open and transparent.

But you gotta do it tonight, because I don't want to come back in three weeks.

That's shady.

That's insider baseball.

That's dirty.

That's what we voted against.

That's what we said no to.

That's disgusting.

The math doesn't math.

The shadiness doesn't math tonight.

It's inappropriate.

That's why we're pissed off as residents.

We just had a vote.

And we said no more of this.

Three weeks?

Three weeks, they've been trying to do this since 2018, and you have all this knowledge, but you don't have any knowledge, and it's just coming up.

We have questions from from staff.

Disappointing.

It's very disappointing.

Your behavior, your decisions, disappointing.

It's uncalled for.

You're working against the people of Lehigh.

We said, hey, just table it.

Let the next council deal with it.

Let's talk about it.

Let's explore it.

No, no, no, no, no.

We gotta go tonight.

Why?

So then we can try to shove it through with our current council, which people don't trust.

And we just threw them out.

So this really disgusting behavior what we saw tonight from you guys.

You should be disappointed in yourself.

And this project may be this could be the most beautiful project ever, right?

But you don't even know what's going on.

None of us do.

They they came up here and said, we've worked on this for 18 months now.

That was their whole whole presentation.

They didn't get into the details.

It was us, the public that had to ask questions.

It was us the public that had to do this.

And then we're cut off from commenting on the garbage that they said that they were talking about.

Oh, yeah, you get so much more money, Lehi.

Well, we're not talking about all the hundreds and hundreds of extra kids and all the costs associated with that.

All the the police officers that are gonna be needed to police 2,000 rental units.

It's crazy.

Why would you do this?

Why would you do this?

It's disappointing.

If they were a good developer, they could easily say, you know what, we don't want this to be improper.

Let's pull this, let's table this, let's bring this back in two weeks, three weeks from now.

It's that easy.

It's that easy.

But they need it to go through tonight, so shady stuff can happen in two weeks from now with our city council.

And I was nice earlier.

I'm usually not very nice, am I Greg?

I was nice earlier, but when I saw that behavior, come on.

You're better than this, you're better than this, you're better than this, you're all better than this.

Our city's better than this.

We deserve better as residents.

Table this.

Thank you.

Hello, I'm Rachel Freeman.

Um things to note with this.

Uh similarly to the previous item.

The developer has the right task.

And they will can they will develop, and they can develop.

They don't necessarily need this HDRZ.

Um, when the plans were made with the school district again, the schools rely on property taxes.

There was a much there was a much lower population of students at the time.

And there were different people involved on the school board than there are now, or then there were just voted in to be.

And I think that's something that we is really needs to be taken into consideration.

I don't it they were in the room.

We don't know who was in the room.

Um I think that you know, that's we just think about how many years ago that was and the growth in that time period and the strain on the school system and the strain on our community, and what is the vision we have?

And yes, they are entitled to this, but do we need to um do we need to propagate it with certain amounts of tax incentive or um things like that?

And um there's some other thoughts.

My phone died at this point.

I don't have it.

Um I appreciate your attention to this.

I also want to note just publicly that the city council meeting that was supposed to follow this was for December 9th.

But because there are requirements for it to be 12 days from a planning commission meeting to a city council meeting to get something approved, it was moved a week later so that the items this night could go to city council and then be passed.

So there's some strategic stri strategic um planning with the agenda items, and I think that needs to be noted because um yeah, originally four months.

The city council meeting was said December 9th, and if that had been the case, you guys wouldn't have had as much pressure on you.

And I appreciate your attention to this.

Thank you.

Just like to again state my support.

I live 1.2 millimeters, sorry.

I live 1.2 miles from the station.

I ride my bike here every day when I don't ride all the way to Salt Lake City.

And we've gotten rid of one of our cars.

We only have one car.

Um I would probably live closer to the station if I could.

So I think it's creating a we're able to densify, create a center here that is a new feel for Lehigh.

And I'm excited to see that energy and that node that will be a drawing drawing point for all the city and for new people to who don't want to live in the half acre lots with with horses and cows who want to that experience where they can live close to a station and just get quickly up and down the law such front.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Anyone else from the public.

