Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right, everybody. Welcome to the planning commission meeting. I guess I should start by saying, look who the wind blew in, right? All of us. Last last time it wasn't winding. There was no one here. So, um, welcome in. We'll start with the pledge of allegiance. Um, and, uh, Jennifer Davis will lead us in that. I pledge algiance 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, Jennifer. Um, we'll start with the approval of the minutes dated March 31st, 2026. I'll make a motion. Let's see. Is that on? I'll make a motion to approve the minutes. Um, sorry. Dated March 31st, 2026. Have a motion. Second. Second. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Carries. All right. Uh, we start off with the public hearing. It looks like we have some public here tonight. So, um, maybe for the next item, but first of all, AWA Engineering and Smith's Marketplace.

Oh. Uh, good evening and thank you for just spending a little bit of time with us on this project. Um, and I want to publicly right off the bat thankless hours. You guys have been great. And there's some that are not here. this evening that also you have a wonderful staff and they're working so hard and diligent to get uh get us out there and pushing dirt a little bit. We have a um we're submitting a grading plan. Our improvement plans are in for review and it's uh we're moving forward as much as we can. So, I wanted you to know about that. And also about the development agreement, I just want that's what's before you this evening. Um, I always see these as like uh a partnership with the city and in this case it's also with Smiths and we um we look forward to just everything that's been kind of negotiated and worked on. But there is a power there. I've got this presentation. I'll I'll zip through it for you and stop me at any point that you'd like to. What I've done if do I just go Yeah. or do I throw some or what? How do we do this? Uh ch. Oh, you want me to just use this?

Yeah. Some presentation. This is gonna be so fun. Did I miss it or did you say your name? Oh, Rick Magnus at AWA Engineering. Uh 2010 North Redwood Road, Salt Lake City, Utah 84116. Um

All right. Uh let's see. Oh, okay. So, we're going to do this. This is here's the overall site plan and this just shows the different pad sites and lots that are going to be developed on this. It's a uh six lot actually seven lots because I do have the Smith marketplace itself. We got a fuel center and then we have uh outliers outlying pads. We don't have those totally committed yet so I don't have anything to reveal to you tonight. Um Dang it. Sorry about that. Um, the square footage of the pads. I So, they vary in size. It's up here in the Thank you.

up here in the cryptic reformed. That ain't helping much.

Yeah, I know. But, but um I can make that available to you later if you'd like. But all the pad sites are, you know, typical of being able to have a um a restaurant on there with a drive-thru or not a drive-thru or um in the very back souththeast corner would probably be um a just a normal retail as you know without restaurant there. So, uh, as we got closer to, uh, Greens Lake, we wanted to, you know, minimize so much traffic, um, for that, you know, and have the have the other pads that have the drive-throughs out there on, uh, out there towards Main Street. So, that's what we've done there for you. Uh this is what so in I'm just going through the development agreement and the requests that the the owner or Smith is making. Uh one is we have three loading bays that are at the north end of the site which is right here along here is where those are. Thank you. I like that one too. Um, you'll notice that there's a few uh residences that back up to that. What I wanted to show is this is a cross-section of what this will be. To uh my left is the backside of the store. Then the bays are are set into the ground. And then we have a 8 in concrete wall as well as 6 ft uh excuse me 8ft reinforced concrete wall with another six feet on top of that to help screen. Then we have 29 foot represents a drive aisle in the back so that you know a

truck can get back in there to the docks. Then I have a retaining wall um which will be there because we have to cut into the this north the northeast corner if you will to get that large of a building to to be uh level. And then we also have uh within that block wall structure, we also have landscaping and then a six-foot um masonry block wall to screen. So there's quite a distance and there's also physical barriers in that to help out with everything. This was one item was, hey, we we needed the three loading base for the 123,000 square foot store that's going in.

Is this a supertore or just Yeah, they call a Smith's Marketplace. So I'll have a donut or two for you there at the site. We'll take you up on it.

They make a few of those. Another request that we had was ecommerce pickup. This is very popular. This is at all of our Smith marketplaces now. The the older clientele, the the mom with the kids. Um this is very popular. So, we have this uh opportunity and the reason why we had to call this out in our um development agreement is because um the parking stalls where autos go is not conforming to your code for a regular parking stall. But I promise this this dimension works. Um this is not the first Smith marketplace that they've done. But anyway, and this this ecommerce is closer to main main street. So, it's drawing everything on the east side of that uh that store.

I promise. Uh let's let's just talk about elevations. Another request is that we kind of we control the architectural design. Now, that doesn't mean that we're just shoving something through. um staff has reviewed our materials and our look and our colors and everything else for the building, how we break up a large building like that. Um we've just identified that, but we wanted to be able to kind of control that in the development agreement, have that approved so that we could then come forward with

with a really good design. This would this actually works really well. If you look at the top, that's where that's where the front of the store is as you're facing it. A lot of glass fenestration, as it's called, various pop outs. Um, and then to the left is where that like pharmacy drive-thru is. And so over on that east side is where you're going to see a lot of uh that that happening with ecommerce and also the pharmacy drive up. So, and once again, I just said you can stop me at any time. the fuel canopy that is in the south uh that's in the southwest corner of the overall property. And so what we included in here is these are materials and colors that match the store so that we can tie that in. You've seen how um the fuel center works at the at the other Smiths and so that's what we've done here. This will function the same way. Um, let's see. Of course, landscaping. The reason why I showed this not in a pretty picture to begin with is that the red are the comments from the city when they first gave us comments to say, "Hey, we've got a public utility easement running along there. You're going to need to really um kind of demonstrate that you're going to landscape an area that's wider than normally what you can do." So, I just included this to show you that this is kind of where all there'll be a good nice landscaping area along here before we even get into the property or the other pad sites. So, there's that. That one's See, I gave you a pretty picture, too. So, this one you can I don't know you can think about tonight when you go home. Okay. But you can kind of see this this actually has a great percentage of open space and landscaping. One of the reasons why is

because of the topography of this site. We do need we do need extra landscaping to help us um do everything. Um maybe one thing I'll show you is so that you have an idea. All three of these accesses are already in. This is a U DOT rideway, a state road, and they've already placed those in there. As you can see, the idea is to have our vehicles go through the back here, load at that dock, you know, the one I showed a three bay of, and then they're just going to come around, make their loop, and then go right back out. They won't be coming down inside. they won't be um kind of intermixing with um all the other retail and that that's there. One thing is here's the fuel center and so that fuel you like how I chose the pretty picture to talk about our project. Uh that's that's what we do is so here is the there's going to be um six dispensers. So, there will be 12 fueling locations that you can go to here with a little kiosk right here. And the fuel truck, I didn't show it on this site plan, but the fuel truck will just come in, drop, and then go out. So, it's once again, we're keeping everything out there towards Main Street and that. So, um, and I'm kind of going into this a little bit. Randall, you okay? I You're the you're the DA guy, so

Okay, good. I just want to make sure because he's the one he's the he's your your uh development agreement guy and the guru. So, and once again, as you can see, um we do have one request that was early on is to make this connection here to Greens Lake. And so what we need to do here, just so you know, um, we need to put in a a a culvert, box culverts that will allow passage of the flow to continue. But we are going to have this. This is kind of kind of a little bit of a hill right here. And then you come up flat here and then you can get to Greens Lake. And this is going to be a great advantage for everyone, especially this neighborhood to the east, of course, so that they can have access to this because we also have a screen wall along here, right? And um we're also going to be performing some um sidewalk and that right here to help that be connective and um and then come down into the the marketplace when you need to. Um, this is the funnest gadget. How about signage? Signage, I want to just point out uh three locations of various signage. Pink or salmon is a 35 foot high pylon sign that is um multi-tenant sign. We have one and that's going to be located here. Not only is it set back from that public utility easement that runs there, but we've also pushed it back even further. And so that's why you see us asking for five feet more in height than what is allowed by CO. A 30 foot would be allowed. We're asking for 35. It has to

do with some visibility and speeds along here that that's why we're asking for that. And I'll show you that multi-tenant sign. The green indicates 15 foot high um signs with tenants multi-tenant. I know I've got one over here, but I've got separation of that residence by um not only a street but also the drainage. But that's just to give orientation once again that here is the access, here's the location where you can come in. Uh I also have a a shorter monument sign uh multi-tenant sign here. And that is the last location. And then I've got 8 foot pad sites. You know, they have their individual monumentation. What do those look like here? I'll show you. This is the This is the sign for um 35. This is our 35 footer here. Here's the 15. Excuse me. I fed on that one, didn't I? Don, that is 15 foot high there. And then I've got the 8 foot just tenant sign. If if this were a credit union going in, they'd have their name on that right out in front of their pad site. So, this is the the theme of and ties into the architecture of our larger store.

Okay. And then of course I'm showing you also the signage on the building. We wanted that to also be in the development agreement. Uh it's a typical thing that we ask for. And not only do I show the elevations for that, but then here's the various signage. And I know this is get kind of I don't know technical if you will, but this just calls out some of the different signage that'll be there. Um the the enter and exit is just for hey when you're coming up to the pharmacy or you're coming up to the um ecommerce here's where you enter here's where you exit and so these are not as bright as they appear anyway. These will all be to the wall in various places on the building. Lighting. This is probably the most technical boring uh um site plan, but this just indicates this is a phototric plan. We take a look at all the pole height and the um of course all the fixtures and then we look at well how much light is going to be there? How much light is going to spill over? How much is going to be contained on the site? And by code, we're not allowed to have light go past our property. Uh we have to contain it. We've got to keep it there. And this technical this technical site plan is called a phototric plan. And it identifies that with the type of fixtures we're going to use that it's it meets that because these little these are actually all these little specks are actually numbers and it actually looks at oh by the time it gets to the rideway main street it's not going to cause um glare or anything like that. And you know something I'll just

mention right here. We've got our uh retail, excuse me, our residential lots back up in here. And with the cross-section that I showed you here and where the wall pack design will be on the back here, you can actually control you'll sh we'll have those wall packs shielded will have um because they're LEDs now, you can control lighting really really well. And so those will be at a point where it won't be able to bleed out into uh anything to the north and of course all other directions. Um utilities. I think this is where we get to have a little bit of fun. And I just want to go over this because once again, as I mentioned, a development agreement is a partnership. We see this as a partnership with the city. And anytime you kind of see development agreements, it's either um we want to make sure that we're protected with some of the things we'd like to do and then we make sure that it's that the city also agrees to that. So, in partnership, I just want to mention that I'm I'm going to I don't read this usually, but I'm going to read this because it's it's what it is. And this comes from the development agreement. the the main lines of water system serving the property shall be owned, operated, and maintained by the city. Now, look at the bottom. It's an owner request. We are requesting that the water system on site be public. What happens here at Cedar City is that's not the case. It's it's usually private. what we are asking for.

Can you clarify? When you say water system, you're talking I'm talking pipes in the ground. Um I'm talking um fire hydrants. I'm talking all of that. Okay. Thank you.

Yes, you bet. Um what that doesn't do is we still we still design the system per city standards but the standard is that the city would like to see us develop a water system differently. And what that causes is I'm sorry I'm dumping in a little technical here, but I pulled out like two of the um these are standard drawings that have been adopted by the city. And once again, the city, your city says, "Hey, um, install a line, say out there in Main Street, and then we want you to run a line to each pad site for a meter." And if you can imagine, so you've just got a spine running, running, running out into there. And then you have water meters that then start to keep track of this. The longer you run a line, the less water pressure you get. There's resistance in the pipe. Now, we we do water studies. We do water studies. The city looks at water studies. We're that's it's all about water and fire safety. And then, of course, culinary water protection. I'm sorry I'm going into this, but if you'll note, one of the standard drawings asked for a a W7 water meter with fire flow. What's what happens though is note number nine on that standard drawing. It says only NEPA 13R fire sprinkler systems are allowed with this detail. That detail applies to residential. It cannot it it doesn't work for commercial. So I can't I can't do this. And then the W8 and because all of this

has been in conversation, I want I want to assure you we've staff has been great to communicate with us. Okay, the W8 fire loop detector check valve, which is another way you can kind of um design um note number five says no culinary water connection to fire sprinkler supply lines. So now I can't take the the water that's running out there. I can't run culinary to um fire sprinkler supply lines. So my smith needs to be sprinkled, right? Well, I can't run culinary there, so I have to do something else. And so these, yes, they're cost prohibitive, but I also wanted to stress that we for about 85% of all Smiths that are designed in the inner mountain west that we do, usually what happens is there is a I'm going to come back. Let me see if I can get back to let's get past lighting. Sorry. Sorry folks. I promise

we will get back to.

So if I can just show this. I just want to show typically what is done is it's called a loop system. So it would come off water. This loop system would then be designed within either landscaping but most likely in in pavement over the top. And it would then from that loop system then a meter would run to the front of this building in this lot. And so that design also works and most entities let you do that. and where that that saves cost for um different things all the piping that's required um but also also the um the type of design we're trying to do and I promise you this is not this is nowhere nowhere near any type of slam on what the city does today. It's not what we're trying to do is because we're going to make this connection to Green Greens Lake and add side curb gutter sidewalk for a portion. That was a bit of a cost that wasn't foreseen. And what we're trying to do is also economically make this site work because there is there's a reason why it's been vacant for a while for and it's there's a reason why the land costs are higher on this site than say another one. Okay, that was that was the most boring one. We did good. We did great because now about we're also requesting a public water system the storm water.

Can I ask a quick question? Yes, go ahead. I I think I followed you on all that stuff, but I I just want to ask is engineering good with all of that. What I would say on that with the water system is there are two ways to do it, right?

