Today.

I do remind you that it is a work session, so there won't be any public comment today.

And with that, we'll go ahead and get started and I will offer a prayer.

Our Father in Heaven, we bow our heads before thee, grateful for the opportunity to come together today as staff and as a council to discuss the needs and possibilities that lie with uh within our direction here in Lehigh City.

We pray for our folks that live here and for those that come and visit and those that work here that they may find joy in doing so.

We we pray that as we talk about things today that we might find the right answer as we work together and work out those uh things that need to be discussed that we may work in a in a direction that's progressive and get us to a final answer.

And we're grateful for again for all that we have, and we pray for the spirit to be with us as we do so and offer that prayer in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

Thank you.

Uh first item, just real quick.

Travis, if you'll go ahead and stand.

Just so everyone recognizes Travis.

This is Travis Sharman.

Travis was recently hired as our code enforcement officer.

Uh so we uh when I saw him in the hallway, we we told him we would introduce him so everyone has an idea who he is as you see him walking through.

Uh make sure you reach out to him, but uh his name is Travis Sharman.

Travis, we welcome you, so thank you for thanks for coming.

Okay, we'll start with the discussion item uh number 2.8 presentation and discussion of the Thanksgiving Point Development Agreement and participation agreement.

Marlon, do you want to start us with that?

Marlon's left the House.

Oh, Marlon's right there.

Welcome, Marlon.

Marlon is here, so Marlon will let you start and we'll go from there.

Actually, if it if it's all right, Mayor and Council, um Ryan Thomas with stock development actually put together a really good presentation.

Uh if you would indulge him uh to go over kind of the history of the HTRZ uh and a little bit of why we're here today.

Uh the bottom line is our hope is that uh we can go through any uh concerns that the council and the mayor might have uh with the development agreement participation agreement uh to see if we can get something finalized that we can then bring back to uh the council during a regular session meeting.

So if it's all right, before we s Ryan, do you want to go through the presentation first?

And then we'll start taking questions and and getting into it.

Is that okay with the council and mayor?

Yep, we're good.

Okay.

Do you want to start?

Yeah, okay, thanks, Marlene.

All right.

Uh she's gonna switch, I think, to uh you all three.

Excellent.

All right.

Sounds good.

Awesome.

Uh Ryan Thomas, Stack Real Estate.

Happy to be here talking about Thanksgiving station.

Um maybe just wanted to start with a few slides.

We'd like to keep this, you know, question and answer.

This has uh been in the works for a very long time.

Maybe this slide will address um kind of just the history.

I know there's some new faces on the council, and welcome aboard, happy to see you here.

Um this is kind of the context of this project here.

So Thanksgiving station, uh the conversation started back in 2018.

Um the project itself received the concept plan approval, which vested the rights to the 2,000 units here March 22nd, 2022.

So almost four years ago.

Um our area plan was approved, which kind of the area plan, if anyone's not familiar with that, is kind of the governing document of this area.

It sets the design standards, the ordinances, um, many, many other things, traffic improvement triggers, uh utilities, infrastructure needed for this project.

So all of that is baked within the Thanksgiving Point area plan.

And that was approved August 8th, 2023.

Um and then kind of second to last was our HTRZ approval.

The HTRZ is the housing and transit reinvestment zone.

That is kind of a statewide legislation that promotes smart development density around key transit stations.

Lehigh frontrunner station being one of those.

That approval um that was applied for by Lehigh City and it was approved by Goyo, the government's Office of Economic Opportunity on November 13th, 2023.

I'll spare you the details of all the bullet points there, but as you can see, we've had many council meetings, many planning commission meetings, uh, numerous DRC meetings, 42.

We had weekly calls for two years with city staff, uh, Kim Lauren, and others there to make sure we got everything in that area plan right.

And then obviously large amounts of pursuit costs to get this project designed properly to be the transit-oriented community that I think everyone wants here.

Water purchases, uh $5.4 million of those dedicated seven days after our area plan approval.

So all of that water is banked within Lehigh City wells, or at least Lehigh City has the rights to it today.

Um seven plus years from then to today.

So what we are here to talk about today is the development agreement.

Um has everyone had a chance to kind of review the latest version of that development agreement and see some of the additions and what was taken out of that.

So I'll spare you the details again, but over 20 drafts and just shy of two years.

We started April 2024 with those negotiations with the prior mayor, city staff, um, everyone representing the city there, including outside council, city attorney, finance planning, engineering, all of the above.

So just as a reminder, this is kind of the high-level conceptual site plan for this project.

Um with an emphasis on that kind of straight pathway from the front runner station to the heart of our project.

Red represents retail, so that's what we see is kind of the retail village in this area.

Um structured parking so that you have walkable streets, you're getting cars off the roads, not in big surface parking lots that you'll see.

So thoughtful design here and doing density as we believe in the right way and working with planning staff.

We we think we got there after many, many years of iterations.

So there's more we can cover on, but um perhaps it's best just to open it up for question and answer and see what we can address.

Um but maybe one key thing to talk about before we go to that is previously we went to planning commission in November and we received a positive recommendation.

I'm sure many of you saw the minutes of that meeting and maybe even watched the recording, and I know there was some back and forth on what that motion should be.

The big issue that I think we heard from the public, certainly, um staff and I believe potential council members, planning commissioners as well, was the city sales tax backing of the bonds.

That component caused a lot of confusion.

And what we ultimately heard at the end of the day is even though we felt risk was mitigated to near zero for the city with all the backstops that were put in place there to make sure the developer replenished funds, the city had the ability to levy taxes on the property to replenish any funds that were ever taken out of the city, you know, general fund.

We heard it was just too complicated, too risky.

Um being good members of this community who've been developing here, Stack Gardener for 20 plus years, we want to do something that's right for the city.

So we took that component out of this agreement, and I think what we have today is a pretty vanilla development agreement that allows this project to continue forward with the HTRZ as approved.

Um, and just as a reminder, the units are approved, the area plans approved, the density, all of that's approved, the traffic triggers are approved and studied.

So we technically, based off the vested rights, could move forward on this project today.

We could submit a site plan tomorrow and start moving forward.

We want to make sure that the city's on board, that everything's button up in this development agreement, and we believe that's what's in front of you today.

So happy to address any questions.

Mr.

Mayor Femme, can you say that one more time?

You the what is technically already been approved.

I was just I couldn't write as fast as you were talking about.

Sorry, yeah, I have a tendency to talk too fast.

Um the 2,000 units are vested.

That is approved.

Um, the area plan is approved and recorded, it's in place.

The HTRZ is approved and in place as well.

So everything about this project aside from this last development agreement piece is approved, and like I said, we could submit a site plan and start going on the project tomorrow, just to make sure that we don't dwell on those types of things.

Thank you.

Yeah.

I'm gonna ask the obvious, then why do um a development agreement or site plan?

Yeah, and it it certainly started the development agreement started with getting the sales tax backing for the project there.

Um I think what the development agreement has mostly morphed to today is just codifying this project, the standards that are set there, um, and the path going forward, setting a timeline on the project and making sure the HTRZ is in place.

Maybe Marlin can add some more context.

Um also uh councilman Freeman per state code.

Also Councilman Freeman per state code it requires that the city enter into a participation agreement with the developer for the HTRZ funding that is written in code.

Sorry it does.

Yeah.

What section code?

But that's separate than a development agreement, right?

Yes.

Participation agreement.

I thought I thought your question was about a development agreement.

Yeah mine was about the development agreement.

Yeah.

So but yeah that so the participation agreement and the development agreement kind of run hand in hand on this but we do have to enter into at least a participation agreement per uh the code.

Marlon since you're up here um have we entered into an interlocal agreement for the HDRZ no that is part of so if once we get the development agreement finalized then we'll come back with the interlocal agreement between the city and the RDA.

No I I'm talking just about the HCRZ aspect that that's been approved.

Yes and my understanding is that there needs to be an interlocal agreement just for that aspect of it.

So we have I I haven't been able to find it so we don't have one of those yet.

We don't have to so once the interlocal so the HTRZ being approved basically gets the funds from the county to the city the interlocal agreement gets it from the city to the RDA.

So we haven't done that in a local agreement because we've been trying to finalize the development agreement.

We'll bring both of those forward at the same time okay because I I a lot of documents here but I that was one of the exhibits and none of the exhibits were included in these documents so that hasn't even been done yet.

No not the interlocal agreement oh yes we do have a draft yes because I did send you the draft we just haven't we wanted to get the the interlocal or the development agreement and everything buttoned up and then give everything to council for one review.

The interlocal agreement is basically just almost Brian a boilerplate almost that just gets it from the city to the RDA.

Pass the taxes.

Yeah pass the taxes through but this the development agreement isn't necessary for the HTRZ funding correctly no it is not it's just it's per state code it just says we have to have the participation agreement could be like just a bullet list of what's in the developer agreement why the developer agreement why do we need it what's being asked you want to take a stab you want me to run out of go ahead go ahead fill in any part I'm gonna I'm gonna miss some.

So basically the development agreement really councilman Newell just kind of codifies um okay transportation we need to make sure that that we work hand in hand on uh providing transportation access infrastructure the area plan has spelled out in there but there's the triggers that are within the area plan.

I know Lauren has quite a few of those triggers already accomplished uh whether it be transportation and or uh public infrastructure infrastructure sewer water um it uh talks about and I've been reading both agreements so I hope I don't get them both mixed up in the uh development agreement it talks about um uh confidentiality so we've got grandma request information that's in there um so it it kind of just codifies what the development is going to look like and making sure that um there's an understanding between the city and the developer of what's responsible for both parties is that you guys I I would say that's that's spot on uh it basically just provides clarity and predictability to the future we know what our project's gonna look like for the period of this development agreement um so we kind of you know can predict when you have a project like this that's multiple phases you want some certainty of things that are agreed upon up front going forward so that's the benefit it provides us and then I think we do the same and return to the city of timelines what we'll deliver and everything like that.

One other thing I would like to bring out in the in it this is in the development agreement uh it does call out uh a trigger mechanism for the 3200 33 32000 square feet of retail space to be completed uh upon certificate of occupancy for the final phase of this so that does require the developer to get the uh the retail component completed as well Marlon can you go over the city's obligations that are in the development agreement um what this basically states so uh article five entitlements um all the developers asking for is that the vested rights that have already been given that the city upholds the vested rights um for this

Um what this basically states, so uh Article 5 entitlements, um, all the developers asking for is that the vested rights that have already been given that the city upholds the vested rights for this.

Uh we also have the um addition.

Um we have a section on here to talk about zoning uh that we'll work within uh the zone that they'll work within the zoning code, uh that we will not um put zoning in place that only goes against Thanksgiving point.

That obviously if there's citywide zoning code that's that's instituted, uh then that would would fall into place.

But they don't want us to is Ryan put it, we don't want uh the city to force us to have yellow doors on all the units.

Um so that's kind of a section of that umatorium, uh that we're not gonna put a moratorium on the the development itself.

Uh and then the processes for uh review is basically our process uh that we already have through the DRC uh process.

Time of development, additional property.

Um city obligations, water and sewer improvements as stated.

Uh this starts uh 6.1 that I believe Lauren can address that, but the majority of the water in the sewer, I believe, has already been built out and is ready for the development.

As a developer stated, they've already turned in the water rights for the entire development, 5.4 million.

Uh the roadway improvements, again, these we did ask for a section within this that clubhouse drive was an original component of that.

It was taken out.

Uh they will support a northern east-west connector supporting meaning that they would they would show support if the city was able to find funding or we or UDOT or whoever was going to put uh an east-west connector in play.

Point of clarification.

So is that um could that be anything that was east and west, or is that a specific not necessarily clubhouse drive?

I get that's off the table.

Great.

Yep.

But I it could that be the one we've talked a lot about that goes I-15 to Mountain View, or could it also be a different connection, right?

Like any type of connection, any type of connection of Thanksgiving point.

That is not Clubhouse Drive.

That is not Clubhouse Drive that would alleviate the traffic congestion.

Okay.

Uh engineering department, not to throw Lauren under the bus, but they have been actively looking at what are options, the the east-west connector, the freeway connector we call it, or is there other options that could go in there?

So we are we're looking at what can transpire, but it would be some type of connector on the northern point.

Okay, that yeah, thank you.

Okay.

And then Marlon, on that specifically, it says freeway, right?

So is that because it says point of the mountain connector freeway?

Yes.

And in talking with engineering, Brad felt that that he was comfortable leaving that in.

I was going to change it just to point of the mountain east-west connector.

Okay.

Just so that okay, could it be a road?

Could it be?

I don't know.

I I didn't want to pigeon, I think at the end of the day, the reality is the development uh both stack and gardener not to speak for them, but they would both be in favor of any type of traffic uh solution that will alleviate traffic within Thanksgiving point.

All we're asking for is that they just support whatever we come up with.

We're not asking for financial support from them or anything like that.

We're just asking for support.

And then does this still hold the same um limitations that Clubhouse did in the original agreement that um they can't exceed the 2,000 units in that area?

Um you know, in the original, it was until Clubhouse was built.

Would this then replace that?

So in the area plan per the traffic study, the 2,000 units can be developed in Thanksgiving Point without Clubhouse Drive going in.

