City Council - Regular Meeting

Should have done that. Yeah. Okay.

All right. Welcome, everybody. This is a regular meeting and public hearing of the Grantsville City Council. For the record, today's date is August 19th, 2026, and the time is 7 p.m. This meeting is being held at the Grantsville City Council Chambers, located at 429 East Main Street, Grantsville, Utah, as well as electronically by Zoom. I am Mayor Heidi Hammond, and I will conduct a roll call of our City Council. Council Member Butler?

Here.

Dalton?

Here.

Skinner? Here. Thomas here. Williams here. Thank you. If you would all please rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. All right. Our first item, our first agenda item tonight is a public comment. We have received several comments from the public by email, which are included in the public packet. The floor is open to the public to bring their concerns to the council. And we ask that you limit your comments to three minutes each so that all who would have a desire to participate have that opportunity. So the time is now available for anyone who is in this room. We'll start with that to present items to the council. And then we will ask those who are online if they would like to raise their hands and they can address the council by Zoom as well. One thing I want to point out to everyone here is we are not allowed to have a back and forth conversation with you during public comment, but please rest assured we are making notes, we're taking down the information that we need to address those issues when we get to the item on the agenda to discuss that particular item. We will talk through the concerns that you have. So just don't think that we're not listening. We truly are. So we will start with public comment. If anyone would like to come forward, you are welcome to do so. And again, please state your name. And do you need an address, Alicia, or no?

I don't need an address. But if you do speak, if you don't mind just coming and writing your name down over here after you speak.

It has to be included in our minutes. So if you could write your name, that would be great. Thank you.

No address.

No address. Okay. My name is Kristin Estegard. I'm here tonight to discuss my concern with the layout of the proposed Allington PUD. The layout of the houses and their alleyways put dead end streets in which cars pulling into their spaces point directly into bedroom windows and back doors of those on Sun Valley. My house specifically has an alleyway lined up exactly where my master bedroom doors are. That means 10 different cars and their headlights will be pointing toward my bedroom at all hours of the day and night, not to mention just the noise that that would also bring. On Cook Lane, the existing residents will have eight two-story houses overlooking their backyards and provide no privacy. There's a walking path along the property line, which would potentially increase the amount of crime, trespassing, and lack of privacy. The previous Allington layout provided half-acre lots butting up against our existing properties on Sun Valley. Previously, the City Council has held developers to a standard of progressing into higher-density lots, so there is not such an abrupt change such as this. A good example of this is the 20 Wells PUD. I'm asking that the city council members work with the developer to have half acre lots against existing residents, and then maybe transition to higher density units as the development works inward. This would still allow the developer to fit more units than he had previously approved on that plan, but also make the existing residents much happier in the long run. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening council members. My name is Clay Barney. I live at 3842 Sun Valley Drive and I'm here also to oppose the Allington development. My points are my concerns um 243, I believe that's the number of flex units on that much property is a lot of units on a small area. Okay. One of my major concerns, I have animals. I have animal rights and I have animals. Okay. I've done a little research and Grantsville Ordinance 2022-14 says state that there shall be a 100 foot easement for all animals. So no development should be within 100 feet of all animals. Okay, so that being said, what was presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission was 10 feet from my back fence. That is not going to work. That's going to cause problems not only with me, it's going to cause problems with residents that move in there because I have my animals. They're going to be complaining about smells or not liking the animals or the flies or whatever. I've lived there for 29 years and it's always been farmland. I'm okay with development. It just needs to be done smart. Okay. Not just go from farm property to all of a sudden we have all these houses right next door to farm property. So I feel like there needs to be at least some zoning or something that at least follows the ordinance that says there's a hundred feet minimum from the animals. Okay. And it's going to affect the city as well. You know, the police department will be coming out because of nuisance calls, because of the animals, the noise, things like that. So it's a major concern of mine, as the animals, amongst other concerns. So I appreciate your time and consideration. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Barney?

Yes. I put my name on that. Oh, okay. Perfect. Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Kimberly Smith. I've already signed in. I came here tonight to discuss some of the concerns over the potential development of the Flex Homes for Ollington subdivision being presented this evening. As a homeowner who lives on an acre, as well as many of my neighbors here tonight, we have concerns over the home values, livestock, traffic issues, just to name a few. In theory, flex homes sound great. However, these homes are still very pricey from what I've been able to find and eat from development. I found several for sale at higher prices than the mid-300s as being presented. But most of all, most of the people that want the $350,000 homes, most of them really want a completed home. With a completed home, the average, I found one for $444,000. and one for $405,000. For a conventional home loan that's 20% down, $80,000. This payment would be $2,289 plus an HOA. The next is an FHA loan, which is 3.5% down at cost. That's $14,200 of a payment, and their house payment will be at least $2,000 $1,881 plus mortgage premium insurance, which is about $500 a month, that totaling $3,381. In my opinion, this is not really affordable. It's maybe a little bit more affordable, but it's really not affordable. Also, Ephraim, their medium house prices are $100,000 cheaper than ours. So if they're going for 400 and $450,000, this kind of price, I don't see how it will end up being higher or closer to Salt Lake. Things have a way of going up. Another thing that I've noticed at Ephraim, they did a development like this where there was no other pre-existing homes or neighborhoods. They did it out in the middle of an area like we have. We have lots of vast properties out here that if Grantsville decided they wanted to do something like that, we do have space, maybe not with this developer, but we could do it in another area where we can also provide parks. recreation, we can provide schools, places where people can walk, stores, just kind of like they do in daybreak. So it would be maybe something more than that. Where we're at right now, it's just not going to work with the busy traffic, there's no sidewalks, there's nowhere for people to walk, and you're just adding more traffic. And so people are going to have to drive cars. They won't be able to just walk and communicate, you know, work. So what I'm just asking is if Joe White, which I didn't see here tonight, and the council would please consider a development that fits the existing homes nearby, perhaps sticking with the original approved plans in 2022 or 2023, where we had the half acre lots and then they work to the quarter and just we could do more. And even I think some of us have even said we wouldn't as neighbors oppose him to do it all homes and not part commercial if you want to rezone it. I think that's how it was originally. So we understand development is coming. We understand he owns the land and he has the right. What we're just asking is putting these kind of homes next to our nice, beautiful little places so dense with so much traffic. Is it done? Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much.

I guess it's going to be my turn. I have a mic.

Okay. I have quite a spill, so I'm trying to get through in three minutes. Good evening, Mayor Hammond and council members. My name is Nadine Hunt, and I'm a resident and property owner directly affected by the proposed residential development consisting of approximately 256 homes on 33 acres. I recognize that property owners have development rights and that the reviewing authority must evaluate this application under the laws and ordinances applicable to the property. My objection is not based simply upon a dislike of development or change. My concern is whether a development of this density can be safely supported at this location without creating unreasonable impacts upon existing residents and public infrastructure. There are several concerns that deserve careful consideration before final approval. My concern is fire protection, fire suppression, and emergency response. Our town currently has roughly 4,100 homes with 2,700 additional homes already approved to be built. and that does not include this proposed development. That raises an important question. Has our emergency response capacity grown at the same rate as the developments we continue to approve? We rely on a volunteer fire department with a limited number of firefighters, fire trucks, and ambulances. At the same time, both the number of homes they are responsible for and their geographic coverage have grown substantially. Has an emergency services capacity analysis been performed? That considers not only the homes that exist today, but the thousands of homes already approved. What happens when there are simultaneous emergencies? A structure fire here while an ambulance or fire crew is already responding somewhere else. And as the physical area our emergency services must cover continues to expand, Are current response times, staffing, equipment, and ambulance availability still adequate? There are also serious questions about physical access within this development. Can our existing fire trucks safely navigate the proposed streets and alleyways? Can our largest apparatus make the necessary turns and safely access every home? If vehicles are parked where residents will realistically park them, And will emergency vehicles still have adequate clearance, including space to safely turn around and exit? These questions should be answered through actual analysis and review, not discovered during an emergency. I am not asking the council to assume that our emergency services cannot handle this development. I am asking the council to require evidence that they can. I respectfully ask that these questions be fully answered before final approval, because once these homes are built, many of the decisions being made today cannot easily be corrected. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor. Oh, sorry, need to raise it up now. My name is Jeff Nestegaard. I live on Sun Valley Drive. I'm also here to talk about the Allington subdivision. The issue I want to bring up is the wastewater. Part of the PUD application is the developer had to have a wastewater study done, as we all know. That was done by Enzyme Peak. It actually stipulates in there that Grantsville's current treatment plant cannot cover the added waste that's produced. It says only once the new plant is in that it can adequately service it. So if you approve the development now, my question is, does that open the city to litigation if there's delays on the plant built? I know that's in the works and it's supposed to be done by early 2028. But if you approve it now and the development could take five to 10 years to be built, we understand that. But what happens if there's a housing rush and the developer says, I want to get these done in a year and the city already okayed it, but now they can't provide the services for it. Does that open the city up for litigation? You know, you can't tell the developer, sorry, you don't get to build now, right? I guess maybe you can. That's more questions for you guys to answer. But that's my concern that I want to bring up. There's a ton of variances that this development's asking for, and this is just one of the ones that I saw that should really be looked at before approving. So thank you for your time.

Thank you. Jeff. Oh, yeah. I should have came up and did it first. That's okay. I know your name.

Is there anyone else in the audience here today that would like to make a comment?

Okay.

Thank you.

