Work session to order.

And we're gonna move right on to item number two.

If I'm not forgetting anything.

Okay.

All right.

That's a great start.

All right.

Sorry.

Still learning this whole new thing.

Okay.

Can you guys see the presentation?

Is it up there?

Not yet.

We see what's up there.

Okay.

Take a second.

Yeah.

Yep.

Fortunately, we all know by now that tech just has a mind of its own, and so it's never the fault of the user.

So it's like, you know.

Oh, do I have to try to so weird that they disappear.

I know.

So did you just unplug and replug?

Yeah.

Okay.

There we go.

Cool.

Thanks, Jess.

Oh, that was Kate, actually.

Okay, thanks, Kate.

All right.

So I'm Katie.

Hi.

So here today to talk about a potential uh zoning zoning regulations for environmentally sensitive areas.

Some of you were here the last time I talked about this, but um Lindsay, hi.

Um the last time I proposed this, we were proposing it as an overlay zone, um, but now we are kind of switching things up and proposing some regulations for environmentally sensitive areas as design standards instead.

So they would function similarly to uh the chapter 37 design standards.

Um, in that each development would need to abide by the ESA design standards um to receive approval.

This would apply to all zones, commercial and residential.

Um there would still be those three key areas of protection that we're looking to um kind of protect and regulate.

This would include the hillsides up on Traverse Mountain, um, any wetlands, floodplains, and streams, including the Jordan River, and the Utah Lake Shoreline.

So kind of getting into the nuts and bolts of this.

Um essentially how it would work.

An applicant would submit a concept plan and a site features map.

Uh these would go concurrently to DRC and plan and commission for review.

If approved, the applicant would then move on to the site plan and preliminary subdivision, just depending on the nature of the application.

Um then in terms of the regulations themselves, we would have general requirements that would apply to any property or parcel that has a environmentally sensitive area.

Um and then there would be additional requirements for each specific area depending on where it's located in the city.

So including things like specific to the Jordan River, hillsides, um, and the Utah Lake.

Um this would kind of be like an example of some of the more general requirements that would apply to any and all parcels that have an environmentally sensitive area.

Just some things like, you know, we shouldn't um preserve important site features in their natural condition.

Umiented towards the designated open space, and that roadway crossings across streams and wetlands would be discouraged.

This is by no means an exhaustive list.

This is just some examples.

Um then getting specifically into uh the specific environmentally sensitive areas.

Things on the hillside would um, you know, you wouldn't be able to build on anything with more than 30% slope.

We would require additional geotech studies just to make sure that the ground underneath is structurally sound.

Um and then for the Jordan River, we and other you know, wetlands.

Similar with the Utah Lake Shoreline, but it would just be at that the high elevation line for Utah Lake, which I believe is 1,320 linear feet inland from the settlement boundary.

And then kind of discussing what a site features map is and what it actually would look like.

So that way we can get a really good idea of what is on the property, what we're looking at, what regulations need to be in place.

Katie?

Yeah.

Is that so that's something that the applicant would need to provide?

Yes.

Okay.

Yeah.

We would be able to provide a map of like, hey, we think this is here.

You should probably get some sort of environmental consult to take a deeper look, but your map should include these items.

And we actually already require this in some of our regulations anyway.

Jordan River overlay requires a site features map to be presented if they're within that overlay right now.

And so River Point with Edge Homes actually provided us with this overlay map for, or sorry, this site features map for their subdivision, and it kind of outlines, I'm not sure if you can see my mouse, but the floodplain, and then some significant stands of trees and vegetation.

And so that was really great to identify because we were able to place the extension of the Jordan River Trail along, you know, the slope there.

So pretty helpful for us to help with development.

So then I also wanted to kind of show what areas of the city this could actually, these regulations could actually impact.

And then just for example, to kind of show where these regulations could apply, we did a 50-foot buffer off of the Jordan River, Dry Creek, and the Utah Lake Shoreline.

But basically, if there was any property that touched outside of that 50 foot boundary or touched that 50 foot boundary and was privately owned, kind of lit up here.

So that's what the red is.

So these properties in red would be required to follow these requirements and regulations if this chapter were to be implemented.

So kind of getting into the more like zoomed in parts.

The orange here is actually excluded from like a buildable area because they're owned by public entities.

Dragonfly Park is owned by Lehigh, and then there's a parcel that's owned by the United States.