Right.

Umce once we hit that, and Lauren, you might have to jump in.

Once we hit failure point on Triumph and the road system in there, then that would dictate when another solution will have to come into play.

Is that Clubhouse Drive?

Is that a north, uh a northern east-west connector?

I can't answer that at this time.

But it is written in the area plan that there will be there will need to be some type of additional traffic measures that are put into place.

So nothing changes with that.

That's my concern is any they are limited to 2,000 in that area until there is a traffic solution, whatever that may be.

Correct.

Okay.

2,000 is the max anyway.

So just to clarify though, in the development agreement here, it does say make diligent efforts, complete designing and structure of the roadways that are described in the improvement and trigger summary set forth in the area plan.

And as far as looking at the area plan right now in the Clubhouse Drive is still there, we would need a area plan amendment to change that.

So to me, as it's written here, we would be committed to these roads and to advocate for these roads.

I'm not comfortable with that.

There's a lot of things in here I'm not comfortable with, but we've got a lot of roads we need in Lehigh.

I'm I don't know if the city should just be advocating for funding and design from Utah of roads specific for this development.

So there I mean that's an obligation set in this development agreement for the city.

Um other things you didn't mention is that um the city agrees 4.2 city agrees to take such action as necessary to create and establish a PID in conjunction with the project.

Um I'm not comfortable with that at all.

I mean the whole point of this is for affordable housing and to add in the law limits you up to 15 mills, which is much larger than the city can even charge.

Um so uh I there's a lot of things I'm not happy with about this.

Um I think it obligates the city to much more than what was described.

Um again, I'm I'm not seeing that it's needed that the city needs to do this, obligated to do this.

Yeah, it's it it's in here twice.

If it's helpful, I can touch on the PID, the PID.

Um that was originally put in there so that the city would have basically taxing authority is transferred to the PID.

The city would have authority over the PID to place what's called the mill levy, raise our assessed values on the properties, right?

Excuse me, raise the mill levy, the tax rate to recoup any losses the city would have taken taken in that bond structure.

That is no longer the case.

The reason the PID is still left in there is just in case we wanted to establish our own PID for the project, all that does is raise the amount of taxes we pay for the project, but that can be helpful in the event of going out to bond, right?

Because just like a lot of single family home builders do, they will put that PID in place so they can establish a mill levy on the property, they can then go bond against that future income stream that comes from the mill levy within the pit.

So it's just a financial instrument to get money up from the excuse me.

So the PID is giving taxing authority to developer.

It's it in again up to 15 mills annually.

And the residents have no say, they can move in.

And I I've been I've there's a lot of concerns, there's legislation on correcting some things with PIDs.

There's it's very problematic.

One thing to keep in mind is that these are rental housing units.

We will be the owner of them.

So we're increasing the taxes only on ourselves there.

So you'll recruit for rent.

Yeah, I think that's a good question.

Well, let's be honest.

And I understand that thought, but you can never push beyond market, right?

If we have to if we put a pit in place, we can't raise rents any more than our competition as pricing rents at, or we price ourselves out of the market.

There's concerns throughout the state about renters land being surprised by these kind of things.

So I it'd be nice to say that it never happens, but it has.

So I I'm actually not comfortable with any of this.

But those, I mean, these are glaring.

Um to me, this very much favors you guys.

I don't see the benefit to the city for this.

I don't see the benefit for future residents.

And I know the argument is you're gonna increase property tax revenue by building these two thousand units, but there's also cost to the cities.

These roads that you're we're expected to, I guess, lobby for advocate for or try to get built.

This costs a lot of money, and these are located outside of the development, but they'll benefit the development.

And those costs are huge.

And you're already getting 80 percent of the tax agreement property tax increment.

Um that could have gone to our school district.

Um and now you're wanting us to bond.

You wanted us to create a PID so you can tax these future residents.

And I, you know, if I'm a free market person, if this isn't if you can't build it, and maybe you shouldn't.

I mean, your vested rights, but we don't have to fund it.

Sure.

And we're not asking for the city to provide anything in terms of bonding.

There's that's all been taken out of this agreement.

So none of that's needed.

The PID would just be a PID on our own properties that we pay the taxes on.

There's no pass through to the tenants in that sense there.

So no bonding needed in this one.

That was the big uh concession I feel like we've made in this remote.

Do you need the PID in order to make this functional?

Like why why is it in there?

It's nice to have, and it's just a tool that's been used for these large scale projects where we have private roads within this project.

There are a lot of costs that a typical builder doesn't necessarily need to take on and continue with ongoing maintenance.

A lot of times those roads are dedicated back to the city, right?

And they become kind of city obligation.

Here we're gonna be snowplowing those, striping them, maintaining them, all that type of stuff.

So it's nice to have.

Do I think we're gonna use it?

I'm I can't say it's a 10 plus year project.

We don't intend to, but it's a nice tool to have at our disposal if needed, is what I would say.

And how would you notify the tenants that they're a part of something like that?

Um I guess I don't I truly don't understand or see any impact that falls on them.

It falls on the net operating income of the property, and like I said, the market is the number one governor.

We can't price ourselves out of what we provide as a benefit to the market.

They're only gonna pay.

If I think of top line revenue, which comes from the rent paid, right?

And the tenants are paying that rent to meet the operating expenses that the PID would be participating in.

So eventually it does meet the consumer.

You're you're right.

Top line revenue operating expenses.

Property taxes sit in operating expenses, which then drop down to your net operating income, correct?

Yeah.

So we're just taking, we're padding our expenses and losing some profit in that sense for the benefit of getting money up front to help catalyze a project to go.

So it's an absolute trade-off.

It's a double-edged.

Yeah, thank you for sharing.

Um one other comment about the PID is it um would also author or give um tax exempt bonding, which does give a lower interest rate.

So there is a little bit of an incentive for the the PID to be put in place as well.

Yeah, and that's what's something I was gonna point out.

4.4, the agency, which is the city, um, agrees that at the request of the participant, which is thanks to point development, uh it shall use reasonable efforts to issue tax increment revenue bonds through the redevelopment agency.

Or if the participant has created a PID.

So this is the things that these are the things that we're discussing that I also have concerns with.

I don't know if you can also go back to that previous slide and the area plan, but it specifies there that only up to 1,200 units can be built until in the IRA plan slide you were showing us, until there is uh prior to the completion of the Clubhouse Drive extension or the 2100 North Freeway.

So you know, I guess this won't be happening anytime soon.

We have 2100 north coming in.

Um there are some things in there, the area plan that that we don't necessarily that we might need to look at again.

So Marlon, just to clarify that that understand that this is for 2,000 units, but the trigger in place for clubhouse was for additional there's other landowners, that's other type of properties in the area, that is the point of having that trigger still in place that would disallow any other type of future development in that area until there are traffic there.

That's the point I was trying to make.

Yes.

Okay.

But here it looks like it that 2100 north free would satisfy that.

It's connected.

That's what gets them to the 2,000.

Okay.

Yeah, the 2000s.

Any other developer in that area, even commercial or anything like that, is being it what it has right now is Clubhouse Drive.

It could be replaced with the point of the mountain freeway connector, which would that it's basically a trigger that holds that area to not be able to develop beyond this 2,000 units.

Am I understanding correctly too that the commercial development will not happen until after the 2,000 units are built?

No, per the development agreement, the what is it, Ryan, 1,300 units that's contemplated in the the development agreement with the participation agreement.

The 32,000 square feet of retail will have to be completed before they get certificate of occupancy for the final phase, which would probably probably be the last 300 units, because you do them in you don't do them one unit at a time.

You do them in, you know, 350 unit uh developments.

Okay.

Um I can't remember where I think it may have been the December 4th Planning Commission meeting notes, but um I remember it if the PID is not approved, I believe you guys said you you probably wouldn't get to your max density of 2,000 units, which is approved.

Do you have every right to build that because it's been approved since 2023, but with the HTRZ?

Yes.

Yeah, HRZ, yeah.

Okay.

So with the HTRZ, you still plan to move forward with to build as many units as you can.

Um up to the allocated amount.

Yes.

Okay.

And it will take time.

It will not happen overnight by any case a long time.

Each project takes three years to go.

Oh, okay.

I just I'll just have a comment.

I I'm opposed to the development agreement.

If we have to enter participation agreements, I thought it was just in our local.

I'm looking at the effective code from 2023.

But um I would want that participation agreement to just stick what was allowed in the HTRZ with the application and those the state approval approval, which my understanding was that the 80 percent um for the 25 year two phases of 25 years um and that that money would go towards construction costs of the high rise apartments and the parking um structure.

Um the participation agreement here, it just I mean it it opens it up to all costs associated with the development.

I'd like to stick with what was originally agreed upon and not have a development agreement.

I'm thinking.

I'm thinking in yeah, I also really struggle with development agreements.

There's they I have a record of not enjoying them or appreciating them, but I I do um I appreciate the work session because it allows me to kind of process through and um yeah, it's it's not it's definitely not my favorite thing.

And I can understand that.

And the only thing I'd add Marlon kind of touched on it, but when you do have a project that'll span, you know, potentially two decades to be built out here, you need some certainty that you know, design standards aren't gonna change something crazy, that everything has to be red brick throughout this area.

Don't you get that in the area plan?

That is what our area plan does, but what this development agreement does is protect us from changes to that.

We basically just lock in, hey, here are our design standards today, and those are gonna stay consistent for the term of this development agreement for the life of this project, because you could have the instance where someone comes in and says, no, everything's red brick now.

And we've had a design thing going and now you have to shift and make something different.

Um this reminds me of our last meeting where Cold Spring Ranch, we changed the area plan, right?

And those citizens have a right to petition their government for change.

So it can concerns me if I'm understanding you correctly.

I'm just help me if I'm not.

But it would concern me that you're essentially saying this development agreement prohibits residents from petitioning their government for change on the area plan.

And I want to make sure that we don't prohibit them if they move in and have but I but I also at the same time am weighing out the fact of the risk of the development, right?

So I I guess there's kind of two sides to this coin.

Yeah.

Um I think that's a fair statement.

And what I would just maybe remind the council of is that process happened when the area plan um was approved, right?

I mean, there was plenty of public comment that came out.

Um the council members at the time weighed in on their decision, and we had to revise multiple multiple times to come back till we got it right where it felt like everything was in a good place.

But yes, this is what we want to see this developed as going forward under these standards here.

Yeah, and that also happened with Cold Spring Ranch, but once it grew and there were enough residents, they they found a need for change, right?

And so again, I'm I'm not really making absolute statements, more just processing out loud to kind of have this dialogue.

Um, and I appreciate the candid nature of the conversation.

And I think even even with the area plan to Michelle's point, the this participation agreement is referring back to the area plan, which refers to the Clubhouse Drive extension.

So do we need to first amend this area plan before we can you know talk about the participation agreement?

Just because I know that Clubhouse Drive, I mean, personally I I don't it it doesn't relieve regional traffic.

In fact, it probably brings much more traffic into this area.

Um and and if it's not part of our overall strategy as a city to build out that road, then would it make more sense to amend the area plan first to start with?

I don't know.

I guess I would say where it's an either or I don't personally see it having implications here, and it's kind of shown on our traffic trigger summary right there on the it's in the area plan that it has clubhouse drive beyond our project.

So it's still on there is the point.

And if if you want to change it to just a connector, then yeah, we would need to amend the area plan first.

Also you said it's beyond your project, but it's 2031 and you said this would take two decades, so potentially working on her a lot of times.

Yeah.

Sometimes some of our dates for the area plan that we submitted on are a little off.

Yeah.

I I guess I would say we didn't plan on being two years into the development agreement before we started the project.

So you get some dates that shifted and Moran and his team have done a fantastic job of exceeding most of the deadlines before we have projects on there.

I just want to say I appreciate you bringing this to us.

I understand that there are risks.

Um there's also the city uh kind of upfront has to do some of the infrastructure outside of your project, right?

Is what I understand.

Some of the there's there's some things that are have to be in place um outside roads or whatever.

You have to do some internal roads, things like that.

Typically we would gather impact fees and we would help us build some of the things after after housing is built.

Um also nearby you have some nonprofit area that doesn't pay property tax that you know the city has provide services to as well that will affect your area, uh whether you know whether it's that specifically, but you kind of get the benefits of some of those things that the city provides for the nonprofit area.

So there are some there are some good things that the city's done for that area as well.

Absolutely, and that is not lost on us.

And I do think that a lot of those improvements that were done in this area help the greater uh region, not just Lehigh, they help obviously Eagle Mountain Saratoga Springs, who create a lot of that traffic coming through.

Um I would say while these were outlined in this table as improvements, you know, that Lehigh City had to do, I wouldn't say those were necessarily done just for this project, right?

But yes, we're very grateful to have that, and in return, we have our list of projects we have to complete as well, too, which will further add regional benefit.

Maybe I just need to weigh in a little bit if I could.

Uh when we did 2300 West and the widening on 2100 north and the 215, I'd have to mark them off, but there's probably 80% of what we have to do is done.

We actually had other funding with MAG and stuff, so we've been fortunate enough.

We did pay it up front, and their fees will help us pay back our funds uh that we participated, but I'd have to mark those up, but there's only like one or two left that we have not done.