All right. Good evening, Mayor, City Council members. My name is Marty Grant, and I'm one of the residents on Cook Lane that will be going up next to this proposed development. Tonight I'm going to speak about the number and significance of the deviations being requested for the Allington development and what they mean considered altogether. So first of all is density. The proposal is for 256 detached homes on 34 acres. The comparison shows a baseline of about 156 detached homes. This is roughly 100 additional homes or mathematically a 64% increase. Second is lot size and frontage. The standard shown for detached single-family homes is a 4,000-square-foot minimum lot with 50 feet of frontage. Many of the proposed lots are actually smaller than 4,000 square feet, with some as small as 680 square feet, while frontage is reduced from 50 feet down to 30. So they're really cramming them in there. Third is setbacks and buffering. The proposal reduces multiple setbacks throughout the project. Front setbacks can be reduced from 25 feet down to 15 feet and rear setbacks or private alleys can be as little as five feet. So the comparison also identifies a 30 foot landscape buff for trees and privacy fencing along the project boundaries. So all the proposal shows only seven feet. So that goes 30 feet down to seven. And then finally there is the commercial component. So 34 acre mixed use PUD development proposes only 3.05 acres of commercial property or roughly 9% altogether. Despite substantially higher commercial percentages that have been identified in the development standards of the city. So the PUD standard as I read it is 25% and 50% under the mixed use standards. So 2550 down to nine. So overall, when I look at the big picture, my concern is not one isolated deviation. It's a lot. It's many. It is a cumulative effect of everything altogether. So the developer is asking the city to accept more homes, smaller lots, narrower frontage, reduced setbacks, dramatically reduced buffers, and a reduced commercial component in order to make this particular small lot housing product fit into this location. In my opinion, this is simply too many concessions for the city to make for one development, and this is only one of several concerns surrounding the Allington development that could affect Grantsville long after this project is built. For that reason, I ask City Council to table this for tonight and schedule a joint working meeting with the Planning Commission to address these issues before final action is taken. Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

My name is Robert Smith. I moved here two and a half years ago. I live at 3928 Sun Valley Drive. I'm a pastor in Magna, and my main concerns is the well-being of children. There was a child killed on the corner of my house. Okay, everybody remember that, right? Okay, so here's the deal. that child came to Maverick, and when he was going back, he hit a car. So when you have all this stuff going on here, there's no sidewalks. The road is not prepared for that many people. There's no other place to go to get a drink or coffee. any snacks, and where are all those children going to go? I sit out there in the morning. I get up and have coffee early in the morning, and at 5.30, it's streamed that way. Coming home, you can't even get out on that street for five minutes. So what's going to happen when all these kids that are not consciously paying attention to the traffic, We're going to have more incidences, okay? That's my concern. What about schools? Are the schools ready for this? I mean, we got all these other things going on, these other places getting developed. Are the schools ready for this? I'm not saying that to knock us. I'm just saying, hey, I've been in the construction trade all my life in management, and I've watched and made sure everything was in order, anything we did. I just want to see everything done in order because Grantsville is going to grow. I'm not against it growing. You understand what I'm saying? How about the first responders that's been brought up, the schools, the traffic, the stop signs, the lights? How about trails or sidewalks for kids to walk somewhere? The only thing that they can get to is that little mall right there and the Maverick. That's it. There's no walkways, no trails, nowhere, no parks, close. So I'm asking, why are we putting all of this density in there with these small houses that is going to cause us more problems and more headaches down the road? How about the existing lots that are there? This was brought up. It's country living. And then we're putting density houses right next to it. We're a small town. We're not a big city. Let it grow and develop it and stage it so that all those big apartments and all that stuff are in a place that grows out there how it should. And let the ranchette people have their horses and their animals and put half-acre lots next to it like the previous plan was. We could all agree to that, but I don't understand why all the density. You know, one last thing. These kids, I worry about them. I pray for them. I just pray something good comes. And I pray that God would put his hand on this whole thing and make it right for everybody, even the contractor. But let's do it right and have mercy and grace on our kids so they're not killed in that street.

Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to make a comment? Anybody online, if you would like to make a comment, please raise your hand and Alicia will call on you.

Okay, we have Rick.

Hello.

Hello. Hello, we can hear you.

Okay, right on. Hey, I want to point some things out. Historically, what I would have called this would be a re-UD, not a PUD. And they've historically been rejected. Why? Because an agreement has already been made. If we, as the city, changed our mind and wanted the developer to do something different, that probably wouldn't fly very well. Okay? Okay. I was in the meeting. Derek was in the meeting as well. I'm sure he can remember some of the discussion over the buffers. I think he was there at that time anyway. They were a huge part of the discussion. That's why we ended up with half acre lots next to the existing housing. There's supposed to be a buffer. That's typically what we have done in the past was to actually require the same lot size adjacent to the existing. But in this particular case, it was compromised to half acre lots. The other smaller lots in the prior agreement were supposedly affordable housing to put affordable housing in. And I guess that didn't work out because I don't see anything being built there. That was 2022, if I recall. Ask the zoning administrator how many townhomes are already approved in the city of Grantsville to be built. Or flex homes, whatever you want to call them. They're basically townhomes. The answer should be known to the city council because providing a variety of housing is dictated by our city's general plan. Last but not least... There used to be a constraint at the time of the MU zoning in which the prior agreement was made, which only allowed the city to place conditions to mitigate problems caused by zoning code variances. They had to be allowed at the time as outlined by state law. The MU code in our city has changed. Currently, code variations within the MU code are purely legislative action. There is no requirement to allow any variations to the code. Examples of this would be setbacks, street widths, lot sizes, buffers, et cetera. They're asking for tons of this in the name of affordable housing. The reason for those setbacks, street widths, et cetera, have been debated and debated and debated. And why would we be changing this just for this developer when we already have a development agreement in place with him? We have lots of plenty affordable housing lots, quote unquote, approved. So either we'll get affordable housing or not. That's really up to the developer, not up to us as a city to provide that for a developer to build, right? Kind of like affordable health care. That kind of didn't work out. Why? Because the government interfered, you know, right? So, uh, the, the fact that you think you can legislate affordable housing, well, I guess that's the end of it. No, if you can legislate affordable housing, then, um, you feel you're, you're pretty arrogant. If you think you can, I don't think it's possible. The best thing to do would be to stick with the setbacks to force developers to build smaller homes and, um, let it eat, uh, I would encourage the city council to make it a priority to re-examine the MU zoning. I have my number. You have my number if you want suggestions for this. The first would be the typo, which allows someone who spent too much time around paint fumes to believe that 50% of the property on the main existing street was to be commercial and not 50% of the entire landmass. Please consult the minutes from the meetings at which... this went through the planning commission and it should have been an and or a comma, right? And that was omitted. So by state law, technically you can go in and correct a typo without a, without a announced meeting to do so. And that's what I would suggest the city council do. Thank you.

Thanks, Rick.

Can I just ask you to say your last name so I can get it for the record, please?

Yes, it's Rick Barchers.

Okay.

Just wanted to make sure. Thanks.

No worries.

Anyone else online, Alicia? Okay. Any additional public comment? All right, we will close. We will close out agenda item. Moving on to agenda item number two, summary action items. We have the approval of minutes from the July 15th, 2026 City Council regular meetings. Is there any comments from the Council regarding that?

Mayor, make a motion we approve minutes from the July 15, 2026 City Council regular meeting.

Thank you. We have a motion by Councilmember Thomas. Is there a second?

I'll second.

Second by Councilmember Dalton. All in favor?

Aye.

Next is the approval of minutes from the August 5, 2026 Truth in Taxation public hearing. Any concerns from the Council regarding those minutes?

I make a motion we approve the minutes for the August 5th meeting.

You have a motion by Councilmember Butler. Is there a second? I second. Second by Councilmember Williams. All in favor?

Aye.

The next item is the approval of the bills. Any questions on the bills?

Mayor, I make a motion we approve the bills.

A motion by Councilmember Butler to approve the bills. Is there a second?

I'll second the motion.

Second by Councilmember Skinner. All in favor? Aye. Thank you. Moving on to Agenda Item Number 3, which is a consideration of Resolution 2026-65, appointing Shannon Nelson to the Historic Preservation Committee.

Mayor actually make a motion that we table this resolution to our next meeting. She is not here and I'd like her to be invited to this for her nomination and a potential approval.

Thank you. We have a motion to table that item and I apologize to Shanna that I did not make her aware that this was on the agenda, but she's probably going to appreciate it being the first day of school and she does. teaching our school system. So we're grateful to all the teachers today that made it through the first day. And the parents.

I'll second that motion.

So we have a motion by Council Member Butler, a second by Council Member Thomas. All in favor to table this item? Aye. Thank you. We have a consideration item number four of Resolution 2026-61, approving a Memorandum of Understanding with the Tooele County School District for the School Resource Officer Services for the 2026-2027 school year. Thank you, Chief Sager.

Mayor, Council, this is an annual contract that we presented before. I think most of you have seen it. There's a couple changes. The price went up a little bit, about $1,000, and then just a couple small changes in the verbiage. But if you have any questions, I'll try to answer them.

Hi. We've been meeting with the school district regularly. I had probably just one question, Chief, just maybe along the lines of you feel that is working, is what we are doing there currently working? It's hard. Or is it impacting? Yeah, that was kind of where I wanted to go with.

I had this discussion today with our investigations division because it pulls one investigator out and it's in the school. They are in the school for nine months and they have to spend most of their time there. So then our caseload goes up on our investigators at the office. And so it's the, they pay for the officer, but we actually kind of lose an officer as well.

So that was the question I had. I know, you know, we did from a budgetary standpoint, we didn't authorize another officer to come into play. So I just wanted to, I wanted your feel on how that taxes us.

And, you know, are we, can we do this? Yes, we can. Um, The numbers will show, and that was my direction today, is just make sure that you keep up on your monthly stats, and we can show at the end of the year if any caseload goes up, how it goes up, and then as we move forward, it will show the level of service needed in not only that division, and if it's worth having a school resource officer if our budget is kind of like it was this year. So, yeah. But at this point, I think we can move forward with this and One more year.

I'll just ask a question of clarification. So Aspen, this money that comes into the city, this is included in our budget, right? You have this as an incoming that is going to the police department, correct? The revenue? Yes, that's correct.

I can get you an exact. It's 103314 is the line. It's slightly... under budgeted because it was budgeted for the same amount that was last year's contract. So a little bit more. Yeah. So this year it's a little bit more, but it's small. It's in there at 1033.14 at $103,594. So there'll be a slight increase, but it is in the budget currently. Thank you. Yeah.

A lot of the schools in Toronto have more than one school reserve offer, right?

I've attempted to get another school resource officer for the junior high for multiple years and been rejected. Every secondary school in Tooele County besides Grantsville has a secondary SRO.

And our SRO spends time, so I have to go to the junior high a lot.

That's some of the verbiage that changed a little bit in here. I mean, it says, yeah, this SRO should respond at the request of the district to secondary schools. I think it's section 10 in here. But yeah, if something happens at the school, they're responsible and they go to every single school. And we do want the officers there.

And for clarification, that's the school district denying the offer, correct? We did ask for that second offer.

Yeah, over multiple years. There was actually a year where they had two resource officers at Stansbury High School. And then now they split the junior high and the high school.

I have another question. It's okay. Does what the school district pay us? Does that cover us 100% or be subsidizing any?

If you do, I did this analysis and it was approximately, if you do fringe and salary, I believe it's around 90%, which is, which covers any large courses. That's the other. But you also have, that's your salary and fringe. You have vehicle fuel, the vehicle. You have their equipment, their technology, their body cameras, evidence storage. There's a whole myriad of things that cost not only our SRO, but our evidence staff storing it. It's just, yeah, you could dive into that really deep.

