Yeah, I don't think you can spend too much time.

Oh man.

Okay, welcome to our um council meeting today, our pre-council meeting at four thirty here in the Lehigh City uh council chambers.

Um currently we have Council Member Stallings, Councilmember Freeman, Councilmember Lockhart that creates a quorum.

And uh we welcome all of you who are here with us today.

Um we'll start with opening comment that'll give them be given by myself and then we'll go on to item number two.

Our Father in Heaven, we are grateful for the state, grateful for the opportunity we have to pause and to thank thee for the many blessings we enjoy.

We're thankful for uh this city and the opportunities we have to serve and to uh help and bless the lives of the residents that live here.

We're thankful for the rain that's fallen and pray that thou would continue to bless our land with moisture that we may receive the needs that we need at this time and that we might be able to use those in a wise manner.

We pray for our first responders and also the employees that work here that they may be washed over and protected, that their families may be mindful of their time that they might have the blessings they need as they serve.

We ask the to be with us this afternoon that we may be able to uh have clear minds and clear thoughts as we think about the direction our city goes that we might do so in a manner that would be pleasing into the we're thankful again for all that we have and ask for thy blessings today and do so in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

Okay, we'll start with item two point one, the heavy rescue discussion from the Lehigh fire departments.

Uh what this discussion is around is the heavy rescue that uh we asked for in the budget.

Um there was a lot of positive comments.

I personally didn't hear any negative comments, so I'm taking that as a bonus.

But because it wouldn't be paid for in this budget year, it was denied on paper.

But what we were looking for was did council actually want us to move forward with that.

Is that did I put that right, Jason?

That's essentially what we were looking for is did you actually want us to move forward with purchasing that heavy rescue that we wouldn't get for two or three years or was that on pause.

I think I talked to Dean about possible like impact fees being able to pay for this.

Now realize but then if impact fee, it has they have to look at it and say it's not like it all can be paid with impact fees, a portion could, because they have to look at it and say how much of this can be used relative to new growth.

So it's not gonna 100%.

But like uh Chief was saying, I think in the original budget it was in there, but there's nothing really to put in the budget because there's no dollars for several years.

So it's probably just that discussion.

But so I I I it made a long answer for a short question, but um it's in there, it doesn't have a huge impact just because they have to allocate it out.

Okay.

So some of the impact fees can be used to pay for this.

Yes.

So from my opinion and perspective, that's the information I was waiting on.

I wanted to know if we could use some of the impact fees to help pay for it.

I'm supportive of it.

Um just wanted more information on how to finance it.

So anyway, that's where I stand.

Thank you.

I I just assume we were going forward with it just because there is a long lead time, correct?

And like if we get it going now, then we would get it in a few years or that sort of thing.

And yeah, we think uh well, I haven't engaged the manufacturers too much because once you do, then they just won't leave you alone.

So um, but what we're hearing um is still two to three years out from from signing the contract, really.

So even if I ordered it today, we'd have to do some design work and stuff like that.

And then once we finish that, we'd sign the contract two to three years from then.

Yeah, and I um I agree with both Emily and Michelle.

I had I was supportive of it.

I thought that it was in the works, I guess.

And I had our actually even reached out to the county to see if they could help facilitate some of that.

So I think that was that was my that was my understanding, and I was kind of waiting also for more information for about impact fees.

Yeah, we're still hopeful on that, right, Jason.

We're um in con in talking with uh Commissioner Beltran about that.

So hopefully that can work out and offset some of those costs.

Other questions?

So, Chief, just one question I have.

If we go ahead with this, do we have to put uh upon order?

I'm assuming we have to put some kind of a financial number down to hold or we don't, we just order.

Okay.

No, there is there is a benefit to paying for it when you order it.

They give you a little bit of a discount.

I'm not sure that that's worth it.

That's a discussion we'd have to have with finance.

Uh but the nice thing about not is me, we can pull the order at any time because there's so much demand, they can just sell it.

So they don't they don't mind it.

If if in two years we go, oh things have gone sideways, we just we say we're out, somebody else would buy it.

But at least now we're on a list, correct?

So once we order it, we are on a list that's constantly.

Yep, we get in the build order.

So we talked about it before.

I thought that was awesome.

Let's get in line.

And things change in two years.

You can always pull out, but I think it's it was smart to to get our name on the list.

Okay.

I hear you.

I'll get moving.

Any other questions for Chiefcraft?

Okay, I think we're good there.

Thanks, Mayor.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Okay.

Item 2.2 discussion of downtown facilities master plan as currently designed.

Jason, I know you're taking this one.

Um I wonder if I need to go down there to project.

With this one, council, as Jason prepares, I know this is a a bit of a presentation, so let's get through the presentation, write down your questions, and we can let's get through the presentation as as he goes.

So be mindful as your questions as you uh as you go.

If you need a pen, I've got an extra.

I really don't.

Do you I know you do.

All right.

Oh, is that it?

There we go.

Okay.

So counsel again, uh, we've talked about this a little bit in the past.

Um this is a plan.

Um we we passed this back in 2020.

Um it's obviously subject to change as the council sees fit.

Um so I'll just go through the plan as it's written.

Um I don't have strong feelings one way or the other.

If you do, uh certainly we can look at this, but um, if there's areas that are of more interest than others, um certainly we can slow down and talk about it.

But I'll I'll go kind of quick through this.

Um but this is the area that we looked at of downtown.

You can see a lot of those blue structures, those are all city-owned structures at the time.

Um then these are additional structures, one's the train depot up on State Street, and then the arts building over on Center Street.

Anyway, and we kind of studied Lehigh and what we're about and things like that.

So this is this is kind of the 30,000 foot view of the city campus plan as we kind of drew it out.

And this is basically a glorified bubble map.

Um the shapes of the buildings and things like that, don't pay too much attention to that.

Um, but really um you can see here, but that's city hall that we're in right now, the old city hall, fire station.

Um this is the current parking lot that's in front of this building.

Um the long-term plan was for it to be some sort of plaza that the public could gather in, um, hold public events, things like that, with a stage on the opposite end of that plaza of the city hall, and then to the west of that, uh a library slash arts building.

Again, not knowing what it looks like or what the exact footprint will be.

That's just really a spaceholder.

However, well, and this will go into it.

Um let's see.

Yeah, so again, these are all just very conceptual ideas of what it could be.

Not we don't have any architectural plans or engineering drawings done by any means on on any of these parts of the plan.

Um, but it's meant to be walkable, it's meant to be very pedestrian friendly to get people to and fro uh to and fro from the different facilities.

Um let's see, we did a rough square footage study on what we might need in 2040.

Um again, these can be fluid somewhat, but these are these this is what we've been working towards.

Um we did a uh employment or employee study at the time on on how many uh personnel we needed in each department.

Again, a rough estimate as best as we could figure out um by build out.

Um architectural style, they wanted um two distinct building types in the commercial center and then the primary civic building.

So they wanted this one to stand out a little bit more than the rest.

The rest were meant to kind of look like the police station next door and things like that.

So all right.

So we talked about that.

Oh, so here's of note.

So we did contemplate um a large parking structure to help support downtown.

Uh not only the the civic campus, but also main street.

So you can see that um represented with that that blue parking structure here.

Um again, we assume that it would be on the legacy center's current parking uh parking lot.

We would go probably three stories there, perhaps, two to three stories there to allow for more parking.

It's important to note.

I think we talk about it here, but it's important to note that we wouldn't be able to do the plaza phase until we address the parking.

So the the parking structure domino would need to fall before we could move forward with with taking this parking out.

We've also talked about potentially having a parking structure here.

Um again, it's it's all pretty pretty fluid.

Um I think of of note to the council.

I think there were some questions.

What to do with that piece of property that's directly south of this building leading out onto Main Street.

Again, this is a concept.

We talked about do we want a drive-through where people could access our main street and maybe drop things off or frequent the businesses on either side of this this property?

We also talked about maybe we close it and it's a pedestrian-only path.

So again, no firm decision there, but again, just some concepts there that we could play upon.

So any questions so far?

Anything I'm not addressing that you would like to know, please.

Mayor.

So how many cars will fit in the parking structure?

Is that three levels, four levels?

We don't know until we design it.

Okay.

And then how big, but um yeah.

And then I have a question about the plaza.

What do you imagine being in the plaza?

Is it like farmers markets or things like that?

Yeah, kind of all of the above, city celebrations, things like that.

I mean, it's it's a decent size.

So yeah, concerts, small, smaller concerts, perhaps.

Um maybe the barbecue that's over in Wyans could be here instead.

So things like that about that size.

Okay.

Jason, just a quick question.

So if the library is going to be moved out of city hall, are we what are you going to do with the first and second floor with the library is now?

Are you expecting the same thing?

Yeah, so the thought is is when the existing city hall outlives its useful life, then it would come down and either be turned into more parking, or we could repurpose that lot for something else.

Um then yeah, those those departments would then move over to where the library occupies in this building.

So yeah, that was kind of the long-term plan.

And then the courts, sorry, I did I failed to mention that.

The courts is is designed to be added on to the current police station.

Um there's there's doorways and hallways stubbed in to allow that to happen seamlessly.

Um so that was the plan there.

So would the parking structure provide parking for all of this?

The police station, the courts?

It's it's meant to provide parking for um, I would say this area, not necessarily the police and the courts, because that's that's kind of a walk.

Um but again, if there's parking here on the back side where the existing city hall is, that could probably provide parking for the courts.

Um this would probably be meant more meant for the legacy center, the library, the museum, and then main street.

Okay.

Please, yeah.

Um so how does it work with fire access if you're doing kind of like these narrowing things here on Center Street?

Is higher need access down to Main Street?

Um anyways, just wondering about that and if it's a good location for station 81.

So Chief and I have talked about this.

I mean, and Chief, you can chime in at any point, but I don't think we had a problem with 81 being anywhere along this block or even on the back side of this block, emptying onto first or center or um second north.

I think we just didn't want it to empty out on the main street.

Am I getting that right?

Okay.

We don't want it to empty out onto Main Street.

Okay.

So yeah, we do have some flexibility as to where we could put it.

So any thoughts on the would you keep the literacy center and the historic society where they're at?

Or you've got to um the long this plan indicates that um the literacy center would move to where the art center is.

I wonder if we show it here.

No, maybe not.

It would move up to where the current art center is on center street, up by Lehigh Elementary.

And then the arts arts council would co-occupy that new building with the library.

And what about the historic society?

Um we had talked about different options, but we don't necessarily have a permanent solution for them.

They could stay where they're at, I suppose.

So what did you say is dependent on the parking structure exactly?

The the what of the parking lot?

What it what is dependent on the parking structure?

I mean, so far you've built City Hall.

Yeah, and there's a legacy center, and there's the public, you know, so what is dependent on that?

Really funding.

That would be at what point does the council feel like hey, this is a funding priority and we want to move forward.

So in the meantime, you can take a we have basically the space here that's the public plaza, the library slash arts building and that other parking lot that's parking.

Yeah.

Um because I don't know how much it costs, but I just remember Thanksgiving point scene for a multi-level parking was they're expensive.

Um because I don't know how much it costs, but I just remember Thanksgiving point scene for a multi-level parking was the hundreds of millions of dollars.

I don't know how much one this size would cost, but they are expensive.

Okay.

They are expensive.

My Kim, I know those.

My understanding is like $30 to $40,000 a stall for the case.

Yeah, I actually said to Brad, I think that's the number I've heard in the past is around 20 or 30 to 40,000 per stall.

So per stall.

And right now we have Wines Park that takes the place of kind of this public plaza idea.

Okay.

And again, I mean, if if we wanted that parking or that plaza to stay parking, I mean, that's certainly an option.

It could save us from having to build structured parking.

Um I think part of the thought process was that structured parking would also help service a revitalized main street.

Um kind of like Provo, and you know they're center street.

Um they have some city parking structures tucked behind um center street there.

But those ones are pay.

I mean, I know we're going to talk about parking.

So we could look at that here too.

I mean, everything is on the table.

But but I guess I would say this.

I would strongly recommend that we don't move forward with a library arts building and a plaza without addressing parking, because that would just exacerbate things.

So if if there's no appetite for a parking structure, then we probably would need to pivot on some of these other things.

Okay.

Um people think this is a long walk.

So that's the same.

They need their steps, just like I do.

I guess.

Steps with little kids don't challenge.

So again, I I don't think we need to necessarily redesign this here.

That that wasn't my intention anyway, but um clearly there's there's yeah, decisions that need to be made.

And um if we want to spend some money to revitalize this, I don't think that would be a bad idea to reflect more of this council's priorities and goals.

But what I don't think we should do is kind of throw things against the wall and see what sticks.

I think we we should have some help there.

But may or may um I I like the plan.

I have some thoughts on it, and I like you know, maybe some suggestions, but I think the thing that um concerns me the most is maybe timeline and order of operations.

Sure.

Which buildings next and at what point are we doing it?

Yeah.

Um can you I think there that slide is in here.

Can we walk through what your guys' vision was for that?

Yeah, sure.

And I apologize, I don't have these.

I think it's at the end.

Is it at the end?

Yeah.

Steve has it memorized.

Yeah, it's phase the phases.

Oh.

Oh yeah, it walks us through it.

Okay.

So we are we are here, I guess.

Right?

Am I right?

We just built the city hall.

So the next step in this plan is to build a court.

Build the courts uh right there, north of the police station.

Um frankly, simultaneously we could redo 81.

I don't think it's one and then the other.

Um it would be difficult to um displace the court while we try and just do 81.

We would need a place for them to be.

So that would be my only thought there.

If it was just the fire station, chief and I talked about different ways that we could make them put them up in a temporary facility, that would that wouldn't be the problem.

But a court is a little bit more they have more stringent security standards and rules and things like that.

So yeah, please.

Um could we contract with the county and use some of their space or a different city's space that like is there options of where we could temporarily could look at that, yeah.

The court while we were doing it.

Yeah, we certainly could do that.

I mean, we could get private office space here in Lehigh also.

Yeah.

I mean, all of those would be on the table, certainly.

Um I have some ideas on how we could maybe accelerate this structure, but um if we're looking for a short-term fix, um yeah, we could look at that certainly.

I guess comments, anything.

So looking at this for me, I think just what you were saying, the number one would be the court.

That's kind of the the hinge that's stopping everything and then to be able to do the fire station.

Those two things I don't think are going to impact anything else.

They're kind of where they are where they need to be.

The courts need to be there.

I know that's already planned that way.

So it and that makes the most sense that they can just be able to travel back and forth between the two buildings.

So I am less inclined to spend any money towards doing any kind of design concept or something like this where there's no appetite to start building other buildings or structures or anything like that.

And what's going to happen when this does come forward in eight, ten years, a new council, they're gonna scrap everything we do.

And they're just gonna spend more money again and redo the whole thing again.

I love looking at it and kind of having a game plan for it, but as far as the two most important pieces, I don't see that changing with anything that we do.

Okay.

And again, the the thought with the court being tied into the police station is we save money on not having to build multiple holding sales and that um what is the term?

Secure secure areas, yeah.

Um certainly it doesn't have to be that way, but that was the thought process there to not have to duplicate those.

Mayor, if I may.

Uh so do we have to have a court?

We do not have to have a court.

What does it look like for cities who don't have a justice court?

Ryan, you want to answer that?

I think I think they would just have to go to another city to have their cases.

Utah County downproo.

You'd have to have an interlocal agreement with another city or we could have the county cover our justice court cases.

What is that kind of cost?

What's it like versus having your own and not having your own do cities without a justice court save money?

I don't know.

Yeah, we can look at that for sure.

Um I know American Fork approached us about um contracting with us to do their court for them.

And um we gave them our price tag and they decided that they didn't want to do that.

So I guess in their math, their calculus that they ran, it didn't save them money.

So they're not.

You eliminated the eliminate costs of personnel of all the court personnel and most of my office personnel because a lot of them are dedicated to prosecution.

Yeah, so maybe I should make a strong disclaimer.

I am not advocating to eliminate staff or the justice court in any way, shape, or form.

Yeah.

Asking questions to learn and understand.

Absolutely.

Yeah, the second half would be, but you know, the justice court also generates revenue.

So I I don't know where the numbers come out, but it's it would be both.

We also get money from the AOC to have a justice court.

So yeah, we would have to do a more in-depth analysis.

But yeah.

It can be done because it is done by other cities.

What I and where I'm trying to get to is if we spend millions of dollars on a court, our residents are gonna want to know why did you do that?

And so I'm asking questions that I think a lot of residents would be asking.

Yeah.

Why do we have one?

Why don't we contract with the county?

What's the value add?

You know, all those things so that we can justify spending millions on infrastructure and capital.

I think it's a service to the community.

It would be the simple answer.

People don't have to travel far to address a speeding ticket or or other cases that they may be involved with, but maybe that's less of a priority.

Maybe saving money on a building is a higher priority.

That's not what I'm saying.

Sure.

I'm just I'm just I'm just asking.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So Jason, do you know what American Fork did?

They didn't go with us, but did they go with the city?

They went with the county.

Yeah, they would with the county.

That would be good to know.

Because like it seemed like during the budget that it was almost a net positive to have our own court system.

So to be able to just weigh the two.

You know, otherwise we're going to pay for a service versus like we can recoup, you know, more than the cost.

So that would be interesting to know.

Yeah.

I I think that's a great point.

I think what we would also need to account for in that analysis would be the debt service on a new billing.

So yeah, we could do that pretty easily.

If I could just say one of the things, I mean obviously this is a much broader discussion, but uh some of the things that would be you'd want to consider if you want went with the county was is both your residents and your officers would then have to go down to the Utah County Justice Court to have their cases heard.

So again, there's a cost of that discussion.

But that's that's kind of an important thing is you know if we look into that.

