Full council tonight, Councilmember Newell, Councilmember Harrison, Councilmember Stallings, Council Member Freeman, Councilmember Lockhart, and we welcome each of you who have uh decided to spend some time with us this evening, so we welcome each of you.

Um we also welcome staff who are who are with us tonight, so thank you for being here.

Before we get started, we'd like to stand, and Councilmember Harrison will lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge elections to the flag of the United States of America and for which it stands.

One nation under God with G and Justice Carl.

Thank you, Councilmember Harrison.

Okay, our first item tonight uh two point one is our water wise yard of the month presentation.

So Todd will turn that to you.

Thanks, Mayor, Council members.

I appreciate the opportunity to uh talk a little bit about the water wise landscape of the month award and what it what it's all about.

Um and before I present the award to our award recipients tonight, I'd like to just kind of explain a little bit about how this works.

There we go.

Okay.

No.

Not yet, but it takes some half a second, so we'll give it a half a second to appear.

I have no audio visual people here.

Oh, we do, there he is.

Oh, there you are.

Justin, thank you.

Oh, that's better, huh?

Oh, that's sound.

Hey Ben, do you want to swap it?

There we go.

Thank you.

Oh, okay, thank you.

Okay.

Um just uh explain a little bit about the uh the award.

This is the fourth year we've been presenting the award.

Um and uh we started back in 2021 uh during uh a pretty significant drought situation, and we were concerned with uh the amount of water, obviously, that same same thing we're doing pretty much this year.

Um this presentation is just to kind of show um why we encourage a waterwise landscape and what it can do to help save water.

Um sorry.

And I don't look at my the back of my head very often, right?

Um, there you go.

I'm joined by my uh my uh cohort here, Angie Parkins, who is esteemed member of our um sustainability committee.

And so thanks for coming.

I appreciate it.

I'm just struggling through this in.

Okay, so the purpose and the mission of the award uh aims to encourage and showcase landscapes that conserve water while maintaining beauty and function.

It inspires homeowners, landscapers, businesses and communities to adjust to adopt sustainable water management practices.

The award recipients are chosen based on water efficiency, use of native or drought tolerant plants, innovative irrigation techniques, aesthetic appeal, and overall sustainability.

All these pictures are of the recipients landscape.

Award winning landscapes incorporate elements of mulching, rain gardens, permeable uh pathways, uh strategic plant placements, which minimize uh runoff and retain or maximize retention.

Using native and drought tolerant plants reduces irrigation needs, supports local ecosystems, uh making landscapes more sustainable and resilient to water shortages.

Techniques such as drip irrigation, smart controllers, and scheduled maintenance, ensure efficient water use, uh reducing waste while maintaining healthy landscapes.

Programs associated with the award provide workshops, tours, and informational materials that promote sustainable landscaping and water wise practices for the betterment of the community.

In conclusion, the Waterwise Landscape of the Month Award exemplifies how sustainable landscaping and conserving water can benefit our equals ecosystem, uh, inspire communities, and by embracing these practices and innovations, we can reduce water consumption.

And so with that, our May Waterwise Landscape of the Month recipient is Bonnie and Jack Wadley.

Sorry.

And her daughters, Jenny and Daisy, are welcome to come up if you'd like, because they're probably helping tremendously.

So it's our it's our privilege to present the Waterwise Landscape of the Month Award for May to Jack and Bonnie Wadley of 1504 South 500 West.

So if you guys are anywhere near that, go by and take a look at the place.

It's beautiful.

Jack and Bonnie have demonstrated deep commitment to sustainable landscaping and water conservation, embodying the values cherished by our community.

Their dedication serves as an inspiration to all, especially as we continue to face these drought conditions.

The Wabbies have consistently maintained a landscape that has made them the envy of their neighborhood.

I heard this from so many people for years.

In times when water, when conserving water is critical, their beauty, their beautiful yard stands as a refreshing example of what we can achieve with thoughtful care and sustainable practices.

So thank you and congratulations and council has any questions or we have this award, it will go June, July, August, and September.

And so it's a feel-good, proactive way to dive into our water situation.

And so thank you for uh helping us out.

Thank you.

Could you advance?

Sorry, Mayor.

Could you advance the slide one so we can see the yard better?

Sorry, Mayor, I didn't mean to.

Nope, you're good.

Yeah, there we go.

So this is a beautiful yard.

I have the pleasure of driving by it almost every day, and it is beautiful.

So thank you for such a great piece of property in Lehigh.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Congratulations.

Okay.

Well, thank you.

Thanks, Todd.

Appreciate it.

Okay, item uh 2.2 proclamation of public service recognition.

There's a proclamation to give.

Um there were some dates, obviously they were last week, but but it's public service recognition week.

I'll I'll read this proclamation.

A proclamation expressing that public employees should be commended for their dedication and their commitment, delivering essential services to Lehigh residents during public service recognition week and throughout the year.

Whereas the week of May 3rd through May 9th is designated as public service recognition week recognition week to honor the individuals who serve communities across the nation.

Whereas public service recognition week provides an opportunity to recognize and promote the important contributions of public service and uh to honor the residents who serve their local communities in a wide variety of public roles.

Whereas Lehigh City Public Workers, those who both serve in and many whom live in our community play a vital role in maintaining the services, infrastructure, and programs upon which Lehigh residents depend each day.

Whereas Lehigh City's public workforce makes substantial contributions to the local economy, manages and maintains city facilities and infrastructure, supports public safety, delivers essential use utilities and community programs, and provides professional expertise that enables Lehigh to thrive.

Whereas Lehigh City public servants are essential to protecting the safety, well-being, and quality of life of residents, often working under challenging conditions to respond to emergencies, support community needs, and ensure the city operations run effectively.

Whereas public service within the Lehigh City community is a noble calling carried out by skilled and dedicated individuals who share their time, knowledge, and commitment in service to their neighbors.

Now, therefore, I, Paul Benz, mayor of Lehigh City, uh Utah, hereby, number one, commend the dedication, professionalism, and community commitment of the public workers who serve the residents of Lehigh City.

Two recognize their indispensable role of Lehigh City public servants in strengthening the community, supporting public safety, protecting the rights and well-being of residents and sustaining a strong and vibrant city.

Honor the contributions of Lehigh City Public Servants during public service recognition week, May 3rd through May 9th, 2026 and throughout the year.

And I will sign that, T Sha and get back.

If you are a uh Lehigh employee, would you mind standing so we can give you a round of pause as we support you tonight?

Thank you.

We're a week late in that, but that's okay.

We didn't have a meeting last week, so we're we're glad to do it tonight.

Okay, with that, we'll go to item number three.

This is citizen input.

Uh we will open the mic for 20 minutes.

There are some rules that apply.

Um you have three minutes.

You will see a timer up here on the on the overhead projector.

Um so you'll have your full three minutes at the at the three minutes if you would make sure you uh wrap up comment and then I or I will help you wrap up comment.

Um also if you would just state your name uh when you get to the microphone, so we have that.

So with that, I will open public comment officially at 712.

Nobody's rushing to the podium.

So uh mayor and and counsel and executive staff, I'm David Spencer.

I'm running for uh County Commissioner C B.

I was on the Orm City Council for 12 years, and the reason I ran for city council back in the day was to save the baseball fields.

And they're still there, so at least I did something right in the city of Orham.

But in that 12 years, not once did a county commissioner come to City Council, not once, to ask us what our needs were, how could we help?

A lot of people don't know what the county even does for us, right?

Or what a commissioner does.

So my plan is to go to every city, meet with every mayor, council, and citizens to see exactly what your needs are because Lehigh's needs are totally different than Orm or Santa Quinn or Saratog Springs or Eagle Mountain.

Um I visited Eagle Mountain, they have 26,000 building permits that haven't been built yet.

If they build them, that's gonna be gridlock.

So we need to really look at getting Utah County on the same page as one, and then we can go to the legislature and get the money we need for Utah County.

Right now the legislature, the leadership is in Davis County.

So where's the money go?

Davis County.

So we need to fight for that money for Utah County so we can help the citizens so we don't have gridlock.

But I'm happy to serve, and hopefully I can I can gain your trust and vote.

But uh David Spencer ready for county commissioner CP.

Thank you.

And I'll give my little propaganda considering thank you, Mr.

Spencer.

My name is Gerald Larson.

I own a gas station west of here.

Seventeen years ago, I built a gas station in this city.

My impact fees is nine over 90,000.

I read in the city your local paper the last two weeks.

Again.

I I guess you folks understand that when you raise taxes, that's something less permanent.

I pay almost $40,000 for the gas station every year.

Plus I live here.

I pay another $3,000 for my house.

All my employees live in Lehigh.

Now I'm gonna tell you something about impact fees.

Impact fees should be based on the future.

That's why you have them.

If you have one policeman every 10,000 or whatever, that should be computed in.

There was no one building in Lehigh but me.

Today you have lots of people building in Lehigh.

You have lots of businesses building in Lehigh.

And to come out and tell me that you need another $34 for a $600,000 house.

I think is a little bit stretched.

Plus, you're gonna want another thousand or two for my business.

Which I think is a little stretched.

I think you need to understand that you need to figure out your impact fees.

That's what's based on it.

Who's moving here?

Everybody's moving here.

The roads you can't get down.

Raise your impact fees and slow the businesses down, if that's what it takes.

I think we have great policemen.

I think we have great fire departments.

I don't need to all of them.

Every time they come around with their boot and their stuff.

The other thing I want to talk about, and I run out of time.

I am not into this.

Let me read my notes here.

Nonprofit business Thanksgiving point hello.

Let me tell you something.

Lehigh City should not be in the business of being in a non-tax business.

Shouldn't be in any business.

We give millions of dollars to Thanksgiving point to go watch a $25 TULIP Festival.

I can't afford it.

My kids can't either.