And do we know, are they paying us the same as the Tooele SROS officers?

Yes, there's one difference with Tooele City. Tooele City Sergeant is paid, but he also is over a school as well, but they pay a portion for the supervisor. That's one thing I also wanted to mention. want to bring up. Well, we have to supervise these people and it takes our supervision from our investigation division to do that. So there's a large cost. But you look at the other, I want an officer in that school if something happens. So yes, there's all this, but the bottom line is if we can be there to protect the kids and staff and But how do we make it more fair and equitable as the county and the city?

That would be... Would you say that the officer 100% of their time during the school year is dedicated to the school or has any of their ancillary time?

Is there any time? We try to divvy up them caseloads so they can help. And they will take anything that has to do with the student caseload. Okay. But if... So there is a little bit of overlap. There is. A little bit. And we try to work it to the most efficient way we can. But if they work eight hours for five days a week, that's their 40 hours. If they have to go to an interview after school or anything, then I'm paying overtime, you know, because they have to be there. Or I'm sending a patrol guy over there to cover the school or another investigator. So it's just a continual process. With more staff, it would help, but we are where we are right now, and we'll work through it and go further. You guys know where we're at.

We hear you.

You guys know. Mayor, I make a motion that we approve Resolution 2026-61, approving the MOU with Tooele County School District for the school resource officer services for the 2026-2027 school year.

Thank you. We have a motion by council member Butler. Is there a second? I can second it. Second by council member Williams. All in favor?

Aye. Thank you.

The next item, agenda item number five, is the public hearing item. So the way this will work is we will have a presentation, I'm assuming, by Aspen. Is that correct? Sure. Aspen will give us just a brief update on this. Then we will open it up for comments if anybody would like to make a comment regarding just this item. And then we will close it for a discussion for the council to make a decision on agenda item number five. And we've looked at the budget. A thousand times. But yeah, so the one minute rendition.

Yeah. So this is just to approve the final budget for our fiscal year 2027 following our truth and taxation hearing that we had on August 5th. So this just shows the highlighted section. Previously, we had had the additional property tax revenue that was proposed should we move forward with the increase budgeted in that 1031.11 line, because we had to show that it was budgeted separately in our interim budget as to not be confused with available budget. So this final budget just shows that what was in line 1031.11 is now going to be budgeted for in 1031.10 as it will be assumed that we will receive it during when we receive property taxes. And then this is the revenue side. And then Alicia, if you scroll down to the Parks and Rec side, it's the only line that's impacted in the expenses. Yeah, it's a little ways down. Sorry.

That's okay.

It's also highlighted in yellow. Oh, thanks. Yeah. Right there. This shows that we did have previously in our interim budget, it was budgeted in 1064.10. Again, that T&T holding account just to show that the additional revenue was held separately. But it is now been, it will be budgeted for in the salaries and wages, employee benefits and health insurance lines accordingly. So those are the three lines that are increasing just in our final budget. Those are the only changes from the already approved interim budget for this final budget. So.

okay thank you yeah all right we will open it up to public hearing if anyone would like to make a comment regarding this item now is your opportunity anyone online alicia you just want to remind them if you are online and when you'd like to make a comment if you will please raise your hand No. All right. We will close the public hearing and move on to a discussion with the council or a motion to approve or deny.

I think we've talked about it enough. Anybody want to talk numbers? I think, yeah. Mayor, I'd like to mention that we approve Resolution 2026-60, adopting the final fiscal year 2027 budget for Grantsville City.

We have a motion by Councilmember Skinner. Is there a second? Second. Second by Councilmember Butler. All in favor?

Aye.

Moving to agenda item number 6 consideration of resolution 2026 dash 64 accepting the Rocky Mountain power blue sky funding award for the city solar battery project and authorizing the city manager and appropriate city stop to execute the award except in the acceptance agreement and related documents. Is, are you speaking on this, Michael?

I want to introduce, we had Bill Como and the Rock Mountain Power Team and Blue Sky Grant people. I want them to come up here and have a say, but I wanted to say that when the last time Bill was here, he, council authorized him to apply for the Blue Sky Grant. He did that and they came back as an award. And so they're going to present that tonight and then the council will decide whether they want to accept that award and proceed with that, the next phases and steps. And Bill will kind of touch on that as well. So if you guys want to come up.

All right. Thank you and welcome.

So this one's kind of fun. I mean, it's kind of been a heavy day, and it's kind of fun to come up and say hello. Everybody knows me. I'm Nick Jenkins, wrestling coach, soccer coach, proud Gadsden City member. This is a cool thing. As I don't know everybody knows, Blue Sky is an opportunity that everybody in the Rocky Mountain Power community RateBase has the opportunity to contribute to a fund, which is the Blue Sky Fund. And this is an addition to their bill. And where this money comes from is that people paid in to develop opportunities to develop renewable energy. It's an opportunity to better communities, make the world a better place. It's a pretty cool project. I don't know. Everybody has the opportunity to contribute to that. You can sign into that. With me today is my friend, Bill Como. Bill spent a lot of time working with this program. When we looked at the program, working with Jessica Dalton, who's hiding in the back because she's bashful. She is our blue sky project manager. We looked at it and we needed to move quickly. There was the tax incentives that we were able to take advantage of two months ago with Bill's help. Like I said, you authorized Bill to write the grant and I'm familiar with the numbers of what we've done in the past. And I think you guys probably agree these numbers are spectacular. There was a lot of things that Bill was able to do to help city. I hate to say squeeze every penny you can get out of us, but I kind of think he did. But the nice part about it is, so today, as far as the award, the city's been notified, but the check is for $1.25 million. So I'll just go ahead and jump in. Another project is for, we all know that we've got an incoming water treatment facility coming in. We've mandated to our state, we're required to have it. The beautiful part about this is we're gonna help offset the cost of putting in a solar field and a battery to offset the operational costs of that plant. So we can't stop the plant, but we can support it. We're here to help you. We're excited to team up with Grantsville City. I think this has been beyond a win-win and it's fun to be a part of. Bill, is there anything you wanted to mention?

I will say about the grant itself, they did do something that they haven't ever done to help you get to the next phase. So if you guys accept the award, you'll get $250,000 to move forward with project development and engineering, which takes you to that phase three period where you'll have actual contracts, more refined numbers, what the project would actually look like. And then that would be your go, no-go decision to actually move forward with the project. So you still have one more opportunity to take it to the next level. And then based upon that information, choose yes or no.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Yes.

So any other questions we can answer as a council, we're happy to be here. And I appreciate Bill and Jessica driving out to stand with me today.

Did any council members have questions for Bill or Nick?

decided once it comes before us it may exceed that amount but that'll be on the city to be able to to pay for that um and to to uh to pay for the overage on that but that's a that's an awfully big check right so yeah thank you yeah thanks for the opportunity well and just to address council uh council member uh or red but councilman red um so the cool part about this is

These awards are awarded on merit, an opportunity to complete and impact a community. So, I mean, this is huge for a little small community. I mean, are we officially to 17,000 yet? I know we've doubled since I moved out here 10, 11 years ago, but at the same time, this is based on merit. This is based on impact community. And, you know, the Rocky Mountain slogan is powering your greatness. And that's what this is. It's great.

No, thank you. And I know we went through the initiation portion of this, but Bill, if you wouldn't mind maybe kind of walking through the process from a high level, if that's okay, really quickly, just so that I think the more we allow the residents to get an understanding of what, yeah, this is fantastic. And I don't want you to spend a ton of time, but I think if you could just walk through a quick overview of how that process goes. As you mentioned, there's still a go, no go as we look at that and evaluate it. But this is a great step in the right direction.

Thank you. Yes. When this opportunity came up and we looked at it, we realized we had to run really fast. Within a four to six week period, we pulled together a lot of analysis to look at what the opportunity would be for you and your actions before July 4th this year. gave you the opportunity also for a 30 to 40% tax credit on top of this project. So that was the first phase is do we even put in for a grant opportunity and then also allow, make a decision that qualifies for tax credits if this project moves forward, which had to be done by July 4th by you guys putting with the project. That was phase one. You said yes. Then we moved forward with the grant. Rocky Mountain Power came through with that grant. This is phase two where you evaluate the grant and decide to move forward. Then if you choose yes, phase three is where advanced engineering, and I'll call it project development occurs, is where it's vetting everything. the engineer come out here, you look at the property, you look at the runs, and then you start doing pricing. You do RFPs, you look at a contract for a contractor to be able to what those costs would be. And then a package would come to you and say, this is what it would look like. Here's what the cost would be. And here's some contracts from the RFP, which gets you to the end of phase three. And then phase four, the end of phase three is the decision to move forward to construction. from now would actually be about up to eight months, and then the construction project could be up to a year. But the idea is to have it target by the end of next year and align as closely as possible to the waste block treatment plan.

Thank you. Thanks for doing that.

Oh, yes. You're welcome.

If in phase three it became too expensive and we didn't, we said no. Do we have to pay the $250,000 back?

That's a Rock Mountain Power question. The answer is no. I just want to make sure. The answer is no. It's a grant for development. Out of fairness, though, that if it's all about in good faith because those funds do go towards good projects. So I would encourage, I mean, approve the project if you intend, if you feel like the economics that you saw made sense and it's something you can move forward with. If not, that's okay. Because those funds will get reallocated somewhere else. So I do appreciate you asking that.

As we walk through that design process, we could probably look at options to VE or get it within a range that would not impact the citizens as well. Or also to scale it.

Yeah, so. make it smaller or bigger and provide provisions down the road to be able to add to it if it needs to be. I think we've got a bunch of different options. Only we had an electrician on the council.

What was your OAN? That's not a good one. Awesome. And just the one thing to kind of keep in perspective,

where you go with it. Yeah, and that's including the tax credits as well. You got that built into the... Yeah, it just kind of makes sense, especially when you're getting tax credits and you're starting out with a big shot in the arm of $1.25 million. Is that friendship boost? Yes, I consider that friendship boost. All right.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

No, thank you.

Anyone want to make a motion?

Was Mike going to say anything?

No, I can reiterate all of that. It's been great working with Bill and Rockman Power. We are working on a contract with Mr. Como because we do want him to lead us in this adventure of getting and securing all the funds because he has all that experience. So we're trying to finalize that. We weren't able to get that on this agenda, but we are trying to get that on the next one.

Great.

I make a motion. We approve Resolution 2026-63. Blue Sky funding award for the city's solar and battery project and authorizing the city manager and appropriate city staff to execute the award acceptance agreement and related documents.

Thank you. We have a motion by Council Member Butler. Is there a second?

I'll second.