They can both be made to work. Um there's u um concerns. The biggest concern with the private system is is that then that fireflow has to go through those vaults before it ever gets to the building. you you lose some head, some pressure. Um so there's there's a little bit of concern there, but but the system can be designed to work either way. Um so AWA is presenting the case for why they think it makes the most sense for it to be um public water mains through there. We'll hear from our water superintendent the case for why they should be private. And that's and that's something that that you need to consider in your recommendation of this development agreement to city council and city council will need to consider that as well.

Thank you. Thank you. That helped.

Yeah, I made it as clear as mud and then he came and saved the day. I love it. Thanks, Kent. Um, with regards to the storm water, what we found out when we were designing this is there's storm water that we handle underground and then usually it's discharged at a um and normal discharge would have gone out to Main Street. Um, Main Street is at, if you will, at capacity and it's not going to be able to take that. So, we need to take it into the channel. And to do that, we're asking that we're we're going to have to ask for a higher discharge rate. Discharge rate of two. We're asking for five. But what we're asking for, because we'll have to do that because we have to pump it back out there. Um, what we're asking is that we not be charged for the increase of the discharge rate. You have a you have a discharge rate that costs us money if we're discharging at a higher rate than two. And but we we have the constraint that we can't normally take it out to Main Street and just run it through that storm drain system. It's by the time Main Street gets down here to the south end, it's

what capacity. Sorry, what was your reason for not charging you the discharge rate?

The reason is because the constraint is I can't comply with with what code says because I I'm not going to be allow water doesn't lie, cheat, or steal. It's going to be out there. there's get at the rate of two out in Main Street, you're already at capacity. So, we don't have a place to discharge. So, we now have to take it um kind of to the norththeast, but it's going to have to discharge at a higher rate. So that higher rate into the channel

um is what we're asking for is we don't want to be charged that because of the constraint that's already been placed on us based on the design of Main Street and how it could take capacity. Kent, how does that

Yeah. So, what I would say to that is when when development comes in and they do on-site storage of of storm water, if they're able to store that storm water and any release into any public system is held to the that historic rate, um then we don't charge them storm drain impact fees. if they're meeting if they're not meeting that requirement fully, then there's a pr-rated share of that um storm water impact fee that they would need to pay. So, my understanding, Rick, correct me if I'm wrong, is that the proposal here is we want to discharge into the public system at a higher rate and not have to pay that pr-rated storm drainage impact fee. Is that I understand that correctly

with baby asterisk. We weren't able to because typically we would have done that and then discharged in the system that's in Main Street. So what they're ask I'm sorry. Go ahead. Would the higher rate make up for the impact fee financially that you're charging? Do I understand that right? Going to charge a higher rate but no impact fee. Um I guess I'm not understanding your question. I'm sorry. I I guess maybe I'm not phrasing it right. I I thought you were going to pay a higher rate for discharge and not have an impact fee. I think they're going to have a higher rate of discharge and pay a lower impact fee. Oh, higher rate. I'm sorry. That's correct. Okay. So, the flow rate, not the money rate. Okay.

With your pointer, show where that discharge is. Is it going to be into that flood control? Yes, it is going to be in the flood control channel. And we have I believe we've got actually to because we have to pump. We need to pump this up and then discharge right up in here. Now, it's not at a rate that's necessarily erosive or anything. I mean, it's not I hope you don't think, oh my gosh, um here here goes our channel. It's not like that, but the rate historically across this site is at two um yeah, two C

or 2 CFS per breaker. I forget the exact numbers. And so it's it's at a slow rate, but even that amount, we're at capacity out here and I cannot I I can't what the city has, it can't take it. So we have to take we have to contain this. Here's here's some chambers underneath. It'll take all that.

We'll take that and then we have to discharge at a rate of we're like at five and two is the historic rate. So all we're asking is because we can't discharge into Main Street and we can we can physically discharge into the channel, we're asking that the that we could wave the impact fee of that difference. You want some relief the extra cost to bring it to that. Yes.

So Kent, is that I mean you're kind of who we have to ask these questions to. I hate to put you on the spot all the time. Yeah. So, does that increase discharge rate, does that harm the system in any way?

Um, that's a a good question. Honestly, the uh the thing is a lot of the water that hits that channel um isn't being routed through storage first and then directed to the channel. Therefore, some of those peaks will pass before this water ever gets there because they're going to fill up their storage and then pump from that storage to the channel. Um, their water will arrive later than a lot of other water would. Now, there is some other water that comes down off the mountain side and runs through um the green, you know, the various Greens Lake dams that uh also gets released into this channel that comes later. It's hard for me to say whether there's a detrimental effect or not, but certainly their their peak when their peak flows hit the channel will be different than what some of the other areas that discharge to it. So that that that is one reason why it may uh be just fine.

What would be worst case scenario? Worst case scenario is that uh further downstream when we get down into where Cross Hollow Road's going down through kind of the canyon there and then uh and then the channel has to cross under Cross Hollow Road down by Silver Silo that we exceed capacity there. I don't know that we would, but that that would be the the worst case scenario. Okay. And if we ex if we exceed capacity, what does the building start falling? Um, if we were to exceed capacity, I think the most likely thing that would happen is the water would come up out of the channel and run down Cross Hollow Road.

Okay. And if you were to give an a and you haven't been here when you've had many of our major floods and it what are the probabilities of of this? That that's a good question. I don't know the answer to that. Okay. All right. Thank you. Financially, what's the impact fee um you know that you're asking for versus the um the discharge? I mean, financially, what does that mean to the city?

Um, so, you know, with a a a site this large and the amount of storm water that comes off of it, the the storm drain impact fee could potentially be fairly significant, right? Um, in their case, it would be reduced certainly by the fact that they they will have all of the storage that they're putting in that helps to to bring down those peak discharges. it wouldn't be reduced to zero following our standard uh because they are planning to discharge at a higher rate. But uh but yeah, so what they're asking for isn't a waiver of the entirety of the storm drain impact fee because some of that would be prrated out anyway. They're just asking for relief from the the remainder of that that wouldn't be prrated out.

Thank you. Yeah, more like charged if we had the capacity in Main Street at 2 CFS to pay that fee. But the above and beyond. So water that would normally hit the system would be held back until other flows go by and then their system would kick it in. Yeah. Yeah. Because it'll take a while for their storage facilities to fill up to where they would need to begin pumping. That's good. That's good. Take a little relief off that.

This is the fun stuff. Okay, I'm almost done. I have like one more slide and that's it. Okay, because I know that we'll hear about this and if we need to, I can I can come back to any of these. Here's just additional items that are in the development agreement. So, I just wanted to do this. Owner will construct public improvements along the main street frontage. Yes, we're doing that. There's actually we need to connect a water line from the north end of our property just kind of up there by that yellow building that's now vacant down along the frontage of our property and connect it down to the south end. We're going to do that. That's just one of the utilities that will be connected. Um owner shall construct a drainage channel crossing to provide access to Greens Lake Drive and shall contain sufficient width for two-way vehicles and also uh some curb gutter and sidewalk which I mentioned up around the corner um along there so that people in uh along Greens Lake can then just continue to walk along a sidewalk and then come down into um into the Smith marketplace. um properly abandoned a drain pipe. There's a drain pipe underneath um the main street that goes from this property underneath and goes right across the street where that other vacant little parcel is. Originally, that was drainage and that handled the drainage for this site. But now that we're going to do this, UDOT is saying, "Hey, close it off correctly." So, we'll be we'll be uh doing it properly so that that drainage pipe no longer serves and takes water underneath uh the UD do right away.

Oh, that's what you said. Um relieve some of the neighbors downream.

Yeah. Maintain cross access with frontage road to the northeast of the property and the frontage road to the south of the property. There was uh it was always the idea to connect the two directly, but now because of the accesses that were put in from UD do um on our property, we need to kind of you have certain throat depths, you have certain things. So, and we have parking lot, but we have there is a way to connect if someone really wanted to, you know, sneak through the frontage of we go past the fuel center and then head north and go up through there along there. We're going to maintain that and there will be an easement record. There's already an easement recorded on those two ends that that we're we're honoring. So, that will be done. And then also traffic mitigation measures include measures required by UD do. Um we're we're going to look at this uh the signalization of that one signal that's at the north northwest corner if you will of our property that's already there. Um oh excuse me. It's kind of the center. I'm I I misspoke there. But that that how that operates and how we have access to that is being handled by UD do traffic study traffic engineers and so we'll get to that. So, and that's in that development agreement also.

They get to spend three million. I'm spent, you know, and I don't have a cute slide after this. So, I don't know if there was anything you wanted me to go back to. And like Randall, I don't know if I got every I hope I got everything here for one month. Let's do this then. Thank you, Rick. Uh, bring it back to the commission. Does anybody have questions before we open the public hearing? before before us was a there's a street up there

that empties past a thrift store and they were having access problems to Main Street and so they asked if they could come up that frontage road to the stoplight. Is that considered in that by the city? Do you know what I'm talking about? That was several months ago

with that connectivity to the frontage road being maintained and and just to to be a little bit clear on that that th those connections there by standard plumbing and by the gas station to the south. Those were requirements that UD do placed when they vacated that portion of rideway to this property own the the the person who owned the property at the time. And the the development agreement is memorializing that requirement. It had come from from from UD do. But yes, they would have access into the parking lots here which would gain them access to the traffic signal. call the residents wanted access to that stoplight rather than

trying to get back on Main Street and spending hours and hours trying.

So if you can look I I've got one that has line work that's pretty good here. So by the way you got you all know that there's a grade change right here and you go like you're going to go off a jump and in the snow I bet you just slide right out. So, what we did is there's an access right here that we're going to bend just a little bit so that it can come out and have a proper throat depth in this. That's what that's called. So, that here they come down. They're going to they're going to access right here. If they want to continue, yeah, they can they can continue through this site. They can come down to this signal if they'd like. Um or they can come all the way down and there's the other access point from from this property that's just off site. So

they were just having trouble getting on Main Street as I recall. Yeah. And wanted some access either a fronted road or through your some way to get to that stoplight so they didn't have to wait forever. So that's kind of how if you could imagine they'll come in on site, go past about two pad sites. Maybe they'll maybe they want to come maybe they want to get a hamburger before they actually get on the main street. I don't know. Or maybe a slurpee. Yeah. So then and then they'll then they'll access that. This is where this signal currently exists. Dated myself. Does that help Ken? Okay. So Ken, I have a question. Can we go back to the the most boring part and that is the water public versus private?

Yes. You and I recently had a conversation about very similar issue that that he's talking about if this is in the county. I'm so sorry. Do you want the site plan or the verbiage that No, the show the diagrams of the water systems W8 and W9. Yeah. Oh, I wish they had a W9. Do you have a Oh, maybe did I did I did I over jump? No, that's okay. It's seven and eight. But um it's my understanding the water conservancy district allows what he'd want to do in in their

right and and I think there there are a lot of jurisdictions that would allow exactly what they're requesting. There are reasons why our our uh uh city has chosen to go the route we have in the past. Um I think before you get to the to the uh public uh opening the public hearing, I'd love to have our water superintendent have an opportunity to to explain why the city has operated the way the city has. And then it'll be a policy decision whether to allow a a shift to do something different here. Right.

And then can I just stay like we we've had a few meetings. I think our last meeting like yesterday with staff fire was in there and with one of these designs he's kind of concerned that the fire flow would be at the like the minimum of what he wants in the hydrants and he wants that comfort level where there's, you know, a little bit more water. That's not to say that the minimum wouldn't service that, but he just expressed kind of a concern. So uh

and really what we came away from that meeting yesterday with was that that uh it can be designed to work either way as with public mains through the project or private mains through the project and that's just a design detail that would need to be to be worked out. Thank you.

I have a question. Have you had a visit with the neighbors that are on the side of the where the trucks come and go? So the answer is no. Not not specifically because the while we were in the process of acquiring that skinny parcel with the yellow home. Um I spoke to one neighbor and I honestly can't tell you who it was and they didn't have a concern. Their concern was let's get the homeless kind of moving out of there and we mentioned that there'd be this grade difference that would be doing this. So I spoke to one but it was at a different it wasn't at this presentation of the development agreement that was when we were reszoning that little sliver and it was going to be acquired and incorporated into this.

Good. Thank you. Thank you Rick. Why don't we do this then before we go to the public hearing? Let's listen from who is it? The water king of Cedar City. Yeah, it's water king. Not not just a master.