We can have staff start looking at that right away and help you guys make a more informed decision that way.

So I get it.

These are these are big decisions.

So my thoughts on this right now.

Um yeah, definitely know the cost, but seems like the court and the fire station are the priorities.

Um how soon we do that, you know.

I don't know.

But um I I don't like this current plan.

It's there's a lot of empty space and that will end up costing us a lot to have to build the parking structure.

Um I also kind of worry you know, uh main street, there's we don't want to ton there's backed up traffic.

We don't want a ton of traffic on there.

Um I I don't know.

I don't like the cost of the parking structure.

I don't like the empty space.

And did we have a referring to the plaza as the empty space?

Plaza.

What did I call it?

The walking space.

I don't know.

Yeah, the walking plaza.

I would say no on that.

I mean I think somebody mentioned we have Wines Park to do things.

Um let's utilize what we have.

Um I'm not opposed to doing redoing a plan.

And futures councils can have an option if they want to do this one.

You know, they could.

Or, you know, the sorry my mind more fiscally responsible option.

I don't mind providing that.

Um so yeah, I'm open to that down the road.

But I appreciate you presenting this to us.

Can you keep going?

Oh.

I was done, but we can keep talking about it.

Yeah.

Sorry.

Yeah.

Well, I just want to see the next phases, sort of, you know, let's see this evolution.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

For sure.

So um the court in 81.

Then the next phase would be to take down well potentially look at um.

Building the parking structure with the idea that the library and the art center would be built across the street.

Um and then once that's built, then the the city hall annex could go away.

Uh could become more parking, or it could become a different building, whatever the case may be.

Um that's kind of the the last phase.

And once that's done, um then the literacy center down here.

The literacy center down here would move up to the art center on Main Street, and then this building could be sold or repurposed or what have you.

So those are kind of the last dominoes.

And I think when I was reviewing it, there's a senior center actually moves.

I could be wrong.

But um I don't know if we talked about redoing looking at redoing the legacy center, but I believe that's something that this council at least is interested in.

So I don't know where that would fit.

But it is might be in here.

Yeah.

We've talked about studying that, and I think that would be a great first step is to explore what that would look like, whether we rebuild this or we move it to another site or what the case may be.

So some cities we've talked about maybe making a a separate one.

Some cities have multiple um rec centers, or they do one big one like Provo did, you know.

So there's pros and cons to both.

But I I think that would be worth the study, putting some money towards that looking at that.

Yeah, because that could change things here also.

For sure.

So for sure.

Yeah.

Okay, Jason, with this um one where you've got the 79 stalls next to the library and arts center.

And if we didn't do the parking structure, that could also be parking.

So the the plan could in this setup right there without the structure, but keeping and just not having the plaza, that could be almost like an indendum of like this is more conservative.

We're not doing a structure.

We're not doing the plaza, but we're going to have more parking plus the annexed uh place, or you know, when the building goes down, that would be more parking as well.

I think things like that where it's like we can make annotations.

I'm just really hesitant to invest money in something that I feel a few a future council is gonna do what we're doing now.

They're gonna scrutinize it and have concerns with it.

But I do think it's worth looking at some of these things and the suggestions and putting that that way.

I guess I'm just more hesitant unless we're ready to start putting money at it.

That's when I feel like this is the time to start like pursuing a study better, kind of like with the the city hall and these other changes that have happened.

But yeah, the the legacy center, I think too.

Like there's kind of things on here that are probably more important to study than doing it.

And to that point, I mean, if if we're like, hey, a parking structure is a a non-starter, then yeah, that plaza can't that parking in the that parking lot right there cannot go away.

We we can't function without it.

But I mean, if we wanted to hold an event there, we could close it for parking and hold an event in a parking lot.

I mean, people do things like that all the time.

So the plaza is certainly not um as critical as some of the other elements in this plan.

It was just meant to kind of tie everything together, I think, and draw people downtown.

Um but again, if if it's cost prohibitive, then I won't lose any sleep over it.

So what's missing from this plan?

The children's justice court or children's center, you've it's kind of been talked about.

They talked about maybe renting some space from us um either here or there.

But CJC and Lehigh.

Yeah.

We've we've had those discussions, but nothing concrete.

Nothing concrete.

Um we'll have that discussion.

Parking is always kind of top of mind for us, whether it's structured parking or not.

Because um, yeah, it's it's critical.

The more the more people we bring to downtown, the more we're gonna need to address parking.

So yeah, I guess like parks and facilities wouldn't be here, right?

Because they're they've got another spot.

I I guess I was just trying to go through all the departments.

Or other departments in my mind and think who who's missing, who's not here?

Is there a purpose needed that hasn't been addressed?

Yeah, I don't I don't know, Steve.

I don't know if you thought I think we're good.

Because like power, right?

Power has their own public works, we'll have their sites.

Parks has their own.

Uh we have our own.

Everybody else is represented on this site.

The only the only other one is the historical society, yeah, which frankly could be tied into the library's building at uh its own little small and again asking another sensitive question, not taking a position in any way, shape, or form.

Um why are we building buildings for nonprofit entities to be housed in?

Why do we own and maintain facilities for entities that are not for Lehigh?

It's a fair question.

Yeah, I think the the short answer is because we've always done it, but that's not a great answer, but it's a more philosophical thing.

And they they used to be some of them used to be departments, right?

They're part of the city.

So I know other cities like Springville, the city runs that's under the city.

Yeah, you know.

So it's again, it's philosophical.

Yeah, exactly.

So Steve, while you're up here, can you refresh my memory?

We we did allocate money to study the legacy center.

That included the fire station as well, correct?

Or no?

Um no, the fire station would have been separate realistically.

I think how that ended up was do you want to redo the plan and figure out what we're going to do if I'm if I remember right?

Yeah.

So the legacy center was for its own facility, uh-huh.

It's own operations.

I think that was more recreation as a whole.

Yeah.

Yeah, we included the outdoor pool.

Everything it wasn't.

We did talk about putting money towards looking at it right, or so we have money for renovation of this current building that we were talking about putting towards some of it.

Okay.

We did go out and get bids to look at redoing this plan or updating and making sure that we were correct.

That's probably the easier way to say it.

So for the the art center library combo, would that include a theater or potentially, yeah.

I think that's what we envisioned, but so really everything that you see is they did above the chart.

So they went we went through and we talked to staff and we talked to other cities, and we went really in depth and say what do you need by 2026 or 2060?

Um huge obscure numbers that you know are going to change.

We know things change.

Um, but that's the best way we could do it.

So that's what these blue things are representing right now that aren't actual buildings.

If you look and see what this building looks like on here, it's completely different than what we actually built.

And that was due to the fact that we needed the space and the space fit inside of the footprint of what we did here.

Um so that that's why that is that way.

Okay.

Um so I'm in favor of redoing that at some point because I think that all master plans should be looked at at some point.

I think that I need more information.

Um I think we can independently look at the legacy center and recreation as a whole, personally.

I don't think that that is dependent on this plan.

And um we also can, you know, we'll see what happens with the court.

I think we need some more information there, obviously, it but from all the questions that the council is given.

So for me, that's where I'm at.

I just think it's a good information gathering period.

I don't think that I want to jump in and do any sort of redo now, but we could we can definitely look at and get some more information about some of these things and do some of them independent of the master plan.

And my eyes aren't that good, but I really do think that phase two is the court and buyer space, just exactly what we're talking about.

And so we do have a little bit of time, even if we say that this is our you know, in turn, we understand that it has to be changed.

So just I don't know, we're kind of like throwing out ideas.

I love the idea of the museum, the historical society, all of that being close together.

It starts to fill like a city you're gonna go visit and see the museums and the history, like it brings people downtown.

So I I would be one that would want to try and get those type of organizations close together.

I love to walk across the street from the historical side to the museum.

I almost feel like they in a lot of ways they should be tied together.

You go into the museum, and there's a lot of historical pieces there that you kind of so I would love the idea of trying to incorporate that more together, and then it it really starts to come together with the purpose of it, and it also ties into the you know, why do we have these or outside organizations, nonprofits being part of this whole community um area?

But I'd love to see that all coordinate together.

But that that starts, I start to see that vision coming together and like what what the purpose is of this rather than how we have everything kind of all over the place right now.

So if you bring the arts council, the historical society, the museums there, that all starts to come together.

And then you then I kind of feel like it's bringing in the restaurants, it's bringing in retail people are gonna come and start.

This is a place to visit rather than pass through.

And I would just add, I um absolutely want to see the legacy center and station 81 addressed soon.

And I recognize the bottleneck to that is the court.

And so for me, those three things um are a top priority.

Funding, timeline, all of that.

I recognize we don't have all the information.

Um, but I would support efforts to move forward on those three things.

Any other comments?

Great, thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, item 2.3 parking code presentation and discussion.

Co-present.

Co-present, just remember that microphone.

Yeah.

Oh yeah.

Do we have a heck of a PowerPoint for you guys?

Um I'll just give a quick introduction.

Um we have about maybe 20 minutes worth of some PowerPoint slides.

We want to walk you through between standard commercial and mixed use.

I think most of you are pretty familiar, but we'll just quickly walk you through that.

And then we'll get into we've started doing our own parking study and we've got some preliminary data that we'll share, you know, what is available in this downtown area.

And we'll we'll kind of talk about where the downtown is when we're talking about downtown.

Uh and then Mike will really dive into some short-term, medium-term, and long-term strategies that we feel like we could start to implement to address parking downtown.

So, anyways, with that, there's about 45 slides.

So we're gonna move rapid fire and run.

Yeah, and then I mean, if you have something burning, bring it up.

But uh otherwise we'll have you know, whatever time we have left, we can discuss in great depth the rest of it, however long you guys want to stay, because I think this is the last item on the work session, right?

Or the pre-council, sorry.

Okay, so so we're good and just know that we're gonna have a closed session.

So you should be fine.

So go ahead, you've got at least 45, 50, 55 minutes.

Okay, yeah, we want to make sure we allow robust discussion.

Okay, so um I'll start out by just introducing, and I don't know, Mike, if you had any other introductory.

One thing I was gonna say is pretty much everything dealing with planning is so interwoven and complex.

Just keep in mind when you're looking at this presentation, how this interacts with all other policies and the way and ultimately like what Heather was getting after is the vision of the city or the vision for the downtown.

So think about I guess how all of this complexity kind of interweaves with each other.

Yeah.

So, anyways, this is an interesting picture.

Maybe you've seen this one before, but yeah, that's the familiar building on Main Street.

This was I think this was uh about 1920.

So the automobile had only been around for about at least mass-produced autos since 1908, so about 12 years.

Still got the hitching posts.

Somebody's got a bike they're riding in this one.

Uh kind of an interesting.

Okay, so for standard commercial zones.

So if this is in a a new commercial area, zone, you know, heavy commercial, commercial, light industrial.

There's nothing that's ever been built there before.

This is how we handle parking.

I think again, I I won't spend a lot of time on this, but as a couple of examples, if somebody builds a restaurant, it's one stall for each two and a half seats in their seating area, plus a half a space per employee on their largest shift.

So that's so it's just a formula.

What's your building size?

You know, what's your seating area, how many employees?

Boom, that's what your parking is.

Um, and then the retail stores, it's just a you know, one stall for each 300 square feet.

And these come from the um Institute of Transportation Engineers, they have a parking generation table, and a lot of it's just you know, some of it's based on historical use, but some of it is literally just kind of you know, oh that sounds about right, you know.

That's but there's always these anomalies, right?

You'll get a swig or in and out burger, and they just blow this thing up.

Um we've seen that in our own town.

So in-and-chick-fil A versus like Burger King.

Every time I see Burger Close, I want to go or Taco Bell, or yeah.

Um, so anyways, this is kind of what that looks like.

Here's Smith's, you know, they you got the giant retail store, some of these other restaurant and and retail stores, smaller stores.

This is the parking that it generated, the the required parking.

And you know, uh some days Black Friday definitely this gets more full, but this is pretty typical.

You'll see about 50, 60 percent utilization.

We will we'll get into the trade-offs a little later in the presentation too.

So yeah, okay.

Now we compare that to our historic, and I'll I've got a map on the next slide that will show you exactly where those are located.

But so we have a totally different policy.

In this case, instead of this formula that we just, you know, it's cut and dried, this is how the code described it.

This is right out of the code.

I've just put it in bullet points to easy make it easier to digest.

There's no minimum parking requirements.

Our policy is to maintain all of the existing uses that don't meet the parking requirements, and encourage additional uses.

So yeah, we don't want to stagnate and just pause everything be because of parking.

At least that's that's what our current code talks about.

And then the zoning administrator, depending on who is the reviewing body, they would make that determination, whether it's the zoning administrator, the DRC, or the planning commission.

And and they can be guided by that table.

That table nine oh is one I just showed you that says you know, this many for each square foot or whatever.

Uh but it's all case by case.

So here's the two areas that we're talking about.

The we have the historic commerce district, which is the two green areas, which covers all you know, from the roundabout all the way to um central bank, and then you've got the little piece um up on state street where Osman design and some of those older historic buildings are, and then the mixed-use zone is the purple.

So you've got a lot of state street and main street.

So those are those two areas that the code identifies that the parking is not set and defined, it's it's case by case.

So here's a classic example.

You know, this is Main Street looking east.

Um, yeah, a lot of these buildings are very old, were built before cars were invented.

So if you go to the next slide, all of the buildings in this photo right here have zero parking.

Um, so if we required parking, and we'll get into a little bit of the those trade-offs in a minute, but yeah, just to illustrate, you know, this these are all you know, 1890s, 19, early 1900s.

Um, so yeah, that's what we're dealing with.

We're trying to make you know the best with what we have.

So yeah, let's keep going.

So, yeah, this is kind of a summary.

Why why do we treat these two areas, you know, that all the commercial versus these special areas.

Um, yeah, they were designed to encourage redevelopment, reuse of older buildings.

We recognize that this downtown area we have to have multiple parking sources.

This is a great segue from the discussion we just had about our own city campus and the parking structure.

There's some on street parking that normally we wouldn't really provide the type of parking like we do on Main Street for other areas.

But yeah, we want to encourage, we don't want to stagnate, like I said, or freeze everything.

But and it also I think assumes that there's it's a different experience.

It is historic, and there's an expectation that instead of just pulling right up to the restaurant you want to go to and park out front, you might have to park and walk a little bit.

So let's keep going.

So oh, okay.

I know this, and I don't want to go too far down any rabbit holes, but this is a very prominent example that we've had recently.

You've got porch coffee.

They have this building when it was approved, it's in the mixed use zone, so there was no minimum.

They provided as much as they could with that angled parking.

I think now and I don't know, I I think it's stabilized a little bit because each business now has signage and some identified parking.

But so you've got this um new coffee shop that came in.

But but kind of here's one way to think of it is if you click on the next one.

So if you say there was, you know, they have I think three or four stalls that are kind of you know their stalls.

But if you had to park around the corner behind the armory, which is all you know, that's a public street, or even on this angled parking by the pool, and walk into that store, it's 338, 39 feet.

Now, if you compare that, if you're at Walmart and you you know you park midway out, you know, two thirds of the way out, which this is a pretty common day when I go there, or say you want to park by a shady tree or whatever, exact same distance.

So I think people have a mindset.

I you know, I think if you ask most people, they'd say, well, I'm parking closer to the front door here because but the other one you have to walk around, but it's the same distance.

Anyways, sometimes there's perception issues.

People see things one way, but in reality, there may not be any extra walking.

Yeah.

Okay.

Let's keep going.

So Mike is now going to talk about yeah, this um preliminary re findings of our parking capacity study.

Oh right.

Okay.

And uh I know I love talking about bikes a lot of the times, but I also love talking about parking, so this would be exciting.

So everything in red here is parking in this nine block area of downtown.

We could obviously expand the study if we wanted to, but we focused on the nine blocks because it includes the historic core and the city campus and the legacy center.

So everything in red is either on-street parking or the bigger blocks are like the off-street parking lots.

So in the downtown, we have a total of 1,144 public parking spaces, including the on-street parking, and then 288 private parking spaces, and that's everything in the red there.

Total parking in this nine-block area is 1432 stalls.

Now, I want to look at like the daily daily averages.

So these are colored based on the average use.

This is parking data from June 2nd of this year.

And every hour of the day, we'd go out and fly the drone and get all the footage, and then we'd count up all the cars that are parked there.

So this is the average use for this day.

We have a couple more days of footage that we'd like to analyze and continue doing that going to the future as well.

So green is lowest, orange, you're getting a little more, and then red is the highest.

Yep.

Yep.

Um, the average use of public parking is 388, and the average use of private is 53.

So average use throughout the day is about 441 parking uh cars parked within those parking spots.

So if you look at 1400 stalls, on average, 441 of them are being used.

So that's where some of the perception maybe comes around parking because people can't park right by the front door of the legacy center.

Maybe they feel like there's a parking problem.

So there's a higher demand around the legacy generally, is what we're seeing in the study.

Um that's pretty evident when we go to oh, and I did want to highlight main street in front of the businesses as an average use of 32%.

Um, just those on-street uh parking stalls there.

And then the the busiest lot is that senior center lot, which has 86% average use.

And the legacy center throughout the day is 66% average use.

Um so this is throughout the day.

The green line is the total use, the orange is all the public parking and the private parking is on the bottom there.

This is all unused parking in the downtown.

Now, what this gets after, there's kind of a proximity issue here.

You know, there's a lot of demand basically for the legacy center, um, and especially the senior center lot gets most used.

Um there have been a couple times where that one's completely full.

The legacy center lot tends to at least have 10, 15 stalls at the busiest times available.

Um, in the world of parking, the ideal is 85% usage of parking because there's still still some available for people to use, and they're not sitting and circling the whole time and creating more traffic issues.

But it's not such a waste of space taking up too much parking.