So we don't think that would get developed.

But everything else in red would have to look at these regulations.

Same with Dry Creek.

Those, we've actually seen a development proposal come in for the one-off of Pioneer, and so we just want to make sure that if it gets developed, it's done in a in a comprehensive way.

And then the last section of my presentation here.

So last time I came, we didn't do any public engagement.

And so we actually launched an engaged Lehigh survey where we got feedback from the general public and the community on just kind of understanding what is wild, you know, preserving natural habitat important, preserving open spaces, like do you believe there are benefits?

What areas of the city you want to see preserved?

So that's kind of those first three questions.

And then it got into more of like, do you think there should be certain restrictions in place?

And if those restrictions are in place, are you comfortable with them potentially impacting private property rights?

And if the uh open spaces should be held in public or private ownership.

And when I say impact private property rights, I just mean using the tools that are already in our zoning toolbox.

Our design standards, we require that certain buildings be placed on the parcel in a certain way, and that's pretty much all we would be doing with this proposal here.

So we got 76 responses.

Um 85% thought that preserving wildlife habitat and natural resources was a high priority.

The highest areas of concern were the Jordan River, designated wildlife habitat, and the Utah Lake Shoreline.

Um the designated wildlife habitat was rather interesting because we currently don't have that as a focus in this proposal.

Um just mainly because we don't have the resources to do a wildlife study.

I unfortunately am not a wildlife biologist, so we would need to hire a consultant for that um and determine if there are actually areas of the city we should be looking at.

But that could be something to look forward into the future, um, just based off of these survey results and depending on how successful this chapter could be if implemented.

So, Katie, did I hear you say that you sent this to people, or did they have to get on like engage Lehigh or the city's website in order to see this survey?

Um so we sent out like an email saying um to the you know engage Lehigh members saying, hey, there's this new survey.

Um feel free to to take it if you're you're interested.

But yeah, that's what we did.

Um question six was um dealing with you know property rights.

Um and an overwhelming amount of people actually said yes, that it that you know, restrictions should be in place even if they impact property rights for developers and private citizens.

Um so that was actually really encouraging.

We just wanted people to think about that and kind of think about what these regulations could impact.

Um then, yeah, 25% said only in specific cases.

We would need to, if we wanted to go that route, we would just need to determine what those specific cases would be, um, like if it's for a larger public benefit or for a recreation opportunity, things like that.

Um and then question seven dealt with uh should these spaces be held in public or private ownership.

Again, the vast majority said public.

Um 12% said a mix, and then only two preferred the HOA outright.

Um this mainly dealt with um people said this was dependent on funding availability and access.

Uh one of the primary reasons people preferred public ownership was access, while others that prefer to mix um prefer to mix, said that city departments, city parks departments often are stressed by a lack of funding and just a lack of available uh ability to respond quickly to maintenance issues that the NHOA can sometimes provide.

So we've had a mix, um, our now our parks department is stressed a little thin right now, and so having a mix I think is a good opportunity to preserve public places, and we've had success with that in the past.

So I think it's something that we could write into the code to have work.

But yeah, do you have any questions for me?

How far along is the draft of this code?

Has it like been totally drafted?

It's I would say 90% there.

Um I wanted to give you guys a bit of an overview, and I also want to have the city council weigh in before I get it to 100%.

But yeah.

Yeah.

What was the catalyst, I guess, for putting this together?

Yeah, um, so a couple of reasons.

You know, we've always it's always been a goal in our department to help preserve more open spaces and um environmentally sensitive areas, not only just for like you know, the public benefit of it, but um from a safety standpoint, you know, we don't want development occurring on hillsides that are unstable and things like that.

Um but another main reason was we actually have like three chapters that regulate environmentally sensitive areas in our code, but they're all over the place.

And so if we can combine everything into one and kind of create some additional requirements, make things a little bit more streamlined, it would help people understand the code better and while they are developing in the city.

Would you mind going back to the slide that showed the restrictions that talked about those restrictions?

Let's see.

Or do you are you talking about the map or I can't remember what it looked like?

I think, yeah.

Well, there's this one.

I think there was a couple more before that just had all the some of the general stuff listed out.

The general, okay.

I think this was a what's this?

My question revolves around I'm sensitive to the property rights argument against this, right?

Just because of my property, I want to be able to do something with it.

Of course.