Nice name and

Matt Baker, water division superintendent. So on this we have many uh developments in the city that have a fireflow private fire flow which would be Kurt Smith's Home Depot, Walmart, all the schools, SU Hospital, the big manufacturing plants and others little ones that I'm not going to name off of all of them. So all have their own private fire lines are maintained and tested by the owner. This practice has worked and have we've had no issues with this in the past. So you got the one is you got the rateayer cost allocation. Acceptance of a private located infrastructure would result in operation maintenance and life cycle costs being borne by the city's rate base for facilities that primarily serve a single private development. Two, lack of systemwide infrastructure benefit. The city finds that the uh subject water infrastructure is required solely to satis satisfy private insurance underwriting requirements and does not increase system capacity, redundancy, resiliency, fire flow or service coverage, nor does it otherwise constitute an improvement to the city's public water system. Municipal liability and claims water facilities on private property increases the city's exposure to claims for private damages for property damage, service interruptions, personal injury and loss of revenues, including claims arising from service disruptions, access limitations or private operational constraints. This area is also accept susceptible to soils. So meaning water leaks or line breaks can lead to ground instability and structural sediment settlement which can cause a lawsuit to the city saying you str you just sunk my $330 million building. So for an example, there's a building here on Main Street that had a water leak on their fire line for years without it being unnoticed and it sank it settled their building. Another one was a manufacturing plant out west. Same thing. Fire line leaked. It caused a big huge sinkhole. no responsibility to the city to pay for any of that damage to those buildings or the water line. Operation and maintenance impacts. Water lines located on private property require no standard maintenance or

non-standard maintenance practices. Increased coordination and restoration private improvements resulting in elevated O andM costs relative to facilities and public rideways. Unfunded capital and life cycle obligation. City accepts would obligate the city to fund long-term rehabilitation, replacement, and upgrades of infrastructure without a corresponding systemwide benefit or identified funding source. And then if we do this as a policy and precedence, acceptance of private located water infrastructure would establish a precedence inconsistence with adopted city policies and complicate future infrastructure ownership determinations. And then again, does not constitute a public improvement or component to the city's water systems. Does not extend, upgrade, replace, enhance, or otherwise improve city water infrastructure, capacity, or level of service. Exists solely, this their private one exists solely to satisfy private insurance requirements for fire protection associated with the property and is required supplement private fire protection only as the city has existing public fire hydrants located within the public rideway surrounding the property.

Well, that makes perfect sense to me. You're a fast reader. You should do one of those speed reading programs. No, no. Everything you said make is logic makes logical sense. Did you write that yourself? Kind of. So, in a nutshell, if we're just having a conversation out in the hall, you'd say you're good with this. What's that? If we're just have you read that is very impressed. Good job. But for me to fully take that in, I have to read it. I'd have to read it two or three times. But just if we're having a private conversation out in the hallway or someplace and I asked you about this, you'd you'd say you're okay with everything. These guys want Okay.

And they meet all requirements that similar to Home Depot, similar to all the schools you mentioned. Sounds like the bigger businesses have a very similar situation. Am I right? Okay. So with with these fireflow or W7s and W8s, they did some water modeling and every configuration they did was 2,000 gallons per minute. It just lowers the pressure on a few of the settings or a few of the um standards. Okay. So, help me out here. The You're in favor of a private system, correct? Smith's is asking for a private system. A private system. A public system.

I think the private system is less responsibility from what what you've stated. Big liability

for the city. And you're right. Yeah. For the city and you're right, that area has some sus uh suspect soils that we have to water in it don't get along. But I also know on the builder's side, you can buy insurance to cover all those water damage scenarios and and the premium on that going to be, you know, that much of an add-on. Just like everybody. Now I'm not going to say they're going to do it, but everybody's so happy. So any way to make a quick buck, they're going to do it. We get people, we have a water leak two houses up the street, and we'll have people come down and say, "Hey, you just caused my water my lawn to sink or my yard to sink or did some kind of damage and had nothing to do."

Yeah, but we got Randall as a secret weapon. All right. Any other questions? See any comment back, Rick, with respect to what the water superintendent said.

I just want to show that we get along. We get along. We get now.

So, so when we do this in other entities, you have a dedicated easements. You have build it according to city standards that goes in. The easement is there. They have full access to whatever needs to be done whether it's a whether it's a meter within a public easement or it's a hydrant that's also in a in an easement. So you have that design the liabilities. Yeah. It's it's usually just a a damage that's and then of course you needed to determine was it was it was it because of the way we installed it? Was it because we didn't do this? Was it was there something irregular that happened? But um liability usually happens um I don't know for both. I mean, you also, for example, monitoring I I notice you didn't go into like monitoring the the meters because you can kind of do that now remotely and and that. So, that's not a big deal to have you on site. So, the meter thing, we do have an ordinance here 3752. If it's on property, water meter before water meter um acceptance is the back of meter setter or property line, whichever comes first. Since all these meters are going to be on property, they're going to be yours. The only thing that will be ours is meter. All the service lines would be yours.

Yeah. But then but then we dedicate that easement area to the city for public like a public utility easement.

And then the other issue was he said we have the new meter reading system. For some reason a meter pad, it's got a big square concrete. People like to advertise put stuff on it. It attracts stuff to put on it and sometimes those reads don't get out. So I got to send the guy out to go get that read because something got put on it. So when you're saying easement, I don't think we're talking about easements where we take responsibility any of your internal on your property water lines. Just there'd probably be an easement right where the city's water line would come in and then hit them hit the meter. That's kind of what you're talking, aren't you?

So usually usually that is also a dedicated easement for a public utility easement. These are just public utility easements. So, so that the city has access to something that, let's say we ran it right up the middle. We wouldn't, but what if we ran it right up the middle of our parking lot, a a a pipe, a line, a meter, we would dedicate so much that um a public utility easement that they would have access, you would have access any time for that utility that lies within that that easement. But the city owns it, my understanding the city owns the water line between the meter and to the main to the main.

That's correct. And so historically, I think we've tried to place meters right on the edge of property. Is that So that's another ordinance 375. Water meters placed within and near the line of the street curb.

Yeah. Yeah. And this is what this is exactly why we're here is you would then see for example let's say hey let's say Chick-fil-A let's say Chick-fil-A buys one of our pad sites. Okay. Um they're going to use a meter and it's going to be specific to their property. So in the loop system that we would have there would just be an extension of that meter to that parcel and then they would be responsible from meter into their building but there's just this kind of small area where they're actually going to be dedicating to the city access to that. So let me just say this. There are parts case everywhere.

There are parts

of of town where your rest where your stores being proposed and and toward the mountains. The city won't even accept the roads in there that you have to build private subdivisions because the the soils are so suspect especially when a drop of water hits them there. Buildings have sunk feet. So that's why we've done a so uh a soils test, we've drilled borings, we've done a soil study. Um we know because when you put the weight of a 123,000 square foot building and put all the goods in it and everything else, we have looked at that. We understand the the soils out there. And once again, some of that's hardcape that's going to run get in storm drain system and and kind of take care of that. So

may So may I ask why can't from the meter in you guys run your own water system to each one of those and do a I guess you'd call it an independent or a sub meter for each one of those. So there'd be a master meter. So master meter is tough because uh for fire loop I can't I can't use culinary water. So that's that's what's That's what's going to all these different pad sites. And then uh on the other one, I cannot this isn't a residential, so I can't do it. Like there's some notes in the standard drives the door,

but I mean both of those work. It's just the PSI gets a little

janky on one of them that we were talking about. So Matt Kent, is there any other op any other options that could minimize the city have an exposure that they could still allow water to the get the water needs to their project? So re depending on what the policy decision is that is ends up being made on whether this is going to be public or private on-site water mains. We will work with the applicant to come up with acceptable solutions to make it work either as private or public. So I'm I'm not too concerned about that. We'll we'll find a way to work through those issues and uh you know honor whatever policy decision is made.

Thank you. All right, let's do this. Um we're hours so deep into this. Let's go ahead and open the public hearing. Is there anybody that would like to speak to this or has a question? State your name, please. And

hello, Ben Cousins, active transportation committee. I just have a few concerns about the walking and biking path uh that goes along Greens Lake and how this might affect the walking and biking infrastructure and safety of those walking and biking. Um as well as with um on Main Street um it's already pretty bad in that area. So um just making sure that uh people are thinking about the safety of those pedestrians walking on those streets. And then lastly, um Smiths is one of the few grocery stores in town that doesn't have bike parking. If you go there now, it's kind of a hodgepodge of bikes wherever they can lock it up. So, any place if we could somehow get bike parking there, it would be greatly appreciated. Um there's a growing number of people who rely on biking and walking now. So, thank you.

Thank you, Ben. Randall, do we have the authority bike? Do we have the authority to ask require that or is that so we we're in bike park bicycle parking right so when we're in a development agreement the the breadth of what we can add and what they can add is incredibly wide okay but I always want to be careful that I don't give you a blank check at that point right

you'll need to show that it's something that's related to the development you're not trying to exact something that's just out there for no reason no connection not related Um, if you're talking bike racks, then yeah, that's probably within a range that can be done. If you feel that's necessary as for safety reasons as part of the development. Um, same thing on Greens Lake. If you feel there's something that they're doing that becomes unsafe, well, that's something to discuss as well. Well, Smith is a great community partner. Maybe they will consider something like that because we do have a larger with electric bikes, a lot more people ride them now. Yes. Go ahead, Rick.

Absolutely. I'll take a note that we will add we'll look at because we have bike racks at all of our stores. Maybe we need to just do a few more since we're now doing the connectivity to Greens Lake. With regards to the trail system there, we're not interfering with the trail system at all along that channel, you know, the the drainage channel except for the the culvert that's going to go over the top, but we're connecting that with sidewalk curb and gutter. And a matter of fact, we're going up around the corner on on Greens Lake so that we can connect that sidewalk and continue that. So, the safety of our pedestrians actually going to be um it's going to be enhanced for that reason. Okay.

And if I could just add to that, uh the uh where the access out on to Greens Lake crosses the existing path, we'll make provisions to make sure that's a safe crossing. Yes. Did that help? Yes.

Okay. Thank you, Matt. Thank you, Rick. Any others? Go ahead. State your name, please. Good day folks. I'm Dennis and Delato, a new resident of this community. Uh just wanted to bring to the attention the Mr. AWA's representation of the lighting systems. We're very used to having dark sky standards being represented in our town where we came from. We also see it happening here to I I think I'm not sure it's a standard in the city community, but uh we're hoping that that standard will be continued here with new development wherever it is, including the Smith store for not only uh parking lots, but signage. It all gets to be considered to increase the importance to a lot of people in this community for dark skies and being able to look at the stars at night. So, just add that.

Thank you, Dennis. Appreciate it, sir. We're going to be one of these days soon, we're going to be having a discussion about an ordinance allowing more dark sky subdivisions in the future. And so I hope you watch the agendas because I think it's an important discussion in especially in residential opportunities that aren't next to a commercial project.

Okay. No others. will uh close the public hearing and bring it back to the commission for a recommendation. It sounded and correct me if I'm not if I'm wrong, Kent, but it did sound like you could work with what we have, right? I mean,

yeah. So, so the uh the big issues that I see um that probably should be addressed in your in your motion or at least consider addressing in your motion is uh you know the the issue of public versus private with the water manes on site is is the big one. The other, you know, significant ask that they have as I see it is that higher discharge rate into the into the Greens Lake flood channel there. And so if you choose to want to weigh in on that, they're requesting that they be allowed that higher discharge rate that they would pump. And uh if you feel like that needs to be addressed, you could address that in your motion as well. Um, but th those are the two items I see that you may want to address in your motion or you may not if you're okay with it the way it's written.

Mr. Chairman, is there any conflict with the five extra feet or 10 extra feet with their sign? Any problem? 35 foot sign.

Uh, so yeah, ordinance would allow a freestanding sign at 30 ft. Uh the style of that sign is more of what we would describe as a monument sign. It has that continuous footing. It's wide. So it's it's not sitting on a pole like a lollipop so to speak. The maximum height of those signs is 20 ft. So they are exceeding the the height. Uh the number of signs as far as uh the multi-tenant signs is being exceeded. I don't think staff has a whole lot of concerns just to the due to the size and scale of this development. I don't think it's a huge ask what they want. Uh, one of my concerns is the sign right there that right next to Greens Lake. Um, that is a 15 foot sign right next to the trail. Uh, I believe it's right next to the trail and it's a digital sign. It will have gas prices and things of that nature. I don't know if that's the best fit uh for kind of that residential area and the trail. Maybe it's cuz I walk it a lot and I have an opinion about it. I think something more subdued might be nicer, like like their individual pad signs are shorter, a little less intrusive.

Could that sign be moved into their property a little? Would take it away from the the trail. I don't There's got to be a way to have it more visible though because you want it visible so people what the gas prices are. Mhm. I It could certainly be moved. Uh I just don't know if if you necessarily need a digital gas sign right off the trail there. That's my concern. So sir, if you

if is there another place to relocate that sign? We giving you still the same effectiveness for marketing your goods. So, the reason why it's tucked up near uh near the wash is because this site right at this point drops off. I mean, there's it it's just sloped. And so, if we move it back, it drops underneath the the sur, you know, the the elevation of the roadway. So, we have an issue. That's that's why it's tucked there, but we're not going to interfere with any type of sight visibility line there. So, that was that was the idea of why it's at that corner of that open space.

Can you clarify one more time why the the big sign is 35 ft instead of 30? Oh, it was just it was just with uh and I I agree with your uh with Don here is that because of the size because of the size and traffic along Main Street, what you usually look at with signage is speed, how the ve, you know, how much traffic's on there, what what the what this is because people are going to have to make a decision heading south. they got to make a decision at some point to get in that left lane to then turn into our project.

Um there's a distance safety factor. So we've looked at the size of sign, what we'll need, also the multi-tenant signage and then also heading north, same thing. They just need to see that they're going to make a decision and it's coming up. That's why the size of that sign is is what we're requesting. And I would say 35 ft is like usually usually where if we have limitations, you know, um usually Smith likes about 50 to 70 and that's not going to happen here. It's not it's not it's not good for this area. It's not it's not Cedar City. So that's why looking at the 35, you can have something that is that's going to work. I would still I would think going with a 35 rather than

four or five little signs. Let's have one decent sign that advertises everybody on the property and then we won't have a whole bunch of little signs popping up everywhere. No, but you'll have both. If you look at their design, they've got one major one and then one for each tenant space,

right? Um, also if I can just add in real quickly, not that we deal with it a lot, um, this is just outside of the south interchange area that's in our sign ordinance. So, inside the sign ordinance, if you're within those specific zones that are each of the interchanges, they can actually have taller signs. They can go 50 feet as measured from basically the deck of I-15, what'sever closest to them. And in most cases, that means quite a bit more height than the 20 to 30 feet they can have for other signs. This is literally right at the edge of your property. That's right.