I I just don't understand why the Lehigh City and my tax dollars have to pay for a non-ta non profit business.

Take a drive through Thanksgiving Point and tell me it's nonprofit.

Thank you.

Thanks, Mr.

Larson.

My name's Eileen Miller.

I'm with the Utah Valley Home Builders Association.

I know a little bit about impact fees.

Just want to remind the people who are here that uh impact fees are only charged against new construction.

And so they pay their way in basically.

So just so that everybody understands that.

Um I came today on something really exciting.

We have the um parade of homes coming up, June the 4th through the the 20th.

We have 40 gorgeous beautiful homes.

And um I just wanted to say we have the number one HBA in the nation.

We surpassed St.

George about four or five years ago, which was sort of proud about that because everybody would go there for a spring break and to get out of the cold weather.

But we actually have more in attendance now.

And the wonderful thing is when uh the ticket is purchased.

Um you can uh tour the homes virtually online now with that with that ticket.

So we've had professional photographers.

Um they film all inside and outside of every home.

So if you buy a ticket and you can't get to all of them, um then you can put your ticket number in the computer and watch the rest of them from the comfort of your own home.

Probably where it's a little cooler.

So anyway, um uh I just wanted to present um Mayor Bins with some tickets.

Um they're complimentary, so there's no retail value on them.

He doesn't have to declare them.

You can't resell them because they're complimentary.

And um wanted to welcome you all to the Praet of Homes this year.

Hope to see you out there.

Oh, and may I approach the bench?

Um thank you.

Heather's parents are personal friends of mine.

And so I'm comped a couple of tickets, so I'm letting her parents have um complimentary tickets for me this year.

Thanks so much.

Thanks, Mrs.

Miller.

Okay, we will go ahead and close public comment at 720.

We appreciate those who have made comment.

We'll bring it back to the dais and go to item four, the consent agenda.

Are there any questions on the consent agenda?

There's no questions.

I'm happy to entertain a motion.

Mr.

Mayor, I move that we approve the consent agenda as presented.

I have a first from second that.

I have a first from councilmember Newell, second from Councilmember Lockhart.

Any questions on that?

Okay, Councilmember Newell, we'll start with you.

Yes.

Councilmember Harrison.

Yes.

Councilmember Stallings?

Yes.

Councilmember Freeman.

Yes.

Councilmember Lockhart.

Yes.

Thank you.

Okay, we'll go to item five.

This is a public hearing.

Uh 5.1 public hearing for the purpose of accepting comments with respect to the sale of four acres of real property located at approximately 535 South Mill Pond Drive.

And it is 721, so we'll open that for public comment.

It appears there's no comment, so we'll close the public comment.

And we'll close the public hearing effectively.

It's also a 721.

Which will then put us to uh 5.2 statement of notice to the public that the 2026-2027 Lehigh City tentative budget includes a proposed tax rate increase.

Dean, we'll turn that to you.

Yeah, so this is a new requirement by the state.

And um, you know this, but just for everybody's benefit.

So there's a tentative budget put out several weeks ago, and that's what's on the the uh the website today.

It does propose a tax increase.

We know with our meetings we've had the past few weeks, we're working on a version that we're not, and we're gonna give something out.

Hopefully, I think they just maybe by the end of the week.

Probably wouldn't be the full version, but just kind of what the changes are.

So but part of the part of the law is we need to read this.

And I won't read the whole thing, but in the tentative budget that's on the website, uh, the additional generate additional revenue generated by the tax increase would be 1,729,474.

Uh that would be a rate that is 9.7 point, 9.78% higher than the certified rate.

The uh average impact for a Lehigh homeowner would be uh $35.52 per year based on a $600,000 home or $2.96 per month.

On a commercial property, it would be $64.58 per year or $5.38 per month.

The departments that are impacted by the uh tax increase would be police fire and the court and the parks.

So it would provide funding for the police department, two new two patrol officers, one school resource officer, one records clerk, and a shift differential play program.

Fire department would have increased wages as well as an assistant fire chief.

The parks department would have three additional positions, and the justice corps would have an additional clerk.

And again, I know we've had a lot of discussions in the past few weeks, so this is a little bit dated, but this is this is what's on the butt on the website now, is this not really a vote.

We're just supposed to say that.

Great, thank you.

Okay, that'll take us item 5.3 public hearing for the purpose of receiving input from the public with respect to the proposed Lehigh City budget and consolidated fee schedule for the fiscal year 2026 to 2027, which is July 1 of 2026 to June 30th of 2027.

It is 724 will open uh open up for public comment.

Hi, my name is Taylor McKinnon.

Um, and my husband is an employee with Lehigh City.

This is my first time participating in the uh city council meeting, so bear with me if I'm reading off my phone.

Um so I decided to attend this meeting because me and my husband wanted to participate in the discussion around employee benefits.

Since he has begun working for Lehigh City, we have enjoyed many benefits that Lehigh provides to their employees, including great health care, pay that reflects the current economy and inflation rates, and the wonderful community that Lehigh provides.

Sorry.

As a young family, this job has been a wonderful blessing to us.

Um, in contrast with many jobs in today's market, we have felt that Lehigh truly values my husband and that his contributions make a difference to the community.

It has been motivating for us to feel that the work we put into the community provides real tangible benefits in the form of raises and other employee services.

It would be a shame to change Lehigh City culture of community and devalue the hardworking people who make the city great by cutting benefits.

Although it may not expand the bottom line benefits such as nice nice health care, yearly wage increases, and access to the community recenter has improved the quality of life for your employees.

It prevents them from getting sick.

It allows them to continue to afford to live and work in this community.

Um and it motivates them to do good work for the community.

My husband suffers from an autoimmune disease, and the Nice Healthcare app has been instrumental in our ability to manage his symptoms.

Without the Nice Health Care App, it would be much more difficult for us to arrange necessary medical appointments and treatments around his work and school schedule.

In today's day and age, it's hard to find employment that feels like it equally benefits its employees as well as its consumers.

But Lehigh City's culture has managed to do that for us.

I encourage you to continue to invest into this community of employees that keep making the city great.

And thank you for letting me participate today.

Thank you.

Russ McGowns.

Is this in regards to this property property tax increase?

I read in the paper here last week.

Lived here now 16 years.

This is my fourth house I've lived in, and I've seen property taxes double within years.

And I'm retired now on Social Security and all.

The first two months, not including my insurance and other expenses and utilities and stuff.

It's getting very difficult for seniors like myself.

Mr.

Larson, I think, just spoke about his business and all.

Florida, you know, DeSantis, the governor.

He's already put through forth a bill.

I don't know, Utah, where are we at, and governor and all, but this is just crushing us seniors.

I would have had a house paid off years ago in Michigan, a beautiful home.

Three acres and all.

And I lost my job like a lot of other people probably will be here in this area, losing their jobs, losing their homes after they've put so much money down.

That's what I did over in Michigan.

And I had to leave the last person in Michigan turn out the lights.

That's how bad when you're in the automobile industry and things crash like they did in the 70s for me.

I would have had a house made.

But no, I don't know.

And it's hard now.

You know, I could have paid off a house if I wasn't paying property tax.

This is a rent that I pay.

Mr.

Larson's probably still paying years now, he's saying, and he'll continue to pay.

It's rent money going to the government.

And I've seen fraud in it with city council commissioners.

Where did Mr.

Spencer go?

You know, he's now being running for that office and all.

And uh I I hope in the big new bill.

I just learned the big new bill, they're giving us an exemption if we qualify and apply for it.

It's 50% right now to devalue your home, and it's now going to 65% to devalue your home.

And that would be, I would be paying almost probably half the I love schools.

I have eight kids, and I've sent them all to school, and I paid these properties, and I don't mind it, but there's other ways and means, I think, and there are other states are looking at it, and I think other cities and counties are also.

Thanks, Mr.

McEdams.

I talked twice.

We'll take you, Mr.

Arson.

We talk about property tax, we talk about Lee tax.

Aspen School District, which is a district will be in shortly.

You know they're gonna come back to the well when we split all three school districts up, or one into three.

I I don't understand and I haven't studied enough, but it really bothers me when not you folks, but maybe the past folks give big business in Lehigh a tax break, no taxes for 25 years, no water tax, no this, no that, just come here.

I go up here and there's 12 or 14 cranes in the air.

Up here where Microsoft used to be the Texas Tech is rebuilding.

Do you think that they care the billions are spending if you tax them?

That isn't even a drop in the bucket to them because they just deducted off the bottom line.

We give big business a decrease to come here.

That means I, as a little businessman, has to pick up the slack.

All these people, like he said, retired people.

I'm retired, but don't tell my son and my daughter law, because I like them to think I still work.

Anyway, I I just, you know, if McDonald's raised a hamburger, two dollars, we'd all search for another place to get a hamburger.

When you raise the taxes, I can't go anywhere.

I just gotta pay it.

My wife saves every month so much in some separate account for taxes.

I don't deal with the home stuff, but she does.

So she has enough to pay.

I mean, you pay $3,000 a year, and I'm sure some of you people pay more.

$3,000 is a lot for me.

When I first moved here, I had five acres of a house that paid $600.

Now I have a gas station and a house and some shops.

And I pay over $50,000.

That's a lot of taxes.

Thank you.

Thanks, Mr.

Orson.

Good evening.

My name is Doug Chandler.

I'm also retired.

Okay, I'm at the young age of retirement, but I'm I am retired.

It's pretty much on a fixed income.

Um I fully support what was just said about the city workers and the funding of those.

I think that's an important thing for taxes.

But when I look around and see all of the businesses coming to Lehigh, um, my family moved to Provo when I was a sophomore in high school.

Um, never in a million years would I have thought of living in Little Lehigh because nothing was here.

But now that I'm here and I see the growth going on in business and in new homes.