So my question is not that you're going to be able to provide me with an exhaustive list, but what are some of those restrictions that would potentially be placed on property owners?

Yeah, it would mostly be, I mean, it would depend um.

It would mostly just have to deal with like clustering of development.

Um, like if, for example, um, I can kind of go back to that this one down here.

So this large swath of area um that you know came in for development, there's a lot of wetlands on the property.

Um a lot of it was in the floodplain.

And so taking any development out of that um and clustering it onto more stable ground and maybe preserving it as like a natural trail or something like that, um, would really be only the only thing that we're looking at for um like properties up in Dry Creek.

Um it would really only be like Dry Creek, for example, is I don't know what the high water line is for dry creek, but I was probably just like 50 feet back from that high foot water line, just kind of keep clear and keep natural, that way you don't risk any structures falling into it, or you know, just kind of leaving it more natural so water can filter, slopes are still stabilized and things like that.

It wouldn't be, you know, you can't use half your property.

Right.

Yeah.

So Dry Creek's a good example because I think I remember you saying that the majority, if not all of Dry Creek, is privately privately owned.

And so the restrictions being placed on them should they choose to build anything or anywhere on there would just be that they would need to make sure they're building um outside of those steep slopes, steep being defined as 30% or more.

Yeah, exactly.

Um anything else come to mind as far as restrictions there.

Other than you know, maybe wanting to preserve some like significant stands of trees, but um, you know, if it's a disease, it we would be more than okay with that coming down because we don't want disease trees everywhere.

So yeah.

But yeah, those are the two that come to the top of my head.

Um last thing that's coming to mind is what was that?

The we had a meeting it was probably a few months ago, but there was a woman that came and she was very adamant about um environmental sense, environmentally sensitive areas about the birds.

Do you remember a lady coming and talking about birds?

My question is is there anything specific to wildlife in this?

Yeah, so um we do have we can add some language um stating that if there are well, actually there is some language.

Um we would require on that site features map that any known habitat of federally endangered, st uh threatened or state-sensitive species would be required to be identified and would be protected.

Um we don't have anything specifically for like wildlife habitats or wildlife treat or like nesting sites because we just unfortunately don't have that capacity.

But you know, if we can help preserve some areas like in the Jordan River and the hillsides, we can that will inevitably help protect some sort of natural habitat, at least in the meantime.

Yeah, yeah.

Okay, thank you.

For those areas, I mean specifically dry creek, right where right now it's primarily privately owned, or even if a developer owns some land but hasn't developed it yet, is there once this goes into place, assuming it goes into place or something goes into place, is there a notification process, or is it just it they only get notified if they come and apply to build something or add something to their property?

Yeah, so our normal process is that with code amendments like this, we don't notify like everyone in the city.

Um I do think it would be worthwhile to notify and work with property owners just so within those boundaries.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Um, that is something that you know we can work on as well.

Okay.

Um had somebody talk about the how old the floodplain measurements are and do we know if there's an update or or something coming?

Because that is the hundred-year floodplain, and I guess it was close to being over.

And since we since they assessed where the floodplain actually is.

So and the other one was who does make up what is environmentally sensitive.

Like who gets to decide that?

Is that the state?

Is that Lehigh City?

Utah Lake.

It is a bit of a combination just because Utah Lake does have some sovereignty over, or sorry, the state has some sovereignty over Usaw Lake.

And then FEMA has some sovereignty over the wetlands.

So it's a bit of a mix.

Is there like someone over the Jordan River?

Because it goes through so many different the state does have jurisdiction, at least over the riverbed.

I guess a little complicated with that.

But each city, you know, there's a Jordan River Commission, and they kind of they're not a government agency, but they do kind of help guide regulations for communities adjacent to the Jordan River.

So we have reached out to the Utah Lake and the Jordan River on some of these regulations and they seem supportive of it.

So it's just there's no standard, there's no like documentation you have to do wetlands or um in terms of like what are we saying or like I how how do you decide what what the standard of um environmentally sensitive yeah so that we're still kind of working through um in terms like specifically with wetlands and like the hydrological features.

Um we've been the state of Utah has a use um a wetland map, and we have used that in the past to be like, hey, it looks like there's a wetland here, you may want to get an environmental cons uh consultant to take a look at that.

So it's an environmental consultant who comes in when you think it might be sensitive and is that a process?

So right now it's a general plan designation, so it's kind of like every other designation where it was it's not maybe super super fancy, right?

