City Council - Regular Meeting

[sighs] Welcome to our city council meeting for Wednesday, October 22nd. We will get started tonight with the pledge of allegiance and that will be by Kyle Jones.

I pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands. One nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Thank you, Kyle. We'll move to item 4.2, our city council comments and recognitions. Anything from council tonight? Okay, seeing no comments, we'll move on to item five tonight, our public comment portion. Audience members at this point may bring any item within the city's purview to the city council's attention. Comments will be limited to two minutes. State law prohibits the council from acting on items that do not appear on the agenda. Public comments for this meeting will also be conducted electronically. Any person interested in addressing the council may submit a comment by emailing recorder@haramman.gov or by visiting haramman.gov/aggendas and minutes where there is a link to fill out an online public comment form. your statement will be incorporated into the public record. So at this point I don't have any forms. So if you're here would like to make a public comment feel free to come forward and state your name and you'll have two minutes.

Good evening. My name is Christopher Dange. um the manager of the Herman Library just across the way. Just wanted to come in introduce myself uh get to know all of you as well uh over time hopefully in the future. Uh and also wanted to share a program that the library is uh holding this Saturday on it's going to be it's called Rita Palooa. It's a one-day reading marathon uh for the community and uh it'd be great if some of you can make it and if not that's that's okay as long as you come in through the door sometime in the future. um my staff and I love being a part of the community and serving it as well and I hope to see you guys uh in there someday soon. Thank you. Appreciate it.

Christopher, what are the the hours for your Rita Palooa? So, Saturday from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 pm and following that uh following the closure at 6:30 there will be a finale party from 6:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. How fun. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you, Chris, for being here. Okay, seeing no further comment at this point, we will go on to our council reports. Uh, we don't have Jared online, correct? He is online. Okay, thanks Jared. Welcome. Uh Teddy, uh nothing to report tonight. Jerry,

just a quick followup. Um Jared and I along with um some of our staff members were able to meet with um individuals from Wasash Front Waste and Recycling to go over the RFP process and that's moving along. We just have some uh our attorney Todd had some changes to that and staff is just um going back through and making sure everything that we talked about has been changed and then we'll kick that off to them within the next few days so that they can look at that and push that RFP process along.

Perfect. Thank you, Tara. Um, just wanted to say how great it was to go to the ribbon cutting for nothing but cakes this week and just excited to have more businesses coming to our community and choosing to be here and I'm happy to to support them. Thank you, Darren. I don't have anything to report either tonight, so we will move on to item 8.1. This is a public hearing and consideration of an ordinance adopting the public safety impact fee facilities plan and impact fee analysis and imposing public safety impact fees and providing for the calculation and collection of such fees. Kyle,

thank you, mayor. Uh, tonight I'm here to discuss uh possibly adopting a new public safety impact fee. we've had both in place for police and fire. Um we have gone through and had a consultant do an update. Uh so what I'd like to discuss tonight is just broad overview of what exactly is a public safety impact fee. How is it calculated and what does it cover? Uh view the two reports that were prepared by the consultant which are required by state code um to justify the fee that's being proposed tonight. Uh we'll of course hold a public hearing and then um any discussion the council would like to have before any possible action. So first um public safety impact fees are very similar to other impact fees. Uh the premise is due to growth um both police and fire services will need additional facilities in the future to maintain the same level of service. So you will see this a number of times through the presentation and then also the reports. So the impact fee is maintaining the level of service that is currently um had by both police and fire. So this doesn't take into account maybe the level of service of their facilities aren't to the standard they should be at. Um we will see this with police especially with their current facilities uh in terms of the impact fee calculations. They maintain it at the current level that we have. Um so as you can see down here I do have some of the population estimates that were used uh for the study by the consultant. Um as you can see they are somewhat in line with what we discussed earlier when we were discussing levels of service. So they are anticipating by 2035 a population of approximately 84,000 about 24,500 residential units and then non-residential square feets of about 6.4 million. So this shows the growth that is being used uh for those

calculations. And one thing to keep in mind is because um because of the sensitivity of impact fees, our consultants do everything very cautiously uh because they do want to make sure if the impact fees are challenged that they would be defensible in court. So we'll discuss a few of the interesting things due to that conservatism as we go through this. Um, one other thing I did also want to point out, uh, that I think most people don't understand is that the state does require the city to look at other finance options to finance these improvements. Um, it does say you can't just rely on impact fees solely to fund these improved facilities that we will need be due to growth. So in both police and fire call volume analysis is one of the major components that is used to determine what the fee should be or what the demands growth is placing on the services. Uh so as you can see uh 2025 uh numbers for both police and fire. Um as you can see some interesting statistics like for example in police about 69% of residential and non-residential calls come from residential units and then the other 31% are from non-residential. Um and then what they also do is they also look at residential and non-residential square feet when calculating the formula. Um and you can see on fire it's about 83% from residential. Um it does also show the growth numbers in bold that are being used uh for the calculation. So getting back to this level of service. So uh what the formula looks at is it looks at current facilities. So this top um is the police police facilities which is our existing station located at city hall. And then they do have some exterior storage um compared