And especially, and I don't know if if we as seniors are the minority, but it just seems like it's very, very taxing.

We raise taxes about every two years.

As was mentioned.

We have a new school board going in.

And I can guarantee you they're going to raise taxes to pay for this smaller school district.

And so I would just hope that we would find a way to take the revenues coming in from the businesses that are coming here.

I remember when Micron was first announced.

Um how excited we were that all of that revenue was coming in.

It kind of fell apart, and now we see what it has become and what it's led to be.

I just hope that we allocate the funds from those big businesses and all the new homes that are coming in to pay for the things that we need.

So anyway, thank you very much.

Thanks, Mr.

Chandler.

Hi there.

I'll go quick, so don't.

I'm Brett Neilson.

I'm running for State House out in House District 51, and I'm here to learn from you experts.

We all know that you guys see things up close all day, every day, and you all have I've read up a bit on your backgrounds, and you're all very smart, and you know what you're doing in your unique areas.

So I'd love to learn from all of you.

I'm here to just hear and learn from the experts.

So if you ever need anything, I'd be happy to work with you and talk with you and learn more about what's going on in Lehigh, and that applies to everyone here too.

Thank you.

Thanks, Mr.

Nelson.

Okay, we will close the public comment at 7.37.

Excuse me, the public hearing for uh item 5.3, and we'll go to item 5.4, a recess for the Lehigh Local Building Authority meeting.

I think I have paper here.

Do I need to take motion for that?

Yes, I do.

So I'm happy to take a motion to adjourn this meeting for a moment as we go to Lehigh Local Building.

So moved.

So I have a first from Councilmember Stallings.

Second.

Second from Council Member Harrison.

All in favor, say aye.

It's unanimous, so we'll go to it.

So if you go to item number one in the Lehigh Local Building Authority, we'll start there.

We do have a full roll call.

We do have Councilmember Freeman, Councilmember Harrison, Councilmember Stallings, Councilmember Newell, Councilmember Lockhart.

Did I say all of you correctly?

I think I did.

Okay, good.

Okay, we'll go to item 2.1, public hearing for the purpose of receiving input for the public in respect to the proposed Lehigh Local Building Authority 2026-2027 budget, July 1st, 2026 through June 30th of 2027.

And we will open that for public comment at 7.38.

Okay, we'll bring it back at 7.38 and close that item.

I'll take a motion to close uh the Lehigh Local Building.

So moved.

I have a first from Council Member Freeman.

Second.

A second from Council Member Lockhart.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

That's unanimous.

So we'll go back to our other meeting.

That one's coming up.

Is it okay?

Yeah.

Okay.

Item 5.5.

Consideration of resolution 2026-35 adopting the community development block grant, the CDBG.

We've got to move in.

One more.

I don't think it's on.

We've got to move into the city.

It is that one's agenda.

That one's at 5.10.

We need to go into the other meeting.

Did I forget where that's the first one?

Yeah.

No, it's on right.

Sorry, Mayor.

That's my fault.

No, you're good.

We'll go there.

All right.

So we'll go into the Lehigh redevelopment agency meeting.

That's the meeting we're now in.

I know that felt like a long bus ride, but we got there.

So moved.

Second.

Second.

All in favor?

I okay.

Welcome to the Lehigh Redevelopment Agency meeting.

Uh we do have a full roll call.

We have Councilmember Newell, Councilmember Harrison, Councilmember Stallings, Councilmember Freeman, and Councilmember Lockhart.

Item 2.1, public hearing for the purpose of receiving input from the public in respect of the proposed redevelopment agency of Lehigh 2026 to 2027 budget, July 1st, 2026 to June 30th of 2027.

So we'll open it for public comment.

The time is 740.

Okay, we'll take it back at 740, and I'll take a motion to close this meeting.

Mr.

Mayor, I move that we close the Lehigh Redevelopment Agency and move into our uh regular session.

Do I have a second?

Exactly.

Councilmember Freeman, first by Councilmember Newell.

All in favor?

Aye.

Excellent.

That is unanimous.

Okay.

T shirt we got through all that paper.

We're good.

Yes, thank you.

I'm sorry.

No, you're good.

Perfect.

Okay.

Now it will go to item 5.5, consideration of resolution 2026-35, adopting the community development block grant, the CDBG annual action plan for 2026.

Any questions on this one?

From us.

Questions from us?

No.

No.

Happy to entertain a motion.

Mr.

Mayor, I move uh to approve resolution 2026-35, adopting the community development block grant, CDBG annual action plan for 2026.

I have a first from Councilmember Harrison.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Second from Councilmember Stallings?

We'll take your second.

Any questions on that motion?

Great.

We'll start with you, Councilmember Harrison.

Yes.

Councilmember Stallings?

Yes.

Councilmember Freeman?

Yes.

Councilmember Newell.

Yes.

Oh, Councilmember Lockhart.

I'm sorry, Councilmember Lockhart.

That's why I've been looking at my chart here.

Councilmember Lockhart.

Aye.

Okay, perfect.

Thank you.

You were uh under the TV.

I'll move you back out so I can see you.

It's every time, maybe we're yellow.

I need to print you in bold.

5.6.

Consideration of ordinance 17-2026.

Approving a development code amendment to table 05.030-band chapter 39, adding a flex commercial building use table from the April 14th, 2026 meeting.

Is this the one that was controlled?

So this one has been tabled.

Excellent.

We'll go to the next one.

5.7.

Consideration of an ordinance 24-2026.

Approval of the green zone change on 1.57 acres located at 2001 West, 1500 North, changing the zoning from A1 to R1-22.

And the petitioner is Mike Green.

Is Mr.

Green here?

Mr.

Green.

Mr.

Green.

Any questions for Mr.

Green?

Is there anyone in the audience who has come to speak to this item tonight?

Just Mr.

Green.

Okay.

Okay.

We're happy to entertain a motion.

Uh Mr.

Mayor, I move that we approve ordinance 24-2026.

Approval of the green zone change on 1.57 acres located at uh 2001 west, 1500 north, changing the zoning from A1 to R122.

Include the DRC comment and the Planning Commission findings.

I'll second that.

So I have a first from Councilmember Newell, a second from Council Member Lockhart.

Any questions?

Okay, we'll start with you, Councilmember Stallings.

Yes.

Council Member Freeman?

Yes.

Councilmember Lockhart.

Yes.

Councilmember Newell?

Yes.

Councilmember Harris.

Yes.

Thank you.

Okay.

5.8 consideration of resolution 2026-34 amending the Hansen Tennis Facility Development Agreement, allowing for signage as part of the project.

That's Mr.

Jacob Hanson.

Is he here tonight?

Nope.

Doesn't appear so.

Is there anyone in the audience who is here to speak to this item?

Great.

We'll bring it back to the dice.

Any questions on this one?

I would just like a little bit more clarification of what he is asking for.

I read all his things and I think I got it, but I would like it to be publicly talked about.

And maybe if Kim has any additional context.

Yeah, I'm happy to try and answer any questions.

But yeah, we did a development agreement.

It's been probably three years ago to allow the tennis facility.

Normally it wouldn't be allowed in a it's actually in an agricultural zone, but at the time the council felt like this would still fit in that area.

And as he is now finished or nearing completion, they're realizing you know we probably should have some minor signage just to identify where we're at.

And so the request is to amend the agreement because we don't allow any kind of commercial signage in our residential zones, not even for home occupations.

But this would allow just a small monument sign out along the street.

So he just wants something out on the street on 900 north to identify where to turn, and then on the building, they would have a couple of wall signs that just say hints, and or I can't remember what they're calling the actual facility, but um yeah, just some signage on the building itself to again just to identify it.

We don't feel like it's too excessive.

It's reasonable, but that you know in order to get any signage, he would have to amend that development agreement.

Well, and I think it's I read it was four feet by four feet wide, four feet high by four feet.

Yeah, 48 inches.

I do math.

I think I'm doing math right.

I think it says 48 inches.

Um and it's right next to the a school, right?

It said by a center.

Yeah, the church.

So there's kind of I mean, schools have lights on their parking lot almost 24 hours a day.

And a lot of schools have signage.

Yeah, they'll have you know, welcome to school or whatever.

What I was looking on the map of it, it's kind of almost like a flag lot situation where you kind of have to go through that driveway type to get to the back where his tennis facility is.

Okay.

And the DRC recommendation was to have down lighting instead of the uplighting spot.

Yeah, right.

To help keep the light pollution to a minimum.

Okay.

Just to clarify it.

Six feet long.

Is that I think it's four feet by three feet.

Is that correct?

The the one by the road.

Article sorry.

If you've if you go to the bottom of the paper, I think he has some exhibits in there.

It looks like we're looking at two different things.

All right.

Yeah, it looks like in article or page one.

Page one.

Well, it's actually on page one.

Oh, because it yeah, it does say six feet long and six feet off the ground.

That's how I read it.

But it would allow up to four feet by four feet, but he's proposing the.

No, you would allow six feet long, but he's proposing the four.

But then we should change it, I'd say.

Yeah, it's kind of a there's a little differences because revision, so right underneath the DRC comments in this packet that we're looking at, it says revision to development agreement, and there's a on the second paragraph it says we are proposing a monument sign that is no bigger than 48 inches wide and 48 inches high and two three or three feet off the ground.

So you know, four feet plus two feet is six feet, right?

So but um, but then if we go down to the development agreement, it talks about six feet by six feet sign.

So I would say the language in the development agreement would be the controlling one because that's what will be recorded.

So I I think the other part is just that are narratives.

So there's it looks like there's a little bit of a discrepancy there.

Okay.

I would think you've got the ability.

Yeah, if you want to modify that, you could say, you know, we approve subject to this change.

Yeah, and do we want the applicant to be here to say yes or no to that?

Or that's a good question.

Yeah, it's too bad they're not here to answer questions.