So, that's number one. Just kind of let you know how close that is to other places that have higher signs. On the other side, we've actually had two businesses, well, three businesses total. Two in this area, one at the center interchange that went to the board of adjustments over the last 10-15 years to try and get taller signs through a variance approach. Now, the danger they all ran into is they two of the three all said the same thing. We want to be seen so we can make more money. Very bad argument to the board of adjustments because they're not allowed to do it on money. You've at least not heard that argument today. Thanks for that, Rick. Um it's based on a safety thing. So, just let you know that's a slightly different argument than what the board of adjustments has rejected. Maverick at this interchange is the one that did get an approval to have a taller sign. Um they also made some different arguments with regards to what was UD do property before but just know this similar concepts have been proposed including one at the hotel more or less across the street from here that was rejected by the board of adjustments but just under a different theory. So we're really close

um to this area but there are have been some prior boards other boards that have gone the other way. So just arguments back and forth. I don't see a problem.

I'll make a positive if it's okay. I'll make a positive recommendation on this development agreement excluding uh uh to allow the additional flow of drainage into that canal and um the but to not make the water system a public but keep it a private system. uh the the a private water system within and we just keep we just go to our meter and then they go they they develop the rest of the system inhouse if that's if that makes any sense

like to add just a 30 foot sign also I don't think it's 5 going to matter with marketing well the problem with that shorter sign to it they have several businesses that are going to have names on And that means the print gets smaller and smaller the tighter the area. Understand? Yeah. I don't I don't think an extra five feet is going to matter. And you're trying to work with us and we're trying to work with you. So I'm in favor of the extra five. You said 35. Okay. I'll second that. I'll second that. Is the So clarify for me the beginning of that with ex with respect to the discharge. I wasn't sure what

we will we're okay with the larger discharge without that additional some kind of compromise and Kent addressed it and Kent's a lot smarter than I am um when it comes to some of the costs but allowing that additional dis discharge because they're capturing a great deal of that water on site so it's more of a controlled more of a controlled discharge. Am I saying that correct, Kent? If I'm understanding you correctly, then yes. No. So, so yeah, if I'm understanding what you're saying, then the additional discharge rate that they are requesting. Yes. You're okay with? Yes.

They're also requesting not having to pay that impact fee that would be associated with the additional dis the additional discharge rate. That is correct. And and you're so you're agreeing with with what they are requesting in your motion. That is correct. Okay. All right. Everybody along with the along with the private water system from the from the meter in Can I ask for a clarification again? Water person, which system do you prefer the private? He prefers the private. Okay. And that's what you're proposing? That's what I'm proposing. Okay.

A liability. I think he made a very articulate argument as it relates to liability. Thank you. I'll second that. All right. We have a motion in a second. Are you able to articulate that clearly, Amber? You know, I think so. So, sorry. Let me see if I have it correctly. So, you're in a agreement to what the development agreement currently says. The only change would be the water lines making it private, not public. That would be correct. Okay, fair enough. Sorry if I wasn't articulate. No, it was good. It was excellent.

It was I enjoy um Okay, we have a motion and a second. All in favor? Any opposed? Motion carries. Rick, I just want to stand up and say thank you so much. I know we got down in the weeds a little bit, but thank you so much and thanks to the public for letting us work through this. Um, I know that I'll be punished at a later time. Are you still giving us donuts when it opens? You got it. Okay. 13 bucks a dozen. Now,

also, thank you public for waiting uh as we walked and and wandered through that a little bit. Okay. Um, residential development overlay, Cody Drive, Cross Hollow Road, Eros, and it looks like Go Civil with It's crazy Dallas. Dallas. Good evening, Dallas Buckner. Go Civil. Um, so we've got uh two items on the agenda that are somewhat tied together, so I don't know if Yeah, we'll handle them. We'll handle them together. It seems like Yeah.

Okay. Um, so we we are proposing a residential development overlay on Cross Hollow. Um, it's really hard to see with all those contours on the screen. Um, um, so this is Cross Hollow right here. Um, maybe Ken, could we say that? Say that again for me. Could we flip to the third sheet on this? I think it'll be better for And we might go back and forth. So, where's silver silo? Oh, we only have the one. Okay. Is there in this uh other folder? Do you know? Yeah, if you go to the the top one. Top one. Second sub to the middle.

And then third sheet because I don't think we have the contours on that one. Oh, okay. So, um so this So, where's where's Silver Silo? I'm getting there, Tom. Oh, so Cross Hollow is right here. Cody Drive is right there. silver silos right here on the corner. Okay, now I know where I am.

Um, so we're proposing a residential development overlay, which is um, so this is not a zone change. It's basically a master plan for the property. And I've spent a couple hours last week talking to I don't know, maybe a dozen of the residents. has had a pretty extensive mailor boundary um to try to kind of educate people on what an RDO is and what exactly we're proposing. Um but essentially what we're doing is we're proposing a master plan for a 77 acre parcel which is kind of this area. We we're proposing three pods. We're proposing pod one which is our three right here. Pod two which is this larger area. Um, and that's proposed to be R1. And then we're proposing R3 right here. Currently, the property is zoned R1. Um, and so with an R1 zoning designation, you would typically based on the city ordinance, expect about four units an acre, which without flipping back and forth between exhibits just because this one's easier to read. But on our first sheet, we have tables which are pretty standard on RDOS's which kind of delineate um what existing is, what the RDO would allow, what the max zoning would allow, and what we're proposing. And um so the the property just under the R1 would allow roughly 310 units um if we did single family residential 10,000 foot lots, which is what R1 is. Um there's when you do an RDO um a zone change is you come in and you propose a zone change and you develop to the limits of the zone change and RDO's um what I would call maybe a more restrictive

um type of zoning application where um there's kind of a a give and take and there's more stipulations and oftentimes they come along with the development agreement which is the second item on this agenda. Um, but when you do an RDO, there's a bonus density that the city can give you. Um, and so the bonus density, if we were requesting, would be 464 homes. Um, our total proposal for this is 400 units. This, as I'm assuming most of the people here, having not seen them stand up for the Smiths and probably not here for the engineering design standard changes, are probably here for this. So, I'm assuming most of the public's familiar with what this property looks like. It's relatively steep through this area and then there's a flatter area down here. There's a flatter area here and then there's off the wildflower subdivisions, there's two deadend stub roads that just go into the property. And so essentially what we're requesting with this RDO is instead of going and leveling the site and cutting the mountain tops off and masquerading the whole thing is we're proposing to concentrate the density into the flatter areas being pod one and pod three and then preserving the R1 space in pod two. And then we've shown just kind of a concept of finishing those roads out and putting more R1 houses on there. Um,

show me where the R1 again point. So all of pod two, which is this large area in the green hatching plus those kind of roughed in roads. Yeah. Is pod two. That's 57 acres of the 77. Okay. And then pod one is a 14 acre roughly 14 acre. R3 and we have a density of 250 on there. And then pod or sorry that's pod one. Pod three is 5.6 acres and we have 100 shown on there. And then pod two is 57 acres and we have 50 units proposed on that one. Okay. Thank you. And so that green but that green light makes a when you're moving it around I couldn't quite

Is this the red one? I couldn't quite

They're both That's green, too. I couldn't quite see it as fast. Um, and so when we when we go through and do an RDO, we create pods. We um we look at the bonus density that the city could allow. We look at the underlying zoning and then we propose a density. So, we're below what the bonus density would allow. Um, but it's important to note that when we when we lay these pods out and we put a density on this table, we're saying this is the absolute maximum that the city would allow. So, for instance, when you zone something R3, the city's density is 24 units an acre. When you look at the density we're proposing on pod 1 and three, which we're proposing as R3, the zoning, if we came in for a zone change on those, it would allow 24 units an acre, I think we're at 17 17.8. So, we're underneath those. and the the the folks that I talked with that received the mailers saw the R3 and that was the nature of the call. But what we're proposing as kind of a give and take aspect of this is there's a topography challenge that we're up against through this largely green hatched area. We're proposing to concentrate higher density in pods one and three and then kind of finish this out in a similar style as what's already there. But then we've met with staff, we met with engineering, planning and parks. And part of one of the items in the development agreement is that we're proposing uh that once we develop these two roads out, the remainder of pod two be dedicated to the city as open space. Um there's nice hills through there. There's a lot of dirt trails that the public already walks their dogs on. And so in our development agreement, we're

proposing that anywhere from 30 to 49 acres of the 57 acre pod 2 be dedicated to the city as open space. The staff that we met with saw the value in it, but staff doesn't make the decisions necessarily. So it depends on Can can you show me one more time where pod one and three are? What pods one and three? And and that's what you propose is more high density. Correct. Correct. Yeah. So pod one is this sh I don't know what to call that shape. It's kind of rectangular. It kind of comes to a point. So that's pod one. And tell me again where silver silo is. Right down here in the corner. Right. Silver is right here on the corner. Okay. So that's pod one. So pod one's right here. Okay. Pod two is right here.

Where's pod three? Pod three is right here. So those are the two R3s where we're concentrating the density. And then pod two is this larger piece here and that's 57 acres and we're proposing to finish out these roads with culde-sacs and then dedicate the remainder of that to the city for open space. Your homes are high up on that hill that would finish out the correct. Yeah. So does it match the existing homes that are up there? Exactly. from R1 standpoint, the R1 is going to be up high like all of the residential homes and then down on the flatter parts lower than the existing homes

um is where we're proposing the R3. And so if you look at this from a home standpoint, can I ask one more question? I'm sorry I'm interrupting you a lot, but even with with your proposal for pod one and three with R3, you could go 24 units per acre and you're proposing just over 17. Is that correct? Correct. Okay.

And and the other part of that is that we are we're proposing this on this RDO. RDO is a planning document. So we don't have engineered plans for this, but that is what I would call the maximum threshold that through the RDO process we'd be allowed to build to. Even if we get an RDO approved, um we're still subject to the underlying zoning requirements and engineering design standards. And so whether we can actually get 250 in here is a is a question as far as it once because especially with R3 if we look at doing these and both of these are planned to be PUDS at least at this point and so there's the roads there's the open space requirement there's the parking and so there's a lot of factors that go into that where 250 may or may not be achievable And similarly on pod two. So when we talk about the overall number we're proposing, we're proposing 410 units.

Um or no of those 400 400. Yeah, sorry. 400 units. Pod two, for example, we're requesting 50 units in there. If you look at these two roads, these are both very short. I'd be surprised if we got more than 25. But I just use that as an example to say, hey, we're setting it here. depending on how it actually gets engineered and and designed and based on the site constraints. Will you give me some bearing? There's a gated subdivision. Yep. To the east. So, it's this one right here. It's right there. Okay.

Okay. Thank you. And then on and just on the open space discussion, there's the city has already accepted some open space. And so when we talk about actual houses that border the project, it's really it's really just the ones in Sunset that are adjacent to it because there's city open space here. There's city open space on the east side of Sunset. And then on on off of wildflower, we're proposing the same same density as what's already there. What's the zoning of the property directly west of like the detention center and pod one? That's all commercial.

Oh, this this is all commercial. So in between there and commercial. We had originally brought this in as pod 4 for commercial, but the way the ordinance is written, it just created more headaches than it was worth. So we pulled it out. Um, so this is this is all planned to be commercial. So there's Silver Silo, there's the vacant lot, and then there's that event style building with the big parking lot. And then everything north of that to Cody Drive is commercial. Everything west of that is already high density. Yep. Everything to the west.

And the other part that the planning commission's familiar with, not necessarily the public, but there's always this concept of um buffering or feathering of zoning. And so when we talk about having a commercial corridor on cross hollow, we've looked at that and said, okay, if typically you go commercial, high density, medium density, low density away from commercial. And um in some sense, we've done that with the R3 adjacent to the commercial and then we're proposing this as a large open space area and then R1 up on top up high. I'm holding a email premier developer and he talks about pickle ball courts, gymnasiums, club houses, frisbee courses, trails, dog runs, stuff like that. Is that part of this proposal? What that open area could consist of or will consist of? So those are so we we are planning to do PUDs for pod one and pod three and so those would likely be factors in those would be factored into the PUD amenities. It depends on how willing the city is to accept a dedication of open space and what happens with the land. basically a a park in that

southwest corner staff staff and parks saw the benefit of it but there's the admin legal the council so there's a lot of people that factor into the decision of whether or not we're hoping that they are because there's somewhat of a precedent where they've accepted other

and the hillsides they have accepted are way less usable and this has I mean there's a lot of trails that weave through here that people walk on daily and so if we're able to preserve you know if we get into the 40 so the overall RDO boundary is 77 acres in our development agreement we have it called out as anywhere from 30 to 49 acres and so we're at 50% or greater roughly that we're proposing to dedicate to preserve open space in the trail. So, if the city could come up with the money and the infrastructure, there would be, the way I read it, a pretty nice park right there for the residents.

If you go back to the topo, it's a little steep for a park, but you could probably get some open spaces for the people to use. I think in talking with parks and wreck, this would be more of a natural open space type area. I wouldn't anticipate paved trails, but it would preserve, you know, those trails that are already there, right?