with their total calls to come up with a amount of square footage per call. As you can see, they also do that for um our two fire stations. Um square footage with the number of calls to come up with an amount of square footage per call. Um, and not to get too detailed into the calculation, but the goal would be to the goal to according to the analysis, not necessarily what the city would prefer, is to try to keep the levels of services we grow to that square footage per call number. Um, and this is where it gets a little interesting. So, this looks at future facilities that were modeled into the plan. So, for police, uh, it is 38 million. So that includes both a facility uh for their operations but then they also do have storage needs as we have discussed in the past and then fire does include those two future stations plus the a portion of the rebuild of station 103. Um as you can see on the police a very small portion is actually impact fee eligible due to that level of service and their current level of service and frankly the inadequate space they currently have. But that is considered the level of service we have to meet according to the impact fee study which I know is not probably the best way to look at it is the way it it has to be looked at to calculate the fees. So after it's run through the formula as you can see the proposed fees actually go down for the police department to $21.13 per residential unit or 35 cents per square foot for non-residential. Um the reasons for that I did compare it with the last fee study we had done in 2019 I believe. Uh the population growth was actually lower than was being forecasted in that study and the calls for service were also lower. So resident perspective it's great that we have

lower calls say for community for the impact fee study not so good. Uh fire on the other hand is proposed to go up $1058. So residential would be residential unit would be 54916 and the non-residential 43 cents a square foot. Uh the reason for that is they actually have had more calls in compared with the 2020 study that was done. Their study was done at a different time than police and then also the facilities are substantially higher cost than they were in the 2020 study. Uh, with that, is there any uh questions before the public hearing? Okay, we're good. Okay, at this point, we will open a public hearing on this item. Casey, no public comment. Look for a motion to close the public hearing.

So moved. Motion by Sherry. Second. Second by Teddy. All in favor? Any discussion by councel? Seeing none, I'll look for a motion. I'll make a motion to approve ordinance number 2025-23 adopting the public safety impact fee facilities plan and impact fee analysis and imposing public safety impact fees and providing for the calculation and collection of such fees. Motion by Sherry. A second. Second by Tara. Uh Jared. [snorts] Uh Teddy.

Yes. Sherry. Yes. Tara. Yes. And I'll vote yes. That motion carries. Thank you, Kyle. Okay. We will move on to item nine. Uh our consent agenda. Look for a motion. Make a motion to approve the consent agenda as written. Motion by Teddy. A second. Second by Tara. Uh Tara, yes. Sherry, yes. Teddy, yes. And Jared,

I'll vote yes. Consent agenda is approved. We'll move to item 10.1. Review and consider a proposal to amend chapter 10-34 of Herman City Code to reduce the minimum setback or yard requirements for an accessory structure when located within a rear yard and expand enforcement remedies in chapter 107 of the Herman City Code to include building height deviations no greater than 10% when substantial construction has been undertaken in good faith. Michael,

thank you. And again, this is a privately initiated petition by a Haramman resident and um if you wish to ask any questions of the applicant who's here tonight. This is of course a continuation of an item that we discussed in August and previous to that the planning commission had held a public hearing on this item and make made a recommendation to the city council. Um commission's recommendation was approval. They did modify a number of things that the staff and the applicant had negotiated, but in in essence, the planning commission was comfortable with the idea of reducing the setbacks for an accessory structure, especially when adjacent to open space. And then we currently do have a provision in our city code that allows us a slight deviation of 10% uh for setbacks. And the idea was to add that same kind of deviation uh for um building height. Um this again is something that I have seen recommended in other kind of best practices um across the nation. Um when we met with the city council in um in August, there was concerns about just just flat out eliminating the the ratio of increased building height and increasing the the uh build the setback for the building. So in meeting with the applicant um we we relooked at it and for the applicant's interest for their own property of course and this will affect not just his property but any you know properties in the future um the proposal now is to have a for every 2 feet of additional building height over our standard which is 16 feet there would be one additional foot in setback versus right now we have a one to one ratio

1 foot in building height, one foot additional for setback. So the proposal from the applicant is now to do a 2:1. The the benefit the proposal is that this would preserve usable space within the rear yard. It still maintains um proper access for maintenance. We're still starting with a a minimum setback that would re that would allow for someone to get around, weed the property, clean up trash, paint a structure. Um so there would still be sufficient access. And then that um recommendation on the height deviation, it didn't seem like that was a concern among the council last time. And so that is still part of this this proposal. Um I show this just again for reference. We're really trying to make this decision. and we should be making the decision not to address this specific case, but it does kind of illustrate what are the kind of the impacts. So again, in this particular case, we do have open space to the rear of this property. It's this lot 390 that has this uh red circle around that property. Um this is the actual built structure. It's not complete, but it's nearly complete. And you can see that we have a shorter setback. just does have some overhang a little bit. Um, and it's not quite um anyway, you can see we have a shorter setback against the open space and a little bit of a larger setback against an adjacent property. Um when the applicant was working with the planning department staff identifying what the height uh uh is and the setback requirement. Initially the applicant was looking at a 23 foot tall accessory structure and you can see in this chart on the right that starting with a three-foot setback the maximum building

height is 16 feet. So again, for every one foot of additional building height, you would have additional um setback. And in this case, we were looking at a 10-ft setback and a for a 23-ft tall structure. The applicant um this is the initial uh site plan that was submitted. Um the the the building structure itself is not really drawn to scale. It's is 36 feet deep, 38 feet wide, but the dimensions are are accurate as far as what the applicant was requesting in the building. And again, this is a um a metal building. It's a kit building that was pre-engineered uh and submitted to the city for a building permit review. Um the applicant in order to adjust their plans, they did shallow up the um the the roof. It's It's even not quite as pitched as this. Um, it's a low pitched roof and it comes in just a little bit over 20 feet. I think it's 20 feet 6 in if I remember correctly. So with the shallower or the shorter building structure um with the modified 241 and the open space exception, this particular structure would work under that modification. If not, we've talked with the applicant about the need essentially would be to remove this entire structure. Um, we talked about pro perhaps building a shorter building that would fit within these setbacks, but apparently the way the whole thing is been designed and engineered, um, the the steel uh is actually embedded in the concrete and obviously the city would require compliance if this amendment is not