I think you could go either way if you feel like you want them here to represent themselves and see if they have any other reason why they put the language in they did.

You could table it or approve it tonight, and then I guess if they have concerns, well, they'd have to start back over.

So if we table it, they don't have to start over.

No, if we approve it with a change, and they really wanted the six, they would have to start over.

Yeah.

Yeah, you can approve what you're comfortable with, and he doesn't have to sign it.

I mean, I would love to know what he actually wants.

Yeah, if there's something he needed to explain, then he could he could come back and not sign the amended development agreement.

What do you have to go through the process again?

Um I don't know if you'd have to go all the way through it, but he'd have to, I mean, we'd have to have another it'd have to be on the agenda again here.

I don't think you'd have to go back to planning.

Unless he was asking for more than what went through, I'd be comfortable with him just coming back here.

Okay.

I'll make I'll make a motion.

Um then on the signs on the building, it will be 108 inches wide.

I struggle with that math.

But then in six feet in the packet, he has eighty-four by eighty-four.

So that's where I what he's showing is not up to the maximum, which seems like a very big sign to have a six by six foot sign.

Well, and then on his on the building, it'll be a hundred and eight, which is a both of them.

Yeah.

I don't know.

Yeah.

Stable if it's not urgent.

Yeah, normally on a, you know, if it was a commercial business, we'd allow if it's just a what we call a cabinet sign, just a basic sign, it's five percent of the wall area.

If it's like a molded individual logo, um, you know, has 3D relief and stuff, it's 15 percent on on a primary wall, and then five percent on any of the other walls, no matter what type of sign it is.

So the building's a big building.

I I think they're well below the allowed what what we would normally allow in a commercial zone.

Now this is different because it's not commercial.

So I think he's trying to keep it, you know, reasonably minimal, but still have something that identifies the building.

So is he having lighting on the sign on the building?

Um it says non-lit on the at least in the development agreement exhibit.

Okay.

Oh, maybe it just says non-lit view.

Let me see.

It says not non-eliminate, sorry.

Okay.

Yeah.

Yeah, it does.

You're right.

I mean, it's up in operating.

I don't think that if you're not comfortable, if you need some clarification, I don't think he would be opposed to coming back to answer your questions if you'd rather proceed that way.

Yeah, because I would I would put in the smaller sign, but they might not want that.

So I can make a motion there if you're ready for it.

Okay, I move that we table ordinance 24-2026, approval of the green zone change.

Nope, that's not it.

Okay, I move that we table resolution 2026-34 amending the Hanson um tennis facility development agreement, allowing for signage as part of their project.

Um just in direction to staff to get clarification on which size signage they would like if they're not gonna show up next time.

So I have a first from Council Member Stallings.

I'll second that.

Second from Council Member Freeman.

Any questions on that motion?

Okay, so we'll start with you, Councilmember Freeman.

Yes.

Councilmember Lockhart.

Yes.

Council Member Newell?

Yes.

Councilmember Harrison?

Yes.

Councilmember Stallings.

Yes.

Great, thank you.

Okay, item 5.9, consideration of concept approval for an amendment to the traverse mountain area plan, moving units out of West Canyon and adding them to locations near Tempanogas Highway.

I know Perry commercials on this.

Is Perry here?

Wanna come on up?

Go ahead and give us your name.

Good evening.

I'm Matt Swain with Perry Commercial.

I appreciate your time here.

If I could take a minute and just kind of go through a few thoughts and comments that were shared during the planning commission.

You you all have the minutes from that hearing.

And we went back, it was a good fact-finding uh discussion that we had with the commissioners and with neighbors.

And we've we've really tried to digest some of those comments in our uh in preparation for this discussion this evening.

But we're we're here um primarily to discuss the the um the potential relocation of of some or all of the units out of West Canyon to uh different location further down uh the mountain.

And this has been a discussion that's been had off and on with staff over a number of years in um for the reasons outlined in in the packet tonight.

There are numerous benefits uh to the city and to the residents by relocating some or all of these units out of West Canyon that that uh are delineated in the report, some of which are wildfire fire risks, um, emergency access constraints, better opportunity to reclaim the disturbed hillside and landscape, putting density where the infrastructure already exists, uh putting housing closer to regional transportation, employment of goods and services, and moving viable uh more viable for future transit walkability and mixed use development.

So we we agree with with all of those uh points made by by city staff.

We do believe that from a land use perspective, uh density is is better served closer to amenities, closer to uh shopping centers and retail, public transit, et cetera.

And so we we are here uh tonight to to again have a have a conversation.

We understand that this is a significant discussion, and we understand that there are some strong opinions.

Um we're open to the uh having the discussion tonight.

After the planning commission hearing, uh, like I mentioned, we spent quite a bit of time talking to neighbors outside of the meeting just on the sidewalk and trying to listen to their their concerns.

I don't know, as in most cases, you know, when one says group says all or nothing.

Um we have residents that you know are pretty vocal about absolutely nothing.

Uh we have city staff that are saying we love to see all of the units out of West Canyon for the reasons that we talked about.

We're here to to propose maybe something in between a compromise that may make sense to uh future land use for reasonable walkability for some of those units.

And and to also, I think to a certain extent, maybe to a lesser degree, fulfill some of the staff concerns of putting 600 units in West Canyon in the future.

Um as a part of this, and as mentioned in the meeting minutes, we we are open to uh um enlarging the amount of amenitized park space as a part of this relocation proposal.

And that park space would be amenitized and closer to residential homes above and beyond what we're already required to do, which is about a half an acre park as outlined in in the report or in the study.

Um we're open to a discussion of of relocating something less than 600 units.

I don't know what that number is.

I think that that's gonna take some discussion.

Um is it 400 or even 300?

Maybe it's half of what we've previously asked for.

Uh I think that that would still open up quite a bit of reclaimable space up in West Canyon that would be dedicated perpetually uh back to the city, would be reclaimed.

Um we would also enlarge the amenitized park space, and we would bring some of those units down closer to all of the uh facilities that are already in place.

There was a concern about commercial being taken away as a part of this proposal.

We're actually adding commercial.

So in here we're we're suggesting that a few acres of what's now residential would be uh changed into a commercial use that's directly adjacent to uh existing commercial and along SR92.

And the riverbend property, which we don't own.

We've had discussions with them uh as a potential partnership to reallocate some of this density within their property, which would spur a mixed-use development.

So I see this actually accelerating the ability for more commercial.

Um the Riverbend property has been proposed as a class A office campus for for years and years.

That's no longer viable.

What's viable is uh continuation of what we are doing as a partnership with Center Cal Cross Street with Whole Foods and other high-end retailers that you may be able to extend that commercial along SR92 along the the ball venture property and do uh a residential mixed use project alongside commercial uh in that location.

Um it's really ultimately is West Canyon better off having 600 units up there, which is the current entitled right that Perry uh companies has, or is it better off bringing some of those down and doing some type of compromise based upon long-term land use planning?

That's really why we're here.

If if the answer is no, then we'll just move forward with the 600 units in West Canyon at the time that it's developable.

Um sorry, I'm just checking a few notes here.

Happy to answer any questions.

Uh I went through that pretty quickly, but open to the discussion and happy to go through whatever you'd like to treat tonight.

Great.

Thank you.

Um is there anyone in the audience who's come to speak to this tonight?

I don't know.

Yep, there's a few of you.

So we will speak to the same three-minute rule if you'll come and just state your name.

And then we'll bring it back to the diet.

So as you come up, you'll have the same three minutes unless one of you wants to speak for all, but we'll we'll open that up so uh my name is Aaron Ethington and I live in the crossing.

Um this area plan amendment concept is much more complex complex than the documents portray, and I've you've already received my really long email about it, but I'd like to speak to just one other um different angle, which I've tried to write out to just make it as succinct as possible.

Um first, a quick intro to the crossing at Traverse, the neighborhood that is most affected by this proposal of moving the density out of West Canyon.

We're a neighborhood of about 217 homes spread over about 50 acres.

Um from my research in the Lehigh Development Code.

If the crossing had been developed separately from Traverse Mountain area plan, our development would have required a 20 percent minimum or about 10 acres to be set aside um for the development of parks, playgrounds, and open space.

So you might be surprised to know that our development of 200 plus homes, there are zero parks, playgrounds, or open space.

None at all.

So how did this happen?

How did the city allow this to happen?

Um I'm guessing because uh the Perry Planning Area was added as part of Traverse Mountain Area Plan that the 20% wasn't required.

Um what an advantage to the Perry developers to have to be able to skip installing maybe as much as 30 acres of park, even with all of the acres that are there.

Um, there originally was a five-acre park required in the area plan near the crossing.

Um that's still not even close to the standard development code.

Um and then that 4.5 acres of that was moved as far away as possible from our neighborhood uh before even our first section of building was finished, uh locating it about a mile to the west of the neighborhood across Morning Vista, a major five-lane road, and past all the office buildings.

It's just not safe to walk there.

Um it may be in our planning area, but it is does not serve the crossing at all.

Um I don't know if there are other neighborhoods that are planned development in Lehigh that ended up with zero parks.

Um it's definitely not normal for Traverse Mountain.

Almost all the other developments in Traverse Mountain, at least have a little pocket park with a playground in it, or access to other the larger parks nearby walking distance.

We have nothing.

Um yes, we have access to them.

We can drive to them.

They're all at least a mile away.

Um, but it's it's not good access.

Uh so when it comes to parks, being part of the Travers Mountain area plan has turned out to be a huge disadvantage to our neighborhood.

It cost us a 10-acre park that Lehigh City code would have required.

So two side notes, we're so grateful Lehigh City is getting ready to build a park adjacent to us.

It is not in the Traverse Mountain area.

It is in the sky area plan.

And so thank you to Council and Lehigh City for uh moving forward with that.