But I think those specific amenities that you were asking about are things that would be incorporated into the PUDS and then the open space dedication would be a natural open space preservation with the existing dirt trails that the public already uses. Does the city assume liability for those once they're dedicated then? I mean, how does the city deal with that? Things like that.

Yeah. I mean, once we own it, we own it everything. Um, now keep in mind in a natural landscape, you know, like this is just the way nature made it, our risk is substantially lower than sometimes when we improve things. You know, if you're walking along dirt and trees, I'm hoping you're watching your feet. Sometimes people walking on sidewalks don't as much as they should. Um but yeah, there's a risk. Anytime city owns property, owns improvements, we take a risk.

And part of the discussion we had with parks was that um because we had we had floated around a couple different master plan amendments that depending on the outcome of the RDO, we will probably pursue. But we had talked about trails through here and there specific trail criteria for a paved asphalt trail. Um, and Park said when you have these open space trails that you more so post a sign that you're at risk at where they enter and yeah, good luck. So, hike at your own risk. Huh. Commission, any additional questions before we open the public hearing? John, I got a couple slides. Go. All right. Thank you, Don.

This will be a little bit repetitive after Dallas. If I if I might, I have one quick question. We get Bob back. There was some discussion um regarding an uh drainage area if within this parcel. Whereabouts is that located? Yeah. So, we got Yeah. Jump back. Northwest section is the main one. So there's so if you look at the city's GIS master plan, there's two different areas where there's a regional where there's two different what I'm calling regional basins. Okay. Um

regional meaning other people other properties are utilizing it.

Corre correct. So um so there's a 5 acre pond right here and then there's an there's a 5 acre foot pond proposed right here and then there's an 8 acre foot dyke that's proposed there. And so in the development agreement um the the way that master plan improvements have typically worked in the city is um specifically for storm drain is the city says hey if we have a 36 in or 48 in master plan line a developer is responsible for paying for the 24 in and then we pay the upsize. Um, from our perspective, not necessarily staff or the cities, um, when we're talking about regional detention basins that are 5 acre feet or 8 acre feet, which is either 1 acre foot, 1 acre square, 5t deep, or 5 acres, 1 ft deep, or some variation thereof. Similarly, 8 and 8 acre foot. Those are substantial basins and they're both proposed in the flatter areas that are more developable. And so from the development agreement, we're saying, hey, we're a proportionate share. Our project will definitely drain to those. And there's specific paragraphs. There's the development agreement is really two items. It's the the dedication of the open space and it's the drainage where we're saying, "Hey, we're some representative portion of area that's required for our for our site to drain to." Um, and the city has said based on the logic that's kind of been applied in ordinances, the city said we will we will pay for the upsides for the construction, but we're saying there's a big land burden associated with that as well. And so we feel like we should be compensated

proportionately for the footprint of the land value on top of just hey we're half an acre foot or an acre foot of the 5 acre foot. So we pay 20% the city pays 80 of construction. We're saying, hey, if if we need half an acre of detention and the basin ends up being two acres of detention to serve this regional need, then we split it that way for land acquisition and construction. Is that within your development agreement? This Yes, there's a paragraph. Okay. Thank you. Are you bringing water to this development or

water to the city or how does that work? Yeah, so this so the So, an RDO is the same, it's the same rules for subdivision as any other developer. So, whether the developer on this one owns water rights and wants to deed them or he wants to pay the acquisition fee, but um just because we do an RDO, we're still subject to the exact same water requirements as every other project. So, tell me again why you're doing an RDO instead of just zone change or just um this sounds a little different to me. I I just had to educate myself a little bit on RDOS's and and are they enforceable?

I think I think that's what Don's going to give us kind of an overview on. But um so in in my opinion, a zone change is um is pretty cut and dry. You just propose a zone and whatever the zone says you can build to, you can build to. Um my personal opinion or experience doing zone changes is I think we would have a much harder time just proposing R3 on here. Um and so the RDO gives the city the ability um and the development agreement to have some more discussions and restrictions. And so if we came in and just proposed pod one as it's shown here and proposed R3 it and it got approved it would be 24 units an acre is the max density you can do. We've come in and said hey we're going to propose 250. we're more at the 17 units an acre. Um, and so there's a little bit more kind of give and take and that's how you get into open space discussions and these other things. But as far as it being enforceable, it's it's as enforceable. I mean, essentially what we're doing is we're we're overwriting the city's general plan for this one specific project.

Okay. And just just for the record, RDOS's are not uncommon. We have several.

Tom, would you turn your mic on? Excuse me. RDOS's are not uncommon in the city. They came about to change master plan development if I recall many, many moons ago. And it's a better product. And we have the development up that the Levits have done up behind Home Depot. That's that's an RDO. We have several RDOS's that are have turned out to be very nice mixeduse communities. And I think that this, in my opinion, this is one of the this is kind of a quintessential RDO type project where we come in, we propose a master plan. We say, "Hey, there's a lot of things we could do here, but there's flatter lands and there's steeper lands. Let's concentrate the density, provide the city with a master plan that shows the intent of the overall project boundary. We've got some high, we've got some low, we've got some open space." Um, versus just coming in and slapping a boundary on it saying we're proposing R3.

I think it's kind of compromising. Yeah. Where it's give and take. So, thank you, Dallas. Uh, Don Bedro Show. Take it.

Thank you, chair, members of the commission. Uh, so I'll be brief. I think Dallas has uh covered a lot of this. Uh, if you could go to the first slide there, Kent. So, I I just kind of wanted to give you an overview. uh what what is an RDO? What why why do we do these things? And in the purpose section, it it indicates is to establish a method whereby land owners and or developers who develop property in designated residential residential land use classifications of the Cedar City general plan can develop to a higher density. And then it also states that RDOS's can include commercial components and should be enhanced with community amenities. So that's what we're talking about. I think when you look at an RDO, it's we're looking at what is the general plan designation and the general plan is a macro view. This is an opportunity to look at this piece of land and see what makes sense, right? Uh, next slide, Kent. So, what the the mechanics is what the RDO does is it takes the general plan designation. In this case, the general plan designation is low density and that in the general plan that is four units per acre. The RDO allows. So it says you can it doesn't none of this says we shall but you can we can apply a density bonus in this case uh six units per acre in the general plan designation. And and in that sense you end up with a total amount of units. And what the RDO is is saying we can do is take those number of units and shift them and designate different zones. So in this case we're we're kind of taking this this large number of units. If you go to the next slide. Okay. Uh if I can read this. I hope you guys can read this. But under the current

general plan, you have 310 units. That's at four units per acre.

Uh if we take that RDO bonus density, so to speak, that takes you to 464. And what we're doing is if you kind of look at the map, highlighted in blue is is all of is the entire geography. and we're taking that density and shifting it and clustering it. Obviously, there's the that's the most developable components of the land. So, I mean, having the open space uh I think is a good part of the discussion because that provides some of the amenities that the RDO is asking for. Uh I don't see due to the steepness a lot of this the steepness we're not going to see parks you know we're not going to see paved trails uh unless we're doing zip lines. This is going to be natural open space which which is an amenity. Uh it's hard to argue that that area is easy to develop. It would take a lot of money and muscle to start flattening that off and and putting a traditional R1 subdivision in there. Uh but hilltops and green tops are are it can be argued that that those are important. Um you know you don't miss them till they're gone. So that that's just one argument on their side that they are trying to provide some amenities and trails in that area. Uh next slide, Kent. So that's that's probably the biggest benefit. Uh we did talk about Dallas mentioned uh drainage uh potentially liability there. There's a um on the master plan there's that detention basin that is called out for I don't remember how big it needs to be uh as far as acreage. Dallas, do you have that at the top of your head? So, it's it just says the 2023 storm drain master plan just says it's a 5 acre foot basin. And so, they give you a volume, but how you come up with that,

right? And then at the top of that, or I shouldn't say at the top, but within that open space area that they're pro that they're proposing, there's another master plan component, which is a uh dyke system to to hold back some of that drainage before it even gets downhill. So, one of the concerns from staff is we are taking that density and putting it in to pod two at was that 250 units. Yep. Uh so we are put we're putting a lot more folks potentially downstream area from that water. Right. That's the high density the high density area pod one pod one at the north side.

Uh and then the other concern would be traffic. Um, as the commission uh entertains this, uh, a couple thoughts from staff is that, um, we would definitely want to see a TIS or a traffic impact study. I think we should memorialize that in the development agreement. Um, the other one was I think we had talked about as far as access to pod two towards the north, we would want to see access going directly out to Cross Hollow as opposed to putting two accesses directly on Cody Drive. So that that's the RDO uh components in a nutshell, how the mechanics works. And then I think the discussion really is does the what the project proponent really fit and make sense and and are these benefits of of preserving some of the the green space in the Hill Country out there?

Is that does that make sense while we cluster high density uh towards those main roads? Um, so there's there's there's pluses and minuses, but we do want to uh make sure traffic is considered as we move forward and uh think about some of the drainage issues potentially we might face there. And that that concludes my presentation. What would you mentioned a traffic study? I I think that definitely needs to be done. How would we do that? That has to take place at another time. Well, we will have more information. The the proponent uh could you go back to the the map there, Kent, the main map. So, on that RDO plan,

uh could you go back to the one that's harder to read

unfortunately? Or maybe just those slides, maybe the next slide there. So, if you look at the the middle slide there, uh transportation master plan, uh you can see there's a master plan road, and I think that's Church Street to the south, right? That was intended to come off those slopes. Uh the project proponent is looking to eliminate that access just due to the topography constraints there, uh the amount of cut and fill. But before we take those roads out, we will be looking at the master plan as a whole. And we need to see if if we take that leg off the stool, does that cause any problems in other areas. So they will be coming back probably with some amendments to the master plan. That's probably the main one is taking off that or or removing that connection from church. Uh but right now it's in the master plan. Whether this RDO is approved or not or even if we added more master plan elements to it, those master plan elements uh take precedence over the RDO. So if if there need to be another road there, it would have to be there whether the RDO is approved or not.

So may I may I ask a couple questions? Uh let's assume we have a they do a traffic study and the traffic study and I I'm not familiar enough to really analyze how they work. Can that limit what their what their density is or is that just talk about where their exits can be? Typically the traffic study and Ken is certainly above my pay grade here but it would identify if we have issues. Do we have level of service issues at a potential intersection? Uh, you know, we are looking at another intersection right there around the bin south across Hollows with all that development going on within the Levitland RDO. Uh, so if we see impacts there, then the idea would be to mitigate those impacts. uh whether it's right-hand turn pockets or you know other other mitigation measures that we would need potentially if they could not mitigate it that that could impact the density proposed.

Did we request for our horse arena where we have 5,000 people sometimes when it comes to cars did we require traffic impact studies or that new apartment building that that massive new apartment building? I don't believe there was one done on the Henley Apartments. Uh but I don't I don't know if it would have triggered it. Uh but we are looking at traffic certainly more diligently as we

because all these pro those new condos right across street. I mean there's several hundred of them. That was that was prior to we to prior to changing some of our engineering standards and looking at traffic studies for more than 200 vehicle trips or if the uh city engineer determines that it's necessary. In this case, we thought it would be a benefit. I guess what I'm and and it may be a benefit, but I just struggle throwing the burden on onto one when when in the end, but that's the traffic study they're looking at. We're not asking to do a traffic study for the whole city. We're asking with regards to the impact this will have. Yeah. I mean, this is

Yeah. We try and get them as specific as possible as to the impact of what they're doing and the changes they're making. when you know, imagine a flat place, which I'm sure Dallas would love if it was. It'd be a lot easier. Um, the traffic impact as it spreads out over a lot of acreage is a lot easier for us to handle than condense down into two really small areas. It's just something we have to look at to make sure our system can handle it. And if not, what do we do to mitigate? Well, there's only the all those condos right across the street, if I recall, there's only two entrances, an ent two entrance exits on that hole.

And that may be, but what you're finding is a lot of areas, and this is why we've gotten stricter on this, is we're finding, including what we thought were infinite capacity roads, Main Street, right? UD was just in here last week for our council meeting telling us, "Stop doing that because you're actually starting to make it to the level of service even for Main Street. is not going well. There are areas where it's turned yellow on their map and who knows how much longer before it goes red and we'll all be like Walmart. Um that's what we're trying to prevent. Um and so that's where the planning comes in is to make sure we're not just covering our eyes and saying approve everything. Have we done that in the past? Yeah, absolutely we have sometimes. But we're learning.

Well, again, I'm not opposed to the concept of a traffic study. It just I just see sometimes the last guy out, all the dirty laundry gets stuck on his desk. Yeah, we're not the last yet. So other ones if they try and move their density around or increase the density, they'll run into the same thing. Pretty normal. Dallas, I've got a question. Uh there's 250 in pod one and in two or three, whatever it is, it's too small a print for me to read. Uh, it looks like you've only got one access point off Cody and another access point into the cross hollows. Ry, I'm looking at a looks like two to both

property usage. There's only two and then in the other one with the 100 homes or 100 apartments, whatever it is, looks like there's three roads around the outside. So the so when we go through and put together an RDO, there's specific criteria in the ordinance. And so we added this this third sheet based on some of the comments and discussions we've had with staff. So we put this on here. We're assuming that pod one um that the city would like to see the roads lined up

because there's specific criteria of offsetting center lines of intersecting roads. And so with the frontage on Cody Drive and then having to accommodate a detention basin here, it looks like this frontage is probably going to get pinched. And there's also significant grade off of Cody the further to the east you go. And so we've shown the intersection lining up for pod one. The as we mentioned, this area is a part of the property, not a part of the RDO that's commercial. And so we've shown a secondary access that we would intend to have through one of the commercial lots,

parcels, projects, lots, whatever ends up being developed there. And then similarly on this on this pod, um the staff instructed us that the Levit RDO across the street is planning to have a signalized intersection here. And so we have to match that. And then if we go over the 80 units per the current ordinance, we have to have a secondary access. And so depending on where that lines up um if we have enough frontage to get another access within the right distance and proximity to there if we have enough frontage. Um otherwise we might be trying to work with the Levits and tie into uh commercial if they end up developing commercial on the on that other side across.