I think the one is on site at uh what is it?

Uh there's one on site, the rest of them are all off site or all done.

And when they did and they're doing 2100 north, so those those triggers and things are all basically complete, which was kind of cool.

Yeah, it's great.

The city's done their done their due diligence there for that one and I'm pretty excited that we're ahead of the game.

So if it's mostly done, then we probably don't need, you know, again, I don't want to do any development agreement.

I'd vote against it, but we wouldn't need this in here to obligate the city to advocate for those roads.

I don't I thought we did take something out, uh just references I I don't remember what it exactly says.

Well, Clubhouse Drive and in general it does it talks about you know the roads on the table.

Um my concern is we've got a lot of roads we're trying to get funding for.

So I'm not I don't want to obligate the city to to work for we we need to advocate for what is most needed by our residents, and that's probably where we have existing problems, not future problems, I guess.

Yeah, I don't I don't know that it's necessary because I think the intent with Clubhouse Drive was because there was gonna be pushback.

Um golf courses said it would do i irreparable harm.

I don't think clubhouse is anything that is a concern other than it basically holds hostage the area, right?

That you that there can't be for future development beyond that unless there is a replacement for it.

But having to, you know, say in a developer agreement that we need to have advocates for some type of construction that doesn't actually go through the development.

I don't know, unless there's some concern that the point of the mountain connector would impact this development area, that there would be something that would need to be given up so that there's a reason that you would need to advocate to have that happen.

Um I know that's something a lot are pushing for um when the time does come, but I don't know if it would have the same impact that Clubhouse Drive was going to have Let me ask a quick question, Lauren.

When you as engineering go to MAG, do we bring um the transportation corridors that we're going to go after funding for to council?

Or do you do them unilaterally through engineering?

In other words, what I'm trying to get at is does these the these that are listed on the bottom, the beyond 2031, does it obligate the city to go after those funding, or does the council set direction on what roads we're going after for funding?

We do that on a multi-year obviously the master plan has all these in, and so does trans fifty fifty and then again transfifty-five.

Uh they're just our model to a build-out condition, not necessarily in the air impact fee.

We do designate certain things for the next five, ten years, which we did last week, was it two weeks ago?

That has indicated roads that we are going to build in the five and ten year period.

And Clubhouse is not in that list, just so you know.

And the mayor, the mayor goes to MAG who represents us.

So we have anything.

Correct.

So does engineering.

So engineering and myself go to MAG once a month.

Um I look at those roads.

MAG's already funding 2028, 2029 projects.

So yes, we're aware of those.

My name is Andrew Bibe with Stack Real Estate and the project.

Nice to meet you all.

Haven't met uh a few of you guys face to face.

Um this has been a helpful discussion.

I think what we're hearing loud and clear is you want a participation agreement, you don't want a development agreement.

And why don't we go back and take a look at that in just a participation agreement form and not a development agreement form and we'll come back with a future discussion?

Is are you gonna throw the development agreement and call it a participation agreement?

Um we're gonna go back and look at the participation agreement.

We're gonna look at the HTRZ code and we're gonna try to align it to as perfectly as you're looking for it to be aligned.

I mean, at the end of the day, there's a there's a host of things that are already approved, and sounds like you guys already know that.

And we know that.

We want to develop what we have approved.

We're not trying to sneak anything else in.

We want to develop what we have approved.

And if the participation agreement matching perfectly with the HTRZ is the way to do that, then that's what we're gonna do.

So let us go back and do that homework and we'll work with Ryan Wood and outside council on our side and outside council on your side and come back to you.

Does that work?

Yeah, I I'm agreeable to that.

I also uh if you bring something back, if we can if there's like exhibit A, exhibit B, whatever, if we can include those documents.

Yeah.

So we don't have to go searching for them, you know, and um anything else that would be helpful for us.

I'll I would read hundreds of pages of the stuff, so good with that.

Cool.

So Marlin, that would be helpful because there are things that are approved, but I think it would be helpful for all of us on the council to have those documents.

So the application that you made to the state to go IO, the H the application and then the approval, what was approved.

Because I did uh hunt and found it eventually.

Um I think that would be good to know for the whole council to know what's approved.

And my position is I I will stick, I will honor, I mean I have to, right?

Um happy to honor that.

Um but I'm not comfortable with the additional S going forward.

Fair enough.

Councilman Newell, you're Councilmember.

Good.

Councilmember Harrison, you're good with that.

Councilmember Freeman, good.

Yes.

Councilmember Stallings, Councilmember.

Okay.

So with that said, uh, you're also part of two point B.

Do we want to make those?

I'm assuming we want to combine those for a that's sockfield, I'm assuming you want to go that way.

Okay.

Great.

Sounds good.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hey, thanks for your time, everybody.

I appreciate it.

Thank you.

Okay, we'll go to uh two point C and we'll actually I need to ask if we can potentially table this because Mike West is out sick today.

And so uh is everybody okay if we move this to another to the next work session.

Is that okay with everybody?

Okay, great.

Does Kim want to say something?

That he couldn't be here.

And Brad Kennison is also a son is getting married, so he's got married.

Anyways, yeah, he got married.

He just hasn't come home yet.

Uh so if you're okay, I mean if you have any questions or things that you want us to cover, but I know Mike was gonna do some additional information, present uh yeah, I know Mike has the he has the major push on this.

So let's if you guys are okay with that, let's push it and we'll we'll get Mike uh to present.

Can I just ask what what he was planning, just generally what he was planning to present?

Um I think he would like to just kind of walk through, you know, zoom out a little bit and talk about the safe systems approach, which is the FHWA's new, you know, how how do we think about roads more comprehensively and balance vehicles with other types of modes of travel and then start to drill in on you know what does that look like for us and how do you you know where do we want to strike that balance, what are the trade-offs?

So I think he had you know he can walk you through some slides and then we can just jump right into what do we want now to do with 700 south and what what are some options for the future?

So I think he's he'll be very prepared.

He just yeah, he's got the influenza B, so he's on quarantine.

So that makes sense.

I think I mean I think nobody here wants to get rid of bike lanes necessarily.

We're just we're trying to find a a better solution at least for 700 south.

And I know this is part of the overall um transportation plan throughout the city, and we have different types of bike lanes throughout the city and different different roads and so yeah, I think we can look at it more comprehensively over time.

Um but specifically for 700 South, since that's the one that garners the most attention from residents in that area, figuring out what works best long term for both bikers, pedestrians, and and drivers.

So I look forward to that.

Maybe I'll just give you a little insight.

You did ask some questions about uh alternatives and and maybe you've got some that you're in your mind, but we did look at you know, leaving it alone, obviously, or enhancing it in its position.

Uh do we put in which we have talked before with prior council, a barrier that goes down, and that was discussed quite heavily with the prior council.

That's an option.

They all come with money.

Uh the other one that would do we eliminate and go to a bikes on both sides, that's been requested.

We did look at that.

We have funds.

You can't just arbitrarily change something because what happens, I mean you have paint like that.

Uh what we found out and oh there'd be Jay.

Uh you you really can't, you almost have to redo the road partially to get rid of the paint if you're gonna redo a lot of painting.

So there's a lot of cost with just trying to go back to say a different type of a alignment.

So we've been working on those costs.

So if you have some particular uh alternative you want us to look at.

Yeah, I mean um that would be helpful to to know too.

Yeah, so I'm not an artist by any stretch, but I I do like, and just and this is coming from talking to residents like I don't live on 700 south per se, but I live nearby, I commute on it.

Um I do like the idea of having bike lanes on either side of the road.

And a lot of the residents who have reached out in s in favor of the bike lanes, they like that it's protected by vehicles, right?

So parked vehicles.

So I don't know what that looks like, but if we had it on both sides, if we had you know a protected lane up against the the gutter um with parking along that lane, right?

I think that would I think it would make more sense to both bikers and um just one of the alternatives.

So instead of yeah, we looked at several locations uh around here that even have them.

Salt Lake, he'll be showing you some that have the cars parked, they have a buffer.

Not necessarily cycle, cycle track actually puts a physical barrier in.

That runs the cost up, but we are looking, and he has those, that's why it's not but I wanted to see if there was something different that we didn't know, but we have we have been looking at that one.

Yeah, yeah, and obviously funding.

I mean, if if we had unlimited money, I like the I like the idea of having the wide sidewalks with with part of it being a bike lane, part of it being pedestrian, but I think not knowing the cost, but probably guessing it would be um much much more expensive.

So I think the next one is we're trying to keep within a reasonable amount, whatever that means.

Yeah, million nowadays is not a not a big amount.

It seems like that's common.

So but uh those are three that we are looking at.

Yes.

So you're aware.

Okay great.

Lauren or Cam or I could email Mike.

I wonder if we can broaden the discussion too and look at options to um find ways to get these built.

So whether it's new development um can we make it a requirement or would it have to be you know some kind of a in lieu of yeah or whatever some trade off or I I've sent you pictures of my dream bike lanes and you know over in America yes yes and they were able to figure it out so I I'd love to look at that too maybe separately from this or sometime but okay thanks.

And do we know the timeline sorry mayor um on the as 700 south becomes 600 south going into Jordan Wills.

Do we know the timeline on the widening of that road we have funds for that actually extension on the road in the and I don't remember when he what what year was it?

I think your design funds could be released late this year.

And then the construction probably wouldn't be for 2027.

So but it but it's getting closer that that was on uh the previous Mag cycle so it's usually two years out so I think this year we may have funding to at least do the design and then the construction would probably be the following year.

That's good to know because obviously the I think the intent is for these bike lanes to eventually connect to the Jordan River Trail.

That's correct.

And then you have the new developments um just north of the Chow property um that's going to add more traffic and as you know that road is very small so I'm sure that'll be welcome news to the residents in the area.

Yeah and the one of the reasons I requested this item beyond agenda was because you know I have my opinion of what bike lanes should look like but then as I asked more questions like with you Kim and Mike I think you know last year before I was even elected I was asking questions.

I realized it was a lot more complex than just a simple fix.

You know we have cars that are being hit.

We have people but trying to back out of driveways that are almost extended because you have a double bike lane there and they have bike it bicyclist coming from either direction that they have to account for I find myself I was made it more difficult to see bicyclists and pedestrians crossing with the white poles.

But just it is a complex issue and I feel like if we do have a whole presentation on kind of looking at safer systems approach since we are not um experts on that that that would help us all be able to make good education decisions about that.

So thank you.

Thanks to Mike in the future we'll definitely circle back as soon as we can so I will make sure this is on our our next work session let Mr West aware so he's prepared.

Okay two point uh D sidewalk funding discussion council member Freeman I know this was your tell us what's on your mind well again I just started asking questions to try to figure out how sidewalks are um prioritized in the city uh you know kind of the cost so we kind of know uh you know during last year again I was asking a lot of questions and figured out that it was the the idea had been it will cost the homeowner about 277 dollars a month over 10 year time period which I think it was approximately three hundred thirty three thousand dollars or so plus so and I think doing research that actually doesn't even really cover the cost all the way so I was wanting to know what is the cost um and how are we prioritizing sidewalks because I have a lot of I think we've all had multiple residents reach out to us and say this isn't safe we you know we need a sidewalk here we need sidewalk here and how do how has the city been doing it in the past since I haven't been you know obviously involved in that decision making so I'd love to hear from anyone who's willing to to talk about that and just kind of maybe get a sense from the council of how we want to go forward.

I have ideas that I kind of too you know but anyway.

If you're looking at me there's the guy we have been working on it.

Cam it's put together a very interesting presentation I anticipate some of those questions because if you remember Matt sent out a survey asking what your interests would be about sidewalks and a lot of those similar questions were in that survey and so hopefully this will be helpful um help answer some of that but 60 all right um so first talking about sidewalk priority so I've talked with engineering I've talked with our streets department and they're both here to answer some questions if this raises any questions but um first thing I propose is that we get a better system.

So I've talked with engineering, I've talked with our streets department, and they're both here to answer some questions if this raises any questions.

But first thing I propose is that we get a better system.

All right.

So typically this is historically what I how we've made uh policy decisions on sidewalks.

Any new development typically is the will install the new sidewalks.

You've probably heard that before.

But we have these areas where we have missing pieces throughout the city.

So as uh city, we've prioritized those, kind of giving them kind of an expectation of what the priority would be.

So first priority is near schools.

We want to make sure that they're installed near schools, and the second priority is near any parks or recreation.

Um then third would be along major collector roads and then along minor roads and then limited use areas where you're not really seeing a lot of pedestrian traffic.

Um I can share this uh presentation with you as well.

Um this next uh map has kind of an idea of what we're looking at in the downtown area as far as that goes.

Um the lime green is any sidewalk that is already completed or has been completed probably in the last 10-15 years.

White is sidewalk that's been there uh long term, and then you can see the red is near schools, purple is near parks and recreation, uh, orange is along a collector road, yellow is minor roads, and then uh blue is limited use.

So there's not a lot of red left on this map.

Um there's a little bit, I think, down by uh down by uh the high school, maybe, but mostly you're seeing um the near the parks, and then also the uh along the collector road would be uh kind of the next priorities there.

So and then uh as far as cost, um we're looking at about 300, currently it's about 350 dollars per linear foot.