We are super excited to finally have something.

Um and just a second side note that 5.5 acres of park that was mentioned, it's in the documents, but it is already required.

It was part of the compromise 10 years ago to keep at least that little teeny piece close by us.

So since the Traverse Mountain Area Plan has actually disadvantaged the crossing residents when it comes to park parks, we are asking City Council to maintain the only advantage that we have from being part of Traverse Mountain Area Plan.

And that is that the density in the parry planning area is capped, specifically capped.

There's wording saying do not exceed these numbers.

Um all of the areas in the periplanning area being affected by this say do not exceed and have numbers.

I tried to find out where those numbers came from.

I got no answers.

Um so we should definitely understand where those numbers came from and why that language was put in before we change it.

Um so uh over ten years ago, the city council did not protect the park acreage that should have been connected to or at least accessible to the 200 homes in the crossing, leaving a neighborhood with no on site or even nearby open space, um, which from one point of view is against Lee High Development Code.

Uh if you please just protect the only benefit that the crossing has uh of being included in the Traverse Mountain area plan, and that is that the planning uh Perry planning area is explicitly not allowed to increase the number of units.

That's the words that are in there.

Um if you strip that, you're stripping away the last reason why we should even be included in the Traverse Mountain Area Plan.

Please reject the density transfer.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Joshua Coleman, um resident in the canyon in the Kenyon Hills in that the Perry area as well.

Um I just have a few uh points that I wanted to bring up for the council to see if they've considered this in the in the well as they're considering the the Perry's proposal.

The issue is not about total housing numbers, it it's it is the concentration and placement of the density uh of density of where the housing the high density housing is is being placed.

Why is additional density being moved into areas that are already among the most dense, densely developed parts of Traverse Mountain?

What is the city's long-term vision for balanced growth and neighborhood livability?

Existing residents already have limited access to neighborhood parks and usable green space.

The community currently relies heavily on one shared one shared park and already serves a large population.

Uh preserved canyon land is not the same as usable neighborhood open space where families live day to day.

If density is increased in these receiving areas, there should also be propo uh proportional investments in new parks, trails, recreational space, gathering areas, and neighborhood green spaces.

Um has the city evaluated the park air park acreage per resident ratio after the proposed transfer, while Aaron was talking about.

Has the city evaluated whether this area is already over concentrated with multifamily high density housing?

What traffic and infrastructure studies have been updated to uh account for concentrated densities rather than distributed growth growth?

And how will schools, roads, parking, and emergency access be benefit be affected?

Why not distribute remaining density more uh more evenly throughout Traverse Mountain instead of clustering it near existing dense dense developments?

Residents support preserving national canyon areas, but conserving conservation should not come out of at the expense of living livability in the neighborhoods absorbing the transferred growth.

Balanced planning should include both environmental preservation and meaningful investment in neighborhood quality of life.

Um another thing I wanted to bring up is the balanced way the higher population in those concentrated areas also increased demand on policing traffic's uh traffic safety, parking enforcement, pedestrian safety, schools and other area infrastructures.

The proposed receiving areas are close to elementary school, junior high, um, and hopefully more parks, um, and heavily used family neighborhoods.

Increased density may create more vehicle congestion around schools, more pedestrian safety concerns, and greater strain on already busy commuter spaces.

Um I I lived in this neighborhood for uh almost eight years, and um we've seen it grow and I'm excited about growth, excited about all the the businesses that are being proposed as well.

Um I I I see the the growth in you know up above us, just to the north of us in the canyon areas there.

I don't see why there's a concern for the West Canyon.

Um it's already been mined and it's the land is already there.

Um then also my my biggest main concern is the high density uh adding it to the already dense area that it that it is currently exists.

And so I I ask if you guys can consider all that.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Angie Parkin, and I'm a resident of Traverse Mountain.

Um Perry Homes, we should let Perry homes stick with what they have.

If they refuse or cannot build, those units should be forfeited, not transferred.

Perry Homes has a long history with Traverse Mountain and the Lehigh City Council.

Perry Homes does not need special treatment.

During negotiations over the area plan in 2011 and 2012, the company agreed to help distribute the density across Traverse Mountain so that no single area would bear a disput disproportionate burden.

Perry Holmes accepted the West Canyon area with full knowledge from Lehigh City that the site would require significant mass grading in order to build homes there.

For the past 11 years, the company has leased the property to Geneva Rock for mining operations.

What was once known as the point of the mountain has effectively become the nub of the mountain because so much material has been removed.

During that time, Perry Homes has profited from the sale of the dirt while doing little to remediate little remediation work, leaving Travers Mountain residents and the broader Lehigh community to deal with poor air quality whenever the wind blows, which is frequent in the area.

I ask that Perry Homes be held accountable for proper mitigation of the West Canyon and not be allowed to transfer its approved density out of the area.

If they cannot build or refuse to build, those units should be forfeited, not transferred.

And may I also remind or bring up to the point to the Lehigh City Council that Lehigh City does have a developmental code about chapter 12 is hillside preservation, which actually explicitly says that the developer shall be fully responsible for any destruction of native vegetation required to be retained and shall be responsible for replacing destroyed vegetation.

It goes on to talk about topsoil and native seed mix, which Lehigh City does have.

So I just ask again that uh Lehigh City, or if Perry Homes refuses or can't build, that they should those units should be forfeited, not transferred.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Mary Anletho, and I'm a Travers Mountain residents.

Um I just want to I I have um been in Traverse Mountain for about 20 years.

So I was actually at the table when this area plan was done.

It was very active, and it was actually a big deal.

So um all of the developers kind of came to the table.

Um the HOA was there, a lot of residents, and um the city council was obviously involved in this process, and they wanted us to kind of all come together on what we could all agree on.

And and um and this was what resulted from that.

And they had the different planning districts, and that was very intentional because we didn't want to overload certain certain areas of the community that have very dense traffic already.

And West Canyon was part of that, and it was very explicit in the area plan that those that density would not be transferable.

Like Angie said, in the in the area plan, it has specifically that it can't be transferred if they can't use it, then they lose it.

And that was really part of this compromise.

And now they're trying to breach that compromise and allow and ask for density moving around in the area plan when it specifically says that's not allowed.

And I mean, I think there's a lot of reasons not to do this.

That area right there is already very congested.

It's right next to a school.

They're talking about building these high rises.

That area is congested.

Actually, West Canyon, that's where like the bus transit is going to be.

It has egress routes out to Draper that wouldn't then congest that area so that people could get out if they're wanting to go to Draper and go out that way, not congesting that main way, which is already very congested.

I mean, this is a little bit of a tax increase in disguise.

Um, you know, the the amendment permanently retires um, you know, a lot of annual sales because they're converting basically kind of highway commercial right to apartments, is essentially what they're doing here.

Um the council asked Perry to do its homework in August 26, 2025.

They formally requested traffic utility long-term impact studies.

Um Perry is returned without them.

Um we should deny it just based on that, which is why Planning Commission, as you know, recommended denial of this.

Um I think it also, you know, um, you know, Perry and Riverbend need to act like master developers.

This was supposed to be a master developed community that had parks that were situated to reflect the different areas and pockets, and we should be honoring that.

The city council should honor that and allow Traverse Mountain to be built out as planned and not allow it to have you know these burdens that you know, moving it down to these corridors and not and also I just want to make one point too.

Perry has graded, mass graded that area for the last over ten years under the guise of developing it.

They have made millions off of that.

They're not going to be disgorging those profits now, I'm sure, by saying, Oh, we're just gonna kind of abandon that area and give back the profits.

No, they're not doing that.

They're they're saying, well, we'd like to kind of have our cake and eat it too.

We want to have those years of mass grading, saying that we were developing and under that guise of development, made a lot of money, but now we want to kind of move it down here where it's a little bit more convenient for us.

The city council should definitely deny this and not allow that to happen.

Thank you.

Thank you.

My name's Paul Randstrom.

I live in the crossing and traverse community, just a couple hundred feet away from one of these parcels that would be affected by this change in density.

Um I want to start by saying I'm not anti-development.

I know that that parcel will be developed and is zoned for multifamily, it's what we expected to be built there, but we purchased our home with the knowledge of what the current Traverse Mountain area plan is.

And if this concept plan is approved, it would allow for up to 225 additional residential units to be built on this parcel that's near our home at a density of up to 30 units per acre.

When you get to that sort of density, you're talking you go vertical, right?

That's how you get that density, which has a big effect on the feel of the community and neighborhood and would have a really big effect on um our quality of life for our family.

Um like I say, we know the parcel will be developed and could very likely well be multifamily, but not at the scale we're talking about if this density change is allowed to happen.

Um again, current residents purchase their homes with the knowledge of what this area plan was.

And so it's um kind of what everyone is planning on.

If you were there at the planning commission, you would see kind of how the whole neighborhood feels the same way.

Um the developers talking about benefits to the city, and I can see I'm kind of in the business, I can see how city staff is looking at maybe decreased costs and having to maintain roads and the infrastructure up in that West Canyon area.

Um, but the easy route isn't always the best route.

I think probably most of us can think of areas in Lehigh or in other cities that are more where density was shoehorned in too tight in the congestion that causes and what the community looks like when that happens.

Um so even I mean, I can I think you can make the argument it may be easier for the city, the city staff.

I can see the engineer looking at it and thinking, man, this is a lot less infrastructure we have to maintain.

Um but again, just because it's easy doesn't mean it's right or good for the community or for the city.

Um really it's allowing the developer to build where it's most efficient and more profitable for him to the detriment of the current residents.

They're kind of asking us to bear the burden of them being able to be more profitable and efficient in their in their building.

That doesn't feel fair to the current residents in the area.

Um so we're strongly opposed to this concept plan.

I'm gonna ask the council um to uh not approve this concept plan.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

So we'll bring it back up to the dais.

Um Mr.