This is just an interesting map.

Every hour of the day we would put dots wherever there was a car park, and you can see kind of a heat map.

So if you see more faint dots, that's where there's less people using it over time, and the darker the dot is where they're getting used more often.

Now, if that caveat, like the apartments, for example, some of the cars never moved, they just stayed in the spot all day long.

So the dots are gonna show uh darker in that case.

So this is the peak hour for the day.

Um that's 11 a.m.

is the busiest time.

Uh the total use of public was 484, private 52 and a total of 536.

So 37% of the total parking in the downtown was being utilized.

But again, you can see the demand around the legacy centers where it gets to be the most.

I do always like to know there are other parking happening in the downtown that we uh tend to observe.

So there's other trips, there's a lot a lot of undocumented biking and walking trips.

Um I like to just throw that out there.

Now, just to kind of sum it up, um there is more capacity than demand, um, but what we need is demand management.

So that's uh what we get to with parking uh all over the place.

There are management strategies.

There's no silver bullet one solution.

I like to talk in terms of strategies.

There's different things we can do to help.

I don't think there's ever a silver bullet with some of these planning things, whether it's traffic parking or anything like that.

Um we have, like Kim said, short, medium, and long-term strategies, and this is by no means all inclusive.

These are just some that we threw down on the slideshow.

Um, but we also I always encourage you to think about what's the big picture, what do we want the outcomes to be, what kind of place should the downtown be, and our parking strategies should follow that.

And then also what are the externalities of our decisions, parking policies, also land use policy, transportation, air quality, safety, city budget policy.

It like what I was saying earlier, everything is weaved together.

So when you make a policy about parking, it affects all of these things.

So some of the potential short-term strategies, for example, one could be along Main Street.

We want to limit the parking, um, focus on providing parking for the businesses for the customers that are coming and going.

So if you do shorter term parking, uh, like we've done that on Center Street over here by the museum.

Uh there's like 15-minute parking.

I think that's anticipated to be just like drop-off type parking.

Um, so you can do the same thing on Main Street to help manage that a little bit.

Um, there's parts of Center Street that we could probably eliminate some of the red curves since one of the crosswalks was moved.

Um, so we could pick up a couple of spots.

Um we can even just use some paint like we've done on some other streets and strike.

We can actually increase capacity if we want to on some of the side streets.

Um, that's one thing that could be done.

Umprovements, because the idea, and may actually I'll get to it on one of the slides here in a second, but trying to connect the different parking lots to the locations people are trying to get to.

Uh, one thing we did see is the senior center lot, the ADA stalls were often full.

So my recommendation would be looking at a couple more ADA stalls there.

If there's signs out there that say senior parking only, but that's not easy to enforce.

But if it's ADA parking, which it does show there's pretty high demand for it, even a couple more stalls at least, and you can see where it goes from there.

Um can give people some options because when it comes to parking, those who really do need to be closer to the building, you want to make sure they have that ability.

A guy like me, I can walk a block, and even if I grumble about it, it's good for me.

Um, this is just an example of my the literacy center where we just stripe some parking spots.

Um, so instead of parallel parking, you do angled or perpendicular parking, and that really increases your capacity, and you're actually taking advantage of our the amount of asphalt that's down there.

Um, some of the medium-term strategies could be things like better street crossings, some traffic calming, make it more a little more pedestrianized so people don't have this mental barrier of you know streets to cross to get to different locations.

Um, some things could even be creating more interest in that legacy center plaza.

Um more permit.

I think there's supposed to be a bolt there.

Anyway, more permanent parking capacity increases on the side streets, but you do it with more curves like we've done on the north side of the old city hall here.

The the idea of parking management is especially with the talks of new office buildings and things coming to main street, is uh employees should be parking a little farther away from their offices versus customer parking should be closer to where you know the businesses are.

So that's where that parking management could be charging for parking, and that's maybe on the long-term solutions, could be just the time parking.

There is enforcement that has to go with that.

Um, but there's some some of those things that you can utilize to help enforce or reinforce employees not parking right, where you should have more turnover for businesses.

Um then more intuitive walkway from center street to legacy center, for example.

And one thing I like to show with this is not just tackling parking, but some of these strategies can be most multifaceted.

So maybe at the same time, I hate saying killing multiple birds with one stone because I don't like to throw birds stones at birds, but you can kind of do that thing here.

But you can reduce asphalt and their urban heat island effect, um, increase greenery, which traffic calming, safer streets, shorter crossing distances, and improved character and beautification of the downtown.

So if we can try to do all of this at once, even better.

So, an example is 200 north there.

This used to all just be asphalt where the red is there.

But now we've added greenery, we've increased the parking supply.

It's it's not the most traffic calm street, but it provides an element of that.

Something else that it does is this is where the street used to be, but it self-enforces parking away from the intersection, so it's safer, and then even shorter crossing distance distances, so it's a shorter crossing there, which is safer for pedestrians.

Um even here in this mid-block crossing that used to be the roadway, but now we have our crosswalk and planter areas there.

So we're increasing parking supply, but also reducing the amount of asphalt, increasing greenery, making it a nicer place, a safer place.

So that's where I like to look at.

We're interweaving these strategies together.

Not we're not just addressing parking, we're also making our downtown nicer, more green.

And then, yeah, the shorter distance there.

This is just to show two in the north is what it was, what it is now.

When those trees grow up, you can have more shade.

And uh the more trees you have like that along the roadway, the more it's shown to help even slow vehicle speeds down.

Now, these are some possibilities on other streets.

I haven't totally finished my drawings, but this was something I was drawing on AutoCAD.

You know, you could just add these little islands in different places and put striping, and you can put trees in all those islands, and you can have uh more parking.

So again, you can do the same strategy that we did on 200 north here and do in other areas.

It's obviously a little more expensive than putting striping down, but this can help contribute to those other things we'd like to see.

One thing that uh did want to mention is you have the parking lot right here, which currently is very underutilized.

Um, but the the crossing here is a little better because it kind of pops out on the one side, but vehicle traffic still goes pretty fast on this uh street here on center street.

So I know if I had kids, it would make me a little nervous to cross it.

Um but the more we can make a better crossing here, perhaps you know, you're right there by the door of the legacy center.

Perhaps it'll invite people together.

This is an example.

You can see the legacy center parking.

This is actually the our last council meeting of while I was listening to the other presentations.

I threw this picture in here.

The parking lot at the time of the legacy center, you can see it's pretty full.

But look at how empty this parking lot is here.

Um, but if you can make a visual and a safer, better connection to the legacy center, perhaps this parking lot would see more use.

Kind of similar to what Kim did going through the end of this parking lot, 425 feet, 425 feet gets you into this other parking lot as well.

So distance-wise can be similar.

Obviously, a lot of the parking over there is a little closer, but there's a lot of parking happening here, none over here.

We're getting complaints that there's not enough parking, but really, you know, the data shows there's a lot of parking, but how do we use it?

How do we get people to uh use the other parking as well?

This is an idea.

Here's the legacy center plaza.

Um, what if we made a better crossing?

Yeah, maybe you have a trail or something along the roadway that could be in the longer term plan, and continue that walk away that we've built with the city hall here.

So you can see continuing it straight across and better connecting towards uh the legacy center.

And again, like I said, this is more midterm.

This isn't something you do right away because it has more cost to it, but there are these elements that you can uh add to it.

All right, long-term solutions, things that we can look at is traffic circulation plan for downtown.

Right now we get a lot of that regional cut through traffic.

Is that something we do or don't want?

Um, if it isn't something we want, then you'd really want to look at circulation that can help with uh especially those main street spots.

People don't like getting in and out of those because there's so much traffic going through.

But if the traffic volumes were lower, people would be a little more comfortable with that.

Um, and it helps make it a little bit more of a walkable place.

Um, I know we talked about the public parking structure.

The one thing I would say on that is uh it does come at a high cost, and to me, the level investment needs some kind of a return with it.

So a parking structure could be combined with kind of a public-private development, for example.

I've seen cities do that.

Say you have the parking structure and you wrap it with either some businesses or a few apartments or something like that.

That can help contribute towards the cost of that.

But in my opinion, we're not nearly to the level of demand that we need to structure today.

We still have a lot of available parking.

There's a lot of these other management strategies, I think, kind of as we're going along with our downtown in the future, it's something that we can always look into, but at least today I think we've got a ways to go before we see that kind of demand.

Um if you ever charge for parking, um, you want to do goalilocks pricing, we make it too expensive, then people won't use it.

It's too cheap right now, it's mostly wild west out there.

People can park wherever they want.

So some cost to parking in those high demand areas will naturally push people that don't want to pay it to park a little farther away, and those who are okay paying it, we'll park closer still.

And then uh one thing we can continually do is keep updating this parking study that we've done.

Um that's something that we as staff can continue to do.

Um then uh implement the vision, at least our current plan says it's identifies downtown as a vibrant heart of the community.

Um then obviously can improving the bike pet network, giving other options and mobility to get to downtown.

That can also really help with uh reducing parking demand.

Okay, all that being said, let's ask what the trade-offs are.

Oh, there you go.

Thank you, Mike.

Kim.

So cost of constructing a new parking uh new parking structure.

Uh it's about 40,000 per stall.

So let's say a 300 stall parking structure, you're about 12 million dollars.

Uh Mike did comment that there is public-private partnerships that we could probably enter to enter into.

I've talked with a couple developers that would be interested in looking at uh some type of multifamily housing attached to uh a parking structure over by the legacy center.

Um so there would be some opportunities to take a look at that type of a of a structure, or the city could look at utilizing it itself.

Um the other thing that we've talked about, uh the vibrant downtown with users, businesses that come and stay versus stagnation of area development stalls or knocking down buildings for parking.

Uh do you have that thing?

Yeah.

Capture a couple of slides here.

I'll right.

And then minimum parking requirements, create a barrier to entry for local businesses to start up lends more to corporate businesses that tend to exceed requirements anyway.

So I think we'll lead into we had uh the council had also asked about uh lease parking.

Uh we currently do have a lease parking agreement with Parker Brown uh for the uh we call it the uh Porter's place or this building here on the corner.

Uh it's for 30 stalls.

Uh we have utilized the parking structure or the parking here in this area for that uh as well as utilizing the overflow parking lot by the on the other side of the legacy center as the overflow if this parking lot ever goes away or becomes too full.

So it allows them multiple areas to utilize the parking.

Uh we currently only charge them $7500 a year for that lease rate.

Um so again, if the council decided to do something further, uh we could take a look at what that lease rate might look like.

Um Parker Brown is looking at another building over on 200 uh west and main street.

That will require another lease parking agreement if the city's willing to take a look at that, as well as some other development along Main Street.

Right now, we're probably looking at anywhere between 40 and 50 parking stalls that will be required uh under a lease agreement to do development uh that's currently being proposed in the downtown area.

Is that in addition to the 30?

Or that's no that includes the 30.

That'd be 30 for Parker Brown.

We have about 11 uh that are being asked for uh for another uh development uh that's what's that like the the address, the the the two-story that they're looking at, the skinny building.

Yeah, it's uh right next to the studio.

The old Mark Wilson architect.

Yeah, the old Marston Yeah, yep, mid-block over here.

Uh and then uh we did have a proposed uh uh hotel complex going over here that might need that might need one stall.

Um so and then we've got some other additionals that are being looked at in the downtown area.

So again, that's one option we could take a look at to help uh the businesses in the downtown area.

Without parking, uh we force people to park outside of the area and walk in.

That's not a bad idea.

But the flip side of the coin is if we're also going to require parking of the businesses, then we probably need to be willing to work with them in some form or fashion uh to help with the parking.

Can you explain a little bit more about lease parking?

Like is it a time is there a timeline on that contract?

Is it just an annual and annual contract renewal unless they either uh vacate because they've got additional parking already secured, and or the city has to work with them on finding additional parking because we're doing away with parking structure.

So it's just an annual renewal contract.

Okay.

But if the city doesn't renew, then they're in trouble.

Yes, they would be.

Okay.

But then the flip side of the coin is the buildings already built.

What do you shut them down because you don't have parking?

Or you see the trade-off?

Yeah, I'm just saying if we had a lot of businesses and they need a lot of lease parking, and you know what, yeah, anyways, just correct.

Yeah, that's the trade-off.

Yeah, no, no, no, and I agree.

I agree, council, uh, councilman Freeman.

It's it's the trade-off.

It's if if we go down this path, we still have to continue to provide those stalls in some form or fashion, or work with the the uh the development community to say how do we continue to provide those parking stalls?

And again, that's why I think per all of this, Mike's really kind of tried to take a look at and say, well, okay, if we need to look at additional outside of the area, what could we put in or install that would help with some of that as well?

So uh come on, Mike.

Okay.

Let's see.

Yeah, some of the parking concerns.

Let's see, I think we kind of just talked about this, but um yeah, parking needs to be managed no matter what develops or goes into the existing buildings.

You know, actually, I think these next two bullets were not supposed to be on this slide.

Come mixed up.

Anyway, mixture, this just says mixture of uses helps with offsetting peak periods, so sharing parking, sharing is caring, so sharing parking between businesses is nicer than having separate parking lots everywhere.

And then mixed use can significantly reduce vehicle miles traveled.

Um there's a study done at the University of Utah to 30 percent 30 to 50 percent vehicle miles traveled, reduced in mixed use areas.

So that basically shows there's less driving happening because you have destinations closer together.

Um I think you were kind of touching on this, Marlin, but looking at parking as a shared district resource versus requiring every single site to have their own parking lot, and we'll get to the trade-offs right here to kind of show what that would mean.

Um Marlin, you talked about the leasing uh spaces, municipal parking lots and on-street spaces.

We just want to keep monitoring those use and demand, and we can adjust our strategies as we go along.

So now I want to talk about the trade-offs, the vision and the future viability of the place on the left.

Obviously, love our main street.

The right, I lived by a KMR like this in Murray when I first got married, and this happened too.

I couldn't find a picture of it, unfortunately.

But it looked kind of like this for a little while, but now it's getting redeveloped.

But the place on the left, in my opinion, stands the test of time a lot better than the place on the right.

These buildings on the right purposefully are built to only last about 30 years or so.

Um, whereas the left is built to last a long time and incrementally renew itself over time.

Um so these are just kind of some examples.

If some of these businesses were required to add the parking that are typical code requires, so dominoes pizza right there would have required about 22 parking stalls.

Pioneer party would have required 14.

We had bakery there, we've required 19 stalls according to our code.

So that's like uh uh just another visual example Porter's place here for all their uses would have required 52 total stalls, and that's what the parking lot would have looked like next to it.

So you could see, you know, do you want this for your downtown, or do you want to meet the parking standard and have parking lot there?

This is where the question of what is the place we're trying to create.

Um but if we had to put that parking lot, not that we would have actually done this, but say we force them to meet the requirement, you have a parking lot there, and we wouldn't have the opportunity for the studio, the jewelry store, office spaces, the chiropractor, the bakery.

So there's all these small local businesses that take advantage of these spaces because the barrier to entry is low, they don't all have big parking lots that required to be built to start a business.

Um then we asked the question of downtown, should it be a place that's easy to park?

Should it be a place of character of vibrancy centered community?

I would say it's not black or white, there's kind of a balance to it all.

Um but obviously it's for you all to decide ultimately in the vision.

Um when you look at our back to this map of the downtown, the total downtown area is about 73 acres.

About 22% of that is the parking areas themselves.

This doesn't count the streets, just the parking areas.

So of all the land in the downtown, about 22% of it's devoted just to storage of cars.

Now, if you look at some of the places that have had to meet our code requirements, this block, for example, in Thanksgiving Point, of those areas that have been developed, 64% of the land is parking.

So this is actually more of a instead of a commercial zone, this is a parking zone with some commercial uses in it.

So if you look at the area where all the restaurants and the gas station are at, it's like 56% parking, so you're averaging around 60% of the use of land.

So that's where it's also comes down to the city budget.

A lot of these spaces don't come anywhere near utilizing all that parking, but we require so much of it.

And in some of these cases, the businesses themselves chose to do more parking than even what our code required.

But you can see it's regularly not used.

So that's basically watering down our commercial zone where instead of having uses that bring you know activity to the area, bringing tax dollars to the city.

Um again, there's a balance.

We wouldn't want to get rid of all the parking, have zero parking, because that's a problem too.

But it's this just kind of poses the question what what are the trade-offs?

What's that balance that we need to strike?

Um then the idea in a downtown setting.

This is Park City, actually, where I grew up.

I was a naughty teenager here sometimes, but sorry.

But uh not that naughty.

But uh we're at the the idea in park cities they do have a parking structure, but they have a lot of vitality there, they have a lot of business that obviously justifies the investment in a parking structure up there.

Um but you don't there's limited parking on main street, but most people are parking off in the parking structure rather than parking right in the middle of it all.

Um they choose, and sorry, it's not a very good image, but I just cut it out from Google.

They've even been taking away parking on their main street to put in these restaurant spaces, so they're adding to the businesses.

Parking structures still have plenty of capacity, so the idea is when you get enough vitality and enough activity, people are more willing to walk more to their destinations versus more of a running an errand when you run your errands, you don't want to be walking forever, you just want to hurry and go.

So that's kind of the idea.

A lot of the downtown areas, they some of them go into vibrant places like this that are more a destination rather than just running areas.

Anyway, that being said, there's 45 slides for you guys.

Yeah.

Lots of great information.

Thank you.

Well, it's uh any questions.

Um, yeah, do you think the design of parking um in the area kind of impacts how people use it?

Like when you were showing me here this, how people could park here and go to the legacy.

I was just trying to think, even in the pedestrian walkability, because you know, you're trying to go the close the shortest distance as a pedestrian, right?

Or if you have a stroller or kids or anything like that.

Some of me think I wonder if it's influenced with the landscaping we have.