Um so to give you an idea, uh one block in the downtown area is 400 feet.

So on one side of a block to install sidewalk is about 140,000.

And the challenge here is that we're not just talking about uh the concrete, we're talking about curb and gutter.

A lot of times we're talking about storm drain, um, we're talking about uh uh driveway access points and those kind of things.

So um overall the average is about $350 per linear foot.

Uh any questions so far in any of that?

So that map that you have with the different colors, that just shows basically north of center or main street and like just the downtown area.

Do you have it of the whole city?

Have you um so we've mostly focused on the downtown area um because that's where the most critical missing pieces probably are.

Um but we could definitely get sidewalk uh maps for the whole city.

Uh Jason DeWitt with our engineering department put this together.

He showed this a couple of years ago, so we've I had him update it for most recent.

So this is this is our recent um sidewalk map.

Um yeah.

So Cameron, did that number include uh curb and gutter and the 350?

Yeah.

Yeah, so that would be the whole complete uh project.

So just to give you an idea of what we have spent since 2016, I had some help with finance and with Lauren, but we've used mostly we've used CDBG money for the downtown sidewalks, and since 2016, we've spent 2.424 million dollars on CDBG projects, and much of that includes sidewalks and storm drain improvements.

We did get a grant a few years ago, the Safe Routes grant that installs sidewalks around schools uh for 366,000.

Um we have a fund for the Class C roads fund where um BJ has 750,000 in that fund that he mostly uses.

This is mostly for repairing sidewalks.

So he's been uh fixing ADA ramps throughout the city and repairing damaged sidewalks like around the trees and those kind of things.

Um mostly that's what that fund goes to.

Um it's part of our transportation um uh funds and class C road funds.

Um but occasionally we will use that to install new sidewalks like we did down on 900 north uh by the uh the school down there.

And then occasionally we've started to supplement with transportation tax um supplement the CDBG project.

So you know as you've had discussions on funding CDBG, we don't always fund that whole project as we uh allocate some of those funds for other projects, and so Lauren's been able to use the transportation tax that we get um to help supplement that cost.

So just for your information, I I just took out all the lines so that you can see in the last 10 or 15 years what we have done in the downtown area as far as sidewalks.

So you can see we've been able to to take a big chunk out of that area, get a lot of those sidewalks done uh using C D BG and the other grant funding for that.

So then I asked engineering to help me get an idea of what it would cost to finish out those sidewalks in the downtown area.

Um so the high priority areas around schools and parks uh that cost estimate would be about 2.478 million dollars.

And then the lower priority areas, everything except for around the schools and parks and recreation is about 9.934 million dollars.

And this is citywide.

This is just in the downtown area.

Okay, just that area you saw on the map.

Okay.

Kim, do we do we have a lot of area outside the downtown area that's missing?

I know probably a few neighborhoods on the outskirts that have some of those old people that live in county homes still that haven't been annexed, and I'm assuming that's probably the majority of it, correct?

Yeah, I if I understand right, the majority of the missing sidewalks are in the downtown area.

There are some areas outside of that.

Cameron, I have those numbers.

It's more outside.

Oh, is it yeah, it's 6.5 mil uh miles in downtown that's left, 14.5 miles outside of downtown.

So total cost 53 million citywide.

Council Member Newell, how much of that 14.5 is county land though.

Do you have that breakout?

Okay.

So that's a good that's a good point too.

Is it's as it's annexed into the city, there'd be an expectation there.

So from what I understand, if a lot is over a certain size, you don't require a sidewalk to be put in a new property.

Is that right?

Or BJ, I think is one who told me that.

One acre.

Larger than one acre.

Okay.

Okay.

Let's see, they have to dedicate.

Don't they have to dedicate and do a hundred feet or something though?

Uh minimum.

Yeah, there is a minimum.

Yeah, there is a minimum on those.

They don't have to do their full frontage, but they do have to do a park.

Okay.

And and probably the most of what you're outside is developable areas that are that have not been developed yet.

So can I ask a quick question?

So we brought up unincorporated area.

How and I think I copied you on an email, but I can't remember.

Um can the city make improvements on county land that's still in the county.

Okay.

Uh yeah, I she actually sent an email out and requesting that particular road we've looked at a couple of times.

There is that they actually own out end of the road.

And so it's we've looked at that area.

Okay.

Uh we may approach them again, but we don't, unless you want to use other uh powers, that that one's been really tough.

So they didn't want to.

They don't want sidewalks.

Let me explain maybe just so she all of you.

Same context.

It was on the 1700 West, I think.

Uh is that what it was?

Yeah, it's right south of River Rock country.

Well, if you go down there, it's easy to see uh there's a his corral goes right out into the touches the asphalt and uh and so their uh safe routes to school does not include that side.

Well, to get funding, you have to have it in there safe routes.

So it's so it's kind of a two-edged sword, but that is on our goal to see if we can't talk to them again this time.

But that's a big problem, just that we would have done it if we would have got the right-of-way before.

So right away is the issue.

And can schools up they can update their safe route to stay.

They can.

Okay.

But they they can't put it in their safe routes because they can't get the kids up the street.

Okay.

So it's a kind of a tough problem.

Because you can't have them walk them out in the street.

So we actually cross the street, go up and then cross back.

Okay, thank you.

Sorry.

Okay.

I was just gonna ask for a clarification.

So the cost that you quoted, Cameron, that does not include any uh right-of-way purchase or anything.

That's strictly construction costs, right?

I think so, yep.

Correct.

Okay.

Go ahead.

Just one more quick thing.

Fortunately, in the downtown area in particular, there's not too many areas that don't that needs right-of-way.

There are a few, and you'll I don't know if they show up there.

But luckily the town was set out in the early, I don't even want it, 30s, and they had roads and they were 66 foot wide.

And that's what you see on the on the drawing.

I can send this map out so that you can see it a little bit better, but you can see on this map there's uh five areas that that need right of way, everything else.

I think we're good there.

So any questions about any of that, any anything that we can clarify to help with your discussion.

So let's pretend you have ten places that need a sidewalk.

How would you prioritize those?

And they're all, you know, buy the parks, you know, bar by a school or something.

How like what's the how was the mechanism for deciding that is it the the residents uh request?

Is it the you know um you look at whether it's an elementary or high school?

I mean, you know what how I just am curious the age of the home, the age of the residents, you know, there's some different factors there.

I'm just kind of curious.

Several things, all of the above.

I mean, we'll we'll look at comments, a lot of calls that come in.

We'll also look at the number of kids that may be on that particular road.

And so sometimes we even do a little some counts, view what's happening there.

Sometimes it's also critical elements.

There's the kids can walk and they're fine.

But maybe it's got a shoulder on it or something that make it tough.

So there's a probably about six or seven or eight things we kind of look at to kind of make that choice.

Lauren, I think um in the downtown area there are also areas that are maybe more challenging with storm drain issues and that.

Do you take that into account as well?

Because that would be a more costly project.

And you gotta take a little bit of low fruit fruit because you want to do more.

We're working on a couple right now that well, we have one on ninth north.

Maybe you saw this up by 12th east.

That has been around since I was long before I was born.

That was a tough one.

That took a lot of money, and we finally just decided to do it.

But you you can say maybe you shouldn't have done that.

You should have done eight more blocks downtown.

But that one's been around a long time.

It started to get a lot of traffic.

So we bought the bowl or bothered or whatever you did in the board.

Yeah, there you go.

That one was a tough piece to do.

It was very expensive, and we decided it was just time to get it done.

So that was not out of C D PG, that was out of tax funds.

I've heard too that you try and complete routes, like if you know it's missing on both sides, maybe you'll do one side, but trying to get routes like the high school kids being able to get to quench it.

That was the one we did last year.

Yeah, right.

That because you had a lot of kids that were walking on shoulder middle of the road.

But then so maybe then when that happens do you prioritize the other side of the sidewalk, you're trying to get at least one side of the sidewalk or at least one path through to each of these you know destinations, is that no very good point.

We we often do that because uh they can get on one side and the other, and the other side isn't that it isn't important, but at least have a walk on a street to us is an extremely important issue.

Our next map will update with safe routes to soda shops so that we can as well.

So the other thing I I was curious about too, because in talking to council members in other cities, they don't do this.

They don't use their C D B G money for this.

American Fork uses it to upgrade their water and sewer lines and so it seems kind of unique to Lehigh.

Um I don't know if the narrative is been very well shared that we're using grant money to you know do this because we care about that and it is making improvements to these property owners' home.

It's you know, they're giving their land so that we could put a sidewalk there and then be able to maintain it.

And I I think that's part of the, you know, I know we want to do it faster, but we are doing it in a way that isn't that I feel like we can justify it because it's using grant money.

Um but I I would be curious if other cities, you know, it came up last time when we had talked about this, that there was other grants that cities had pursued beyond the C D B G money, beyond safe routes um that we might be able to do or other funding ways that we could uh I don't know if there's other cities that use uh participation model to help, but I also know in this area it's that's kind of difficult too to be, you know.

If we're we're using C B D G money, that's because it is for moderate to low income um housing.

So I I'd be curious just to be able to understand that more fully because I think there's the idea that other cities are doing what we're doing, and that's not what I've been able to find.

And I know American Fork uses CDBG money for sewer projects, which I thought that was interesting.

But um uh councilmember Hancock, I think um a while ago referred us to uh program and I called and talked to staff about their program.

They actually use um their own money to pay for sidewalks.

Um I I think there are cities that do that, and there are you did mention grants, so I could pull up my notes and definitely look into those things.

Just for our information.

Do you know what city that might have been that uses their funding?

What uh I can look through my emails, but it's um do you remember?

I'll have to look at my it was like uh a district thing.

Oh but yeah, and uh there was they had different programs, and one of them was you know, like kind of the special district thing um where the property owners pay for public sidewalks, but he said they never had anybody do that.

Um so they use and I I'll definitely look that up.

That would be helpful because we've been doing some research to try and find what other cities are doing.

Uh-huh.

And we found that most of the cities have some sort of cost sharing program for repairing sidewalks.

Uh-huh.

So if you already have the sidewalk but it's damaged, they require the citizens to pay 50% of the cost to replace it.

Um but I couldn't find any.

Moreia actually helped me with a with this research.

She we we didn't find any that pay for new sidewalks other than using um CDBG and other types of grants like that.

Um but it would be helpful.

Well, he did, he did mention a few different grants.

So I can look at those.

But um how would you get a resident to pay for a damaged sidewalk?

It's not their property.

Uh how do they collect that?

Uh I don't know.

There were five or six cities.

It's called a 50-50 replacement program.

Um and some of them are uh reimbursement type programs.

Um so Ogden does it.

Um if the property owner wants it replaced, the is kind of the idea that the city will pay half of it if they do.

That's that's still a lot of money.

My understanding is that while we the property owner doesn't own the sidewalk, they are responsible for maintaining it and so like shoveling side snow off of it.

And then if someone were to be injured because you had damaged sidewalk and they sued your property, then your homeowner's insurance.

Like I how does that work?

I wish that was the case.

That's not the case.

So uh the sidewalk is still city property.

So if someone goes down and chips a tooth because the sidewalk's up because of a tree that the homeowner planted, it's us.

It's the city.

It is us, yep.

That makes sense.

Okay.

So if you drive around, you'll see you'll see, and I've I've been with BJ a little bit on this.

If you drive around, you'll see trees that are planked in in park strips that raise that sidewalk.

Then you have major trip hazards and trip hazards come back to us.

So what I'm hearing you say is I don't have to shovel my walk.

Is that what I'll let you know?

I don't have to put my snow boots on in the middle of the night and shovel my walk.

Oh, sorry, I was just gonna say I think that's the interesting part of it, because for the most part, the property owner does own this land until it's given.

So the property owner is responsible.

So if we're saying that these sidewalks are or the missing sidewalks are liability, the property owner at that time is the owner of the the resident.

So like I think it's like a really careful thing to go down that path and saying that not having sidewalks is a liability, because then is that property owner sued?

Is that property owner have to be enforced for the fact that they don't have sidewalks yet?

So that's that's where I think but once the sidewalks are in, that's because the land has been either given to the city, the city's bought it, or you know, they've acquired it.

So that's the only reason when the city actually owns that land.

But I I know there's other instances too where the city property extends.

But that was the thing I was always like probably careful about.

Run into a cars park on the shoulder, and then people have to walk into the street because there's no sidewalk.

But um thing I just gonna throw out there.

Um when you're looking at priorities.

Uh 5th East is a busy road and the speed limit is a little higher, and that sidewalks are hit or miss there.

Um I would like to see that Marv is priority, and then um the rodeo grounds, the access, so some people park at the legacy center and then walk over to the rodeo grounds because there's not enough parking, and that's dark and hazardous, because I know because I've walked that way.

So I mean, maybe when we're looking at priorities, considered those kind of things too, that you know routes to public events or those, you know, and the rodeos on that street too, and that's utilized more than just for the rodeo, but throw that out there.

I'll just have the 2300 West between 9th North and Third North over by Willow Creek and Ascent Academy.

I think I know I think maybe the mayor's on this already with with getting particular price estimates in place, but this is unique in that most of those residents were under the impression the city had promised this to be built along with the development of 2300 West.