approved, but it's not something that just can simply be moved. we'll have to he will have to like remove it and start over essentially if he wants an accessory structure. So again, this was um we were trying to listen to the council and made um a compromise in the in the materials that are in your packet. Um any questions for me at this point in time? I don't know if you want to hear from the applicant. There was also a letter that was attached in this packet. They were really trying to illustrate like what is the cost of this land over a 30-year mortgage, you know, when we're increasing that setback, are we really achieving a public uh the public interest and at what cost, you know, to the the private property owner, of course. So, that was a kind of an additional perspective that was not presented the last time you saw this. My initial question is how did we get here in the first place? A lot with building like building submitting plans, going through planning, zoning, going through the permit process. In good faith, did he build this structure? If that's a yes, then I think we can figure out some accommodations, especially changing city code and policy. Um, if it's a no, then it's we got to figure out where we missed on that loophole.

Well, and again, you can you can ask the applicant kind of his his thinking, his timeline. All I can tell you is that we have documented evidence that we have provided the correct information to the applicant as part of the building permit. And at some point in time during the building process, that was not that was not followed. He goes, "Okay, if we bring Kyle up." Yeah. Kyle, come on up.

You kind of heard his question. Can you help us understand how we got here? Um, originally it was a miscommunication, like a just a verbal miscommunication. Um, we had gone through all the engineered plans and whatnot and submitted for the permit. Um, the building was going to show up a week. We were a week out from when the building was going to show up and I had already started digging the hole in the foundation and then the permit was denied. So, we just went ahead with it because we'd have to remove a lot of dirt to go back and correct the foundation.

Okay. Appreciate your honesty. Thank you. [laughter] It does bring into light a possible code change, right, of where a compromise makes sense not only just to your property but to our whole building standards on that setback for the rear setback. Have your neighbors talk talked to you about the the building and being so close to their property?

Not so much being so close to their property, just the height of it. I guess that's part of the reasoning behind the setbacks and I understand you talking about you know utilizing your property but the reason the setbacks are there so they impact the neighbors to the least degree possible. Yes. And it's about it's two feet either two feet too tall or two feet too close if we're on the neighbor's property. What is that side setback currently? What was that? What's the side set back on the five foot? Five foot currently to your fence to your neighbor's six foot fence line. Yep. Okay. And you're three foot off the back.

Yes. The original miscommunication was uh I thought if I did a fire firewall or fire prevention on those walls that we could stay at a five foot setback. But you didn't stay even at a five foot. You went to a three. Um just on the open space is a three. So just as a reminder we start at three feet. So the three-foot is the minimum set back and then it goes up when the building goes down.

We would still have a to give a variance if we adopted the new 2:1. This rear setback would not fit within that requirement. Correct. [snorts] Right. And that's why we still have in the proposal the exception for the open space and it's a budding open space. And Michael, do we have any rules about how close the overhang can be?

Well, essentially the rule of thumb is is that your drip line, you want to keep any drip off of your building on your property. Um, yeah. And this one, it does have a little drip line, but it's it's not much of an overhang at all, so he's fine with that. Yeah. Yeah. I was just wondering in general like if you could have an overhang that went much closer to a property line more than the building is. Yeah. But that's not something that it's not typical. Yeah.

I guess my hardest part is is you knowingly just went ahead and did it. You knew you were out of compliance. You had you had documentation that gave you a building permit. You knew that it wasn't going to happen. So then the question is why do we have rules? And so it's hard to just make because not just asking for us to work with that you on this particular property create some sort of a variance but to change our whole code. Do you want to address that? and Commissioner Orin and let me just add a little bit like I think this was in the report and maybe I forget maybe it was not in it but

um Kyle is familiar with with probably more building code given his trade and he was aware that in building code that is a typical response if you want to potentially get closer to a property line with a with a structure not an accessory structure but like a house that firewall is one of those tools that potentially can be there, but that just satisfies the building code that doesn't satisfy the zoning code when it comes to just general yard setback.

So, I think there was some misunderstanding there when this decision was made to move forward. Maybe it's something we could clarify, but I think that's where there was a a thinking that it would be okay because of the fire rated wall that you constructed. That's a miscommunication partly you're talking about. Yes. The firewall was I thought if we did a firewall we could be a five foot. Gotcha. Yeah. And we've done that several times in other structures where you go from two hour to four hour and you can put it within a feet of stuff. So, there was something on the document that was on here that talked about fire on there. I believe it's in his letter.

Yeah. Yeah. And chair, I get, you know, I understand, you know, the frustration, you know, I'd like to step back and think, is this a good change to code, right? Let's Yeah. Let's back away from this specific property. Is this a good change to code? whether or not there's a property in at issue right now. So, what are thoughts on the this kind of setback against open space?