The pedestrian access, I don't know, just things like that.

Yeah.

Signage.

Okay.

And there's actually down at ICSC when I was down there with Jason and Marlin.

This uh lady came by and she's like, hey, we've got these like temporary art installations you can do and it can draw interest.

I'm like, even something like that on a temporary basis could like draw attention and maybe show people.

I one thing to think about is like center street wasn't there, not again, not that I'm saying it shouldn't be there, but if it just wasn't there and the parking lot was up to that point, and it's just landscaping over the legacy center, I would bet, I guess not guaranteed that more people would use this parking because that kind of mental barrier is not there, especially when you have kids and things like that.

So that's uh that's where thinking about street design and making it more of a walkable approach, kind of helps tie these places together, especially if we're trying to make a cohesive city campus.

I think somehow through the design, like you're saying, can help connect them a little better.

Well, and we have this big green strip here, and then we have a wall that kind of basically tells people no, right?

So I it just I would love people to use this, but I would never think of using that from the legacy center because I would think how would I how would I cross that with my kids?

Yeah, yeah.

That would be a good idea.

I think those bump outs on the street would really help because then you're only crossing, you know, if you went down to 22 feet or 24 feet versus you're crossing you know almost 40 feet of road, you could cut that in half, so then you just have that much less time that you're exposed to cockers and stuff, especially with kids.

And if there's like a corner access instead of walking to like the ADA ramp or something like that, if you are needing that.

And crosswalk signals to help feel safe and alert people that people are crossing makes a difference.

One interesting note to that is uh again thinking of other benefits too is we've done a couple of those uh traffic calming tests last year with Luke, who's our previous traffic engineer.

And uh we set up basically curb extensions with those posts that everybody loves so much and uh set them up and um not as good on the east side but on the west side or Jordan River, it did slow some speeds down of vehicles, but what it did was increase the guild compliance so you it is safer, drivers more likely to stop for you.

But also it actually reduced delay for both pedestrians and drivers because if you're a driver and they're stopping for someone at the crosswalk, you're having to wait longer for them to cross.

You're actually slowing your trip down more as a pedestrian you wait longer because people aren't always yielding to you.

So by doing that, it actually made it less delay for everybody to get to where they want to go.

Okay, thanks.

Lots of comments and questions.

I don't know.

I yeah, I agree with that idea that if you make it more visual and a maybe a raised crosswalk a little bit, you know how they have those.

I just got back from road trip, so I've been looking, I took pictures of bike lanes, so I was gonna say I do that now.

You pay more attention, I guess.

But that's one thing I noticed.

There's a painted crosswalk versus you know, when it's up and there's lights, and it's like I'm going to that one.

That's where I look look at design and how it also affects people psychologically.

So a raised crosswalk also tells drivers you're entering pedestrian space versus a typical crosswalk because you're entering car space.

It kind of flops a little bit and that helps, I think with the secret.

Um and I talking about the historic downtown, I mean I get the old buildings and they they weren't designed to have parking, right?

But when we are tearing them down and building new buildings, that's where I'm like they could put in some parking, you know.

I mean, they've got garages down under the Parker Brown building there and um I guess that was one thought I had, and I I'm not thinking this is possible, but um does it add a ton of expense for people to put if they want to do an office space, maybe two or three stories, whatever, to put parking on the bottom level, is that hugely expensive like prohibitively expensive to it can add some cost.

So they call that uh podium.

Oh yeah, tuck under is if it's a wood structure podium is when you have a full concrete structure on the ground floor for parking.

So it depends on how you construct it.

Um there are some trade-offs again to that.

Is the whole floor gonna be parking?

Because then you don't have that street activation.

Um you don't have the window shopping possibilities and stuff like that.

So some places I've seen maybe do part of a ground level, which is partially what Porter's Place did, because they have the garages on the ground floor, but then the main street side has the shop space.

So there's again, there's a lot of nuances that you can get into with that, but there are possibilities for that kind of uh situation.

And honestly, that's not my vision for our historic downtown.

To me, it's it's something unique, even for Utah, you know.

Some cities have it, a lot of them don't.

We have it.

We're one of the oldest cities, you know, and to me that should be the draw on the tr attraction that we we don't want a ton of people down here, right?

That we would need a parking structure, I think.

Um but you know you talked about managing demand, I guess if I just like the idea of the cute little shops and old buildings and that kind of stuff.

And I see that work well in some cities, you know.

And like you said, just getting back from traveling, we stopped in one city where it's like it didn't work well.

I mean, they were very nice old buildings, but they were closed and one thing I noticed they had parallel parking on a busy street, and I almost didn't stop because I forgot my parallel parking skills.

You know, like had to have my daughter give me tips on how to do that.

Um but another one where they did have just a small on-street parking, but um some spots where I don't think it was publicly maintained, but it was the businesses had a a big uh not big a nice shared parking area that you can park and then you can get out and walk around, you know, to the area.

So it's um again, this is one thing I'm noticing, right?

Paying attention to because it's something I would like to see for our downtown area.

And um yeah, I I don't see the parking structure with the mixed juice around it.

It just to me that would kill what I would like to see the area be, but you know, um the other thing a lot of times a cities that where it is more walkable, you still have to park and it's incredibly expensive to park there, you know, 40, 50 bucks a day or something.

So um and then the concern I have is are we when we limit parking, are we limiting the potential business?

Like if we don't require the parking, you know, what is that gonna do for the business?

And I'm I feel really bad.

I mean, I know it's their property and they can build it, but losing that little parking space next to Lehigh Bakery and Pioneer Copy, what's gonna happen to those other built buildings, you know.

So those are concerns I have.

I'll probably go back and look at your slides to kind of digest it some more.

But there's some good ideas there.

Um I think we do need to be careful when we show our the potential parking, because I'm looking at that map and some of it, well, that's for city employees, or that's specifically for the veterans building, you know, or the senior center.

Um Rachel and I got to visit with some of the seniors, and that's one of their concerns is that it's always full, so they don't get to park there, or they should.

So and it's older folks that you know, it's more difficult.

So if there's something we could do there to preserve that space for those people who need it most, that would be good.

But anyway, good thoughts there, and definitely go back and look through them.

And I was gonna say any feedback you ever have, don't you know?

Feel free to always email us.

We're here as your staff.

And um I what I'm always gonna point to is what's the vision for the city, because that's really what's gonna drive what our strategies need to be.

If we want to grow too much, then you know there's gonna be things if we don't want to be stagnant, you know, we're gonna want to see some economic um development downtown.

So and access drives that again, on you know, just traveling and seeing the differences.

So it I think it needs to be thought out carefully.

And some of the things that we've heard from residents about parking issues or the business owners, it could really hurt businesses, and it causes a lot of contention between neighbors there.

So uh this is thank you for your presentation is something we definitely need to work on and look into.

Hey Mary, I have three questions.

Okay, okay.

So did you say that we need a traffic circulation plan for downtown, or we have one, or that's some a recommendation in the future?

That's just something that could be looked into in the future.

We have our transportation master plan, uh traffic circulation plan asks some different questions to say, where do we want the traffic to go, where do we not want it to go?

And then you can do traffic controls or circulation in a way that upholds those goals you're after.

Right now, our transportation plan just says here's the demand, here's how much you know capacity we're gonna need here or there, but it's all based on the regional model.

So thank you.

And then it looks like you said that in the historic area the parking requirements are reviewed case by case by the planning commission.

Is that right at what I understand?

Yeah, it just depends on what level of approval the project requires.

Some of them only go to to DRC, and so it would be handled there if it's a conditional use, then it would go to planning commission.

Okay.

Just depending on our approval process.

Okay.

And then I've had some business businesses express to me that the city has a responsibility for the parking requirements.

As in let's say a really popular business moves in and they take all the parking in the area.

And like kind of to Michelle's point, then those existing businesses feel shafted.

Or like what happened to our two park parking spots that are now taken.

And some of them, some business owners have even said to me, well, this is on the city.

This is like a liability for a city.

This is sort of thing, and I don't know if this is kind of more a legal question, but to me, I I mean, I haven't said, you know, I don't know what the answer is because we approve the business, we approve the zoning, we approve the use when we don't have parking requirements.

And so then do is there like how how do you balance that with the impact that it has on the surrounding area, right?

That's a that's a question that I have because I've had that brought up to me multiple times.

And I'm too too new at this point.

As far as liability goes, I don't know if there's like liability on the city for the success of business.

It's actually cities out there that are now just completely removing their parking standards and just letting the market dictate.

Not um not that I'm saying we're gonna do that here, but um to think there's something that holds us viable.

It doesn't mean we shouldn't care about trying to make it work for everybody.

But yeah.

I was so blown away at how much capacity there is out there now.

Is it front door of each business?

No, but you know, we're not even hitting 50% of current inventory.

And I think it I'm interested to see if if Mike can take what he was showing, where we already have these wide streets and we could add I think we can add a lot of new parking that would help offset you know the demand in some of those high use areas.

Well for example, the little cab drawing I pulled up where the trees popped up from the top view.

That was second west, right, where that new like office building is proposed.

So you can actually increase the parking quite a bit.

So maybe like that's where business, like a new building like that's coming in and say, hey, maybe you need to contribute and help to establish more of this parking on the street, help with the planter areas and the trees and whatever needs to be done.

That could be part of the development process.

And that would be probably specific to downtown, the downtown historic area.

It contributes in multiple ways.

If you're having landscaping, and you're having traffic calming measures, right?

Like how do we and I don't know since you're the code guys.

How do you how do you how do we put that in place?

So that's just a c that is a concern for me because um I would love to see more businesses come, but I do think that there's some hesitations when just with the yeah, with the parking issues.

So that they perceive whether they're there or not.

Perception is truth for everybody.

But maybe as part of our parking study, we still have more data to analyze.

That was just one, was it one day's worth of days?

One day we have more days we're analyzing.

So that's when Ken said this is preliminary.

It gives an idea of the use, but is it is every day like that?

Is this uh higher use day?

Is it a lower use day?

We have more days that we're doing, and that's where I think in my opinion is that we just need to continually monitor this to see like all of a sudden we find out six months from now, like especially even if it's a localized area, like wow, this area just is going crazy now with parking.

Maybe a new business comes in.

Do we need a modifier strategies?

What things do we need to do?

But I think there is a lot of opportunity with new development coming in to have them help um like with Second West, for example, maybe they could help put those improvements in there to get more of that parking capacity.

But if we could somehow estimate you you as a city, we already own the street right away.

We could increase the supply by X number of stalls in this same, you know, that same area.

It would be interesting to see how many more stalls we we have at our disposal, even if it was just paint, which is cheap, that could be a very short-term, you know, one week and you go out with the striping and which I was hoping.

Have an AutoCAD drawing come together showing that, which was a little bit with I was hoping to have a number for you if for today, but I don't have that quite yet.

And uh Brad better take a look at my drawings.

Make sure they're engineering I know they were nervous when we did the angled on street on first east because this is this does move a lot of traffic because it hits the signal at state.

But I think it's been working okay.

You know, uh every once in a while when I you know I use those stalls periodically, and when you back out, you just have to be looking.

But it seems to function, and I don't know, maybe I I think the one thing that we do worry sometimes is we see people backing into those stalls.

Uh huh.

Yeah, I don't know if you've noticed that.

They sometimes back into the stalls from the other traction, which pulls them out of track, you know, directly in the traffic is kind of an interesting.

But you'll be tracking kind of the peak demand sort of thing.

Yeah, too.

Yeah.

Okay.

I think it'd be good just to keep wondering that, especially in the damn town.

Sorry, quick question to follow up on that.

So do we need to put in code where if there is redevelopment and they're gonna okay, we're looking at the that Parker Brown one, the parking lot thing.

Yep, um where they could help we could require them to help pay for um fix you know, redoing the road where it needs to be, because there's not even a sidewalk there, right?

It's even the um do we need to codify that somehow to get them to help pay for that?

Because I believe that was part of the parking they were looking at, right?

I think it would be good to have some clarification in the code.

So right now it's not super clear one way or the other, it just says there is no minimum standard, but this parking standard should guide the amount of parking required, so it's kind of a gray area.

So I I think there's maybe enough to stand on.

We can say, hey, look, can't build a building without any parking.

Right.

Taking away some parking.

We need to help offset that.

So I think we might have some leg to stand on with existing code, but I think a clarification of that probably would be good.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions?

I will say this parking lot watching out out my window.

This parking lot has technically only been open for about a week and a half, maybe two weeks since they moved all the landscape stuff.

So that's very, very, very new to incoming people.

So we'll kind of see how it gels a little bit.

Yeah.

Anyway.

Thank you.

Okay, no problem.

Thank you.

Okay, item four, administrative report.

Jason.

The only thing I had, Mayor, is um we have our annual UAMS conference up in Logan this year.

We have the mayor and a couple of council members planning on attending that.

So we would we were proposing that we cancel the council meeting that's scheduled for that Tuesday of that week, as we'll have many of our council members absent.

We checked with uh our senior staff today and we didn't see that as being a problem.

We wouldn't we weren't planning on having a heavy agenda that night anyway.

So great.

I think we'll go with that.

If if for some reason something comes up, we can also we can also add one, correct?

So for now we'll move forward.

I believe that's August 28th.

Twenty fifth.

25th.

So Tuesday, August 25th, at this point in time, then we'll be canceled.

Uh we'll kind of proceed with if if there's something in need, we'll hold one in need.

Anything else, Jason?

No, that's it.

Okay.

Uh council reports.

Any any reports from the council.

I I don't have anything to report.

Thank you.

Um Mayor, I had the opportunity to be involved in a countywide event this past weekend, and just wanted to share that um it went well given the weather and that the west side of Lehigh, Saratoga Springs and Eagle Mountain will have another opportunity soon to participate in that event.

So just wanted to share and thank you for your support for for that event.

Great, thank you.

Any other events going on or anything other to report on?

Do you want you to do that?

Okay.

We have another historical marker unveiling.

That's uh Wednesday, August 5th at 7 p.m.

The people's co-op and the uh address is 151 East State Street.

And I believe one of our council members is speaking, but I didn't pull up the schedule.

James, okay, I better remind him.

He's not here, so he is speaking.

Yeah, there you go.

Um, right?

It was mine that was like when you miss a meeting.

You get to speak.

Um and we are having the Heritage Days coming up on August 29th.

And Mayor, I'm putting you on the spot because I didn't say in do any email yet, but they would like you to speak at that.

We honor the honorees.

And I can get you more information on that.

Um we had on Saturday, the day after Pioneer Day, we had our um kind of a soft opening of the Southern Railroad Depot, train depot.

Um, and it I stopped by, I think you all got invitations.

I don't know if you had a chance.

It's probably a busy weekend, but I did get to stop by and honestly I was blown away.

They did an amazing job.

Um they they didn't have many artifacts, but they put up props and they had activities for the kids.

They had a little telegram and the Morris code and uh letter writing station and a luggage station, and they got to punch tickets and um and I stopped by there and they had a guest book and I kind of went through to see, and it we're estimating of those who signed in, there was 250 people that showed up that day.

So it was a great turnout and the kids were having fun.

And I did look at, you know, they wrote where they are from.

We had people from other cities, we had people from other states.

We had one person from Canada, which I'm sure they didn't just come down for that, but they came.

So I I think they just did a really good job.

And um, Steve's here, but Steve tell Steve Marijbanks helped with that a lot, so appreciate his help there.

But we're gonna try to do uh we're planning on another opening on also on heritage days, August 29th.

Um I think it'll be a good event.

And we're looking towards having it open more uh permanently on a more regular basis.

But I am around August 29th, so if you'll give me the information, I'd be happy to be happy to participate.

Anything else?

Great.

I will take a motion to move into a closed session so moved.

I have a motion from Councilmember Freeman.

I have a second.

Do I need to say the whole thing?

Yeah, okay.

Uh I move to enter into closed session for allowed under the open and public meetings act to discuss the purpose exchange lease or sale of a property pending or reasonably imminent litigation or the character competence or physical or mental health of an individual or any other lawful purpose.

Or the character competence or physical or mental health of an individual or any other lawful purpose.

I have a second.

Second.

Second from Councilmember Newell.

All any questions?

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Okay, that's unanimous.

So we'll now go to closed session.

Also we welcome all those who are joined us in the gallery today.

We will go ahead and start.

If you would please stand and we will recite the Pledge of Allegiance, we'll be led by Councilmember Lockhart.

Ignate allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

And to the Republic for which it stands.

One nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Lockhart.

Okay, our first item, item two point one.

This is an awesome uh two point one, our introduction of Miss Lee High, Brooklyn Ward.

Come on up.

And welcome.

Hello.

Hi.

Thank you all for having me here today.

I really appreciate you giving me the chance to honestly just come up and thank you.

Thank you guys for the support of the Miss America opportunity and the opportunity that you give young women to become Miss Lehigh.

I was really grateful that this opportunity worked out for me this year and that the hard work I put in to prepare for this pageant would come to fruition and then I'm able to serve the Lehigh City.

So I'm very grateful.

Again, my name is Brooklyn Ward.

I grew up here in Lehigh.

I've lived here since about 2007.

I graduated from Lehigh High School.

I'm a proud pioneer.

And I recently graduated with my undergraduate degree in dietetics from Utah State University.

So I'm back in Lehigh, and I'm really happy to be.

I will be going into my master's degree through Utah State University in just a couple of weeks.

My orientation is next week, and I'm very excited.

But scholarship organizations like this really help women like me to pursue higher education and even a graduate degree like I'm pursuing now.

So I'm very excited to start that, but also I'm very excited to engage in my community service initiative, which is also related to my major.

It's called Nourish and Strengthen, and it's about nutrition education and bringing nutrition education into our community.

So I'm excited to pair what I've been working so hard studying for in college with my community service initiative and with this special title that I get to wear.