I just wondered with with your pod one at 250 you have an in and out. I don't know if there's any other way to put another access into that. That seems limited access for 250 units. Yeah. And it's it's really going to come down to how how hard is this basin to design and how big of a footprint. Um because the deeper we can make it, the smaller the horizontal. The 250 is a maximum. You could go under you could go under the 250. But if we could get two roads on Cody, that would be better. I just I'm Yeah. Until we go to the actual engineering design of that basin, it gets really steep. It's hard to say how many we can

fit on Cody, especially if we're if we're trying to match that existing road. So, thanks, Dallas. Can I add one more thing as well? So, there is a a I'm just going to put it bluntly on the legal side, a dangerous section that they've included in there that I would discourage you from approving, mainly because it's probably going to be left for later negotiation. Um, under subsection 3A, small Roman numeral 2, there's a really long paragraph, clearly written by an attorney. Um, I wrote that, Randall. Did you really? I'm impressed. I thought Weman wrote that one for sure. Give him a run for his money.

Um, so that one goes through and kind of describes with regards to who pays for what with regards to that basin. Um, really as it stands, probably not the best thing to include in a development agreement. This is set by ordinance currently. Part of this is a change from ordinance. Um, and likely is something that council want to discuss probably when you actually get further along in exactly how big this basin ends up being.

Um, since much of that discussion is the land value, right? So, the only reason I would ever leave this in here is if you're essentially stating whatever that value is you're claiming, we want that to count as a public amenity towards the additional units you're getting. And that's a possible trade that you can do. But again, we don't necessarily know what the value is of all this. So, it's kind of hard to decide what that how many units equals what type of acreage when we don't really know what kind of acreage it is yet. you're estimating I think your map shows five acres.

So I I have it shown as 1.4 and I think I've got it five feet deep with free but there's like there's a lot of like that's just my best guess, right? There's other constraints that until you really get to detailed designs can be hard. If you saw the most recent thing sent out that included the that was written by an attorney Justin Weman's letter that came with this uh men after my own heart in many ways. Um he talks about using a 5 acre number that's in there. I don't know if he was just using that as an example. Didn't sound like it, but going with that. It on the on the master plan, it just is a 5acre foot basin, right? So, but yeah.

So, you start getting into the how much is the city's responsibility to pay for our ordinance kind of talks about majority of it. think we agree on. There's just one part that we don't and that's the actual land value that I think is usually best left for a different discussion than what we would do in a development agreement. Uh again, unless you're saying look, the only way we're approving these additional units um because they are getting more units because they're doing an RDO um than they would if they tried to develop this with clustering and everything else that our ordinances otherwise allow. Um, you could tie it to that and say the only reason we're giving you the extra units is because of the amenities you're providing with the basin with the leftover un mostly unusable land, which again is helpful for us for that unusable land, but it's also not really developable for them. So, we're getting a gift that isn't as valuable as a true park, right? And again, I'm not saying has no value. I'm just saying has less of a value. So unless you are saying let's tie this to those units that we're giving that are extra which you don't need to do I would suggest you strike any discussion in this about that basin um because we really don't know enough information

what was the citation to that it's so if you go under large subsection 3 subsection A small Roman numeral 2 the parties acknowledge that the 5acre foot and 8 acre foot regional storm drainage that's where it started starts and then it goes on for a good novel. You would exclude that. I would I would suggest if you're looking at the PDF version, it's page nine is where it starts down at the bottom. The beginning part of it is the letter from Mr. Wement. Um but yeah, you're seeing the bottom part of it. You know, go up a little bit.

Up. Keep going. Keep going. Keep going. A little bit more because we're in it now. Right there. that subsection two, that small number two. I would encourage you just to simply strike it at this point.

Um, we don't have enough values in mind to really know what a fair trade-off would be for the units they're getting. So, we'd all be just guessing. Um, and while that may be a discussion, I don't think any of us are prepared to have that discussion tonight. Well, I I I I will voice my opinion and and and I I voiced my opinion to to Randall earlier today. Um I struggle with the concept of government taking of people's property. Now, Randall made a point. He said, "Well, this is legal taking to me. I'm not sure. Yeah, I have a hard time distinguishing takings taking without adequate compensation. And so, um, and and I realize I I don't know all the all the pictures and and the trades and the gives and takes involved in this thing here, but I just the concept of saying, well, we're going to take this much of your property. You're going to give it to us or, hey, your property's, you know, de facto nonusable. But I think what Randall's saying is if we strike it, that can be a subject uh to a later disc.

And I'm okay. I'm okay striking it. All right, let's let's do this. This is a public hearing and we got a field to plow and a lot of people here to plow it. So, let's open the public hearing. And um because there's many here, please try not to spend a lot of time um pontificating pontificating or repeating things that have already been said. Try try and make it additive. Please keep it civil as Dallas's company states. Let's go civil. Yeah. So it's all it's it's all good. So also uh three minute three minutes

three minute limit uh please. and uh state your name and roll.

Okay. Ann Clark, I'm standing here today because whether it's an RDO or not, it's a zone change. And again, everybody says quit you holding up the general plan as of the holy grail, but it is how we plan the city. I'm going to tell you this, the RDO, and you tell me if this is wrong, Randall, gives the advantage to the developer in my opinion. And I, you know, to make certain changes on density and everything else. So, I'm looking at this thing. If you go down to Cross Hollows Road, where we have so much highdensity housing now, really, I think what this is is a a money grab. And I'll tell you why. Because so much of that is unusable. And I get it. The people that own that want to get some money out of that. So, they're going to go with highdensity housing. You make more money. But I want you to really think before you approve this of the overview of this. Now, we go to church on Cody, right? And I right now every Sunday they park on both sides of Cody. If you're coming out of that parking lot, it is so incredibly hard to see. You inch out, itch out, it inch out. And I'm telling you, looking at the other high density on Cross Hollows, all of the parking goes along the street. So I think what we're creating is so much high density here. There's never enough parking. And now you're going to have Cody backed up so much. they'll back up all the way because they're going to use those spaces. All this highdensity housing doesn't ever have enough parking and the city never really fully addresses that. I went down today to Cross Hollows and Larry the Limos parked right in front of all of those um town homes over there and sometimes I've heard also that you know um it doesn't people don't want to have single family. See, I think that all should be single family. It was zone single family, leave it single family. Do we have enough high density down there? And and I've heard, well, people don't want to, you know, live by high density. But if you go further down Cross Hollows, just a small further down, you'll see all the homes that were there. They're across from the arena and

all those horrible, terrible apartments. Uh, and people are living there. So, I don't think that's an argument. I think what we need to do is stick with the plan we have. I'm going to be done, Tom. Stick with the plan we have. realize more than anything we are creating so much highdensity housing. It's going to be like a corridor that we drive through of highdensity housing and it's just jarring to your view. But honestly, if you're going to do a traffic study, you better do a parking study because all we get is parking and it's going to be all in front of the church and it's going to be terrible. Thank you. Boom. Thank you. Two minutes and 30 seconds. Well done.

Good evening. My name is Rob O'Brien. I'm a resident of the community immediately to the north and to the west, Carmela Estates. I'm not an attorney and I'm not a fireman, but I I wanted to share some information with you that I just learned in the last few days and and I saw there's a document there, a 19page document that you folks have. I don't have that. So, what I'm going to share with you, you may have that in that. So if it's in there, I apologize, but I don't think the general public has seen that down.

May I may I will say one thing, Randall, when we do out the the the planning commission agenda and like you have city council agenda, you have the the packet. Does that does a packet for the planning commission go out or readily accessible on the internet so people could review the development agreement prior and so forth that come to these meetings? I don't publish it myself. I know we published the agenda on state and local websites. Maybe Amber I don't think we published the packet.

It's available upon request but I don't know if it's like find it easy on the website. Is there to this point I I contacted go civil and I asked them to send me all the information on that. So I got that information emailed. Okay. On the 9th and it only contained uh one cover letter and this map. So the documentation was not part that was distributed by co- civil. Would it be difficult to add that on online so people have access to it? I am not sure. I don't think it would be difficult, but I would definitely want to look about the legality of it. It's a good thought. But let's continue with our public

here. Here's an issue, and I I believe that good decisions are based on good information. And you're going to hear a lot from a lot of people. What I'd like to share with you is data, not opinion. Uh we've been a resident there for 5 years. We've been a customer of an insurance company. and I won't mention them by name, but they've assured us for 39 years we're in good hands. Okay. The notice that we received was that our house um is potentially at risk for fire. They sent someone out, took pictures, and said, "This tree and this tree uh no longer meet code, and unless you address it, you are at risk of losing your insurance on your home." So I I uh I called people that I thought know and that was the chief of the fire department, Mike Phillips. He came to the home and spent three hours sitting with me and we talked about tons of things. This was one of he told me that there is now this entire area that's on discussion tonight has been subject to litigation fostered by the fire in Paradise, California and the fires in California in the last two years. States now are and this is a legal part that's currently being litigated and and I'm not an attorney. I know we have attorneys present. I don't want to go down that rabbit hole. If I understood Mike correctly, the way that he reads it, the county is responsible to provide fire protection for the residents. If insurance companies won't provide fire insurance, the way that was interpreted by Mike, and he's not an attorney either, that responsibility falls on the county. So, that's being debated and litigated in California currently. Here's here's the point. When I was sitting talking to Mike

We were talking about the general plan and 310 houses. So I said, "If my home is at risk and I may not be able to get insurance, what does that mean for my fellow residents on Carmel Estates Drive?" I said, "Is that only an issue from the Good Hands people?" He said, "No, it's likely from all of the insurance companies." We're lucky to have another expert from an insurance company in the residence with us tonight and I won't identify them because they may not choose to come forward but I consulted with that expert and they confirmed that their company is doing the same thing. So it's apparent that the insurance companies want to mitigate their risk and see if they can get out of writing fire insurance. The reason that's important when uh Chief Phillips and I were talking we were talking about at that time the general plan and 310 houses and we were kind of joking while we see it's residents one but we know from past experience often we'll start a plan and it's R1 and before they start excavating it's already been reszoned to R3. Well, I heard tonight it's already R3. So, we're talking we were talking about 310. Now, we're talking about 454 homes.

Okay. You're you're pushing four or five minutes. Get to it. We had two minutes to debate. Understand? Here's what I would ask. In your traffic study, your flow, would you look into what it would take to get adequate fire protection? I know the city has already acquired property out on West View for a fire station. If we can get that fire station built, the response time to this area is going to be significantly quicker than the respon response time from Enoch. We can get a fire truck from um New Harmony to this area faster than we can. Sorry, it's a non-factor for this discussion. Let's move on.

Add to your study if you would please. What does this new addition add to the fire risks and the impact that residents might have in getting insurance? Got it. Thank you. Hey, Rob. Rob, I appreciate that. Did the fire did the fire marshall uh tell you uh the distance that he recommended between the trees and the homes? Um we talked about that. I I can't recite that. Okay. The document that I received from my insurance provider said uh trees of x height have to be trimmed up from the bottom. 18 feet and higher. They have to be trimmed up x amount. So there is a parameter that's established by the insurance company and there probably is a fire code. I can't recite it.

Thanks. Thank you. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Derek Degrroot. I live on Cody just a little west of Cove and I'm also a board member for the Mesa Hills HOA which is the HOA that borders the proposed development. Actually, this is timely because I actually wanted to come here before I even knew about this. Um the steepness of Cody appears to cause a very severe severe gravity issue. And the gravity issue is cars think that they need a lot of momentum going up and a lot of momentum or the gravity sucks their cars going down. We constantly have excessive speeds on uh Cody Drive between Cross Hollow Road and up to Cove. I know that speed bumps are prohibitive because of snow plows, but with the study, the traffic impact, uh, and even regardless of that, what I'd like to ask is if the city could look at possibly putting stop signs on Cody Drive, east and west at Nature View. Uh, Nature View is the first, uh, road coming into our homeowners association as you're either coming in or leaving. And I think that stop sign and plus nature view traffic has a horrible blind view when they're traveling southbound towards Cody Drive. And I think uh two more stop signs could alleviate a lot of issues for us. And that's my request. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you, Derek.

My name is Mary Watkins. Um I am one of the property owners that the uh developer mentioned is going to be most affected. right along the top. Uh our two lots are um on Cody uh in Sunset Canyon. Um we currently rent in Sunset Canyon as well. And I can tell you uh I don't think any of us love the highdensity housing that has popped up all over um surrounding Sun Sunset Canyon. Um most of those houses are not within the notice um boundary. Um but thankfully I was, so I'm here. Um, I do not want another um, uh, high density housing and I understand that it's not increasing units. I get that. That was a a main concern when I read the letter and didn't understand the RDO factor. Um, but at the end of the day, you're still putting highdensity housing as my neighbors and, you know, and creating the traffic for my house and for where I go to church. And also I I you know I appreciate you know not repeating and everything but if you could just watch for the nods as people speak um because that first lady that spoke hit the nail on the head with so many things as far as the uh traffic study. Um there should have been a traffic study for so many of those. I'm shocked that there wasn't. Um it makes sense though because it got approved. Um so I just cannot reiterate enough that that needs to happen. Um and and then I had a question. Um if he were to leave pod one as uh R1, would he still like would that acreage for the uh covert the drainage would he still need to um to do that or would that look differently if it wasn't high density housing? Does that make sense?