I guess my biggest deal is is that we're we're saying it uh when substantial construction has been undertaken in good faith, but I hate those kind of ambiguous languages also. It's like, well, either we have a rule or we don't have a rule. You can't just proceed to go forward with something and want, you know, 10% overage. You'd have to clearly demonstrate why. And I don't think it should be after the fact. It should be before. Well, that language is in our current code for the um setback, building height,

kind of exception. So, we're just using that same language in the setback. I mentioned in the report, too. So, I looked quickly at other cities.

It was interesting. Um, when I started looking at areas that are more urbanized, so to speak, they would often allow a one- foot setback and then start that one:1 ratio. That's why I mentioned that in some other cities potentially the size of building that he was he's built with the setback that he currently has could be potentially allowed. Now, you'd have to look at other factors as well, but if you start with a one foot setback, but we our current ordinance is fairly in line with more suburban communities. And I think I put in some of those references in in the ordinance. So, every city is a little different. Um, I will say that just for reference, the one for one in cities that allow for additional height, that's a pretty typical metric. Um the two for one is not but it is interesting to think about here we have a not just Kyle but other property owners who are increasing that sideyard set back to mitigate the building height

but it really does eat up your property and it doesn't I mean so it's kind of like where do where do we fall as you know where our values as a city right are we more concerned about the impact of a height on a potentially an adjacent neighbor or we like hey we really like to celebrate property rights and we want to preserve people using their backyards that they are paying a 30-year mortgage on. So, it's a it's a value based question looking at. I agree 100%. It's a super valid point that utilizing every inch of your property. For sure. The question is just

how much does it impact your neighbor if it's a very tall building? The setbacks are more about the height to me than they are the So the the kind of the counter to that is we don't regulate the height of trees. You can plant a tree along the property line and it's going to cast a similar shadow. Now you might say, "Well, in the winter it won't, but what if it's an evergreen tree?" Um, significantly more. You might say, "Well, it's more pleasant to look at." You know, that's a good argument in response to that. Um, and it gives off Yeah. things we need to breathe and everything else. Come on. [laughter] I I agree. I agree.

If you're looking at this satellite image talking about trees, this tree that's to the left, to the west of us is taller, bigger, and it's just one tree in our neighbor's corner there. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. For sure. Yeah. And this image is from September. Just to give you an idea on that shadow line that you're seeing. Obviously in the summer the sun is more overhead and shadow lines are shorter. They get longer in the winter. But so the shadows go half argument with my own neighbors. But the tree the leaves fall off in the in the winter. So they get view back for half the year.

So I'm wondering are there other places where we treat people who back open space differently? um give them special treatment. Like I I don't love that that some people who back open space like get special treatment than others, but convince me if if that's something that isn't shouldn't be a worry. That's a great question. I

don't think I don't know that we do. Um, if anything, we've often had some more controls when it comes to open space. Um, sometimes that fencing, we've if it's a city-owned fence, we've tried to keep that open with a rail fence or, you know, sometimes we've had these requirements that somebody wants the privacy, but we still want that three rail fence look and then we require a gap. Anyway, so we may have some special regulations adjacent to open space, but I don't know that there's been maybe benefits is the way you said it. So like what about that edge property over by where we were going to do the athletic complex on that creek grid

closer setbacks there for the structures? Didn't we do that with their decks or something there? Do you remember? Yeah. in a PUB you can or an MDA right we can modify those things and establish it was just by MDA it was just doing an MDA it's not anything an ordinance

I think you made a good point mayor about going back to the because my issue is simply about changing an ordinance for one piece of property because then the next person that wants to have this in their backyard or that you know I mean then you set a precedence for people coming in asking for things to be changed for that has really I can sympathize wholeheartedly with the situ situation you're in and it does and it's like is it a big deal or is it not but I I feel extremely uncomfortable changing the ordinance to to solve a problem that was communicated whether you're confused or not it it is our ordinance and so is there good changes here that will help solve this problem and make better changes to our ordinance

right I think if you value the rear yard space of a private property owner then you would think That is a reasonable change. The two if we're more concerned about the relationship of the size of that structure with a neighboring property, um then this is probably not something that you would want to support. I've mentioned in the staff report that it's been interesting with the change to our accessory structure ordinance that we did last year. We now we're allowing some fairly tall accessory structures.

I know that Wendy and I have talked about this and Blake sometimes we get complaints about how tall these are and we go out and they're actually okay. They're compliant. They're compliant with the building permit. They're compliant with our regulations. It we we just allow some pretty goodsized structures in our city. Yeah. But when people get used to looking at a certain view for five to 10 years and then they see something different, it's [laughter] Yeah, that's true. Yeah. And this changes it from two from one to one to two to one. Right. Right.

I I want to applaud you, Kyle, that this process is not easy. Um I've been in your position before on through other cities and other items as well. So I know coming before this board is is tough sometimes and the one before with like planning and zoning or whatnot as well. So Jared, go ahead and make your comments.

What's And correct me if I'm wrong, but this just does adjust the rear. That correct? On this one, the he needs an adjustment on both sides. Both sides. Yeah. If the two for one is not accepted,

then the um east setback would be out of compliance as well. However, I mean, again, if you think it's good public policy to consider making a just keeping the again, we're not really reducing the three-foot setback adjacent to open space. We're just saying you don't need to have an increased setback for additional building height when it's adjacent to open space. So, if you take that part out, uh, as far as the two for one, we could still, you know, if the council wanted to approve part of the amendment, you could if that if you think that's good public policy, which I agree with Jared, the back to me, the rear is against public I mean, open space is you're not harming anybody, right? We're not harming a neighbor. You're going to have to make sure that it's not undeveloped space though, too.