So I'm very excited.

I'm excited to work with you and put me to work if you want to reach out.

I've had so much fun already this summer with city events.

We opened the new Lehigh Smiths, which is awesome.

I love a grocery store.

And we've been able to go to parades and represent Lehigh City really well.

So I'm really just again thanking you all for the support that you've given this organization and just myself already in the first couple of months that I've been able to serve Lehigh.

So thank you.

And yeah, I'm really appreciative of you guys.

So thank you.

Awesome.

Thank you, Brooklyn.

Any questions from Miss Lehigh?

I don't think she came ready to answer questions.

Well, I can't.

I'm going to put me on the spot whenever.

But again, thank you again.

And yeah, please reach out.

I'm here to support you all, and I'm really grateful for what you do for our city.

Thank you, Brooklyn.

Okay.

Item number three is citizen input.

Um so we will open it up.

A couple of uh rules here is we would invite whoever has comments to make on items that are not on the agenda.

So if there's an item not on the agenda that you'd like to make a comment about, we would invite you up to the microphone.

Please state your name, and you'll have three minutes to make your comment.

The three minutes will appear on the uh on the projector above, so you'll see that.

If you get to the three minutes, not a not a big issue.

Um if you see three, go to zero, finish your comments, and uh we appreciate that.

So with that said, it's 704, and we'll open the mic for public comment.

Okay, it's 704.

We will close public comment.

And we'll go to uh item number four, the consent agenda.

Um any questions on the consent agenda.

If there's no questions, I'm happy to accept the motion.

Mr.

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

So I have a motion from Councilmember Newell.

There's no minutes, right?

Uh no minutes, just the purchase orders and strike four.

So part of your uh motion is to strike item 4.1.

Correct?

Yes.

There's no minutes.

Yep.

Second.

I have a second from council member Lockhart.

Any questions on that motion?

We'll start with you, Councilmember Newell.

Yes.

Uh Councilmember Stallings.

Yes.

Councilmember Freeman?

Yes.

Councilmember Lockhart.

Yes.

Great.

Thank you.

Okay, item five, 5.1 public hearing for fiscal year 2027.

Executive municipal officers compensation increase increases.

This is a public hearing.

So with that, uh again, um the public has the opportunity to come up and speak.

So I will open the public hearing at 7.06.

And we will close that public hearing then at 7.06 with no comment.

So thank you for that.

We'll now go to item 5.2, the public safety impact fee enactment.

Um before we go to the public hearing, Dean will invite you to come up and go through that.

And um we'll then after they're done, we'll open up for a public hearing.

All right, I'll take just a second and introduce our consultant here, Ryan Smith with Zion's public finance.

Um we've been working on this, and you know, we've been trying to get um all of our impact fees updated.

State wants us to get them updated more uh more regularly, and it's probably to our benefit to do that as well.

And I that's not it, I'm sorry.

I just he emailed me the presentation and I need to uh that was it.

Okay.

Yeah, that'd be great.

Yeah.

So and we talked about this a little bit a couple weeks ago.

Ryan can answer any questions you have, and uh he has presentation do it.

Thank you.

Yeah, I'm Ryan with Zion's Public Finance.

I'm just gonna do a really brief overview of the impact fee analysis we conducted over the past months and answer any questions you might have.

So we'll start with the brief overview.

What is an impact fee?

It's a one-time charge to new development to pay for in this case public safety facilities, um, including uh fire stations, police facilities.

It only covers system improvements, so it's not um anything specific to one development, but citywide improvements.

Um in order to charge an impact fee, you have to have the IFFP and IFA in place and passed.

We did the IFFP and IFA.

Uh the IFFP goes over existing service levels, so uh in the case of public safety, that's uh facility space square footage divided by the cost for service.

Then proposed, so any new construction planned, and then projected calls for service in the future.

Based on trends in population growth, um we estimate any uh growth in calls for service to determine if there's any excess capacity in the existing facilities.

And then we worked with the police and fire departments to look at their plans for new facilities, what those cost and how it impacts um consumption of excess capacity.

Then we get into impact fee analysis.

The main component of this analysis is the proportionate share analysis, which is basically uh centered around the principle that new development should pay for its fair share of that of the public safety facilities.

Existing development should pay pay for its fair share.

So we make credits for it.

Um any future bond payments, interest um that's a portion to either existing or future development.

So our basis for the for the growth projections is MAGS population projections, and from there we look at the ratio of existing non-residential development, multifamily development, and have it scale up as population grows.

Now with that, so we'll start with police, calls for service also grow.

So there's going to be about 40,700 additional calls for police service by 2034.

And so because of that, since there's no planned facilities for police, the level of service is going to go down from about one square foot per call down to 0.9 square foot per call by 2034.

Based on that service level, we're able to see how much excess capacity there is in the existing facility.

Look at the costs that were paid for the police facility and end up at a cost per call, about $390.

That's a starting point.

So we credit that over the 14 years through 2034.

So that gives you we do an MPV of that to uh account for the time value of money.

And so by 2034, uh you can see the maximum cost that's allowed to be charged under code uh grows.

City council can elect to charge less than that, but this is the maximum cost per call.

So that's one side of the analysis.

We have to go from cost per call and then compare that with calls per unit.

So to determine calls per unit, we take call data provided by uh the by uh by dispatch uh for police and fire.

We pinpoint those calls on a map and see what calls are um coming from residential, multifamily, or non-residential, so commercial industrial um as well as schools would be a non-residential.

So these are actual calls per unit uh based on 2025 data.

And so then multiplying that uh these maximum costs per call that you see in the bottom right column times calls per unit, we end up at the maximum fee that's allowed to be charged under state code for police.

For fire, the process is almost exactly the same.

The difference is that uh for fire, non-residential development um can be charged for fire apparatus.

Um so fire engines, ladder trucks that cost in excess of $500,000.

So that's the one additional component.

The rest of the calculations are pretty similar in terms of how the math works.

Uh there's no impact fee fund balance, so we didn't do that, but we did look at the two bonds, um, the proportionate share of interest cost to existing development, and just the portion of the bond that was to fire.

So nothing that was paying for city hall or anything like that.

And then for the here's the fire vehicles.

Um to clarify, there's it looks like, yeah, you know, I could see how you could read this as perhaps there's what 11 vehicles.

There's really just five existing vehicles, five replacement vehicles, and one additional vehicle.

So you can see in the um in the third column, capacity year, fire engines are typically 20-year lifespan.

Some of these don't go 20 years because they're gonna be replaced.

And so we only looked at the years that the vehicles in service to determine the cost cost per call.

So same uh same process here.

We took calls per unit for fire.

Um, those are actual 2025 call data.

Multiply that by the cost per call and end up with calls excuse me, um maximum fee per unit.

And again, that that changes over time as more of the existing bonds get paid off.

So together, police and fire.

Um, this is an overview of what developments could be charged, different types of development could be charged each year.

Uh and again, the city council can charge less than that, but this is the maximum that would be allowed under state code uh based on the required analysis in the IFA.

That's pretty much it, but I'm happy to go deeper on any of those or answer any questions.

If not, I'll give that time back.

Any questions?

I just I have one.

Just out of curiosity, why is it non-residental that can go towards the apparatus or the vehicles?

It's kind of a I don't know that the specifics of the story of how that happened.

It is a requirement under not a requirement, but it's allowed under state code.

My impression is that the rationale was that uh these large vehicles, right?

Fire vehicles didn't used to cost $500,000 or a million dollars or a million and a half dollars.

Um and so as that started to become a thing, uh ladder trucks, it was really driven by non-residential development, multi-story development.

Okay.

Um that required ladder trucks.

And so that's when that was added into the state code.

Now you see residential developments that are you know taller and they would warrant a ladder truck, but the code has not been updated to allow for that to be charged to residential.

Okay, I was just wondering.

Thank you.

So um when you're doing your analysis, if you could go back to the square footage one.

They I noticed that both in police and fire.

You use the square footage.

Um was it this one?

Yeah.

Uh help me understand like why this is the approach you're taking.

Why are these the variables you're looking at to determine this?

So uh to determine the level of service.

Yeah, it's a good question.

I mean, for different impact fees, we look at different things.

So park it for parks, it could be park acres.

Um the main reason though to get at I think to get at your question is that these are paying for capital costs, right?

So it's not paying for the impact of hiring officers or hiring um firefighters.

It's paying for the capital facilities.

So um just the most basic unit to understand that is square feet.

It's also I want to note that the cost of the facilities is a factor in here as well.

Um because we're looking at cost per square foot.

So it's not just square footage, it's also the the cost to build those square feet are included as well.

Yeah, and um it it is it state code that forces you down this route, like the requirements for what you can use impact fees for.

Is that what sends you down this analysis path or it's the basis of it?

State code doesn't prescribe specifically okay for a public safety fire, you're gonna look at, you know, they don't spell it out how to do the analysis, but um over years we've uh we've done this and it it kind of has evolved.

And this is an approach that has stood the test of time and we've worked with dozens and dozens of of communities and sometimes these do pay face pushback from from developers and they've withstood that as well.

So um I I think the rationale is it starts with state code, but then um it ultimately is this way because it's it's just been proven over time.

Yeah, okay.

Um thank you.

That's really helpful.

Appreciate that.

Um I noticed that you said there is not um this is calculated based on not having proposed increases in square footage for public safety.

Is that right?

Uh so for police, we have 44,000 existing square feet.

Um capacity your current facilities 2034.

So nothing planned through 2034 for police and then for fire.

For fire, it was just the apparatuses, is that what it is?

58,000.

Yeah, it's just the the only additions are uh that were included in this were the additional apparatus and replacements.

Yeah.

Okay.

So we were just talking about um, you know, a possibility of doing redoing station 81 and just looking based on the master plan.

It was an increase of 7,000 square foot.

7,000 square feet there.

Okay.

Um I know I kind of mentioned that to Dean is replacing station 81, and he had said if we're not increasing the square footage, then it doesn't increase the fee.

Yeah, it doesn't matter.

But if we increase the square foot, like if that's projected, then that would change the calculations.

Is that all yeah?

So it depends if it's replacing or adding, right?

So even though replacing comes with costs, the level of service, so this kind of ties into what you were asking.

The level of service stays the same because the level of service is square feet per call.

The cost per call, um the cost per call has the the cost of the facilities included, but the square foot per call just looks at square feet.

Just looks at square feet.

So the level of service would stay the same even though costs there would be money spent to replace it.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Just looking at that kind of general rough draft there of a possible new station.

It said increase of approximately 7,000 square foot.

And I don't know if there is some increase in personnel associated with that or not, but I don't know if that would change things at all.

So just wanted to point that out.

And question how that would be.

Yeah.

So where is it?

So yes, to charge the fees, you have to have it in place.

And I believe you do have impact fees in place, but I'm guessing they're not I'm guessing they're not this high.

So even though plans may change, um kind of looking at this now just allows you to get those fees in place and charged, and then we can update it later and uh and update the cost accordingly.

Once it's solidified.

Yeah.

Okay.

Any other questions?

Okay, thank you.

This is a public hearing.

Uh so it is open to the public.

So we will open the public.

We'll open the public hearing at 72 for anyone who would like to speak to this item.

Okay, so it's 72.

We'll close the public hearing and we'll bring it back to the dais and we'll we'll talk about item B, which is the consideration of ordinance 33-2026, adopting an impact fee enactment ordinance impact fee facilities plan and an impact fee analysis for the provision of public safety facilities within Lehigh City.

There are any other questions that the council has on this one.

Mayor, can I ask Dean a question?

Sure.

And I and I um just seeking to understand a little bit more what the reason why we don't add the analysis of head count into impact fee.

Like I recognize we can spend impact fees on capital costs.

Yeah.

Well, head counts related operations, right?

So the fact that we're hiring more people doesn't that's not something we can is it we can use an impact fee for.

I think this study, and if I say something wrong, Ryan, Ryan can correct me.

We're essentially saying we have X amount of square foot of availability for police and fire in buildings right now, and it's handling a certain amount of calls, and those calls are going to grow.

So the difference between our calls today and what they're going to be is essentially excess capacity.

Yeah, but we don't take the calls, the dispatch takes the calls.

So when they say the calls, it's not because of the calls we're taking, it's because of calls we're responding to.

Right.

So if the police have to respond to I think it said 40,000 calls.

Yeah, I think I'm going back to the budget discussions that we had where we were using calls as a metric to determine head count.

Sure.

But then in this impact fee analysis, we're saying that those are separate and and and the connection is not there.

So it's it and I recognize like we're talking about two different things, but they are definitely related.

And I don't know if there just needs to be more discussion at a state level.

Um, but from my perspective, it seems like the impact, it uh I might put in a whole new planned subject.

You're saying the employees are the impact on the facilities.

Yeah, I want to be able to, if we're gonna add two thousand more units and we need four more officers because of those units, I want to be able to make sure that I I don't know.

Anyway, it all goes back into the conversation.

Yeah, it kind of all goes back to that money just has to be for new construction related to new growth.

So then I guess it's the property tax paid by those who live in that development that pay for the process.

That would pay for the people.

For the employees.

Yeah.

Okay.

Sorry, I just had to talk that through and make sure I understood it.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Oh question, Mark.

So if we're talking about adopting order this ordinance has an impact I know I mean first of all I don't know maybe I am confused here but it doesn't look like I actually see an ordinance and it looks like we're looking at just adopting the maximum impact fee for this.

Is that what is this what that what I understand is just the end that the end page the recommendation proposals.

They said it they their study shows what the maximum we could charge is and we're proposing that we charge that.

Okay.

I just want to clarify that's what we're that's what we're that's what the ordinance would be.

Okay.

Okay.

Any other questions?

Oh there's no other questions I'm happy to entertain a motion.

Mayor?

Yes.

I move that we adopt ordinance number 33-2026.

The impact fee enactment ordinance impact fee facilities plan and impact fee analysis for the provision of public safety facilities within Lehigh City.

So I have a first from Councilmember Stallings do I have a second second?

So the council Councilmember Noel with a second any questions on the motion.

Just Mr Mayor just to understand it's the maximum like what Councilmember Freeman said that you your motion is to adopt the maximum in these reports.

Yeah.

Okay.

Correct.

So any further questions Freeman Yes.

Councilmember Lockhart?

Yes.

Councilmember yes Councilmember Stallings.

Yes.

Great.

Thank you.

Item 5.3 consideration of resolution 2026-44 approving updates to the Lehigh stormwater management plan of 2026 I know that's us.

There you are how are you I'm doing good happy to be here.

My name is Shelby Brewer and I am with the Lehigh Public Works Department.

I am the stormwater engineer and I am proposing these updates to our existing stormwater management plan.

It's our plan of compliance with the Utah small MS4 permit.

That permit expired in May and was reissued with some slight alterations.

So I am updating our stormwater management plan to meet the requirements of the renewed permit.

The changes were pretty minor there were some increased requirements for at public education and outreach as well as some changes to our inspection schedule for construction sites.

Great thanks Shelby any questions on this one I just I was looking at the document it looks like we still need to update that organizational chart I think there because now engineering is under public works and just some other things but yeah I know you probably pulled that from somewhere I love how it's see the MCM6 it says the city will strive to set an example for others by complying with the same standards.

I think you put that in there is that we're looking at yeah and then be best management practices and I think yeah it's it talks about utilizing the residential newsletter is it right to feature stormwater pollution prevention topics.

And I think that's fantastic way I noticed that in the in the most recent one I think it would be great to also try to involve and disseminate information through utilizing the like environmental sustainability committee and just social media because I know not everyone reads the newsletter and it'd be great to take advantage of some of those other mechanisms but that's probably my only input there is just I know you're looking at when you were considering that BMP for so anyways.

And then I don't know if we need to include the events person either if we're talking about like be the beautify Lehigh month or something.

I'm not sure who I don't know who runs the beautify month when you're putting that in there as a way to sustain was environmental sustainability instead of events.

Okay.

I believe I have the environmental sustainability one listed as the responsible person.

Yeah yeah I think you do so I was wondering about I mean they have a committee as well and I don't know about the events people if they help with the city events or something but anyways just little little notes here and there.

So anyways.

Okay.

Oh, go ahead, commission.

Yeah.

So thank you for your work on this, Shelby.

And thanks for answering some of the questions that I had.

And I'm gonna second what Rachel said about you using social media because I don't know how many people actually read the newsletter as much as they should, or there's good information in there.

But um the other thing along with that, as far as informing the public, I think helping residents understand why it's so important to, you know, um keep pollutants out of this stormwater would be very helpful.

I think when people understand why they're more motivated to take action on it.

Um but one thing I did want to bring up in the the council and ask you this.

We had a discussion about some of these um mitigations were to um retain the water on site, you know, either through um evaporation or infiltration or reuse of the water.

And I I brought this to your attention and Dave Norman's attention, and I appreciate your perspective on it, but it just seems to conflict with what we're hearing from the state about how we need to get the water to you know, Jordan River, Utah Lake to get it to the Great Salt Lake.

So I I kind of wanted to ask you, and and you recognize that that conflict as well.

Would it be helpful as a council is an elected officials to bring that more to the attention of the state?

Like we need clear direction here, you know.

We understand the need to balance keeping pollutants out of our public our bodies of water, but we also need that water in the Salt Lake.

So is is there anything we can do as elected officials to help clarify the policies there?

Or what are your thoughts on that?

Um yeah, I'm aware of the the conflicting um concerns.

Um the directive comes from the Utah Department of Environmental Quality Division of Water Quality.

Um and the 80th percentile retention is trying to match existing hydrologic conditions.

So when a site isn't developed, you don't get as much stormwater runoff from it.

The vegetation holds it on site and it naturally infiltrates.

Um but after we pave, we've now made it created an impervious surface and it's all going to run off.