Matt.

Go ahead and you can kind of questions do you have for Matt tonight?

Mayor has if all 600 U units were transferred out of West Canyon, would you immediately stop grading?

Or do we stop grading?

Stop grading if the if we approve the transfer with the grading to stop.

There's a a standing agreement with Geneva that's completely independent from this discussion that would be intact legally.

So that would continue.

And do you know how long that when's that supposed to be completed?

I honestly don't know.

It's it's based upon the the frequency and the velocity of how Geneva works through the rights of what they can move.

So that's up to the market and how Geneva performs their work.

Okay.

Mr.

Mayor, may I wasn't on the council in 2025, but the documentation that the council asked you to provide, where is it?

The documentation as stated in the report would come in a final approval of the map amendment.

So it's still a requirement.

And the conceptual plan is really the next step for us to say, okay, where could the dead city potentially go?

So we can't really run studies until we have a conceptual plan that's that's somewhat on the table that we're all discussing.

So that would definitely be the next step after there's some type of sense of where the council and where the staff is willing to take this.

And again, we understand that this is a compromise, if anything, it's a compromise or nothing.

And so when we were to come back through for a final map amendment, we would be obligated to come through with those studies for traffic and infrastructure and in and the impacts that would be uh produced by that proposed change in density.

So we're we're still completely open to doing that.

We just there's not enough structure here to even give staff or anybody enough uh guidance to show what that what those studies would need to be.

It was my understanding that they gave you that guidance in August.

Is it did that not was that not conveyed or I guess I'm just wondering if the council at that point wanted those things?

What brings you back now?

Is it just because we have a new council you were looking for the new direction of this one?

No.

There was never an approval over how many units would actually be allowed to be brought down as evidence through this process.

I mean, there's there's certainly some strong opinions here.

And we really want to figure out if there's a compromise on density, the next step would be, okay, where does it go?

And then the next step would be, okay, what are the impacts and therefore the studies that would support the density in those particular areas.

So we're we're really trying to go through this in a methodical way where we understand where the density potentially could go and be uh somewhat approved by by council and staff, and then we would have to, before that finally was approved, support that those findings with the underlying studies.

Yeah, okay, thank you.

Um I'm you know, I love having more commercial, and I can see why having um swapping some maybe some places where your you would want to put commercial instead of the presidential.

But uh and I can see that the benefit of that.

I'm gonna bust out our development code book here.

Okay.

So in chapter 12, it talks about grading specifically, and it says that a completion date must be provided when you are given a grading permit.

It's required.

So what is the completion date of the grading?

And it says grading is only approved if there is for a development site.

Otherwise, it is considered mining.

So as a landowner or as of someone representing the landowner, you should have the information it says that you should track the number of truckloads to leave the site, the daily totals should be provided to the grading inspector in written form.

You calculate the weekly things, their um public works director can be asked about that and be involved.

So all this information I'm asking for you to provide to us so that we have the information to make an educated decision.

Um, you know, before you're asking for anything else, we need to we need to know these things.

And and I heard I read over the planning commission things, I've I was at the city council meeting I previously, I wasn't a city council member at the time.

But I know that they asked you similar questions.

What is going on with Geneva grading it?

When are they done?

What is what is I mean, this was approved over a decade ago.

That's the whole purpose of the group.

That's why it's called grading.

So what's the end date?

I mean, that's literally a requirement by law.

The the end date again is is based upon an agreement that I have nothing to do with with Geneva.

Um we we see these truly as as two separate things.

We can continue on the path that we're on now and continue to grade and build the 600 units upon the grading being completed, which is the entitled right that's in the uh the area plan.

We're simply asking whether the city council, the city staff think it's a legitimate idea from a land use policy to relocate any of those units.

So the fallback position is just continue as we are.

Um and if if that's the case, then that's fine.

We're we're simply trying to have a discussion to say from the short-term and long-term land use, does it make sense to relocate any of those units out of West Canyon?

Well, so if you stay with the the plan as is, I mean you're an equated person.

I know Perry has all the people to calculate all the things to let it to be able to figure out at what point you know they get to the percentage of the hill grading site, they they can calculate all these things.

I've seen your site plan, I've hiked up there myself.

I've I've watched the trucks go.

I mean, there's there's there's requirements that you know disturbed soil shall be stabilized as quickly as practical, that there needs to be mitigation strategies in place.

Um right now there's there's dust blowing off, and I know that the um Utah Physicians for a healthy environment has done studies and they're concerned about some of the things that are going on on your land and what it's causing to other residents.

And I, as a nurse, as a nurse practitioner, that's something that really concerns me is the health of our residents.

And the fact that this has been going on for over a decade.

We're talking about chronic health conditions that could be potentially caused by what's going on on your land.

And you should and you need to be responsible for that.

And and whether this is a land use, some of these things I disagree with.

I spoke with our chief of fire today, and he's he told me, and I said one of the arguments is that it will decrease response times.

What's your take on that?

And he says we keep our response times to four to six minutes on 90% of calls.

And he says that they would, you know, the fire, the West, the wildfire mitigation problems, he he could see some possible issues with stuff, but if there's evacuation roads, which right now you'd be required to put in our tailor road, you'd be required to put in another road.

According to the plan, it should be fine.

And so to me that's a null argument right there.

Um and I just think if this was if this was an argument that I mean, like I said, I think you're an educated person.

I think Perry has you know smart people behind them, they could have figured this out before they started the grading process.

Because that's the whole point of having an area plan and planning for it is that you can figure out where's the ins and outs, what's the fire problems, all those things.

So I mean, just looking at even our code, I don't think some of these requirements are being met right now, and that's a that's an issue.

That's an issue for me to trust that the future promises or future development will um will meet, you know, when when I even at this point, I feel like there's been an exploitation of land and Lehigh City's goodwill in this development.

Yeah, here.

May I ask a question of staff?

So, Kim, um they don't have an end date.

I mean that's another one.

I'll do my best to answer.

Yeah, so the the grading in it was actually called Sage Canyon originally under the old 2000 area plan.

The grading permit for that area was issued in 2007, so it predates all of those standards.

In fact, a big reason we have a lot of those standards is because of lesson learned previously by not having end dates, things like that.

But so they do have a valid grading permit that was issued in 2007.

And as long as they proceed in good faith and they don't stop, it can continue under the grading permit that was done in 2007.

So is it good faith?

I mean, it is and I remember this controversy.

I wasn't on the council, but I remember it and I remember the videos of the dust and all that, and it's the whole mining versus grading issue.

So is at this point our I mean, it's pretty clear they're not grading to develop their mining.

So is that good faith?

And is there do we need to go back and look at our 2007 code and see if they're meeting those requirements or yeah, I I don't disagree that and but it was how we chose to address that issue in 2007 and we continued that in 2012 when we re-adopted the area plan, we continued to validate their ability to mine or excuse me, to mass grade.

The way the area plan defines it.

The way the area plan defines it, I don't disagree that it you know it looks a lot more like mining, but the way the area plan, the way we, you know, as the council at the time said we're okay as long as it's grading towards the eventual development of that property, and they've and they if you look in the area plan, there's actually a definition of mass grading and it says, you know, it's major earth work as long as it's working towards development versus you know just uh like being um or you know, some of these other mines.

So yeah, I I think we are where we are today.

I don't know if any of us you know we I I wouldn't disagree that that might not be where we'd want to be.

But we are where we are.

I don't know, and I don't know, maybe I'll see if Ryan wants to add anything.

I don't think legally we could you know shut them down.

They're operating under a permit that was issued and and it's you know, if anything, it would be considered legal non-conforming.

It doesn't meet our current standards in several points that were made, but but it's been in operation, it's legal non-conforming.

So I mean we we've researched this issue a lot, and it it doesn't make a lot of practical sense, but legally speaking, the defin the difference between mass grading and mining is simply mass grading is taking out material toward an eventual development plan, and and there is one.

Now I guess the you know uh the applicants basically saying if you don't if the city council doesn't want to move the density, they'll continue to develop uh under the current area plan.

So I don't I don't think that's a basis for us to to um to shut it down.

The the more difficult question is if you did approve it, and so then they if there is no more if the density is all moved out of West Canyon, so there is nothing to develop, then I think there's an argument that the great the mass grading would have to stop because then it would be illegal mining.

But for now, as long as they're moving towards a developable project, it's it's it's kind of grandfathered in, they have the vested right under that 2007 grading permit.

As long as they leave some density up there, they can still Yeah, I mean the density as is as is described in the area plan, yeah.

Or an amendment, I mean, or an amended area plan, right?

Like they currently they can develop whatever they have the right to develop under the area plan, that's it.

But to get them to stop, I guess, or maybe it would have to be all of the density would have to be moved out of West Canyon.

Yeah, I mean that's and that's still iffy.

Well, obviously you get out on the margins and they say, well, if you move 599 of the units and we and leave us one, that's not really good faith.

Where that line is would be we'd have to figure that out.

But yeah, I mean, as long as it is there's enough units there to to meet that definition, and that's a squishy definition, then yes.

But obviously there's at some point where we would say that's not really development.

I would argue there's some health things that there's some mitigation strategies that have to be in place.

And if if the people that are doing the grading are not doing those mitigation strategies, that's a problem.

Sure.

Are there air monitors?

Are there required air monitors that exist along the fence line of the operation?

Uh fugitive dust has shown that there's uranium, arsenic as well as crystalline silica in this that which causes irreversible lung disease and leads to lung cancer.

So there's certain things that have been that that's there's certain things that need to be investigated.

And so issues with it that might have to do with the State Department of Air Quality are completely separate from what you know the what we might be talking about tonight.

I don't remember how many years ago this was a huge issue with uh the grading of another project.

And again, people, you know, residents can submit their concerns, complaints to the to the state.

The city unfortunately isn't really equipped to monitor air quality.