So I think and it does hit those top priority marks being near schools and parks.

Um so as we look at that, I think I think that should be definitely on the top of the list or near it.

So I'm just sorry, you can go.

Oh no, I I on that particular section that you're talking about.

Um I would love if we can get an analysis because of the cost, because I know that there's like infrastructure issues and like all the poles along that part.

So I don't think it would be the same cost as $350 per linear foot.

I think it'd be much higher.

But to your point, I I I think let's just as a call out, let's just make sure we calculate that that one's slightly different.

I figured it'll be a little more, and there's there's fencing height requirements.

It's not it's not as simple as just like a dirt driveway.

So I do have some.

I'm trying to pull my PowerPoint up again, but it's not working.

But um we did have some estimates that Brad put together on that.

Um, because that road not only, like you mentioned, there's height uh for the fences, there's also grading, there's a cement wall that has to be installed to level the sidewalk with that.

Um so he estimates on that that would be about 1.16 million uh for that uh stretch of the road.

Um over 60 percent of that probably is for most of that the the fence, the cement wall, the grading, and those kind of things to get that done.

But there are also a couple of areas with utility adjustments um where uh storm drains would have to be moved um and then um some power power issues there as well that probably would have to be adjusted, which is why it's a little bit more for that.

Okay, I'm just gonna give my little two cents since I brought this up.

Um so I'm a stretchy person, I make a spreadsheet for everything.

I like to have a priority, I like to have stuff organized.

So for me, I would love to have, I don't know if it's possible, maybe it's not, but some kind of algorithm of where we can say, like, okay, this is the priority A, these are sub priorities, right?

Like age of the home, possibly age of the residents, possibly um the you know, near school, you know, near schools, obviously we have that.

Um, if there's uh you know, parks just kind of so we kind of have some way of saying, like, you know, oh, you're on the wait list, you're a thousand whatever down the way like they kind of know like I'm starting like you know, we're working on it.

We have this plan in place for the city, and we have a priority list, and like you're on our list.

You might not be till 2000, or you might not be till 150, but like we we have some kind of method to the madness, or what if you want will just I think it would it might help me just organize my brain a little bit and those people who think like me, and maybe that's maybe that's not possible, but I just definitely in my mind I think I don't know.

I mean I I've been I've been thinking about this for a while, so I think maybe there's a way to do it.

Yeah, that makes sense.

I'm just trying to I just did I say 50s I meant west, west.

Oh, fifth west.

Because where the speed limits higher?

Yeah.

You know what I'm talking about?

Yeah, sorry.

I think I thought did I say that right?

Any other comments?

BJ, do you have anything to add or take away from what we've just discussed, or you um no, it's super challenging.

Uh oh, sorry.

Yeah, I was gonna say I I took mayor bands around and and I think it's a good opportunity for all of you guys, maybe if to give us a call and come out and go for a ride with us, just so you can see what we're trying to deal with.

Um I know we're looking at a lot of stuff downtown, but this last year we did two sections out on 9th north.

There was a child hit out by a cent academy.

So to us that jumped to the top of the priority list, you and me.

Um it wasn't really on our priority list because it was so far out there.

But uh once we found out what was going on, and that's a help with loop too, is all the parents were dropping off on the opposite side of the road, even though Ascent Academy has a drop off that they go around, they just weren't utilizing it.

And so it's like we're accommodating what's being done too.

So it would be really helpful to come out and just go for a drive and and check out some of the stuff we're looking at.

And I think it helps you explain it a little better.

I I recommend that.

I did it my first year, and then one thing that I it's great learning, but um putting in the curb and gutter in the sidewalks, I think it protects our roads, it makes them last longer, right?

Because of the drainage and the water sinking in from the side.

Yeah, a long time ago we tried to just do sidewalks too.

Uh-huh.

But what you have is the road coming off at 2%, and then the sidewalk coming back at 2%, it creates a little waterway there.

And then as soon as we do it, people are calling saying, hey, there's a big mud puddle out in front of my house.

Can you come and fix it?

You know what I mean?

So that's that's another reason that we kind of came up with if we're gonna do sidewalk, we have to do curb and gutter and take care of the drainage issue as well at the time.

So I'd just say for when it comes to that priority list, I would like to see it be citywide.

I know if you're really focused downtown, but some of my biggest concerns are like 900 north in Trinidad.

That that you know, right?

That's a that's a really bad spot.

That's like I think there's like some of those hot spots that you're going to have you're gonna know where it's like I think that you know there has been such a focus there, and and it does like that works for grants.

Other areas are not gonna work for grants um for that.

But you know, some of these places I think it would be nice to be able to see that citywide, just to also be fair.

You know, with all residents, we're we're doing something with uh this you know, kind of money that does make an improvement to the property.

I think we need to make sure that we're showing that we're being fair throughout the city.

Yeah.

See, like dry creek elementary, that's a big one too.

Um it's down 1100 west.

There's so much farm ground still around it, though there's big sections that would be super expensive.

There's still ditches that are operating down there.

Um so that gets really challenging too.

But that's that's right around the school, yeah.

I mean, and so some of those ones we've just had to kind of step back and say development is coming, we don't know when, but it makes it super tricky because there's a lot of kids that are walking on the shoulder of the road down there.

Yeah, I really appreciate that, and you're weighing the cost benefit analysis and all that.

Like I yeah, I really appreciate that.

I just noticed it as I was knocking doors, walking a lot of ways myself over the summer.

Yeah, so yeah.

And there's a lot of little I was talking to Mayor Benz about it.

There's a lot of little onesie twosy spots around town.

The the people are super willing to work with us, and then some that aren't.

So that that's been a big benefit for us too for our fund, is we approach them and if they're on board with it, it makes it real easy.

You know, I mean, for us to do just a one one section or whatever, not so much the whole block.

So that's a crucial element he just said.

Because some people just don't really care.

I'm sorry.

And you may see those and you may think why we haven't done them, but there's several places that I can name that we unless you want to use your authority, we'll never have that road there.

And that's a sad commentary.

Meaning authority meaning eminent domain.

Yeah, try to, yes.

I thought that was interesting too, because there are places where they do want to perpendicular park.

If you take away their shoulder, then they can't, they don't have the parking, they don't may not have a garage.

So yeah, I think for the most part, even some of those where they had originally said that to me, have talked to me and said, you know, actually we're getting flooding in our yard.

We're you know, we would love to be able to so maybe they'll come around.

But any other comments?

Thank you.

I I appreciate that that we do stick to the low-hanging fruit because there's still enough out there that we can get it.

There is funds there that I know you use for those uh as we continue to apply for funds.

So thank you.

I know you haven't pushed a ounce of snow yet.

Yeah, right.

Uh please be ready.

They tell us it's coming.

That's what they keep saying.

I'll believe it by seeing.

Do we have salt?

Oh, we have lots of salt.

Okay, good.

That won't be an issue.

Yeah.

We have new snow blades, everything.

Just let it come.

Thank you.

Okay, item 2.

This is a discussion item of code amendments, so screening requirements for non-residential uses, bordering residential uses, off-street parking requirements reductions, and auto sales and commercial zones.

I believe council member stallings, you were on this one.

Do you want to start with us?

Yes, and I'm gonna I'm sorry, I should have left listed these separately, I guess suppose, but I we'll take them one at a time, that's okay.

And I was gonna ask him, we've had a busy day today, so um is it might be helpful if you can pull up the sections of code I want to refer to, but um maybe I don't know, I'll just read them.

But so the first one um screening requirements for non-residential uses.

So the issue with this one is that in our current code, as it's written, if you live in a house, if there's a residential home and it's in a residential district, and you're boarding commercial or non-residential use, you're entitled or the incoming business has to put in the buffering and screening.

And um the problem is that we have some areas of the city's uh older parts along Main Street and State Street where there's homes and they're considered uh legal non-conforming uses.

So they were legal at one time, but the zone kind of changed out from under them.

So they might be uh say in a mixed use zone which is considered non-residential.

Um we had this last year come up.

Um this is why it was it's been on my mind, I guess.

Um so what happened is we had a business come in.

Um you wanted to put in business office spaces, no problem at all.

You know, not even very impactful on the residents.

It could have been a lot worse, right?

Um but because they were in a mixed use non-residential zone, they were not entitled to the or entitled uh protect allowed to have the protections.

The property owner was not required to put in those protections, the buffering and screening.

Um so we solved it at the time with the development and um development agreement.

But there is actually just a really simple fix to this one in my mind, and I welcome questions and input and then input from staff as well.

But um so it's chapter 12 in our development standards or development code development standards.

So Section B and C and so what it says right now is when a non-residential zoning district or use sides or backs upon a agricultural or residential zoning district, landscape buffering areas and screening requirements shall be as followed, whatever they are.

So the problem is it's explicitly sorry, explicitly states uh residential or agricultural zoning district, not a residential use.

So I would just in section B and C just would like to add zoning disresidential zoning district and then or use in there.

And I I think we want to protect all our residents, you know, no matter what the zoning district says they're in.

So any questions or input or uh if staff has concerns about that, I'd love to hear about it.

Are you talking about that triangle piece?

Is that the the piece that you're referring to on State Street?

I don't know if it was a triangle, but it was right next to you.

Is that what it was?

Okay, sorry.

I was just trying to think that through and understand.

It was Justin Hammond's property.

Okay.

And I had to talk him in to do it a development agreement.

Yeah, no, we're that's a very easy fix.

I know the previous mayor and council um had us working on some other things with the fencing.

I don't know if you we could just do that one simple fix that you're talking about, so the the standards apply, whether it's a zone or a use.

Do you want to still look at what type of fencing we're requiring?

Because right now it just says it has to be six foot side obscuring, which is could be a chain link with slats.

And I know there's been some So we had talked about, depending on what that non-residential use is, if it's more intense, intense, maybe have higher buffering or screening standards.

Yeah.

And then the distance, the amount of buffering that's required right now, it's a function of building height.

Um, but we talked about maybe um for the more intensive zones that there's a bigger buffer.

So we have a draft that I just pulled up, but I don't know if you want maybe we just tackle the one simple thing and the we could continue to work on it.

Or if you want to try and get into the fencing and the the physical space that's required, we could look at that at a work session.

I could pull up that draft and clean it up and and present it.

Yeah, future work session.

So my preference would be let's tackle this little bit you first and come back to that.

Okay.

But and the reason I want these I wanted this all in a work session is to get councils input, staff's input, and then council direction from the council.

So if you guys feel comfortable with that, I'd like.

That's a good change.

We got three head nods, so that's we'll we'll just go ahead and that's an easy draft.

We'll get that going through DRC.

You know, end of this month, maybe March, and then you'd see in either late March or April.

Okay.

I would just I'll just add like Kim or or staff if you see any other parts of the code that just doesn't make sense.

Like I'm looking at it right now and the development standards adopted in September of 1996.

And obviously there's been amendments and changes since then, but if you see anything, I'd rather proactively amend it because I don't think anybody necessarily likes development agreements, but oftentimes because the code can be ambiguous or somewhat broken, we we have to in order for it to make sense right now.

But if our code is um updated and and we fix those problems, then we won't have to do those development agreements as much.

Yeah, no, I appreciate that.

And just kind of an FI FYI, all of the chapters will s have that 1996 date.

But yeah, pretty much probably um maybe one or two times a month, we'll see code amendments come through.

So they'll in each section you'll have amended and you'll see we've it's definitely something that we've tried to keep up on.

So the 1996 date is a little bit deceiving that it makes it feel like it's so old, but a lot of most all pretty much the code has been rewritten in little chunks.

Yeah, there's there's a lot of dates of you know amended through the years for for different parts of it.

But um I know that Ryan is just dying to dig through the entire code and find problems.

That was actually the first my first day here, but then we're gonna have to do that.

Municipal code administrator brought in like the three three ring binders and said it and said this is your first assignment.

Woohoo!

Yeah.

Yeah.

Took a long time, but we made it.

No, I appreciate your openness to if we see things, yeah, we'll we'll try and be proactive and have been, but and just by the way, the the reason that the code was written the way it is today was the you know the thought process at the time was well, hey, if they're in if they're zoned commercial and but they're still living there in their home, but they need to know that this area will probably change, and should we make somebody put improvements in next to a home that may not, you know, they may develop the next year and they they turn their property into commercial.

But I I see where you know it's really just a policy decision of you're and I and I agree we probably just need to protect if they want to stay there one more year or a hundred more years, we should be looking out for the residential.

Yes, I'm glad you brought that up because I yeah, my spiel, but then I remembered I had a thought just about that.

So I'm wondering if if you want to put this in code or if there's another avenue for this, but maybe granting an exception if all the adjacent property owners agree to it.

Like if they know they're hey, I'm gonna sell this anyway, you don't need to do it.

Yeah, I'd I'd be okay with that.

So the ability like if we have something in writing from the adjacent owner that says, you know what, we're good, we don't really want the fence, we're gonna move in X number of months or year, whatever.

Okay, yeah, we can put that as part of it.

That's what I was thinking.

Okay.

Um the next one.

Oh, um off-street parking um requirement reductions.

So this is um let me find the section of code.

This is chapter 37 design standards.

Um the parking section 37.060.

I one and two.