Do you understand the question, Dallas? Yeah, it would it would be the same. So the requirement is from the master plan where they picked that location and said it's got to go at that location and be a certain volume and so whether it's R1 commercial R3 R2 the city's picked that location said we need this volume at this location for this project I'm sure okay thank you I just had that question um so thank you for your time thank you.

Okay. Very briefly, my name is Jan Gilbert. I have a number of the same concerns that the other people have addressed, but the one concern that I have is the change from R1 to R3M accelerates growth. We're at 3% growth. Now people in C about 80% of the people in Cedar say you think that think that that growth is too fast. My logic is this R1 single family hose housing would be built out over many years. The R3M will happen in 18 months. If you build it, they will come. You look at the Henley apartments next to the uh event center, they're up in 18 months and they're already leasing. R1 provides to me single family hose housing and a more controlled growth rate. I'm not anti-growth, grow or die, but 3% is rapid growth and that will create future problems. you and you can't convince me that you've addressed them all. So, just consider that.

Thank you, Dan. That's a good point. My name is Elizabeth Barber. I also live up on um whatever it's called. Sorry, I'm too old to remember names. Um but I do know one thing. You are going to run out of water if you do this. And it's not just going to be all the people that move in there, but everybody's going to be move running out. You must think about the water. Thank you, Elizabeth.

My name is Bill Okasen. I live up on top of the hill. I just wanted to point out what Dallas said about the large circle on the right that's surrounded Dallas there on the east side of that there are six homes and you said you wanted to put 24 dwellings in there. So that's totally just going to ruin it. Plus, to the right of that, nearly every single house to the right and to the north, there are multi-million dollar homes. And you want to put apartments in there. Okay. Please watch that.

Thank you, Bill. Go Yankees. Uh, thank you. My name is Kirk Jones and I live in the Carmel States. I I ride my bike down there and I'm wondering there the position of the retention pond. Has that been survey? Is that the low spot on that pod?

Okay. Uh the retention because it seems like all along that road uh as soon as you get off the hill and you're uh going across the road, that entire uh southern uh I guess that's a northern part of that pod is a low spot. And so uh uh unless it's really carefully engineered, you're going to have people underwater there. uh and and you'll have to get the water to the to the retention pond. And anyway, it's just something we got to be really careful of. The other thing I was very happy to hear uh Randall Mun's talk or speech that we are going to be very careful about changing low density areas to high density because uh as a lifelong resident except for 15 years of Cedar City. Uh it's been a it's been a widespread problem all over this community is that the infrastructure and the roads are designed for R1 housing and then by the time the place is fully developed, lo and behold, it's an R3. And you go up in Fiddler's Canyon and see the traffic mess up there, you you see the traffic mess around Walmart. I'm just happy to hear that you're concerned about that now because it is a huge problem and uh I don't think it's going to be any different here. We've already got, and I'll just reiterate whatever been said, uh that uh the highdensity housing that has gone in there along the west part of uh that road, you got to take a drive there and just try to negotiate traffic just on rush hour and uh you got a problem already. So, let's not make it worse. That's my that's my point. Thank you.

Thank you, Kirk. Hi, my name is Amy Bennett and I live in Caramel Canyon Estates. Um, and there's just a couple of things that I wanted to touch on. Um, first, I'm really here for the green space. Um, I am really, really saddened. So, I lived in Hidden Hills Cove. Um, and everything was zoned green space and I sold my home to and moved there to Caramel Canyon Estates when they reszoned it and they put in 400 houses behind my previous home. um it was zoned green space and then boom, 400 plus homes um out there off of West View. Um I don't want to see that happen here. I love the green space. I Cedar is named Cedar for a reason. The cedar trees, the juniper trees, they are beautiful. So, um I would hate to see more of them go down. I'm really disappointed in the development, which is a family I love and treasure, but in the development in Sunset Canyon right now, like they really took out a mountain and it's so disappointing to me. Um, I wish that we could have did something different there. It's really changed the landscape and I don't want to see this happen to this beautiful hill. So, if we could preserve that, I I um I deal in in um the currency of human lives. that's what my profession is. Um, and so I understand liability, but just put up some signs that says these are nature trails. Uh, hike at your own risk. Let's do as little to it as possible. Um, the second thing I wanted to speak about is um I just um like I said um I'm I'm a nurse by trade, been a nurse for 27 years. Um and uh I just am very

concerned about the traffic. I have lived in Carmel Canyon Estates um since 2019 and um occasionally there would be a car that went up Cody Drive. Now it is a steady stream 24/7. Um the noise um the traffic um I run it I I run into Kurt when he's um cycling. I'm a runner. Um my husband's a runner, so we run Cody Drive. Um and then we run Wildflower and that's our two places that we go. And you the speed on Cody Drive is so dangerous each morning. We are more and more in fear that that someone's going to run off the road. Um and so if we're going to go with hideensity housing and we're going to make changes, could we get more police force? Could we get more roads patrolled? Could we not have Cody be a through traffic now? Like it's it's used as a main street. It's used as an additional 200 north in a residential area. I have concerns just like the man spoke to about putting in stop signs, putting in something. But we've got to stop the traffic up Cody Drive because it is literally becoming an alternative to using 200 North and using Cross Hollow. And um I'm really concerned for the safety of the community. Um, and if you're going to put high density housing there and increase it by 250 more, which will probably be um count like college housing, which totally supportive of the university here. It's wonderful. Um, that just means instead of two cars to the home, you're going to look at eight. And so, you got to think about that. And with the parking, I think Ann makes a really, really good point about that. So, those are my things.

Thank you, Amy. Good to see Bryson on the football team. Hi y'all. It's me again. Happy to see the planning commission here today to take care of this business. Can you state your name again?

Dennis Delato from Leill Area. I I trust all my fellow neighbors are here for a similar reason. Happy to see you all here to show your interest in this development. I think that uh we all have different reasons why we're here and I'm certainly part of the crowd that's uh interested in the congestion that's going to result from this massive growth of population in that small valley. It's already established there. It's only going to continue and it's only going to get worse. Like we've already heard about Cody Drive. As soon as the construction work starts on I-15 at the intersection down by the lighthouse, it's going to get even worse because that's going to be a main thoroughfare to downtown for everybody on this west side. It's going to be hard to handle and especially it's a two-lane street in a neighborhood. Tough position for a lot of people to be dealing with. I want to appreciate Don Mr. Budau's attention to storm water and the traffic situation that you mentioned. Appreciate that. Storm water has got to be an incredible concern given that we just talked to Smith's Marketplace about what happens to their excess water flow as it comes off of their parking lot during a really really terrible rainstorm. It's going to wind up right there at POD3. That's a little stream that comes down that that highway. It's going to be right in their front yard. I I trust that you guys are considering that in your planning. that's going to be a real thing for the city to deal with or insurance companies certainly. Uh I bring again the dark sky considerations. I wasn't certain from Mr. yet if this if the county has ever even the county the city has ever looked at that but it's an a really important matter and as that entire valley lights up with 350 new residents or not re residents units I'm concerned at the

people who enjoy looking out over the west in the evening at the sunset and as the lights come on what that's going to look like dark sky is an initiative that that encourages people to design into their their projects facilities that will limit exposure of light shooting up. It's shrouding your light properly. It's aiming it properly where it's needed and it makes a big big difference. And I noticed that in this community without, I guess, any recognition to it, it's happening here in some degree. I'm happy to see that. I hope it continues and that somebody on your staff of the planning commission will look more into it on making it happen more and more. We are

very good. Happy to see that. And I'm happy that uh I don't know what else is going to happen with with further development, but as long as it's on on the top of people's heads, it might be super useful to maintain that beauty, which is the night sky. How many people here enjoy nice sky beauty?

I mean, I'm all for it. And I think we all deserve to continue to see it in a beautiful town of Cedar City. They've got a good start and they can maintain that with the proper rules and regulations about development. So, I'll just Oh, and also county conditional use permits, which the county uses a lot in their planning. I don't know if you guys can use that here, but if it can be, that could be incorporated into the into the elements of the program that that they're uh recommending with the RDO, putting conditions, and if they don't meet those conditions, they either got to stop or or quit the whole thing. So, uh, P, uh, cups are important and we'll wrap it up. Thank you, Dennis.

Thanks, folks. Thank you, Dennis.

All right, we'll go till about a quarter two at the latest. So, if

Hi, my name's Ron Hernandez and uh my wife and I and my family, we moved up here about 10 years ago. And one of the reasons that we bought the house that we did off of uh Nature View Drive is because of that green space behind us. And we love it. We don't want to see it destroyed. We do have animals that come up into our backyard because we don't have a fence back there. And we do have deer come into our yard and we love to see nature and we don't want to see it destroyed. We want it left open. If they do plan on building back there, I'm just kind of curious how big those lots are going to be. Do you have any idea? Is he still

Yeah, we have it proposed as R1. So, it's the same. Well, I actually believe Wildflower zoned R2, but we're proposing as R1. So, it's a quarter acre minimum lot size. I know it's developed, but I believe it's

Yeah, it's R2, but it's all developed as R1. Well, that's that's my concern. You're just leaving it open. Fair enough. Thank you. your neighbors with them. So, uh Mark and Theresa McDonald and um first question I have is who is actually making these recommendations? Where's the origination? What do you mean? So, the the developer is

So, the developer comes in and proposes part of this. You've heard our comments with regards to some of it that we agree and disagree with, but the originator is always the developer and their representatives that propose it. Planning commission then takes all of this. Staff obviously gives our opinion. Council will make the final decision. Okay. I have a question. When we moved back to Utah and we bought this property, we were told that the master plan had a nature walk behind our trail behind our house and it still shows that it's there. Sorry. Where's that red house? Red. We're on nature view drive. We back up. There is one to the green.

There's a laser pointer. In fact, there's two of them. Just grab the round one. It's the easiest one to use. Yeah, that the more round one is easier. This one, it's only one button. It's easier to find. Sorry. So, right there. Right. And the master plan, and they told us that it was a nature trail behind our home. Is that still not in effect? There still is a master plan trail behind behind

going directly north and south, but keep in mind those lines are are generalized, so to speak. You know, the idea is we're going to get from A to B, north and south, exactly how that trail meanders through the topography or or through even a residential subdivision. Question for him. Are those are you proposing that those um quarter acre lots but up against our homes or is there space between? So, the way that it's drawn is the way that we represent it on there, which is directly behind your guys' So you're going to make the owners that don't have fences are going to have to put fences up.

So we're talking about something different. So the the trail as it's shown on the master plan Dallas, can you get closer to a microphone?

Otherwise we try and listen to this later and I'm really discover how bad my hearing is. So this orange line right here is is represents what's currently on the master plan as a master plan trail which is the 16 foot wide asphalt trail. So the so where it's shown currently if we look if we pulled up the the city's GIS it's shown directly behind the houses that are there. Um, we had we had entertained and depending on the outcome of the RDO proposed to relocate that trail based on topography and some other factors. We've also met with the city's trail board,

the active transportation committee, transportation committee. Um, and there's so when when the city puts together a general plan, they draw straight lines like this over aerial imageries without taking into account an engineering design because it's a generalized layout. Um, there's significant hurdles with the topography out here as far as that. And so the city will require us to have a trail, but where that actually gets put in, I doubt it will be a straight line directly behind the houses. But that's not from us. That's based on the city's master plan. Okay. Well,

well, our individual concern is of course um speaking with the neighbors that we have spoken with, which is almost everybody along this line right here. Um when we purchased our property, Mark, can you lean into the mic just a little?

Oh, I'm sorry. Um, all of that we and all of our neighbors have expressed that when we purchased our property and paid an upcharge for the fact that our properties were at the back and all of our houses are designed with floor plans to be that way, to have that um view. Because if you knew that beforehand that you were not going to have that view, you wouldn't have built the house that way. Because right now all of our windows and everything are on the back of the house basically. So, and it was zoned

and we were told that that's still our one right there where you're looking at Yeah. Like those culde-sacs are still our one. That's always been what that property. Okay, I get that. But irregardless, we were told when we bought the property that the city will not allow any building behind us down the hill. And when we had to apply for our business uh license, we had to find out who owned this property currently who is a was a trust fund. It's Sher Jones trust. It's in California. So, we had to send them a letter and all that stuff.

It doesn't have anything to do with So obviously it's been sold and somebody else owns it now. No, that wants to develop it. They still own it. Okay. Okay. Okay. I want to reiterate the the gentleman that talked about the traffic right here. The the Cody Drive and um co Cove Drive and Nature View should be a four-way stop. It's getting really dangerous. So, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, two more and then we'll conclude the public hearing.