Second by Council Member Dalton. All in favor? Aye. And we'd love a picture. Come on up. No, you're great.

This is part of the fun. Come on up. All right, one, two, three, say solar. Solar. Perfect.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thanks, Bill.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Good to see you.

Safe travels.

We've had some pretty good sized ones over the years. That's a good one. That one breaks the bank.

All right, moving on to agenda item number seven. Consideration of ordinance 2026-27 approving the Allington planned unit development located at approximately 948 East Main Street, SR 138 within the mixed use zoning district. Oh, hi, Joe.

Sorry, I wasn't sure if he was online or not. I'm going to scroll down. And show the layout.

The layout. You know,

So this development did have a previous approval back in 2022, I believe. And it did go through a few reiterations, which I've included in the staff reports of both the meeting minutes, resolutions, and prior layouts of this development. In the planning commission meeting, there were discussions about about the property that is still into a county so it's not Sun Valley drive is not within grants for city boundaries. So our animal setbacks and and things like that do not apply to Sun Valley. So we wouldn't be restricting how far they need to set back that would be up to toilet County. In the planning Commission meeting that was addressed in our NDA I believe it was g3 in the mda but that is something that we'll address on the next agenda item we address the fence hides we put added language in there that um you know restricts the owners of the allington subdivision from complaining about the animals or animal smells or any nuisances um of the individuals who live on sun valley drive we also required a seven foot fence along the western side and the southern side of this development. We left the eastern side open because it is an open field and connectivity for a potential future development if that next property ever develops out. This is composed of I believe a 256 or 255 units and which is an increase of the prior approval. It does have the commercial area, which is required in our interview. And they are asking for the deviations. That's no secret. On the next page, if you'll scroll down one, I have included the deviation table as well as highlighted specific areas that are not meeting the code. And I have provided what our code says on the left and There it goes. Have highlighted the areas that are not meeting the code on the right in blue and other colors. Did you guys have any questions? And I did want to point out that this is zoned in the MU, so they do, they are allowed And for smaller lot. So, you know, single family lots are 4000 square feet and multifamily lots are 2400 square feet. They do have a smaller buffering lot sizes setbacks and things like that. But then you can be more restrictive as far as requiring commercial open space and other items.

Do you feel like that this proposal that we have in front of us today is hitting the mark in regards to the commercial aspect?

I mean, I feel like it's a little light. It could, you know, we could provide more commercial like where the RV contractor parking is or even over where the storage units are. Or we could leave that. I mean, the storage units at the RV contractor parking. could be considered a commercial use in that aspect. It also doesn't make sense to line all of what you can see is Allington Way with commercial when that's not the main corridor. The main corridor is SR 138. And that's where you want your commercial. That's where commercial wants to come. And you're not going to want to put it down by Durfee Street on Allington Way. So I feel like we're there. It might be a little on the short side. but that's ultimately up to city council on that discretion. These flex homes are very neat. These homes come in different designs and layouts. I don't know if you want to look that up on Google, you can just type in flex homes in Utah. The homeowner can either have just the home built and then the footings and all the electrical and plumbing is already stubbed in. So if they want to refinance and add an addition, whether it's a garage, a patio, or maybe a garage with an ADU or an office, or they need to expand their house, all of the footings and everything is there. So it's an easy addition for that individual or that homeowner to be able to add on. And so it really does make these homes very affordable. In that sense. And we just go to all. And go to keep going. Sorry, scroll up just a little bit and click on flex ready homes. And then scroll to the bottom. Scroll up. Just keep going. Okay. Sorry. Scroll up just a little bit presentation deck. Yeah.

Before you move on, this is a website representing the actual developer slash contractor?

No. Okay. This is representing the home style that is being placed on this. You just want to press.

So, okay. It illustrates a flex design, I guess.

I have my mute on because of. Yeah, no, you're fine. Me too. I can actually still use the house.

Okay. Yes. Maybe.

So this is just an example of The layout not not this specifically out, but they just drew a layout for Tula County when we're speaking with the flex home.

I can't see the passport on it.

Maybe drag it a little bit. Will you pause it, actually? So before she paused it, you could see that the home had a gap in between it and then the garage. So that was the home. Then you had a patio. And then they were able to add the garage on. So all the footings you can play again. All the footings were on there. And so this home here has the house and then the extension of the garage on the back. You can just keep going. And then this home here has a patio in the garage behind, but they can also extend that further. Yes, these are slab-on-grade two-story homes up, which does make it affordable in that sense that they're not digging a basement and going that route. And then once this camera will actually flip around, you'll see the backside of how they're entering, like where they can park the homes, what the other additions look like, and the design and layout of these houses. They are fronted by two streets, so you'll have your main road and then you'll have an alleyway that they will use to park. So like that greenhouse was just the house, but you've seen the footings where they could add, maybe expand the house or add the garages to it.

So if ADUs are allowed, are we doubling instead of 255 families, we're cramming 500? Sorry, I did the math. An additional 255 families in here?

Well, it's not a separate house. So, I mean, yeah, you could have your, you know, your mom live with you. But what's the difference between you having an ADU in your basement versus them having it on their house? We also do have requirements for ADUs as far as restricting lot sizes. And so these wouldn't comply with the ADU requirements. So it's a mute issue? Yes.

Okay. Well, then stop saying ADUs, right?

You can pause it.

I said a question regarding like another like modular. So if you back up a little bit, you can obviously see where the foundations come out and they've finished them with something to make them look presentable. Is that, is that how that would look or would it look just like a gray foundation there with bolts sticking out of it?

No, it would be finished that way. Obviously you don't want the bolts.

And I really apologize for that, but. My first thought when I looked at this was the kids and the safety of each family. I'm going to be really conservative. Each house has two kids. There's 500 kids coming into this development. I'm just worried. Will you point out where they're going to play catch outside? where the open space is, where they're going to play, where the walking trails is. And I'd just love to hear what HOA amenities there are.

I'm using out. So I need that pointer. Right here is the main open space area. It hasn't taught a lot. Again, this is a conceptual layout. So until we get to the nitty gritty of the preliminary and the final It's hard to say how wide that is and where that's at. Yeah, we're able to measure somewhat, but that's always going to adjust once you get into the survey. And then on this side, this strip extends further.

This opens up. You have to pick a ball court or something along this way, and we can fill this space in as well.

But I mean, those are decisions ultimately up to council as far as what amenities they want. Do they feel like it's enough open space? Do you guys want more?

Is that a retention basin right there that you just pointed to?

This is a retention basin and then down further.

There's one on the other side.

Yeah, I believe there's two on the other side.

So do you think, Molly, how big is that where the trees are? I tried to find that. How big is that?

If you give me a second, I'll give you the measure.

The street with this 27 feet looks about same. Yeah.

So I was thinking Says there's 6.8 acres of space area.

Looks like the majority of which would be retention basins.

Are there any wall concept design? Are all the homes within this flex?

Yes.

Okay.

So it's about 36 feet from the sidewalk to the sidewalk.

So no real mixed use of, of, of home styles in this. I mean,

I mean, there's a mix of lot sizes. So like, if you want to zoom out, ask them so we can, or Alicia, sorry. So that we can see the whole, I mean, you're going to have your full layout, which is you'll have your, like your red, your green and your yellow, which is a larger lot. And then you have your smaller single lots that are down on the West side. And then you have your I mean, they do vary in style and type throughout, but it's not a half acre and a quarter acre in townhomes.

You hit on the deviations, and I think we've looked at them, but I just would like to talk a little more about the side yard deviations and what we have there and... Just kind of what the differences are.

Yeah.

Because I see some that are super close.

Yes.

And then I see others that are a little further away. And even in your YouTube video, it looked like it had more space in between the homes than what I'm seeing on here.

So the interior side yards, they are requesting a five-foot side yard setback. Typically, it would be seven and a half feet on the corner side yard, which is a 25 foot front yard side yard. They are asking 15 feet to the living space or 20 feet to the garage with site triangle verification and the side set back to property boundary. They're asking for 10 feet. And then the front yard that they're asking for 15 feet to the living space and 20 feet to the garage alley parking access 10 feet building space.

So I just want to read one thing from our next year's ordinance under the purpose in attendance as developments in the mix use zone shall be designed so as to integrate the residential commercial components into a harmonious develop development and to be compatible with the existing or anticipated uses of the surrounding properties. And I don't see that with this concept.

Shall we maybe walk us back? So this went through a process in 2022.

We have that concept plan that we could pull up, Alicia. Can you see this one?

And you weren't involved with this in 2022. Okay. Just to make sure that she can go back to the notes in the meeting minutes, but she was not in the positions he's in.

Okay.

Did you upload the stock report?

Um. You were on the commission, right?

I believe so, yeah.

No, it's not in there. i know i was in attendance at that meeting just attending and yeah it's very different from what this is it was uploaded into your google form

I'll just say this and you'll get it eventually. So why is it vastly different? Why did we, what made us shift gears? What's the reasoning for it?

I think that's a question Joe can answer.

Welcome. Thank you. I'd like to address that. In 2022, Grantsville city, uh, came to me and, uh, we were working on this plan and did some of Grantsville city wanted to put a sewer line through that property. And, uh, of course, uh, the Romney group, you know, threatened condemnation, all that stuff. And I knew they couldn't do that, but so I got an agreement with the city to serve this property for 254 lots. Um, Knowing that I would pay that I would pay a portion of back to the city. When we got approval, but the agreement with her with Grantsville City said that we just wanted they if I granted them the easement they would give me the connections there would be no fee on my end for. The sewer capacity there well all of a sudden I get a bill from Romney's for half a million dollars. I'm like, wait a minute, that's not our agreement, and there's no signed agreement. They keep telling me that there's an agreement, but I told them, you know, paperwork speaks for itself. So I met with Grantsville City, met multiple times, we went through it. We will be paying back the sewer with this design, and it's in the MDA to pay it back, but to pay that just because, I believe that the second part of this is the, I know it's a lot of units. There's no doubt about that. And the variances come with some give and take. So the property is permitted, like I can build right now, permitted without a PUD, 255 townhomes, 10 packs. Awful. Their townhomes are not really good resellers. They're not good long-term economic. They don't hold their value. So we met with Grantsville City, what's it, a year and a half ago? A year and a half ago and started talking about what this property could be used for. And instead of just putting that on there, we came up with this. And I know the word modular was used. It's not a modular property. They're not modularly built. They're stick frame construction. They have the same components as a regular house. We believe that the single family component to this is much better than a townhome or apartments or condos. So there is some deviation, but it's not going above and beyond what is already permitted on the property. So with that being said, we've tried to leave trails. We've tried to leave commercial. I don't know very many. I'm surprised that Solberg's went on Durfee. I hope it really works, and I think the growth, if it goes that way. I don't know many places. If you look at Tooele or even... Other places where anything back 1,000 feet or 500 feet from the main road becomes very viable commercial. Most of it is right there on the frontage. So we've tried to be aware of that. We've tried to be cognizant of providing a really good project. And you talk about kids. Where are the kids going to go? Where are they now? Where are these kids now? They're living in basements. They're grandparents' basements. They're living in apartments where the same dynamic exists. It's not like you're taking kids on five-acre lots and putting them here. This gives them an area to call their own, to be a home, where maybe they don't ever get that. So I know there's concerns about the things that are there, but we've worked really hard to make this amenable with a lot of collaboration with the city, with the city engineers. We've looked at all the sewer, all the things that has been talked about tonight, has been addressed by them. It's not I mean we just in throws together thinking of this will be good we really have spent a lot of time seeing what will keep what can be our our needs what will help us pay back the sewer for the city of a half a million dollars and what's a good long term project for people to look to have a place to live and we found that detached housing. with a side yard, even if it's 5 feet or 6 feet, is better than attached housing in a townhome project. Their resale values are better, they build equity faster, and so this is what we kind of settled on.