So the 80th percentile is trying to mimic the pre-construction environmental conditions.

Um so that helps with pollution as well as aquifer recharge.

So that's the reasoning behind um the division of water qualities requirements in our permit.

Um but with the drought we've had there are concerns about sending more water to the Great Salt Lake.

Uh I I don't know uh what communication is going on between the the legislature and the Department of Environmental Environmental Quality, but uh I attend the Utah Stormwater Advisory Committee meetings and we have brought up this concern to DEQ, but they haven't done anything about it yet.

So I don't know if speaking with the legislature would accomplish anything.

Oh, okay.

We can try.

I don't know.

Okay.

Well I again I mentioned you.

I think it's a balancing act, but it would be good to have clear policy on you know how to manage that.

But I appreciate your work on all of this.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Great.

I'm happy to is anyone in the audience tonight here to speak on this item.

Doesn't look sexual.

So great.

So I'm ready to entertain a motion.

Mr.

Mayor, I move that we approve resolution 2026-44.

Approving updates the Lehigh stormwater management plan for 2026.

So I have a first from Council Member Noel, or I have a second.

Uh mayor, I'll second it if we can change it to recommend approval, because the council doesn't approve this one.

The public works directory does.

That's what it says in the document.

I didn't say that.

So if you're good with that, I'll second it.

That's the plan, yeah.

So does that say that?

It says that the public works director approves it.

We recommend to him.

It's coming here as kind of a courtesy and to bring awareness to the public.

I think that's what it said.

Are you okay with that, Councilmember Noel?

Yes.

Councilmember Lockhart then on a second.

Yes.

Any questions?

Um just that it says approved and adopted by the city council on this.

Yeah, there's I think you guys just need to approve their resolution.

And I might need to change their language in the resolution to show that it's a recommendation.

So you would take action on the resolution and maybe just include in your motion to clarify the language if needed in there to clarify that it's a recommendation.

Because the motion was to approve the resolution.

Approving updates to the so the resolution is describing the resolution, not that we're actually approving updates.

Okay.

So I don't think that's change.

Is a recommendation?

We're approving the resolution and the resolution, it's is a recommendation.

Okay, okay.

As long as I want to second you and your motion, as long as it's that.

Yeah.

Yes.

And I I may need to clarify the language in the motion to state what you okay.

Do you want me to restate it?

Sure.

Okay.

Mr.

Mayor, I move that we approve resolution 2026-44, approving updates to the high stormwater management plan 2026, which is a recommendation to who's it go to?

Director of Public Works?

The Director of Public Works.

So I have a new first from Councilmember Newell.

Do I have a second?

Second.

I have a second from Councilmember Lockhart.

Any questions on that motion?

Great.

So we'll start with you, Councilmember Lockhart.

Yes.

Councilmember Newell?

Yes.

Councilmember Stallings.

Yes.

Councilmember Freeman.

Yes.

Okay, perfect.

Thank you for talking through that.

Okay.

Uh 5.4 consideration of ordinance 34-2026.

Approval of amendments to the design standards and public improvement specifications manual in chapter 2.

Shelby's back.

I am back.

So this is updating our design standards to include the 80th percentile requirement that was previously mentioned in our stormwater management plan.

It's putting it in our storm drain design standards, as well as allowing for the use of sumps and retention basins along with their design requirements.

Questions on this I was just wondering, it looks like there's a few times where it's replacing City Council with the NC City Engineering.

I don't I don't have always have a problem with that, but I'm kind of curious as to why it was like you know permitted by the City Council and the City Council approves it and now we're taking that away.

Do you want to say that, Brad?

Yeah, I think I can probably attempt to answer that.

Um so the first reference to the replacement of the city council to the city engineer is in relation to the um the measurement or the right-of-way um dimensions for the roadways.

Um first of all, I think it's important to keep in mind that these are public right-aways only.

You know, when we have a uh private development come through, they um they are able to approve, you know, they they're able to submit and receive approval on their own cross-sections.

But but so this allows us to um uh uh make modifications as necessary.

Let me just maybe I can just give you one example, for example.

Um we've we had one situation where we had a street up in the Traverse Mountain area where they did not have a sidewalk on one side of the road.

So there wasn't so we didn't see a reason to have the parking on that side of the road.

So we allowed a slightly narrower cross section to reduce parking on the one side where we didn't have sidewalk, and so we made a slight modification on that.

Um again, I I'm willing we're willing to to do whatever we need to do, whatever you feel strongly about.

But um, that's just one example on on the roadway.

Generally speaking, otherwise we follow the transportation master plan is um and we are in the c we're currently in the process of modifying that as we've mentioned.

Um the other section that was mentioned was in section 15.

Uh I'm sorry, page 15, section 2.11 on the sewer system.

The city council uh we're proposing to take to strike city council and put city engineer public works director um when uh we're we're proposing that that change in the event that public works and city engineering um when we would agree that a lift station may be a sewer lift station may be allowable in the city.

So we consult uh um quite often with public works and generally speaking, we do not we would not want a sewer lift station, but there are situations when we do.

And so in this case, um we're happy to bring it to you if you would like to know, but I'm not sure that you would you would have the technical expertise or maybe you wouldn't want to weigh into whether we have a sewer lift station.

So that that was one where we changed, yeah.

Um what it says um engineer and public works director.

What if you guys disagree?

Um if we disagree, then I think we would stick with the option of not having one.

Generally speaking, we would um we would need to agree, and generally uh public works would carry a little bit heavier weight on this sewer lift station because they're the ones maintaining it.

And so we we work really closely together.

You know, whether whether engineering feels like we would want one or not, it really depends on whether some public works would like to maintain it.

So you're comfortable with the word and instead of or we are.

Okay.

Because we want we want we want to be hand in hand as to whether or not we feel like a sewer lift station is good for our city.

Okay.

Um I think the last one was on page 18.

This was um this one is specifically um related to this um storm drainage detention basins that Shelby is referring to.

Um generally speaking, these uh these requirements talk about the depth of a storm drain detention basin and um you know how steep the side slopes are on the detention basin.

So the deeper the basin, the shallower was the slopes we would like to have them be, so that if we ever had someone get in that basin, if it were deeper, we want them to be able to climb out.

And so again, if you would prefer to have um if you prefer to weigh in on that one, we're fine either way, but we we just felt like that's a decision as so many other decisions that are already in this manual that um we feel like that we have the ability to make those decisions.

But it's really up to you.

Mr.

Mayor, may I?

Yes.

Yeah, are any of those decisions if they increase cost substantially like there's a mechanism for the council to see the cost of those decisions, right?

Well, generally these decisions are related to the development of a property.

And so, for example, if a subdivision comes in and we require detention basin, um a deeper base, uh smaller basin would be a deeper basin.

Uh, you know, I think it's a larger then we would allow it to be shallower.

So yeah, they are they do have a a component to the development, but generally we're not we're not making these decisions um based on cost for the developer.

They're they're making those decisions as to how deep they want the basin.

We just want to make sure that if they build a basin at a certain dip, a certain depth, for example, that it's safe.

Okay, okay, thank you.

And do I understand that the street types we're talking about that the foot the footage there, um the measurements are kind of standardized by the state recommendations?

Is that what I understand?

Well, um as was uh sent to I think Michelle in an email, um the these standards were um we've all for the longest time we had a standard 34-foot width uh roadway.

Um three or four years ago, the state came down after the developers lobbied with the state and said you shall not require a roadway any wider than 32 feet, and so we modified our standard.

Um unfortunately when we modified the standard, we we modified the standard drawings and we missed the section.

Okay.

So this so these small changes in the section two really reflect what we've been enforcing for three or four years now.

Okay.

Okay.

So for the most part, this would just be the standard anyways.

It it's kind of yeah, it's been the standard for for that amount of time.

We we just missed changing it in section two.

We we don't often change section two um of our design standards.

And so um when when Shelby came through and wanted to make her changes, we thought that it was an opportune time for us just to tidy up a few items.

Okay.

Mayor make a comment.

Um so I did notice that some of the things were taken out of away from the council to the engineer or whatever staff.

And I'm I'm okay with that because I would defer to you anyway.

There's some things I have no clue about, so I appreciate your expertise, so I'm good with those changes.

Any other questions?

Great, we'll entertain a motion.

Um mayor, I will make a motion.

Um I move that we approve ordinance number 34-2026.

Uh approval of amend amendments to the design standards and public improvement specification manual chapter two.

Okay, so I have a first from Councilmember Stallings, so I have a second.

Second.

Second from Council Member Freeman.

Any questions on that motion?

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

Yes.

Councilmember Stollings.

Yes.

Councilmember Freeman.

Yes.

Councilmember Lockhart.

Yes.

Great.

Thank you.

All right, item 5.5, consideration of the preliminary subdivision approval for the Cortiz subdivision, an eight-lot residential development located at 1450 West, 1220 North in the R122 zone.

This is continued from July 14th City Council.

Before we get to this item, I will take a motion to untable it.

So move.

Second.

Okay, I have a motion from Councilmember Freeman and a second from Council Member Lockhart.

All in favor?

Okay, so we'll untable that and then we'll bring that to where we are now.

So we'll invite Grow There he is.

Come on up.

How are you?

I'm good.

Good.

Uh Jay Cone, Grow Development.

I'm the applicant.

Uh as you can see, much better uh collaboration tonight with Mr.

Peacock and Mrs.

Krabb.

So we've had uh a good week of working together on this item based on the feedback from the council and the feedback from the residents that are impacted by our development.

And uh we had some great resolutions uh that we came up with, and so we were able to kind of finalize the design.

Uh both uh the impacted parties on the private irrigation ditch uh are in agreement with what we proposed.

And so that was a 20-foot easement with restrictions on building within the easement, as well as um the fence line that would be along the easement on our side of the fence.

Um still maintaining that residential versus agricultural border that we that we have.

Um and so yeah, we'd like to request uh the approval tonight of the preliminary plat.

Uh if there's any other items that need to be discussed, we're we're open to that.

Um there was uh some communication uh even today uh from staff as well as uh the property owners and council members.

Um I did speak with with Mr.

Peacock this afternoon, and uh we'll honor what we proposed to them.

Uh and that's that's what they've agreed to.

Uh but he did say that he'd like to share a quick message if that's all right on behalf of uh his feedback on the item.

So we'll hold for just a quick second on that, but we'll get to that.

Um before we get to that.

Well, you know what that's that's good.

So let's open that up for comment.

Uh any of those that are here to comment, you have three minutes.

Uh come and state your name.

You'll have three minutes and then we'll we'll kind of go from there.

Yeah, Bart Peacock.

I live at 1533 West, 1220 North.

So yes, I thought up until this morning that things were just fine.

We had I had emailed uh Jake and Traps and emailed Jake.

Ver you know, telling him that we're good with it to go.

We had agreed on everything, and then this morning a email comes out.

Kind of through a ranch in the whole system.

But we're willing to work with him.

I don't know what.

Why?

It come out that way this morning, why they waited till the last minute to address this.

I have no idea.

There was some statements made by Ryan that I don't appreciate.

We have never demanded nothing.

Not a thing have we demanded.

We've been trying to work with these people and they've been very good to work with.

So as a city attorney, I want that noted.

The we did not demand nothing.

I think that's unprofessional.

You need to get your facts straight before you make them statements.

Makes us look like the bad guys.

Kim, I'd like to have you address why you waited till the very last minute.

Okay, with that said, I got that off my chest.

We're willing to work with Grow Development.

Instead of the 20.

He's was very pleased with that.

It will help him a lot with especially one of his lots.

The 15 feet gives us plenty.

Five feet's not going to cut it.

I don't know how professional Kim is with the equipment and stuff, but it's not enough to get in there and work on ditches.

So I'm not the bad guy here trying to bully my way through, Ryan.

Jim.

I think when you put out a letter like that, you ought to have some resolution of how to fix it.

So we're willing, still accept it.

Plain and simple.

Good.

They've been great to work with.

Grow has been very good to work with.

We'll cut it down to 15 feet, and that will help them.

Everything else still stands, so you can't build nothing in that easement.

The north and still stands.

They are putting a berm there, like should be city ordinance berms.

I was glad to see that because I was told on the last development that there wasn't room to put it for berm in there.

So we didn't get it.

So then I had to redo my ditches.

So I was pleased to see a berm there.

I don't know why Kim didn't force him to put a berm in, but it was in ordinance that it should be.

You can tell that I'm not very happy with a couple of people here tonight.

I think they overstepped their boundaries.

So the proposal is to cut it down to 15 feet and we'll accept it and let them go on and get this going.

Thank you.

Mr.

Mayor, can I ask a question?

Yes.

Mr.

Peacock?

So that was an email that I sent um under from the city attorney to a certain number of people.

Do you mind sharing who sh who shared that email with you?

I'm sure you can figure it out.

Did you say that though?

I I I'm not going to address your questions because this isn't about me and you.

I'd just like to know who shared that email with you.

Okay.

Any other comments?

Maybe we all looked into deformation and carry or Mr.

Peabug, Mr.

Peacock.

Your three minutes are up.

Please, please.

Hi.

I'm Dania Trapp.

I just wanted to come up and say thank you for your time and also to Jake and Gro, they've been really great to work with.

And we just appreciate this process.

We don't want to get tabled or anything and see it go forward.

Thank you.

Great, thank you.

Any of the comments.

Okay, we'll bring it back to the dias.

Any questions?

Mayor make an ask ask a question to the applicant.

Yeah.

Okay.

So you're do originally you proposed, I think in the last meeting you proposed a 20-foot placement of this uh fence.

So now you're reducing it to the 15-foot.

I'm just wondering if we include that in a motion, how best to word that, I guess.

Yeah, great question.

Um we request approval with a condition.

Okay.

That you instruct staff at the final uh review to implement or ensure that a 15-foot easement is built on that side of the property.

Um that the fence must be on the easternly side of that easement within the property, if that makes sense.

Can I ask a follow-up to your question just to make sure I understand?

Is that okay?

I don't want to I don't want to cut her off.

But it's an apple Michelle.

I just want to clarify that your request I is it 20 feet easement, but the fence goes at 15.

So they could bring the fence down at one point for repairs to get the full 20, or do you want just a 15-foot easement with no ability to bring the fence down for more?

Does that make sense?

Yes.

So it would be a 15-foot easement and the fence would be on the 15-foot side of our side of the easement.

Okay, so we are gonna eliminate the easement on the east side of the property owner's fence.

Yeah, it would go to reduce the easement and move the fence in at the same time.

Okay, thank you.

That clarity is helpful.

Thank you.

Yeah.

All right.

Good question.

I don't know how it works.

Like, is that okay with irrigation?

To have 15 foot or 20.

I mean, I don't I don't know.

Just whatever.

However.

Yeah.

I I for me, the I think what I was understanding from residents that had the water rights was that they just needed access to get to the headgate.

And I was and I was concerned about their safety going through other people's backyards and the other the property owners who had you know them having someone go through their backyard.

So if they don't, you know, they don't need as much space to access it, that's I have no problem with that.

Whatever.

Um yeah, you we we can see with engineering with all that that works.

Yeah.

Yeah.

May I can ask a question?

Yes.

Sorry, I'm just trying to better understand it because it's hard for me to tell on the map where things are.

So with uh where the head gate is placed, how much space would be on each side of that in the easement.

Yeah, good question.

Okay.

So the new irrigation line as well as the head gate will be on our side of the property line.

Okay.

Uh so it won't encroach or go into the traps property.

Okay.

Uh with the exception of the outlet that goes and serves their their private irrigation line.

Um the dit the box is about a four by four box.

Okay.

And so uh and it would be at a ground level, and then there would be the additional eleven feet of space between the new fence and the back of the box.

So is the box really close to the property line?

Yeah, it's it's right on the property.

And so then you would have like an additional 10 is so feet of the okay.

And the other thing I was wondering about is does there need to be access from both sides?

I'm just trying to think of a way to be able to maximize because I'm I'm thinking if I were to buy one of these homes.

You know, and I have an easement in my backyard with a power line too, and nobody's ever been there, but I know that I'm like looking at space I've bought, but I can't grow certain things there.

I can't place structures there, things like that.

So I'm just thinking like how we can still make sure that we you know best help those you know who need access to it, but do you need access in both directions to it?

So maybe there's a couple of properties that wouldn't need that 15-foot easement.

Yeah.

So how we have it written is that the property owners would own and maintain that space.

Okay.

So they can put gates uh to go in and out of the fence.

They still have to maintain the residential and agricultural boundary.

Uh but they can go in, uh maintain it, cut the weeds down, plant little things, you know, that don't have roots that would go into the irrigation pipe.

Um, but yeah, they can beautify it and have it their space.

It's just they can't build anything back in there.

And so even though the head gates on lot six, would do you need access from both lot seven and lot five?

So uh since the line is uh impacting all of those lots, we're running the easement across the whole western boundary of the property.

Okay.

In the event anything happens where the ditch enters the new pipe, uh up on the top northwest corner, as well as the main access comes from uh the main road.

So they'll have to walk north up the easement line.

Okay.

Yeah.

Good questions.

Any other questions?

Can I just make a comment?

Sure.

Um I just appreciate you once again.

I mentioned this before that I appreciate all your work on this and your responsiveness to the residents and helping to protect their rights um to that water in the irrigation ditch.

And we don't see that often, so I I really appreciate it and just wanted to thank you for your work there.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Yeah, I also I also want to do that.

And I know I got an updated thing.

I mean, what I got in email that said one of the things one of the inputs from engineering was to install a fence and in the response was per request from neighbors and city council.

We've removed the proposed fence.

So I mean I know we didn't we we encourage them to be able to have access to their water rights, you know, whatever you had to whatever you decided to do with the fence.

Like I appreciate what you decided.