We don't have that equipment, we don't know how to measure it, you know, but the state is, and they have in in the past in response to complaints from residents there, come and put those monitors in and done those studies.

Um, you know, and the and so I I don't know why that they wouldn't still be willing to do that if they have concerns brought to their attention.

For sure.

If I can, I I would just state that it is our full intention to to build the 600 units as entitled.

So I I just want to be very clear about that, that we are fully intentioned to to move forward and build those at an appropriate day.

Um Mr.

Mayor, if I may.

Um with respect, I'm I'm not fully satisfied with the answer to my question earlier.

Um so I'm gonna just ask staff.

When back in August of 2025, and I've pulled up the meeting minutes.

Um they in order for the council to have made a more informed decision, they asked for the um traffic studies, utility capacities, and long-term implications of moving these units.

We now have an applicant who's come back and essentially said we didn't want to spend the money getting the studies done, be you know, to empower the council to make an informed decision, so we just want to know how you feel.

And I I I that's essentially what I'm hearing.

Am I hearing that correctly?

Is that what you're also hearing?

I can I I'm sorry if I wasn't clear in clarifying that.

Um it's it's not about spending the money to do the reports.

It's a matter of those reports are a derivative of density.

And if we don't know the density, then the reports are useless.

And what I'm understanding is that they said if we move these units, which is the derivative of the moving of the density, we'd like to see the the impact of that before we make our decision.

Um and since, you know, again, like I feel like once the council is in a place without that information, you're asking us to make a decision.

Um anyway, I I think that's what I'm just calling attention to is um how important it is for if you want us to consider something like the moving of 600 units, um, that those reports are valuable for us and I think that's a good idea.

I totally agree.

And it's disappointing that we don't have them.

I agree with you.

We we we recognize that 600 units were likely not going to be the result of this meeting.

I mean, just to be totally open with everybody.

We understand that there are strong opinions about all 600 coming down.

Um we get that.

I think that the really what we're trying to do here as a step in likely many steps moving forward is trying to figure out if there is a compromise of how many density, how many units would be allowed to be brought down, and then we take the next steps.

We understand this is going to be a long process.

Yeah, and I think it's it's um, you know, I I really want to respect you as the applicant coming through and in your right to petition the government for change.

I want to engage with you and understand you.

I can't even begin to negotiate in any way, shape, or form without the data in front of me to know the compromise.

And I think that's, you know, it and not that I'm saying I'm in favor of it either way, but when we ask, you know, we want it, we're trying to give you your right to petition for change, right?

And so anyway, it's just frustrating that you're asking us to give you some direction on a change, but you yet you haven't provided the information requested six months, nine months ago.

Granted, thank you.

Um, first I I just want to thank the residents of Traverse Mountain for coming out and speaking both at this meeting at the planning commission meeting.

Um that's very helpful.

There's a lot of history here dating back a very long time.

Um maybe the world's longest grading project for the development and history of the world, if you call it grading.

But um what I have a problem with is that I don't believe that Perry Holmes is acting in good faith.

And I think there's a very long history of this, and you know, dating back to the area plan, which you were a party of.

Um you're coming to us to help solve a problem that you created.

Um there have been promises unfulfilled.

There have been documents that have not been provided.

I mean, I could go on for an hour and a half on these issues.

I'm very disappointed.

We have a lot of developers come before us, given I've only been here for five months on the council, but following council meetings long before that, and there's there's certain reputations of developers.

Um right now you guys are not fulfilling that uh reputation that needs to be fulfilled by a developer to be trustworthy, to be partners with both the city and partners with the residents and the neighbors of your developments.

Um there's there's dust issues, right?

We all know about those.

Um there's other issues where I believe you run an HOA that you're not paying dues in.

So in short, like if we were to make a compromise, I would I wouldn't allow one additional unit to be moved out.

I think this is a problem that you created and you need to solve yourself, and I am absolutely against this.

Any other comments?

Oh I'll make a comment too.

Um I you're giving us this concept we're supposed to approve moving units out of West Canyon with no numbers there.

Um that's like giving you carte blanche to do whatever you want.

I'm I'm not comfortable with approving this just for that fact alone.

Um but there's there's many reasons I would not support it.

Um what the resident said this plan was set and they are correct that there's these parcels it says not to exceed these number of units, that's specific there.

If if you thought it was a bad idea, you should have realized that back in the day, right?

But that as they pointed out, there is a reason to disperse the density.

And I appreciate the point that it's near transit.

So I and I really I'm not gonna give up our neighborhood or highway commercial for mixed use.

And I've uh I've had that position on other um proposed mixed use developments.

Um I think we need to hang on to what little commercial we have remaining and not um bring in residential that brings so many other problems.

So uh and I I really don't like that you've stripped the land, not you, Geneva, whoever, and left this pit, and then want to give it to the give it gift it to the city, getting a tax break for for that gift, and then we're left and hopefully it'll re-vegetate it.

Good luck.

Um it that doesn't always happen.

Um but giving leftover land that you don't want that you can't develop on to the city to pay to maintain while eating up our commercial with residential that creates more demands.

Um and the densification in this neighborhood near a school is is not the right location, in my opinion.

So there's um you were part of create Perry was part of creating this plan and the residents moved in with knowing what the plan was and expecting to stick to it.

And I know what that feels like to have the rug pulled out from under you and having developers coming in years later trying to change plans.

Um I'm all about sticking to the plan.

Um I think there's good reasons to have the density there.

It'll be a little more spread out.

We're gonna we have plans for roads for transit.

Um I don't want to bring it down next to this neighborhood and next to the school.

So uh my position on this is just to deny this approval and let you do your 600 units.

That was in the original plan that you're entitled to.

With that, I'm happy to entertain a motion.

Thank you for the conversation.

Uh Mr.

Mayor, if I can find it.

Mr.

Mayor, I move to deny an amendment to the Traverse Mountain Area Plan moving units out of West Canyon and adding them to locations near Tempanogas Highway.

So I have a first from Councilmember Harrison.

Second.

I have a second from Councilmember Stallings.

Any questions on that motion?

Okay, we'll start with you, Councilmember Freeman.

Yes.

Councilmember Lockhart?

Yes.

Councilmember Newell?

Yes.

Councilmember Harrison?

Yes.

Councilmember Stallings.

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

Uh question.

Mr.

Wood, we can go back.

I know we tabled an item, but I know the petitioner is now here.

Can we bring that back?

Yeah, if the city council is willing to untable it, you certainly can.

City council, are you willing to untable item?

It's technically um 3.12.

Which one is it?

3.12?

Or sorry, 5.12.

5.81.

Oh, with here, sorry.

I thought you were moving.

5.8 uh consideration of the Hanson Tennis Facility.

Are you guys good if we the sure or everybody?

Yeah.

So on the table.

I have a motion on the table of a second.

All in favor?

Mr.

Hanson.

Sorry about that earlier.

I just wanted to hear what was going to happen with that last very helmet.

I was after them for planning commission.

So anyways.

But I apologize.

I heard you guys are a lot faster than what I was told.

That's our idea.

It's your lucky day.

So Mr.

Hans, do you want to just describe real quick the the size of your signs and what what you were thinking there to help resolve some and then we'll ask some questions.

Yeah.

The sign for the building is um out on 900 north, right at the entranceway.

Um in the agreement we put six by six.

I think there's another measurement that was in there, and that came from I believe just one of the submitted proposals we had from a sign maker that was four by um four feet, I think by three feet off the post.

So I just kind of put six by six in the development agreement just because I knew we wouldn't go anything bigger than that.

Um just in case our final num, you know, dimensions were a little bit different from um the one of the proposed signs that we had.

So about the sign on the building.

The sign would be, I believe nine feet in diameter up upwards of nine feet uh in diameter.

Um it's a non-lit sign, it would be flush against the building.

Um existing light that we've already got on the building that that's already been approved.

So we don't need to light this building up anymore with signage or anything.

We just want to kind of fill it out and balance it out a little bit more.

So great.

Thank you.

Any questions for Mr.

Hansen?

Are you okay if we change it to the four um forty-eight inches by 48 inches or yeah, I mean if it needs to be at that size, that's fine.

I think we can we can work with them.

So I mean you just tell us what you're wanting.

Well, we're trying to work with you.

Yeah.

I mean, I would I we're still trying to get uh a final drawing of it that I know will go through, you know, still that has to get submitted through normal signage.

I just wanted to make sure that you know it's visible enough uh because we're we're tucked back off that flag lot, so I figured anything at six feet I felt like for sure we were gonna be.

We've just looked at those different sizes.

So I guess I was hoping for six feet, even if we do come in at you know what we've talked about four feet by um three feet high off of the pedestal, which I understand it needs to be on like a pedestal for it to comply with city standards.

So I would prefer it to be the smaller size since it's in a residential neighborhood, but do you feel okay with that?

Yeah, that's fine.

If that's what it needs to be for you guys to feel comfortable, like we I'm fine with that.

Four feet is is okay.

Isn't it right by there's the driveway opening for the school and then there's your driveway opening for like that's where you're gonna put the sign is next to the kind of next to the school where there's a there's a home in between us and the school.

So the we have um kind of the flag lot kind of you know comes out to 900, and there's already existing like rock and landscaping there, so it's just it's gonna fit nicely in there.

It'll face out.

It will be visible if you're driving up and down 900.

You'll see it one way and you'll see it the other way.

So anyways.

Mr.

Mayor, may I?

Um I'm looking at the history of the property, and it looks like in June of 2021 is when the development agreement began, and that was right before I started on the planning commission.

Um I wasn't able to engage at that level.

I just I want you to know that I I'm not a fan of development agreements and and skirting around the code, and I I kind of have some beef over the years I've developed with signs.

So um I j I recognize that this count a previous council has done this agreement with you and things like that.