Alicia, how many units are, I'm probably just missing it, but how many are in this approved layout from 2022? Anyone know?

72, I think.

I can tell. Yes. 126 plus 235. I think it was 72 units. Certainly not 200.

No, but I'm not sure what this is. I mean, I'm sure this is important dialogue, but I'm not sure it's relevant dialogue. Each application is handled on its own, right? So it's not like, I don't know. Other than that, I know it's out there, so it can be addressed.

Well, just take it off there, then. You don't need to look at it anymore.

Well, I'm just saying that that's not relevant.

Let's throw it away.

Thanks. So you brought it up in the city planning commission meeting, and I know not everyone was there. Could you just tell us what your starting pricing point is going to be on these?

359 to 365 is the start, and then it'll go up from there. That's assuming from the planning commission from that date what we have interest rates for different things. There's all kinds of factors, but that's our target starting spot.

You or the city, have anyone talked to UDOT about that road? So I know it doesn't meet the distance from Sun Valley to where your entrance is. Are they giving you a...

They already have a recorded access from UDOT on that. So you can look up Tooele County GIS on the public record and see... that UDOT already owns and access where Allington Way is. Yeah, they'll have to install that.

Yeah, they've given us the parameters and the design.

I'm not sure. I can't remember. It's been a little while, but I know that there's a third lane in the middle, a middle XL, DSL lane, and then a turn lane on the right going east. So there's probably a left-hand merge lane that goes into traffic. I'll be honest, I have not seen that for a long time. But we do have our encroachment permit and we have our design. And the design came from them. They mandated what we did.

And UDOT, as we're reviewing preliminary and final plans, UDOT's always involved in those reviews. So things are always going to change.

I mean, currently our signal location study that we received in the fall of last year does not show any sort of stoplight or anything, any sort of control of traffic there, which, I mean, as someone who drives home that way every day, I don't want another stoplight there. But, I mean, it is what it is. And we obviously would need something there, I think, down the road. But it does not show that.

Yeah, in our study that UDOT did, they came back and I guess, is it called warrant? It doesn't warrant. They don't have a warrant.

A little warrant at 5 o'clock. I'll honk when I tell you there are warrants. So will 500 other people. Plus.

I don't make the rules.

We don't control UDOT. It's kind of semantics, but it'll come when it comes.

So a lot of the concerns were buffer are you set on this plan are you willing like so that your west end that there's half they're bundled up against half acre lots and the old plan there was half acre third yeah one acre lots is there any way to get bigger lots to match up with the existing homes that are there and then ease into your density or are you this is your plan because of the sewer money that you have to pay back

Well, I mean, I think we can look at something. I think it's a good plan. I really do compared to what could be put there. We agreed to fence the entire west side per phase as it comes up. But you have, I mean, I think you go up to almost 20 feet to the house. And, you know, I don't know. That's a pretty good buffer. How many do we know? How many people on that particular street that's on the east side of Sun Valley have animals? I've been down there a couple times. It's hard for me to tell because I think there's maybe four families that have horses back there. No, I get it. Yeah, you're right. You're zoned for animals, and I'm not ever trying to take away the right type of animals. I love it. I'm just... know, and being such a good point, you know, we won't want to take their zoning away either. So I would be I mean, I'd be willing to if we if we took away if we took away these bottom ones and expanded that into more buffer zone, I guess you would call it, right? I would consider that. It does give you an additional, you know, 25 feet there, and I don't give up the world in trying to do this, but it would add to that six acres of open space, probably maybe an acre, maybe by an acre, and

So in our present code. They animals have to be a there has to be a 100 feet.

From explain that from an existing dwelling unit if you are in grants for the city limits. You would measure 100 feet from the corner of an existing dwelling unit. 100 feet and then for to keep it and if they already have animals and new construction begins that they're already bested with that so that it doesn't affect them. We've also, in the MDA, added language that the CC&Rs need to read, notify the owners that there are animals next door, that they can't complain, and a few other things, which is in G3 of the development agreement.

They can't complain. Now we're starting to go on, you know, on freedom of speech, and I mean, come on.

Yeah, I think that was more of the gist. Anybody can complain. I can buy everything I want, but I think it's more you have no legal standing.

Is that what it really says?

No, it doesn't say you can't complain.

I'm sure there's legalese.

Yes. But to remove that single layer of units would provide from the property line approximately 52 feet. Okay.

So if Sun Valley Ranchettes were in Grantsville City, which there is a hearing again next week, it makes no sense to me if it would change something that we would make a decision on this. If next week it is ruled that the annexation comes into Grantsville, this area would be in Grantsville City limits. So... then it just seems like we shouldn't make a decision on something like this if it makes any difference what difference would it make if they if sun valley ranchettes were in technical grantsville city and not to willa county what difference would that make in this none because their houses are already existing with animals okay and this is new construction so it wouldn't make any difference they're already vested okay their animal rights okay thank you i said something was different the code of the county and that would

that would be their code and not ours. And that's why they keep get away with the difference of something. Maybe I'm misunderstanding.

Well, they're in the county. So our code doesn't regulate how many animals they can have their setbacks or buffers. That would be the county.

So you're saying if they were in ours, we're still fine.

Yes.

The amount of animals may be different.

Yeah. That, yeah. I mean, that would be different, but as far as the buffer, as long as they are vested with their animals first, then new construction can't, conflict or effect and cause to remove animals.

If you just built using your MU zoning, how many homes do you think you could get in there?

I think I can get 254 townhomes and I think I could get over that in apartments.

So in the mixed use, so the district, so it allows single family and townhome residents. That's it. No, there's a multifamily component. Okay. I'm not seeing that. I know we've changed this. Yeah, there's a multifamily component. That's also a 50% commercial component. So 50% of your acreage would have to be commercial.

I don't know that. I read it that way or that when we met with the city that they read it that way.

Yeah, I mean, it's 50% of the land fronting a major street.

Of the land area as commercial. Correct. We want a fronting a major street, but that Allington, wouldn't that be a major street?

No, that's a residential street.

It's only 66 feet wide. We need to fix this gray area because it says land area. And then I think it was Rick that said it. We went over this a lot when we were on planning commission. We never got that part fixed.

So we'll say if there's ambiguity in the code, it's interpreted in behalf of the property owner and their designers.

The other thing we did, the city, as a condition, not a give to the city, but we had, we didn't have Allington. No, we didn't have, we have Allington way, but it's supposed to be Cook, right? Yeah. We got to readdress that, but Cook wasn't supposed, we didn't want a raceway through our project, but the city in their interconnectivity agreement wanted it to be a straight through shot just so they can have connectivity and transportation. So we adjusted, we didn't set up having a raceway through there. We kind of did the the bend to try to slow people down that come from the Cook side. But in our original one, we had, well, this is the second or third iteration of flex homes that we've had. But we've actually moved the entrance off SR 38 down a little bit to accommodate the city and their requests. So my point in saying that is just we've tried really hard to make and give, you know, things to the city that will make this work and that they get out of it.

One of my biggest concerns is when we have approved PUDs in the past, it's because it's been a benefit to the city. It's been something that, you know, like we're going to ask for this higher rate I'm out or the setbacks or whatever because we're going to give you something in return. And to me I'm looking at this plan going we have one top lot and one pickleball court for 250 units. I'm not seeing any benefit to the city other than additional traffic areas to patrol. All the concerns that have been addressed and so like where is the benefit to Grantsville city.

You get half a million dollars.

That half a million dollars seems to me like it's a problem between you and the Romneys. Sure, I don't have a problem with me. The people in this room, it shouldn't be their problem.

Essentially, it's not my problem either.

I get that. I can understand that, but I just am not seeing anything besides... A whole lot of houses. I'm not one tot lot one pickleball court. I just seems completely insufficient. If you even brought in an apartment building or townhomes and multiple townhomes that have been brought before us. We have required that they meet or that they bring in additional space for like pavilions and

For the city?

No, for the area. I just am seeing like this, a lot of people address the issue of the kids and where are they going to even go to play because the yards are so small. And if you've got a five foot setback, that's real tough to play, to do a lot in a five foot piece of grass, which may be a zero scape.

I don't know what the- Well, as Shelby mentioned, we had to do a concept to get to this point, but those things are not defined and not- Right, but I don't see anywhere else to put them. That's my point. I mean, there's lots of places to put them, and you can do more. Here's the problem. If you took this out, you can put all kinds of things on that backside. You can put outdoor exercise stuff. People don't really love pickleball courts because they live by them. They can't complain. They don't want to hear the ball bouncing at night. So we're more than welcome to put whatever the city would like. You know, it does... I don't know. If you look at the resale value of townhomes versus single-family homes, it's a huge difference.

I think you're definitely right on the single-family. It's a different product than maybe we have in a lot of other areas. You look at this, we're more concerned about the 20-year storm than we are about the kids and the safety and somewhere to go. I get that they don't leave the house, but that's just the impression of looking at this is for drainage lots, they don't park.

But keep in mind, those can be. I've done a ton of developments where those become play areas. They're all over. It's just identified because we had to do it for city engineering. You know, it's not like there's going to be nothing in there and there's just weeds. We would definitely use them.

And this is open to you guys to suggest. These are things that I want, A, B, C, and D. So we're looking at you guys. What is it that you want in there?

I just need to clarify this question. So you said we could take out the lower. Are you talking this row? No, just this.