Okay.

Seeing none, we'll go ahead and close public commentary and bring it back to the commission.

Um we'll we'll discuss the item.

Um Robert's rules, of course, dictate much of how our conduct is uh is set up at these meetings uh as always.

Um that of course includes the way that public comment works and even the way the applicant works.

And um so uh I uh yeah, we'll we'll move on here uh with the discussion.

Uh and I don't uh expect to to change a heart or mind, but uh hope that it uh will at least be sincerely received that not attempting to do anything shady.

I love the city.

I um trying to fulfill the mandate before me and uh face the issues that that come before us.

So I understand these are this is our city, and uh we'll have strong feelings and um I realize it's not my place as in as an appointed commissioner to engage directly, but you know that um that that is city council's role, but uh I I feel it uh every one of these meetings over the years.

I've I've always felt it.

Um you you can't make everybody happy, and you got to make peace with that.

You do just have to you follow the Royal Compass.

Um of course law.

And uh best of your understanding.

So to that point.

Let's move forward with our best understanding on 4.5.

So can I I ask one question to the staff?

Why was I go?

Why was the um city council move back?

I'm glad you asked.

I didn't know if I should address that or not.

Um the new city hall, the original, you know, when they first started construction, it was anticipated that it would be finished sometime in October to November.

Obviously, it's not done.

The current mayor would desperately love to hold the last meeting, his last meeting as mayor in the new building.

So we did everything we could.

We bumped it, and I I guess I don't have a final determination if it's enough.

I don't think I don't know if they're gonna be far enough along.

We'll probably still end up holding the meeting here.

But that was there's only one council meeting in December because of Christmas.

They owe they never hold that second meeting in the month.

So they figured whether it was the second or the third Tuesday, it it didn't matter as far as you know, schedule-wise, and so we pushed it to that third one in an effort to give as much time and the best effort we could to hold it in the new building.

Like I said, I it we may still end up here just based on the current status of the construction.

But that was I I've been in a weekly meeting throughout the whole construction of the new city hall.

That was the effort they they wanted to hold the school district, the new swearing, the swearing in of the new school board.

The building official said nope, not gonna happen.

So they had to do it at the broadband room.

That you know, they've had some milestones that they've missed.

The windows have caused some delays.

But yeah, that was that was the reason.

I know I've I was in several meetings where that was discussed.

Now, did it line up for this application?

Yes.

Um, had it been you know, next Tuesday we wouldn't have had it enough time.

It's really the minutes are the biggest thing to have minutes be able to be prepared so that the mayor and council can see your recommendations and not just receive those, you know, a day or two before.

So it it didn't line up because this is a work session, and you asked us to change this to a regular session for that meeting.

So we're I get it.

They're trying to fit stuff in.

The applicant probably enjoys the current administration and wants to get something through.

I get it.

They know what they can expect.

But let's just not talk around the bush.

Like they tried to do something and they're trying to do it.

And I would add that one of the big reasons for doing it to is the next item, the water use preservation element of the general plan.

That has a deadline of the end of 2025 by the state, and that was it just the timing of it coming in for review and stuff, that was really tight too.

So um maybe just as much, if not more.

That the city has to get through for the state.

When was it published that the city council meeting would be pushed back a week?

Do you remember?

I'd have to ask city reporting.

I know it's definitely on the uh notices currently.

Real quick, I'm gonna make a motion that we extend our meeting until we're finished.

That's my motion.

Motion and second, all in favor.

Aye.

Any opposed.

Sorry, we're up against the 1030, which is technically the end of our meeting, so we're gonna see the meeting through.

We should strike that rule.

We always see it through okay.

Um did we hear from the applicant on this one?

We did.

Yeah, we did public hearing.

Yeah, sorry.

Um what more have we got?

Commission.

Well, I'm I just have a thought from the last one.

Uh there's a line in the packet.

The development agreement clarifies expectations, provides predictability for both parties, and outlines how the HDRZ would be will be administered.

So obviously, as it stands, I don't agree that it does all that, but I think with your motion on the last one that you were able to clarify some of those things.