I just want you to understand that I've kind of over the years developed some um issues around that.

And that that's I just hope you understand that that's not necessarily a reflection on your agreement, more so just I don't really like the concept in general.

So I just wanted you to know that and understand that.

Gotcha.

Okay.

Mr.

Mayor.

So the the part that I am concerned about is already been iterated, but the being at six feet off the ground.

Not off, sorry, maybe not off the ground total.

Total, yeah.

Yeah, it would be total with whatever it's a pedestal or whatever.

So six feet from the the base agenda.

Yeah, yeah, we're talking six feet from like ground to I guess right around here.

Yeah.

So it'll be it won't be higher than this, is kind of what we'd said.

Um so the sign itself, I think in the example was like four feet by three feet, and then whatever pedestal it has to go on top of, which I figured wouldn't be significantly higher.

So I'm concerned about having something that big around school kids and like having it be taller than they are, and then they're crossing the a drive aisle too.

That so I think what you have shown the the three by four.

Yeah, and I'm fine with that.

If that's gonna get this through, I let's do that.

And I have less concern about the buildings almost it's not lit.

It's basically like paint on a building in that regard, but I I do have a little bit more concern about the sign in the parkship.

Yeah, I agree with Heather.

Yep.

Um what's the volume of people coming into your facility on any given day?

Um we roughly have probably about a hundred and twenty juniors in the afternoons from like three to ten PM.

We roughly have probably about 120 juniors in the afternoons from like 3 to 10 p.m.

And we have probably 30 to 40 adults in the daytime morning.

So you know, somewhere up under 200 people probably on most days.

Okay.

And you run it completely in-house.

You're the owner?

Yeah.

Okay.

I guess all that to say.

A shameless plug for the small business advisory council that we just formed.

So as a small business owner, I know the Larsons are here.

Um if you are interested in doing that, please do.

I appreciate you creating uh business and strengthening our economy here in Lehigh.

So they're great, great start for us in Lehigh.

So we've had over 300 juniors sign up in our first three months and a lot of the Lehigh boys and girls from the high school program.

So it's been good.

I am happy to entertain a motion.

There's no further questions.

I'll make a motion, Mayor.

I move that we um approve the right one this time.

Resolution 2026-34.

Amending the Hans and Tennis Facility Development Agreement.

Allowing for signage as part is part of the project.

Um but amending section two point one point six signage number one.

Taking out um the sign will not be more than six feet long and extend more than six feet up.

Well, keep the bath.

Take out the sign will not be more than six feet long and include this sign will not be bigger than 48 inches wide by 48 inches high, and then keep and extend um no more than six feet off the ground.

Does that make sense?

So four by four, but two feet off the ground.

That's great.

Okay.

I'll I'll second that.

But can we also include DRC comments about the downlighting of it?

I would support the downlighting since it's next to multiple homes.

Okay.

So I have a first from Councilmember Stallings, a second from Councilmember Freeman.

Any questions on that motion?

Okay, we'll start with you, Councilmember Lockhart.

Mayor.

Mr.

Mill.

Yes.

I think you're saying the same thing.

Yeah, I will amend um my motion to what um Councilmember Freeman suggested would include DRC comments.

And I will second that.

Okay.

Excellent.

Any questions now on the motion?

Councilmember Lockhart.

No, and I just want to explain again, like this isn't a you thing.

I I just I yeah.

Anyway, signs in residential areas are not my favorite thing.

But I reckon respect that you have a development agreement from a prior council, and I and I understand that.

Thank you.

Councilmember Noel?

Yes.

Councilmember Harrison.

Yes.

Councilmember Stallings?

Yes.

Councilmember Freeman?

Yes.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thanks for coming back, Mr.

Hans.

All right.

On my agenda, this is the last item.

Is that correct?

Awesome.

Consideration of ordinance 15-2026 approving a development code amendment to both table of uses and to chapter 12 to convert conditional uses to permit uses based on pre-existing supplementary supplementary requirements.

Do you have any comments for that, Kim?

Uh I think what you just read is a pretty fair summary.

And this amendment tonight, we've we've taken all of the types of uses that we already had some predefined if you want to call them conditions or or requirements for that use that were already in the code.

And some of them we've modified a little bit, but so we're we're changing those uses to permitted because we already have what we feel like are what would you know 99% or maybe 100% of the time be the conditions that would be imposed anyway.

So yeah, conditional uses are always have always been a little bit problematic.

In fact, the state code makes it very clear you cannot deny a conditional use.

You can impose reasonable conditions, but that it always becomes a misconception with the public.

They tend to think, well, if it's conditional, that means you can just deny it if it if you don't like it or for whatever reason.

So anyways, this effort is to clean up the code, get rid of as many conditional uses as we are comfortable that we already have uh regulations on in our code.

Any questions for Kim?

Um do you mind just untabling this item?

Oh, I will take a motion to untable this item.

So moved.

Second.

So I have uh first from council member Freeman, a second from council member uh Harrison all in favor.

It is now untable, so now any questions for Kim.

Yeah, I was wondering, Kim, why do we allow adult daycare in all residential zones and not a child daycare?

That is a great question.

And some of this we're just dealing with what the existing tables show.

So if you know if you wanted to add child daycare in there, I would think that's fair game that the whole table has been advertised.

So I don't know if it I don't know if I want to legislate everything tonight, but I it just makes me think, especially with you know, some of our state schools to increase access to child care and and things like that.

It's I just am curious about it.

So I think at the time there was a concern that if you allowed child daycare, commercial child daycare in any you know single family, it could overwhelm the neighborhood with traffic and things.

So they I think we excluded it to just the medium and high density areas, and then later we added the adult daycare, so that got added in more zones, but we didn't ever go back and revisit the child daycare.

So anyways, there's look at in the future.

Yeah, I know.

There's this these tables are continually, you know, we refine them.

Hopefully we're getting better over time as we deal with the land use issues.

So good point though.

Yeah.

Um, just comment, Kim, thanks for your work on this.

I I know you're tipping away a little at a time, but I appreciate your work.

Thanks.

Yeah, and I I appreciate this too.

I I was excited to look at this, but at 1.30 in the morning, I'm glad that we tabled it.

So one thing was on section 12.200, zoning requirements for child daycare.

Again, we're looking at that.

Um point number three, it says a commercial daycare shall not be located within 400 feet, measured property line to property line from another commercial daycare service.

Um I think that basically we're adding unnecessary regul regulations there, but I would like to know the intent or the reasons behind that.

Yeah, I think it it just goes back to that same concern.

And this goes back, it's probably been 15 years ago when we dealt with this child daycare thing, and I I think they were just trying to limit, you know, so that you didn't have a concentration.

Again, I I think it was just traffic and what that might do to the character of a of a residential neighborhood.

So we we do have other, you know, for check caching, some of those other uses that we just don't want a lot of them in one place.

But um I think you know, I don't know if that's completely a valid concern.

I I think you know, there's you could reasonably see where if you had you know five or six in one area and all the parents coming to and from that and trying to drop off and pick up the daycares do generate a lot of traffic.

I think it was really, you know, traffic was the issue.

They were just trying to disperse it.

So just so we all I think I just want to clarify that there's only 12 children allowed in a home daycare.

That's the limit.

No, there's 12 cars, but yeah.

So the so there is a distinction between in-home, like a home occupation, and then this is for commercial.

So commercial child daycare, you don't the only limit is what the state would put on you based on the size of your building and how many caregivers you have.

So you could have an actual, you know, fairly large, you know, up to 50 kids.

Um so yeah, just to make sure that's the same.

If you have a huge home and you have a lot of providers and they're over a certain age, there's all those regulations.

Yeah, and and in this case for commercial, you wouldn't even have to live there.

It could be built as a purpose-built commercial child daycare versus the in-home, the person has to live there, and and it's very much more in a neighborhood environment.

So there are some distinctions between commercial and home occupation daycare.

So Rachel, sorry, are you looking at 12.2?

Yeah, right here.

Okay.

So yeah, I I support keeping that because it's residential zones.

And it's tough when you bring any commercial into a residential zone.

So and I I drive by daycare and in a home and it the traffic's real, you know.

So if you got a commercial facility in a residential zone, I I appreciate keeping this in and kind of dispersing that a little bit.

The traffic impact, I guess.

Any other questions for Kim?

It's it says on our code, no more than 16 children are permitted or any at one time.

So that's what it says right here on section number eight.

So I I don't I I just think that the misnomer that we could have 50 kids there.

It's it literally says 16.

So I don't think that we would have that much traffic.

That's my opinion if you have a party at your house, you'll be able to Yeah, sorry.

Thanks for the clarification.

I think if you're in a commercial zone, there's no limit.

But this in the R2, R3.

Yeah, sorry.

I it's been a while since I read through that.

So you are right, there is a limit of 16.

The home occupation is 12.

Yeah.

Yep.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Uh Mr.

Mayor Gill entertain a motion on item 5.12, consideration of ordinance 15-2026, approving a development code amendment to both table of uses and to chapter 12 to convert conditional uses to permitted uses based on pre-existing supplementary requirements.

I move that we approve this ordinance with the findings that it um will benefit the residents of Lehigh and create a lot of clarity for both applicants, planning commission, and the city council and moving forward as they develop their properties.

So I have a motion from Councilmember Lockhart.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Councilmember Lockhart will start with you.

Yes.

Councilmember Newell?

Yes.

Councilmember Harrison?

Yes.

Councilmember Stallings?

Yes.

Councilmember Freeman.

Yes.

With that, we have reached the end.

I'm happy to take a motion to adjourn.

Motion to adjourn, Mayor.

Councilmember Freeman, do I have a second?

Councilmember Harrison, all in favor?

Thank you very much.

Have a phenomenal evening.

Thank you for those that came and participated with us.

That looks close.

Yeah, I know they're so real done.