Yeah, it would be right there and all the way up.

Because to me, I'm thinking, well, if this whole area was taken out and this was a whole play area, you solve your buffering issue with the existing neighbors and you create the place

If you went from here to here, I'll bet you it might be 48 and a half, but it's pretty dang close. I don't have the exact measurement.

It was 50 feet when I measured it. It's conceptual anyways, so we require 50 feet.

Yeah, if you require 50 feet, you require 50 feet. I can live with that.

Where's the sewer? I mean, we're talking about sewer line, and I remember when they dug it, but where is it in relationship to everything? Do you have a good idea?

Yeah, it's identifiable.

Then it follows that top row.

I'm not very tall, that's why I didn't make a good basketball player, but.

Here, how's that?

Anyway, it comes here, and then back out to cook. It actually goes up. It goes right here. Yeah. We'll put this area.

Is that the blue line then?

It goes here. No. No. The blue line are contours. Okay. I think they're contour lines. So it doesn't go anywhere.

The blue lines are your AASHTO side triangle lines. Yeah.

Oh, the side for traffic.

Yeah.

It follows somewhat the roadway. We've tried to put it as much as we can because it's not usable. It's not usable. You can build over the top of it, but you can't put a structure on it. Yes, absolutely. But you can utilize it. Yeah, that's what we've done here.

You're benefiting from the installation of that sewer line, correct?

I would have paid for it. I mean, it's a wash to me. By the time I pay it back and I put it in, it's a wash to me. Okay.

So you're saying the Romney's, the payback is half a million dollars? Yeah. How big is that line?

They put in a 20-inch.

20-inch?

Yeah, I think it's a 20-inch line. I only need 8-inch there. Still a benefit. It benefited by getting me in agreement with the city, yeah.

Yeah, we'll see that out.

Derek, can we go back to your original comment from this discussion about what it says about the buffering, as far as harmonious with the existing?

On the definition of the name?

Yes.

Yeah.

Yeah, I'm sure they can pull that up.

It's just, it's 19A, it's under one. If you want to pull that up, it just says it's the purpose of the mixed zone use district. This is what we want. Allow for the establishment of commercial properties integrated with subordinate residential uses. Land unit developments are encouraged in this zone. Developments in the mixed use zone shall be designed so it can integrate in residential commercial components into the harmonious development and to be compatible with the existing or anticipated uses of the surrounding area. I mean, that's right in the mixed use, so this doesn't match. So if you went MU and did it your own, I mean, that's our intent and purpose, and that's what we want is to be harmonious and match. That's why we want a buffer. At first plant, great. Bigger lots up against that west end to match, and then you go into your density. We've done that with a lot of other developments.

But with the mixed use, I mean, the planned unit, the mixed use, if you go back to permitted uses, you still have the same problem.

So, yeah.

Because there's, I mean, and I know it's illogical, to be honest with you, but what we're doing is taking a bad permit plan, giving it some better components and better features versus trying to go back and what's actually permitted Like, I mean, in the MU zone, I could put it in, and I wouldn't even have to come and ask for forgiveness from anything. I could just do it. And I don't like that. I don't like the way that that permit.

But you'd be meeting all of our requirements. There'd be no variances. All the setbacks would be right. You're right. The buffer would be right.

No, the buffer is not there.

The buffer is there.

No.

It's 50 feet. It's 30 feet, actually. Yeah. Okay. It's more than the 10 that we have here.

Well, I'm giving you 50. Well, yeah, I haven't, I mean, I haven't signed the dotted line, but I'm just saying, I know. Go ahead.

I was just saying, I think that's kind of where I have, like, where we've got so many variants to this, and I'm not a fan of variants. So if there's a reason we have rule, obviously, we have in place, and when we have a number of them, and we see a number of them, I think that's where I have the concern with the layout is, I think we've missed the mark entirely. But, and I think some of the other councilmen have mentioned this specifically for the youth. I have a, I have a concern with that much in, in that area based on what's there from a safety standpoint, I drive that road. I'm, There every night, probably you are when someone's trying to turn left out of Sun Valley and they're stuck there. So entirely. Yeah, so safety is one of my primary concerns, but I think the other one is just the amount of variance in each of the items.

Let's go to the variance table and talk about that. Because I know the variance seems like you're giving something up, but if it's making something better, I'm not sure why it's a huge concern. If 30 is the minimum in the thing and we give 50, even though you're giving some variance, it's a better buffer. I don't have, I can find the plan that we did.

I sent it to Alicia with a straight M here.

Yeah, just with the townhome packs.

Did you get that email?

That's what started this whole conversation is I started looking at, all right, here's what we can do under their permitted use without a lot of heartache.

But I can't read that. Can you go? We'll use them in a little bit more.

So if you look at the code category, Right? When we get maximum density under the permitted vary, we get 260. 256 now you minus, you're down below 250. 30 foot lot frontage. And 30 feet accommodates that. 50 feet for a single housing. So that's where you give a little bit, right? You got 50 for a single family house. On townhomes, there isn't any. there's only between units, buildings, I should say, right? So you don't have any. So it's really not, you're giving up some yard of footage for bearings, but you're getting a single family detached house versus a pet pack.

The next one is. And you mentioned 10 in a row just a little bit ago. Yeah. That's what you said. Keep going. You don't need to leave.

The really tiny writing under the 256 is just outlining the lot sizes.

Oh, for each different?

Yeah, so like the flex base, flex gen, flex garage, flex premium.

We try to put every home in each base so that they can have a choice. Now that's the most useful component. They can have a bigger one with four bedrooms, six bedrooms, they could have one three bedroom, two bath, no garage. We try to give them multiple things within each house. 15 feet to living space or 20 feet to garage with single site verification on corner side. I don't know. We don't have that many hard corners. And then the last one is side setback to property boundaries. But that would only apply on subdivision interior. If we take away the west side, then it doesn't affect any other resident. So the deviations we're asking for are minor, comparatively speaking, to what the permit allows. And you get a much better product.

Do you want me to switch over to that other? Yeah.

So you can see...

So this was the townhome plan?

This was the townhome plan. And you can see Cook Drive didn't come through all the way to Allington. We did have this buffer here, which you get back anyway. And I mean, if you put the two plans side by side, visually, you would be like, you know. And the commercial didn't change from the 22 plan to this plan to what the concept we have in front of you. So this is by permit, you can do this. And I don't like it.

I know we've thrown out the old plan, but what's wrong with the old plan?

It's a different absorption rate and different price point.

Even though it Really, if we're going with the statement that Derek read about the purpose of mixed use and the harmonious integrated developments, Plan A looks far more like that definition. So this, to me, just my opinion, this just does not match that. Now, neither would this plan. This plan also doesn't match the definition of a mixed use area.

So I guess... What I'm asking is what would you rather have?

This or... Well, I would say this also doesn't match mixed use. It just doesn't match the definition. It's all the same. Yeah, because it's all the same. There's no mix of uses.

But the permit process, when there's a difference between permitted and a PUD... The permit process says that if I meet every single one of your codes, that I can build this.

Right. But if you read the mixed use definition, even permitted, it just simply doesn't match.

But the mixed use comes with the commercial and the residential. That's the component of the mixed use.

Right. And that's what we have here in all three plans.

Sure.

It's that exact thing. And so to me, plan a will call the platform 2022 matches the exact definition of mixed use its mixing commercial use and then integrating into residential with the harmonious development that meets the president or the existing land or proposed land in other areas. So plan a finding a call that this one matches that townhome plan flex home plan. No, I don't have an issue if If let's say if we're looking at previously approved layout and lots 102 to 117 along that area, our townhomes or flex homes or the interior of this plan becomes the flex homes or something like that. Now that to me matches the definition of what our mixed use definition is. Whereas it's a mix of uses, a mix of lot sizes integrating well with the commercial and the existing homeowners. The other two plans that are presented show no mix of uses. It's simply one use besides the commercial, from what I can see, and it doesn't match the definition of what we have in our code.

I'm not understanding the term use. These are all just single family. There's no mixed use in there.

You're right, Joe. You're right about that, but it's a mix of lot sizes, which means you're going to have a variety of You're not going to put the same house on the half-acre lot that you're going to put on the interior lot. It's going to have a mix of uses in that sense.

Maybe. You might have. I mean, the same thing. It's no different when the facades are fronts of the flex homes. You could have 20 different styles, right? A spec builder buys these and has seven plans he builds. You could get seven plans throughout this whole thing. I don't know that. I don't know that the lot size is a definition of use, if that makes sense, according to the plan.

You could argue that, yes. But I think you could argue it, my side as well, that if you have a half acre lot, you're going to have a different...

I'm not arguing that this plan would be better, right? It would be better. It's not the plan that we've chosen. We went in and redid... a plan that we we thought was very thoughtful that would give us a good return on our investment it doesn't it doesn't uh you know handcuff the city on things that that they're going to have to do it it pretty by it provides a really good resale it provides a price point also uh for people versus, you know, I know everyone in this room would love it. I'll be honest with you. Half acre lot, put a house on it, it's going to be a million bucks. And then the complaint would be, well, you're raising my value, so I've got to pay more taxes. But I understand the emotional attachment to the first plan. I really do. But I think... if you took the emotion out of it and looked at what's permitted and you can do without any consultation, so to speak, and what we presented, we believe it's a very good product. And we beneficial for a lot of, I mean, you have, I don't know, you have a police officer. He's not living in the first one. He could live here. School teacher, you know, we all talk about wanting to help solve the problem, but we don't want it next to us, right? And that's just heard everywhere in the state, everywhere I go. I did an assisted living in Park City, and one of the questions from the councilman was, what if my son sees a dead body getting rolled out of that assisted living? So he didn't like it. And I'm like, well, that's welcome to life, right? And there are things that we don't love, but that we can tolerate so that we can provide housing.

Joe, a school teacher and a police officer could afford one of the 4,000 townhomes that have already been approved here in Grantsville. So I don't buy the affordable housing. It's going to be any less than the town home. It's already been approved here, invested. I believe it's in that number. Okay. Two, I've been on planning commission for three years. Then I came to city council. I haven't dealt with you, but every developer that I've dealt with has always wanted them to be a good neighbor and work with the neighbors next to them. That's been my experience. And it even I won't say the name, some that I don't like, but they've always worked with us because they wanted to be good neighbors with the existing current homes. So what I'm asking is that buffer, bigger lots on that west end, and then you can do whatever you want with your density as it moves east.

Is that completely... Tell me what you mean by that. Let's be... So the first plan...

Half acre lots.

No, I won't do half acre lots.