Okay.

So I alright.

So I l I'll tell you what happened.

I was listening to planning commission meeting, I think the first one of the month, and there's uh the property that is next to uh on Main Street next to Lehigh Bakery on the corner.

Right now it's an existing parking lot that many people on use to go to those businesses on that street.

And so the property owner wants to come and develop and put it in um offices, three-story offices.

And um they had no parking in their concept plan.

So they presented the concept plan to the planning commission, and um even the DRC comments, the engineering uh wrote, where's the parking for this building?

There should be adequate space provided for parking, and the park said the proposed development lacks adequate parking to support a three-story building.

Um the current plan would eliminate one of the few existing parking lots in the area with 64 offices included in the design.

It's unclear where the parking for 64 vehicles would um be accommodated, especially given that it's already limited availability on main street and surrounding side streets.

This raises serious concerns about the impact on local infrastructure and accessibility.

So I'm not the only one who kind of had a panic attack over this.

And um so you know Kim pointed out in that meeting, I think that right now in our historic commerce district and in our mixed use district, we have no minimum parking requirements.

That um I guess the planning commission is to be guided by um the parking requirements in in the parking table, which I calculated they would need 72 stalls.

Um then you know what the property owner wanted 64, he won parking stall for each office in the building, which contemplates I guess no clients or customers going there.

So what they're looking at is on-street parking um around the north and see on the west side of the building, north and south of Main Street, and then using legacy center parking and leasing that to the property owner.

Um so this concerned me a lot.

And um I and I get the rationale, two things is that we have some really old buildings that were built long before we had parking requirements, right?

I think Kim pointed out we had hitching posts and horses back then.

Um but we have new buildings coming in.

And I guess we still don't require the parking for them.

But I I just feel that we want to encourage development, but by not requiring parking or you know, putting it a block away, we're gonna discourage people coming to our downtown area.

Because I know, you know, I use that parking lot and they have a right to develop it.

I'm not saying that, but I I use that parking lot if I take grandkids to get a donut, Olihigh Bakery, you know.

I'm not gonna do that if I park a block away and walk with them that far.

Um, you know, so in it concerned me because they did well, we can put some more parking on the south side of Main Street.

Well, you have businesses there too that need parking, right?

Um where's the parking for the existing businesses now that that's gone?

Um so I I don't want to grant these exceptions trying to encourage development when it not requiring parking is probably gonna discourage um commerce from coming to that area.

So um I would like to look into this some more.

Um I don't have a proposed code change, but I think um yeah, I think maybe we ought to start requiring parking in the downtown area.

Um I don't like the idea of leasing legacy center parking because that parking was built with public funds, it's for these public um amenities.

Um he's gonna take up a big chunk of that.

Um they they talked about you know the shared use idea and well, legacy center, it's mostly after school or evenings and offices during the day, but we're forgetting summertime when there's a lot of kids there during the day as well.

So thoughts or inputs or in questions or staff?

I agree, Michelle.

I think and this kind of goes back to the downtown revitalization plan, which specifically calls for more I guess for less parking, right?

More restricted parking.

And so I think we need to look at it holistically for the downtown area downtown area.

And I know that different parts of the city are gonna have different, you know, characters, but um downtown in particular, it's very difficult to park already.

And so I want those businesses to succeed, and so I think for that example that you use from planning commission, I agree.

I think I think we should look at that in more detail.

I I just want to make sure I'm on the same page and understanding the code.

So on the page 106, it talks about what you said that for everything that's pre-existing, there are no minimum parking requirements.

However, in reviewing and approving new uses within the mixed use and historic commerce districts, the zoning administrator reviewed departments and the planning commission shall be guided by the parking requirements as it contained in table 37.090.

Parking requirements for the mixed use and historic um commerce districts shall be approved by the zoning administrator review departments and planning commission.

So is it that it's you want to have it specified exactly what those are going to be?

Are they not specified for new development in those areas?

Or what's what do we need to what would be the fix?

Yeah, this this really is a tricky issue because you have a an old, I mean 150 year old development pattern that if you require today's parking standards, you you'll probably you'll just lock up development.

I don't think anybody because you literally couldn't build your your lot would all have to be parking, you know what I mean?

You might have one little uh thousand square foot building and it it's just gonna be hard to park it.

And so that's where the way the code is written, they could have, you know, we could have they could have no parking, which uh we have several of these buildings that have no they don't own any parking and if we said well you have to have parking then they they would just wouldn't exist anymore.

Or you know, the planning commission could say, well, our normally if this were a brand new development in a typical commercial zone, you would have you know 72 parking spaces, but because you're downtown and we're gonna try and accommodate as much as we can.

We you know we want to see new development downtown, but we know you can't meet our standards, so where should we meet in the middle?

It gives them that flexibility.

It says, you know, hey, let's at least consider what would your normal parking requirements be and is there some way that we can at least identify some but we're not going to put the full requirements on.

Is the way today's code is so right now I mean I think you said in the planning commission that technically they don't have to put in any parking.

That's correct.

Yeah if if they said we have no room for any parking but but we want to see new development we could approve it without any parking technically.

So maybe we can look at I mean this is a three story office building.

Is this the right place or something like that?

And right now they're allowed to right it's mixed use and they're entitled to whatever the code says at the time but I it's you know um do we give up all part you know yeah I think the long term and it's in our civic master plan we have a couple of parking structures that that would you I don't know I guess we'd have to figure out if that's private or private public partnership or public but I think that is really the only long term solution is we've got to figure out somewhere to put a parking lot I I don't even know if that's really a solution because I mean it's just with stack here and the HTRZ the biggest expense is this parking structure.

It's hugely more expensive than on street parking.

Yeah 30 or 4000 per stall adds up superwalks are expensive.

Let's do structure so and maybe in the historic commerce district we need to look more closely at what you what uses are allowed there that are more accommodating to less parking or the on-street parking yeah or more of a high turnover versus office where you come and park all day all day yeah that's a good that's a valid uh something to look into and we could redo we did our own uh just as staff we we have a drone and we flew it several times different times a day different days of the week and and we know where all of our public parking is and so we took drone photos and and we went out and did some counts as well just walking through parking lots how much still available you know what's our capacity we could redo that I think we've eaten some of that up because we some of it went to the porters place building they're actually leasing some of those stalls like you'd mentioned what that were built as an overflow to the legacy center but we could update that study maybe we look and see well I think at the time it showed at any at the peak we s it was eighty five percent at capacity there were still some and that was like junior jazz night or whatever like the worst case scenario and I think generally you know most average days you had 70% use and 30% vacant.

But anyways we could redo that see where we're at um but yeah I do like the idea of maybe we revisit what uses are allowed.

Maybe it's we restrict it more to the retail where there's higher turnover.

I do think we can get creative on some of our side streets like we did on Center Street First East where we have the angled on street parking as a city we could use our own right of way to maximize you know create additional parking that doesn't exist today with some of those angled solutions.

So there's a couple of ways to approach it.

Just a point of clarification commission yeah this decision and so maybe one way of solving it is actually bringing it towards council for an additional layer of discuss of eyes and discussion that is also uh something we could do have that double check.

That that was my first thought because we they're not accountable to the voters so they're not going to hear about this.

And they find out they're parking to the Lehigh Bakery's gone though exactly pitchforks so I I would be open to doing that.

And the yes and that's my thought but Kim maybe help me so I looked into that because you know my pet peeves you know um but from what I my research is it's actually an administrative decision which the planning commission is more their kind of thing and less ours is more legislative and that the fix would have to be in our code but can we bring it back to us but then again if it's if it meets a go and this is a problem I think with the planning commission and they also in mixed use they're allowed 30% reduction TODs without even the transit there it's a 50% reduction.

And they are always feel that they have to grant it it's like up to a whatever percent reduction but it they're always like yeah we better you know and I I get it and with conditional use permits I get the concern there.

So where where would the fix be can I say something?

According to the Utah League of Cities and Towns they say conditional uses are very used but can be very very tricky.

Yeah it can be very very tricky and it some cities don't have them they eliminate them because of the problems with that I'm for that I second that the way that we've received training is really and it's it's hard because when you look at a conditional use it's permitted with conditions.

And so that's what makes it tricky because I just in my experience when I was on the planning commission Craig would chime in if we tried to do any conditions he would chime in and be like not allowed not allowed oh that's an infringement and so then the planning commissioners are like well I guess how it's permitted good luck.

You know and so it it's one of my pet peeves speaking of those is conditional use permits because they do cause the residence confusion, the commission confusion and anyway we've had Kim knows.

Yeah.

So is that something you come to the council and as a council could we deny like no you're not getting any parking exemption or but if there's no minimum requirement I don't know how yeah I don't understand you're wondering if if it stays as a an administrative decision how can we still give you some discretion to say no if it's like well you're way under parked yeah I think w that we could look at how we ride it.

You know maybe we say you know at a minimum you have to have 25% of our standard parking or you know what I mean I think and then it gives you some discretion above that but then if it comes back so yeah I I'm more comfortable with fixing it in the code than allowing the discretion to you know you know but I to be fair I think there's some there's somewhere where a traffic engineer or something has to look look at it.

There has to be a parking study done.

So there's there's that but honestly as a council member even a planning commissioner I don't know if we're as smart as Lauren or Brad or you know would know what the parking requirements should be right.

Yeah we don't have that expertise or knowledge.

So that's why I kind of want to take out the discretionary but maybe that you know if we're gonna amend the code that could be something that we add we have it for some of the other parking situations but just say for anything in the mixed use if unless you meet our standards you have to have a traffic or a parking study because right now it just it is very discretionary.

Yeah.

So at least tell them hey show us how you think it will work from a qualified traffic engineer give us a parking study show us why you think less is still work.

And I the problem with TODs and mixed use mixed use isn't truly mixed use at this point right?

I mean this office building can just do office and no there's no residential requirement right?

And then we've had the other problem where it's all residential no commercial and so the the basis for parking reduction there is the idea that it is residential and commercial in the shared space kind of thing.

Some people be there when others are leaving kind of thing.

And then the TOD also we don't have the transit so if we had it a parking reduction would be reasonable but now we're allowing it without mass transit there.

That's a whole nother probably but um which is something I wanted to add to the agenda for March I didn't bring up but just looking at the mixed use coding and like look at I think there should be a minimum percent requirement of commercial if we're saying it's mixed use.

Wasn't it because the prior council working on that?

Yeah and Paige and I put that forward so I think we already mayor Johnson being aware but yeah um I don't know where that that was that I think you did send us some with the same thing because the it didn't have the same requirements that like TOD did.

Yeah I think we all saw that problem there and we wanted that fix.

So it's I think it'd be great to keep working on that.

So maybe a work session item for March if the council's a meeting okay send me an email.

Okay.

Okay so this is what I'm proposing I think um for now and we can continue on this but looking at the uses in our historic commerce district first of all maybe going that route and requiring some minimum parking um looking at on street parking as well as off street parking I guess.

There is that alley behind there, so I'm just wondering if there's space behind there.

But anything else, or do you guys agree with that?

Or I think that having parking requirements is important because instead of us supplementing parking with legacy center or with public rent parks or whatever.

I mean, I actually frequent a business down there probably twice a week with my um my kids have classes and I park the legacy center parking.

But I can I can't my vehicle has either been hit or um I have struggles get with those polls with little kids getting in and out of my car.

So yeah, um yeah, I just think that we probably should relook at the parking requirements.

My only thing too, I'd be concerned with the one that um has been brought up that building, is that if it's uh a new construction is eliminating parking that that not only would they have to account for theirs, but I don't I I don't know what the plan is.

I guess it's maybe the the buildings around are paying for parking in that area.

That I don't I don't know how that that's working with the shared parking.

That that gets kind of not only do they need to provide for their own building, but if they're taking away parking, how do we do I I don't know.

That becomes double.

Yeah, like you're now making them cover parking for other areas that they've eliminated.

I I don't know.

Yeah.

So Kim, can you clarify in that meeting?

It seemed like they were presenting a concept plan.

But they were granted the parking reduction or I mean is it done or um, yeah, the concept was approved, but they would they would have to work with Marlin.

I think I'm trying to remember it's been too long ago if they they did ask for a parking study.

I don't remember if they required that as part of the concept.

I'd have to go back and look.

And if I can add concept plans, this also kind of frustrate me too, because it gives the applicant like the pro of it is that it gives the applicant a direction to head.

The con is that if then the city comes and says, Well, we actually think this should be different, they can go back to the concept plan and be like, but you didn't say it on that day, so we don't have to.

So they're really tricky, and um yeah, we uh many times I've asked him like why do we do this?

And usually it's so that the business or the applicant can get funding from a bank so they can say they they gave me somewhat of a green light.

Um but anyway, that it's hard because yeah, it how if they've already given a green light to the concept, how do we come back?

You just have to hope you have a reasonable applicant.

And just want to throw this out there just so you well, you can correct me if I'm not right.

My understanding is that when there's leased parking, it has to be a perpetual easement reg you know, with the county.

And can that ever be changed, or is that I mean perpetual means Oh, you mean like when they lease it from the city?

Yeah.

Yeah, I think in our agreements that we made with the porter's place, it does give us the latitude if we if we needed to move it or renegotiate.