Correct. It's got to be It can't just be undeveloped. It's got to be dedicated open space. So, the side sounds like it's in question then. Or the I guess the two to one from to do the side. Oh, man. Mike, what would be compliant on that side setback for our current code? Um I had it in that chart. Um yeah, if you can go back to slides, Joan. Yeah, right there. Y So 20 ft. Uh he's a little over 20. So he's got seven. You can sit down if you want. Sorry, Mike.

Yeah. So you can see at 20 feet it would be a seven foot set back and he said he had he has five. So he's off by two. And this doesn't take consideration of what type of roof pitch or angle or direction, shed pitch or anything. It max center height, right? We changed our building height measurements to just the tallest point of the roof. We used to do the midpoint like the county used to do,

but yeah, now it's just doesn't matter what roof type. It's just what's the tallest point. And it doesn't matter how close or how tall the adjacent structure is or main structure that there are setback requirements but that that was not a concern here.

Yeah. This one's not easy. Do we have other recent applicants in the last little bit that this would have changed their out building accessory dwelling building or I mean their accessory building? I couldn't say one way or the other. I mean it I don't recall that we've had specific issues like this on other applications but

but they might have just read the code and not brought it in. Right. Right. Or we might have redlined it and they just fixed it. I don't know. So in the planning commission's recommendation, it shows they're good with the rear rear yard art setbacks and then it just says to include building height deviations no greater than 10% on substantial construction has been undertaken. So if So the building height deviation of 10% does that put him in compliance

or because he was a little bit over 20 feet um there there is another section of the code that allows for um you can round to the nearest whole number so to speak. So so he he might be okay with that tool but and I can appreciate where you're saying why don't people just build exactly what they're supposed to. This is not an uncommon problem when somebody chooses to build right up to the maximum, right to the It's really common to just have some construction area where you go over just a little bit. Yeah. And when you're standing on the sidewalk and you're looking at a building or maybe even a backyard and somebody's off by a few inches,

how can you really tell? And that's why even though I know you may not like that, I remember quite a few years ago I went to some training where it's actually it's it's a better way of zoning if you have an ability to just allow for a little bit of flexibility that doesn't really cause an impact if it's necessary to address some of these problems that we have that come up in the normal course of construction. Sure, I agree with that. I I guess my concern with it is that if it just said include building height deviations no greater than 10%. It's just the additional language when substantial construction has been undertaken. There's other language that maybe yeah

what is the need for the additional language after that is my question because it says when substantial construction has been undertaken in good faith if we just simply say deviations no greater than 10%. If if I might so I so I think we need to kind of step back from this issue and think about it as code as a general. I think uh Mr. Malloy was corrected that sometimes somebody will go out and say it's a 20 foot building by the time they get done you know the construction's working it's 20t 5 in right it would be over they they went out with the plan to do 20 ft but maybe the slab ended up being higher or something like some things went on

I I think that's what that code language is trying to address is that this is a little different in that um there's a lot of things that were going on I I think the structure was already ordered and so they they've dropped the roof down. You still have the setback issue uh on the side. So So I I I think I would look at step back and look at this code as it would apply. That's what that language in good faith is.

They ordered a 20 foot building and they they went to build it and when we go measure it, we're like, "Wow, that's 20 foot 5 in or it's 20 foot 8 in." and you start looking and realize, well, maybe they graded the the yard differently and it it just ended up being higher because we're measuring from a set point at a different that's I think that's what that's intended to be.

I guess I guess I just don't want to be the judge and jury of what good faith means. I just don't understand why I can't just say including building height deviations no greater than 10%. I don't I don't think that we need to decide if it was good faith or not good faith. It's just 10%. It can't be more than that. So, so I think that the not to argue, but I think the good faith is the idea that their plan shows the correct height and it's just a little taller. My only fear with the 10% is it's 20 feet. I'd like to do 20 feet or 22 feet and you have that ability to do that. So, do that for me. Okay. Right. Uh whereas [clears throat] this is trying to deal with just after the fact.

Yeah. As as you're building, anybody who's built, you're you're out there on site, you're doing it. Unless there's a surveyor putting it right here on the dot, there's always things that move just a little different than the plan.

That's Agree.

I agree 100%. I guess that's why I'm just stuck on this the 10% when substantial construction has been undertaken. I'm not sure we would have been notified or noticed any of this or had this opportunity to look at this code ordinance if it wouldn't been for the applicants. They would have had to been inspected. Correct. They would not He's still going through that process. Yeah. But they would not have passed inspection and got he's probably been red tagged or stopped work, I would imagine. Yeah, we we we did. That's why they haven't completed the buildings because it's been stopped. No, 100%. I don't have a problem with anybody bringing an ordinance concept to us. I'm just I think we're just trying is this a good ordinance change? So,

let me try to get the temperature of the council. We've had a lot of back and forth. Tara, where are you kind of filling? I'm just trying to I guess I'm trying to work towards a motion. Sure. Can I ask one more question? I know you said that um that this new one this one is in line with some surrounding cities and then you also said that our one to two is in line with more suburban cities. So is it both? Just to clarify.

Okay. the the the more urbanized cities seem to be comfortable starting with a one foot setback. Um our current setback requirements are similar to other cities around us right in this part of the valley. The one for one for cities that give allow for additional height. I did see that in a number of cities. I did not see any cities that would do a two for one. So that's unique. That would that would be unique. But you could say, well, we'll just start with a one foot setback. But again, I think that would be out of character for a more suburban community like us.