But I'd rather leave open space than half acre lots. And then the density as you go east. And that could be multi-family. Let's look at what it is. This is 154 feet. House is going to be set back here. So you really have...

75 feet of buffer between the back of the house and the neighbor's fence? Is that what you're wanting? Is that what you're asking?

I would like bigger lots on the west end.

What if we do no lots there? If there's no lots, then that would be even... Do no lots for 75 feet, and then let me do what our plan going east. How many units is that?

How many units is that? 254. What would you put there?

What would you want me to put there? Sounds like mayor would like some facility of some sort or I don't know. Why don't I split it with the neighbors?

About 60 units approximately.

Give them, if you're looking for what, 70-something feet, give the neighbor their own 30-foot here, all these houses, and keep the difference, and they can buffer whatever they want. Now, there isn't a person, talk about good neighbors, that's going to deed land to a neighbor just so they can keep their buffer from you. If that's truly what we're looking for here, to be good neighbors, I have no problem with that. Because if it's going to be open, they might as well use it. We can still put in our trail. We can still put in some extra parks. We can still do that. And they get 30 feet of extra ground on the backside of their property to put their trees in. They could put a whole forest in.

Well, that's an interesting concept. It does. I mean, I don't know if... Yeah.

You asked for it.

Well, you said it.

Is that, is there anybody that would be opposed to that?

We just got your first idea.

I know, I get it. I love my first girlfriend too, but she dumped me.

Maybe that's why. I don't know.

Can I take questions? Is that all right? No. Okay.

Really?

Yeah.

Well, I should know.

Sorry.

If you want to give us 30 feet, plus there's another 10 feet required by grants authorization. That's 40 feet.

No, the irrigation is actually already there.

Yeah.

So there's not 40 feet. It's just 30 included. Anyway, I didn't mean to open up a can of worms.

Very simple question. But you're saying you're going to start at 365.

I'm a builder and a developer. That's without garages.

Sure. Yeah.

The garage. You're up nearly $400,000 council members.

Sorry, I didn't mean to engage the public, but I do think we can meet somewhere on that end versus the permitted where I think the permitted was strictly 30 feet. That was the exact measurement that has to be allowed in the MU.

No, there's no problem. I have two issues. West boundary and the parks. Okay.

Say it out. Say it louder.

I don't want to speak for everybody.

Well, you're going to say the same thing I'm going to say, I'm sure. We've done across the board any new developments, specifically new develops with higher density in lower density. We've protected the citizens around them. Or we've asked that they at least be considered in the process because they are already there. And I get that we're talking about what has to happen to make it work. I do like... an opportunity of different product type and specifically this product type, I think could work for some of our younger families where we have a disparity of, you know, not that product type, but protecting those around them first and foremost, I do have, you know, you know, when we talk about how many people we put into this space, this, this, permitted, creates a concern that I have from a safety standpoint. And I vocalize that. And then the other component is, yeah, just where they go specifically. I know a citizen mentioned one issue that we had along this area. These kids will probably go down that road, which will create a whole nother thing that as a city we'll have to address with UDOT to ensure that they can travel safely along those roadways to get into town, or, you know, side highway, along the highway to get into town. So those are the concerns that I have.

Right, well, we will... We just need to, and I don't, you probably won't like this, Joe, but I think we just need to table this decision that we can work out the west boundary and the parks. and come up with a solution. The citizens could talk to us as council members. We can try and come up with a solution, but that's just my opinion.

And one thing back to what Jake was saying is that the city would then feel responsible for creating safe travel there along Main Street, and that is UDOT's property. So there would be nothing we could do about it. It would be completely up to UDOT when they added sidewalks or added an additional lane going each direction. It's something obviously we are wishing they would do immediately, but they aren't, and it's not anything we have any control over. So that is a concern.

Because that's outside, right? So was that discussed in P&Z? Did they cover that at all?

I mean, they talked about the traffic study and what that would look like, but again, it's outside of our scope. We don't control what UDOT's going to do.

And I don't know that it's even in the MU code, to be honest with you. Like, I think what you're asking is to solve a problem that is a city problem and stuff, but not necessarily, it's not a development question. Right? Right. And so the decision to the decision to make it part of an MU is easier now than if we have to go to a permitted thing or if we go to, you know, those things. You know, I don't know what the properties between, do you have that, is it the Hunts lot? What's around the very east side?

No, right here.

So you take 20 feet from his property, right? And make a walkway down to the Maverick intersection. I don't know. But it seems like some give and take. But the two biggest concerns, I think, are the west boundary and parks. And those are the two things I think we've solved. Like, we've talked about the maximum distance. We've talked about that you can dictate. I mean, I know the parks, the yellow doesn't look like parks, but they are in every community. There's things that are built there. We just did one that had a slide in it, you know, down the hillside for the storm. Things like that. I mean, there are parks. They're just not. We haven't gone that far. into this plan. And I don't know, there's no I don't know of any study that says for every 200 homes, you got to have X amount of acres of park, because you do have an open space requirement that we've met. So we've, you know, we've really worked hard to meet your requirements. There's some that I can't solve their above and beyond what the development of land use ordinance was meant to do. So, and if you want to table it, I would rather have very specific guidelines. Meaning, if we hold one meeting with the neighbors, and what, three of you can't be there, but two councilmen are there, and they can be heard.

Well, I believe we can even notice that as a work session.

I would be fine.

And then all council members can be present, correct?

Yes.

Yes.

But what I don't want is to think we're just going to table this for six months and wait. I mean, I've already waited three or four years for this. I mean, they think it's easy. It's an arduous, very hard process that you go through with all the reviews and the time and the engineering. I've done a full-scale engineering on this, and I don't even know if I'm going to get approval because of the way that the code is read. So we read the code to benefit the city in exactness, right? So that's what I'm saying. Let's make it urgent.

Well, I guess my question is, in 2022, though, you could have completed it, right? You were approved for that.

Well, there was debate then. And none of you, maybe, I don't think any of you were there at the time. But there was a big debate between Romney's and the Grantsville City Improvement District. the PID that the Ramis have that really, it really is Grantsville City, right? It's not Ramis. I don't know the mechanism, but that came- It's the RDA. The RDA. So yeah, the redevelopment agency became a big sticking point.

And- So the one in 2022 was not approved?

It was approved. But then after the, it was never recorded, but after the approval, so that plan was never recorded. And according to Grantsville code, after one year, it's done. It's just gone.

It expires.

Yeah, if you don't record the plot. But at the time, Romney's were coming saying, hey, we want, you know, half a million dollars to repay this stuff. And I said, well, show me the agreement. And there was a big fight. And we waited. And even to this day, you know, Shelby got an email from them saying, well, Joe reneged on his agreement and that's not the case. But so there's a lot of political stuff that got us to here. So, and you guys weren't privy to that, but this is, this is something that, like I said, we put hours and hours and hours and hundreds of thousands of dollars into to, to make it much better than your permitted process. And I'm acquiescing, like, I'm trying to do what you're asking me. I mean, I guess, yeah, I don't know what else to do.

So this hasn't gone through rezone. It was MU in 2022, right?

So when it annexed in, it was zoned MU. So, yeah, we haven't done a rezone to go to this project.

Got it. I feel like we're being honest because of what the Romneys are doing. Not as good as a plan as the original. Yeah.

So now it's worse. But what I think he's asking is give us direction. What, what do you guys want to see on the West side? Um, do you guys want a work meeting?

I think we should address the West side. And I think a work meeting would, would, uh, would be beneficial. And, and, um, open but but obviously you know under control so to speak right and um yeah I think we can come to some sort of compromise I think the buffer is probably the main thing we understand that you have your land rights and I think there was multiple citizens that mentioned that you know and what they said and and you're able to develop this line they don't understand that so

What is normal for a work meeting, like days notice? Do you have to give them? Oh, okay. So what is everyone doing on Thursday?

I can be here. It depends on if there's a publisher component.

No, this shouldn't have it.

We've done our public hearings. Like, isn't tomorrow? That's what he said. He said Thursday.

Well, I guess that would be tomorrow.

It feels like Thursday already. It's almost Thursday, and it might be Thursday if we're not careful.

For my two cents, I don't like this as it is. I don't like it that he could do the townhomes and be permitted use. I think there's somewhere that's like that. So when we won Eagle Mountain, this is exactly what ours, the rear alley garages, but we were in the middle of nowhere. And I'll tell you where the kids played. It was in the alleyway. That's exactly where they played. Because we had very small, yeah, in the roadway. But we were very far from a highway. This is right next to a highway. We've got traffic. I don't like this as it is. Again, I know he has rights and can do the permitted use. I don't like the permitted use either, to be honest. I think that this is a lot in a very small area. I'm not saying he can't do what he can do, but I think there needs to be some changes.

So one thing, too, I want to bring up. We're focused on Main Street 112 a lot. What's this going to do to Durfee? That intersection is already messed up. You know, that is going to have a big toll on this too because people are going to go out on Durfee, can't turn left, only turn right. It's going to cause a headache right there as well.

Go down and try to make a U-turn. Yes, exactly. Which some people try to do. Yeah.

Well, and one thing that someone brought up was just a safety concerns fire getting in there.

I know that's not your issue. That's a UDOT issue, but it is.

I just, I want to be clear to keep it to develop, like, like keep it to development issues. Yeah, I'm with it. I can solve it.

But it does, it does bring up, I mean, they, they, they do come, it is that issue, but they do come together when we compound it by 250, by, yeah, by 200.

Well, and it may not be a developer issue, but it's going to become a city issue. Right.

citizens that are going to be we have to be right whoever we address that you know so potentially so do we have i mean our traffic study addressed that cook one too correct but i mean so i don't i don't know i don't know what to do other than give you here's what an independent engineer for traffic says so when was that traffic study done uh before when we we were going to turn in the permitted townhomes we updated the We updated the traffic plan then. So it was, it accommodated all of these. And when we turned in our encroachment permit to UDOT, they reviewed it too. Yeah.

I mean, you've got high density going on the north side as well of this.

Yes. No.

No.

It's behind Maverick.

But that's not north of this.

That was west of this project. Northwest of this area.

But still.

Are they there? Have they come through the process?

No. Partially.

Because they're asking for a rezone.

They came in and gave a conceptual and asked for opinion on the conceptual. It's back in their hands.

But there is additional high density to the south of this in the Romney's residential development.

But see, this is why it's really important that we keep focused. I know. This could swallow up and we get off on tangents.

Right.

What does the code say? Because, you know, I guarantee you if, I don't know who owns that property on the north of there.

That's not a part of this, so that's what we're talking about.