It's just us like bottomering moving like this is where the Jordan River is with the buffers where the side is with no other those over 30%.

Um so it's been designated ESA by the city just through the general plan process, and then regulations right now it is just like all the different places.

Like there is a Jordan River Commission, and they're it's all the cities that have land next to the Jordan River.

And I know that they've looked at our overlay and like, oh, this is great, we should like look into doing some similar stuff, but we're one of the only cities that have regulations right now.

Um so a lot of it is just are people not building close to the Jordan River like we are in other closes.

They are, but they're just not concerned.

Okay, yeah.

Um when I reached out to Utah Lake, it was very similar.

They were like, yeah, cities just don't have regulations, so please do this.

Interesting.

Yeah.

Okay.

Yes, is that is that Ken.

The voice of above.

Go ahead, Ken.

How many people say wrong?

We had 76 respondents.

Yeah, say again.

Sorry, you're kind of breaking up.

Oh just operating messages.

Yeah, I agree.

Yeah, we'll see if we can't um talk directly to some uh property owners near these areas that we're proposing and kind of get their feedback as well.

Yeah.

Okay.

Good.

Any more?

Any more questions for no?

No, I I think this is great.

I love that we're I love, but also like, hmm, we are leading out on this.

Like it feels like maybe this is something that should have been addressed by lots of cities a long time ago, but that's okay.

We're taking the lead, and I I love that.

I like that we we kind of take charge of that and doesn't seem like we always wait to react to things like this.

So yeah, I like it.

I appreciate it.

Yeah, thank you.

I agree.

Thanks, Kenny.

Thanks, everyone.

Okay.

All right.

Any city business?

Yes.

Two people from super spotted, I think.

Yeah.

Yeah.

No, it's more than two.

Jacob's trying to be he's been trying to coordinate.

Somehow not in charge of this.

Uh-huh.

Yeah.

And we had two and a and Ken was a maybe.

Oh yeah.

All three of them are the ones that are on my first.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So, you know, if it was five out of the seven, we probably would have just automatically said, yep, let's schedule it as a work session.

So we're kind of in between.

We're open to doing it either way.

We could just schedule it and then those who are interested show up, but then we cover it as a public meeting.

Otherwise, you could go, but you just want to make sure you don't have more than two of you on the same hike.

So do we have anything else scheduled for our next working session?

Next.

I don't think we do.

No.

Let's just do it.

Let's do it.

Just do it as a work session.

I guess what we could look at, because we've talked about, you know, maybe some kind of a tour or something.

You know, maybe we do a tour and then at you know, part one is we go see the sanctuary, for example.

Or I try to remember, it seemed like you have told us a couple other things that you might want to see.

But you could keep that in mind.

We could go out and look at that, and then as a part two, you know, and then if people want to drop out and say, I don't really want to go on the hike, but we keep it would all be covered under the public notice act.

So does that sound good?

Yeah.

Yeah.

Okay.

Okay.

Let's work that way.

Does that sound like that?

Yeah.

We can coordinate next week on how that notified.

Yeah.

Angie.

Yeah.

Putting it all on the scale.

Okay.

Would it be easier if we just did it on our own?

Yeah, you see.

Does it seem weird?

I don't know.

It's weird because it's city council vote.

Yeah, city council denies it.

And then that will be before the work session.

Also, does it seem weird for building money for looking at it?

She still felt like it would be worthwhile, is what I got out of her email.

Yeah.

Just so that they familiarize themselves in the future for whatever might happen up there.

Probably years out.

Yeah.

Yeah.

It is going to cancel the 12th of this month.

So next Tuesday.

Yep.

So we'll see what the outcome is.

Maybe a little unorthodox to have like a random resident giving the tour versus like maybe us leading the tour.

Okay.

Yeah.

I mean, I think where it would have been nice to have it via one-on-one or a one-on-one situation, but I don't think it makes a big difference to us.

Yeah.

It just means she might have to go out three different times and show you the same thing.

But yeah.

I am happy to do whatever is easiest for you guys.

Also.

It was yeah.

I'm happy as to not do it.

I don't want I like hiking, so it actually sounds kind of fun to go up there.

I've ridden my bike on there.

I know where she's looking down into the that it is kind of an interesting thing.

I don't think what hurt.

And maybe I don't know.

So yeah.