That helps. Thank you. Yeah. Well, and we went through like we just I guess that's my other concern. We just went through a big setback. We just changed a bunch of this just recently, right? So I think we just we just hashed this out and so it's hard to now we're looking at a different one, right? And we started there, [laughter] right? We told We told Kyle says, "We just did this. You're Yeah, I empathize. This is so hard. This is because there's a personal aspect here, of course, right? That you just I get it, but I'm I just struggle. We just went through this and we settled on this." Well, you asked me a question, but I don't have a good answer, so you might have to pass. Sher, where you at? Where you

I don't I just I feel like I'm I'm okay with the with some of the changes to ordinance. I'm good with the rear rear yard set back when it backs up to open space as long as like you said it's dedicated open space. It's not just because no one's built there yet. Yep.

Hasn't be deed or whatever turned over to an entity. Um and then um and I'm also good with the 10% construction that makes sense. I hate the words good faith in there just because of what I elaborated before. It' be cool if you could come up with some different language, but that that 100% makes sense because your pad your slab of the port a little thick or something like that. Yeah, for sure. But um I'm not comfortable with the two to one.

I think that we should stick with one. I understand trees and those other types of things, but um a little different than a building to me. It's kind of where I'm at, unfortunately. Yeah. Teddy, where you at?

I The rear setback is is something we probably missed when we were looking at the original auxiliary structures and setbacks and sideyards and rears. So, I think that's a good move. Um, the sideyard setback at a minimum of five feet or it starts at Yeah. minimum of five feet on the sidey yard and then goes current one goes one for one up. I could I could see a two for one not being an issue. Um with our lots, like Jared stated, our lots, we're getting smaller lots. We're getting smaller side yet yard setbacks. I think it's going to give more usable space for the homeowners without impacting the other owners as much as we think it will be.

So I'm So you're okay with the ordinance change? It sounds like you are. I'm just confirming. Yeah, I'd be okay with I we'd have to word smith a little bit and make sure that I think we put a max height on it. I mean, obviously, you're going to have it's going to have a max height unintentionally by the setbacks of both the yards of what's accomplishable. I think that'll be in the math. Yeah. Okay. Jared, where you at? Home. Other than home, not feeling well. Yes. He's laying on his back, right? Surgery.

Did we lose him? Start. Sounds like that's where most of us are at. That's kind of where I'm at. Yeah. Terry, any more thoughts or

so if it's ex except for so it's it's the rear I'm trying to just remember exactly what that would look like. So it would be making the change to the the rear set back and then also this 10%. Is that right? No, the 10% is just the overages. So it just be the rear sight set back is the only thing that looks like but the 10% for height is new. We have 10% for Yeah. Yeah. Setback. Sorry. 10% for the setback in the code. Now, we do. I was Yeah, I was wanting to add the 10% for the height

just because we've been dealing with this issue periodically. It's not just been for this case. There's been other issues that we've had and quite frankly from an enforcement, you know, and fairness issue, I think that's a good tool to add. Yeah. So, so there were three changes we're talking about. We'd like two of them. That's other than Teddy. I'm hearing three kind of directions that way that we're all pretty unanimous on the rear. It's that side and I think we're okay on the 10%. But it's that sideyard. I think we're all Yeah, Nathan.

Um, so this is a good image to look at that the rear yard encompasses all that's in the green. So when we're talking about a set back, if you're talking about the setback to the neighbor, this is still the three-foot. The sideyard is just that blue part the way our code defines it. So this is the rear yard minimum three on it's a set back to the side property line. There is another code that talks about like setbacks to it or separation between this structure and a neighboring structure.

So I I just want to be clear because what we're looking at right here is that's all rear rear side rear setback. It says on this this drawing that you've got sitting in front of them. Well, this is and I apologize. This was produced as an an exhibit for the applicant when we were going through this review process, but essentially the rear and the side starts at three feet and he just it just says rear yard. I mean the space of the rear yard, but the setback is the same. If if it's the rear property line, it's three feet. If it's the side property line, it's three feet. Yeah. Okay. So the table on the right, the five foot sideyard is incorrect

because what happens in our accessory structure code is that the placement of the accessory structure has different setback requirements if it's in the side yard versus the rear yard. So we're currently this building's two feet out of compliance. It should be a seven foot on this should be a seven rear sideyard instead of on the right hand side because he has five but he should have had seven. Yeah. I I don't know if

No, you're go to that other go to the satellite if we can. John, could you go to the satellite again? See, again, this is I guess this is where I concerned about the the sideyard because if this structure you move this to the other side, like the way the shadow's going, that's fine. You like it's not shadow. It's not going to cover a garden. It's never going to shadow. But if we move it to the other side, and we can't be specific, right? We haven't If you move it to the other side and I have a garden, I'm just again, it's not in this instance, right? But if I have a garden in that back corner and this structure goes up with But again, what's going to what's going to prevent me from planting trees there on my property? Not 100%. And that's again, I'm just I mean, we can only control what we can control on this yard. So,

I'm just saying that's why that that's why we had the sideyard. [clears throat] That's why we had that sideyard because of if you go back to the Montoas when we first got Yep. That's what it was. There was a garden next door, right? And so there was and that was a north to south building. So

a [laughter] So, I guess that's where I mean I mean I feel awful, but that's where I'm at. I just think the sideyards too I think we went through this on the sideyards. I think again I've seen some of the structure they're bigger than I think we anticipated and that's fine, right? It's a change like you said it's a change but some of these structures we've approved have been they're huge, right? They're big and I think we give a lot on property rights out here. I think we're very very generous. Very generous.