Hi, Adrienne Cadera. I live on Nature View Drive. Um, my concern is that that nature park or uh there's the round the round corner if you the path the orange path

on there behind my home. Um, that's was kind of news to me when I bought the property, Barry Church, which I know that's kind of irrelevant, but he had given me a map showing houses behind my home that was going to be developed at some point. We were planning to purchase the lot behind our home to save our view. Yeah. All of us on that street. Um but that what is the plan for that that path I guess is it going to be

is it going to be moved or or is it going to be paved? Um that's I think I think you just explained that it is not going to be that but it's going to Yeah. So this so

this is a this is a general line the city has on their plan that says hey we expect a active transportation trail which is generally a 16 foot wide asphalt 20 foot corridor to go through there. I don't think that it can get built in that configuration. We met with the board that oversees and prepares the general plans and we'll have to reroute it in some form or fashion. the the discussion that we had with the transportation committee was to look at potentially having portions of it where you go you try to get to point A and point B, but whether that goes there or whether it comes through the neighborhood or whether it ties in between this development, that's all to be determined. But the city puts these out as, hey, we expect a trail in this area to get you from point A to point B. And then when we get into an actual engineering design, we say, hey, put it on straight line L. That doesn't work. We need to reroute it and make it work so that it can fit certain design criteria.

It seems the RDO probably increases the likelihood it's going to be an actual nature trail down through there than what probably would have been had it kept R1. Adrian, to give you an idea, we've had master plans that have run right through the co the new Coca-Cola plant on Aviation Way, right through the middle of their building. They were just they were just they were indicator lines versus actual survey lines. Thanks, Adrian. Go ahead.

Yeah, my name is Ryan Gregerson and I'm the bad guy here tonight, but I just want to first uh get up here and and talk about this RDO versus not the RDO, especially when you're talking about Nature View Drive. without the RDO and that the RDO is not approved, another developer can come in there and put town homes right behind your property on Nature View Drive and build from there uh west. What does that do? That directs more traffic towards Nature View Drive. That directs more traffic through Wildfall and that directs more traffic to Cody Drive. So without the RDO, you'll have town homes there and more buildings from there west without the open space. So you will have more traffic without the RDO. With the RDO, it's very limited is what's being built up there. Very So instead of duplexes up there, you're getting houses just like what's built up there and you'll have a reduction in your traffic up there. Now, it's all going to drop down to Cross Hollow Drive. If if you have a whole bunch of hundred homes up there, uh where we have open space now, that is going to drop down into Cody Drive. So, it's not really going to change much with respect to the traffic. But where is the traffic allocated to? It's allocating away from Nature View Drive, away from Cody Drive, and putting it down into Cross Hollow Drive. So that's that's very clear. Lastly, when we talk about middle class here in Cedar City, it's kind of sad what's happened to the middle class here in Cedar City. I agree with everyone here. We all should have quarteracre lots, but who can afford quarteracre lots right now? I have many people work for me, and one of them is Lonnie and Heath Webster.

Great people. They have a daughter, just graduated from um college. She's been teaching for three years and she can uh she's pre-approved with no car debt, no debt at all, living at home for a house between $250 and $300,000. That's the type of people we're talking about that have to live in high density that don't want to live in high density. They'd love to live in a quarter acre house just like I have, but that's who are going to be living there. People like firemen, people like uh school teachers, people like superintendent. That's what high density is. Now, are we overbuilding high density? No. How do we know that? Because I wouldn't be building it if there was no demand there for it. I'd be building quarteracre lots. So, there is a demand for high density. And it is for great people that serve our community like school teachers, like uh people um superintendent, firefighters, policemen, city uh employees. So, yes, it does. U So, those are the two things I just want to hammer home.

Thank you, Ryan. Appreciate it. Did you Okay, last one. Thanks. Uh John Anderson. John. And I live right there. Beautiful. And that's the second to last house. Seven years ago when I bought it, I was told by the realtor,

don't trust him. that uh this area back here was going to be open space because it was state school property and that there was no plans, no nothing, nothing nothing. And about six months later and the seller uh realtor Jennifer uh didn't say that, but my realtor told me that that that was going to happen. So about six months later, I get a letter saying, "Hey, guess what? We're gonna develop it. Yeeha. I'm a retired fireman just like he said. And I bought that property. The whole thing about this whole property back here. That planning was absolutely disgrace. You guys,

we didn't do it.

That development was so messed up. The road was off. They said the road would be low. Then they ran into uh uh uh lava and they said, "Oh, we can have it." How now it's above my fence. The cars going by, everything they did, there's no landscape plans. I never got them. Just to show you, you guys plan this and no one checks. It's like as built as it goes. And I was here at city council complaining, "Guys, look it up seven years ago. It was absolutely horrible." So now when this came, here's this letter from Go Civil Engineering. It's dated April the 9th. In their letter inviting me to come here, it says 30-day notice and a registered letter. This is not registered. Here's the evidence.

And wasn't even sent to us. We didn't even get So we got it like a week ago. So here we go. It's starting again. They don't have the ordinance does not dictate they have to be certified. They just have to be registered. It says on the letter. Bottom of the letter. It's read on the letter. Read it. Randall, am I incorrect here? Maybe we changed that. We changed it. I'm wondering if the form being used has not been updated or it could be certified or a what they call a certificate of mail. Yeah. Okay.

Okay. With with that, but the obvious is an error. An error. But here we go. you know, we won't be notified. Things happen. It's as belt. I went out there and stopped those guys from uh raising it up and they read the the meters wrong or their laser printer. They had the road about 2 feet higher than my wall. My wall is not even engineered. We had to go back there and make them dig it out. Then they had the water plan that was supposed to be, you know, how you had that trail there. Guess what was supposed to be right behind our house? that trail. You guys go up there right now and find me the trail. There's no trail. They left it out. So, nobody follows anything. And then you got to end up at the end. Then at the end down there, the road just stops because they said one day they're going to put it through. And there's a culde-sac made out of dirt. And after I mentioned it, being on the fire department with the trash truck and the fire trucks going up there, two days, the chief was sitting right back there, nodded me, and I know him. And two, three days later, here comes somebody brought in gravel because they were afraid about that so-called illegal culde-sac at the end. It's still not done. The developer I don't think knew it. The lot one, the very lowest house, they have to pump the sewer out. They have to pump the sewer back up to our house. And then the owner was the old dentist that lived down the street. He swapped it not knowing if this was ever going to happen because no one ever knew that that was happening. The plans, there's not even plans. That's all I have to say. Thank you.

Thank you, John. Appreciate your comments. We'll close the public hearing and bring it back to the commission. Would anybody like to swing at a recommendation?

Can you please come to the microphone? Yeah. Make it Make it quick. Make it quick. When you have to Look at that. She is a runner. She said she was. when you have to put in the water drainage right behind Carmel Canyon Estates, what does that do to the landscaping and the nature preservation putting in that water drainage? I just wanted that clarifying question.

Yeah. So, and I was going to just respond to a couple of these if I could before the the commission has more questions, but um this this one right here is proposed to be an 8 acre foot. Um the problem with this location is that it's in not a canyon but a steep slope. And so in order to get that volume, um there's a there's a lot of dirt and a lot of manufacturing that slope to generate that volume where we've got to lay that back a lot. So I think that was like a two I think that was a two acre to try to get that footprint and get that volume and then I think I would have had a 9- foot dyke right before the R3. So we had come through and proposed uh there's kind of a natural valley before it concentrates and looking at having the dyke there, but that would be a master plan and um for the requirements needed to amend the master plan that got pushed off. But this this figure right here represents the dyke as far as a footprint. I think it's about 2 acres. But what that doesn't show is that we'd have to lay those slopes back significantly greater than that to try to achieve that volume. So that would be that would be a big undertaking.

Thank you. Thank you. Thanks. That was commission um commission. Any additional questions? staff thoughts certly. I I think this is a really good discussion and this is a chance to look at as I said earlier look at this in detail and see if this makes sense. Um that thanks to

my my thoughts on it. I haven't said a whole lot up until now, but my thoughts are that a couple things. All of the lots that kind of border commercial right now is really hard to to explain to me why R1 lots would be behind commercial anyway. It's just hard for most people wanting to buy a single family lot. they're usually not looking to be behind a a commercial building. And so, like what was brought up earlier from Dallas when this first stood up there as kind of a feathering of zoning. Um I I do wish we could find a way and I don't know if it's physically possible to to continue on that master plan road from the bottom of of nature view down get to Cross Hollow, but with the with the slope, I don't think you even can. Yeah, we we we did an actual like preliminary design with Toppo and it's like 12%.

Yeah, that's my number one thing I wish could happen, but I honestly Yeah, I don't think it's even feasible like

um because that would alleviate so much of the traffic going towards Cody. But but in the end I'm a little confused because this for most of the people that have been here have been from Caramel Kenya estates or from nature view side and and to me this only benefits them. I if it falls from sunset or talking traffic or those things outside the other side, I I might agree. But but I feel like this drawing is preferable to kind of single family as far as they can possibly go or development as far as it can go. Um but but yeah, essentially you're with an RDO, you're you're trading a similar density for the whole project to try to consolidate it and keep as much of the rest of it just green space as you can. But I I do wish we could physically find a way to connect a road to alleviate some of the the burden of Cody from that east side. But

I I think that I think the commission understands. I just want to make sure that the public does. But the pod two here when we show this. So I don't know if Don if you looked at that when I said that but I I think this is zoned R2. I know it's developed as R1. These these two roads right here are proposed to be developed to the same lot size dimension area as what currently exists there. And then when we talk about this green shaded area, that represents what we're proposing to the city in the development agreement of what would be dedicated as open space if the city will accept it as open space and preserve it. And that area in the development agreement ranges from 30 acres to 49 acres is the upper. The total project is 77 acres. And so we're talking about turning over, if the city accepts it, either a range of 38% to 63% of the total area as open space for nature preservation and the existing dirt trails. And then we've already talked about the master plan trail at length, but that will also get incorporated in some form or fashion through the project. So

yeah, know your your your callouts on the zoning are correct. So the so the zoning in the RDO in pod two doesn't change, right? It's it's R1. So you don't Well, I'm saying I think Wildflower zoned R2. It is. That is correct. Y it is. But it's developed as R1. It's developed as R1. Yes. All right. Thank you, Dallas. Uh commission questions or recommendations?

I'll make a positive recommend. So let me let me start out first. Let me say thank you for coming. This is wonderful people getting involved. We come up with a better product when more people involved. And I'm sure the the the developer is is listening to everything that's being said tonight. Not everything gets everybody gets what they want. But I understand what he said about density. I understand what he talked about. You know, the people's concerns, but we do need affordable housing and R1 isn't cutting it for a lot of people. It just their their incomes. Teachers start out at about 40,000 a year. Our our firemen start out right at 60,000 a year. Our policemen start out at $59,000 a year. It's not it's there has to be some way for our kids, our grandkids, our our friends and family to be able to find some opportunities for living. I I don't want to see our whole town turn into town homes and condominiums. But at the same time, I don't want to see people, good people, not be able to come here and provide some of the services that we need for educating or protecting or, you know, maintaining our roads and so forth, not have the opportunities to to to live here. So um so I'll make a positive re recommendation on this audio excluding the provision that uh concerned Randall uh with regard to the uh negotiations on the the land purchase as it relates to the do as it relates to the um the irrigation

drainage.

Drainage. Thank you. I have a hard time with that word. I shouldn't. And uh and I know that it was it was talked about. I know some of my colleagues here have said they have no real they they they are also desirous of having a a traffic study on that. I struggle. I really I really struggle. But um that we put that burden on on one because we have another large parcel that looks like the Dan Roberts has list that looks like there's a sold sign on it and I think we need to work as a community to figure out what we're going to do with traffic and and so forth. But we've all grown so fast that it's been hard and everybody says, "Hey, let's stop them after they're in. stop the new ones after they're are in. That's not that's not right and fair. So that that will be my recommendation.

Thank you, Tom. We have a recommendation. Would anybody like to second it? Second. We have a recommendation and second. All in favor? I I I opposed. Nay. Nay. Motion carries. I would I'm just for the record I would be an I if it wasn't for the highdensity housing and uh and I'm very concerned about the traffic and Ryan I think the world of you but that's where I'm standing on this. So is that a motion on both items? Oh yeah, we probably need to is that uh well that's number three. Do you want to make a recommendation four? I think four was actually four was the development

thing that he put in. Okay. So Are we okay on this? I'm good if you're good. I just want to make sure. Well, I know when we initially brought it up, they were together. Yeah, they were together. Um, so I don't know why we need to do differently. Yeah, the condition. Unless anybody in their vote thought they weren't voting for both. I thought we're voting for both. They were addressed together. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thanks, Dallas. Thank you everybody for coming. Those of you who shared with us your thoughts. Yep. Mr. Chairman, can we can we take item And I hope this doesn't offend you, Kent, but can we take item five and have this discussion other time unless this is a pressing issue?

I would I would be okay with pushing it to the next meeting if you would like. All right, let's push it. It's 8:05. I think we actually need to um have a public open a public hearing, close a public hearing, then Excellent move, Amber. Um, all right. For item number five, engineering standard revision. Did anybody come to speak to that? If you did, I did go to training. Open the public hearing. Seeing none. Can we ask the public? Hold on. Hold on, guys. You watch hockey. Can we ask everybody to step out so we can finish the meeting? Oh, you can stay in. It's just the talking's too much. I played hockey. Only lawyers get to talk that much. I'm afraid it.

I grew up on a lake. You too. When I was 2 years old, I had double bladed skates. Oh, now if we get our Hold on. We want to make sure that anybody who is here to discuss the public hearing that we're going to be tableabling heard us. All right, guys. Listen up. Anybody in here want to speak to engineering standard revision on the agenda? We'll open the public hearing. Seeing none, we'll close it, table it to the next meeting, and adjourn this meeting. I'm going to table it and then we need a second to table. Okay, that is technically a motion. Oh my heck, she's making it so formal. I second it.

Or I make I make the motion and second. Hey, did did we table to a specific date? Next. They said next count. Two votes. Two votes. Now it just proves you have a split personality.