I I'm I haven't read that contract in quite a while that was done five or six years ago, but I so it can be both those.

I mean Yeah, the ability to change the location.

Yeah.

Okay.

Just wondered about that.

Any other comments on the parking?

I think it's important to understand too, because we're also gonna force a bunch of traffic and parking onto our side streets.

Uh some of those side streets, speaking of sidewalks, don't have great sidewalks.

So uh back to back to the preliminary comment.

Um Michelle, I know this is the last item is yours.

It is almost six o'clock.

Uh we do have spillover for tomorrow.

We have posted to handle these.

We can handle these tomorrow at the back end of our council meeting.

Can I do the last one and we can come back to the auto sales?

I think the last one will be short and sweet.

Sure.

We'll proceed with that one, then we'll bring auto sales back.

We can get it done and not have to do it tomorrow.

Yep, sounds great.

So we you know, we just changed the area plan to allow short-term rentals at Cold Springs.

So that got the wheels turning and um did a lot of digging to talk to Kim about this, but um transient room tax or what is our budget call, lodge tax?

I wrote it down somewhere.

Our budget calls it something else.

But um it's called a fee, yeah.

In keeper fee, there we go.

Okay.

Um yes, talk to Dean about this.

Um the city does charge it on hotels.

We and it's applicable to short-term rentals as well because they're considered lodging.

Um and then on top of that, I found out we that they're charge sales tax for some of the things.

So it's not significant for the city.

I got all excited because I know the county loves that kind of thing, but it's like one percent to the city and 4.5 to the county.

This is why we have a commissioner who loves hotels, I think.

Um they get a lot more than we do, and then the state gets, I think, 1.7%.

Um, and this is not something that the host or landlord or whatever would pay, it would be charged to the um visitors, I guess, or the renters.

Um, but I I would, you know, it's not much, but it would help a bit, maybe, um, but help keep the short-term rentals in compliance with state law.

So my suggestion or thought was just to in our application process, um what I wrote down.

Just require that um we have certain requirements for the application.

Um one of them is to get a business license and maybe just require that they also get a um sales tax ID number and then maybe put on you you guys have a great website um information center is not here, but um, you know, they have links to different things where they can go to find these things.

So that's great.

So maybe just add something on that application that'll take them to where the state explains what they need to charge their visitors.

So I think not a big thing, but hopefully helpful.

Dean, can I ask on if I if I rent a room through verbo?

My fee goes to verbo.

Verbo already pays that, correct?

Yeah.

We've we saw they give us a list every month of who's paid, and we do get money from Verbo or Airbnb.

Yeah.

So the large ones that have contracts with the rest of the company.

Yeah, if they're going to company, I think that's gonna get paid.

It's just if they're not.

And my understanding is they still have to report it.

They have reporting requirements, but I mean that again, that's to the Utah Tax Commission that they do that.

The like Airbnb?

The know the owners of the short-term rental.

Uh but I don't know.

Basically, when they're filling out their sales tax return, depends on your type of business, it it's different.

Yeah.

So every type of business, so if their sales tax return is properly classified, it'll automatically charge them that.

Okay.

I just want to make it easy for people to who want to do these to so they can understand what their obligations are.

Yeah.

That's the intent.

Yeah, for sure.

Any questions on any of that?

I think it sounds fair.

I think I would like to talk to our business licensing and make sure that we're not um like are we increasing red tape on the small business?

I just don't know those answers.

It will be.

I mean, it won't cost them anything, but it will cost time and attention and effort.

So it will, but it's law, you know, that they're supposed to do this.

So but this again, this is we're presenting in a work session to come back and staff can have you know look at it.

And I I do apologize.

I was hoping to get here earlier to talk to the information center about it, but we were the LPC meeting went late.

Yeah, no problem.

I think that's what I would just want to know more information on.

Um, just being really sensitive to them.

Like if they're using Airbnb and VRBO, it's probably automatically happening.

But if they don't and they advertise on KSL or something, then this would this would help them solve this problem.

But I would just love to hear from our business licensing group before we make a decision.

So my only thoughts.

That's great.

Okay, any other thoughts on that?

Mr.

Mayor, I I think with one item left, like I'm I'm good for another 10 minutes.

I don't want to force anyone else to stay here, but with one item left, and I think we have some residents here ready to listen to this particular thing that's left.

I think would be paying respect to the sacrifice they've made to be here.

Sure.

We can go ahead then.

I'm fine with that.

Other than the bio break is close, so go ahead.

Yes, yeah, I push through, get it done.

Absolutely.

Um so the other one is auto sales in the commercial zone, and it's come up through with a development agreement, and we've had a resident come out and reach out to all the council members, and so I wanted to bring it again towards for all the council to weigh in and give input and direction for staff.

Um my thoughts on this one is um, and I I've known I know a lot of other council members have done research and um talked to residents about this, so expect some good input.

Um I'm absolutely fine with including in the commercial zone as a permitted use.

Um I do know that we have some current um requirements for auto sales.

Um and I've looked at all those and I I do have some concerns um about um one of them is I think there's a conflict between our um the table of use is like um and the the text in our parking requirements.

Um so one in the table it it pays bases the parking requirements on the the grow showroom area, but in the text in our development standards, it's based on the amount of inventory.

So I think there needs to be some clarification there.

Um I prefer the parking to be based on the amount of inventory.

And I know we have right now we have uh one acre requirement.

Um and I've heard talk that maybe bringing that down.

I'm good and I've I've looked at other cities, a lot of them do have a minimum acreage requirement.

Um just in October last year passed one allowed one, it was on 0.16 acres.

So you know, there's a big range there.

And I I know Rachel, I brought this up with Rachel, and she's done some research and looked at some existing auto sales in Lehigh, and she could probably go over this.

But yeah, I mean just what we currently have.

We have several several existing car dealerships that are not even half an acre.

Um Farmington has the half acre requirement, Farmington, Utah.

Um, but we have current car dealerships that are not even half an acre.

That I just I just wonder what the intent is, I guess, with the acreage requirement.

I you know, I think it looks pretty, but is that like worth is that is that a valid reason to to have a requirement?

Like because Rachel thinks it looks pretty, probably not.

So I don't know.

You know, um that's something that I question just with uh see we have what looked up, Monaco, Monaco Auto Sales is 0.25 acres, car towns 0.29.

Um bones, Lehigh Motors 0.22.

Anyway, there's several ones that are that we currently have.

Uh I'm guessing that they're around because of development agreements, but I don't know.

They're yeah, that's you probably can answer that better than me.

But yeah, so this the size of the lot, is there a justification for that regulation?

Um the other one is on, I guess I this is Chapter 12 development standards J1, I think.

Um the maximum number of vehicles for sale shall be identified as part of their proof process and shall be determined on site on a site specific case by case basis.

Um, again, the what is the criteria for doing that?

To me, it should be how big is your lot, do you have what meets state code?

Because I understand they have to have an office and different things, three, three, and then maybe go from and they you know there's uh the drive aisle has to be 24 feet wide or something, and the stalls have to be a certain um size also.

But I'm just wondering if we could, and this might be where the case-by-case thing comes in, but um specify in there that we're looking at the size of the lot, what will fit on there, look at your building footprint, and then determine the inventory based on that, the size of the lot and how many stalls can fit in there, meeting all those requirements.

Those are my thoughts.

Am I good to chime in?

Um I spoke with someone, I it's funny, I I get I got sworn in, and this was one of the first conversations I had in December.

A um auto sales owner who left Lehigh because of the requirements and how frustrated they were.

And um that that it it made me realize, yeah, like we definitely gotta start looking at this.

Um but at the same time, I think what the from every everything I've done in the conversations I've had, it's almost like the the requirements that we have are incompatible with the business model and therefore making it hard for a business model to succeed.

So my efforts have been to find how we can get these mitigations in place that reflect the business model in a way where they can actually function and do their job.

At the same time, I've met with a bakery owner in the commercial zone in Lehigh.

And when I started talking to them about how would you feel about this change, they were terrified because they were like, I know that car lots just blow up inventory, and what where will my customers park?

So I want to be it's I I I think there's just that really fine balance, right?

Of okay, how do we make sure that the business model can thrive when and then also making sure that when it comes into commercial those who are already there don't see any negative impacts.

And I've been working on some of that but it I'm just not there yet and I would yeah happy to work and and get more input on some of those things.

But that's kind of where I'm at and I hope we can find resolution.

Sorry.

So you said a a bakery was concerned so like overflow parking that the parking would spill into their space.

They were particularly concerned that um like when I when I showed like the commercial zone they're like whoa so it could go right there.

And they're like well they're like usually cities have auto malls and there's just inventory everywhere.

And so they were like well was there just gonna like where will my customers park because they all kind of share parking or you know and not that I and again so early on I didn't have all these answers for them yet but I could see them being concerned because that particular use does have an explosion of inventory and they don't make pens that can be easily put in boxes in a warehouse right they make cars that take up space and so I think that was what I took away from that conversation is those already in the commercial space just want to make sure that if this comes in there are there are mitigations so that they don't have negative impacts which I think makes total sense.

So if a private property owner owns their parcel of land you know unless they have a shared parking agreement I'd and I know it's a problem because I know other places use parking when they're not allowed to right and that goes on to the business owner that is you know suffering that negative impact to put up signs and parking signs or towing you know calling towing but I so what I I'm looking at is you look at that parcel what what can fit on the parcel to have whatever number of parking spaces and that would limit their inventory.

And then we would have to enforce it but we got a code enforcement officer that left but um you know so yeah somebody will always take advantage of that and we will always have to enforce the rules which is disappointing but again I don't see I guess my concern is that the rules are prohibitive on the business model because the business model is all based in like inventory like car dealerships from my understanding they sell about 30 to 50% of what their inventory is every month.

And they this is me learning right I'm not an expert in auto sales.

So in order for them to make the amount they have to make to pay property taxes and their employees and everything their model is designed off of large inventory because they s to get to that point right so I just don't want to put mitigations in that prohibit the business model from thriving.

That being said the other side of that coin is we already have businesses and uses in the in that commercial zone that worry because their inventory is by nature large and takes up a lot of space right so I think there's a common ground here I think we can find the solution but that's where I was kind of at in my head of just feeling that push and pull between the two uses and things like that.

So can I say something?

Yeah so I looked up state requirements for a dealer license they said the site must be sufficiently bounded by fence, chain posts or otherwise marked to defend I'm getting tired.

Definitely indicate its boundaries.

So in my mind I think just like any business they have their property and they can park what they have on their property but if it infringes on another property's right right so and so like they have they can put their inventory on their property and I I would think that it wouldn't infringe on another neighboring commercial space.

The state the state requirements are also enough displace space for at least three vehicles which is you know nothing right if you have less than three you can just sell privately right you don't even need to have a dealer license.

And there must be a permanent enclosed building or structure large enough to accommodate the office of the dealership must provide a safe place to keep the books.

And we have some requirements now but I don't know maybe it's what we need to do is we need to look at the code as is and adjust it to commercial the commercial area and and look at what the you know current code requirements are.

I think you know we have what some 10 foot landscape setback um I think on some of the current the current auto dealerships that there are we don't have that setback.

Maybe that they were done through a development agreement.

And and I don't know, is the 10 foot setback?

Is that requirements that are standard for the commercial zone area?

Is that just for auto, you know?

Yeah, no, it's like a law.

Across the board, any commercial property, you your typical requirement is 10 feet.

Okay.

Just to separate the so you don't have parking right up to the sidewalk.

Okay.

Just kind of a buffer.

I mean, just thinking about it as again the business model, right?

That's their inventory they're trying to advertise, just like when Target et al.

came and talked to the planning commission about the size of the sign and how they want this big sign, and this is really important for them, and they actually didn't come before city council, and they said this is a huge thing for us.

We want it to be however, do they want it 60 feet?

I don't remember.

It was very high because they were insisting that that would hurt their business.

And the planning commission was able to go down in feet, but it's still from someone who drives that road every day.

Uh that's still a pretty big sign there.

And the justification was because it their business.

So in my in my mind, I think we have to think similarly about something like this.

And you know, we want to be business friendly trying to establish a small business association, all that stuff.

Also being respectful of the of the neighboring commercial areas.

I I don't know if there's a compromise.

Um I think we can.

You know, but if there's gonna be some huge sign by my window at night because someone needs to advertise Target, I think we can find some other compromises.

So I think all business models are limited by c existing conditions, right?

So if it if it doesn't work, it doesn't work.

But we've we've got to have the dedicated parking space.

Um it's gotta fit in, right?

And so whatever size lot you have, I think it will be limited by um what you can legally and safely fit in there.

And we have um I don't even know what the code is, but beyond city code that talks about roads and requirements and that sort of thing, just to make sure you can get safely in and out or public safety in there if they needed to.

Um so yeah, I think there will be limitations.

Um it's up to the property owner to see if it's doable or not.

Um but I I think we can make some adjustments to make it more doable, you know, if it's um reasonable.

If there's regulations that aren't if there's like Rachel pointed out, if if we don't have good reasons for a regulation, maybe you should re-look at those.

But um, yeah, I'm the direction I would like to go is to not have a minimum size, but maybe limit the inventory based on parking requirements.