Will you remind me? I'm sorry. I'm just trying to look through here. So on the language would be so on the adjacent to open space it would be a three foot. Yes. Okay. And with no ratios. It's just no matter how tall it just be three feet. I agree. There is there is still a maximum height. You just can't build as much as you want. But

there there's also ladders. I don't know. I just think about accessing taller buildings. My ladder goes further and further out. So, if I'm only a couple feet away from a fence, I don't have good even angle on the ladder to get to the top of the building. I just think that there's access for maintenance and different things like that to be considered for him, too. Anyway, I'm I'm comfortable again with the it's adjacent to open space and 10% makes 100% sense. Are you open to making a motion? Let's see where this goes then. Let's let's do that.

Um I make a motion to consider proposal to amend No. No. Here we are. Motion to approve ordinance number 2025-24 amending title 10 of the Herman City Code to reduce setbacks of accessory structures adjacent to open space to 3 ft and expand enforcement remedies to include building height deviations basically. So um deviations be no greater than 10% when substantial construction has been undertaken in good faith even though I hate that word. Um, and then that would be all because that's the mo that's Do we need to clarify that not the two for one though?

No, she didn't include it in her language, right? I did not. I just included the Just want to make sure. So that's not including the two one. So that's I'm just making sure we get the motion right. We've been We're good. Does everybody council? Do you all understand the motion then? Okay. So I have a motion by Sherry. Do I have a second? Um, just real quick. Hold on. Hold on one second. Um, so right now it says that it's adjacent to public or quasi public open space. I think we need to include dedicated um in that so that way it goes to your statements earlier. Okay. I amend my my motion to make sure it says dedicated open space. Okay.

Thank you. I have a motion on the floor. Do I have a second? Second, Jared. Um, we'll go roll call then. Um, Tara, yes. Sherry, yes. Teddy, no. Jared, and I will vote yes on that. So, that carries 4 to one. Um, we appreciate you guys. Sorry we couldn't appreciate you being here. So, um, we go to 10.2 two consideration to award the design contract for the Herman Athletic Complex. Bryce.

Okay. Good evening, Mayor and Council. So, yeah, we recently uh sent out a request for proposals on the Herman Athletic Complex or the Southwest Athletic Complex um for the for the good of the area. This is kind of the overview of the map. Um if if those have been following, the city's been working on a a swap of property for some time now. Um as that has occurred, we've begun to uh solicit proposals for uh design services that includes planning, design, and construction management. Um, so this is a 57 acre piece that that we're talking about planning, you know, roughly 14 uh to 15 athletic fields in that space. And so this is the process to uh acquire a firm to design that that space for us. So we we sent out proposals. We kind of h hand selected five firms that we had um gotten references for, had worked on similar projects. Um, some of them were local, one of them was a little more regional. Um, so we sent out the RFP to those five firms, received four back, and that's because of the five, two teamed up to to submit one proposal together. So, all everyone responded um and then we had a scoring committee go through and individually score each uh proposal. This table here kind of shows the um the scores that were given. Um the criteria for scoring is kind of listed here. So experience and qualifications was 30% of the score. Understanding the scope of the project was another 30%. Um cost was 20, schedule was 15% and innovation in

design was 5%. Um so you can see the scoring those are the uh proposals that we received um at the top there. Um Consor Engineering LLC received the top score actually from every scorer um in the uh scoring committee. I will say their uh cost was quite a bit lower. So that automatically kind of gave them a little bit of a head start but um additionally they scored well in all of the other categories as well. Um, we did see a big swing in in the cost proposals to complete the project. Um, about about 400,000 all the way to 2.3 million. So, uh, it's a big range. Um, but, uh, yeah, we reviewed and and made sure that they all qualified and then and then like I said, you can kind of see the average score at the bottom of the table for the uh, proposals that we received. Um, so as I mentioned, the highest scoring proposal was Consore Engineering. Um, they do meet all of the minimum qualifications that we required uh for the project. And additional kind of a note and FYI, this firm has recently designed a very similarly sized and intent project. The Epic Sports Park in Provo staff and and admin and and some of the council was able to tour that facility. it it's just barely been installed. Um but yeah, it has 15 athletic fields in its first phase and even more planned in in phase two. Um so that kind of helped us understand, you know, the one of the the projects that this firm has worked on and understand that their design cost although it was the lowest, they did understand what it would take to design and and get to a finished product on that. So that was one of our our biggest concerns when we first saw just the price comparison that it was the lowest and it was

significantly lower than some of these. Um but in in discussing it, we we double checked their numbers. We we talked to them and then uh the fact that they had just done a a very similar project kind of assured us that that they could do the project. Um, one thing because we're so early on in the project and uh there's still a lot of scope, you know, to be decided as we go on, we did consider kind of different different procurement methods, whether that be CMGC, which is you get a a contractor on board and and design with them. Um, this is more of a traditional way, but we did want to put in some contingency in the design contract to allow us to make changes as we go through the design. So, like I I said, the original contract was just under or their proposal cost was just under 400,000. We're recommending some contingency to adjust our scope if it be phasing. If we need to, you know, design half to to get funding and and work on half and then later work on the second half, that that's what the contingency fund is for in this this contract. So, with that, we we do recommend moving forward with the contract with Consor Engineering for a total contract price of $470,190. So with that, I can answer any any questions on that process.