Um I know there's also some concern about maybe some rubber molts on one of the properties, and you guys were talking about you know, clean that up too, so I appreciate that.

And that you guys are gonna do that.

So yeah, I think it's great.

And you guys have been I think it sounds it sounds like the traps and the peacocks are gonna be able to have access to their water rights, which is important and you get your property rights be protected too.

So I appreciate that.

Yeah, thank you.

I know it uh won't be the last circumstance as these farms continue to get developed and other farms remain, and so hopefully we can set a good example on how to handle it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yeah, and I'll just add I'm a fan of residents telling government what to do and not government telling residents what to do.

So I appreciate the the residents came together, worked together, the landowners came up with a solution and brought it to us.

Um I think that that's great.

And um it's important that your example be recognized because I love that you guys work together.

So thank you for that.

Thank you.

Yes, uh, Mr.

Mayor and Counsel, if I may.

Um maybe this is the surveyor in me that makes me look at the plat.

So I think we've been asked to make some changes with your comments to the platinum to 15 foot easement.

I would also suggest that as the construction plans show that there's a berm on the north side of lots four and five, that we also indicate on note eight of the plat that that berm is to be is not to be altered by the owners of those two lots.

That's the purpose of the berm.

We just want to make sure that none of the that those landowners know that they can't that they can't alter that berm, otherwise it doesn't work as function as uh plan.

So that's just a recommendation.

Thank you.

Any of the questions?

If not, I'm happy to entertain a motion.

I can take a stab at it, but I think I need Brad's help with the last part.

I don't write fast enough.

Okay.

And feel free to help me out too.

Okay.

Um mayor, I move that we um approve the preliminary subdivision.

Sorry.

That we yes, approve the um preliminary subdivision of the Cortesi subdivision and 18 excuse me, eight lot residential uh development located at 1450 west, 1220 north in an R122 zone.

Um with direction to staff to uh included condition in the final review for a 15-foot easement, and that the fence um be located on the west, excuse me, eastern side.

Um also help me out here, Brad, for lots four and five.

I think it's note eight of the things.

That there should be a note on the plat.

Note eight shall include the berm.

Okay.

Um just t shall what he said.

That is not to be altered and not to be altered.

Yes.

Thank you.

Okay, so I have a first from council member stalling, so I have a second.

Second.

I have a second from council member Newell.

Any questions?

I'm just wondering the could we provide a bright line of clarity that the fence would be on the easement line, not the property line for the homeowner.

I I don't east side, but I just want to provide the bright line that it it belongs on the easement line, not the property line.

Is that okay?

The 15-foot easement line.

Yeah.

Okay.

I'll make that change.

You're gonna have that.

You can put that, Councilmember.

Thank you.

Okay.

We'll start with you, Councilmember Newell.

Yes.

Councilmember Stallings.

Yes.

Councilmember Freeman.

Yes.

Councilmember Lockhart.

Yes.

Okay.

That is done.

Item 5.6 consideration of ordinance 35 2026 approving a comprehensive development code amendment to chapter 23, signs, updating requirements, and simplifying the text.

And that's the high city cam, I believe that's oh no.

There you are.

I don't get the council very often, so this is kind of fun.

Welcome.

Yeah, thank you.

Give us your name for the record too.

Oh, yeah.

I should probably raise this as well.

Uh Jacob Curtis with the planning department.

And I recognize it's a lot of pages and a lot of changes.

So I don't know if it's easier for me to talk about some of the changes or why we did this, or if you just want to spitball questions, or if you just want to make a motion.

I'm game for anything.

I I guess I could just go into a little bit why we did it.

It's a little in the narrative.

But I think there's a couple purposes with this.

Um part of it is there's just a lot of redundancy within this chapter.

Um then also anyone the few of you that have served on the planning commission before know that conditional uses kind of pervade through this chapter with pylon signs, some of the other different types of signs.

And trying to give the planning commission a little bit more teeth to enforce and not just grant.

So with the conditional use, right, you have to approve it with reasonable conditions, but with some of the updates in here, it would be exceptions that give a little bit more discretion.

And so we're trying to emphasize to sign companies, um, you know builders that we'd like signs that meet our code, not not trying to go above and beyond.

I think another nice update with this is making it more accessible to the sign companies, to the residents that are trying to, you know, do small businesses that are trying to put up signs.

Because it is a lot and it's complicated and we get so many questions about it.

So yeah.

I I guess that's just a little introduction.

Any questions for Jacob?

Yeah, so I was um it i I was seeing that you kind of explain that conditional uses can be kind of messy, right?

Um and I know that some of the um training that we've gotten as an elected officials is to try to limit conditional uses because it does make it in a tricky situation.

Basically, you if they meet those conditions, even if you don't it it might not be what's there might be other some concerns.

The planning commission's hands are pretty much tied um to have those things there as well.

Yeah, that's correct.

Okay.

Um yeah, so I I appreciate I appreciate that.

And I was looking, I think I asked Kim for so after I read this, I went and drove along some of these areas um that we're talked about adding to.

Um I think a lot of the a lot of the changes make sense.

I'm a little concerned um because it looks like we're kind of clumping together and see section 23.090.

Looks like we're clumping together 2100 north, I-15, Mountain View Corridor, and SR92 as kind of all the same.

I think that's I don't know what page that is, but yeah, it's page 14.

Okay.

Yeah.

And in my mind, as someone who lives um who drives some of those.

I don't I'm not as familiar with as driving with Mountain View Corridor, but I don't believe that SR-92 should be there and clumped the same way.

Um we we actually have residents who live on SR-92.

The speed limit is lower.

You know, it's 55 miles an hour instead of you know 70 or whatnot.

Um there's school children who cross, as we know, we've talked about that.

There's um there it's even kind of, you know, it's close to Traverse Mountain where we have conservation easement and some things going on that to me lend it to be a little bit of a different different thing than that.

So I'm concerned that and and that's where it's like a lot of the discussions go with planning commission is it's the developments on SR92 because there are conflicts there with residents living there, right?

So that's why I don't necessarily want to put a blanket um put it put clump it together with this.

Yeah.

So that makes sense.

We we did talk about that a little bit.

Um I think it's important to mention this is in the pylon sign section, and there's a lot of stipulations into kind of when you can do this, you know, the size of your property, it has to be a hotel, gas station, or restaurant.

I think the reason we put those in, and I'm not gonna die on the hill that they need to stay in, but um there was the section C, the sign is oriented for freeway viewing, and we were trying to figure out and think through okay, what is considered a freeway in Lehigh on our transportation master plan, and um I think around the same time the collective as part of their area plan had presented a sign.

And so we were trying to kind of prepare ourselves for the inevitable questions.

Why did they get a sign?

What about some of the other businesses along that stretch?

But I do agree with you.

I I don't want to see you know large signs going everywhere, but we were trying to think about what's fair and would we consider those freeways moving forward.

Yeah.

Well, and and I I kind of agree with one of the planning commissioners who feels strongly has some negative feelings against signs because um I look in the the kind of the stipulation is 25 feet is the height, right?

And I can look at there's like a Smith's marketplace over there that has a 25 foot.

So I drove by on a Saturday night looking at the lighting, and she's all stuff.

915.

They're not lit up over Sitsmiths.

It's 25 feet.

Smith's actually isn't lit up.

They just have the parking lot lights.

And guess what?

They're pretty pretty full.

They're doing, you know.

And so for the argument, I was listening, I listened to planning commission and argument that oh it's gonna hurt business if we don't have these giant signs.

I mean, do you do you really need to have a 40 foot sign on top of a retaining wall?

And you can already see the business.

Like I'm driving on SR92.

I can see where target's gonna be.

If they just put a giant target on the side of their building, I will know they're there.

They don't need to have a 40 foot sign.

Yeah.

Like that, that is my opinion.

And there are residents that are there whose whose windows are going to be facing there.

I don't that's in my mind, that's a different case than I-15.

I don't think it's the same.

And I know that I think I think Emily was on the planning commission when Target requested the 50, something three-foot sign.

And even then, I mean they probably would have been fine with the 25 foot, honestly.

Like these other businesses do completely fine with the 20, like, you know, supposed to have been there for over a decade, right?

Yeah.

So I'm just I don't I that's the one thing.

I mean, I know we're talking about pylon signs, but I have a hard time the fact that planning commission has to deal with these difficult um situations, and it's almost like their hands are tied.

If we c if we put this in code, it's really difficult for them to say no.

And and I we're gonna have it looks like Perry has some lots there where they're gonna bring density, you know, they're gonna have some homes.

So right now we don't have as many alongside SR92 as will potentially be there.

So I'm concerned about that.

I know that you know pylon signs are restricted in other cities, like I mean, Mike was just talking about Park City, right?

Um we have some other places where because you have this kind of visual noise, and then you do have this problem with like the collective or something like that.

I'm not saying their problem, but where you have this kind of arms race to like, well, they got the 40 foot sign, so we should get a 40 sign.

Oh, we should get that like right, and it's kind of this competition.

Instead of saying, hey, Smith is fine with their 25 foot sign.

Can we can we be like that?

So I'm a little concerned.

Um there are still are some merging things there.

Again, there are school children who cross that road.

We're talking about some pedestrian access points, um, you know, can cause light pollution and glare, conflicts with some of our goals of um of just yeah, some of that like low more low profile visual environment.

And so I I consider that a little bit I like again, like I say, just I have a hard time with that being included there.

Um because I know that planning commission has expressed difficulty being put in that situation.

And it seems specific to SR92 because of the conflicts between the residents of businesses.

Anyways.

Yeah.

And I I think we're okay.

I feel like the mic's finally working.

That's great.

Maybe I need to lean forward.

But I think we're okay striking those other sections, those those other roadways.

I think we were just trying to encompass everything that could potentially be a point of concern in the future, but I would say in general, planning department agrees with everything you just said.

So I'm comfortable scratching 2100 north, Mountain View Corridor, and SR-92.

Because the pylon sign option would still be there if the property is over a certain acreage or in other situations.

So this is just one of the potential options that allows the pylon.

And I do think the collective situation with the height and the grade, we've tried to address that within this chapter as well with number five.

I do agree with you.

Sometimes if you're up higher on the hill, you maybe don't need quite as much height.

So and what is the benefit of electronic display signs?

Can you explain that to me?

Um I am not from a sign company.

Um, take this with a grain of salt from the last seven years I've worked here of an electronic display.

It's like a kid in the candy shop, it's bright, it's colorful, you can see it.

And sometimes they can it's easier to change the display.

More advertising potential.

They can sometimes, you know.

I know there's options for like safety or like city messaging sometimes on the signs as well.

So I think that's the biggest justification for it is it catches more attention, but it also can be used on occasion by the city if needed, or if we are interested in it.

And it looks like we kind of just have an overlay for that by I-15.

Is that what I understand?

Oh, on the and I I guess that's for the billboard electronic display.

Yeah, for the billboard.

Yeah, the end of the chapter.

Um I guess it's the same, but those are also a little bit different with the electronic conversion of the billboards versus like your regular electronic display sign at you know, like a car dealership.

It's uh it's a different situation for the review and approval.

Like we don't allow new billboards, but we would allow the conversion to the electronic display.

Okay.

Okay.

And I mean maybe another council member has some other opinions about like I was just kind of specific to SR92 because I remember the council meeting in November, or the planning question meeting November, and then there's June, and then there's July, and they were all talking about signs for SR92.

So I'm not sure.

I mean 2100 North will be a freeway.

Um we'll probably have similar speed limits and similar visibility things as I-15, but I think there also are people probably apartments there.

So I I don't know.

I don't know what other insight other people are.

I do think it won't make a big change to just remove those.

Okay.

Because again, if the property is large enough or has enough frontage along uh like a collector or arterial street, it can qualify for the pylon sign.

But if it's you know under the acreage or doesn't have that frontage, then we could just say no.

We're not required to allow it more places.

Again, we were just trying to think through possibilities of what may come forward in the future.

But again, more than happy to strike that section.

Yeah, I I agree with that.

And the one concern I have too is 2100 for north is also on the east side of the freeway.

Yeah.

And there are homes there.

So we forget that, right?

Yeah.

We think of the big main road.

Um I have a few things, and I I appreciate the questions that you've answered so far for me, especially about the historical markers, because I had a little panic moment.

Then I read the whole thing and I was oh, we got it.

Yep.

Because we both deal with that, so yeah.

Thanks for thinking of that.

Um these are just my suggestions or thoughts that in the beginning when um in the first section about the purpose and the intent and objectives, you did take out uh reference to public safety.

Um safety and public welfare.

And I I would like to put that back in there just because that is a compelling government interest.

Yeah.

Um however you want to word it, but it to me it's even the light pollution for the residents could be a health issue, you know.

And so a little bit on in addition to what's already in B, but safety and welfare for residents, okay.

So in the the very first paragraph where it's struck in out.

Yeah.

Um it's more than just maintaining a well-kept community.

Uh to me, it's a safety issue as well.

So balance the need to protect the safety and welfare of the residents, business community, and the traveling public.

Yeah.

Just how are you you want to word that, but it's just that back in?

Okay.

Because you make a good point that it, you know, we are restricting free speech in a way with this, so we do have to justify it pretty strongly, right?

Or yeah, it's kind of interesting.

We're restricting or well, we're we are protecting right of free speech.

Where is legal and maybe this is a legal question, but um I mean we are guaranteeing the right to free speech and expression with the display of signs, but in a content neutral manner, we are allowed to put in regulations to govern speech.

Yeah.

Is that good?

Legal?

Okay.

I'm gonna go with yes.

That was okay.

Um It's kind of a balancing act though, uh, for sure.

Yeah, yeah.

Um then the other and this is a question I'm not quite sure the answer to, but um so it's violations, and I appreciate the kind of the structure there where it's notifying, giving people a chance to remove signs and that, but ultimately it could be a class C misdemeanor.

But in in state code.

And I guess I pay attention to this because someday I'll be putting campaign signs up again, possibly.

But um if there are political signs that are posted on like utility polls, they um uh what do you call it?

Uh the violation is just an infraction on misdemeanor.

So I don't know if we could go above and then as far as I know that's just on the utility polls.

Well, it's um I mean they go through.

So I know we tried to make the utility pole, light pole, uh electric box, traffic control device, or railroad sign or signal.

Not state code.

But I'm just it's a different level of.

I know we were trying to make it so they were typically exempt, but you're thinking for those ones that are I guess considered snipe signs that are on power electrical equipment, it would just lower what the infraction level is.

Okay.

I can look into that state code.

Unless yeah, because I don't know if we could do a higher one than state.

I don't know.

Okay.

Um I hope nobody does that.

But you know.

Um let's see.

And then just these are minor things, but I think it matters for the public to be aware, just you have a something about temporary signs for for sale homes for sale.

Maybe just include for rent as well.

Okay.

Um then for the temporary signs, so um, and this is probably for clarity for residents.

Um four square feet or under, does that include like yard sale signs or uh it does not.

I think I can't remember if we put the first selling.

I thought we maybe put those in the exempt section, but we check out Do you want the section 23.7 Q for the four yeah.

I was just seeing if it was in the exemption section.

Um already for the yard sale signs or so it looks like actually we don't have the yard sale signs under the exemption, so maybe that would be either we could add it as an exemption or give more flexibility with the size of the temporary signs.

Whatever you decide or the rest of the council decide, I just think it that needs to be clarified because people do put those signs up and I guess I've never gone out and measured a yard for yard sale sign.

Sometimes they're big, sometimes they're small.

But I guess if they're four square feet or under, they're exempt.

But if they're larger, then they should be getting a permit.

To be honest, I've never gone out on a Saturday and ripped out a yard sale sign, and I don't think our code compliance officer would, but it might be nice to tighten this up in regard to that.

Some of us care about that.

Yeah.

Do you have a preference on how we word that in?

Would you like to see the yard sale signs more protected or less protected?

I guess is the question.

My only problem is is when they leave them up, right?

Yeah.

And then so maybe it the nice thing with the temporary sign section is it has the part about how quickly it needs to be taken down.

So maybe we should add a clarifying statement in the temporary sign section that it includes yard sale signs.

Okay.

Maybe.

Yeah.

I'm not sure how my feelings are.

I just don't like them up forever.

So I I kind of agree, maybe you address this more, but I even with signs I'd like to get away with away from exemptions or exceptions and conditional uses.

Yeah.

Um but I understand you want to balance that with flexibility.

But again, it's you know, watching those meetings, it's it's painful because it's hard.

You know, you have to approve it, but I do think that we really have tried to, I mean, if you look at yeah, 23080, a lot of these signs used to fall under conditional use approval.

And so we've tried to move most of those to either DRC or staff level review if it meets code.

And so the only signs that would go to planning commission now are if you're asking for something above and beyond what our code allows.

We are hoping that incentivizes less or disincentivizes, you know developers, sign companies from asking for the larger signs.

Because it feels like when you go to right now, if you go to planning commission, if you have to do a pylon sign conditional use for a 25-foot sign or a 75-foot sign, you might as well ask for 75, right?

Because even if it gets denied, well, it wouldn't get denied, but if they talk through it and they decide, okay, we have to approve it, but what's the condition?

Maybe they settle at 50.

So we're hoping with this, it, you know, some you'd be surprised a lot of developers and sign companies don't like going to planning commission.

I know, surprise.

So we're hoping that it you know gives them that extra nudge to to not ask for it if they don't really need it.

Because a lot of times I don't think they actually need it, they just want it.

And then having really specific situations where the conditional use is still required.

And it's I guess not a conditional use, it's an exception.

That requires approval by the planning commission.

So I have a question.

So if it's an exception, can they come to city council?

And so planning commission doesn't have to deal with that.

We c I guess we could write it that way.

We also the planning commission can I think kick the can to you as well.

So I think it would be even more painful to come to city council.

Well I just think conditional use is they go to planning commission.