You could see the Sensei Trail if you haven't been on it and what's happening up in that area.

I say we just work towards yeah, like two different things that we go look at.

Some kind of a building project, and then that could be the second part.

Just do that for June.

Okay.

Okay.

Let's see.

I think the rest of this is just kind of more updates and information.

Um you've probably seen in Nauen's email reply today, and and I think she's already let you know she is retiring.

Her last day will be next Thursday.

So 27 years.

Wow.

And then I guess while we're talking about retirements, and I don't you don't see our city engineer very often, but you've probably heard his name.

And but yeah, Lauren Powell has also announced he's retiring.

So that will be end of June.

So 40 plus years.

Wow.

Yeah.

Are you are we having any is there like a card or something?

Yeah, like is there anything any party reading?

Yes, we will have kind of a little reception that will, you know.

So if you wanted to show up, that would be next Thursday from two to two to four p.m.

Just at the trying to figure out what to call the civic building, the old city center.

What do we decide?

Community development services, or we'll figure out a better name.

Yeah, in the old building two to four next Thursday.

Okay.

Um we're super excited about Danielle.

She's awesome.

It's been nice because we've had um almost well, yeah, several weeks of overlap.

So Naureen's been able to work side by side and download, so it should be a very smooth transition.

It's already been that.

So a couple of other updates, and I don't know, maybe if you watch the council meetings, this is all old news, but um on the our buffering, and by the way, we're still working on that.

We've we've taken a bigger version of some updates to the city council, but they wanted to, and I think we also presented it to you.

It's been several months ago, but they they really wanted to make sure we quickly acted on where if there's any even if it's you know buffering, normally takes place if you have commercial happening next to residential zoning.

But sometimes you'll have a residential home in a commercial area that people are still living there, it's still being used as a residence.

The place up on State Street is kind of what triggered all of this.

Next to the old police station, there was a home and there was a commercial development, and the buffering wasn't required because they were zoned mixed use.

Um but they still lived there, it was still their home.

So council had us do a quick amendment to just say now anywhere, even if it's existing home in red in commercial, you still have to buffer now.

But the same night uh they had us add the fence height is now eight feet.

It used to be six and they went to eight.

So just so you know, they haven't dealt with we still need to have it come back, and you'll get another bite at this too.

But what the fencing material should be, if we should require concrete or rhino rock or whatever kind of fencing material, but just so you know those changes were made just recently.

The other things that council has asked us to look at, and again, you'll see these because they'll have to come through as part of the process, but auto sales and where those are allowed.

They've asked us to review that and maybe make it less restrictive.

Right now we only allow auto sales if you have one acre or larger, and it has to be heavy commercial.

We don't allow them in our general commercial, and they're looking at there's they're asking to revisit all that.

So mixed use is another one that they're having us look into.

Uh the the Bishop property that you saw a couple of weeks ago, it went to the city council.

They asked us to prepare a development agreement on that one.

I think you had recommended approval of the general plan amendment, if I'm right.

Um they weren't comfortable changing the general plan, but they were comfortable with the 13 lots, and I think you had recommended, hey, maybe this is a good time for a development agreement.

So they directed us to do that.

Same thing, you'll see that come back through.

You have to review that development agreement.

Just so you know that's the direction that one went.

It's kind of a return and report tonight.

So the only other thought I had, and um speaking about this environmentally sensitive areas and things like that.

Um a lot of those that we have taken over as a city, like the big open space of Travers.

I think you're all aware we put that in a conservation easement.

And I just think it's really cool.

I think you guys weighed in on that easement and what should be in it.

This was um over a year ago, so maybe some of you didn't, um, or at least partially weighed in.

But it's been fun.

Um Payson now has a big area right at the mouth of Payson Canyon that they have done a conservation usement, and we are the grantees, and they're the grand tours.

They liked what we did.

They basically took ours and you know, they modified it, tailored it to their needs.

But yeah, it's really cool that I just saw today.

Provocity is looking at the same thing at the mouth of Slate Canyon.

So it would be nice to get a lot of these, you know, once we once the development has occurred around it or whatever, we're gonna allow the remaining ESA area.

It's it would be nice to just protect it in perpetuity.

And so, anyways, that is all I have.

We have a short agenda, so yeah.

Thank you.

Thanks, Kim.

Okay, I'll take a motion to adjourn.

Second motion and a second, all in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Okay.

Quick and dirty tonight.