I just have one question because I'm still new, but who's on the scoring committee? Um, so yeah, that was a good It depends on the project. We like to kind of have uh uh experts from uh whoever whatever the type of project for in this case the parks director, the assistant city manager, the city manager, myself, uh the community development director and one of our parks or one of our engineering project managers that'll probably oversee the project was on that. So um yeah, those are the the scores that that we collected. Thank you. I love it. Pretty big difference between the the cost

significant. And I will say uh this is in the staff report as a um we planned and and budgeted about a million dollars for design. So um the the the upper school proposals, the the upper higher costs would have required quite a bit of a change in our budgeting. This does not require a change. Savages us quite a bit. And I love that they have some experience. That's always the nervous thing to go. Uh, exactly. That's great. Okay, I'll look for a motion.

I'll make a motion. Um motion to approve the contract for planning, design, and construction management services for the Southwest Athletic Complex to Consort Engineers LLC, including a design contingency as outlined in option one. Okay, have a motion by Tara. Second. Second by Sher. Tara, yes. Sherry, yes. Teddy, yes.

Jared, and I'll vote yes. That motion carries. Thank you, Bryce. 10.3. Discussion and consideration of an interlocal agreement with the Olympia Public Infrastructure District regarding the reimbursement of funds to construct approximately 4,650 ft of new roadway along 7300 West from Maine Duh Herman Boulevard. Blake,

thank you. So, as we continue to um build infrastructure out ahead of the development of Olympia, um just showing the project location here. This is 7300 West from Main Street to Herman Boulevard. Um just kind of go through this really quick. To start off, I just wanted to kind of talk about some of the key features of this project. Um this will build a five-lane roadway from from yeah, Main Street to Herman Boulevard. You can see the cross-section here. It includes bike lanes, center turn lane, um 8 foot. The v the width varies a little bit. It's 8, 10, six. It depends on where the rideway is, but in general it's eight. It's an 8ft trail on both sides with a larger park strip. Um the roadway shown here, north is to the left on your screen. So Haramman Boulevard is the terminus on the left end and Main Street's terminus on the right end. You'll have a traffic signal at Main Street. You'll have uh pedestrian tunnels located at Butterfield Park or Butterfield Creek and uh Olympia Boulevard. And then [clears throat] the this provides a key connection uh mainly for the Rose Basin area. Uh it's already a little tough to get out of Rose Basin. This will this will help out with another key connection to Haramman Boulevard. Um and then the funding for this is is where the most interesting part is the this is an agreement to reimburse the PID. They'll take care of all the bidding, putting together all the plans and uh and so the the funding will pay for all that work and the construction including the the landscaping and the street lighting and all those improvements as well. Um I highlighted no city funds are used for this. uh with coordination um with uh the developer and with the legislative partners um over the last several years we've been able to to secure um a lot of funding in this area and this is this is just another one we've secured with uh Salt Lake County. The MSD actually received this $4

million when this was approved in the county when Olympia was approved there. Uh we worked with the county to transfer those funds from the MSD to Haramman and the council actually approved that uh that interlocal agreement with Salt Lake County to transfer those funds in August of 2024. Um those will come from Salt Lake County transportation funds and then the 10.5 million uh totaling 14.5 million for the whole project is from UD do from House Bill 488 in 2024 that uh direct allocated um that money to Haramman for this project. So, [clears throat] um, construction is underway currently. If you go out there the south end, they've been there's a there's a large hill and there was some, um, not favorable favorable material there. So, they are compacting that, moving things around. Um, you can kind of see the road graded in at that location. They're actually grading out the whole site uh for future fire station location as well in that area. Um and so with the construction underway and the the consolidation for the material on the hill, um they should uh start building that roadway or spring of next year and complete it um summer or fall of 2026 and uh then it will be open and um

26. Yes. Yes. Next year. Yep. And [clears throat] then um on that north end, just to kind of go back and look at it, uh the intersection, you can see that's left out. The intersection will be built with the Heramman Boulevard project. You'll see an interlocal agreement come for that. There's another $19 million that was secured for that funding from UD do. And then the U11 project, which UD do's beginning um in December of this year, uh we'll will build from the north. So you'll be connected here within the next couple of years from 118th to Main Street and the Herman Boulevard.

The lights going in on 7300 West and and Main Street by the end of next year. Yes, it it should be in next summer and then the Haramman Boulevard intersection when that ties in the Herman Boulevard project will build the signal at that location. Fantastic. [clears throat] Just one more light to go through. With that, um, happy to answer any questions you may have or, uh, we recommend approval of this interlocal agreement to keep the project moving forward. Fantastic.

Oh, I love it. Fantastic. Motion. Yep. I'll look for a motion then. A motion to approve resolution R52-2025 authorizing the execution of interlocal agreement with Olympia Public Infrastructure District regarding the reimbursement of funds to construct approximately 4,650 ft of new roadway along 7,300 west from Her Main Street to Herman Boulevard. Motion by Sherry. Second. Second by Teddy. Uh Tara, yes. Sherry, yes. Teddy, yes.

Jared, and I'll vote yes. That motion carries. Okay, that brings us to the end of our meeting tonight. Future meetings, planning commission, November 5th. Our next council meeting is the 12th. Um, election day is on November 4th. Um, we do not have a closed session tonight. So, with that, I just need a motion to adjurnn. I'll make a motion to adjurnn. Second. All in favor? Thank you, everybody.