Yeah.

And then planning commission has to deal with the aches and pains of it.

And um, you know, we're supposed to kind of set the code, interpret the code, do some land use decisions and we're accountable.

Or I think that we're more accountable to residents, so to me it might it uh it to it to instead of having conditional uses to me it makes sense to have ex if they want to make an exception, they can come and ask the right.

And we could update this letter B and it can make it signs approved by the city council.

And I think you'd have several planning commissioners that would throw you a party.

So our longest meetings were sign meetings.

It was exhausting.

Okay.

That would be great.

It's good.

Yeah.

I don't want it.

You know what?

Let's not bring the science to council.

Yeah.

Just a couple more things, sorry, and I'll let you go.

So the section 23.090, the Historic Preservation Commission.

Reviewing and recommending the the murals in scientists and historic district.

Um then it can be approved or denied.

I can't remember who does that.

Um you know what uh that's and I this is probably a planning commission thing too, is that the recommendations don't do much.

I mean I appreciate that that we could give input, but ultimately is there you know who and I can't remember whoever makes the final decision.

Is there criteria for that?

Is that a legislative decision, administrative decision?

Could they like just say no to something that's to the oh this is to the painted signs or murals on the building facade?

Zoning administrator, yeah.

And this is under the wall sign section.

So it does have the mural is kind of governed by the size allowances of a wall sign.

And so I think the idea was if we let the yeah historic preservation always makes the subcommittee versus commission.

But if we look at it kind of gives it's kind of the same thing with um any remodeling or renovation projects or new projects in the downtown.

It is tough.

It's like what is the criteria to review.

I do think in this case it would be a little clearer.

They could look at it.

And again, it's a strange one.

Are they reviewing the content of the sign and what it looks like, or are they making sure it has historic character?

Yeah.

Again, that I think the reason I s we switched this was it felt weird to have the planning commission review it.

They're not necessarily experts on historic downtown murals and signs.

Some of them maybe, but it felt like maybe it made more sense for that group and then for you know the zoning administrator DRC to look at just the wall sign requirements.

I agree with that.

I'm just wondering if if it's like a conditional use where you can't really ever say no.

Yeah.

Yeah.

And I let's see.

And this this one's not written as a conditional use.

I think it's just written as a feedback by the historic preservation group and then approval by the zoning administrator.

And maybe that's the best we can do.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Because wall signs aren't a conditional use ever right now, even in our current code.

Right.

Um, right.

I'm just wondering if it well, I guess some input's better than nothing.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Um, yeah, I think the I I don't know.

I think the idea behind that is again, they look at this proposal for a mural on the side of a bakery and say the bakery wants to do a giant mural of uh a donut.

Is that what we'd want, or would it be better to have a mural of a cowboy?

I don't know.

Again, that maybe bad examples, but at least would give groups an opportunity to give some recommendation.

Again, he doesn't necessarily have to implement it.

He probably could do the mural of the donut on the side, as long as it meets our wall sign requirements.

But yeah.

Okay.

And then two more.

But if there's I know there's a I guess safety.

By the trail, there's that.

Yeah, to be able to see around.

Because that's a public safety thing.

Is that extended I think that would be covered under the exemptions still with the safety signs?

Yeah.

Okay.

And then I thought the mirrors was an interesting thing to have in there.

Yeah.

Has that ever happened before?

I don't know.

Are you aware of any issues with mirrors anywhere?

Yeah, I don't know.

Okay.

Okay.

That I think that's all.

No, one more.

The the obstruction of the clear view area.

Does that in roundabouts you look at that and we I think that section's been scratched from here, but we left it in chapter 12 of the development code for the clear view areas.

A lot of that goes through Matt Seal, the traffic engineer.

So I I think that's primarily why we took it out of the sign chapter because it already exists in other places.

So you did a lot of work and thank you.

Thank you.

Yeah.

It was a long time coming.

I I know we've been getting complaints from sign companies, the planning commission, residents, you know, you name it.

So hopefully uh this will be a big change that improves a lot of things.

I'm sure at some point we'll maybe have to look at this again, but I guess that's how the code works.

So thank you.

That's all I have.

Other questions.

Okay.

I'm happy to entertain.

Oh, go ahead.

Well, I just have questions for the other council members, what they think about including like, you know, 2100 north.

Like I think it's on page uh 23-15.

One under pylon signs if they want to, you know, include uh 2100 North Mount View Corridor.

Reservation.

Yeah, I of the comments talked about the o I was down or I thought those things were great.

But um the only thing that gave me concern was punting signs to the city council.

Um bringing that to us.

I just we're gonna be here till 2, 3 a.m.

if we bring start bringing those kind of items to us.

At least that's just been my experience on the planning commission.

Is they they're just here till two, three?

I guess we already do that, yeah.

But um and I also think that this is um it it it is a good opportunity for the planning commission to engage on and and they're awesome and and do a great job.

So of the comment shared this evening, everything I would I would have agreed to.

Um just want to maybe keep signs where they're at.

And I and I will choose to disagree because I maybe I'm not as jaded for the planning commission and I I'm fine.

I'm fine taking on that responsibility to to deal with the exceptions because I have watched the uh a few of the planning commissions.

It seems like they've only had a few where it's been kind of a challenge in the last year or two.

I think it I think it would be good.

The changes being made here where we're removing some of the condition and and adding exceptions and shrinking things down, maybe letting this code play out for a while a few months or a year, and then coming and saying, does the council need to pull this in?

Would give the planning commission opportunity to maybe work on uh in a new process and see how it goes.

But they they do a lot of great things and I I think they're plenty capable, um, especially with the changes that have been proposed.

And on that, I would prefer to come to the city council.

Um Let me ask you this, Jacob.

Do you consider that more of a legislative discretionary thing or administrative?

Um for the exceptions, it would be more discretionary, I would say.

Yeah.

So because of that, I think it I would prefer it to come to the council.

I I think I expressed this to Kim before.

I think I mean we are the body that's responsible for the ordinances and approving them.

And when there are exceptions granted to it, I think it should come back to us.

I I kind of feel uncomfortable having an appointed body allow exceptions to something that elected officials have put in place.

So and I think we could say no more comfortably.

I do think at some level what you were saying, council member Lockhart.

Yeah.

Uh is also true.

I do think the signs I get to this group, if you were to change it, are gonna be a little bit easier.

Oops, vetted additionally, and they'll fall under these certain requirements where it has to come to you.

And I I again think it will help maybe deter some of those extra requests above and beyond.

But yeah, it is a discretionary one, and maybe it makes more sense for it to be with this group.

I wouldn't complain.

I wouldn't have to deal with it at planning commission, but I probably shouldn't say that since I don't vote in this group.

So I think that's a conflict of interest.

Yeah, I should probably raise button I I see the value to both sides, right?

Because the planning commission is reviewing the code.

But again, these are kind of exceptions to the code.

So again, the balance and stuff.

And ultimately, like we the mayor is elected by the residents, and the mayor um selects the planning commissioners.

Like the council then appoints, you know, confirms the appointment.

We we are deferring.

I can see both sides of the coin too.

Yeah.

But the we're the legislative body, I guess, more so, and we are directly accountable.

So I'm just worried if you know residents are complaining.

Yeah.

We we get the complaints, but we don't have the authority to do anything about that.

And so then the residents might feel like we're not listening or we're they're cut out of the process.

So that's just something I'm a little I'm a little worried about the target.

It's not gonna not gonna lie.

And the residents that are gonna be saying something to us, and we will have said, well, we didn't didn't do it, right?

But what like what recourse we we don't have any mechanism going forward in the future except with coaching just right now to do anything about that.

So anyways.

Yeah, and and I agree with you.

I think my point is we did approve it by deferring our powers and authority to the planning commission, right?

That like they they're acting with the powers we've been given by the state.

Ryan, I I think I'm right.

But there's always I mean, for every decision the planning commission is the final land use authority for, there's always an appeal.

So there's a remedy.

And appeals come depending on what the item type, it can come before the the city council or before another body.

So could we appeal there, just like Jacob, I'm wondering with the changes, some of the things, is this something we need to table or um I think I've gotten them noted down and could make the updates fairly easily.

Um there's not anything huge that you've suggested.

I mean, crafting the motion might be a little bit fun for Tisha, but if you would like it tabled, you're welcome to.

But I don't know if there's anything big enough that I don't know.

They're all pretty quick text changes, unless you're mulling over do you want to be in charge of these versus the planning commission you want to go back and review years of minutes from the last decade to see how bad it was versus really wasn't.

I don't know.

Yeah.

I think it's the motion that uh concerns me to capture everything that was said and make sure that the vote changes in favor understand what they're running for, I guess, but it's more work.

I don't know.

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

Can I just add one thing?

I mean, we we defer a lot of things.

I mean, the mayor basically delegates all his power to say there's a this is just one thing of many things, and it probably comes as surprise that city council doesn't run the city.

Um so there's a lot of things where we defer it to planning commission or other areas to be able to do their job.

I don't think we need to have our hands in everything.

Um I like that they can kick it to us if they want to, but it's something that I'm not overly passionate about that I need to have my hands in it.

Okay.

Well, depending on the motion, we might get the mayor to vote to vote on something.

Now I want to pass one just to put you in the spot.

Good to go.

It does seem like you're mostly on the same page with 90% of the changes.

It's just that were suggested by council member Freeman and Stalling.

So yeah, again, just probably a matter of those other two discussion points.

Well, I may or I'll make a motion.

I think we all agree that conditional uses are not agreed.

And that's the advice that we've also been given from Utah League of Town and Cities and other things like that.

Yeah, ULCT.

You'll the cities and towns.

Yeah.

Back to you, Councilmember Stallings.

Yeah.

I I'm gonna move that we table this ordinance number 35.

Umendment to Chapter 23 science updating requirements and simplifying the text with the direction to take the comment set of being giving, putting them in and then bringing it back to the council.

So I have a motion.

Oh sorry.

It's okay.

Or Michelle can type all of her comments up and I can type that.

I could send them to the has them all in the case.

I didn't know a lot of them.

Yeah.

I think the only ones that I'm on certain on are the planning commission versus city council.

I think it sounds like everybody's on board with the just I-15, not the 2100 North.

I think it really is planning commission versus city council approval.

So I so I still have a motion to table by Councilmember Stallings.

I'm okay with the change to have it be city council too.

Um go ahead and add it to bring it back to the council and then when it comes back, I think it would be easy in a motion to cut it out or to have a go one way or the other.

Yeah, yeah.

Does that work?

Do you think so make the updates that were suggested with the the list that you gave me?

I may have you email it to me as well, but I did type it down.

I've got it right.

Then do you want me to type up a version where it's for the city council to make the final decision and then a version that's the planning commission?

Or I don't know if we have a decision on that, yeah.

Well, you need one or the other, right?

Um it's just how do you want it updated.

Again, most of the updates are really easy.

It's just that one.

So she would like it updated.

You want it updated.

But updated to show us the city council.

Okay.

Correct.

That's the direction I'm leading.

So yes, I would prefer that.

And can you put a date on it as the first did in August?

You probably don't need much time, right?

I will have it done tomorrow, probably.

So the next council meeting.

So the next council meeting would be great.

Okay.

So you in your motion you want to include the next council meet meeting, which would be August 11th.

August 11th.

Okay, so it would be tabled to August 11th.

Do I have a second for that motion?

I'll second that.

So I have a second from Councilmember Freeman.

Any questions on the motion?

Okay, so we'll start with Councilmember Stallings.

Yes.

Councilmember Freeman.

Yes.

Councilmember Lockhart.

No.

Councilmember Newell.

No.

This is exciting.

So my vote then if I go no, then it's not tabled and we continue to discuss it.

Or I say yes and it does get tabled and comes back.

Correct?

It's first time.

If it's not tabled, then you need to make another motion.

So if I vote yes, then it's tabled.

If I vote no, this continues to go.

But we're gonna continue.

Only 45.

Talk about the next one.

We're talking about it just when you want to do it.

Right, but when it comes back next time, it's it's fulfilled according to what council member Stallings is would have put in a motion had she with all those changes that she suggested.

Then we'll have a cleaner motion going forward, correct?

Yeah.

And then you'll also be getting signs coming to council too.

Correct.

Yeah.

So my longer meetings.

Yes, to table it.

So that's a three-two.

Well, I will make those updates.

Would you like me to send them to you earlier or just in the packet next time?

They'll go they'll go in the packet.

Okay, to everyone.

Thank you.

How does it feel?

I feel just fine.

Thank you.

You both agree to your own.

Okay, 5.7.

Consideration of ordinance 36 2025 approving an amendment to the Lehigh City Design Standards.

And public improvement specifications manual adding section 3.08.

Temporary construction site safety measures for commercial and residential construction projects.

This is Lehigh City.

I know this was the one we brought up to add some protection to our commercial build sites, obviously for fences and warning signs to make sure.

Does anyone have any questions on this one?

Yeah, I um wondering if you could tell us again about the circumstances that led to this request.

Yeah, so uh a few years back, there was a um storage unit being built on Pioneer Crossing.

Um there was a young man 14 years old.

So the construction project was not fenced, nor were any doors or anything locked, nor was it posted.

It was right next to a Maverick gas station and butted up against the neighborhood, and two 14-year-olds had made their way through there in the dark, had made it all the way to the top floor.

One of those young men fell 43 feet, broke his hip and his arm, thankfully, that's all he broke.

Um the parents have gone round and round for the last two years with the builder to no avail because there is no code that the these parents or the builder can go back to and say, hey, we did what we were supposed to.

Interestingly enough, two days later after the accident, it was fenced and danger signs were all posted.

So that's what we're looking for is to just stop this before it ever happens.

Um it is a safety issue.

We do know that kids get out and wander a little bit.

They shouldn't.

Uh they shouldn't be there.

We all know that.

Uh, but I think in a commercial designation and with a building permit, they should have to um secure their build sites uh for the safety of the public, especially next door to pioneer crossing into a maverick gas station.

Okay.

So that's where this comes from.

Okay.

So one of my questions was I I I agree with a lot of this.

Um I don't know if I would put the requirements on all non-residential construction projects.

I would think maybe if it's more than one story, just because if we're not requiring it for residential construction projects greater than 10 units, I just don't know if that would be burdensome for a smaller um a smaller non-residential site.

Um, you know, like even when we had Fabian House come in, or if it's like a parking lot or you know, something like that.

That's just that's the only thing that I think of, but everything else, um and I know that there's it it does say that there's some discretion of the chief, let's see, what is it?

Yeah, building official.

Chief building official, right?

Or um stuff like that.

I just that's the only thing, but everything else I think I agree with, and I was just wanted to remember if it was uh you know, someone he would follow like we're talking about stories basically, or at least a couple stories where they're climbing up.

So in this case it was three stories.

I think even in my opinion, I don't give opinions in this much, but I my opinion, even one story on a commercial build, as long as that building is open, then there's there is a danger increase.

When you get into a residential area, there's usually more than one that are under construction.

So you know entering the construction that's going on.

Commercial tends to be a little different because it may sit for multiple days or weeks.

Um and so that would be the that would be my concern back to to what you're talking about.

Okay.

Yeah, and I don't know how other council members feel.

I just that's only that's the only insight I had to.

Any other questions to this one?

Great.

I will be happy to entertain a motion.

Mr.

Mayor, I'll I move that we approve ordinance um number 36-2025.

Approving an amendment to the Lehigh City Design Standards and Public Improvement Specifications Manual, adding section 3.08, temporary construction site safety measures for commercial and residential construction projects.

So I have a first from Council Member Lockhart.

Is there a second?

Second.

The second from Council Member Newell.

Any questions to that?

So we'll start with you, Councilmember Stallings.

Yes.

Councilmember Freeman.

Uh yes.

Councilmember Lockhart?

Yes.

Councilmember Newell.

Yes.

Great.

Thank you.

All right.

Um 5.8, consideration of ordinance 37-2026, approving a development code amendment to Chapter 11, development application requirements, updating requirements for site plans, infrastructure site plans, preliminary and final subdivisions.

Kim, I believe this is yours.

Yes.

So just a quick background.

Chapter 11 is where we define all of the code requirements.

What what is required when you submit a site plan or subdivision?

One of the types of requests that we continued to see, and it really was ambiguous in here.

It didn't we didn't have a section to address it was if somebody was building a new um water tank, for example, even if it was Lehigh City or they wanted to put in some utilities ahead of the construction of the subdivision or fiber lines, we see a lot of those.

We really didn't have uh a list of requirements that fit that specifically.

It didn't really it's not really a site plan because they're not building a building, it's not a subdivision, they're not splitting up property.

So we added that, and uh in the process of that we started to realize some of this still required paper copies, which we no longer, you know, we do all electronic.

It talked about the mylar being printed on a linen type of medium, which yeah, is very antiquated.

So yeah, we had the DRC comb through all of the lists.

We went through it two or three times at DRC, and there were some things that they said, you know, we'd really like to see this, you know, whether it was something with the storm drain report.

Anyways, we tried to add anything that we were missing, and we took out things that were outdated.

So it's just uh an overhaul of chapter 11 to add that new process for utility projects, and then just yeah, updating housekeeping items on the rest.

So happy to try and answer any questions if there's anything specific.

Mayor have a question.

Oh sorry.

Um PRDs is struck out for the concept plan is what is the reason for that on section 11.020?

Yeah, let me pull that up.

Okay.

Uh let's see, which section was it?

Zero.

020.

020 concept plan approval.

I'm trying to remember now.

Um that is because we and that's a future amendment.

We probably need to leave that in.

We we're trying to see if we can combine PUD and PRD because they're so similar.

There's very little difference.

We used to have a different open space requirement.

One was geared towards public open space, one was private.

So I think that isn't anticipation of a future amendment where we're trying to combine those two chapters.