Well, I know, but it is becoming part of it because it's taking us out of the parameters. So I would just say stick to what the land use code is. you know, and the things that can be done within it and the things that we've done to make it better.

But that's been the problem with Grantsville for so long is we're thinking in this box. This is a public safety issue. Even if it is viewed out or not, we've got to think, I've got to look at that too. And we'll look at your land use thing, we'll approve whatever comes to us, but we've got to keep in the back of our minds too that it will eventually, and maybe it's not dealt with you, but we need to be aware that this will become a public safety issue.

And I want you to. I really do. I know that that seems disingenuous, but I appreciate that.

Well, and we can't really look at things in a vacuum. We have to look at everything because that's... I mean, as to this developer, yes. But we can't just go, oh, yeah, look, here, here, here.

But here's what happens. This project goes in. Rami's have to come with now their traffic study, and they have to account, right? So it's not like you can just build just because. They still have traffic counts that they'll have to prove to you.

But theirs is already approved. So they won't have to have a new traffic study, even though you're going to add 250-something units in here.

They've been here and got plat approval?

Right, right. They have PUD approval. They don't have plat approval. But, I mean... The fact is their numbers ain't counting for Joe's and Joe's. Neither one are counting for the other.

But we need to account for them. I would love to see their VUD approval and when they got it because I'll bet you it's similar then. And I'm just saying don't let's just stick to what the code is and the things I'm willing to do versus you know, the what ifs of the world.

I think one positive is it is a different product type than we've seen.

Yeah, if we have a disparity in age group inside this city, it's between the ages of 18 and probably 25. None of those young families have a place to live. So... That's why most of them live outside the city. So anyway, yeah, I think if we can have a work session and we can address those two items that I feel are of concern, that addresses the two concerns I have. If we're looking to do something outside of that, yeah, that's where I sit.

And I don't know what to tell the citizens about schools, because we keep getting pressured that that's, we keep getting told that's not our responsibility, which is the school districts. But we're doing, Jake sits on Jake's going to the school district meetings, which is the first councilman to do that. We are waving every freaking flag we can wave that all this group is coming. And I don't know that we're anywhere other than where we were 10 years ago. So we are trying, but that's their job, and we are involved. But I just wanted to address the school issue, the UDOT issue. We try. We keep getting told that that's their problem.

But it becomes our problem.

And the schools. And we're trying, but we are just not... a blip on the radar at times.

I do want to point out that the school district has met with Bill and I to go over what projects have been invested and they do understand that the city is growing very fast and that they do understand that they need to start planning new schools and larger schools and where they're going to place those.

Hallelujah. Still, everyone, whether it's the city council, school district, UDOT, or developer, it's the function of the money. You can say that or not, but it is. And so anyway, with that being said, I can accommodate the west side. They may not like it, but we can come to a happy medium where they don't like it. And I don't like them, not them, but I don't like what they're asking. But there's something that we can work out there.

Do we want to move towards that then, having a work meeting? Do we already have a work meeting scheduled in two weeks or not scheduled?

Not yet. We could schedule one for the next council meeting night at 6.

Yeah, can we do it before? I'd like to be on the next council meeting if we can do it.

We can do the work session and then.

I don't know. There won't be enough time for me to address with my engineer, unless we just draw on paper. But it will be. Or we do it as.

Because we're work session between the net in the next 2 weeks. Do it next Wednesday.

It sounded like that was a menial if people can accommodate it.

I don't know I will be here, but there's a concept to make sure it meets their conditions winter. They were better.

If we did it on September 2nd at 6 PM, would that work for you?

That's a Thursday.

No, it's a Wednesday.

Yep, I'll meet whatever you guys need me to.

Then if it's not on that council meeting, it'll be on this, we could put it on this second one, it'll be the 16th.

See, that's a whole nother month. No, yeah, it'll be a month. See, that's, I mean, here's the problem I have. Everyone knows the time cost of money, right? But if for some reason in that work meeting, it's just as too hard and I go back to the permit, now I've got another three months. to get approvals on the permitted one. And then, you know, you're not building until, you're not putting homes up till the fall of the following by the time you do construction. If this can get approved, I can construct during the winter and have homes in spring. And so that's my timeline that's kind of, it's very difficult to manage this on my end. You know, it's nobody else's issue, but these are my problems to manage. So if we could do it, if we can come to an agreement on that work meeting,

Or do you want to have a meeting with the residents and then bring that to a work meeting to the council on that Wednesday?

I don't know how I do that other than rent out a room here and just say they can come.

We could do an open house here. We could do an open house here. You would host it basically and then I could just notice as a possible form and that way residents can give you input but we don't typically take public input at work meetings.

But if we schedule for a specific work type meeting, so there is, Tyson?

I think the open house is probably what you're sort of trying to accomplish here. I mean, it would be. To get the input from the public while having counsel present and just notice it as an open house. Counsel can all be here as a quorum if they like. And then they can get it.

And that's only a 24-hour notice.

So your next council meeting is two weeks? It's the 1st, September 2nd. So does any time the 23rd through the 29th work? Oh, yeah. I was just thinking the whole week. Yeah, you're right.

You also need to make sure you're accounting to give your engineer enough time to make changes as well as staff enough time to...

So if we do it on the 25th or 26th, what day is better for staff?

Two weeks.

I know. But if we went two weeks, if we went the second and we made... Joe, what about this suggestion?

What if we do an open house on September 2nd at 6 o'clock prior to the meeting? We could perhaps put... Go through this. We could have things just in writing because that's basically what we're looking for.

It's what we're doing anyway.

Right. So we could put this on the agenda for September 2nd, just as it is now. But all those things that come, if we can come to an agreement between everybody, a consensus, something that everyone feels comfortable with, we can continue on with that meeting or with the agenda on September 2nd. If you feel like it's going to be better to go back to your engineers after that September 2nd meeting, we can table it and move you to the September 16th, depending on how things play out on the 2nd. Does that seem like a good solution?

So what I'm hearing, just so we can... Jake, I didn't get your second. The first one was the west side. Parks. The parks. The parks we can take care of. I'm pretty sure that we can... If you'll come with ideas, what you want.

And I know it's not fully designed, so maybe come in with what you anticipate for those. That would help. I mean, we see a hole there right now. Yeah, I can surely have them put some things in there. I'm just trying to get an idea of what and how.

Let me ask you this. On the west side buffer, are you against things being there? Like if there's a trail and... No, I'm not, personally. It's just not housing.

Yes.

So if we put some of our parks and, you know, we wouldn't put huge soccer fields, but maybe we'd put a couple of mini ones in where people could play soccer, and they're not having full-fledged games anyway, you know. Wouldn't it be better for you to put a larger lot on there from a – Well, but it doesn't – Yes, but it doesn't accomplish what you're asking it. We could put some bigger lots.

Because it creates a buffer, right? It creates a buffer similar to what's on the other side. So that's why I was just wondering, rather than go the route of no space, nothing there at all, a home there with the backyard that's going to be... Yeah, I was just wondering why. That was a question. When you mentioned nothing at all, I was just wondering.

The answer may be, because maybe the... the consensus, what is the street frontage on a lot that's the minimum?

For MU?

No, just say like a typical third acre lot.

You're 60 feet for third acre and 70 feet for half acre.

So I can have that drawn up and just take that into account and see 60 and 70 and just see if maybe that goes all the way back to that line. Maybe. Would the council rather see that versus... A 70-foot buffer with some stuff in it?

I think that's a question that I'd rather have the residents that live there that will be directly impacted by that answer.

Okay. I'll see. I think my engineer should be able to do some drawings and some schematics for that.

I think that'd be great if you brought that to that meeting.

It cost me $10,000 to do it, but. Every time I talk, it's like working with Rocky Mountain Power, 10 grand to talk to them.

We would love any ideas on like or not most retention ponds in Grantsville are weed patches. So any ideas you got there?

In all the other developments I've done, we've developed them and made them with some artificial turf and Yeah, we have, I can bring you some examples, real life examples.

That's what I was just going to suggest. Please don't just draw it in on, you know, a little top park on here. Give me a real life picture.

We're installing one right now, a project we have in Erda, so.

Perfect. So just, so my clarification, I want to put, so anywhere where there's homes, so there's someone, I guess the south side too, is that Cook Street? That's right there?

Yeah.

Yes. That's where I'd like a buffer, whether it's bigger lots or your 30-foot buffer, because those are existing homes as well. It's not just those west homes, one-acre homes.

Man, I shouldn't have given the property for it. I literally, just so you know, it doesn't matter to you guys, but I gave property so they could build these lots right there, and the sewer easement through there to do it. Didn't I come home and tell them that? No. Okay. Sorry. No, it's all right. Bring it to the open house. Who's bringing sandwiches?

Pizza. All right. Fine.

But I only do the Little Caesars $10 deep dish. Just another brand. So anyway. All right. I appreciate it. I think that we can work something out and make it, like I said, not everybody's going to win, but not everyone's going to feel like they got bruised.

Right. Yeah. Thank you.

Mayor, I make a motion that we table items number seven and eight for a future city council meeting.

We have a motion by Council Member Butler to table items seven and eight. Is there a second?

Are we doing this on... Well, we already worked it out. Based on that? Yeah. Okay.

And a second by Council Member Williams. All in favor?

Aye.

You thank you Joe for being willing to work through this and thank you to all the residents that came and we encourage you to come back on September 2 I think Joe would it be okay to say that if they have specific ideas they could email. Some way?

Yeah, I can give them my email right now.

Or they could reach out to me.

It's a different email than you have, Shelby.

Yeah, but I'm happy to pass it on.

Okay, so Joe, if you'd like to share your email. Perfect. Thank you, everyone.

All right. And it's not a spam one, so I will get it.

All right, moving on to agenda item number nine, consideration of ordinance 2026-05, approving a rezone from RM15, A10, R112, and CS to RM15 for the Apple Street Townhome subdivision, excluding 1.19 acres for commercial use.

So I was not here when the general plan and the rezone went through. My understanding was it was requested that a... record of survey or some sort of survey was shown for the commercial area of how much that was or or where that location was. And so I'm my understanding is the general plan amendment was approved and we are here to request the rezone again for the Apple town homes are key departments are each has had a few names.

So we've already approved the...

Didn't we do this?

This seemed like I've already...

So you would have approved the general town of Nimlet, but then tabled this one.

So I apologize if I don't have the full context of why it was tabled or anything like that. You know, I think this is a great project just for the fact that we are getting rid of something... That's a nice one. Yeah, that's a nice one. Thank you, Red. Yeah, I stole the words out of my mouth.

And putting something in there that's going to bring this property to life.