I would I would just say like the parking requirements for me conceptually it should be about public safety and ensuring that other businesses aren't negatively impacted by someone's business model.

And I think auto sales is it's very unique anyway.

It's not like you know, a bakery where you just have kind of a regular retail in and out customer base.

Obviously, have you have um a lot of cars on the lot, even the setback from the roads, I think it just doesn't fit as great with uh with an auto dealership.

So where can we cut?

And Kim interested to hear your thoughts as well.

Like for auto sales in particular, what can we do to cut some of these stipulations that again don't affect public safety, don't infringe on other property rights to make it easier for business owners to set these up.

Yeah, I think so.

It is all about trying to how many cars can we fit on here.

So in our current code, we actually say, you know, a typical uh stall size is nine by twenty, but we say you can go eight.

If you've ever looked at a used car dealership, you know, it's sometimes you have to really be careful getting in and out of the cars because they really it is, it's all about how much can we display another exception.

I I can't remember if it's in the code I'd have to look it up, but on the Porsche Audi dealership, we allowed tandem so they could pull one in, pull one in behind it because it just gets that much more inventory out closer to where people can see it.

So uh I guess I'm just I mean we could craft it however you want, but do we want to allow some flexibility?

I guess is kind of where you're going.

Can we give a little bit of flexibility?

I think we could, you know, it maybe the you know parking for customers and employees needs to be our standard, but the inventory stalls could be reduced so they can really kind of squish it in there.

I do think it's it's a good practice to have some separation from the sidewalk just because you get bumper overhang and it just it looks very you know sterile if you have road sidewalk and then right into the parking and the display so there's no green or anything to kind of break that hard surface up.

But I mean that's it is aesthetics but that's part of zoning is you know what we want our city to look like.

And I think that's part of the reason that you know way back I mean this probably goes back 15 years or more they worried that you might have a lot of these little cute homes that get taken over you know if you have a quarter of an acre and then they want to put a car dealership in the house becomes the office and then the front lawn goes away and it's just cars and you know it can deter from what the main street especially looks like and that was where they were most concerned.

So that's why we got to where we were with the one acre you know they figured with one acre you have ample room for your inventory employee parking all that kind of stuff.

But is one acre the magic number I I don't or we could just say yeah there's no minimum we remove that but it's just based on you know here's our standards for your inventory and everything else needs to meet typical standards for your parking and let that govern and just make sure that it doesn't spill over you know say you you cannot have inventory on public streets or on adjacent properties, things like that.

Or could we do no lot size requirement or sorry do a lot size requirement but no inventory requirement to allow the business owner to regulate the inventory themselves.

But we the by having a minimum lot size we know like you know we can we can kind of figure out like this is probably what this can hold.

I it's just an idea like literally just talking and thinking out loud.

I I'm wondering how like if you have the park strip and the sidewalk about how many feet is that typically is that six?

Our standard park strip is seven feet now.

But a lot of this is going to be probably on existing roads which have a four or five foot park strip.

But yeah the so you have the curb the park strip then the sidewalk and then our code requires an additional landscape setback from the back of the sidewalk.

An additional 10 feet I think it's actually 20 and then 10 to property lines.

Wow.

Okay.

That to me that seems a little bit much or a lot.

Like just just uh it seems a bit like for the when I think of the ones I driven vastly high that might be our current requirement but there's all those existing ones that don't have it don't have it right?

Yeah there's a lot of legal non-conforming yeah and I I do think that we might um cut down on some overreach into the just kind of other commercial areas if we if we do kind of say is on the main arterial area maybe like Main Street State Street or kind of those larger roads um that are coming up but I mean looking at the map like you know we mostly have commercial on those roads anyway so maybe that's not maybe that doesn't need to be a requirement and it's just an idea I don't know.

Because if you if you are trying to bring in cars with I don't know this is new to me.

Well I like um council member Lockhart's kind of um suggestion where it should be up to the property owner to somewhat manage like based on a principle of you know can a fire truck get through the slot right?

And and auto sales I mean I've never looked at a an auto dealership and thought about aesthetics right I think it's more it's just a very unique business concept and the whole point is to put your product out for people to see it.

And so I don't know if if if this could be like a subcommercial code where it's a little more geared toward smaller business owners that that want to have a a lot right whether they have two or three cars or they have you know 20 to 30 cars.

The development agreement we just approved for 2300 West and Main Street.

I mean they already have probably 80 cars in that lot right and it's and it's great.

I mean if you want to buy a car you know where to go and they're parked all the way up to the sidewalk which I don't I don't have any problem with that.

I don't think aesthetics for an auto dealership is necessarily the same as aesthetics for residential development or an office space, something like that.

So I think however we go about it, we should we should amend it to again prioritize public safety and property rights and not as not as much on the aesthetics side and let the property owner kind of self-regulate and if they if they're not then again we have a code enforcement officer.

I think yeah, I think we need to be careful.

So just remember this can go if we change it in any commercial area.

So you gotta think about the impact on surrounding uses too.

Um I'm not really comfortable with just so are you saying a minimum lot size and then the they can figure it out?

I just I just know that there are some bad actors that would push it and make it not safe.

And it would be hard unless it's clear in code that they're in violation to do anything about that, right?

So that's I guess just my caution.

I would prefer to go your size, what can fit well safely, and I appreciate the thought of reducing things where we can.

Um yeah, that's just my caution there.

Yeah, I think there should be like I don't know if it's a ratio, right?

I don't want to have it sewed down to the specific number of, you know, whether it's lot size or if it's number of inventory, if we get too caught up in that.

I know it's it's more clear that way, but I think every business operates a little differently and their properties a little different.

So I think having a principle-based like approach to it might make more sense, at least for this.

But saying that, like playing my own devil's advocate, it's it's hard across an entire city where it may work just fine in one part of the city with one business, it may not work in another part of the city.

So we just have to take that into consideration.

So here's an idea that I got from Farmington again.

They have a code that differentiates small auto dealerships versus class A auto sales.

So instead of just doing one code for all auto sales, they actually have like a small, small one and they have whatever you call class A.

So you know, it seems like we're kinda because we because we are thinking, like, are we thinking of you know the the huge one that's two two acres, right?

That or we are we thinking of the little one on Main Street.

I don't know.

Maybe I like that.

That might be a unique way to think about it.

Just an idea.

So Kim could he's great at research, so maybe Kim Lickett's has different ideas about how to go forward.

Definitely look at for me.

There's lots of ideas, you know.

Um I think for me I do like what James said.

Let's reduce the regulations where we can, but also keep for me, keep safety in mind.

Um I do think, you know, for dry aisles and things like that, there are fire code minimum standards, 24 foot for dry aisles and things like that.

They so just to make sure they can access the site for fire ambulance and things.

Can I sorry, think of things later?

The tandem parking, is that allowed because of a certain agreement?

Is that or and if you allowed that, would you have to look at would they need more like a larger drive aisle or you'd have to have room, right?

If you want to get to the front car.

Yeah.

I think if you want to drive the front car, they have to back the one behind it out.

That's what the lot techs do.

Right.

The lot techs will, you know, if you want to test drive a car, they're gonna move cars around and play Tetris a little bit with them.

But yeah.

But is that a special agreement or something with um No, I I'm trying to remember uh it was when the site plan was originally approved.

I remember they it might have been some kind of an exception, but not a development agreement.

And an exception.

Okay.

I don't like our probably our codes changed a little bit since that.

That was one of our first, I think it was our first new car dealership in the whole city.

Okay.

I mean that was yeah, I think these have been tweaked a little bit since then.

And is there any problem with that?

Uh no.

No issues have come up.

Yeah.

Yeah.

My only feedback is like I think it needs to fit within the surrounding area.

So it and then leave it up to the developer, the property owner of kind of like how they're going to lay it out if they're able to have the setbacks that kind of match.

They're not they're able to show that they have the customer parking, the employee parking, there was not bleeding over, and they have you know, ways to show that they can get certain amount of inventory on it, kind of fill that's on them to see what they can get creative with rather than saying you're only allowed to do this.

Um and I don't know that it needs to have additional setbacks beyond what we would require of other commercial.

Um I think it just needs to kind of fit where it's going in and match.

So that would be my suggestion.

And I I would just say that I think there's a difference, like Heather said, there's a difference between like neighborhood commercial, thinking of a couple of the auto lots on Main Street out by um Veterans Park versus hard commercial, right?

I think there probably should be more uh stipulations on residential commercial because you're you know, your neighbors with other homes and people that sleep at night nearby.

Um but I think I I like that was it Farmington that does it?

Yeah, it's two different Farmington has yeah, small auto dealership and class A auto sales differentiation.

But um yeah, I mean even maybe a two-foot setback, but yeah, exactly what fits.

I'm not exactly sure.

I think we're also talking about commercial, not residential commercial, right?

Just the commercial.

Yeah.

And right now it's in heavy commercial, and then we also have regional commercial and things like that that have incorporated that class A that I I think is what it Farmington's referencing.

Uh like that would be my assumption, like the Audi dealership and things like that.

Um but I think all of this is great.

Great.

I I don't know if we're gonna solve it tonight, but it's good.

Kim, does that give you some road to run on?

Yep.

Because that was a 10 minute discussion that went twenty-four minutes.

But anyway, minutes we won't be here tomorrow.

Just keep that in my own.

We will actually be here tomorrow.

I look forward to it.

Well, four minutes less is what I'm saying.

Uh just to clarify, do you want us to take a little bit of a run and and come back at a work session and say okay, here's some draft code that you can then play around with.

Yeah, I think that would would give us some road run up.

Before we just start assuming we know exactly what we're correct.

It might take a few tries before we hit the target.

And part of this is the small business council that we're setting up.

Marlin did a really good job on researching other cities across the country that have done something like this.

And this is this is what they're gonna do is be able to research to be able to inform the city government on what regulations just aren't working or don't make sense or add to costs that don't need to be there, but it also helps us communicate to the business community um certain policies and standards.

So hopefully just for the council's awareness, um once Marlin kind of finishes up the red lines on that, we'll push it out to the rest of the council and I'd look forward to your feedback.

But it should be in place.

Hopefully um we can pass it in March and and then start getting it into effect by summer at the latest.

And and I think if you have something for a work session, if you can send it out when the agenda comes out, that'd be super awesome.

Good drafts.

So let's talk agendas for a second, because I was gonna hold this till tomorrow night, but I won't hold it till tomorrow night.

Agenda items.

So if you have an agenda item, we're gonna um I've talked to talked to some staff today.

If you have an agenda item that needs to go in the work session or uh city council meeting, send them to me directly with Jason on it.

Um we will get it on the agenda.

If I send you back a I don't like this, then you're gonna need another council member and then you would go directly to Tisha to get that on there, okay?

So if you if for some reason you you want something, send it to me, send what you're thinking and we'll we'll get it on the agendas.

That way our agendas are a little better planned going out.

The other thing is is remember we've we've asked staff to give us a week.

Uh but we've done real good in the last couple weeks adding stuff at the last minute.

So it it gets difficult when we add stuff at the last minute to for them to give so remember we've asked them to give us a week uh in advance.

Uh it's very difficult when we give them a week and then we are adding stuff at the last minute.

So uh be respectful of that as you as you think about it.

If not, we will we'll bump it to the next one, which isn't the worst case scenario.

So heads up on that.

Uh and but I do appreciate the the great input that's going into this.

Uh I feel like we're really on our on our right foot moving forward.

So just a heads up, kind of moving forward to help us stay organized and in the game.

I'll take a motion.

Any any other comments tonight that we need, counsel um Heather?

So maybe just be circle back on the mixed use.

Um, because I've been working with Kim on code, send some suggestions over.

Those who I was working with are no longer here.

So I don't know if like I mean I could just send it to you, your bands to put it on a future Jenny, and then we can get the code put out.

Perfect.

Or if there is a need to have any kind of hendo from council.

I I kind of heard that everybody was interested in looking at that, so I can decide.

In a work session, yeah, if you had to do a work session, send it to me and we'll do them.

Okay.

Anything else?

Anything else Councilmember Harris?

Yeah, make sure it's seven days.

Yeah.

So basically if we want staff to give us things a week before we probably need to give things you know ideas of what needs to go on agenda maybe two weeks before or you know 10 minutes like something like that.

It's correct.

So as you're thinking respect.

Yeah.

As you're thinking about them or you come across them send me an email with what you're thinking and we'll get them to where they need to go get them on.

Unless there's urgent well and then you can just kick it back and say it's not making this one but it will make the next one.

So then you'll know.

Yeah.

But there will always be some emergency stuff.

Yeah.

That's just the way it goes but I don't I don't think two weeks out it's one handed time.

There's a lot.

So yeah I I I just think flexibility.

The week out was documentation that we need to read through is what my concern was with that.

Like all the development agreements and all that kind of stuff and and I and I hope we get thorough documentation.

I mean we've got what we got tonight was lacking in some of the exhibit items which I think were very important to look at as well.

So anyway.

We will continue to work down on that so I appreciate it.

I'll take a motion to to end tonight.

Motion to adjourn.

Second second second so we had our first by council member new second by councilmember Lockhart.

All in favor say aye.

Aye aye.

Any opposed have a phenomenal evening see you tomorrow.